Proof God exists

Zulu

CatStevens wrote:

Dear I my example was about colouring, every thing in the picture has a particular colour and shadow.

I fail to see how this proves the existance of a God/

again I said such questions and discussions led me as it did to many other ppl that the existence of God is possible.

Possiability does not equate to truth.

Good ^^ Alhamdulilah, well you know I wrote in my first posts in this thread

So as an agnostic, I don't deserve proof? or debate? Are my arguments not as valid; if you prick me do I not bleed?

robindch

> He can do everything

If he can do everything, is he powerful enough to think of something that he can't do?

Ciaran500

I think everyone has missed the ultimate proof for god. Behold a bananna! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBiW3BZbw_M

CatStevens

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Very true. But humans were not created from nothing, humans were created from hyrogen, carbon and oxygen (and a few other bits as well)

And where did hyrogen, carbon and oxygen come from?

Wicknight wrote:

So I am not sure where the idea that humans were created from nothing comes from.

The idea is read this example, again it is an example: if the human was created from hyrogen, carbon and oxygen, and let's assume that these three things came from nothing but all of a sudden they appeared then you created from nothing which became to hyrogen, carbon and oxygen later. without a creator

Wicknight wrote:

Well humans actually do create themselves. Your parents bodies (mostly your mother) built you,

who built my parents

Wicknight wrote:

You can trace this liniage back nearly 4 billion years to the formation of the very first self-replicating molecules, that under the right conditions begain to replicate naturally under the energy of the sun.

Maybe God was leading these processes.

Wicknight wrote:

Absolutely no idea. But there is no logical reason to believe a supernatural god did it.

so what is the logical reason that by chance or randomness or whaeva did it anyway do you agree that his existence is possible?

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

CatStevens

Commander Vimes

Commander Vimes wrote:

that's not proof.

you said you are jesus, but jesys isn't atheist or doen't question the existence of God so you aren't him.

Commander Vimes wrote:

i could be god in disguise and you can't prove i'm not.

O come on now do ya want me to take this seriously, well, I can 'cause I will ask ya to give life to dead ppl and such things when you cannot do so well you aren't God.

Commander Vimes wrote:

the point of my argument is that you shouldn't believe in something simply because there is no proof against it.

I don't do so

Commander Vimes wrote:

anyone with a concept of mathematics will tell you that in an infinite universe anything will happen

And can he prove that?

Commander Vimes wrote:

let's move it away from religion for a second to explain my point further. if you were given a dartboard and a dart and tried to hit the bullseye you'd probably miss. but if you were given 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chances, you would eventually hit it, probably multiple times.

dear read my posts , or let me comment on this OK it hitted it, so? can he evolve or devlope or take and make processes by itself and put each object or whateva in its right place with a purpose and function? this is a japanese Animie

Commander Vimes wrote:

i realise that life is improbable but with billions of years of proteins sloshing around in goo, the chances are quite good that they would eventually come together in a way that would form a viable life form.

It is a possible theory to many ppl anyway

Commander Vimes wrote:

the only place where science fails is at the creation of the universe. matter wasn't, and then was. this violates the laws of physics. life from no life does not. and even if it did, that doesn't mean women should wear clothes that only show their eyes. that idea's entirely man made

God can do everything can violate the laws of physics, He claimed to be God He sent messengers they performed miracles and He sent books read them if you wish, I think God's exitence is highly possible:)

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

CatStevens

Zulu

Zulu wrote:

I fail to see how this proves the existance of a God/

Dear I didn't say that these are proofs , these examples has a point which I wish you got it and they lead us to some questions which led me to believe that His existence isn't impossble, get it:)

Zulu wrote:

Possiability does not equate to truth.

yeah but then you can start your own journey to know whether this possibility is true or not

Zulu wrote:

So as an agnostic, I don't deserve proof? or debate? Are my arguments not as valid; if you prick me do I not bleed?

I didn't say that dear =D but you know we have to discuss his existence possibilty first 'cause I think we have some Atheists here, and then I mentioned 2 things as a start for your journey

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

shroomfox

I believe in God. But I believe in a God who:

1. Didn't leave a vast amount of evidence to fool us into believing in evolution or scientific method.
   
2. Was able to create a vast and intricate system of laws where we could evolve in a changing universe over billions of years rather than just throw the whole lot onto the canvas at once.
   
