Proof there is a God

[Jan Ardena]

No, the title of the thread is, "Proof there is a God." This thread was started by someone who was evangelizing, it was not in fun. It was part of an attack, on behalf of one religious sect, on all other religious sects and on those who do not belong to any religious sect.

Really? That's not how I read it.

You have a favored deity: it's your favorite idea of the divine. It might not be a well-thought out idea, but it is there nonetheless.

Even if I did. We're not discussing it.
Like you said. The title of the thread is 'Proof there is a God'. Not 'Proof your personal deity'.

Now maybe you don't want to kill gay people. Maybe you don't want to make women subservient to men. But you have ideas about how the world should be governed based on your idea.

No I don't, and what's more you can't prove that I do.

And you do.

I have people of different religions living in my neighborhood for years, and they don't have the inclination to kill each other.
They don't even argue. If what you say is true, they should kill each other for being a different religion.

And one of those political and sociological motivations is religion.

It can be any number of motivations. To just point out religion is simply a prejudice on your part.

Someone like William Lane Craig, for example, actively uses deception in arguing for the existence of a very vague definition of the divine. This is, for him and others, a step towards running the world according to religious principles.

I don't agree that he uses deception, and I don't think his definition of God is vague.
I don't see how it follows that he wants to run the world according to religious principles.

Let's just say that your posts about god being everything are inconsistent: you claim both that god is everything and that god is not everything.

Seeing as you're not going to link, it's pointless discussing it.

Because atheists love talking about the god of the Bible and all the qualities of that god.

No they don't (unless it belittling).

IF you are not deceitful, then stop saying things like, "It's not just a matter of accepting my definition. My definition doesn't matter, especially if I'm leaving presupposition at the door." Be honest, give your definition, and argue for that definition. Don't retreat to some vague definition that you do not believe in order to try to convince someone else to believe in a roundabout fashion.

You're beginning to sound like Yazata.
We're talking about God. Agreed?
Why do you need my personal definition?

It appears that you know very little about the actual world. You seem to not know that people kill other people in religious grounds quite often in developed countries. You seem not to know that people in developed countries regularly try to control the lives of others based on religious grounds. (The current frontrunner for the Republican party in the USA is advocating at least the latter, if not also the former.)

Religions aren't necessarily based on belief in God. Do you agree?
If yes, then talking about religion in this thread, is pointless unless it helps to prove that either God exists or not.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you know or just think you know God exists, then you also believe God exists.

You've missed the point again. I'm beginning to think it's deliberate.

If you found out today that God did exist, you wouldn't have needed to believe that He did, prior to that. Is that correct? If not. Why?

jan.

 

[PhysBang]

It can be any number of motivations. To just point out religion is simply a prejudice on your part.

Not in a discussion about religion. And not when you are denying that people in developed countries still commit religious-based crimes.

I don't agree that he uses deception, and I don't think his definition of God is vague.

And that is sad.

I don't see how it follows that he wants to run the world according to religious principles.

That's not related to the argument, it's just motivation.

No they don't (unless it belittling).

Just because you only belittle atheists and never take them seriously does not mean that they act as you do. You've done a great job illustrating your ignorance, you do not have to continue to try to convince me of it.

You're beginning to sound like Yazata.
We're talking about God. Agreed?
Why do you need my personal definition?

We need to know the definition that we're discussing! You are free to discuss something other than your personal beliefs, but at least be honest about the definition that you are using for the argument.

 

[Billy T]

Don't you think >75 pages with not even a hint of proof is enough?
Jan will not change his beliefs nor respond to facts showing them false, like evolution, or that earth got O2 millions of years after it got earlier life forms, etc.

 

[spidergoat]

You've missed the point again. I'm beginning to think it's deliberate.

If you found out today that God did exist, you wouldn't have needed to believe that He did, prior to that. Is that correct? If not. Why?

jan.

It depends, logically yes, you wouldn't have needed to believe that he existed prior to finding out he existed. You could have believed that he didn't exist, or you could just lack a belief that he existed.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Well, people do. So maybe you're missing out on something.

Jan I think my question was clear and did indeed indicate that I was missing out on something that was the point of my question. I was seeking your view. My thoughts are the scriptures were written in times where superstition was used predominately to explain things and that in my view errodes their authority so I asked my question and you state my position as I indicated. I am missing out on something. I can not understand why the scriptures are of any use at all.
Notwithstanding your well considered reply to my post I dont think you have helped me understand anything really.
It is interesting and entertaining reading this thread and observing the way you conduct yourself but I conclude there is nothing you write that points to your suggested neutrality and to say belief or faith is somewhat irrelevant in this discussion may be considered by some as dishonest.
I think you have no interest in establishing anything really, because it seems that you dont to me, and use this thread to prove to yourself you are clever. That could work and it matters not how others regard you or want to see you crash and burn. Your behaviour interests me I cant work out if you think you are superior to others or if you feel a need to somehow prove yourself.
Whatever it is its ok with me.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

The reason you can't say that is because you deny God.

For the sake of argument, my first paragraph assumed the word God to mean *something*.

You have absolutely no idea if, or how, intelligence manifests itself, as a physical substance.

First, that is a false argument. Intelligence gives rise only to thought. And the best *thought* can do is to create Tulpas, non-physical thought forms, or *mental images*.

The creation of physical substances requires energy, you know that fundamental particles consist mainly of energetic values. So in your mental image, God is *energetic values* interacting mathematically?

But we do indeed know how physical substances manifest themselves. We have entire scientific disciplines called Physics and Chemistry dedicated to explain in detail how physical substances manifest themselves.

How does knowledge and mathematics give rise to mental images, let alone the ability to comprehend, and understand them and the notion of what knowledge and mathematics are in the first place?

Knowledge and mathematics are products of brains from observation of physical things and their interactions.

The terms *knowledge* and *mathematics* are mental images themselves. That's how we can define those terms in dictionaries and encyclopedias. But perhaps that is too subtle for you to understand.

In other words deny God, and let's do this by ourselves. We don't need God. Look, I can grow my own food, make my own medicine. What do we need God for? Is that kind of where you're going?

We don't need an intelligent, motivated and emotional God to grow food or make medicine. Atheists do just fine with *knowledge* and *mathematics* alone, although we don't always use them wisely.

But according to scripture God did/does not always use His powers wisely, just like humans. Is that why we were created in God's image, or did humans create God as a Tulpa in our image, warts and all?

Where did he get his ability from?

Where did god get his abilities from? I don't need to answer that, you do! Do you know where he got his abilities from? Did god have parents there to teach him knowledge and mathematics of physical things to create?

Doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Jan.

And what is your mental image of God? Oh, I forgot, you answered that to you god presents a mental image of *1*, a mathematical number. If you like we can extend that mental image to indicate a *singularity*.

I can agree that God is a mathematical abstraction. Sounds about right to me. But why call a manmade number, God? Does the number *1* have a mind, intelligence, motivation, emotions?

 

[Jan Ardena]

My thoughts are the scriptures were written in times where superstition was used predominately to explain things and that in my view errodes their authority so I asked my question and you state my position as I indicated. I am missing out on something. I can not understand why the scriptures are of any use at all.

I don't agree with you.
If you want to pursue this, then you need to show that this was indeed the case.

Notwithstanding your well considered reply to my post I dont think you have helped me understand anything really.

Like I said Alex, you have to study them for yourself, preferably un-biased, to at least get an idea of where I'm coming from.
Otherwise the scriptures are always going to be a mystery to you.

It is interesting and entertaining reading this thread and observing the way you conduct yourself but I conclude there is nothing you write that points to your suggested neutrality and to say belief or faith is somewhat irrelevant in this discussion may be considered by some as dishonest.

They can consider it to be so, but they can't show it to be so.
I've just spent about four or five exchanges with Spidergoat, who finally admitted that one does not have to believe in God, to believe in God.
If you suddenly came to believe God exists within an hour of reading this, it would not be based on a presupposition that God exists (unless it is, but it's not necessary).

I think you have no interest in establishing anything really, because it seems that you dont to me, and use this thread to prove to yourself you are clever.

We need to sort out the preconceived ideas, in order to establish anything.

Your behaviour interests me I cant work out if you think you are superior to others or if you feel a need to somehow prove yourself.

This is nothing but an idea implant. Ultimately you are responding to words on a page, and yet you've allowed yourself to believe that these words convey superiority, and have not allowed yourself to ponder on what it is they actually convey.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Not in a discussion about religion. And not when you are denying that people in developed countries still commit religious-based crimes.

Why are you focusing on religion?
This thread is about proof that there is God.

Just because you only belittle atheists and never take them seriously does not mean that they act as you do. You've done a great job illustrating your ignorance, you do not have to continue to try to convince me of it.

Baseless accusations only deflect the discussion.

We need to know the definition that we're discussing! You are free to discuss something other than your personal beliefs, but at least be honest about the definition that you are using for the argument.

I've given a definition.
Here it is again, this time without the prefix ''Supreme Personality of Godhead'', in the hope that it doesn't excite Yazata into labeling me as a Hare Krishna.

