The problems I see with those asking for "proof" of Gods existence

[ericoh2]

The first problem is that "God" is usually not defined by the individual. The second is the presupposition that everything in existence is not already proof of divinity. I use the word divinity for communication purposes only. To use it in the ordinary sense implies that something exists outside of the natural order (nature) which is impossible. The former problem is self explanatory in that those who make the claim often refer to abrahamic type deities but fail to address a pantheistic/panentheistic concept of "God." The latter is problematic because the skeptic uses his preconceived view of the workings of world to define the nature of reality. Therefore it is possible that the proof of God may be in every tenet of existence itsself if one had a clearer perception. It is imperitave that we do not put the concept of divinity in any sort of box when attempting to understand reality. To do this eliminates any possibilty of experiencing truth which may indeed require an entirly different understanding to perceive. I am not trying to defend or attack either the theist or atheist position but just speaking of the approach in which we should seek. I hope you all have something to add to this .

(This post is not to address those threads that are only speaking of abrahamic type deities but in some of them I see someone asking for proof without defining what they mean by "God.")

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Ok so for the sake of argument we have two choices

a. there is a god

b. there isn't a god

Both are making an assumption.

But only one is making an assumption that can't be backed up by the five senses.

The no god theory is the baseline for the comparison as it makes the smallest assumption.

-Q

 

[Smoke]

I haven't asked for proof. I've asked for evidence, and have never found any.

 

[Morse]

Ok so for the sake of argument we have two choices

a. there is a god

b. there isn't a god

Both are making an assumption.

But only one is making an assumption that can't be backed up by the five senses.

The no god theory is the baseline for the comparison as it makes the smallest assumption.

-Q

One is making an assumption based off of experiences, teachings, thoughts, and theories they have drawn, been taught, and seen (Not scientific theories mind you).

The other is making an assumption off of experiences, teachings, thoughts, and theories they have drawn, been taught, and seen. As well, it is backed up by the five senses.

First of all, I don't see how our five senses have ever proved or disproved "God". Has anybody ever claimed to have smelled or felt "God"? Lol.

Second of all, your senses are as deceitful as your local pastor. Your sensory organs are like computers. Computers can transmit data, but they cannot give it meaning. While your eyes, nose, and nerves give you data, it is up to your brain to interpret it. Your brain has been tampered with by your previous notions and experiences, and thus interprets it in a skewed manner.

So even if you somehow experience "proof or disproof" of "God" using your five sense, your brain will always interpret it as false because that is how you have programmed your brain to think.

Your five senses will never be absolute "proof of 'God'" because they are not objective. This same ordeal applies when considering the nature of reality, and I believe its related to the Placebo Effect.

Regards,
Morse

 

[ericoh2]

Ok so for the sake of argument we have two choices

a. there is a god

b. there isn't a god

Both are making an assumption.

But only one is making an assumption that can't be backed up by the five senses.

The no god theory is the baseline for the comparison as it makes the smallest assumption.

-Q

The ideal situation is to search without either assumption, to be simply led by experience. It's also important not to think of god as being this way or that way because that will be another road block, unless of course you are searching for a particular concept of the deity.

 

[ericoh2]

I haven't asked for proof. I've asked for evidence, and have never found any.

Proof and evidence are both interchangeable in regards to my thread.

 

[cottage]

The first problem is that "God" is usually not defined by the individual. The second is the presupposition that everything in existence is not already proof of divinity. I use the word divinity for communication purposes only. To use it in the ordinary sense implies that something exists outside of the natural order (nature) which is impossible. The former problem is self explanatory in that those who make the claim often refer to abrahamic type deities but fail to address a pantheistic/panentheistic concept of "God." The latter is problematic because the skeptic uses his preconceived view of the workings of world to define the nature of reality. Therefore it is possible that the proof of God may be in every tenet of existence itsself if one had a clearer perception. It is imperitave that we do not put the concept of divinity in any sort of box when attempting to understand reality. To do this eliminates any possibilty of experiencing truth which may indeed require an entirly different understanding to perceive. I am not trying to defend or attack either the theist or atheist position but just speaking of the approach in which we should seek. I hope you all have something to add to this .

(This post is not to address those threads that are only speaking of abrahamic type deities but in some of them I see someone asking for proof without defining what they mean by "God.")

I think we can agree than in speaking of 'God' we're speaking in essence of a creator or a first, or uncaused cause as an explanation for what exists. To this concept of a creator Being we can surely say it is omnipotent or at the very least has the power to cause the universe to be and to sustain or order its existence. And if the universe doesn't have to exist, but does exist, we may say this possibility depends for its existence upon that which is actual, or as that for which there is no possibility of its non-existence, which is to say it exists necessarily and is eternal. I believe that serves as a general defintion for God that includes includes pantheistic, panentheistic and deistic notions. But something else is implied when we speak of 'God'. And what is implied is a committed belief or an emotional attachment beyond a speculative metaphysical explanation for what exists.

But in saying the known world itself is God by no means serves as proof of God as an entity who has any interest in the universe other than perhaps an immediate sustaining or conserving agency. For whichever God, the universe only exists contingently by very definition of there being a 'God'.

 

[Smoke]

Proof and evidence are both interchangeable in regards to my thread.

I am prepared to believe that there may be a god who is beyond knowing or description, but it's not the people who believe in such a god who get on my nerves, even though I find it a little odd to say you believe in something but you don't know what it is. The people who try my patience are the ones who insist on telling me God's precise opinion on everything.

 

[zenzero]

Friend ericoh2,

Though your question is:

The problems I see with those asking for "proof" of Gods existence

However, feel that you are interested to know if it is *god* or not.
Take this first and fourth stanza of Tao Te Ching, maybe one could develop a different understanding

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.

It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.

The point to note is the last line:
It is older than *god*

Love & rgds

 

[Willamena]

Ok so for the sake of argument we have two choices

a. there is a god

b. there isn't a god

c. Both a and b are true.

d. Neither a nor b are true.

e. Nonsense (yes, an arguable position, similar to d).

 

[Willamena]

Proof and evidence are both interchangeable in regards to my thread.

To do this eliminates any possibilty of experiencing truth which may indeed require an entirly different understanding to perceive.

 

[Dunemeister]

(This post is not to address those threads that are only speaking of abrahamic type deities but in some of them I see someone asking for proof without defining what they mean by "God.")

I'm more interested in the definition of "proof." I'm also interested why it matters. Why must a person only believe something (e.g., God exists) on the evidential basis of other propositions? Why can't (veridical) experience be enough?

 

[ragordon168]

I'm more interested in the definition of "proof." I'm also interested why it matters. Why must a person only believe something (e.g., God exists) on the evidential basis of other propositions? Why can't (veridical) experience be enough?

because veridical evidence is unique and personal and is impossible to measure. we are all told to believe in what we can detect and measure and to believe in something that cannot be detected or measured flies in the face of everything we have been taught.

yes you have personal truth of 'god' but you cant show it to someone to make them believe they have to find it themselves.

 

[Dunemeister]

because veridical evidence is unique and personal and is impossible to measure. we are all told to believe in what we can detect and measure and to believe in something that cannot be detected or measured flies in the face of everything we have been taught.

Well, so much for what we're being taught, particularly when it comes to believing in God.

yes you have personal truth of 'god' but you cant show it to someone to make them believe they have to find it themselves.

That's true. I can't "prove" the existence of God. I can provide evidence, but it doesn't coerce consent.