Proofs for existence of God
- Thread starter Nitai
- Start date
I was merely expressing my opinion. We share opinions right? That is what you said...Awaiting_the_fifth said:
Probably childish, but I came over to your block to give you a bit of your own medicine.
It hurts doesn't it?
Christians are intelligent too. And at least they respect Buddha, for the wise sage he/they were/was.
You could learn from Buddha...
v/r
Q
presser_kun
Well-Known Member
Partially. People do mimic what they observe, but it's not a given. People observe dogs licking the floor, but do not mimic it.Quahom1 said:
I don't understand how this relates to the proof of God's existence. Perhaps you're saying that humans create/design things because God does?
DNA is complex. Granted.
A song is more likely to occur because a human creates it. The sounds of nature are random.
Your point is, I think, that structure is evidence of a creator. This is the argument from design, usually stated by way of this analogy:
Watches have structure. Watches are designed. Therefore all things with structure must be designed. The universe has structure, so it must have been designed.
Snowflakes show structure, too, but they are not designed. Snowflake structure is explained by the natural laws that govern the crystallization of water as it freezes.
You'll say that the natural causes were designed, so the snowflake is God's handiwork.
Why?
It's self-evident, you say. But it's not self-evident to me.
When you say it's self-evident you mean that it makes sense to you. But you haven't given me a reason why it makes sense to you, other than "it's self-evident."
The proof that the watch is designed is the watchmaker. I can see watchmakers, and others have seen them.
No one has seen God.
What's right in front of our noses is structure. But the universe is so hugely different from the most complex things which we know have been designed that no comparison I know of is adequate. An amoeba to Albert Einstein, perhaps.
Yet that's not a big enough difference to show how far apart the universe and our most complex human-designed thing. We know next to nothing, really next to almost nothing about the universe.
I need a reason to accept the design argument. I don't think you've provided one; you've simply used it as proof of God's existence.
Thanks for your comments, btw. They've given me the opportunity to examine what I believe to be true.
Jaiket
Token Atheist
I apologise. I have asked that you back your assertions while failing to do so myself. Sorry about that.Quahom1 said:
For your information:
Castor canadensis
I'm sure if you looked around (encyclopedias, zoology journals etc) you would find many examples of animals "bend[ing]" nature (construction, tool use etc).
Re human adaptation:
RUFF, C.B. (1993) Climatic Adaptation and Hominid Evolution: the Thermoregulatory Imperative, Evolutionary Anthropology, vol. 2, no. 2, 1993.
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/anthro2003/origins/hominid_journey/termo.html
A classic textbook example of human adaptation is the sickle-cell trait in many regions of Africa. Where malaria is prevalent, the defective haemoglobin gene (of sickle cell anaemia) is found at a much higher frequency. Why? Because it confers immunity to malaria.
I hope this is satisfactory. Will you now respond to my previous post?
presser_kun
Well-Known Member
Quahom1 said:
Do you have evidence of non-humans conceiving of God?
Do you believe what science tells us because you have worked through every proof of every assertion of science, or do you take what science says on faith?
Proph 1 said:
Conscience is the result of socialization. Without other humans to tell me something is wrong, I have no conscience.
Quahom1 said:
What medicine? Why does it hurt? What have you said that is supportable by more than your desire for it to be true?
presser_kun
Well-Known Member
Quahom1 said:You are quite welcome.
v/r
Q
Do you have anything to say about my logic here? Are there flaws in my reasoning? I'd welcome anything you care to share.
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste Brian,I said:There are no proofs for the existence of God - merely illustrative metaphors.
So far as I understand it, to "prove" is to quantify and measure - but I do not believe that God can be subject to either.
2c.
indeed.. proof is a quality of alcohol and maths, not deities
evidence should be what we are seeking, in my view.
metta,
~v
Vajradhara
One of Many
LOL... welcome back my friend!bananabrain said:
metta,
~v
bruceg
Well-Known Member
In the strict technical sense, there are neither proofs for the existence of God, nor for the non-existence of God, as there is no independently reproduceable evidence of either theory or it's complement.
Similarly there is no proof that God is singular, either
On the other hand, there's no proof I exist either.
... Figment
Similarly there is no proof that God is singular, either
On the other hand, there's no proof I exist either.
... Figment
Your logic is impeccable. It is your faith that is flawed. The Mods were not addressing you, they merely look out for all folk here at CR. They are a careful crew.presser_kun said:
I stand corrected. you are entitled to your own way of thinking. I made the mistake. You are entitled to believe in nothing. I am in no position to push otherwise.
Q
Devadatta
Well-Known Member
Hi Presser Kun. I have much sympathy with what you and Awaiting the Fifth had to say in your exchange above. I started a reply earlier but got too long-winded. I’ll try to be brief. (And not succeed!)presser_kun said:
These logical proofs – ontological, from first cause, by design, etc. – are a mug’s game, as you know. Part of the problem is that we come from a tradition that finds the relation between logic and faith so problematic that it’s devoted centuries to unsuccessful logical proofs of the existence of the personal & monotheistic God. The Aristotelian-Thomistic system is the greatest monument to this preoccupation, using all the tools of Greek logic to demonstrate the existence of God while being ultimately based on faith from the beginning, in the middle and to the end! It’s good to keep in mind that this problematic is not universal. But it’s a clue to why so many of us still want to mis-use logic in this way.
