100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: can anybody prove to me a GOD?? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
for many god is successfully defined as being the totality of the universe - in which case the proof is as obvious as the universe in which we live. The existence of the universe proves that the universe exists, but it does not validate/prove/justify any of the qualities which are commonly projected onto the 'God-as-universe'. There is no need to project any other qualities. God can be defined as the beauty which is the totality of the universe and the existence of the universe then defines God. QED. Beautiful, simple elegant, monotheism. if you define god as the creator, then you can play the big bang backwards in your mind until you get a little point of unbelievable energy density. what caused that? we don't know but it was god...and the stuff before that and the stuff before that... I don't follow your meaning re: "stuff before that". Are you saying God created the universe, and God is also the being that created God? Why can't the universe come into existence on its own? If you insist there is a cause, why stop there, and not insist that this cause also had a cause? And if you follow that line of thought (stuff before that, stuff before that...), how do you choose where to draw the line and declare 'this cause was a God' - maybe our universe was created by an incompetent loser of a multidimensional being, who was in turn created by God? No, I am saying God is the entity from which all other things developed or evolved. The original cause which had no cause but is eternal. Why not? This is consistent with what many people believe. so, in most definitions of god - it just is not too hard to prove god's existence in the abstract sense. I don't see this. I just see tautologies and word play. Then you are not looking very hard! 1. God = sum of all things 2. God = original cause 3. God = definition of virtue or inclination toward good Three distinct non-tautologies. All valid ways of defining God and consistent with monotheism and demonstrable in relation to humankind. but if you are looking for a very exact physical description then you s.o.l.
 Yes, good luck to those who want a physical description for a hypothetical entity that would transcend time and space.well if you use definition 1 then at least you have the physical universe to point at...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for many god is successfully defined as being the totality of the universe - in which case the proof is as obvious as the universe in which we live. The existence of the universe proves that the universe exists, but it does not validate/prove/justify any of the qualities which are commonly projected onto the 'God-as-universe'. There is no need to project any other qualities. God can be defined as the beauty which is the totality of the universe and the existence of the universe then defines God. QED. Beautiful, simple elegant, monotheism. if you define god as the creator, then you can play the big bang backwards in your mind until you get a little point of unbelievable energy density. what caused that? we don't know but it was god...and the stuff before that and the stuff before that... I don't follow your meaning re: "stuff before that". Are you saying God created the universe, and God is also the being that created God? Why can't the universe come into existence on its own? If you insist there is a cause, why stop there, and not insist that this cause also had a cause? And if you follow that line of thought (stuff before that, stuff before that...), how do you choose where to draw the line and declare 'this cause was a God' - maybe our universe was created by an incompetent loser of a multidimensional being, who was in turn created by God? No, I am saying God is the entity from which all other things developed or evolved. The original cause which had no cause but is eternal. Why not? This is consistent with what many people believe. so, in most definitions of god - it just is not too hard to prove god's existence in the abstract sense. I don't see this. I just see tautologies and word play. Then you are not looking very hard! 1. God = sum of all things 2. God = original cause 3. God = definition of virtue or inclination toward good Three distinct non-tautologies. All valid ways of defining God and consistent with monotheism and demonstrable in relation to humankind. but if you are looking for a very exact physical description then you s.o.l.
Yes, good luck to those who want a physical description for a hypothetical entity that would transcend time and space.well if you use definition 1 then at least you have the physical universe to point at...
Pretty good reasoning and train of thought. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i am an inveterate troublemaker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
massagetrade
on
Mon 05/03/10 07:42 PM
|
|
for many god is successfully defined as being the totality of the universe - in which case the proof is as obvious as the universe in which we live. The existence of the universe proves that the universe exists, but it does not validate/prove/justify any of the qualities which are commonly projected onto the 'God-as-universe'. There is no need to project any other qualities. God can be defined as the beauty which is the totality of the universe and the existence of the universe then defines God. There is no need, and yet people do. So if you are truly not projecting any additional qualities onto the universe, why call it God? Why not just call it the universe? These are not rhetorical...there are reasons people play these games with words. I am saying God is the entity from which all other things developed or evolved. The original cause which had no cause but is eternal.