3. Doesn't feel the need to provide evidence of his existence.
   
4. Gave us enquiring minds and curiosity and intelligence and logic to enable us to uncover the secrets of the Universe, rather than awarding us these gifts so we can be lead astray.

I don't want to know that God exists. It's faith that's important, and proof negates faith. And I certainly refuse to believe in God as some kind of ultimate prankster, giving us abilities to learn but providing evidence pointing to the opposite of the truth.

Zombrex

CatStevens wrote:

Maybe God was leading these processes.

Maybe He was. Maybe He wasn't

But there is no logical reason to believe that He must have, let alone that He did.

As such there is no evidence for or against God's existance to be found here. God could have done it, sure, but you cannot say it was necessary for a god to exist for it to happen.

CatStevens wrote:

so what is the logical reason that by chance or randomness or whaeva did it anyway do you agree that his existence is possible?

Anything is possible CatStevens. It is possible you don't exist and that I am locked in a mental hospital tapping on the side wall thinking that I am in work typing on a keyboard.

Do I think it is at all likely that God exists? No.

I reject that concept as being an invention of the human imagination, and as such very unlikely that something humanity invented would, by chance or fluke, correspond to an actual real entity.

The concept of a god was invented by humans in an attempt to deal with the apparent randomness of the natural world around us. As an article on another thread explained, humans have an inbuild desire to see patterns and assign meaning to natural events. It is the way our brain catalogs and organises data.

Hundreds of years ago our anncestors attached an order and meaning to events such as the weather, or the movement of the planets, attributing these natural phoneoma to the work of gods. They did this because the did not understand that natural workings behind these events, and attributing them to the workings of human like gods, in a clear realm of understanding (Thor gets angry, lightning happens) was easier for them than simply say "we have no idea what that is"

It makes humans quite uneasy to be unsure about why or how something is happening, especially with something as powerful as the weather.

And we still do this today. Instead of stating that you don't know ANYTHING about before the Big Bang, it is easier for you (and other religious people) to think that it follows a line easy to understand in context of the day to day world we experience. Things are created, therefore the universe must have been created, therefore something must have created it, therefore that something must be a god. You are applying your everyday understanding of how the universe "should work" to events and phoneoma far beyond current human understanding, just as say the Vikings did with the weather, or the sessions.

You are attributing meaning and order in a context you are familiar with, to things you cannot understand. That is where the concept of "god" comes from.

God is a concept that humans use (invented) to rationalise for our own peace of mind, things we don't or cannot yet understand.

It isn't the only one, but it is the biggest and most universal, since a god can be applied to anything, from the creation of the universe to why a J-Lo won her Grammy (ie things we don't understand )

So do I think God exists? No, I reject the idea of God as being a real thing because the concept of God is simply a construction of the human imagination. Therefore I am an atheist.

robindch

> God can do everything can violate the laws of physics

Can your god make something so big that he can't move it?

Dades

Originally Posted by The Atheist
But in the interim, before you get a chance to dig other religions, would it be true to say you've reached a conclusion without all the facts?

CatStevens wrote:

conclusion/facts concerning what?

Concering who or what the "creator" is. If you are convinced there is a designer, but only have a working knowledge of a few of the many "designers" described by world religions, then surely your belief is based on incomplete information?

If you test drive only three cars, can you choose one and claim it to be the best car on the road not having ever sat in any of the other thousand options?

bubonicus

all i see here is people who believe in one thing because they can't disprove it's existence asking somebody who believes in something to prove what they don't believe exists.

prove it exists?

prove it does'nt exist?

Atheists have as much faith in believing there is no god as Chirtstian/Muslim etc... have in believing god does exist.

Both of them work of faith and believe. So really what has proof got to do with it?

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

> God can do everything can violate the laws of physics

Can your god make something so big that he can't move it?

Here is one for you

Can God destroy himself?

Wibbs

CatStevens wrote:

O come on now do ya want me to take this seriously, well, I can 'cause I will ask ya to give life to dead ppl and such things when you cannot do so well you aren't God.

Well you're taking it seriously that someone who you never met calims to have knowledge of these miracles.

I don't do so

It seems you do as every argument against your view you dismiss.

And can he prove that?

Yes he can. You need to understand the concept of infinity.

dear read my posts , or let me comment on this OK it hitted it, so? can he evolve or devlope or take and make processes by itself and put each object or whateva in its right place with a purpose and function? this is a japanese Animie

Over long periods of time with many variables. The simple leads to the complex.

