What proof do you have of God?

[Gui10]

I still don't understand how you believe there is a cycle unless you believe there is a big crunch.

EDIT: OH MY BAD

I missread your first comment on my view, I thought you said you didn't think there was a big crunch... my bad again. You can forget about the last post lol.

 

[Thief]

I'll argue it with logic, listen carefully.

They say the universe came from nothing; so something from nothing. Obviously, something cannot come from nothing, so that ''nothing'', had to be ''something''.

In the case of the universe, nothing is something (somekind of negative energy, I'm not sure).

So you might say, well how can something come from nothing, oh right, there needs to be a creator. Well then I would answer, a creater is ''something'' isn't it? So then Something did not come from nothing, but from something. That something is just what we call nothing.

Physicist are currently working on what that ''nothing'' is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

I've watched the entirety of the video twice, I am not a physicist myself and I don't understand all of it, but science requires vigorous testings and no theory can be demonstrated without calculated equations and conclusions.

The way I see it, the universe was once in the ''negative'' (talking about matter) (just picture a scale) and when it reached 0, it exploded into the positives (talking about matter). Yes I know this all seems far fetched, but no more far fetched than the theory of a creator.

If you tell me the creator was always there and he did not need to be created, well I retort that the universe was always there and did not need to be created.

Yeah well...'dark energy is there'...so says the scientist.
Ask him to prove it....and he can't.
It knows it's there because of it's effect.
But he can't prove it.
yeah...I've seen such science documentary.

The scientist just don't get it.

Call the existence prior to the 'big bang' anything you want.

I call it God.
Spirit first.

 

[mestupid]

I ask again, which God? I expect no response.

 

[Pozessed]

May I redirect some of your thoughts to this post?

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ism/139050-they-one-same-please-allow-me.html

 

[otokage007]

Prove to me where science logically states that God does not exist.

Science does not make statements based on logic. Only statements backed up by enough amount of evidences to be considered true. Since science works with nature, can not prove or disprove the supernatural, because it is a fictious realm in which nor science, nor you, can operate. Science can not state that God exists in the natural world, because there's not a single evidence to state it.

But now that u mention logic, I really find the most logical path to say God does not exist, or at least, that he is HIGHLY unlikely to exist. There's no evidence about the supernatural being real, this includes God, Adam and Eve, the mermaids, Harry Potter, and the Dragonballs. So why would you believe they all exist? Isn't it quite a bit ilogical? :/

 

[Thief]

Science does not make statements based on logic. Only statements backed up by enough amount of evidences to be considered true. Since science works with nature, can not prove or disprove the supernatural, because it is a fictious realm in which nor science, nor you, can operate. Science can not state that God exists in the natural world, because there's not a single evidence to state it.

But now that u mention logic, I really find the most logical path to say God does not exist, or at least, that he is HIGHLY unlikely to exist. There's no evidence about the supernatural being real, this includes God, Adam and Eve, the mermaids, Harry Potter, and the Dragonballs. So why would you believe they all exist? Isn't it quite a bit ilogical? :/

Lumping so many items together as you do.....
clearly indicates a muddled form of logic.

Theological discussions can be made while leaving out your 'dragonballs'.

 

[1robin]

I ask again, which God? There are hundreds of them. This seems to be a question no one can answer.

No there are not. There are many concepts of God. Most are either illogical or contradictory. Two contradictory claims to absolute truth can't possibly both be true. By eliminating the illogical and self contradictory you can reduce the number of concepts down to a few. Of these the most likely can be examined first and then adopted or rejected. For me the first was the Biblical God and he was adopted and in fact I recieved confirmation of his existance when I was born again. I then examined sever more of the most likely and found there are insurmountable reasons why they are untrue. That left the Biblical God alone as true. This kind of claim only allows someone precommited to a Godless ideology an excuse to dismiss the concept. It in reality is no insurmountable hurdle.

 

[1robin]

You say God is uncaused, I say the universe is uncaused. Also, you say eternal existence is out, but is god eternal?

Ok, lets examine this slowly. Here are the known principles that apply.

If anything begins to exist then it must have a cause.
That cause must be suffecient to create the effect.
The cause of the universe is independant of the effect.
It is impossible to cross an infinate distance or number of events.


