bananabrain
awkward squadnik
proof????
BAAAAH.
b'shalom
bananabrain
BAAAAH.
b'shalom
bananabrain
Proofs for existence of God
- Thread starter Nitai
- Start date
believer142
Member
Our perception of the truth for anything is relative. Thus, there is no proof for the existence of god. However, there is substantial evidence to support the existence of such an entity. I presume that DNA is plenty considering that everything on earth exhibiting the passing of information requires an intelligent designer. I presume that the beginning of the universe has a cause since everything has a cause. And the cause cannot be materialitic because it would have to be attributed to an infinite amount of causes which results in a domino effect that never ends. Aristotles' view was that each cause has to have an ultimate cause called the prime mover-God. Evolution also seems as if it is a plan by a superior being.
I personally dont understand atheistic views when its so obvious that there is a god. Perhaps atheists are indifferent to all belief systems because they dont want to have a moral premise for all there actions. Maybe they have a lifestlyle that they wouldnt want to hinder with the belief in God.
I personally dont understand atheistic views when its so obvious that there is a god. Perhaps atheists are indifferent to all belief systems because they dont want to have a moral premise for all there actions. Maybe they have a lifestlyle that they wouldnt want to hinder with the belief in God.
B
Bandit
Guest
thanks believer142!
i was blessed by that sincere post
i can relate to what you are saying
& welcome aboard.
i was blessed by that sincere post
i can relate to what you are saying
& welcome aboard.
Hare Krishna
I would like to give just a small suggestion for clarifying the word 'proof'. It seems that there are different understandings of this term.
So, some use the word 'proof' only in the sense that only material tangible things can proof something. Their conclusion is therefor, that there are no proofs for existence of God.
However, when we use the word 'proof' in broader sense that can imply also spiritual logic, reasoning and ultimately religious experience then we can certainly see that there are plenty proofs for existence of God.
There is also one interesting eastern proof for existence of God what in the west is not considered and that is the archaeological proof. When God decides to do something nobody can stop Him and thus He comes time to time to live with us in this material planet like e.g. in the past Krishna, Rama and Lord Caitanya (just before 500 years ago). So, interestingly there are archaeological evidences that They were actually in this planet. Moreover, there are plenty of Historical descriptions about Their lives.
I would like to give just a small suggestion for clarifying the word 'proof'. It seems that there are different understandings of this term.
So, some use the word 'proof' only in the sense that only material tangible things can proof something. Their conclusion is therefor, that there are no proofs for existence of God.
However, when we use the word 'proof' in broader sense that can imply also spiritual logic, reasoning and ultimately religious experience then we can certainly see that there are plenty proofs for existence of God.
There is also one interesting eastern proof for existence of God what in the west is not considered and that is the archaeological proof. When God decides to do something nobody can stop Him and thus He comes time to time to live with us in this material planet like e.g. in the past Krishna, Rama and Lord Caitanya (just before 500 years ago). So, interestingly there are archaeological evidences that They were actually in this planet. Moreover, there are plenty of Historical descriptions about Their lives.
Hare Krishna
Here is some more nectar,
1. Since everything comes from something and nothing comes from nothing, there must necessarily be an origin or a source for all that exists.
2. Since so many persons exist within reality the source must possess personality. Otherwise how could it produce personality?
3. That Original Supreme Person is emanating us from Himself for the purpose of enjoying loving relationships with each and every one of us. Therefore the purpose of our existence is to love Him. Only this will satisfy us.
4. Out of His infinite kindness upon that Supreme Person has giving us a system by which we can revive our forgotten love for Him, which is currently lying dormant within our hearts. That system is known as bhakti yoga or devotional service.
5. Krishna either personally appears or sends His representative, the spiritual master, to us to teach us how to revive the dormant love of God within our hearts.
6. That process of revival is centered around the chanting of the Holy Names of God:
Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare
and eating the remnants of vegetarian foostuffs that have been offered to Lord Krishna with love and devotion.
Here is some more nectar,
1. Since everything comes from something and nothing comes from nothing, there must necessarily be an origin or a source for all that exists.
2. Since so many persons exist within reality the source must possess personality. Otherwise how could it produce personality?
3. That Original Supreme Person is emanating us from Himself for the purpose of enjoying loving relationships with each and every one of us. Therefore the purpose of our existence is to love Him. Only this will satisfy us.
4. Out of His infinite kindness upon that Supreme Person has giving us a system by which we can revive our forgotten love for Him, which is currently lying dormant within our hearts. That system is known as bhakti yoga or devotional service.
5. Krishna either personally appears or sends His representative, the spiritual master, to us to teach us how to revive the dormant love of God within our hearts.