God can do everything can violate the laws of physics, He claimed to be God He sent messengers they performed miracles and He sent books read them if you wish, I think God's exitence is highly possible:)

You believe that. There is no proof that he did. More to the point there is equal proof that he didn't do it the way you believe in other religions held to be equally valid by those who believe in them. The only "proof" you have is your faith in a particular God.

I didn't say that dear =D but you know we have to discuss his existence possibilty first 'cause I think we have some Atheists here, and then I mentioned 2 things as a start for your journey

FYI Both the "dear" and blue type are irritating to say the least and don't help whatever flimsy case you think you have.

Zombrex

bubonicus wrote:

So really what has proof got to do with it?

CatStevens (the poster, not the singer) claimed he could prove God exists, through a logical paradox.

It turned out he couldn't, not that this was any great surprise. Lots have tried, they have all failed.

Sam Vimes

CatStevens wrote:

Commander Vimes
you said you are jesus, but jesys isn't atheist or doen't question the existence of God so you aren't him.

lets just forget that. i'm not actually claiming to be god. i was using it as an example that you're not getting

CatStevens wrote:

I don't do so

yes you do. you believe in a god despite the fact that the only evidence for him/her/it is an old book and some ghost stories. if you forget several of the laws of physics, a god might be possible, but there is nothing to suggest that there ever was one.

CatStevens wrote:

And can he prove that?

ummmm.., yes. Yes, give a mathematician a blackboard and some chalk and he can prove that to you

CatStevens wrote:

dear read my posts , or let me comment on this OK it hitted it, so? can he evolve or devlope or take and make processes by itself and put each object or whateva in its right place with a purpose and function? this is a japanese Animie

i can't make out what you're saying there

CatStevens wrote:

It is a possible theory to many ppl anyway

all i said was the chances of it are good. i said nothing about a theory. over billions of years, single celled organisms could have formed randomly. this is a fact, not a theory. i made no comment about whether or not they did, i said they could have.

CatStevens wrote:

God can do everything can violate the laws of physics, He claimed to be God He sent messengers they performed miracles and He sent books read them if you wish, I think God's exitence is highly possible:)

as someone has mentioned, a god that can do anything can create an immovable object. but if it is immovable, then by definition he cannot move it. if he can move it, then it is not immovable.

the best he would be able to do is create an object that is immovable by everyone except him. if there are exceptions to what he can do, then he is not omnipotent.
an omnipotent being is a contradiction in terms

Schuhart

In general, I find the whole ‘this order could not have evolved by chance’ approach to god is misdirected. If there is order, then it suggests there are physical laws that will operate without intelligence. If the existence of a god was to be suggested, surely we would find him in free will as represented by uncertainty, choice and disorder.

From reading the thread, I’m still left with that picture of the many assumptions that have to be made to get to the point of saying no only that there is a creator, but that creator is the god of such and such a religion. As I see it, the path is:

1. assuming the universe is not eternal, and commenced at some point
2. assuming the commencement was not a mechanical thing, but an initiative of some creator. (In fairness, if we assume the creator, I don’t think there’s a great leap to assuming that creator had some purpose that involved creating a universe.)
3. assuming the creator’s purpose relates in some way to our existence, and that his real chosen people are not on the far side of the Crab Nebula. Maybe we’re just the pond life in a galactic water feature.
4. assuming the creator has a specific interest in us individually
5. assuming that communication is through one of the mutually exclusive systems of religion – say religions with the Adam and Eve story
6. assuming communication is through one of the mutually exclusive branches within that system – say Judaism, Christianity or Islam
7. possibly, assuming communication is through a particular variant of that branch that might feel it is the only variant with the true franchise

That would look like four assumptions are needed to get to the idea of some kind of god that we should be arsed about. At least six and possibly seven significant assumptions are needed to get to the god envisaged by Mormons, Hasidism, Druze or whatever congregation you choose. If any one of these assumptions falls, so does the claim of that sect. None can be proven.

Which takes us right back to the idea that the main reason people believe the faith that they do is because, as Dawkins would say, religious traditions have acquired authenticity in peoples minds over the years. If Islam is on the go for over a thousand years, the fact these myths have survived for so many generations makes the current generation more confident in saying ‘one billion adherents can’t be wrong’. In fact, every one of those billion adherents is making at least six assumptions with no basis whatsoever.

bubonicus

Wicknight wrote:

CatStevens (the poster, not the singer) claimed he could prove God exists, through a logical paradox.

