Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

If an uncaused First Cause can be uncaused, why can't the Big Bang be uncaused as well? The Big Bang sort of is the First Cause for the natural laws and matter and such. There isn't really anything saying we need a middle man. To rephrase it a bit better: the Big Bang IS the uncaused First Cause we are talking about here.

The is no proof that God exists nor is there proof they he does not exist.

It is all a matter of belief.

By the way, can you prove anyone other than you is conscious? I will bet that you cannot.

ruveyn -- Je suis le Turing Test

It's a clever analogy, but how is it the same?
If I want to sit in my shed, building a boat, why would I first ask permission?
Or, if I asked my wife's permission, why would she ask her parents' permission?
Or if she asked her parent's permission, why would her parents as for the local council's permission?
I just decide I want a boat. That doesn't pre-empt my parents from procreating me.
I become the first cause of my boat's existence. That doesn't make me eternal.

You wouldn't ask for permission to build a boat in your shed, but you needed your parents to give birth to you, and your parents needed their parents to give birth to them , and so on.

Because the big bang had a birth.

This.

@sophisticated: This is what I was talking about earlier with Dent. It isn't logically necessary to assume that there even IS a creator. Some physicists have suggested that there's not even a singularity required to instantiate the Big Bang. Personally, I have to call shens on that one, but whatever. If a singularity wasn't involved, then the Big Bang might be uncaused. If one could establish this as an incontrovertible fact, the modern cosmological argument would be in pretty deep trouble.

The problem for anti-theists, though, is that none of this even IS proven or incontrovertible. You don't have to have highly advanced observation skills to detect that everything as we know it is caused. You can point that out, but you'll probably get something like "common sense makes up only an insignificantly minuscule amount of all that is known." Don't let anyone run you down with that one. That raises an important question: Does it logically necessarily follow that common sense is always wrong? Of course not. So why assume that it does? Apply same principle to the logical necessity of an uncaused Creator. It's not logically necessary to assume "+God." But it's also not logically necessary to assume "-God." If there's no compelling argument against God, i.e. belief or disbelief are predicated on our respective assumptions, what exactly do we expect to accomplish?

*yawn* I need a nap now.

No, you don't have to have advanced observations skills at all, all you need is common sense, and common sense is universal.

As I said before, mankind always believed in God, but now we have this new movement that is telling people to disbelieve in everything that is unscientific, the people behind this movement seem to be very clever but are in fact idiots.

My version of life.

Who am I, where am I, what am I doing here, where did I come from, I mean I know we all came from the great valley of life. But where do we really come from? Am I an alien, who are you, are you an alien, what is a human really? Who are we? What the hell are we all doing here on this planet, a rock floating through space in a galaxy within a universe, a universe so big it would take more than a life time to journey across it. Yet it can be as small as a single atom. Where did this space come from, and why is there space to allow for space, why is it space and not solid. Are we a solid space. Until these questions are answered for me I just can't seem to take life to seriously.

If I asked you to imagine what I just wrote, it all seems a bit fantasy and surreal, so fantasy is fact then RIGHT!! !! Call it what you want we all live in a fantasy. Where all taking the ride but I don't remember buying a ticket. Who's sick idea was it too put me here, was it my choice, why do I think this, why am I able to think this and the thoughts I do. What I do know is if I'm not dreaming, which I might. Then what I have just said is magnificent, a miracle, a symbol that anything is possible, even in dreams. What am I doing!! !! I am writing squiggles which can be interpreted by another. There's even a squiggle for squiggles which came out of my squiggly brain. Life has created this. In other words life has taught itself to question itself. Us. Assuming life is the creator and I am sceptical about god. Why would life do that, is it just designed to send me crazy or is it designed for knowledge and survival. Are we destined to find out or is it just an accident. Is A.I the next step to evolution, man creating machine. A machine that could essentially live forever and travel to distant planets. That we are part of life's life. Recreating the universes intelligence. That the universe has been created by A.I and is governed in the same principle and that life is like a machine.

So if we are not creating machines then what else are we really doing!! !!
What are we really doing!! !!
Is this a fantasy?
Is the world flat?
Did we go to the moon?
Should we be fantasising?
Anythings possible!! !!
Do you believe in aliens?
But most believe in god?
What about evolution?
Or maybe you believe in all?
Is that possible?
Anything is possible?
All in the name of science, even science keeps getting corrected and science isn't scientifically science until proven fact.
What is fact?

So back to where I started, who am I. And what are we really doing as a species. I mean this is essentially lock away and throw away the key material but we choose to ignore it going on about our daily lives. Hey but that's life. If you ever thought you were mental take a look at the moon, and the stars and think of the sun and and the universe and tell me that's not already so. So in my opinion it's all nuts. And if you haven't already thought of that then your nuts because your in it.
Is life a TV gameshow?
Or is it much more than that?
Or is it a game show within a game show, life is your game show sunny, play your Bruce cards right or Bruce will be after you.

I have a theory in which it consists of dimensions, that being if you lived in a higher dimension on a higher plane, then you would have an omnipotent view of the plane below essentially giving the observer god like ability's.

There are many things in this world that don't add up using common sense.

The idea of fitting several encyclopedias on a pinhead doesn't make common sense. The idea that satellites have to correct for time because time is slower up there, doesn't make common sense. Go back a few hundred years and the notion of microscopic organisms being responsible for disease went totally against common sense. The ancient idea that the stars were stuck on a dome made common sense because on a clear night that's what it looks like.