To rephrase my earlier comments in these terms: Are you certain that this exists? And if it does exists, are you sure that this is what created our universe? Maybe our universe was created by an entity that was created the the causeless cause. so, in most definitions of god - it just is not too hard to prove god's existence in the abstract sense. I don't see this. I just see tautologies and word play. Then you are not looking very hard! 1. God = sum of all things 2. God = original cause 3. God = definition of virtue or inclination toward good Three distinct non-tautologies.
If the question is the existence of 'God', and you define God as 'that which exists', how is it not a tautology to present this as an argument for God's existence?
All valid ways of defining God
and consistent with monotheism Which monotheism? #1 is NOT consistent with Christianity. well if you use definition 1 then at least you have the physical universe to point at...
And, as you point at it, you are pointing at: the physical universe! edit: meh, nested quote formatting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
interesting but can you prove that there isnt a god without quoting some scientist or somehting you just recently watched on the discovery cahnnel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Mon 05/03/10 07:51 PM
|
|
A tautology is a redundancy. It is not redundant to define God as the sum of all things in the universe just as it is not redundant to define a flower as:
1 a : the part of a seed plant that normally bears reproductive organs : blossom, inflorescence b : a shoot of the sporophyte of a higher plant that is modified for reproduction and consists of a shortened axis bearing modified leaves; especially : one of a seed plant differentiated into a calyx, corolla, stamens, and carpels c : a plant cultivated for its blossoms 2 a : the best part or example <the flower of our youth> b : the finest most vigorous period c : a state of blooming or flourishing <in full flower> A flower like God is what it is and it's existence is shown in that you can see it and measure parts of it even if a full description of it is not possible in words. 
Moreover, I do not think that any of the three different descriptions of God either individually or together is inconsistent fundamentally with Christianity although I am no expert... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A tautology is a redundancy. It is not redundant to define God as the sum of all things in the universe just as it is not redundant (sigh) No, a tautology is not exactly redundancy. But it is in fact redundant to define God in this way - the word 'universe' already has this definition. I say this is a tautology because you present this as proof that God exists. How have you proven that God exists? By defining God as that which exists. So we know that God exists because we've defined God as that which exists. Its meaningless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
interesting but can you prove that there isnt a god without quoting some scientist or somehting you just recently watched on the discovery cahnnel I absolutely cannot prove that His Holiness the Aardvark-Unicorn Prince doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A tautology is a redundancy. It is not redundant to define God as the sum of all things in the universe just as it is not redundant (sigh) No, a tautology is not exactly redundancy. But it is in fact redundant to define God in this way - the word 'universe' already has this definition. I say this is a tautology because you present this as proof that God exists. How have you proven that God exists? By defining God as that which exists. So we know that God exists because we've defined God as that which exists. Its meaningless. I understand what you mean but defining God as one with the universe is NOT meaningless and does not represent circular reasoning. Look at the example of the definition of the flower. It is seen as the sum of it's parts. It is known by observation of its parts. This is not exactly circular reasoning nor a tautology. It is a way of looking at the world.... and God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand what you mean but defining God as one with the universe is NOT meaningless and does not represent circular reasoning. Look at the example of the definition of the flower. It is seen as the sum of it's parts. It is known by observation of its parts. This is not exactly circular reasoning nor a tautology. It is a way of looking at the world.... and God.
Lets keep this in context...the topic here was 'proof for a God'. If you want to talk about how great it is to look at the universe from a different perspective, thats all well and good, and that is certainly something other than circular reasoning. However, when it comes to 'proving God', you have proven nothing other than 'that which exists, exists'. If you want to advocate the beauty of a shifted perspective, and not proof, why talk about proof? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Mon 05/03/10 09:36 PM
|
|
Because I genuinely think that this is at the heart of the question about the existence of God.