It turned out he couldn't, not that this was any great surprise. Lots have tried, they have all failed.

yeah but you are talking about beliefs!!!!

edanto

@Cat

So, basically, there's no proof. We just don't know how [God OR Universe] came into being. We don't know what happens when we die.

Anyone that tells you different is just trying to sign you up to their church.

Ultimately, we can't know. They can't know. Nothing about God or the beginning of time could ever be proved.

As above, Godbelievers and Atheists both have faith, just complementary.

Choose to believe what you will, all religions and godless traditions have very similar rules about how to treat your fellow man and surely that's much more important than whether there's a god waiting for us after death or just a long black moment.

Why worry about death in life? life is love is life is love is life is love is life is love...

Zombrex

bubonicus wrote:

yeah but you are talking about believes!!!!

Everything is belief bubonicus. None of use can know anything for certain in a scientific manner.

We can only measure the world in degrees of likelyness.

Is it likely you exists? Yes.

Is it likely that I am typing on a keyboard right now? Yes.

Is it likely that humanity invented the concept of gods to help explain the universe in a certain why? Yes.

Is it likely that this invention of the human imagination happens to correspond to a real entity? No

I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I don't want/need to either. In the absence of a reason to believe in something I don't believe it.

bubonicus

Wicknight wrote:

Everything is belief bubonicus. None of use can know anything for certain in a scientific manner.

We can only measure the world in degrees of likelyness.

Is it likely you exists? Yes.

Is it likely that I am typing on a keyboard right now? Yes.

Is it likely that humanity invented the concept of gods to help explain the universe in a certain why? Yes.

Is it likely that this invention of the human imagination happens to correspond to a real entity? No

I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I don't want/need to either. In the absence of a reason to believe in something I don't believe it.

So if I said I don't believe in sea horses or eskimos because I've never seen one in real life, you would not ask me to prove to you my belief because you know better........

Live and let live!!!

Tar.Aldarion

CatStevens wrote:

Hi Tar.Aldarion

Hello there CatStevens.

And there is no proof for that, but this is off topic, but I don't mind to discuss that if you want

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

I know there is no proof of the trinity, I don't believe in that either, I'm just pointing out that your quotes were, well, wrong for the purpose you purposed them for.

A mere pray isn't enough as I said

Do you not understand me or are you avoiding the question?
I hope you note that your A) C) thing was completely proven wrong, do you accept this, or wish to debate it?

So how do you explain the existence of the universe, how did it come into the existence?

There are theories,that's all there are, people have them, some have more 'proof' than others. Yet, they are just theories. What I am saying, and you seem to miss the point, is that your 'proof' is an illogical catch-22. it does not matter if something existed forever or not.

Scenario A) Something can come from nothing:
The universe can come from nothing. Humans can come from a non god source.

Scenario Something can not come from nothing:
Then the universe had to be created, which lead to humans. It had to be created from something. So something would have existed 'forever', even if time was not linear. If something existed forever, then the universe and all before could exist forever, without any god.
Otherwise.
Something would have had to created 'god' and if something did not have to create 'god', then something did not have to create the universe, because something can not come from nothing. Something could have just existed 'forever', moreover as before the universe forever does not even exist, as there is not a need for linear time.
Humans can come from a non god source in both scenarios, and most likely do.

btw please guys I think some of you didn't read my posts here maybe one or two because I think I'm repeating answers which I already answered so please read my posrs before posting

I have read them, I just think you missed my point.

The_Scary_Man

This whole argument spins on the form that God takes. If we can agree on that then this discussion will be made a little clearer.

Is God a supernatural force external to humanity or is He solely an implicit part of the human experience?

5uspect

edanto wrote:

As above, Godbelievers and Atheists both have faith, just complementary.

We are all born atheist, does a baby have faith? Someone here once said that I don't collect stamps, does that make not collecting stamps a hobby?

The atheist viewpoint is that there is only knowledge, we acrue more knowledge everyday about the world we exist in. We throw out old ideas when new better ideas show they are wrong. There is no faith.

Zombrex

bubonicus wrote:

So if I said I don't believe in sea horses or eskimos because I've never seen one in real life, you would not ask me to prove to you my belief because you know better........

No, for a start you don't have a belief. You have a rejection of a commonly held belief. I would not ask you to prove all the things you don't believe because the set of things you don't believe is infinately large.

