Post proof a god exists.

What I run into a lot when talking to some members about whether or not any PROOF exists that a GOD exists is a great deal of angry replies to me on occasion by some claiming I am another ATHEIST who's RELIGION OF SCIENCE I am defending by doing everything and anything to attempt to prove their GOD does not exist.

NOTHING could be further from the truth as I WOULD JUST LOVE to find ANY evidence or proof that a GOD exits.

Unfortunately I and everyone else I have talked to or read has yet to provide even the smallest amout of any evidence never mind such people providing actual PROOF that a GOD exists.

As well such people do not really understand what SCIENCE is as it certainly is NOT a Religion as SCIENCE is simply a METHOD and even THEOLOGY is considered a SCIENCE.

AboveAlpha

 

Those are some interesting claims that you have made..... NOW... where is the proof of those claims?

 

Or even as laughable as someone who leans on the dictates of science to explain that there is no God or Holy Spirit.... yet those same people (those who lean on science) should know that science does not show PROOF of anything. Fundamental teaching of science. OOOPS... just found this... there is such a thing as scientific proof... see here: http://aqu52.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/global-warming.jpg?w=600

 

I post EXACTLY where ANYONE can read and see for themselves the PROOF of what I have posted as what I have posted are NOT CLAIMS....they are FACTS.

A CLAIM....is that Moses parted the Red Sea and that the Hebrews walked upon the bottom of the Red Sea.

The REALITY....is that this story WAS CREATED BY MAN....and the actually REALITY is written into the Tanakh which is the BOOK that was used by Roman Christian Leaders to then write the OLD TESTAMENT.

Where in the WORLD did you think the stories written into the Old Testament came from??? LOL!!

AboveAlpha

 

Of course I have not proven the hypothesis however, there is evidence for this hypothesis.

What caused your finger to move was your will. You willed it to move and it did. Through a simple thought you were able to exert some control over energy and matter.

Now imagine being able to extend that power to something outside of your own body and you have a God (or at least a really good sorcerer )

What is the difference between the ability to control energy within your own body and the ability to control energy outside one's body ? I do not have an answer to this question other than a difference in space but why should this make a difference. What difference does it make to a thought ?

We are able to manipulate energy with our will = such things are possible. While we can not yet prove that extending this power is possible it does not seem a big stretch to think that such things should be possible.

Immortality should also be possible. In fact it is my understanding that Jellyfish can live forever.

In an infinite amount of time sentient beings are going to come into existence that live forever or develop the capability to live forever.

Such beings, given an infinite amount of time could either learn or develop the capability to control energy through their will to a higher degree than we humans are presently capable.

My claim is that it is extremely unlikely that this would not happen.

 

I am not sure why you are talking to me about this as I have never claimed that there is no God never mind claimed that Science has proved there I no God. In fact I have never heard anyone make this claim.

Why are you addressing nonsensical claims that you make up and projecting these claims onto others ?

What I do claim is that no one has proven that any God exists and especially not the God of the Bible.

 

Just to inform you many animals can control energy and direct it outside their bodies such an example of such animals being an ELECTRIC EEL.

Now as far as being able to use ones mind in a Telekinetic Manner...such people DO EXIST....although they exist in TINY NUMBERS and most work for the DoD....along with Psychics and Remote Viewers.

But there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between any Life Form eventually evolving to a point of having such abilities at a much higher level and what a GOD would be as far as what has been advertised by various Religions.

The facts are any GOD capable of Universal or Multiversal Control and Determination would have to exists at the same number of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms Numerically as the Universe or Multiverse such a GOD would control or determine.

THAT....is BEYOND improbable.

AboveAlpha.

 

I fail to see how you conclude that from what I said and I beg to differ with what you say here. IMHO while a person’s relationship or non-relationship with God is highly individual, God – if He exists - would be God regardless of what we make of Him. If God – as Bonhoeffer suggested in accordance with all major theist religions I can think of– is unimaginable for our tiny human brains, what we want Him to be won’t affect the essence of His being in the slightest. The individual God you seem to have in mind would be a mere idol, because it would be subject to your imagination.

