• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged A Proof of the Existence of God / Did Someone Create the Universe?

sir drinks-a-lot said:
Just because he doesn't do something, doesn't mean that he can't do that thing.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, really; I'm responding to the implied claim that the atheist position is unfalsifiable by pointing out that, to a hypothetical omnipotent entity, no position can conceivably be unfalsifiable, notwithstanding that it may not in fact be falsified. Theists have to get round this by asserting that proof denies faith and that therefore God chooses not to prove his existence, but to describe atheism as unfalsifiable implies that God cannot prove his existence. I don't think many Christians would apply the word "cannot" to their conception of God.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I'm responding to the implied claim that the atheist position is unfalsifiable by pointing out that, to a hypothetical omnipotent entity, no position can conceivably be unfalsifiable, notwithstanding that it may not in fact be falsified.
Click to expand...
Well... can an omnipotent entity prove that it is omnipotent, rather than just very very very very powerful? I can't see how.
 
GDon said:
Well... can an omnipotent entity prove that it is omnipotent, rather than just very very very very powerful? I can't see how.
Click to expand...

Nor can I. However, "omnipotent" means "capable of any definable action," and proving omnipotence is a definable action; therefore, by definition, an omnipotent entity would be capable of proving its own omnipotence.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Nor can I. However, "omnipotent" means "capable of any definable action," and proving omnipotence is a definable action; therefore, by definition, an omnipotent entity would be capable of proving its own omnipotence.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how I would define the action of "proving omnipotence" in a way that rises above the limitations GDon mentions. I admit I'm thinking in concrete terms about how I would prove that I was omnipotent, and that would be to falsify the proposition that "There is no definable action I cannot do." Empirically that would devolve to proposals of allegedly infeasible actions that I would then accomplish, which would only provide a probabilistic outcome that would ever more closely approximate omniscience.

Conversely I would also consider that defining "proving omniscience" would itself be a definable action that would need to be subsumed under omniscience, but that's more apparent circularity than I'm willing to parse out on a Friday.
 
JayUtah said:
I'm not sure how I would define the action of "proving omnipotence" in a way that rises above the limitations GDon mentions. I admit I'm thinking in concrete terms about how I would prove that I was omnipotent, and that would be to falsify the proposition that "There is no definable action I cannot do." Empirically that would devolve to proposals of allegedly infeasible actions that I would then accomplish, which would only provide a probabilistic outcome that would ever more closely approximate omniscience.

Conversely I would also consider that defining "proving omniscience" would itself be a definable action that would need to be subsumed under omniscience, but that's more apparent circularity than I'm willing to parse out on a Friday.
Click to expand...

Ah. Well there is a get out clause applied there by the apologists. The deity is not omnipotent. That, they claim, is a loose term. In fact, they claim, the deity is "optimally powerful". As a term, it is quite clever. It could mean anything or nothing at all. It allows them to claim "virtual" omnipotence (haven't I seen that term somewhere before) all the while sweeping the difficult parts under the rug.

Atheist: "Can god create a truly immovable object which even he could not move?"

Theist: "That would not be optimal."

Atheist: "So your god is not omnipotent as claimed, right?"

Theist: "Right. He is optimally powerful as stated."

Atheist: "So define what is or is not 'optimal' for a god."

Theist: "You have to have faith."

And off the endless merry-go-round goes.
 
abaddon said:
As a term, it is quite clever. It could mean anything or nothing at all. It allows them to claim "virtual" omnipotence (haven't I seen that term somewhere before)...
Click to expand...

I was just going to say that. Apparently the key to winning theology debates is to make up new words. Goes all the way back to consubstantialem patri.
 
Buddha said:
This thread has been split to its own topic.
Posted By: Loss Leader




It is possible in principle to provide an empirical proof that God exists. However, not everyone will accept it, everything depends on individual's personal preferences.

This is a tale of two atheists, a smart one and a mediocre one, who met God. "Give us a proof that you are the Creator, " said one of them. "All right. I will snap my fingers and a new universe will come to be, " said God. " So God snapped his fingers and a new universe appeared. "This is a hallucination. You either spiked my drink with LSD or something else, or hypnotized me without my consent, " said the mediocre atheist. "God turned to the smart atheist and said, "What do you think?" "Everything is real here, there is no hallucination. You snapped your fingers and the universe appeared, as you predicted. But this was just a coincidence, the new universe would have came out of nothing even if we have not had this conversation. I know, the chance of such coincidence is minimal, but it is still not zero, " said the smart atheist. "I must give you a credit for saying this. Logically speaking, you are right," said God.