Some people point out the beautiful universe and picture it as the image of God and say - just look at it...God is beautiful. Others see the impulse towards good, kindness, and charity in others and say - this is God within others exhibiting perfection. Still others ask...how did it all begin? what is the ultimate seed of this existence we perceive. If it is the ultimate origin then it must be eternal...this is the essence of the creation of everything this is in fact the creator...this is God. In each of these non-conflicting viewpoints of God, there are in fact observation of real objects or real events or real impulses which are evidence of truth and beauty. Within these definitions, there is positive proof of existence of the objects, events, and impulses. It can be just like the flower. It all depends on what kind of perception one has of God... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slowhand, thank you for developing and expanding on your message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
interesting but can you prove that there isnt a god without quoting some scientist or somehting you just recently watched on the discovery cahnnel I absolutely cannot prove that His Holiness the Aardvark-Unicorn Prince doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
His Holiness the Aardvark-Unicorn Prince? seriously? wow, and i thought this was a topic for adults but apparently they let five year olds join in to amazing what they teach kids in school these days
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't prove to you something you do not wish to believe. Though, I will point out things which exist in nature, that could not possibly have occurred by random chance. They had to be created.
For example, did you know how complex the human body/anatomy/physiology is? The human eye is capable of discerning between 5 and 10 million different shades/hues/colors. That ranks with the best man-made optical equipment. Did you know that scientists/doctors don't fully understand how the human neurological system works? We can send a man to the moon, but we are still trying to understand the human brain. It is so complex that when one sector is severely traumatized, it can divert that bodily function to another section/lobe. For all of those who believe that man "evolved" from lower life forms, ponder this thought. Let us say for a minute, just for argument that humans did "evolve." Well, I hate to tell you this, but that first human would have had to been an ADULT, not an infant. Anything less than an adult would not have been able to exist without support. So, that supports "creation." This is especially true in higher life forms/mammals. Not only that, but there would have to have been 2 adults of the species to procreate. Let me give you another example in nature. The earth is positioned approximately 93,000,000 miles from the Sun. Any closer and the oceans would boil, any further, and the oceasn would freeze. Under those conditions, life would not be possible on Earth. Does that sound like humans just "hit the lottery" and lucked out, or there is a grand design? Even if life could somehow "spawn" itself, out of nothing, do you realize the mathematical odds against reproducing/replicating the species would be? The Seasons and other astronomical/geological occurences are predictable and stable. We can create calendars to mark them. It is as if someone was controlling them, huh? So, we have the complexity of life and the continuity of the earth and solar system, among other things, that would tend to indicate that we were created. I will give you one last example before I go. Let us say that you take a piece of paper and crumple it up. You toss it in the wastebasket. Is it going to turn itself into a 747 Jumbo Jet? No, it can't. To make something, anything, there has to be a volition behind it. If you believe that all of these perpetuating things are by randomm chance, I have some swamp land to sell you.... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Tue 05/04/10 09:09 PM
|
|
I can't prove to you something you do not wish to believe. Though, I will point out things which exist in nature, that could not possibly have occurred by random chance. They had to be created. For example, did you know how complex the human body/anatomy/physiology is? The human eye is capable of discerning between 5 and 10 million different shades/hues/colors. That ranks with the best man-made optical equipment. Did you know that scientists/doctors don't fully understand how the human neurological system works? We can send a man to the moon, but we are still trying to understand the human brain. It is so complex that when one sector is severely traumatized, it can divert that bodily function to another section/lobe. For all of those who believe that man "evolved" from lower life forms, ponder this thought. Let us say for a minute, just for argument that humans did "evolve." Well, I hate to tell you this, but that first human would have had to been an ADULT, not an infant. Anything less than an adult would not have been able to exist without support. So, that supports "creation." This is especially true in higher life forms/mammals. Not only that, but there would have to have been 2 adults of the species to procreate. Let me give you another example in nature. The earth is positioned approximately 93,000,000 miles from the Sun. Any closer and the oceans would boil, any further, and the oceasn would freeze. Under those conditions, life would not be possible on Earth. Does that sound like humans just "hit the lottery" and lucked out, or there is a grand design? Even if life could somehow "spawn" itself, out of nothing, do you realize the mathematical odds against reproducing/replicating the species would be? The Seasons and other astronomical/geological occurences are predictable and stable. We can create calendars to mark them. It is as if someone was controlling them, huh? So, we have the complexity of life and the continuity of the earth and solar system, among other things, that would tend to indicate that we were created. I will give you one last example before I go. Let us say that you take a piece of paper and crumple it up. You toss it in the wastebasket. Is it going to turn itself into a 747 Jumbo Jet? No, it can't. To make something, anything, there has to be a volition behind it. If you believe that all of these perpetuating things are by randomm chance, I have some swamp land to sell you.... THANKS!!! Great post. And thanks for all this information will be able to use it in other times :) Again very great post. Oh and if you'll buy his swamp i got some ocean front property in Arizona for sale, if you act quickly i might through the golden gate in for a bonuse being nice :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To CowboyGH and Diligent. It is nice to know that there are still some people that havent forgotten that our roots came from Adam and Eve not some monkeys.Taht everything around us cannot be coincidental that there is a reason for everything and that only one ultimate being knows what those reasons.and for anyone else that belives the same THANK YOU!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't believe this thread has reached page 27! That proves there must be a god. LOL Okay, back to the subject: 1. PROOF IS ONLY A MATTER OF CONVINCING SOMEONE TO BELIEVE SOMETHING by way of evidence, preferable scientific and physical evidence. 2. Be still and know that you are God. 3. Do you exist? In all seriousness, you MUST FIRST DEFINE GOD before anyone can even begin to discuss if it or he or she exists. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To CowboyGH and Diligent. It is nice to know that there are still some people that havent forgotten that our roots came from Adam and Eve not some monkeys.Taht everything around us cannot be coincidental that there is a reason for everything and that only one ultimate being knows what those reasons.and for anyone else that belives the same THANK YOU!!! Can you prove our roots came from Adam and Eve? Can you prove that God (a supreme being) made Adam? If he she or it did make Adam, how exactly and scientifically did he she or it do that? If you can't explain how God made Adam and Eve scientifically, then how magically did he she or it do it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 05/04/10 09:46 PM
|
|
I can't prove to you something you do not wish to believe. Though, I will point out things which exist in nature, that could not possibly have occurred by random chance. They had to be created. For example, did you know how complex the human body/anatomy/physiology is? The human eye is capable of discerning between 5 and 10 million different shades/hues/colors. That ranks with the best man-made optical equipment. Did you know that scientists/doctors don't fully understand how the human neurological system works? We can send a man to the moon, but we are still trying to understand the human brain. It is so complex that when one sector is severely traumatized, it can divert that bodily function to another section/lobe. For all of those who believe that man "evolved" from lower life forms, ponder this thought. Let us say for a minute, just for argument that humans did "evolve." Well, I hate to tell you this, but that first human would have had to been an ADULT, not an infant. Anything less than an adult would not have been able to exist without support. So, that supports "creation." This is especially true in higher life forms/mammals. Not only that, but there would have to have been 2 adults of the species to procreate. Let me give you another example in nature. The earth is positioned approximately 93,000,000 miles from the Sun. Any closer and the oceans would boil, any further, and the oceasn would freeze. Under those conditions, life would not be possible on Earth. Does that sound like humans just "hit the lottery" and lucked out, or there is a grand design? Even if life could somehow "spawn" itself, out of nothing, do you realize the mathematical odds against reproducing/replicating the species would be? The Seasons and other astronomical/geological occurences are predictable and stable. We can create calendars to mark them. It is as if someone was controlling them, huh? So, we have the complexity of life and the continuity of the earth and solar system, among other things, that would tend to indicate that we were created. I will give you one last example before I go. Let us say that you take a piece of paper and crumple it up. You toss it in the wastebasket. Is it going to turn itself into a 747 Jumbo Jet? No, it can't. To make something, anything, there has to be a volition behind it. If you believe that all of these perpetuating things are by randomm chance, I have some swamp land to sell you.... All very good points but it does not prove the existence of a single deity that created Adam and Eve etc. Your post implies only that there is a creative intelligence at work in the universe. I agree with this completely. Is it a separate and sovereign entity or God? I doubt it. It only suggests that there is some kind of awareness or consciousness at work in some form unknown to us in our current state of awareness. For all we know it could be us. Be still and know who you are. |
|
|
|
|