‘The invisible (Brahman) is the Full; the visible (the world) too is the Full. From the Full (Brahman), the Full (the visible) universe has come. The Full (Brahman) remains the same, even after the Full (the visible universe) has come out of the Full (Brahman).’

Are you prepared to work with that as a definition of God?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

For the sake of argument, my first paragraph assumed the word God to mean *something*.

A tin of baked beans is also something.
For God to be God, as per definition, God has to be the sum total of everything, and then some. This includes intelligence.

First, that is a false argument. Intelligence gives rise only to thought. And the best *thought* can do is to create Tulpas, non-physical thought forms, or *mental images*.

Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving. It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment. From Wiki.

The creation of physical substances requires energy, you know that fundamental particles consist mainly of energetic values. So in your mental image, God is *energetic values* interacting mathematically?

Mental imagery is a medium where we can visualize thought forms. But what is it that generates and observes these thought forms?

Knowledge and mathematics are products of brains from observation of physical things and their interactions.

Is the conclusion of the your brain, or is it your conclusion?
Either you have to explain the ''your''.

The terms *knowledge* and *mathematics* are mental images themselves. That's how we can define those terms in dictionaries and encyclopedias. But perhaps that is too subtle for you to understand.

Is it purely the brain that comprehends these mental images?
Is it the brain that knows ''I am'', or does ''I am'' acknowledge that it has a brain?

We don't need an intelligent, motivated and emotional God to grow food or make medicine. Atheists do just fine with *knowledge* and *mathematics* alone, although we don't always use them wisely.

That's my point. Everything is already provided, including knowledge and intelligence, so you can deny God.
God consciousness is partly about understanding the source of everything. Most of us do not understand how a car works, but it doesn't mean we can't enjoy the benefits of having one.

But according to scripture God did/does not always use His powers wisely, just like humans. Is that why we were created in God's image, or did humans create God as a Tulpa in our image, warts and all?

If you are going to discuss God, why start with that?
Why not let's try and understand what God is?

Where did god get his abilities from? I don't need to answer that, you do! Do you know where he got his abilities from? Did god have parents there to teach him knowledge and mathematics of physical things to create?

God is defined as the source. Agreed?
I know you don't believe that to be true, but it is still a definition of God.
Do you agree?

And what is your mental image of God? Oh, I forgot, you answered that to you god presents a mental image of *1*, a mathematical number. If you like we can extend that mental image to indicate a *singularity*.

I can agree that God is a mathematical abstraction. Sounds about right to me. But why call a man made number, God? Does the number *1* have a mind, intelligence, motivation, emotions?

''1'' is not man made. The way we draw it, or say it may be man made.

http://www.indifferentlanguages.com/words/one

The similarity between God and the number one, is that without number 1 there is nothing (zero). According to the definition I gave, it is the same with God.
If we are seriously going to discuss God, we have to be honest about the definition of God, and incorporate that definition into whatever proof is to be established.
If we don't do that, then we aren't discussing God.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It depends, logically yes, you wouldn't have needed to believe that he existed prior to finding out he existed. You could have believed that he didn't exist, or you could just lack a belief that he existed.

Or you may have neither believed or dis-believed.
Belief is not necessary. That's my point.

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If you want to pursue this, then you need to show that this was indeed the case.

Thinking about it I dont need to pursue it and finally who could really tell but I do think my presumption could be reasonable. I suppose I feel we live in more enlightened times and fall into the trap that of believing we are smarter today that is both right and wrong I suppose.
I do try and work out what you are trying to say and look past the games everyone plays and finally have come to the conclusion I am happy with my position. I dont need aGod in my life and I hope you can respect that even though you think I am missing out or in denial that is indeed my position.
And thinking about things it is religion that annoys me and the way religions make stuff up.
If there is a God I doubt if he would like what religions do and claim they do so with his approval.
But who knows.. Which is my point.. Moreover who knows when everything comes from man's view of God it is finally just made up stuff. So that is my problem I simply dont believe what I see as superstition.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

W4U said,
I can agree that God is a mathematical abstraction. Sounds about right to me. But why call a manmade number, God? Does the number *1* have a mind, intelligence, motivation, emotions?

A tin of baked beans is also something.
For God to be God, as per definition, God has to be the sum total of everything, and then some. This includes intelligence.

That's circular thinking.

Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving. It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment. From Wiki.

Mental imagery is a medium where we can visualize thought forms. But what is it that generates and observes these thought forms?

No observer is required. It's purely mathematical function.

Is the conclusion of the your brain, or is it your conclusion?
Either you have to explain the ''your''.

Why, that's easy, we are a self-aware species. We are not the only ones, you know.

Is it purely the brain that comprehends these mental images?
Is it the brain that knows ''I am'', or does ''I am'' acknowledge that it has a brain?