I can do better that giving an empirical proof that the Creator exists -- I can use the methods of deductive logic to prove that the Creator exists. To me existence of God is not a matter of faith but of logical necessity.
Click to expand...

I hate the sort of thought process being portrayed here. I mean, since "atheist" just means "does not believe in god", being an atheist doesn't have to include logical thinking, but many stories apply this same sort of thinking to both atheists and scientists, essentially "even visible evidence will not deter my "beliefs".

Being an atheist or a scientist is not defined by a set of beliefs. Nothing about either requires you to ignore evidence.

Remember the old animated movie Flight of Dragons? Where Peter is presented as a "man of science" and escapes being merged with the dragon with "I simply thought 'two objects cannot occupy the same place at the same time'"? No, no, no you moron! That's not good science. Science is not sticking with dogma. Scientific theories are not mantras and wards. They define the world as best as we currently understand it, and that includes understanding that our theory may be incomplete.

If you encounter direct, undeniable evidence that known theories are wrong, you analyze, experiment and potentially change your theories. You don't just close your eyes and repeat the laws of Thermodynamics and hope the new information goes away.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Thank you pals. I've been laughing a lot reading the witty replies given to Godot... I mean, Buddha.
Click to expand...
:) You're right, this really is a "waiting for Godot" thread. I just hope that Buddha is okay, and didn't meet someone on the road just as he was about to post his proof for the existence of God.

Or could the OP be giving us a koan, that the only valid proof for the existence of God is the proof not given? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Of course the story is made up. Its purpose is to show that not everyone would accept a proof of God's existence
 
Thor 2 said:
Well actually he did create the universe with a virtual snap of the fingers in just a part of one day. He took the rest of the time just getting into the details about our planet. No wonder the flat earthers think we are the centre of it all and the stars can just "fall to earth" if God wants them to.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Here is my question to you and everyone else -- what kind of empirical proof regarding existence of God would you accept?

I mean, if you are given an opportunity to prove or disprove that God exists, what kind of experiment would you design? It doesn't have to be a real experiment, it could be a thought experiment as well (Einstein loved thought experiments, and so din Niels Bohr)
 
On the "omnipotent" bit, it reminded me of a text I read decades ago, from one of the greatest myth creators who was sanctified, I don't remember if Augustine of Hippo or Thomas Aquinas (I tend to mix both up), and the text stated that "god" is omnipotent but there are four things it cannot do: "god" cannot create another "god" and "god" cannot kill itself were two of them.

On one occasion I was forced to bear with some Jehovah's witnesses or other brand of blabbering baboons and I told them "don't you know God killed himself last night?". The discussion arising about that being impossible or being impossible to prove false showed signs of despair in the eyes of those guys, as if they needed a "fix of god" to reassure their egos.

I promised myself not to repeat such a cruel stunt with other "missionaries" ... unless another group gets in my hair.
 
Buddha said:
Here is my question to you and everyone else -- what kind of empirical proof regarding existence of God would you accept?

I mean, if you are given an opportunity to prove or disprove that God exists, what kind of experiment would you design? It doesn't have to be a real experiment, it could be a thought experiment as well (Einstein loved thought experiments, and so din Niels Bohr)
Click to expand...

Just curious, but have you ever read your namesake's discussion on the existence of God?



But to answer your question, for my part if the Son of Man appeared in the clouds next to some dude blowing a trumpet that somehow made a sound audible everywhere, that would not be "empirical proof" of the existence of God (see the aforementioned discussion by the original Buddha) but for my part, I would figure it's close enough and would start worshipping. It would be a case for me where the odds had shifted on Pascal's wager and I decided to believe, or at least behave that way, even if I knew that logically there is no way to prove that was really God, and if so there was no way to understand what might put me in good standing with Him.


In general, if there are signs and wonders of sufficient impressiveness by a being who claims to be God, or even by one who claims to be a spokesperson for God, I would go along, even though in the back of my mind there would be the knowledge that I could be wrong.


Need I remind you, though, that you promised us a logical proof, not an empirical one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom