Major Proof of God

[John53]

What's the difference between a proof and a major proof?

 

[ChristineM]

If a person is a believer in God and Paradise, he must place them somewhere in the Universe.

If a person has evidence then they can present that evidence. A guest because its feels good is not evidence.

 

[questfortruth]

If a person has evidence then they can present that evidence. A guest because its feels good is not evidence.

A believer has faith. He does not ask Science for evidence. The question of evidence borders only Atheists. Why? Because Knowledge is defined as what the God of that person knows. So, existence of God is automatically proven for believer.

What's the difference between a proof and a major proof?

There are countless proofs for God, for example, of Dr. Thomas Aquinas Seven Ways. The most recent proof I called major one.

 

[questfortruth]

Can you walk us through that?

It is the second term on the left-hand side of
Einstein field equations - Wikipedia

 

[Quintessence]

It is not demonstrated yet, that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are material things. Therefore, they can be religious things.

I'm afraid I don't follow. Something being demonstrated (or not) through some particular criteria or something being material (or not) through some particular criteria doesn't matter when declaring something a "religious thing." Anything can be declared to relate to one's religion.

 

[ChristineM]

A believer has faith. He does not ask Science for evidence. The question of evidence borders only Atheists. Why? Because Knowledge is defined as what the God of that person knows. So, existence of God is automatically proven for believer.

 

[Quintessence]

If a person is a believer in God and Paradise, [they] must place them somewhere in the Universe.

Not necessarily. Throughout history, various religious traditions have proposed otherworlds (aka, non-material aspects of reality that are not usually included in "the universe") for such things.

God is Dark Energy because both are Omnipresent. Paradise is Dark Matter because both do not reflect or absorb light.

While this isn't how my theology operates, if it makes sense to you I hope you find value and inspiration in this comparison.

 

[Alien826]

I agree with most of what you say, the following are just a few thoughts that you might want to comment on.

And yes, razors don't tell us what the truth is, just how to order our logical possibilities in terms of likelihood. All plausible naturalistic explanations like abiogenesis, for example, are preferred over all supernaturalistic explanations simply because they do it without gods, a huge presumption (unnecessary complexity) with no additional explanatory power.

One could argue that "God" is a single explanation that (using evolution as an example) does away with all the complicated mechanisms of variation, selection and so on and is therefore simpler. So we need to look at what is implied by the "God" hypothesis more carefully. First, in order to be an acceptable explanation it has to be supported by evidence. That is of course hotly debatable, but in the realm of science it fails. Next it's not really simple, because it drags in a whole raft of new assumptions, none answered, like what made God, and how does God do things.

There are a few quaint ones. Hanlon’s razor says to, "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity." I don't actually agree with that one, but it's a razor nevertheless, since it wants to order logical possibilities and put answers requiring only stupidity over those requiring malice. I think that malice and conspiracy are both much more common than is suspected, which is why so many people get conned and gaslighted, but that's not relevant to what a razor is.

I agree. It sounds good until we start asking what measures we have of real life malice, incompetence and stupidity. And of course wondering if all three might not be present! I would call it valuable in terms of getting along with people (get the facts before issuing accusations, a good general rule) but that's as far as it goes.

Also, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, ..." it's a duck until one has reason to think otherwise. Put duck at the top of your list when one sees that, not robot or hallucination or bunny dressed up like a duck. The others are possible, but less likely, and should not be seriously considered before having a reason to believe it's not a duck.

Related is Maia Angelou's advice: If someone tells you what they are, believe them.

One more metaphor from medicine. New patients would come into the office with a bag of prescribed medication wondering if it was too much. I explained that the optimal med list is one where the patient does worse if any is removed, and cannot be made better by adding any more meds, either. The optimal regimen is that which is as simple as possible without sacrificing efficacy. That maxim doesn't tell what that optimal medication list is, just how to tell if we've found it: one less med - maybe the estrogen - and the hot flashes return, and one more med produces no benefit even if it does no harm.

That concerns me a little, in that it doesn't allow for drug interactions. What if removing one drug makes the patient worse, but removing two makes him better? I have a story from real life, concerning a now late lady friend. She was on multiple meds and not doing well. She went to a new doctor who took one look at them and took her off all of them. After a settling down period, he prescribed meds based on her current symptoms. She ended up feeling better with a lot fewer meds.

And to the OP, it's hard to imagine adding any more complexity to a narrative than a god. If that god isn't necessary, take it out. This is why gods appear in no scientific laws or theories - they add complexity without adding utility to the narrative. The science can do no more with gods in it.

Yes. i should read to the end before commenting as above. Never mind, too lazy to rewrite it.

 

[questfortruth]

Not necessarily. Throughout history, various religious traditions have proposed otherworlds (aka, non-material aspects of reality that are not usually included in "the universe") for such things.

It is necessary for a believer, who has accepted my ideas. Any thing must take part in gravitational interaction. Gravity is curved spacetime. Hence, God curves spacetime making it expand.

 

[questfortruth]

it drags in a whole raft of new assumptions, none answered, like what made God, and how does God do things.

