Can God be proven to exist?

firedragon said:

Maybe this may not come as a high level discussion, but I just wish to know some views on "Can God be proven to exist". I am a theist, and I do personally believe that this proving God exists thing can never be done. I also believe that various people have varying concepts of God and most of us judge by our personal standards.

1. But as an Atheist, what would you think is evidence of a God to exist?
2. Also, as a theist, what would you accept as evidence?
3. And if you have the patience to write a little more, what is the concept of God you have in your mind?

Thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

I'm a theist that insists that the existence of God can't be proved. The proof is in the pudding. If it were possible, just like in many other proofs, practically the entire planet would believe it.

In Saiva Siddhanta, the Hindu school I follow, God has three perfections: 1) absolute reality, formless, causal, beyond it all
2) primal substance, energy that flows through all form. and 3) the first soul, or the first manifestation from 1. There is no proof of this at all. It's just what we believe. We believe it mainly because of the farmer on the road analogy, where every day the farmer accurately tells the guy driving by what's over the next hill. Eventually, after 300 straight correct answers, the guy driving by begins to believe the farmer. Take that farmer and replace it with the Vedic sages, ancient and living Godmen who have all meditated deeply on the meanings of life, independently coming to the same conclusions, as well as your own independent conclusions giving strong hints at it, and you arrive at that belief.

firedragon said:

Maybe this may not come as a high level discussion, but I just wish to know some views on "Can God be proven to exist". I am a theist, and I do personally believe that this proving God exists thing can never be done. I also believe that various people have varying concepts of God and most of us judge by our personal standards.

1. But as an Atheist, what would you think is evidence of a God to exist?
2. Also, as a theist, what would you accept as evidence?
3. And if you have the patience to write a little more, what is the concept of God you have in your mind?

Thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

1. The way I understand atheism is from the American Atheist association:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

Atheists who claim there is no evidence for the existence of God seem to have a very precise definition for the word "God". For these people, there is a presupposition God or gods must be a thing "out there" to be experienced like an object. Objects have definitions. Objects have limitations. Objects have boundaries.

The thing is every definition of the idea of God I have ever read in religious texts describe God being infinite, without boundaries, and transcendent. However, presupposing God is a thing presupposes God has finite boundaries. Since only "things" can be experienced as real in the minds of atheists, there is a presupposition to what it means for God to exist. It's not just that there is no evidence for the existence of God. It's really there is no evidence God exists the way atheists define what the word "God" means.

I think there is a fundamental problem with the way atheists think about God. I think for them to be true to themselves, they should not use the word God in any sentence as if they know exactly how the word God must be defined. I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists use the word God in a sentence where the word God is an "object" with limitations.

As far as I am concerned atheists have it all wrong. There is no such thing as an objective reality. There are no "objects" and reality has a purpose. All the measurements made by human beings and their devices create arbitrary distinctions in language. These distinctions create abstract representations of reality. These distinctions are not real and are purely delusional. The word "reality" is not reality. In reality, there are no objects. In reality, there are only waves of energy in every possible direction where everything is connected to everything else. And as experiments in quantum mechanics have shown, at the smallest possible scale of measurement, nature is not made of material substance. But reality only exists as potential possibilities that do not become realized without some strangely spiritual element deciding something is being observed. The scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind.

Most atheists simply ignore all the evidence and implications of the evidence coming from measurements being done at the smallest possible scale. Atheists have an absolute dogmatic belief in philosophical materialism. To suggest the scientific evidence is supporting the idea that reality is strangely spiritual is completely taboo. It is the greatest possible blasphemy within their religion of philosophical materialism because it requires the atheist to do a complete overhaul of their entire belief system. Most atheist will not even admit there's and issue. The denial just goes to prove the age old adage, "A skunk can't smell his own stink."

2. As a theist, I think this is pretty good evidence: Evidence for the existence of God

3. Here is my argument for the existence of an ontological God solely existing in the realm of mind and linguistics: God is the boundary of the garden

exchemist said:

Not at all. Reproducible evidence, which is the way objectivity is sought in science, is evidence that can be observed by different people in different places using different methods. It thus requires to be agreed upon by a range of people, precisely to avoid the issue of one observer being somehow unable to make the observation, for whatever reason.

Click to expand...

I understand and agree with most of what you said here.

Wouldn't you use the same method to gain the same outcome?

All of this, however, is irrelevant to my point.

You can tell a blind man repeatedly about color and light, but he will never come to know those things for himself.

He can only rely on the testimony of others until he sees it for himself with his own eyes.

There are repeatable spiritual experiments that can produce spiritual evidences if performed correctly.

These experiments involve prayer and scripture study and trying to follow the example of the Savior.

If someone were to do these things they can gain the promised outcomes.

firedragon said:

Maybe this may not come as a high level discussion, but I just wish to know some views on "Can God be proven to exist". I am a theist, and I do personally believe that this proving God exists thing can never be done. I also believe that various people have varying concepts of God and most of us judge by our personal standards.