I would probably show you a sea horse, or an eskimo. I always carry one in my back pocket for such occassions

For example, I do believe Steve Stauton is the manger of Ireland. I don't believe Steve Stauton works in my local chipper, or any of the infinate other thing I don't believe Steve Stauton does.

If I was to try and prove to why I don't believe all the billion things Steve Stauton could do were true, from working in the chipper to running an alien spaceship, we would be here until the end of the world. In fact we would never finish even listing them.

It is of course totally possible he does work in my chipper, but very unlikely.
If someone wants to show me Steve Stauton does actually work in my local chipper then need to show me that. I am not going to go on the assumption that he does unless someone shows me he doesn't. That would make little sense.

So I'm not going on the assumption God exists until someone shows me he doesn't. I'm going to assume He doesn't until someone shows me He does.

If anyone wants to show me a god I'm all ears (and eyes). If anyone wants to prove to me that a god exists I'm all ears.

Until then I see no logical reason to believe that supernatural gods are at all likely to exist. The universe works just fine without a god, so why believe in one?

bubonicus

5uspect wrote:

The atheist viewpoint is that there is only knowledge, we acrue more knowledge everyday about the world we exist in. We throw out old ideas when new better ideas show they are wrong. There is no faith.

So Atheists disagree with there been gods, not that they don't believe in gods. Well that's cleared that up. Cheers.

So for athesit's it's not about proof or belief, it's about trying to tell everybody else they are wrong.

Zombrex

edanto wrote:

As above, Godbelievers and Atheists both have faith, just complementary.

Faith is belief without reason.

I have faith in nothing, because there is nothing I believe where there is no reason for that belief.

bubonicus

Wicknight wrote:

For example, I do believe Steve Stauton is the manger of Ireland. I don't believe Steve Stauton works in my local chipper, or any of the infinate other thing I don't believe Steve Stauton does.

I understand what you are saying, I was trying to say you would know better to actually think I don't believe in sea horses etcc..

Any way, I think people throw the word belief around to easily.

I don't think you believe Steve Staunton is the manager of the irish football team. I think you know he is.

I am trying to make a distinction between belief and what you know.

Knowing something and believing in something are completely different. I don't think people really make the distinction.

As i think I said above, if god was proven or disproven, nobody would believe or disbelieve, they would just know.

edit: it's like that song "I believe I can fly", yeah but I know I can't

Zombrex

bubonicus wrote:

So Atheists disagree with there been gods, not that they don't believe in gods. Well that's cleared that up. Cheers.

Atheists reject the commonly held belief that supernatural gods are real and manipulate the universe.

As has been pointed out, everyone is atheist at some level, as everyone religious or otherwise, reject some ideas of gods. "Atheists" in the western world just take that one step further and reject the final god, the Hewbrew god.

Not believing in something is not a belief in of itself, for any meaningful use of the word "belief" For a start, the list of things I don't believe in is infinately large.

bubonicus wrote:

So for athesit's it's not about proof or belief, it's about trying to tell everybody else they are wrong.

You do know you are on an atheist forum here Bubonicus?

You can hardly expect the posters here to be mindful of not pointing the illogic nature of belief in a supernatural god, in case they offend someone.

bubonicus

Wicknight wrote:

You do know you are on an atheist forum here Bubonicus?

You can hardly expect the posters here to be mindful of not pointing the illogic nature of belief in a supernatural god, in case they offend someone.

which you invited a member of Islam to come onto and prove the existence of their god?

Lambs, slaughter!!!!!

Zombrex

bubonicus wrote:

I don't think you believe Steve Staunton is the manager of the irish football team. I think you know he is.

I don't know anything for certain. It isn't possible

There is only what I believe and the likelyhood I attribute to that belief. Knowledge is just the set of beliefs that you hold as being very very likely.

bubonicus wrote:

I am trying to make a disinction between belief and what you know.

There is none, in an absolute sense.

Knowing something is just a (slighly inaccurate) term for believing something to be very very very likely.

bubonicus wrote:

Knowing something and believing in something are completely different.

No they aren't

If you see Steve Stauton on a football pitch with the Irish team you believe your eyes are accurately depicting the scene as it is infront of you. You trust your eyes. You assess the situation and you make a judgement that it is very very very likely that your belief that Steve Stauton is the manger of the Irish football team is correct.

You might then say "I know this to be true", but that is just laymans terms. You only think you know this because you believe the information you have been given, be it from a newspaper or from your very eyes.