What this means:
Time, matter, and space can not have always existed. We could never cross the infinate number of seconds to get to now. Matter can't be eternal because we could never traverse an infinate number of past events to get to this one. Space and the rest of these have many ways and laws that show they can not have always existed. However since the two I posted are inescapable then there is nor reason to dig further. This also is the dominant secular view of cosmology as well as the Christian view.

So the universe began to exist. Time matter and space began to exist at some point in the past. What ever created it must have certain qualities. It must be independant of time, matter, and space. It must be rational to create law. Fine tuning suggest's it must be personal. The size and scope indicate that what caused it must be so close to omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent that it is practically equal to it. That is exactly the description that was given thousands of years before any one would have known what needed to give a false God to make him logically capable of creation. Conclusion God created everything.

This startling reality has led secular scientists to panic and seek another dynamic for the universe that would eliminate the implied God that must exist. They created the Oscillating (your view) and the multiverse view out of sheer fantasy. They not only do not have evidence they can never have any. They also counter the evidence we do have. The universe shows no indication of an eventual crush it indicates an increasing expansion. You may believe what ever you wish but claiming what is least likely to be true and dismissing what is plainly evident is not a sound foundation.

THE NEXT PART IS ON A PERSONAL NOTE: I am not arguing with science, only on my personal theory on how it all goes around, which has technically no validity but I will allow you to look at it anyhow. Here it is.

That is your right but a theory that has infinately less evidence than a competeing theory that has tons has no explanitory power.

I do not believe the universe is eternal.

That is impossible given everything we know.

What is eternal is the number of big bangs and big crunches. What that means is there was always something and we are currently in the ''bang'' phase of the universe. At a finite point in time, the universe will stop expanding and crunch itself (like an elastic). At this point, the time will go backwards and once the crunch will be complete, time will be back to ZERO and it will all begin once again.

Where is the evidence?

Conclusion: the universe is not eternal because it has a finite end where it then relapses back to its starting point and starts a whole new (or the same) journey. That is what is eternal.

No that is simply an idea that has no corroberating facts or evidence. Nothing observed indicates this.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No there are not. There are many concepts of God. Most are either illogical or contradictory. Two contradictory claims to absolute truth can't possibly both be true. By eliminating the illogical and self contradictory you can reduce the number of concepts down to a few. Of these the most likely can be examined first and then adopted or rejected. For me the first was the Biblical God and he was adopted and in fact I recieved confirmation of his existance when I was born again. I then examined sever more of the most likely and found there are insurmountable reasons why they are untrue. That left the Biblical God alone as true. This kind of claim only allows someone precommited to a Godless ideology an excuse to dismiss the concept. It in reality is no insurmountable hurdle.

It's not at all insurmountable for those who crave certainty. Any God can be found to be the the most logical, most non-contradictory, most confirmed-by-the-spirit God.

So it's passingly easy to embrace any God at all.

But since there seems to be no external Being whom we can label as 'God' -- just as there is not external entity named 'justice' -- then I would say that mestupid is correct except that there are billions of gods, not just hundreds. As many humans as have mused on the concept of God, that's how many gods there are.

 

[MetalEverywhere]

Ok, lets examine this slowly. Here are the known principles that apply.

If anything begins to exist then it must have a cause.

1A) Both radioactive decay and the spontaneous appearance of virtual particles begin to exist without a cause. (Carbon-14 decays to Carbon-12, etc)
1B) Even if this were true, how do you know that this is not just a property of the Universe which can't be applied outside of it?
1C) You refer to every "thing." The Universe is not a member of the set of "things," it is THE "set" of all things. The set itself (the Universe) cannot be considered a member of itself.

The argument is unsound.

This startling reality has led secular scientists to panic and seek another dynamic for the universe that would eliminate the implied God that must exist.

Are you serious? Science isn't even allowed to comment on the supernatural. Who are these scientists who are panicking over an implied god, and what have they said?

- Metal

 

[Vansdad]

I ask again, which God? I expect no response.

Well you're gonna get one. The one and only Creator of everything, living and inanimate, seen and unseen. I hope that covers it, enough at least so you can fill in the gaps. Basically Creator of everything.

 

[Storm]

Well you're gonna get one. The one and only Creator of everything, living and inanimate, seen and unseen. I hope that covers it, enough at least so you can fill in the gaps. Basically Creator of everything.