Sorry, but I fail to see where it says what you wrote in the first place. But I’ll drop you a clue what I was driving at when I said idols are material objects: The question whether God exists or not is a metaphysical question, you won’t find ‘proof’ of Him in this physical world. Theists who try to prove God via natural science are about as ignorant as atheists who think they can disprove Him.

Fair enough – that’s why we work in terms of faith rather than knowledge when we speak about God. Personally – while I deem it proper for the natural sciences to solely concern themselves with the natural world – I find it hard to understand how anybody can refrain from pondering the so called “big questions” that aren’t a concern of the natural sciences, but that can in the end only be met by faith. But suit yourself.

I’m not a believer in torture for eternity, so I can’t really comment on that. But I’m perfectly at ease with the thought that the creation cannot understand the creator. Why not? Then again: While I believe in revelation I don’t hope for a creator to spoon-feed us full information. Then again I’m the kind of educator who thinks that it’s better to let children work things out for themselves step by step. The fact that a three-year old won’t understand a scientific paper about astrophysics doesn’t necessarily make the paper wrong. Nor does God being mysterious to us necessarily make God wrong.

First you are making the mistake of equating God to religions that try to follow Him, and then you have a very narrow and caricature-like understanding of what these religions actually think about God/soteriology. Contrary to you what interests me aren’t so much the differences between religious traditions and their respective schools of thought but their similarities. One of these similarities is the above-mentioned concept of God that has it that God is beyond even the most sage Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, ( … ) full understanding. This is rather basic. Which is why the lack of humility, that some fundamentalists display and that you rightly seem to take issue with, keeps astonishing me, too. What I fail to see though is your point here concerning my first post in this thread?

 

Well you state why in your 2nd sentence. 'if He exists'. We don't know one exists, many believe it, and everyone has their own personal interpretation. All we have of God is one's imagination at this time.

.
An idol is anything that one worships. Real or imagined.

What big questions? Like why and how did we get here? Does it really matter? We are so live in it. But many humans have a thirst for knowledge, so man searches for those answers. This, at this time, is way beyond something I can delve into deeply as it gets really philosophical IMO, or really religious. Both, IMO, are similar. No real answers, just thoughts. Religion tries to put a box around the why and how. And maybe there is a God, but I don't see it being the one from the bible, solely or as it's entirety.

Then you haven't been in the same religion as I or in any religion of christianity that I'm familiar with. As that is the basis for christianity, written it fair detail in the book of Revelations. Which I personally don't believe either. But the bulk of christianity does.
But I'm with you, if God won't torture humans for all eternity for questioning the story the christians want to feed people. You claim christian, without all the christian details I've been taught.

I have not studied religions in great detail. I have had jobs almost all my life. I start out with decades of only knowing 1 school of christian thought. I am now rejecting those decades of thought as lies or distortions in order to get folks to conform. And I see most all religions, especially the abrahamic ones, only purpose to control the flock.
Then you have these religions, with the same God, killing each other because the path to God is different and only they have the correct path. BS, IMO.
I'll have to go back and reread your 1st post later. If I forget, remind me.

 

What would be wrong with God as an idol? The bible says we are to worship God. In eternal paradise, that is one of the things we will do for eternity, worship God.

So, what is wrong if God is an idol?

 

Where the heck did you get this from? For one thing, your assertion is definitely not a fact, but an unsubstantiated theory. For another, I can't imagine how you or anyone else can possibly determine what GOD is or is not capable of. This is not to say he/she/it exists, I think that question is up to each individual to decide for themselves. I would however say that finding proof one way or the other is not possible, and I would also say that you appear to be trying to marginalize anyone who believes in a deity by whatever name or religion they may practice. Live and let live.

 

Who made such a claim? Were you there and acting as a witness for or against those claims?

All books were written by man. So what is your point? Are you suggesting that BOOKS written by man are invalidated simply because they were written by man? Or, are you suggesting that some books written by man meet your approval because they coincide with your perspectives?

Obviously from the mind of those who wrote those stories. Where in the WORLD do you think the stories written in scientific theories came from?

 

Still at it huh? Since you always ignore my other points raised on this issue lets try a different one.