On the other hand, I think we might do well to make a distinction here, between God in the full, ultimate sense, as ground of being, as godhead, and the personal God that acts in the world or is engaged in some fashion in the world. I think what you find is that God in the ultimate sense is no more and no less than reality, and doesn’t need nor will admit of proof. If you look at the most sophisticated views of God or ultimate reality, whether Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Neo-platonic, Gnostic, you’ll find what is in effect beyond description, and for that reason usually defined in negative terms. It’s there to be experienced by the wise, as the Buddha said, so it’s not a matter of proof and is no contradiction to science. In fact, the way of science is just one more set of languages and methods to explore our experience of the extraordinary & inconceivable thusness of reality. This is what that old saying refers to when it talks about one mountain but many paths to the summit.
The trouble starts with the descent down the mountain, from the impersonal godhead to ideas of a personal God or spirit acting in the world. So to connect the dots between godhead and the personal God you have theories of successive emanations – as with the Kabbalah, the Neo-Platonists and among some Indians – as well as incarnation, prophethood, etc. This is where things get really messy, where reason is most abused, and where unfortunate political and social fallout is most severe.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t give up on that troubled human realm of contradictory theologies. For one thing, they’re a fact of life. For another, these different theologies depend completely on the way we use them. They can cause damage or bring benefit, but at least they wrestle with the most significant human experiences, and in that sense are inescapable.
As for your thought experiment, and barring the door to logic: as I’ve pointed out above, sometimes it’s worse to let logic in only to appropriate it to illegitimate ends and merely to prop up dogma. As well, logic itself can be used as a barrier to authentic experience. We can cling to a syllogism as a defence. Myself, I’m fairly addicted to logic, but I don’t consider it a problem. Put another way, other than pointing out its limitations, I don’t see any need to especially violate logic to experience faith and even to believe in a reality that other people would articulate as “God”.
A
airamee
Guest
who better to decide?Proph 1 said:
i had a dream that i was a butterfly, and awoke to find that i was a butterfly dreaming that i was a (wo)man.
we all create our own reality.
presser_kun
Well-Known Member
Before anything else, I want to say that I respect your opinion. I do not want to prove anything to anyone. I do not want to be or appear to be sarcastic.
I was raised as a Christian fundamentalist. Spent many, many years as a quite earnest Christian. I still consider myself a Christian, though no longer serving Christ through the conservative Christian movement.
I want to know the truth. Truth is more important to me than anything I believe. Even more important than my belief in God.
Perhaps I'm too earnest in seeking truth. I don't know.
Hey, I could ramble for a long time, but won't. Here are my responses, honest responses, to what you said.
Please explain. It seems you think I don't have any faith. Below, you say that I'm welcome to believe nothing. How is whatever faith you think I have flawed?
Why is it so wrong to question? Surely God is strong enough to weather the questions of his children, isn't he?
Hmm. Were there other mods in the conversation here besides you? I didn't notice any other bylines indicating that.
In any event, I felt that you were addressing me. Did I misread things?
I don't think you made any mistakes. On the contrary, I am probably the one who has made them.
The only way I know how to grow in my thinking is to push the boundaries. Ask questions. Hear answers. Consider the validity of what is said. And then pray. Ask God for wisdom and discernment.
I was sincere when I thanked you for your thoughts. They have helped me. Really.
Finally, you say my logic is impeccable. I find that hard to believe. Many others smarter and more clever than me have gone around and around these issues.
Actually, I would be quite surprised if there was nothing wrong with my logic. I asked only because I don't know how else to keep the dialog going.
I wish you peace.
press, who's still seeking
I was raised as a Christian fundamentalist. Spent many, many years as a quite earnest Christian. I still consider myself a Christian, though no longer serving Christ through the conservative Christian movement.
I want to know the truth. Truth is more important to me than anything I believe. Even more important than my belief in God.
Perhaps I'm too earnest in seeking truth. I don't know.
Hey, I could ramble for a long time, but won't. Here are my responses, honest responses, to what you said.
Quahom1 said:
Please explain. It seems you think I don't have any faith. Below, you say that I'm welcome to believe nothing. How is whatever faith you think I have flawed?
Why is it so wrong to question? Surely God is strong enough to weather the questions of his children, isn't he?
Hmm. Were there other mods in the conversation here besides you? I didn't notice any other bylines indicating that.
In any event, I felt that you were addressing me. Did I misread things?
I don't think you made any mistakes. On the contrary, I am probably the one who has made them.
The only way I know how to grow in my thinking is to push the boundaries. Ask questions. Hear answers. Consider the validity of what is said. And then pray. Ask God for wisdom and discernment.
I was sincere when I thanked you for your thoughts. They have helped me. Really.
Finally, you say my logic is impeccable. I find that hard to believe. Many others smarter and more clever than me have gone around and around these issues.
Actually, I would be quite surprised if there was nothing wrong with my logic. I asked only because I don't know how else to keep the dialog going.
I wish you peace.
press, who's still seeking
presser_kun
Well-Known Member
Ah, I apologise. I see that Vajradhara and brucegdc are both moderators.
But I still thought that they were speaking to all that follow this thread, and not just to other mods.
But I still thought that they were speaking to all that follow this thread, and not just to other mods.
presser_kun
Well-Known Member
Devadatta said:
Thanks for your words. More for me to think about.
It's funny, you know?
I've fairly ranted and expounded my view as though it's a settled, accepted thing within me, when in reality it's very much in flux.
I believe in God. Really. I pray. I meditate.
But I also question. Part of me still wants to find a way to reconcile my logic with my faith. Another part wants to wash its hands of the whole mess. And a third part wants to lay it all down at the foot of the Cross, to use the evangelical terminology I grew up with, and trust in Jesus to "take care of things for me."
But I cannot seem to do any of these three things. It doesn't seem to me that that's because I'm indecisive.
*sigh*
I'm learning from everyone here, and am grateful for a forum where I can be heard, corrected, nudged, tolerated, and encouraged.
peace,
press
Devadatta
Well-Known Member
Because he was the first priest? Or?Quahom1 said: