Is there any proof God exists?
Just so there is no confusion over evidence or proof, I'll use your words.
What evidence do you offer to say that the existence of God is a reasonable conclusion?
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
Pizzagal3000
Snowy Owl
Joined: 25 Dec 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 152
Location: In The Land Of Quality Music
I believe God is not really humanoid or an actual physical manifestation as to what is often presented in religion.
God is a One Mind Consciousness that every single creature shares with one another.
God is the driving force of all of us.
God(Energy) can never be created nor destroyed. It always was, is, and will be. It can only change from one form to the next.
God lives within us and originates from a particular super nebula(can't think of the name), in space.
Heaven literally translates to "sky."
When Jesus says,"The Kingdom of Heaven is within you," it is symbolic for "God"s consciousness and essence resides within us."
I honestly think that a person who doubts the existence of God or whatever you want to call God, is anti-life.
God IS Energy. Without this Energy we could NEVER exist....Which means that death is only an end of a chapter and transfer over to the next life.
_________________
I dress anyway want I to, do anything I want to, be anything I want to, cause I got the right to! I is talkin to you(ppl who "oppress" us), boo!----PizzA TimE!! !
I believe God is not really humanoid or an actual physical manifestation as to what is often presented in religion.
God is a One Mind Consciousness that every single creature shares with one another.
God is the driving force of all of us.
God(Energy) can never be created nor destroyed. It always was, is, and will be. It can only change from one form to the next.
God lives within us and originates from a particular super nebula(can't think of the name), in space.
Heaven literally translates to "sky."
When Jesus says,"The Kingdom of Heaven is within you," it is symbolic for "God"s consciousness and essence resides within us."
I honestly think that a person who doubts the existence of God or whatever you want to call God, is anti-life.
God IS Energy. Without this Energy we could NEVER exist....Which means that death is only an end of a chapter and transfer over to the next life.
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
"I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind."
If any form of a higher power/energy of the universe exists, we a just a blip to it, a very small part of a much greater system. Maybe it's our destiny to expand to the stars but that's just speculation. I don't have a need for alien life or some superior lost civilization, mankind has risen and fallen on its own merits, we don't give ourselves enough credit. There is no anthropomorphic god that can grant magical miracles. Geologic time is another thing to take into account, not human time. I cannot ever understand its purpose so I'll just live and enjoy my life and the world around me.
badgerface
Velociraptor
Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 479
Location: St. Neots, Cambridgeshire UK
Buy Me!
_________________
"You're entitled to your wrong opinion..."
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
Ah this old chestnut. Rho as no doubt you have already been told throughout your years arguing this point, when someone asserts a thing for which there is no evidence it is they, not the people who say "there is no evidence", who has the burden of proof.
By the same token it is not advisable for a non believer to state categorically that "there is no God". Which is why I quite correctly state that with all the knowledge available there is NO empirical evidence for the existence of God. Further much of what people claim to be evidence can be explained through natural means and those that instances that cannot be understood are simply that, a gap in our knowledge. Gaps in knowledge do not equate to evidence for God.
For people who argue that god is real and self evident the burden of proof is with them, not I.
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
badgerface
Velociraptor
Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 479
Location: St. Neots, Cambridgeshire UK
One could argue that what could be presented as evidence or proof that god (or gods) do not exist would be the discovery of undisputable, demonstrable facts which were previously "explained" by Supernatural means.
* There was a time when nobody doubted or had any information to dispute that all living things, particularly Human Beings were not created "magically" by a deity. Now we know, through overwhelming evidence that evolution and natural selection has created a beautiful, vast tree of life on which the origins, extinctions and diversity of life can be observed. These discoveries and the subsequent knowledge could well be viewed as evidence against a Creator god. However, it is often the stance of the evolution-accepting Theist to simply insert god into the equation, stating that he set it in motion, or somehow oversaw the process.
* There was once a time when nobody doubted that a 950 year old man built a boat big enough, strong enough to survive a worldwide flood, fill it with 2 of every species, somehow also with enough room to store food for them all, and have a sophisticated on-board waste-processing system and temperature regulation to enable the simultaneous survival of the Artic animals and the Tropical, the desert dwellers and the inhabitants of the Tundra, and with the Kangar....oh, hang on, they weren't in the Ark because when the Bible was written, Men did not know Australia existed.
Religious apologists will dismiss the Ark story as metaphor, or some other convoluted explanation; with today's knowledge it is on a par with a children's story, but rewind a few hundred years and saying so would probably get you beheaded.
What was told to us as indisputable truths about 'god' in the past; the way the world works, our history, the Earth's place in the Cosmos etc etc are now, as previously stated easily explained, in many instances as simple as High School Science levels, with no need for Supernatural or magical reasons. Whether or not it can be proved that something doesn't exist is semantics, but the disproving of previous supposed proofs can be taken in its place.
I now humbly smack myself about the back of the head for hypocritically continuing to argue after posting less than 24 hours ago that it was pointless oh well, something to do with not being able to help myself; I'll just blame that on ASD
_________________
"You're entitled to your wrong opinion..."
