Does God Exist? [Arguments & Proofs]

[ducati916]

I think I commented here about 4 years ago.

No, in the modern religious sense.

The God of the current main religions is absolute pure myth. It's indisputable. Bible bashers should just stop and give up.

If you have a personal idea of God, s/he may exist somewhere, in some time.
In what state, is for you to explain.
Go ahead...

The other, original thread, has obviously been going for some time. Nowhere in that thread [that I have found] is the actual question defined in terms that could possibly engender a serious argument or proof to be refuted.

If you are going to argue about a gaaark, everyone must first understand and agree what a gaaark actually is.

This particular question has preoccupied some of the best minds in history. The way they approached the question was in the following manner.

*A reality that transcends time and space
*The ground of being and value
*A reality worthy of man’s worship

Notice that God is not defined as a being, rather, as a reality. The reason is that a being connotes a something existing in spatiotemporal understanding, alongside other spatiotemporal somethings. Philosophers who have believed that God exists, and that his existence could be proved, have not intended to assert the existence of a being occupying some particular region of time-space. They have meant to assert, rather, the existence of a reality that is not subject to these categories. Hence, God is not a being, but a reality.

The term ground, has been employed by Philosophers when talking about cause. A cause is a spatiotemporal something, that stands in a certain relation to something else that is called it’s effect. As God, a reality, stands outside of spatiotemporal consideration, so ground is adopted in place of cause.

There have been five primary arguments put forward in relation to proofs in support of God’s existence:

*Ontological
*Cosmological
*Teleological
*Moral
*Religious Experience

The first two carry the majority of the intellectual firepower, with the moral argument tending to support the first two, rather than creating a new a separate line of reasoning. I shall be looking at, and analysing the first two arguments, the first, comes from St Anslem.

jog on
duc

 

[springhill]

There is no PROOF a "God' exists, only misguided hopeful beliefs and those (long ago) that created a God, Deity, El Supremo whatever the hell is your terminology of choice. Maybe if i get struck by lightning while taking the 'Lord's' name in vain, ill change my mind.

All total BS.... a 'God'.... therefore a 'religion' based upon following the belief that this 'being', spirit', or even 'dude that lives in the sky' is a crock of s**t.

Merely a way of controlling the lemmings and amassing as much wealth as possible.

All a matter of denying we are no better than any other species that walks this planet, and that something SPECIAL awaits us when we pass on. sorry folks, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, remember man that you are dust and unto dust you shall return!

Money is power, whether it be Govt, Mother Earth raping companies, or religion.

There is a sucker born every minute, only a matter of which blood sucking, money hoarding faith can convert them first.

 

[ducati916]

There is no PROOF a "God' exists, only misguided hopeful beliefs and those (long ago) that created a God, Deity, El Supremo whatever the hell is your terminology of choice. Maybe if i get struck by lightning while taking the 'Lord's' name in vain, ill change my mind.

All total BS.... a 'God'.... therefore a 'religion' based upon following the belief that this 'being', spirit', or even 'dude that lives in the sky' is a crock of s**t.

There are a number of proofs. This subject, while vastly diminished in importance in our current time period, was, the most important question in other ages.

As such, the finest minds of their respective times, grappled with the question. As I have indicated, God, as depicted in the Bible etc is absolutely the wrong place to start.

Essentially, Religion, is symbology. This approach is childish. Rather, the approach taken by St Anslem, St Thomas Aquinas, who are quite honestly far ahead of current thinkers.

I shall present the proofs and add my analysis. Of course, if you feel that you can in a logical manner, refute the arguments, I'll be most interested.

jog on
duc

 

[wayneL]

As I have indicated, God, as depicted in the Bible etc is absolutely the wrong place to start.

This is the point where the majority are stuck. Hopefully, you can move people on from here; I've tried over the course of the thread unsuccessfully and it is essential to do so, otherwise the debate is continuously dragged back to arguments over that model.

Essentially, Religion, is symbology. This approach is childish. Rather, the approach taken by St Anslem, St Thomas Aquinas, who are quite honestly far ahead of current thinkers.

I shall present the proofs and add my analysis. Of course, if you feel that you can in a logical manner, refute the arguments, I'll be most interested.

jog on
duc

Looking forward to it.

N.B. Can folks please try to keep this thread on the specific topic and leave the "yes it is, no it isn't" jousting for the other thread.

 

[Agentm]

i spoke to god about it for you wayne

two things he mentioned

1/ your wasting your time on a question you already know the answer to

2/ said something about a certain mr reaper visiting soon.. whats that all about?

 

[wayneL]

i spoke to god about it for you wayne

two things he mentioned

1/ your wasting your time on a question you already know the answer to

2/ said something about a certain mr reaper visiting soon.. whats that all about?

OK, I guess the loco weed will do that to some people.

