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

[aleCcowaN]

Here is my question to you and everyone else -- what kind of empirical proof regarding existence of God would you accept?

Translation: "tell me how can I sell this crap to you"

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)

Proving the non existence of something ... you really are needed of a course in basic logic.

 

[Pixel42]

Of course the story is made up. Its purpose is to show that not everyone would accept a proof of God's existence

Well there are people who won't even accept the proof of the shape of the earth, so that's hardly a revelation.

There are, however, plenty of rational people who are currently atheist or agnostic but would accept a logical proof of God's existence if one were ever offered. So have you got one or not?

 

[JayUtah]

Of course the story is made up. Its purpose is to show that not everyone would accept a proof of God's existence

No, its purpose was to use straw-man tactics to try to poison the well. "Oh, look how silly skeptics are. That's why they won't accept 'good' proofs." The skeptics in your story had nothing to do with skepticism.

 

[JayUtah]

Here is my question to you and everyone else -- what kind of empirical proof regarding existence of God would you accept?

Irrelevant. You said you had a proof that would prove the existence of God using deductive reasoning. Let's see that proof. If there's anything wrong with it, we'll tell you. It's not a matter of us setting the bar for you. It's a matter of you presenting what you say you already have, which you purport to be already sufficient.

...it could be a thought experiment as well (Einstein loved thought experiments, and so din Niels Bohr)

Neither posed them as proofs for what they gave as their findings. They used thought experiments to aid in conceptualizing the problems they were trying to solve, which otherwise would have been too esoteric. When it came down to the actual proof of their claims, that was done with solid math.

Where's yours?

 

[Pixel42]

Here is my question to you and everyone else -- what kind of empirical proof regarding existence of God would you accept?

Statistics which prove that events are being directed rather than being what would be expected by random chance, e.g. good things happening to good people and bad ones to bad people disproportionately. Above chance hit rates for the prophesies of people who claim to experience revelations from God. Infertility rates being lower for kind caring couples who long for a child than feckless inadequates whose children have to be taken into care. That sort of thing.

 

[JayUtah]

Translation: "tell me how can I sell this crap to you"

For starters, he can define God -- especially coming from the moniker "Buddha." Are we talking about one of the classical formulations in religion and philosophy? Some generic mist of omnipotence with no a priori characteristics? The Squire of Gothos? Before you can design an empirical experiment to look for something, it helps to know what you're looking for.

Proving the non existence of something ... you really are needed of a course in basic logic.

As are most people who say they can "logically" prove the supernatural.

 

[The Norseman]

Here is my question to you and everyone else -- what kind of empirical proof regarding existence of God would you accept?

First, let's get the important stuff out of the way: what is your coherent, rational, and meaningful definition of 'god' that actually is sufficient in determining what it is that you propose actually exists?

 

[jrhowell]

Need I remind you, though, that you promised us a logical proof, not an empirical one.

He didn't promise anything. He claimed that he can do it. He didn't state that he would do it.

I can use the methods of deductive logic to prove that the Creator exists.

The devil's in the axioms.

 

[JayUtah]

So have you got one or not?

Gee, where have we seen such elaborate stage-setting before? It's as if a neutral audience is being primed to interpret rejection of the impending proof -- if we ever get to see it -- as a function of how skeptics think and how they reject "good" reasoning because of their biases and preconceptions. It provides an alternative explanation to rejecting the impending proof because it turns out to be wrong.

The more one has to explain and condition ahead of time, the less a proof it actually is. Proof is how you convince someone that something is true without their having to believe already that it is.

 

[theprestige]

Keep in mind that Buddha didn't start this thread. The OP began life as an aside in another thread. The mods have essentially turned it into a call out thread, where Buddha is supposed to take on the role of of chew toy for the amusement of our resident anti-theists.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Keep in mind that Buddha didn't start this thread. The OP began life as an aside in another thread. The mods have essentially turned it into a call out thread, where Buddha is supposed to take on the role of of chew toy for the amusement of our resident anti-theists.