That narrows it down a bit, but not enough. Deist, Abrahamic, etc.?

 

[1robin]

It's not at all insurmountable for those who crave certainty. Any God can be found to be the the most logical, most non-contradictory, most confirmed-by-the-spirit God.

If you are looking for absolute proof of a deity that said specifically that faith is the necessary commodity then you will remain dissapointed. You adopt many evidence based assumptions everyday. Many have far less evidence. In fact the majority or at least a large portion of science is faith based. Why is it only a problem for religion?

So it's passingly easy to embrace any God at all.

Not for me. I can rule out by very simple methods most concepts of God. Any God worth believing in would not be self contradictory, inconsistent, have a self revelation that would for example render his ability to create the universe impossible, his revelation must also be consistent, true, and philisophically consistent. With these simple methods alone most concepts of God are eliminated.

But since there seems to be no external Being whom we can label as 'God' -- just as there is not external entity named 'justice' -- then I would say that mestupid is correct except that there are billions of gods, not just hundreds. As many humans as have mused on the concept of God, that's how many gods there are.

A missused concept is no basis for a divine entity. They are simply ridiculous and illogical descriptions of things that do not exist. However there are a few that have no such problems. That explains why far more people and virtually every culture that has existed has believed in a God. Nothing that universal and impossible to dissprove justifies claiming that you know that God does not exist. In fact I think it impossible that he does not for many reasons.

 

[otokage007]

In fact the majority or at least a large portion of science is faith based.

:sarcastic

 

[Storm]

:sarcastic

Have I mentioned that your name makes me giggle? It's just so much fun to say!

 

[1robin]

1A) Both radioactive decay and the spontaneous appearance of virtual particles begin to exist without a cause. (Carbon-14 decays to Carbon-12, etc)

I do not get it. Are you saying that there is no known cause for carbon atoms to decay? I thought UV interaction for one causes it. If you are getting into quantum physics then I do not believe there is anything known with certainty within that field. I have heard exacting details about what happens to carbon. I have no idea what you meant. You do realise it is not the theory of cause and effect it is the law. Just like the theory of evolution is though to be a law and it is allowed to overcome an actuall law of abiogenesis. Academic schizophrenia.

1B) Even if this were true, how do you know that this is not just a property of the Universe which can't be applied outside of it?

No evidence has zero explanitory power. Natural law operates consistently where ever it is measured. Science is based on the rational intellegability of the univers and it's laws. I do not know which claim you are addressing.

1C) You refer to every "thing." The Universe is not a member of the set of "things," it is THE "set" of all things. The set itself (the Universe) cannot be considered a member of itself.

God if real would not exist within the universe. In fact whatever made the universe must by necessity be independant from it.

The argument is unsound.

What argument? You are going to have to post specifically what you are addressing.

Are you serious? Science isn't even allowed to comment on the supernatural. Who are these scientists who are panicking over an implied god, and what have they said?

Is that why Dawkins has unfortunately been let out of the lab and is making money saying science dissproves God. The internet is full of secular scientists that make claims about teh supernatural. In fact I think it is the most commonly appealed to sector of academia on the subject. Science can if fact point to or imply the supernatural but it is not the correct tool for the job despite it's missuse. I did not infere that science can ultimately prove the supernatural so once again I have no idea what you are addressing. My last statement was more of a personal observation but has substantial basis in reality.

 

[MetalEverywhere]

You do realise it is not the theory of cause and effect it is the law. Just like the theory of evolution is though to be a law and it is allowed to overcome an actuall law of abiogenesis. Academic schizophrenia.

No, scientific laws are testable, demonstrable principles. Theories are groups of laws with explanatory power. I don't know how you think the theory of evolution 'overcomes' abiogenesis, since if both were true they would not hurt each other.

God if real would not exist within the universe.

The universe is the totality of existence.
1] How can something exist outside of existence?
2] So you assume that a god exists to make this argument to prove god exists?

Is that why Dawkins has unfortunately been let out of the lab and is making money saying science dissproves God.

Irrelevant, BUT I'm pretty sure he just shows errors in arguments FOR god. After all, he admitted he is slightly agnostic (as everyone should).

 

[1robin]

No, scientific laws are testable, demonstrable principles.

Exatly what demostratable proof is there that life came from non-life, that conscousness came from unconcousness, that morality came from no morality, that information has ever been generated without intelligence. In fact most of these are demostratably false.