But I'm wondering - of all the people who have commented on this topic, why choose me as the subject of your excursion into fantasyland?

Can we keep this on topic please?

 

[bulldoza]

There is no PROOF a "God' exists, only misguided hopeful beliefs and those (long ago) that created a God, Deity, El Supremo whatever the hell is your terminology of choice. Maybe if i get struck by lightning while taking the 'Lord's' name in vain, ill change my mind.

All total BS.... a 'God'.... therefore a 'religion' based upon following the belief that this 'being', spirit', or even 'dude that lives in the sky' is a crock of s**t.

You're entitled to your view but I think you and everyone else should define, for any type of argument on this matter, the 'degree' of proof you are referring to in whatever argument you are putting forward.

I think the concept of this thread is a good idea, but I fear that since there is no 'hard evidence proof' that proves the existence or non-existence of God then eventually this thread will end up going round in circles like the other one, but hopefully after at best providing food for thought.

Personally, the Bible and my personal experiences in life are sufficient proof for me to be convinced that God exists but I certainly don't expect anyone else to blindly accept what I accept as proof of God's existence and I am not trying to change anyone's views.

BTW, it's encouraging to see that a 'road to Damascus' like experience might still change your mind -

Maybe if I get struck by lightning while taking the 'Lord's' name in vain, ill change my mind.

 

[Mofra]

Simple.

If there was a god, Elvis would still be alive and all the impersonators would be dead.

 

[Mofra]

The other, original thread, has obviously been going for some time. Nowhere in that thread [that I have found] is the actual question defined in terms that could possibly engender a serious argument or proof to be refuted.

duc,

You strike me as the type that would find the research/methods used by Dr Michael Newton fascinating. His work with hypnosis & regression to induce "between life" therapy states seems to povide some sort of spiritual modal that is actually free of contradictions whilst not specifically debunking or ridiculing any general spiritual theories or beliefs.

 

[Beej]

I prefer Douglas Adams proof from The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy:

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

So all we need to do is identify what the equivalent of the "Babel Fish" is in today's society, and we have our proof!!

Cheers,

Beej

 

[explod]

I think the concept of this thread is a good idea, but I fear that since there is no 'hard evidence proof' that proves the existence or non-existence of God then eventually this thread will end up going round in circles like the other one, but hopefully after at best providing food for thought.

"that proves the existence or non-existence of God" That's it, it is just belief, as in the fairies at the bottom of the garden and Santa Clause. And such stories of belief are, in fact, an asent to youngsters when they learn the truth to tell white lies themselves, the rest of course is history.

 

[Calliope]

I prefer Douglas Adams proof from The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy:

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

Well done Beej. That's it in a nutshell. It cuts through all the b/s. Logic is the winner.
.

 

[wayneL]

Simple.

If there was a god, Elvis would still be alive and all the impersonators would be dead.

Good point! LOL

 

[bellenuit]

I think the concept of this thread is a good idea, but I fear that since there is no 'hard evidence proof' that proves the existence or non-existence of God then eventually this thread will end up going round in circles like the other one, but hopefully after at best providing food for thought.

Just one point Bulldoza and you have also raised it in the other thread. You have asked for proof that God doesn't exist.

It is not actually possible to PROVE the non-existence of anything. I believe this is philosophy 101.

Whereas one sighting, as an example, may be sufficient to prove that something exists, the fact that not one person since the beginning of time has sighted something does not prove that that something doesn't exist.

 

[bulldoza]

Just one point Bulldoza and you have also raised it in the other thread. You have asked for proof that God doesn't exist.

bellenuit - This is simply not true - I have never asked anyone to provide proof that God does not exist.

What is the post number you are claiming I made such a request?

 

[disarray]

Notice that God is not defined as a being, rather, as a reality. Hence, God is not a being, but a reality.

like the force? or the laws of physics? so it is a manifestation of all spectrums and frequencies and quantum states and probabilities at the same time both inside and outside the universe? how does this "god" quality interact and impact upon the universe?

does god exert influence on universal processes like gravity and fusion and genetic manipulation (for the virgin births)? if not, then why call it god when we are merely experiencing a measurable, quantifiable universal process?

for sure god has nothing to do with the bible or any other cultural story. given current technology we are observing the edges of the universe and pulling apart atoms, and all of this is merely confirming the natural system based nature of the universe. what is the role of god in all of this? are we dissecting god every time we smash some subatomic particles together?

as for aquinas and anslem, their thinking is well outdated. aquinas does the whole "god is everything and infinite" angle which really just means god is the whole universe and whatever is beyond the universe. and if the universe is just a natural system then it's not, by definition, god.

and aslem goes the whole "god is soooooo big you can't even imagine it!" angle which i don't buy. the innate curiosity of our species, our intelligence and technological acumen have seen use perform miracles. curing the sick? pfft easy. walking on water? how about subs and spaceflight?

there is no reason we cannot eventually fathom the nature of the universe both as a whole and as a sum of its parts. genetics is unlocking the door to create and manipulate life. nanotech is literally building things out of individual atoms. physics has been dissecting the universe and has got to a stage where we need to rewrite an infinite rulebook of interrelational probabilities (god's manual as it were). hubble is taking holiday snaps from the beginning of time. we have no need for a god outside when we can grow to be gods within.