6. That process of revival is centered around the chanting of the Holy Names of God:
Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare
and eating the remnants of vegetarian foostuffs that have been offered to Lord Krishna with love and devotion.
presser_kun
Well-Known Member
This thread hasn't had any posts for about three weeks. Since this is of vital interest to me, I'll say a few things.
I've said in another thread/area that the domain of God is protected by faith in a way that does not make sense to me.
What follows is a lengthy thought experiment. Please bear with me, as it will take what may seem to be a rambling course before returning to the issue of proofs for the existence of God.
Imagine all knowledge as a large house, a mansion, if you will, with a multitude of rooms. Each room contains a particular knowledge set or topic, for instance, Biology, Physics, Religion, God (which is separate from relgion though often the subject of it).
Each room is subdivided into multitudes of cubicles. Physics, for example, is divided into Atomic Structure, Basic Principles, Quantum Mechanics, etc. Each of these can be subdivided, of course, and my analogy breaks down eventually. Neither is it terribly accurate, but I hope it will serve a simple purpose here.
What part does Reason play in this house, in these rooms?
Reason, or Logic, is in its own room, of course, but it also says something about all the other rooms, and about the house itself. It says that the way you think about the knowledge in each room matters. Look at it the wrong way, and you can't be sure that the knowledge is true.
Here, "true" means "squares with reality." The idea of gravity, for instance squares with our experiencee that rocks fall down.
Gravity is just an idea, though. Don't forget that. Someday someone may find a better way to explain rocks falling down, a way that may supercede or supplant the idea of gravity.
Should that happen, would that mean that the idea (notice I'm not saying law or principle) of gravity would be disproven? Considered wrong? False?
I think not. The reasonable way to look at this is that something more accurate has come along, something that more accurately squares with reality.
What is going on here? The idea of Gravity is being studied, tested, measured, perhaps experimented with/on. Reason says that this is the way we gain knowledge: by observing and experimenting and testing.
Reason says this is the best way to know that knowledge is true. To know that knowledge can be depended on.
Reason says that all knowledge, every bit of it, should be studied in this way.
Will Reason itself be supplanted as the best way to verify knowledge? Who knows? Right now it's the best theory/idea we have -- the best the human race has come up with.
It has a powerful track record. It's largely responsible for the computer you're using to read these words. And the car you drive, if you drive one. And the shoes you wear.
What happens when Reason comes to the room of God?
Faith stands in the doorway and says, you can't come in. The things in this room cannot be considered by you.
Why, Reason says?
Because it's not appropriate, Faith answers. You, Reason, just don't apply to the knowlege in this room. In fact, you can't be applied to the idea of God.
Reason says, Do you have a reason for saying that?
It seems to me that Faith's only answer is, I don't have to have a reason. I'm Faith, and what I say goes, at least in this room.
Is that right? Does Faith say something else?
I don't understand why it's okay to say that Reason cannot come into God's room. I don't understand why it's okay to say that it's not appropriate for Faith to have a reason for saying that.
Help me with my thinking here.
Many say, You cannot prove God's existence. It's something you "just have to believe."
Why? Why is it not appropriate to subject the idea of God to Reason?
For me, the answer cannot be Because Faith says so.
When Reason does look at the knowledge in God's room, it sees logical inconsistencies, lack of experimentation, no squaring with reality going on.
And, again, Faith says, Of course. That's because it's not appropriate for you to be in this room, Reason.
What's my point?
That the "Reason has no place here" argument is not valid.
If you agree, and you subject the idea of God to Reason, you quickly see that there is most likely not a supreme being.
Final thought.
I could be wrong. Have been many times before.
Show me the flaws in this thinking, and realize that, when you do, you're using Reason to do it.
Please do not say, You just have to have Faith without Reason.
If you've read this far, I thank you.
I've said in another thread/area that the domain of God is protected by faith in a way that does not make sense to me.
What follows is a lengthy thought experiment. Please bear with me, as it will take what may seem to be a rambling course before returning to the issue of proofs for the existence of God.
* * *
Imagine all knowledge as a large house, a mansion, if you will, with a multitude of rooms. Each room contains a particular knowledge set or topic, for instance, Biology, Physics, Religion, God (which is separate from relgion though often the subject of it).
Each room is subdivided into multitudes of cubicles. Physics, for example, is divided into Atomic Structure, Basic Principles, Quantum Mechanics, etc. Each of these can be subdivided, of course, and my analogy breaks down eventually. Neither is it terribly accurate, but I hope it will serve a simple purpose here.
What part does Reason play in this house, in these rooms?
