Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

It also always amazes me whenever an atheist will say something along the lines of, 'There is no proof for the spaghetti-monster/Russell's Teapot/unicorns, so therefore...', as though he (it's almost always a 'he') had some decisive and utterly irrefutable evidence or proof of the impossibility of God. I mean, seriously, this is a supremely silly argument, and for many reasons, one of the reasons being that absolutely no one actually believes in a 'god' that is subject to the laws of physics, can be seen with a sufficiently powerful telescope, has a beard and sits in the clouds hurling lightning-bolts at sinners (if there actually ARE people who believe this, then they need serious help). It is therefore a red-herring, as well as being a strawman attack against those who don't actually subscribe to the notion that God can be understood as being just another 'thing' that exists in the conventional sense (i.e. can be measured, weighed, defined et cetera, like any other mundane aspect of the physical world).

The question of God's existence is purely philosophical one, and as far as I am concerned science just doesn't have anything to say about it. Logical proofs for the existence of God can at least be formulated (ex. the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument), even if many may not agree that the proofs in question actually are sufficient on their own. What kind of logical or philosophical argument can be made for the belief that naturalism (i.e. the philosophical belief that the material world is all there is) is actually true? Why should we believe this? Is not the central premise of scientism (i.e. 'the only questions that make any sense are scientific ones'), upon which so many scientistic athiests base their life upon, itself a claim that cannot actually be scientifically proven? In spite of what S. Hawking may believe, philosophy is not 'dead', and this specific claim, which he makes in his book 'The Grand Design' with Mlodinow, is itself a philosophical claim.

I mention what I do in the paragraph above to highlight the philosophical ineptitude of the vast majority of modern-day atheists. They like to be smug, and think of themselves as being 'brights', but really now...
Come on atheists, present us theists and agnostics with an actual challenge for once! Your efforts thus far have been extremely lame.

Nice try, but I'm afraid not.

But the REAL Olaf from Frozen did drop by and stayed overnight. I think he had a little TOO much fun before sleeping it off and this is how I found him the next morning. I dunno, what do you think?

Try posting an argument without using the words belief, believe or faith...

BTW religions with a belief in god are not a philosophical, rather they are prescriptive...buddhism/hinduism are philosophies as they do not require worship of a specific deity, the objective is individuals follow a particular philosophy...

No I don't, but given everything else you believe and the stuff you reject as nonsense, it would not surprise me if you THOUGHT you have pink unicorns dancing in your yard.

I can live with this so long as you never try to bend science or lie about scientific discoveries which disprove parts of religious doctrine.

So you totally reject the idea of pink unicorns in my backyard?

Ho hum again. Arty, I've been at pains to show that genuine science is completely at odds with your ideology that pretentiously claims to be "science". Real science must be bent, distorted and lied about to conform to your ideology. The fundamental deception that Materialism relies on in its sales pitch is to define science as anything convenient to the ideology and anything inconvenient is "religion".
Your "religious doctrine" is a straw man contrived to suit your purpose. That is a monstrous con-job of fantastic proportions. Greetings, Lintar.
I was hoping that you and I might be able to have some interesting reasonable disagreements about a variety of things. The first one would have to be your implied notion of the nature of philosophy. I will agree that the knowledge of the existence of God is a philosophical issue, but I do not agree that it is, therefore, merely a matter of opinion that has no objectively right or wrong answer(s). Are you up for it? Should we start a new thread?

Where did I do this? You must have me confused with someone else. If anything, it is the atheists who tend to 'lie about scientific discoveries', not the agnostics or theists.

I didn't say that philosophy was 'just a matter of opinion', and I hope I did not imply that anywhere either, because philosophy, as a system of thought (and in spite of what many so-called sceptics have said about it 'not making any progress' - unlike science, apparently), can, and does, lead us to truth. The same with the study of history, maths, music, economics etc. Science isn't everything, and yet so many these days seem to think that if something cannot be 'scientifically proven', then it deserves to be ridiculed, and in spite of the fact that nothing ever is scientifically 'proven' in the first place anyway. That's not what it is about.

Start a new thread? Um... yes, why not What shall I call it? How about, 'Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound'?

Sounds like a good place to start a vigorous exchange of disagreements. Should be interesting.
Mmmm. Or, perhaps, ' "Philosophy" is Philosophically Unsound ' might be even more provocatively interesting.

To me, this 'true atheist'/agnostic dichotomy is a waste of your non-believer time.
If you don't believe in any God, deity, or even ancestor worship, you are wasting your time
on pity semantics. I mean, if you really believe religion is a disease like Tallyman once told me before he left,
then make it your goal to eradicate religion from this earth, make it your dying wish that my beliefs are crushed.
I'd rather you people just try it, and stop this babbling debate over things equivalent to 2+2=4.
I'd rather have people use there time wisely against me then do nothing but argue with themselves.
Where did the organization go?

^ I tend to agree. The trouble is that if someone outright states that god does not exist then they will be asked to prove it. As god is not falsifiable this is not possible. Therefore to avoid this line of attack I and many others must acknowledge that we cannot absolutely prove the non existence of god. I can however state that given the evidence produced I have zero belief in any gods or for that matter any form of mysticism. This does not mean I completely close minded to the concept. However to quote GK Chesterton "be not so open minded that your brains fall out"

This should be fascinating! Whats up for debate? Maybe you can discuss how many elves Santa has, and whether their servitude is a form of slavery. Also how about the fall of Rudolph? Apparently he started a rebellion with some of the reindeer and the elves to overthrow Santa. But as we all know Santa is all powerful (how daft was Rudolph and his comrades, surely they would have known that Santa was at all there meetings, and even if he wasn't, they would have had to have known he knew what they were up to, and any way he would have no trouble defeating them) and as it turns out he defeated the rebellion and has sent Rudolph in to exile at the south pole.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 22 Mar 2015, 5:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

But self-contradictory assumptions such as "all things that exist caused themselves to exist for no reason" doesn't need elaborate falsification. But you need a mind so open that it has no top or bottom or sides to swallow that one.

David, I have know idea about causation, but what I do know is this, you are absolutely guilty of the above accusation.

So it's perfectly ok to believe in God?