 

[bellenuit]

bellenuit - This is simply not true - I have never asked anyone to provide proof that God does not exist.

What is the post number you are claiming I made such a request?

Yes, you are correct in that you haven't asked anyone to prove God doesn't exist. But, the impression I got from some of your posts is that you thought it could be possible to prove that God doesn't exists. My apologies if I got you wrong on this.

This from the other thread...

#1272

If you feel your post conclusively proves Matthew's Gospel is sufficently at odds with Luke's Gospel to the point where it conclusively proves God does not exist, then why not take your post to the media and see if it will stand up to their scrutiny.

#1274

If Richard Dawkins had conclusive proof that God does not exist, I am sure at least the media would be all over it one way or the other.

And your first post on this thread...

I think the concept of this thread is a good idea, but I fear that since there is no 'hard evidence proof' that proves the existence or non-existence of God then eventually this thread will end up going round in circles like the other one, but hopefully after at best providing food for thought.

In this quote I made the assumption that since you said that there is no 'hard evidence proof' that proves the ... non-existence of God that you are implicitly suggestion that there could be such evidence but no one has come up with it.

 

[Bushman]

Not sure why people waste energy on this stuff. How could you empirically measure the 'supernatural' anyway? Science seeks to prove/dissprove hypothesis based on the observed laws of the natural world.

So if it is 'supernatural' (clever trick that), then it cannot be measured and falls outside the realm of scientific theorum.

That is why it requires faith; it doesn't bleed!

 

[ducati916]

like the force? or the laws of physics? so it is a manifestation of all spectrums and frequencies and quantum states and probabilities at the same time both inside and outside the universe? how does this "god" quality interact and impact upon the universe?

does god exert influence on universal processes like gravity and fusion and genetic manipulation (for the virgin births)? if not, then why call it god when we are merely experiencing a measurable, quantifiable universal process?

for sure god has nothing to do with the bible or any other cultural story. given current technology we are observing the edges of the universe and pulling apart atoms, and all of this is merely confirming the natural system based nature of the universe. what is the role of god in all of this? are we dissecting god every time we smash some subatomic particles together?

Some of the usual objections, and they certainly have validity. In that they have validity, I shall certainly address some/most along the way.

as for aquinas and anslem, their thinking is well outdated. aquinas does the whole "god is everything and infinite" angle which really just means god is the whole universe and whatever is beyond the universe. and if the universe is just a natural system then it's not, by definition, god.

Actually, I disagree. The arguments provided by Anslem are quite profound. I'm not saying they are without valid criticism, however, this criticism I intend to address and thus modify the arguments slightly. Feel free to refute.

and aslem goes the whole "god is soooooo big you can't even imagine it!" angle which i don't buy. the innate curiosity of our species, our intelligence and technological acumen have seen use perform miracles. curing the sick? pfft easy. walking on water? how about subs and spaceflight?

Incorrect. You are falling very short of the argument.

there is no reason we cannot eventually fathom the nature of the universe both as a whole and as a sum of its parts. genetics is unlocking the door to create and manipulate life. nanotech is literally building things out of individual atoms. physics has been dissecting the universe and has got to a stage where we need to rewrite an infinite rulebook of interrelational probabilities (god's manual as it were). hubble is taking holiday snaps from the beginning of time. we have no need for a god outside when we can grow to be gods within.

I like your last statement. Indeed, it highlights an interesting idea which I shall also touch on.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

This is the point where the majority are stuck. Hopefully, you can move people on from here; I've tried over the course of the thread unsuccessfully and it is essential to do so, otherwise the debate is continuously dragged back to arguments over that model.



Looking forward to it.

N.B. Can folks please try to keep this thread on the specific topic and leave the "yes it is, no it isn't" jousting for the other thread.

enzo

Essentially I shall present initially St Anslems arguments, one proposition at a time with my own additional analysis and in some cases, modifications. At that point, anyone who wishes to refute that proposition, and/or argument can do so.

If, the proposition holds, then I'll move onto the second, third, etc. Obviously if I actually get to the fifth, without being refuted, then, based on the argument - God exists, which has been proven via logic and evidence.

Obviously, in a public forum, there will be those who simply have an opinion. That's fine, but I won't actually include [respond to] any opinions unless they address the individual proposition.

jog on
duc