Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

I agree.. and that's a great philosophy to live.. by just live and ENJOY LIFE!

YNOT!

THAT IS an eloquent.. creative.. and beautiful description of THIS GOD 'PHENOmeMON!..

A little thing called Occam's Razor ( somewhat ironic as Occam developed the idea to show the self evidence of god). I accept that God might exist, there may even be a whole civilisation of Gods, the earth may have been made by the Rainbow Serpent, but where we have an naturalistic explanation this will always be more parsimonious than invoking a God. I see this all the time in rescues,of recent note are the Chilean Miners. Who was responsible for their rescue, God (who presumably could have prevented the whole mess in the first place), or was it the Geologists, the Engineers, The Metal Fabricators etc. Looking at the families and the rescued one can only assume they believed it was god. NOw you might say He aided the rescuers, that He made them safe underground, but why? There is absolutely no need to invoke god, all it does it make a simple, rational explanation extremely complicated. Evolution is another area where the razor works beautifully. We have all the evidence pointing to gradual changes over long periods of time, we have the fossil records, the rock records, contemporary instances, the theory makes predictions which turn up even more supporting evidence et. ect. there is no need for God. Put god into this picture and everything becomes, once again, extremely complicated and all kinds of unsupported suppositions need to be made to explain away the evidence for gradual change over time.

So yes it is possible that god does all these things, but is it plausible? Given that much of what was once thought to be gods work now has a rational naturalistic explanation I would say NO.

I don't get why I should believe something just because there is no evidence against it. By that reasoning I should believe in a whole bunch of mutually exclusive religions.

No evidence against the God of Abraham --> become Jewish/Christian/Muslim
No evidence against Odin and his bunch --> become Odinist
No evidence against the Hindu Gods: --> become Hindu

The burden of proof is always on the one claiming the existence of something for which there is no evidence. If I claimed Trolls lived at the centre of the Earth, the burden of proof would be on me because there is no evidence to support my claim. The burden of proof would not be on the doubters of my assertion.

Narrator, Russel's T-Pot has been quoted to Rho several times over the years, he either does not get it or prefers to ignore it. That being said he is correct that you cannot categorically refute something that is not falsifiable. After all the t-pot may well be there and the Trolls might well enjoy a nice cup of Earl Grey. I Like the way Dawkins puts it "I am agnostic about God in the same way I am agnostic about the Tooth Fairy".

The trouble is most believers will tell you that God is real then jump down your throat demanding proof when you make an equally certain opposite statement. I see it as they have faith, we have plausibility. What the religious do not seem to understand is that the inability to falsify their belief does not equate to a statistical probability. A few on this site get this Kraichgauer is one of them. He acknowledges that his Faith has no rational basis but maintains it all the same. and is happy in this resolve.

One of my fav's of his too.

Yes, but you're just making my point for me. You keep repeating "no need to invoke god, no need to invoke god, no need to invoke god…" Can you demonstrate a necessity for "not God"? I don't believe you can. In fact, I believe you are purposefully avoiding it because, and you've clearly stated this just as much as I've affirmed the opposite is also true, it is unwise to assert in absolute terms "no God."

As far as Occam's razor goes, again, this is built on a hidden assumption that there is no God and that invoking God necessarily complicates things. The only added assumption we have is that there is a God. Believing in God does not change a single thing about the inner workings of nature. And for those who haven't chosen to spend their entire lives devoted to understanding all there is to know about biology and evolution--and biology is immensely complex--an explanation simply that God created the heavens and the earth really is the most parsimonious. And my point here is this: It doesn't matter which side of the debate you're on. Either one of us can overcomplicate the other's "theory" or "faith" to death over claims of parsimony. It doesn't really answer the question of why we CHOOSE TO BELIEVE the way we do. You choose to believe there is no God, and it appears to me that appeals to empiricism are only a cover.


It's plenty plausible. I'd say you're just digging deeper into the physical mechanics of how God manifests himself in our world. He set it in motion. You're just picking apart the outer layers and observing the gears and the axles turning. It's not that difficult to understand.

I mean, here's the thing: I'm not unfriendly to science. I think it's great. I think scientific methodologies have awesome explanatory power. No doubt about that. But if someone has a sense of world apart from the physical world, why assume that they aren't experiencing the supernatural? "There's no need…" So what??? "There's no need" to ASSUME that there isn't. I'm sorry, but there's no way to move the needle on this debate.

You choose to believe what you believe, I choose to believe something else. You and I simply operate under completely different sets of assumptions. You think your assumptions are simpler. Fine. I think my assumptions are simpler. And the truly sad part is there are only two ways to know who is right--either you figure it out in life or in death. I feel secure in my knowledge and have no need to worry about being right or wrong after death. You are unable to claim the same knowledge (you do not believe God exists, therefore you can't know that God exists). Perhaps you feel you can make peace with that in your own way, or perhaps it just isn't relevant to you. I don't know. But if you are unwilling to challenge your own assumptions and change your mind on this issue, there is little point to even discussing it.