Define "observer" in reference to the Copenhagen Interpretation.

 

the two are not the same, eels have a very real electric discharge ability...

psychic ability-there is a standing $1,000,000 reward for anyone who can demonstrate psychic ability, it's been around for years unclaimed...

 

I said “if he exists” out of respect for those who don’t believe He does. IMHO a valid opinion albeit one that I don’t share, not only because of personal experiences that you may want to call imagination and that I’d call revelatory, but also because I happen to find God’s existence to be the more reasonable assumption, when it comes to tackling those nasty metaphysical questions.

That’s a very broad view. Have an equally broad view of what “worshipping” means and you can include “American idol” into that.

What’s wrong with thinking for thoughts sake? Of course the more you think and the more you answer the more questions will pop up, be it in natural sciences or in theology/philosophy. That we kept asking is what helped us come down from these trees and move on. And believe it or not: religions are moving on, too, have been since time memorial. Even within the Bible, a book that contains texts from various centuries, you can see movement. Whether and how you believe any of these texts to tell some sort of truth about God or not, is of course up to you. However the OP did not ask for proof for the Biblical God, but God generally. Personally I’d hate to automatically exclude non-Christian theists here. So you’re kind of derailing poor Alphas thread, when you get hung up about the Biblical God, don’t you think?

If I remember right we’ve been through this before: I’m a rather normal German Protestant, member of the EKD (http://www.ekd.de/english/). I'm not prone to national pride, but ya know Germany is the place where Luther came from and where you up to this very day find some of the most prestigious theological faculties to this day. What you perceive to be “written in fair detail in the book of Revelations (sic)” would probably be an interpretation frowned upon by most serious Bible scholars these days. Unfortunately their commentaries don’t make for good horror film material and thus are vastly unknown to the general public. If you’re interested, this Professor of New Testament Studies has written two books on the Book of Revelation and this is what he writes about modern theologians attitude about universal salvation:

http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/article_universalism_bauckham.html

I’ve been to Church all my life and I don’t remember ever having been threatened with hell fire from down the pulpit. So yeah, it probably helps to have a church that requires its pastors to actually get a proper degree in theology before being ordained. I hear there are some Churches in the US that maintain that standard, apparently these churches don’t show on your radar though.

I’m a lay-person myself, but I’m afraid I must say that it shows that you haven’t studied religions a great deal, nor history for that matter. Otherwise you would not be operating with such over-simplifying prejudices.

I’ve already tried to explain this to you at great length. But I’ll happily try again in short: The word “idol” stems from Greek and means “form or shape”. God would be the one who forms, not the formed thing. He has no shape or form. For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry

 

Just stumbled over this. So you - with your self-declared highly scientific mind - think telekinesis is real, but you think the idea of God existing is fishy? Wow! The last time I was that speechless was when an acquaintance told me that he was fully convinced of moon-landing conspiracy theories!

Anyhow, your probability argument has been refuted countless times. Just for example you see (agnostic) philosopher Anthony Kenny tearing it apart here in about a minute (from about 5:40 into the video)
[video=youtube;m9H2bxHIBfg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9H2bxHIBfg[/video]

Sorry man, but your whole thread is futile. Should you find irrefutable ‘proof’ or ‘disproof’ of God’s existence in this forum, I’ll eat my very existent hat, promised.

 

All these discussions fail to define God. So let me propose a definition of God as a superior being that cannot be understood by man. My wife meets this definition

 

I hear that. She only has one commandment though, thou shalt do as I say or else.

 

I mostly agree with you right up until the end.

Religion is a poison and the horrible even terrifying effects it has and has had are easily proven.

As long as anyone is making a claim that can affect our existence that claim should be subject to scrutiny to prove whether or not it has any merit.

 

The end said “live and let live”. I fear the true poison in this world stems from people who can’t subscribe to that. And your post aptly shows the inability to subscribe to that is not solely reserved for religious people.

But tell me, how does my belief in God affect your existence?

 

I see cupid dave still favors the "baffle 'em with BS" approach

 

First, Juno I know damn well you are educated enough to understand the negative effects religions have had and continue to have.