Theories are groups of laws with explanatory power.

No they are groups of things that are sometimes laws and sometimes fantasy that are claimed to have explanitory power. If they were as absolute as you claim then they would turn out false so many times. Nothing composed of pure law would later turn out to be wrong so many times. Keep in mind I do not think theories are bad things. Just refer to them as theories.

I don't know how you think the theory of evolution 'overcomes' abiogenesis, since if both were true they would not hurt each other.

I do not think it does but withouit God it must. Evolution as you well know is presented in a Godless vacume many times. It has been used by countless scientists and philosophers to dissprove God. In that sence it had to overcome abiogenesis at some point. Which is a demostratable law and not some theory that is used to justify grant money. If biogenesis is a fact then evolution without God is illogical and that is my primary point. Evolution is composed of a great deal of faith.

The universe is the totality of existence.
1] How can something exist outside of existence?
2] So you assume that a god exists to make this argument to prove god exists?

First this is semantical and useless. Whatever created the universe and it must have been created as it is impossible that it always existed even to most secular scientists must by necessity be independant of it. It also must have certain characteristics. It is not much of a stress to claim that the only concept we know of as a candidate is likely the creator himself.

Irrelevant, BUT I'm pretty sure he just shows errors in arguments FOR god. After all, he admitted he is slightly agnostic (as everyone should).

If he is agnostic it is in name only. He seems to literally hate that which you say he does not have enough evidence for. There is nothing he says that even if true and I believe much of it is false and a matter of faith, it still does not poke any holes in the Bible. It merely makes more likely a very well accepted interpretation of Genesis that allows for evolution.

 

[MetalEverywhere]

Exatly what demostratable proof is there that life came from non-life, that conscousness came from unconcousness, that morality came from no morality, that information has ever been generated without intelligence.

I never claimed there was? I am not trying to disprove a god here, I am simply stating that you haven't met your burden of proof to make the claim that a god does exist.

If they were as absolute as you claim then they would turn out false so many times.

1) 100% wrong. If something was absolute, it could NOT turn out false.
2) Again... I never made such a claim. Theories (explanations) are allowed to be wrong, and that is why science is always improving. If something is proven wrong in science, it's modified or ditched.

I do not think it does but withouit God it must. Evolution as you well know is presented in a Godless vacume many times. It has been used by countless scientists and philosophers to dissprove God.

No, evolution does not even comment on the existence of a god. If true, it does disprove certain accounts of creation though. There are people who believe in both evolution and a god.

In that sence it had to overcome abiogenesis at some point. Which is a demostratable law and not some theory that is used to justify grant money.

Overcome? Most people still consider abiogenesis a speculative hypothesis.
Abiogenesis does not yet have the support evolution does, but this is off track.

First this is semantical and useless. Whatever created the universe and it must have been created as it is impossible that it always existed even to most secular scientists must by necessity be independant of it.

If your definition of god is independent of the universe, and the universe is the totality of existence, then your god for this argument does not exist. Do you see why this is not proof?

If he is agnostic it is in name only. He seems to literally hate that which you say he does not have enough evidence for.

Besides the point, but he hates religion. That doesn't disprove his slight agnosticism.

The OP asked for proof, and an argument from ignorance (something MUST have created the universe, therefore god) does not qualify. No disrespect.
- Metal

 

[otokage007]

Have I mentioned that your name makes me giggle? It's just so much fun to say!

Is that why Dawkins has unfortunately been let out of the lab and is making money saying science dissproves God. The internet is full of secular scientists that make claims about teh supernatural. In fact I think it is the most commonly appealed to sector of academia on the subject. Science can if fact point to or imply the supernatural but it is not the correct tool for the job despite it's missuse. I did not infere that science can ultimately prove the supernatural so once again I have no idea what you are addressing. My last statement was more of a personal observation but has substantial basis in reality.

Dawkins have never said God doesn't exist. Or at least in every interview I've seen of him, he says "I would say he is highly unlikely to exist". He also consider himself a "lvl 6 atheist", which means he is a little agnostic (being the lvl 7 the hardcore atheist). And btw he has never used science to disprove God, but phylosophy. He just uses science to disprove some content in the Bible, ie: God created us and not evolution, or the Earth is 6000 years old.