Reason, or Logic, is in its own room, of course, but it also says something about all the other rooms, and about the house itself. It says that the way you think about the knowledge in each room matters. Look at it the wrong way, and you can't be sure that the knowledge is true.
Here, "true" means "squares with reality." The idea of gravity, for instance squares with our experiencee that rocks fall down.
Gravity is just an idea, though. Don't forget that. Someday someone may find a better way to explain rocks falling down, a way that may supercede or supplant the idea of gravity.
Should that happen, would that mean that the idea (notice I'm not saying law or principle) of gravity would be disproven? Considered wrong? False?
I think not. The reasonable way to look at this is that something more accurate has come along, something that more accurately squares with reality.
What is going on here? The idea of Gravity is being studied, tested, measured, perhaps experimented with/on. Reason says that this is the way we gain knowledge: by observing and experimenting and testing.
Reason says this is the best way to know that knowledge is true. To know that knowledge can be depended on.
Reason says that all knowledge, every bit of it, should be studied in this way.
Will Reason itself be supplanted as the best way to verify knowledge? Who knows? Right now it's the best theory/idea we have -- the best the human race has come up with.
It has a powerful track record. It's largely responsible for the computer you're using to read these words. And the car you drive, if you drive one. And the shoes you wear.
* * *
What happens when Reason comes to the room of God?
Faith stands in the doorway and says, you can't come in. The things in this room cannot be considered by you.
Why, Reason says?
Because it's not appropriate, Faith answers. You, Reason, just don't apply to the knowlege in this room. In fact, you can't be applied to the idea of God.
Reason says, Do you have a reason for saying that?
It seems to me that Faith's only answer is, I don't have to have a reason. I'm Faith, and what I say goes, at least in this room.
Is that right? Does Faith say something else?
I don't understand why it's okay to say that Reason cannot come into God's room. I don't understand why it's okay to say that it's not appropriate for Faith to have a reason for saying that.
Help me with my thinking here.
* * *
Many say, You cannot prove God's existence. It's something you "just have to believe."
Why? Why is it not appropriate to subject the idea of God to Reason?
For me, the answer cannot be Because Faith says so.
When Reason does look at the knowledge in God's room, it sees logical inconsistencies, lack of experimentation, no squaring with reality going on.
And, again, Faith says, Of course. That's because it's not appropriate for you to be in this room, Reason.
* * *
What's my point?
That the "Reason has no place here" argument is not valid.
If you agree, and you subject the idea of God to Reason, you quickly see that there is most likely not a supreme being.
* * *
Final thought.
I could be wrong. Have been many times before.
Show me the flaws in this thinking, and realize that, when you do, you're using Reason to do it.
Please do not say, You just have to have Faith without Reason.
* * *
If you've read this far, I thank you.
Awaiting_the_fifth
Where is my mind?
Wow, cant believe I missed this thread the first time round, glad someone dragged it up again.
Presser Kun, you have a good point there, there really is no reason why we should not apply the process of reason to the concept of God.
Over the centuries there have been many claims at prophethood, messiahood, buddhahood and divinity but we immediately disregard most, why do we cling to some? I for one cannot answer this question, but I am guilty of this myself.
It is this inescapable conflict between stark, scientific reality and our collective, innate spirituality which leads me personally to the conclusion that one of them must be in error. If my own sense of spirituality is in error then there is nothing I can do about it (except perhaps seek psychiatric help) because as most of us here have agreed, this cannot be disproven. Therefore the only possible conclusion which does not include me being insane is that it is the apparent reality around me which is flawed. And the only solution is to seek the truth about reality which some of call, "enlightenment".
Presser Kun, you have a good point there, there really is no reason why we should not apply the process of reason to the concept of God.
What a medieval point of view. If you dont believe in God you must be a bad person. Ever considered that it is possible to be a good person simply for the sake of being a good person, and not out of fear of being judged?believer142 said:
What makes you think everything comes from something and nothing comes from nothing?Nitai said:
David Koresh was a real person, no doubt about it, but very few people accept that he was the messiah.Nitai said:
An argument I have used many times myself. I cannot prove that God does not exist, and you cannot prove that (as Jaiket puts it) Invisible Pink Unicorn that presides over all creation exists. In fact, you cannot prove that I am not God! (I'm not, incidentally, please dont worship me.)Jaiket said:
Over the centuries there have been many claims at prophethood, messiahood, buddhahood and divinity but we immediately disregard most, why do we cling to some? I for one cannot answer this question, but I am guilty of this myself.