Second, you're right it's not reserved just for the religious, it’s reserved for everyone.
We do not live in a anarchists world, we live in a society and societies do not thrive off of live and let live they also cannot stand when individuals are forced to tow the line. Where does that leave us? It leaves us in a world where perspective matters, where knowledge and evidence matter. It leaves us in a world where claims about that world must earn their right to be considered valid or valuable.
We are not individuals who just so happen to be experiencing the same existence as those around us. We created this world of societies out of ideas, where they come from and what the say matters a great deal beyond the individual.

Even if you never mentioned your belief to anyone in your live Juno if it matters to you it will change your perspective; that is how it affects our existence.

 

You yourself can read the data that exists detailing both American and Soviet work in the fields of Telekinesis, Remote Viewing and Psychic ability.

Remote Viewers were shown to be 100% effective on either 20/20 or 60 Minutes.

Such things exist as we don't spend over $20 Billion on such programs if they didn't.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

EXACTLY!! LOL!!

I am defining GOD in this instance as is described by the Bible.

AboveAlpha

 

Thanks for the compliment. I on the other hand think that you could be educated enough to also understand the positive effects religions have had and continue to have, but that your ideological blinkers keep you from wanting to be. The supposed war between religion and science only exists in the minds of creationist fundamentalists, fanatic atheists of the Dawkins kind and maybe some people who are utterly ignorant of history and history of ideas. The rest of us tend to have a more differentiated view.

Funnily enough, the last bit here somehow reminded me of something 9th century monk John Scottus Eriugena
said: "Authority is the source of knowledge, but the reason of mankind is the norm by which all authority is judged." (http://archive.org/stream/ageofbelief007499mbp#page/n85/mode/2up) He can probably be called one of the first scholastics. Their belief in God being supreme reason caused the scholastics and many others to follow to assume that the world He created must work according to reasonable laws. To better understand these laws was a way to better understand and thus to better worship God. That was the core motivation for science and philosophy. The scholastics influence in theology was the principle that faith and reason must never be opposed (vgl. ebd.).

I should hope that my faith changes my perspective on life and thus makes me a better person to have around. Without it I’d probably be even more of a cynic misanthrope than I tend to be anyway.

However even, if you had a magic wand with which to eradicate all religious ideas in my head, there’d probably still be loads of other forming influences left in it, that you might find unsavoury, politically, aesthetically or philosophically. Aside from religious literature, authors that may have had a serious impact on my personal worldview were Leo Lionni, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (anarchist), Noam Chomsky (anarcho-syndicalist), Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Aldous Huxley and last but not least Voltaire, who’s famous for having said “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”

Anybody else on that list who’d be “poison” for your Brave New World in which everybody thinks the very way you do?

When you start burning those books, don’t forget “The Origin of Species”, in which Darwin has the audacity not only to quote Bacon (“To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both.”) but goes on say “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
(http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1872/1872-429-dns.html) tststs

But how such an attempt at mind control would make you morally better than the Catholic Inquisition or Mao Tse-tung is beyond me.

 

Sure, the US-Army has also spent a fortune on LSD, so God (excuse me) knows what other nonsense they waste a ridiculously high amount of your tax-money on.

However, if you are so sure that you can prove the existence of telekinesis scientifically, why don’t you go and get your prize then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telekinesis

Good luck

Pretty ethnocentric to exclude all those Jews, Hindus and Muslims …, don’t you think?

But just out of interest: Which Bible under which theological viewpoint?
I guess that (probably unbeknownst to you) all in all you’re after the Augustinian interpretation, even though you may not like the fact that - to the distaste of our modern fundamentalist brothers and sisters – Augustine strongly advocated to read Genesis allegorically. But at least his interpretation of the Bible has other juicy stuff in it, such as the concept of original sin. Then again Augustines concept of original sin slightly varies from that of most traditional Protestants, the Orthodox Church never really went for it in the first place, and all over the place you’ll find biblical scholars who will tell you that the only reason Augustine himself ever went for it was that his Greek was so abysmally bad that he had to rely on Latin texts, which happened to contain a rather dodgy translation of Rom. 5:12.

Either way you’d be limiting the choice of people who might want to reply to your OP's question even further.