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

[Mojo]

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

What have you got?

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

Not really, because thought experiments generally start with a big fat “if”.

 

[Craig B]

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.)

That is a very sound point, and it makes the idea of an infinite God impossible to demonstrate. No finite human can perceive any product of creation to be infinite. The best that can be observed is that something is immeasurably big.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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)

He could put me in a cleft rock and show me his arse, like he did with Moses in the Bible. Wouldn't necessarily be proof, but it would be a great dinner-party story.

On a more serious note, I concur with many others here: you would first need to define god.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

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

Whoa there, this thread isn't about what empirical proof we would accept, you've already claimed you can 'do better' than that anyway.

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.

Posted By: Loss Leader

How about instead of trying to distract with made up stories about atheists rejecting a god to it's face or distracting questions about what we might accept, you back up the claim you made-:

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

Posted By: Loss Leader

Let's see it. That is what this thread is about, let's have your proof not smoke and mirrors.

Posted By: Loss Leader

Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[Diablo]

Whoa there, this thread isn't about what empirical proof we would accept, you've already claimed you can 'do better' than that anyway.





How about instead of trying to distract with made up stories about atheists rejecting a god to it's face or distracting questions about what we might accept, you back up the claim you made-:




Let's see it. That is what this thread is about, let's have your proof not smoke and mirrors.

Quite right, let's see the proof. Except it doesn't exist or it would be plastered all over the media and the internet, and it's not. The title of the thread should be 'Not a Proof of the Existence of God'.

 

[The Norseman]

That is a very sound point, and it makes the idea of an infinite God impossible to demonstrate. No finite human can perceive any product of creation to be infinite. The best that can be observed is that something is immeasurably big.

This is an excellent point and actually, a similar method can be used to disprove all supernatural or miraculous events.

If a person wishes to claim an event was supernatural (or the result of a miracle), first they would have to show that there is no possible natural way for the event to have occurred in the first place.

In other words, the proponent is in effect saying, "There is no possible material cause that can explain this event. Therefore, it is a miracle and caused by god."

For it to be true, the proponent would have to know all material causes first in order to rule them out as the actual cause of this event and even if one single cause remains unknown, then the proponent fails.

What this boils down to is that we'd all have to be omniscient in order to know whether or not something is supernatural. If that's the case, it kinda defeats the purpose of the supernatural event, doesn't it?

 

[Buddha]

Well so far in the history of mankind nobody has done so.



That's reasonable. The "mediocre" atheist is suggesting several alternative explanations that have a higher probability based on what he already knows. Hallucinating is a much simpler explanation than "god exists, and created an entire universe just to prove a point for me".



Wow, the "smart" atheist has a way worse suggestion. It's still arguably more likely than god existing and doing it, but it's far from the most likely explanation and it's not testable which means he can't really state it with that kind of confidence.



Okay so in this scenario god doesn't know how logic works?



I doubt it's one we haven't heard and poked holes in a hundred times.

Your criticism is noted. It is relatively easy to prove that a person is not hallucinating if his blood, for example, is tested for drugs. Hypnotism without person's consent is something unheard of, at least it is unknown to me. The mediocre atheist's explanations are very weak. On the other hand, the smart atheist's explanation could be correct if it is not judged in the terms of the probability theory. For example, in quantum mechanics the probability of quantum tunneling is very low but it occasionally takes place.
I, as God, didn't provide a logical proof of existence of the Creator. This is a complex topic, I will need a separate thread for that. I will give a logical proof in a near future

 

[Buddha]

At present we seem not to even have proof of the existence of the OP.

They promise so much but deliver so little....

You have a dry sense of humor, I like that!

 

[Buddha]

Yip, that's evolution for you, another dirty trick up god's sleeve.

I'll get to this topic at another thread. Please, be patient. I wrote about myself at the Welcome thread. You could check it to see where I stand on the evolution in particular and religion in general

 

[Buddha]

Just because Theists need no proof at all for God, they have to convince themselves that no amount of proof will be enough for Atheists - which, of course, is pure BS.
If the Rapture happened tomorrow, that would work as very strong evidence.

Vast majority of the theists accept existence of God on faith. Well, I belong to minority of the theists who require a logical proof of God's existence. I am in a good company: Archbishop Berkeley was the first Western philosopher who provided a correct proof that the Creator exists.
The Rapture thing wouldn't work for me because I do not believe in it; this silly concept came as a result in incorrect translations of certain biblical texts.