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
Ah this old chestnut. Rho as no doubt you have already been told throughout your years arguing this point, when someone asserts a thing for which there is no evidence it is they, not the people who say "there is no evidence", who has the burden of proof.
By the same token it is not advisable for a non believer to state categorically that "there is no God". Which is why I quite correctly state that with all the knowledge available there is NO empirical evidence for the existence of God. Further much of what people claim to be evidence can be explained through natural means and those that instances that cannot be understood are simply that, a gap in our knowledge. Gaps in knowledge do not equate to evidence for God.
For people who argue that god is real and self evident the burden of proof is with them, not I.
My views are evolving. I don't see things now the way I did 5 years ago, and 5 years from now I'll likely have a different view. Some things I'll keep, other things I'll discard. I'm only 36 years old. Statistically I have a lot of miles left. But the sad thing is that there aren't enough hours in a day to keep it up in a discussion or debate. It seems just as I'm called on to make an important point, life happens and I never make it back.
Anyway, I don't argue that God DOES exist. I merely believe that God exists, and will continue to do so until I have evidence that I feel is compelling enough to believe otherwise.
As to the NO empirical evidence bit…the entire universe and everything in it IS evidence and happens to be empirical evidence. You're merely interpreting it in such a way as to posit an extreme improbability that God exists. In order to successfully argue an anti-theistic view, both parties to an argument have to start from a position that God doesn't exist. As a believer, why would I start an argument from a position that God doesn't exist?
I don't buy that whole thing about burden of proof. It's too easily abused. I don't feel that it's my obligation to fall into that trap, and the "burden of proof" thing is just an excuse for an anti-theist to get out of backing up his own assertions. Not everyone is guilty of that, mind you, but I've seen that whole "I'm an atheist, therefore I don't have to back up anything I say" thing enough to know not to respond to it. Now, I do acknowledge that your particular position shields you from a burden of proof. But so does mine. I don't see the point in debating it. If you make the assertion "No God," you still have to back that up, same as I'd have to back up "God" if I were to go there.
Let me put it another way:
There is no evidence of God's non-existence. Thus, when someone asserts that God does not exist, it is they, not the people who say "there is no evidence," who have the burden of proof.
I'm not saying that YOU are making that assertion, I'm just saying that in all fairness the same standard has to apply to both sides. I'm not asserting God. I'm merely asserting that I believe in God. In my experience, it is difficult to deny something like that without some extraordinary evidence to the contrary.
Another thing that I keep overlooking when I've interacted with you in the past, and this is a good place to answer it--you said that everything has a natural explanation. I don't DISagree with that. But I also have to point out that just because something CAN be explained naturalistically, it doesn't necessarily follow that such an explanation is correct. You would say that God is unnecessary to explain the universe, amiright? So why are you compelled to conclude your version of the story is necessarily the correct one? Or do you feel so compelled, i.e. am I missing something? It appears to me you're only assuming that a naturalistic explanation is the correct one. Which is interesting to me because it's an unfalsifiable position apparently at odds with your standard of evidence or proof.
I'll happily admit my conclusions are based on such an assumption. I suspect our respective views are shaped by much more than evidence alone. My whole life has been affirmative of my views. I CHOOSE to see God in everything. If I'm understanding you correctly, you CHOOSE the exact opposite. Why? I don't believe it has anything to do with evidence because the evidence affirms our respective beliefs, and if you look into those exact beliefs, only one of us can be right. You and I are both liable for confirmation bias here, and I find that fascinating.
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
If any form of a higher power/energy of the universe exists, we a just a blip to it, a very small part of a much greater system. Maybe it's our destiny to expand to the stars but that's just speculation. I don't have a need for alien life or some superior lost civilization, mankind has risen and fallen on its own merits, we don't give ourselves enough credit. There is no anthropomorphic god that can grant magical miracles. Geologic time is another thing to take into account, not human time. I cannot ever understand its purpose so I'll just live and enjoy my life and the world around me.
I agree.. and that's a great philosophy to live.. by just live and ENJOY LIFE!
YNOT!
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
I believe God is not really humanoid or an actual physical manifestation as to what is often presented in religion.
God is a One Mind Consciousness that every single creature shares with one another.
God is the driving force of all of us.
God(Energy) can never be created nor destroyed. It always was, is, and will be. It can only change from one form to the next.
God lives within us and originates from a particular super nebula(can't think of the name), in space.
Heaven literally translates to "sky."
When Jesus says,"The Kingdom of Heaven is within you," it is symbolic for "God"s consciousness and essence resides within us."
I honestly think that a person who doubts the existence of God or whatever you want to call God, is anti-life.
God IS Energy. Without this Energy we could NEVER exist....Which means that death is only an end of a chapter and transfer over to the next life.
THAT IS an eloquent.. creative.. and beautiful description of THIS GOD 'PHENOmeMON!..
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
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'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
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
There is no evidence of God's non-existence. Thus, when someone asserts that God does not exist, it is they, not the people who say "there is no evidence," who have the burden of proof.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
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.
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
The Opposite of Deja Vu Exists & It's Even More Uncanny |
15 Mar 2024, 6:44 pm |
There exists a book on Hanafuda Fortune Telling |
01 Apr 2024, 9:30 am |