I'm on a pretty wild creative streak at the moment and likely not to come back to visit PPR that much, or if I respond at all it'll be pretty minimal. All I can say in the meantime is best wishes.

The inductive principle is unprovable.

Every scientific conclusion is contingent upon the validity of the inductive principle.

Thus, any socio-poliical expression referencing scientific conclusion is religious.

My favourite science tid-bit is how GPS satellites work. Time theory converted to a practical use.

It's not faith or politics or religion that results in such practical devices that would fail to work without the right science.

Proof? Turn your smartphone's GPS on. Can't do that with a Bible.

Would you be posting on this forum if there was no catalyst which instigated all other forces ?

Dominoes:



Would the last domino fall if the first one hadn't ?

Sadly enough, there is often a shortage of COMMON SENSE among scientists, science, and the systemizing mind, in general.

Thank GOD I am born with HUMAN common sense, and escape the SYSTEMIZATION OF THE HUMAN BRAIN that abstract language, collective standard I.Q. type intelligence, and complex culture can make into a reality of human being, TO once again REGAIN HUMAN COMMON SENSE.

And when I say common sense, I am talking to the innate instinctual and intuitive prowess of human being.

There ARE A LOT OF DUH NOWS in science.

I think that Stephen Hawking more than evidences that alone.

Problem is he is viewing life from a rather LIMITED VIEW, LITERALLY and metaphorically SPEAKING AND PERCEIVING THE WORLD AROUND him.

And that is the nature of Autism, overall, here, whether 'we' want to speak to the 800LB Gorilla in the room or not.

Also, as trivia fact, I sound just like a Gorilla when I work out per observance of the gym attendant that works there. She also says I sound a little like an elephant too.

But it's JUST another human power, to power greater physical strength, snuffed out by culture.

MAKING THIS WILD ANIMAL SOUND, naturally increases dopamine and thereby increases physical strength but most people just call it SAVAGE, instead of frigging COMMON SENSE.

People with Tourette's syndrome often make grunting sounds to do the same, involuntarily, to balance the dopamine imbalance in their brain, UNWITTINGLY SO.

AND according to the gym attendant, I AM THE ONLY ONE 'smart' enough to do it.

I know things PER HUMAN COMMON SENSE cause I SEEK IT, FIND IT, PRACTICE IT, AND AND IT WORKS.

And YES, THE EMPIRICAL evidence of me leg pressing 900LBS, 15 reps, after being a shut-in, not even being able to walk from the car to Whataburger, AND stay 15 minutes, just a year and a half ago, SHOWS THE TRUE FLESH AND BLOOD HITS THE ROAD PROWESS OF Human Common Sense, sought and found, at age 54.

Human beings, overall, are not nearly as SMART, OVERALL, AS THEY COULD BE, if they simply look within, THROUGH TRUE POTENTIAL MUCH FULLER HUMAN INTELLIGENCE(S) PROWESS WAYS, instead of the spoon fed way of life that culture brings.

God is everywhere in Nature, AS NATURE, AS IS.

Using GOD to one's advantage, as a higher power MORE than what culture provides alone, is sometimes the job of JOB.

And sometimes, as in the case of me, the metaphorical experience of JOB, in physical chronic FIVE-year-long life threatening illness, IS what it takes to escape the illusions of spoon fed culture that CAN AND DO restrict human potential FULLER INTELLIGENCE(S) to the state of SLUG, in metaphor.

Prefers to ignore it. I have two issues with the teapot: 1) A teapot is a physical object for which it is hypothetically possible to empirically prove or disprove its existence. Comparing physical objects to spiritual beings is apples:oranges. 2) A china teapot that is hypothetically difficult/impossible to detect is trivial. Even if you managed to prove/disprove its existence, who'd care? God is BIG, and more than sufficiently big to have an unquestionable influence on the cosmos and even the decisions people make. If you assume God doesn't exist at all and is merely a made-up construct of human imagination, you still have to recognize that "made-up construct" has had a profound influence on history. Imaginary teapots don't inspire their (non)believers to sleep next to their AK47's and collect severed heads as a hobby. Believers even have a history of choosing death over renunciation. People don't tend to think that teapots, real or imaginary, are worth killing or dying for.

Just the very IDEA of God, even if God doesn't actually exist, crushes the teapot into the powder from which it came. So I'm not all that worried about it.

Who told you ?

About a first cause: how does causality work when time has not yet come into existance? You cannot "cause" time to exist, since you need time for causality in the first place. Since the Big Bang created spacetime, who knows whether the BB is caused or uncaused?

The First Cause is TIMELESS.

Has to be, otherwise we wouldn't be here.