It is this inescapable conflict between stark, scientific reality and our collective, innate spirituality which leads me personally to the conclusion that one of them must be in error. If my own sense of spirituality is in error then there is nothing I can do about it (except perhaps seek psychiatric help) because as most of us here have agreed, this cannot be disproven. Therefore the only possible conclusion which does not include me being insane is that it is the apparent reality around me which is flawed. And the only solution is to seek the truth about reality which some of call, "enlightenment".
presser_kun
Well-Known Member
I agree with part of what you say.Awaiting_the_fifth said:
If science (logic, reason) conflicts with religion (faith, spirituality) about the nature of reality, then one is wrong. Both can't be right.
I think you mean here that if religion is right, then science must be wrong. And if science is wrong, either a whole lot of "stuff" we understand about the universe is wrong, or you're insane.
Right?
I mean, it wouldn't be reality that's flawed, it would be our scientific understanding that's flawed. Just a point of distinction because I'm that anal-retentive.
Two ways to seek the truth about reality are scientific inquiry and spiritual enlightenment. I'm pursuing both.
My original comments probably made me seem to be an atheist, but that's not true. I actually want to believe in God.
And that is an entirely different question: Why do I want to believe?
Ah, the endless circle....
Awaiting_the_fifth
Where is my mind?
But science is simply an analysis of the external stimuli to which we are exposed.presser_kun said:
For example:
You see a wall in front of you, you reach out and touch the wall, you shout and hear an echo off the wall, you lean close to the wall and can smell brick dust which you can also taste when you lick it. You have now experimented with all five senses and have collected all the evidence possible, any scientist will certainly tell you that there is indeed a wall in front of you.
But...
Your sight, touch, hearing, smell and taste are all an illusion. There is no real sensation in your eyes, ears, nose, tongue or skin. What you are experiencing is actually electrical impulses in your brain.
We all know that it is possible to hallucinate. Drugs and psychoses aside we all experience things in our dreams which seem very real at the time but we later realise were only the product of our own minds.
So how can you be so sure that what you see now, which seems so real, is not just a product of your own mind?
So in response to your question, is it reality that is flawed or is it our understanding of reality that is flawed, I say that there is no difference between the two. Perception is reality.
presser_kun
Well-Known Member
You have me there, and your words bring to mind an old joke:Awaiting_the_fifth said:
Descartes was sitting in a coffee shop when a waitress approached him and asked if he'd like a refill. "I think not," he said, and promptly vanished.
peace,
press
Man mimics what he observes (he may not know he is observing, but over time it becomes self evident). Do you agree or not?presser_kun said:
Man, knowing he can not dedicate his time, effort and focus on deciphering the wonders of the universe (read that as can't keep up with the math), builds a machine to assist him. In fact he builds three super machines capable of billions of calculations per second, for what? To decode human DNA. It takes three super computers 7 years to sequence human DNA.
The results show a formula so refined that one "switch" turned off or on in this sequence results in Man not existing at all. Another switch turned on or off, results in male becoming female. And another switch on or off results in teeth growing from the heel, or two heads from one body.
Now, lets take for example the chance that nature can present to the human ear a symphony of sounds, with beat, rhythm, cresendo, climax and cull, and compare it to a human who thinks of a song, then makes the song happen...
Which is more likely to occur first? Why?
My point is that the proof of God's existence is right in front of our noses.
The only life forms on this planet that question the existence of God is us. And we are the only life forms that force nature to bend to our will. We don't adapt, we force nature to adapt to us.
Were did we get these ideas from? Our fellow flora and fauna? I think not.
Rather that go with the flow, we are the only "beasts" here that fight the current. And we never give up fighting the way of things.
Individuality is so strong in man, that we will suffer heat and cold (at first), before we decide the wisdom in surviving is to huddle together. Where did that come from? We share what we have, though it means shortened life span...why? We aren't talking a progression of our progeny here. We do it for strangers! Why?
Man is counter revolutionary to nature, in almost everything he does (consciously). Where did that come from? How come no other animal does the same thing? We leave the very planet that sustains our existence! And we take our atmosphere with us. We don't adapt to space, we make space adapt to us...why?
In most courts, circumstantial evidence is enough to convict, especially if the evidence is overwhelming...why is the concept of God different?
Want proof that God exists? Have a look at the blue prints that made you. Put on paper, it would require a couple thousand square miles of trees to be cut down. And that is just one human's "blue prints". Each one of us is unique...where did that come from? Random factors? Natural selection? Why then do we struggle to support those of us we deem not fit for survival on their own? And we do fight to keep our "damaged goods" viable...because they have infinite value to us and our lives. They are us, just more physically handicapped than we show ourselves to be.
Where did that come from? No other animal on earth does that. God definitely exists, and the proof is self evident. Selective blindness is no excuse.
v/r
Q
"There is something out there Ray, and if I have the courage, I will find it..."