1. But as an Atheist, what would you think is evidence of a God to exist?
2. Also, as a theist, what would you accept as evidence?
3. And if you have the patience to write a little more, what is the concept of God you have in your mind?

Thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

God proves Himself to individuals. The world as a whole is lost and dying.

As a theist what I accept as evidence is what is revealed to me from heaven.

My concept of God is the Biblical one. To me it's all obvious. Not saying I'm smarter than atheists or agnostics. No one can even know who God is by their own strength. By that I mean by their own intellect or ability. It's not possible that the world can know Him at this time. It's all by revelation. A revelation is what is revealed to us from above. No one can receive anything (which is true and spiritual) unless it is given to them especially from heaven as a gift. Because God does not want anyone to boast. Pride is of the enemy and so everything from God is as a free gift and not earned. That's why the scripture says His secret is with the humble.

If anyone feels they cannot receive the truth from heaven (even though they want to believe) then I have to say that there are spiritual binds on many people which does not allow them to believe. That's why I believe if they want deliverance from the binds of Satan; then they can have it. They must with all their strength; rebuke the binds of the enemy that are not allowing them to believe in Jesus name (or have someone who is strong in faith do it for them).

I believe any involvement in the so called arcane arts. Such as soothsaying, spirit boards, palm reading and even tarot cards can bring spiritual bondage on people without them realizing it. These things were forbidden for a reason. They bring spiritual curses. Also family members such as parents being involved in witchcraft can cause people to be under similar binds/curses. And they must be delivered from this also.

Vinayaka said:

I'm a theist that insists that the existence of God can't be proved. The proof is in the pudding. If it were possible, just like in many other proofs, practically the entire planet would believe it.

In Saiva Siddhanta, the Hindu school I follow, God has three perfections: 1) absolute reality, formless, causal, beyond it all
2) primal substance, energy that flows through all form. and 3) the first soul, or the first manifestation from 1. There is no proof of this at all. It's just what we believe. We believe it mainly because of the farmer on the road analogy, where every day the farmer accurately tells the guy driving by what's over the next hill. Eventually, after 300 straight correct answers, the guy driving by begins to believe the farmer. Take that farmer and replace it with the Vedic sages, ancient and living Godmen who have all meditated deeply on the meanings of life, independently coming to the same conclusions, as well as your own independent conclusions giving strong hints at it, and you arrive at that belief.

Click to expand...

Hey. I had the idea that you were Buddhist for some reason all this time. Sorry about that. And I think you are absolutely right. Hmm.

firedragon said:

Maybe this may not come as a high level discussion, but I just wish to know some views on "Can God be proven to exist". I am a theist, and I do personally believe that this proving God exists thing can never be done. I also believe that various people have varying concepts of God and most of us judge by our personal standards.

Click to expand...

Quite right, far as I can tell. Ignosticism is a worthy concept.

1. But as an Atheist, what would you think is evidence of a God to exist?
2. Also, as a theist, what would you accept as evidence?
3. And if you have the patience to write a little more, what is the concept of God you have in your mind?

Click to expand...

1. The existence of someone willing to call something known to exist "God" is IMO the decisive factor. Perhaps the only possible objective criterium.

Clearly, that means that not all Gods come from the same mold.

3. I have decided that it is not possible to truly define "God". More than that, "existence" is clearly the least consequential of all attributes that a deity may be proposed to have.

Instead, we probably would be better off declaring our standards of reference for transcendence and sacredness, and accepting that what (if anything) we want to call a god is very much an arbitrary call.

I sincerely don't think that it would even involve any price worth of that name. And the upsides! They would be many and bountiful. Not least among them a whole lot of benefit for religion as a whole, at all levels, with hardly any downside worth of that name.

But what do I know? I never managed to understand how a Christian can know for a fact that their God does not have a triple nature, nor what is meant by a "God without associates" in Islaam.

leov said:

That is a part of the issue.

Click to expand...

Any ideas on why the issue exists at all?

Isn't the fact that some people feel strongly that God exists and others do not a strong hint that it is not at all wrong to lack interest in the matter of existence of God?

Surely, if God wanted people to believe in its existence, he could have simply made it so?

People do not have the reason (or the means) to disbelieve arguably miraculous aspects of existence such as the ability to develop abstract thoughts.

Do we have any reason to expect the existence of various stances towards the question of whether there is a God to be a problem in any meaningful way? If so, what way, and why is that a problem?

firedragon said:

How? Could you give me an example how God can make his existence clear?

Click to expand...

Existence is not IMO a meaningful attribute for a deity. Or, if it is, clearly it is at an individual rather than universal level. There are many, many examples of deities that are meaningul for practicioners regardless of any unsettled issues about whether they "exist" in an universal, objective, impersonal sense.

You could perhaps present the thesis that the true existence for deities is that sustained by the hearts and minds of adherents.

And by that token, it is questionable whether it is even helpful for a God to make its existence clear. And if it is, well, why didn't it? There is IMO a considerably difficult challenge in proposing that it is somehow both important to believe in the literal and objective existence of a certain deity and easy to doubt its existence. I can't help but question the legitimacy, as well as the worth, of such a God.

