God exists. I can prove it. You can prove it too

Post Reply New Topic

There are only two semi-coherent arguments for the existence of God.

1. Anselm's proof which is really verbal acrobatics.

2. Argument from Design which does not work because there are accidental systems with negative feedback controls that look as though they have design and purpose. The appearance of design does not imply the existence of a Designer.

ruveyn

Why is it so important to you that others accept and believe what you call "poof" or whatever it is that you refer to as "God?" m It makes it seem as though you are not confident in your own beliefs and need the verification of others. You are free and welcome to your ideas. It is your thinking that everyone else has to agree with you and perceive what you believe that is the issue. Science is not making a mission of disproving your beliefs. Science is exploring and understanding our universe. The findings of science conflict with some things that you believe. It is not an attack. Why do you feel threatened by the findings of science? I don't think science feels threatened by your beliefs. Why does that bother you? Science does not want to make people feel threatened, only informed. It seems like what you believe is a result of feeling intimidated or threatened to submit, without question, to what you are told. You should question what you are told. Don't go blindly into the night. Question everything.

Proof that God doesn't exist http://www.truthbeknown.com/proof.htm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRtCgdezrI4[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzFCnHc8KU0[/youtube]

basically you define god as reality, reality exists ergo god exists.

But god defined as reality is not god as perceived by humans

It seems like I accidentally kill God when I try to rescue him...

Hey, that's not my intention!

At this moment in time there is no evidence that any gods exist or have ever existed; so it is entirely a matter of faith and using faith people invent all manner of god concepts that they then go on to worship or attribute things to. The most common god concepts in the west are those related to the Abrahamic religions and that god (of the bible) is something of a narcissistic sociopath. There are other god concepts - In Hinduism there are a multitude of gods each associated with some aspect of existence, so for example there is Shiva the bringer of destruction and Lakshmi the god of wealth and so on. Hinduism also has concepts of Satchitananda / Brahman or in Buddhism Nirvana. These may be closer to the type of "god" you are espousing in your essays. But as I've already mentioned, the word "god" means so many different things to different people, so is a dangerous word to use as it communicates so many different things that the word is essentially meaningless.

The problem is obviously that we have no means of defining quite what god is. I have my own conception of divine mind and someone else may have another perception of god. The global mass humanity view of god seems to be any entity capable of feats which we cannot even begin to imagine.

2d creatures living in a 2d universe would consider us to be godlike since we can travel through the lauded 3rd dimension. Similarly creatures capable of moving through time at will (timeless beings) would be considered gods by many of us if their abilities seemed organic as opposed to synthetic.

The notion of god is a powerful psycho/emotive/spiritual belief. Any sufficiently powerful intellligence could be described as godlike, but it takes faith and belief to call that being a god. One confers upon that intelligence a right to be worshipped.

If we exchanged the word god for a supremely complex and profound intelligence the idea of god creating the universe would seem like a far shorter leap.

Involuntary deicide!

Last edited by naturalplastic on 28 Apr 2014, 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Okay. So what YOU are saying is that what HE is saying is: If we can't prove that X does not exist that proves that X MUST exist (absence of evidence is not only NOT evidence of absence, it is evidence of presence. In fact its proof of presence!).

And since we have no evidence one way or other about god existing that proves that God exists!

Have I got it right?

You have to take probability into account. How probable is it that something exists? Anything?

What you're saying is that he is saying that he has proven that the possibility of God exists. Not that God exists. Folks in Europe in 1491 should have been open to the possibility that the American continents existed. We today should be open to the idea that life exists elsewhere in the Cosmos.And therefore we should also be open to the idea of a god existing. But being open to the idea that X exists is not the same thing as proving X exists.

Do you mean deicide?

Thankyou.

Yes folks say 'dee- ity', but I guess its really DAY-ity. I before E except...when sounding like A as in nieghbor, and weigh..

Will yall stop fighting. its opinion. done.

But its fun to debate!