Jaiket
Token Atheist
Which one? In what way is your evidence for your god not evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn?Quahom1 said:
More importantly, how does the discovery of DNA lend any credence to the existence of supernatural deities?
The other animals accept it happily I suppose.Quahom said:
Could you provide a reference backing this assertion?
False.Quahom said:
Undeniably false again.Quahom said:
Beyond reasonable doubt? Oh yes, indeed.Quahom said:
So....?Quahom said:
Now you're getting it.Quahom said:
I suppose they allow beneficiaries to die? I suspect you may be wrong again Q.Quahom said:
To what evidence do you propose I have a degree of selective blindness?Quahom said:
Fine, you present your evidence. "False, undeniably False, etc., means nothing"Jaiket said:Which one? In what way is your evidence for your god not evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
More importantly, how does the discovery of DNA lend any credence to the existence of supernatural deities?
The other animals accept it happily I suppose.
Could you provide a reference backing this assertion?
False.
Undeniably false again.
Beyond reasonable doubt? Oh yes, indeed.
So....?
Now you're getting it.
I suppose they allow beneficiaries to die? I suspect you may be wrong again Q.
To what evidence do you propose I have a degree of selective blindness?
Your turn.
Q
Awaiting_the_fifth
Where is my mind?
Quahom, I sense that you and I are destined never to agree on anything at all.
Man's goodwill does seem to be evidence of some kind of spirituality, but not necassarily God.
You say Humans are the only creatures on earth who refuse to adapt to nature and make nature adapt instead, but all mamals build some sort of home, I cant think of a single one who just curls up under a bush at night. Beavers build damns which stem the flow of rivers, many primates use sticks and stones as simple tools. I would say that humans are simply better at bending nature than most creatures.
And as for your statement that we are the only beings on the planet who question the existence of God, I would say that we are the only animals who have any concept of God and as you say, even we question his existence.
Finally, your accusation of selective blindness seems baseless to me. I see all of the things you have pointed out, but all of them are explained by that fastest growing religion, science.
Man's goodwill does seem to be evidence of some kind of spirituality, but not necassarily God.
You say Humans are the only creatures on earth who refuse to adapt to nature and make nature adapt instead, but all mamals build some sort of home, I cant think of a single one who just curls up under a bush at night. Beavers build damns which stem the flow of rivers, many primates use sticks and stones as simple tools. I would say that humans are simply better at bending nature than most creatures.
And as for your statement that we are the only beings on the planet who question the existence of God, I would say that we are the only animals who have any concept of God and as you say, even we question his existence.
Finally, your accusation of selective blindness seems baseless to me. I see all of the things you have pointed out, but all of them are explained by that fastest growing religion, science.
B
Bandit
Guest
glad to know that science is a religion. i needed that confirmation.
Awaiting_the_fifth
Where is my mind?
I really am sorry if it comes across that way, this is just my point of view and not intended to be arrogant. If it was the destiny line that bothered you I meant that to be kind of playful.
I actually believe in and respect the Gods of all religions.
I actually believe in and respect the Gods of all religions.
Science is not a religion. It is a tool. You see nothing I've pointed out. I made a mistake even venturing here. What's worse than an arrogant man? One who thinks he has all the answers. I presented a concept. I didn't claim I know everything or anything. You on the other hand are a different matter. I back out.Awaiting_the_fifth said:
Q
One of the proof I have of God's existence is the conscience, and its conviction of morality. The book of Romans tells us that even if we do not know the Law, we will still instintively follow it, because God has written his Laws on our hearts. Also, he has given to us an inner light, a conscience, that will bare witness to his truth. Everytime we break a law, the conscience will convict us and give proof of God's law written on our heart. So, the next time you tell a lie, notice that little feeling of conviction, it is the inner light that God has given you to let you know that you need a Savior.
Awaiting_the_fifth
Where is my mind?
I have never claimed that I know everything, in fact I honestly believe that the only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing, all I have are beliefs. However, my spiritual journey is not to find any God who has the truth, but to find the ultimate truth for myself.
Also I must say I am a little bit shocked by the tone of your reply, I dont feel that I presented my arguments in any more arrogant a way than you presented yours. No, you did not offend my sensibilities by saying that there is a god, my entire family are christian, but you do seem to be very offended by my challenging just some of your assertions.
Also I must say I am a little bit shocked by the tone of your reply, I dont feel that I presented my arguments in any more arrogant a way than you presented yours. No, you did not offend my sensibilities by saying that there is a god, my entire family are christian, but you do seem to be very offended by my challenging just some of your assertions.