Yes.

That's my point. Everything is already provided, including knowledge and intelligence, so you can deny God.

God consciousness is partly about understanding the source of everything. Most of us do not understand how a car works, but it doesn't mean we can't enjoy the benefits of having one.

You must like cars.

If you are going to discuss God, why start with that?
Why not let's try and understand what God is?

I have, through scripture and philosophy and a scriptural God makes no sense.

God is defined as the source. Agreed?
I know you don't believe that to be true, but it is still a definition of God.
Do you agree?

Of course I agree, every dictionary has that definition.

''1'' is not man made. The way we draw it, or say it may be man made.

The number *1* is a man-made abstract measurement of a value.

http://www.indifferentlanguages.com/words/one

The similarity between God and the number one, is that without number 1 there is nothing (zero). According to the definition I gave, it is the same with God.

Who says that without God there would be nothing?

If we are seriously going to discuss God, we have to be honest about the definition of God, and incorporate that definition into whatever proof is to be established.
If we don't do that, then we aren't discussing God. jan.

Right, we are not. Not as an intelligent, motivated, emotional sentient being as declared in Scripture.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's circular thinking.

Why is it?

No observer is required. It's purely mathematical function.

If no observer is required, and we're just firing synapses, how do you discriminate between right and wrong?
Wouldn't every thought be correct, including thinking that God exists?

Why, that's easy, we are a self-aware species. We are not the only ones, you know.

You are self aware, I agree.
But what is you that observes this self awareness. If it is self awareness itself, then why the need to affirm that you are.
If you are happy, and you observe that you're happy. Is happiness an individual phenomena produced by nature, or is it something that you personally feel?
I suspect the latter. If so then what is it that determines that you're happy. Happiness itself?

Yes.

It cannot be both.
''I am'' cannot be the brain, and reason that it has a brain, simultaneously.

You must like cars.

I suppose I do. They're very useful in this day and age,

I have, through scripture and philosophy and a scriptural God makes no sense.

Maybe I can help you make sense of it.

The number *1* is a man-made abstract measurement of a value.

You don't know that it is man-made. You only assume.
But I bet you can't demonstrate that it is man-made.

Who says that without God there would be nothing?

It doesn't have to be said by anyone. It is as per definition.

Right, we are not. Not as an intelligent, motivated, emotional sentient being as declared in Scripture.

Then you're in denial.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Thinking about it I dont need to pursue it and finally who could really tell but I do think my presumption could be reasonable. I suppose I feel we live in more enlightened times and fall into the trap that of believing we are smarter today that is both right and wrong I suppose.

The reality is that you are incorrect. It seems a reasonable presumption most likely because you hold on to a world view that predicts simple to complex evolution.
In scriptures you will understand that there were very advanced societies that did not use superstition as a medical practice. I'm not saying there weren't such societies, but then again we have such societies in this modern technologically advanced era we live in.

I do try and work out what you are trying to say and look past the games everyone plays and finally have come to the conclusion I am happy with my position. I dont need aGod in my life and I hope you can respect that even though you think I am missing out or in denial that is indeed my position.

Of course I can respect that. We are where we're at.
Just bare in mind we are in a discussion where we have taken sides of a particular idea. You are on one side, and I am on the other.
In reality, if I knew you as a real person (not just words on a screen), we wouldn't be conversing like this, and if we did, it would constitute a small part of the whole.

And thinking about things it is religion that annoys me and the way religions make stuff up.
If there is a God I doubt if he would like what religions do and claim they do so with his approval.

I would tend to agree with you on this point.

See we can agree!

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Jan when I think of scriptures vast numbers spring to mind, cart loads in fact, so I ask which scriptures do you mean?
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan when I think of scriptures vast numbers spring to mind, cart loads in fact, so I ask which scriptures do you mean?
Alex

Any of them. But I would recommend the Bhagavad Gita, as it is purely about God.
Knowledge of information about God, will gives a better view of scriptures.

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Jan which is your favourite verse?
Alex

 

[Sarkus]

Who says that without God there would be nothing?

It doesn't have to be said by anyone. It is as per definition.

W4U, you'll clearly observe from Jan's response that he is oblivious to the circularity of his argument which can be boiled down to:
P1. God is the cause of everything existing.
P2. Everything exists.
C1. Therefore God exists.

No doubt he'll disagree that this is his position, though, even though all he does is turn the wheel again.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan which is your favourite verse?
Alex

I wouldn't describe it as my favorite, but it's the first one I learned...

Bg. 2:13: Just as in this body the embodied (soul) passes into childhood, youth and old age, so also does he pass into another body; the firm man does not grieve thereat.

jan.