Oh, yes, completely gratuitous! Because the following proves this thread is uncalled-for.

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.

To me existence of the Creator is not a matter of faith but of logical necessity. My logical deductions lead to conclusion that Big Bang did not happen by itself, it was caused by the Creator. However, I do not think that natural sciences such as physics, chemistry and genetics could be used to prove or disprove existence of the Creator because they were not designed for this purpose. Only deductive logic could be used to answer the question of God's existence.

I analyzed the Bible and deduced that Jesus is the Messiah, although his is not God. My own research also confirms that the reincarnation exists.

 

[aleCcowaN]

For starters, he can define God -- especially coming from the moniker "Buddha." Are we talking about one of the classical formulations in religion and philosophy? Some generic mist of omnipotence with no a priori characteristics? The Squire of Gothos? Before you can design an empirical experiment to look for something, it helps to know what you're looking for.

As everything coming from a group of fellows (believers) who lack moral compasses, he's going to try to prove that the devil exists. The goody good god is just the disguise it takes for advertising purposes.

 

[Darat]

Right, but if a god does exist, logically it would leave some kind of mark on the world that we logical humans could take as evidence of its existence.



In short, if a god did exist, it would already have been logically proven. And it hasn't.

Especially since the god believed in by the majority of religious people world wide is one that is quite happy proving he exists!

 

[Thor 2]

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)

Well if He could do that one again where He made the Sun stand still would be a good start. This would of course mean stopping the Earths rotation. It would be most impressive if He could do this without bits of the World flying off into space and the whole of life extinguished.

A couple of stars falling to Earth would make a big splash also. I meant real stars of course not small bits of crap we know as shooting stars.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

To be fair, the "OP" didn't start this thread... Loss Leader did

"This thread has been split to its own topic."

Although I should also point out that the "OP" hasn't responded in the original thread this one was split from either.

Yes, but given the post quoted at the start of this thread it's like saying "I didn't start the fight because the barman told me to take it outside".

 

[Rincewind]

It's so disappointing when this happens.

you get all psyched up to have the whole thing finally explained, and then...

Nothing...

Bugger...

 

[SOdhner]

what kind of empirical proof regarding existence of God would you accept?

I can't think of any physical evidence that would convince me. Even some pretty extreme evidence would be better explained by me being insane or something.

I could be convinced by a sufficiently sound logical proof, however.

if you are given an opportunity to prove or disprove that God exists, what kind of experiment would you design?

Oh that's easy. God would have to make me completely certain that he exists.

God could easily just wish it so, right? He could snap his fingers or whatever and poof, I would be totally sure that god is real. That would, by definition, convince me.

 

[Loss Leader]

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)

I'll answer this. I would start by asking for a consistent definition of the word "god." I can't even imagine designing a test unless I know what I'm testing for.

Christians, Jews, spiritualist, etc. all have different conceptions of god. And even within a religion, the idea of God constantly shifts. We can't even start until we're sure that your concept and mine are the same.

Now, I don't think I have the burden of creating a test because I'm not trying to prove anything. But let's not worry about that yet. You tell me what definition of God you're talking about and then we can work from there.

 

[Pope130]

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)

You should go back to the original idea of a logical argument. Any physical experiment would only indicate that there was some agency capable of action beyond my understanding. This would not be proof that that agency was supernatural, much less a god or The God.

(And I will humbly point out that "action beyond my understanding" is not an extraordinarily high bar.)

 

[sackett]

The monk asked, "Master, what is NOT the Buddha?"

"Dumb questions aren't the Buddha!" snapped the master. "Now go swamp out the monastery latrine!"

"Yeah, sure, Master," replied the monk. "And you drop back 10 yards and punt. Think I'm here to wipe up your little movements do ya?"

"Well, yes," said the master, "I mean, enlightenment and all that. Goddammit, who's the master here? I mean, ****, mister monk!"

"Gottit," said the monk, and walked away toward town. It wasn't far.