It sounds a lot like a confused, misguided conception of God from here where I stand.

It makes much more sense to me to consider the possibility that Gods are manifestations of an abstract, largely personal conception of Sacredness that may very easily (even demonstrably) vary from one person to the next. By that perspective, there are as many _and_ as few Gods as anyone might want, at any given time, according to our practice needs.

Whether our conceptions of deity correspond to any degree, in any meaningful way, to any hypothetical higher transcendental truth is a matter that won't be resolved by arguments between people... and more than likely, not a very useful matter either. Try as I might, I can't even think of a reason for caring about that which does not amount to some form or another of unhelpful vanity and pride.

firedragon said:

Maybe this may not come as a high level discussion, but I just wish to know some views on "Can God be proven to exist". I am a theist, and I do personally believe that this proving God exists thing can never be done. I also believe that various people have varying concepts of God and most of us judge by our personal standards.

1. But as an Atheist, what would you think is evidence of a God to exist?
2. Also, as a theist, what would you accept as evidence?
3. And if you have the patience to write a little more, what is the concept of God you have in your mind?

Thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

I do not think we can ever prove God exists in any objective fashion.

I believe that the Manifestations of God are the greatest proof that God exists but people either recognize them as such or not. Why some people recognize them and others do not is a mystery.

At the end of any day, we can only prove that God exists to ourselves, not to anyone else. We can share with others how we came to believe in God, but everyone has to make their own way.

“For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

JJ50 said:

By being around in person.

Click to expand...

The problem is that God is not a person.
That is why God manifests Himself as a Person.

JesusKnowsYou said:

I understand and agree with most of what you said here.

Wouldn't you use the same method to gain the same outcome?

All of this, however, is irrelevant to my point.

You can tell a blind man repeatedly about color and light, but he will never come to know those things for himself.

He can only rely on the testimony of others until he sees it for himself with his own eyes.

There are repeatable spiritual experiments that can produce spiritual evidences if performed correctly.

These experiments involve prayer and scripture study and trying to follow the example of the Savior.

If someone were to do these things they can gain the promised outcomes.

Click to expand...

No you would ideally use different methods of observing the same phenomenon, to eliminate the possibility that the observation was an artifact of the method.

People unfamiliar with science do not generally appreciate the lengths that are gone to to scrutinise potential sources of error in scientific research. It gets tedious, when you write - or read - a paper to spend almost as long describing the method as you do on the results and their interpretation. The reason it is done is so that others can pick holes in the methodology if they doubt the results.

Returning to your blind man analogy, In science we all rely, all the time, on the testimony of others. I have never myself done the Rutherford, Geiger and Marsden experiment that led to the modern structure of the atom. I take it on trust, because others have confirmed it.

I think the point here is that science is intrinsically a collective human enterprise, not a matter of personal experience. So it does matter a jot that the blind man cannot "come to know" the sensation colour. He can take it on trust, just as I do the structure of the atom.

As for your assertion that there are repeatable spiritual experiments that produce spiritual evidences, I am afraid I do not believe you and must ask you to produce evidence from a reputable source for your claim.

firedragon said:

Also, as a theist, what would you accept as evidence?.

Click to expand...

(1) A reminder of reality such that it must be connected to God (example, who we are depends on his sight and judgment defining us and perceiving us exactly as we are).
(2) A Reminder about him that we can perceive (He is so great that he is necessary, and if you can witness he is necessary it means you witness him existing)
(3) An indirect evidence like design, design doesn't prove God but it's strong indication that our hunches of God existing are true but technically it would only prove a real powerful Creator. Cosmological argument is also indirect proof, it doesn't directly prove God, just lends evidence to his Case.
(4) Looking at God's light and witnessing it.
(5) Divine Miracles.
(6) Literature divine miracles (subsect of 5).

Evidence to prove an absolutely infinite absence !

leov said:

Then perhaps you shouldn't pretend to know them, if that's the case?

Click to expand...

I'm not.
I'm just pointing out that your analogies fail.

I have very good reason to accept the claim that radio waves exist.
I have zero reasons to accept the claim that god(s) exist.

You can detect it,

Click to expand...

Detect what?

yes, but if you know ranges or types, e.t.c., it may be much higher , we are only at starting point with neuroscience.

Click to expand...

So?

Ancient Gnostics were talking about density of spiritual 'material' or vibrations, e.g. hylic, psychic, pneumatic, and grades of them.

Click to expand...

I don't care about what people talk or talked about.
I care about what they can properly support.

nPeace said:

I am not.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are. Your post is just a retelling of what you believe religiously. It's not providing any evidence in support of your beliefs. It's just a listing of your beliefs.

However, I understand why someone in denial would just say that as though it is true - even though they can't prove it.

Click to expand...

There's nothing to prove. Your post is right there, anyone can read it.
The "evidence" you list are bible quotes, for crying out loud...

All along......it's been a mystery.
I guess everyone needs someone to lean on,
no matter what the name given to it,
worship of something, or someone is natural,
but it should be personal, within oneself.
No gods are needed there, just spirit of the all.