 

[Buddha]

Gee whiz!

You sure have failed.

First, you assume that there is only one Creator. After all, if there actually one Creator of some sort, then there may well be two such Creators. Or three, or four, or millions, or billions of other Creators as well.

Second, even if there actually is such a Creator as you describe, then one needs to ask what did this Creator come from. Your fairy tale does not provide any such data.

Third, your Creator must have a rather poor intellect because it cannot provide conclusive evidence of his own powers to us mere mortals. I (and I expect that many others here on the Forum and elsewhere) would expect better of a Creator of the universe.

So if and when, you actually can provide this "logical necessigy" of yours, then please share it with the rest of us.

Thanks much.

You raised several interesting topics. I didn't address them in my post because they are irrelevant to my presentation. However, I'll briefly address some of them. As you said, there is no way of telling how many Creators there are. Actually, I can prove that there is only one. Religious people say that God came from nowhere, he always existed. I hold a different point of view, and I will be happy to discuss it at another thread because this topic deserves special attention.
Please, be patient, I will provide my logical proofs in a near future. This is one of the reasons why I joined this group -- I want to see how my strongest opponents respond to my ideas.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You have a dry sense of humor, I like that!

Great, I consider my existence vindicated....

Now-:

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.

How about backing up this bold claim with this world changing proof rather than blowing smoke?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You raised several interesting topics. I didn't address them in my post because they are irrelevant to my presentation. However, I'll briefly address some of them. As you said, there is no way of telling how many Creators there are. Actually, I can prove that there is only one. Religious people say that God came from nowhere, he always existed. I hold a different point of view, and I will be happy to discuss it at another thread because this topic deserves special attention.
Please, be patient, I will provide my logical proofs in a near future. This is one of the reasons why I joined this group -- I want to see how my strongest opponents respond to my ideas.

Yeah right.

In the words of the Prophet "Put up or shut up".

 

[Loss Leader]

Vast majority of the theists accept existence of God on faith. Well, I belong to minority of the theists who require a logical proof of God's existence.

Please just start by defining the concept of "God" that you are talking about when you claim an ability to prove it logically. I simply don't know what you mean. And I would hate for you to, say, prove that the universe was created and claim that you proved that God had a son named Jesus who died for our sins.

 

[Buddha]

Yeah, I can't imagine a proof of the existence of God because I've never heard a self-consistent definition of the word. So that's step one of that.

People define the word "God" differently. I define it as "someone who can do anything he wants" That would also include creation of the universe because God wanted to create it, obviously.

 

[JayUtah]

People define the word "God" differently.

Yes, which makes it extremely difficult to argue that it exists in an objective, testable way such that deductive logic can take hold.

I define it as "someone who can do anything he wants" That would also include creation of the universe because God wanted to create it, obviously.

So we glean from this that the god you can prove deductively exists is:
(1) an entity
(2) conscious
(3) purposeful
(4) omnipotent
(5) creator of the universe (all all the premises that entails)

Can you establish any of these elements deductively?

 

[Mojo]

People define the word "God" differently. I define it as "someone who can do anything he wants" That would also include creation of the universe because God wanted to create it, obviously.

Are you defining God as male?

 

[Buddha]

I'll add one more thing because it was mentioned at this thread. Did God create the world in 6 days? Of course he didn't, the 6-days span of time is nonsense, it came as a result of incorrect translation of the biblical text by poorly educated initial translators of the Bible, and later it became a tradition. My own translation is that the universe was created in 6 stages. At least two biblical scholars share my point of view. No, I am not a biblical scholar, currently I work as a Data Analyst for a consulting company. But I have some knowledge of ancient Hebrew.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

People define the word "God" differently. I define it as "someone who can do anything he wants" That would also include creation of the universe because God wanted to create it, obviously.

Okay,now where is this proof?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I'll add one more thing because it was mentioned at this thread. Did God create the world in 6 days? Of course he didn't, the 6-days span of time is nonsense, it came as a result of incorrect translation of the biblical text by poorly educated initial translators of the Bible, and later it became a tradition. My own translation is that the universe was created in 6 stages. At least two biblical scholars share my point of view. No, I am not a biblical scholar, currently I work as a Data Analyst for a consulting company. But I have some knowledge of ancient Hebrew.

Really don't care. You claimed to have proof, how about you save the irrelevant chatter until after your world changing revelation?