Why the Chain of gods is absurd: god 1 created god 2, god 2 created god 3, god 3 created god 4? If you are not Christian, this chain could be. So, no problem with "If world is created, who created god?"

God does things by Miracle. Why? Miracles must exist. Proof: impossible miracle is possible through a miracle. Hence, all miracles are possible.

 

[John53]

There are countless proofs for God, for example, of Dr. Thomas Aquinas Seven Ways. The most recent proof I called major one.

That doesn't answer my question. What is the difference between a proof and a major proof?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

God is Dark Energy because both are Omnipresent. Paradise is Dark Matter because both do not reflect or absorb light.

God to us is light and life.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's the difference between a proof and a major proof?

He has promoted his beliefs too strongly. This is not a major proof, it is not a lieutenant proof, it is not even a sergeant or corporal proof. From a military point of view it is only a "boot" proof of God. And not one listens to a boot in the Army.

 

[John53]

He has promoted his beliefs too strongly. This is not a major proof, it is not a lieutenant proof, it is not even a sergeant or corporal proof. From a military point of view it is only a "boot" proof of God. And not one listens to a boot in the Army.

I'm just trying to work out the proof scale before I even think about the claim. I always thought if something was proved it would be 100% factual but if there's a major proof.... words have failed me at this point.

 

[Alien826]

Why the Chain of gods is absurd: god 1 created god 2, god 2 created god 3, god 3 created god 4? If you are not Christian, this chain could be. So, no problem with "If world is created, who created god?"

So far so good. Actually, there is an argument for a first cause of some sort. The problem is that it's just a first cause, undefined otherwise. Nothing to suggest intelligence, or any abilities other than causing universes.

God does things by Miracle. Why? Miracles must exist. Proof: impossible miracle is possible through a miracle. Hence, all miracles are possible.

Er, miracles must exist because it takes a miracle to create a miracle? Do I have that right?

Added. I can only find 5 ways for Aquinas. Did you find another two somewhere?

 

[YoursTrue]

Dark Energy got Nobel Prize. So, in Universe are these three: Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and matter. Therefore, if a person is religious, he places God as Dark Energy, Paradise as Dark Matter, and matter as matter. If a person is not religious, he invents new essences (new particles, new universes, modified Newton Gravity), which go against the Ockham Razor.

The mathematical formula Lambda*g_{mu nu} of Dark Energy shows all properties of Omnipresent and Unchangeable God. And God is not matter, but energy, due to dogmas of the Church.

formula Lambda*g_{mu nu} is the second term on the left-hand side of
Einstein field equations - Wikipedia

I wrote, "It is God for a religious person only."
I did not write, "It is God for any religious person."

It is not demonstrated yet, that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are material things. Therefore, they can be religious things. If a person is a believer in God and Paradise, he must place them somewhere in the Universe. God is Dark Energy because both are Omnipresent. Paradise is Dark Matter because both do not reflect or absorb light.

A believer has faith. He does not ask Science for evidence. The question of evidence borders only Atheists. Why? Because Knowledge is defined as what the God of that person knows. So, existence of God is automatically proven for believer.

It is necessary for a believer, who has accepted my ideas. Any thing must take part in gravitational interaction. Gravity is curved spacetime. Hence, God curves spacetime making it expand.

Why the Chain of gods is absurd: god 1 created god 2, god 2 created god 3, god 3 created god 4? If you are not Christian, this chain could be. So, no problem with "If world is created, who created god?"

God does things by Miracle. Why? Miracles must exist. Proof: impossible miracle is possible through a miracle. Hence, all miracles are possible.

What's the difference between a proof and a major proof?
There are countless proofs for God, for example, of Dr. Thomas Aquinas Seven Ways. The most recent proof I called major one.

Non-believer PruePhillip: "God didn't create life directly, He caused his creation to create life. That's what evolution does."
But you are non-believer, so, you wrote a nonsense. Why? You are not believing the things you wrote.

I realize to some that my answer is ridiculous but to me proof of God is that humans only make instruments that make music. Like J.S. Bach and other such humans.

 

[questfortruth]

miracles must exist because it takes a miracle to create a miracle? Do I have that right?

NO. Do not corrupt my text be rewriting it. My text is:

Miracles must exist. Proof: impossible miracle is possible through a miracle. Hence, all miracles are possible.

 

[1213]

It is God for a religious person only.

I don't think so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why the Chain of gods is absurd: god 1 created god 2, god 2 created god 3, god 3 created god 4? If you are not Christian, this chain could be. So, no problem with "If world is created, who created god?"

God does things by Miracle. Why? Miracles must exist. Proof: impossible miracle is possible through a miracle. Hence, all miracles are possible.

Like your god supposedly, your mind works in mysterious ways.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He has promoted his beliefs too strongly. This is not a major proof, it is not a lieutenant proof, it is not even a sergeant or corporal proof. From a military point of view it is only a "boot" proof of God. And not one listens to a boot in the Army.

A boot enlisted in the Russian army during the last mobilisation. Not one that actually received proper training.



(sorry, couldn't help myself)