Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

The first problem with attempting to prove or disprove the existence of God is that there are too many conceptions of God, many of them contradicting others. So the best you can do is select one particular God at a time to try to prove or disprove.

The Christian God does not exist because he is self-contradictory. He is a logical impossibility. Love contradicts the existence of hell. Knowledge of the future contradicts the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The Marcionites wrote an entire book detailing contradictions between the character of the God of the OT and the God of the NT, who modern Christians insist are the same person.

The God of the Deists cannot be proven or disproven because that god merely created the world, by unspecified means, and then has ignored it ever since.

The Greek and Roman gods were neither all-powerful nor all-knowing and while capable of love, did not love everyone and were quite fond of very human pleasures and intrigues.

I have friends for whom God is not a personal entity with volition, nor a creator, but rather God is "everything." For them, God is the trees and the rocks and the plants and all living things including ourselves. For them God is merely another word for nature.

So first tell me which God you want me to disprove (since I don't believe in any of them except the last, and that's just a pointless redefinition of the word) and I'll address the question.

But this much is certain, without the least shadow of a doubt: If there is a creator, there is no way to know anything about that creator. What it wants from us, what it thinks or feels or what reason it had for creating. You can believe whatever you like, but if you believe you know the creator, you are deeply deluded.

The Creator, to me, was the non-sentient initiator of all the dynamics of the universe.

How could you "contradict" something which you don't believe exists?

If there's a God, I believe He/She would have the cognitive to awareness to know that the nonbeliever is not directly contradicting Him/Her.

If the nonbeliever becomes a believer shortly before it's "time to go," I'm sure God will welcome this person into His/Her kingdom with open arms.

The only people on this forum who disrupt the once good discourse of PPR, if there ever was any to begin with (i don't believe there was) are people who can't coexist. On that note, people who believe science and religion can't coexist don't help the already biased people get along.

I truly believe that we can't know everything until we've been everywhere.

It's also a difficult debate because of the disagreements on what constitutes evidence. Shared facts can be debated, beliefs or unshared facts seem to just hit a wall.

One of the lines that seems to get violated in this a lot is the objective/subjective one. The healthy context of the subjective is something that I'd tend to think we'll really want to address more as a race of beings, mainly that while you don't want people to chase each other around with swords and guns to force other people to believe what they believe (the subjective crapping on the objective) it's been equally problematic when people try to smash the subjective into slavery to the objective or even suggest that the subjective is an operating hallucination - it takes receding back from that not to fall to nihilism.

We may find as time goes on that the subjective and objective intertwine in more fascinating ways than we might have previously realized and I think we'll find increasingly interesting ways to have the subjective and objective cross-pollinate so long as it's kept high brow such as in pursuits of art, music, and beauty in general rather than the left arm warring on the right or vice a verse. There seem to be some intrepid pioneers on the side of exploring the subjective and that's one of the places where a lot of my reading these days angles - precisely because so many people are already doing such deep and thorough exploration of the objective that I see the world of science filled with people already far more natural and versed in advanced math and experimental procedure. I figure if I really find a way to give back to the world around me it will be along my explorations of whats presently the road less traveled and what's also, by my best guess, the next shoe to drop.

Ho hum.

More of the same irrational vilification of some Straw Man that is supposed to "prove" that a fantastic nonscience, divorced from realistic observation (science) is "true" simply because it conforms to some prejudicial ideology.

My contention all along has been that the Materialist ideology will not stand up to any scrutiny by real science using a realistic scientific method. I have only claimed that fashionable Materialism is scientifically impossible, and have given ample reason and evidence in support of that contention.

That has apparently been enough to excite Materialist ideologues into a frenzy of fantastic accusations and assertions entirely irrelevant to the matter. Just what one would expect from chronic narcissists who can delude themselves (and anyone else vulnerable) into thinking that "science" is anything that pampers their way-out-of-control ego. As I've said before, I got to hate narcissists waaay back when I was a diminutive odd-bod in the primary school playground.

I do not suffer fools and charlatans gladly but I am reluctant to leave retiring, good, honest folk to be their fodder. Goliath needn't expect any deference from me.