Observable reality has always been a catch-cry to common sense, but not everything in reality is observable, and not everything observable is reality. We first knew that time is slower up in orbit because of theory. Common sense would not have solved that problem. Common sense would have thrown that one out, with great enthusiasm.


Mankind long believed in things that turned out not to be true. And they believed such things because they didn't know any better and drew wrong conclusions. For thousands of years, man believed disease was possession, or a curse or there was some other supernatural cause. Longevity of belief is not a good reason for belief. If I had to, I would take anecdotal evidence before long held belief. For thousands of years, people believed the world was flat - even the Genesis 1 creation story is predicated on that. Long held belief is not evidence of truth.

As for the "new movement" it's not a new movement at all. And there is no one "behind it" other than people who feel passionate, just as many theists feel passionate. Would you call theists idiots because of their passion? I for one am glad that agnostics and atheists can now have a voice without being treated as heathen, depending where you go of course. Saying there are people behind a new movement suggests an evil conspiracy. I remember thinking that way when I was a Christian.

I came from 35+ years as a born-again Christian before many years of inner reflection, study and logic finally told me that I had wasted decades allowing a religion to predicate my thinking.

Yep.. and so would your deity.
And speaking of common sense, the idea of a deity being eternal just doesn't make common sense, because nothing is eternal.

Looks like I'm talking to a brick wall.

Now I don't know if you genuinely don't get it or deliberately don't want to get it, but I wish you the best of luck.

You would think so, yes. But then you have the issue of whether someone is going to believe that common sense is enough.


Sure. Well…still, we have to be careful here. When you say "mankind always believed in God," is this merely a red herring? There's a way to run with that and make it work, but a history of people believing things to be true doesn't magically make something true. The way you play that is it's possible that the reason people always believed in God is because they experienced something that justified their belief. It doesn't matter what side of faith you're own, it all goes back to the evidence.

Also, I wouldn't go there about people being idiots. I'm not afraid to share my personal opinion about things, and I don't particularly care if people hate me for those opinions. But if I honestly felt that way towards someone, that's an opinion I'd chose to keep to myself. For one, you're committing ad hominem. For another, even if it's true that someone is an idiot, labeling isn't going to help your cause.

Personally (see, what did I tell you?), I think that silence is the ultimate insult you can pay someone. There have been two WP members that I ignored out of existence. One of those was verbally abusive towards me, so I just stopped responding. The other displayed such gross immaturity that I came right out and told him I would no longer respond. This particular person would respond by first asking me to define certain terms, and then after that I had to define my definitions, and when I got weary of semantics games, he'd go on about how everything I say is gibberish. Well…if all language breaks down into meaningless gibberish, then his counterarguments were meaningless as well. I really tried to be patient. He was as bad at argumentation as I am at chess. I win chess games. But my strategy is to clear all pieces from the board and trap the opposing king with a combination of rooks and queens. It is an effective strategy. But in order to be effective, my opponent has to be a worse chess player than I am. A better chess player would never fall for those tricks, and I stopped falling for those in debate. It was the absolute insistence on cornering me in a game I refused to play that finally got to me. I said outright I'd never respond to this guy and explained very clearly why I stopped responding. I haven't lost one minute of sleep over it, either.

Point? Never argue with an idiot. He will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.

@sophisticated--up for a case study?

Exactly what I was talking about. Common sense doesn't explain everything, therefore common sense doesn't explain anything.

[@Narrator: I know that's not what you're saying here, but I have observed that some will tend to play the "common sense is bogus" card. I'm not saying you are wrong here, but the "common sense" rebuttal is strikingly predictable. And that's what made your response interesting to me.]


Careful with the quotes there…these aren't my words.


Yeah…this was what I was referring to in my earlier post. "Longevity of belief is not a good reason for belief." Well said. HOWEVER, just because a widely held belief is long-lived doesn't make it untrue, either. This is the problem. You need to examine WHY something is widely held and why it has survived for a long time. You can't just assume there aren't good reasons for it. If there are reasons for that belief to survive as it has, that might be evidence in favor of the truth of those beliefs. I mean, you can't just ASSUME either way if you intend to do it any justice.

I don't think I've ever brought this up in a discussion, but there is that--the issue of justice, and that's something every believer should consider. Does the opposite view actually deserve justice? If we know God exists, the Bible is true, etc., are we really obligated to give views opposing God, the Bible, et al. equal time and consideration? If we are so obligated, why? Someone who rejects God and claims to do so through "reason" would predictably say, "oh yes, absolutely. Why not?" But in practice, I don't really see anti-theists giving theism the same justice. If there's no way to move the needle and both sides trot out the same old, boring, pointless arguments, I'll just get back to my nap and have someone come get me when you're done.

What I mean is that people always believed, without using fancy technology, belief in God is just part of our natural state, it is common sense and I for one will not trade my common sense with modern science.

everything must have a creator, that is god! you might ask know, who created god, nobody, god has always existed becuse he is god. this is the ultimate truth and will bring comfort to all.

Verbal language is NOT necessary.

MOTHER NATURE TRUE IS GOD.

IT IS JUST HUMAN common SENSE(S) perceiving

IT at age 3, before I can speak, at age 4.

I guess it is just another

Autistic Superpower.

Perhaps that is metaphor.

Perhaps that is not.

WHO KNOWS..

IT IS ENOUGH TO KNOW FOR ME.

EVERY NOW OF NOW.. PERIOD.