• 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?

Agatha said:
To try to move this thread towards Buddha's promised proof of God (which I hope will be coming soon) I thought I'd look up Bishop Berkeley's proof of God
Click to expand...


He appears to be closer to proving objectivism than the actual existence of god.

In any case, he's just plain wrong. All sorts of people see things that aren't there and everybody remembers things differently than they were. For that matter, due to the speed of light and the speed of electrochemical reactions in the brain, you're actually seeing things from a little while ago. Even then, you're only clearly seeing the thing you're focussed on. The stuff on the periphery is a hazy mess. The brain then makes deductions to pretend to itself that it's getting all this information in real time.

I like that the guy at least thought about the issue beyond "the Bible told me so," but his proof was hopelessly muddled.
 
Loss Leader said:
He appears to be closer to proving objectivism than the actual existence of god.

In any case, he's just plain wrong. All sorts of people see things that aren't there and everybody remembers things differently than they were. For that matter, due to the speed of light and the speed of electrochemical reactions in the brain, you're actually seeing things from a little while ago. Even then, you're only clearly seeing the thing you're focussed on. The stuff on the periphery is a hazy mess. The brain then makes deductions to pretend to itself that it's getting all this information in real time.

I like that the guy at least thought about the issue beyond "the Bible told me so," but his proof was hopelessly muddled.
Click to expand...

I think it's rather humorous that all these proofs are either hundreds of years old or based on books/writings that are hundreds or even thousands of years old and there has not been one single thing in the intervening time since that has reinforced that conclusion.
 
The Norseman said:
I think it's rather humorous that all these proofs are either hundreds of years old or based on books/writings that are hundreds or even thousands of years old and there has not been one single thing in the intervening time since that has reinforced that conclusion.
Click to expand...
This.

Einstein figures out relativity, and it's been non-stop relativity action ever since.

Guy proves that God exists, and a couple hundred years later, it's like, "literally who?"
 
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, this is closely related to what the (original) Buddha used to prove that we cannot know whether or not God exists. In shortened form, a follower asked him if God exists, and the Buddha replied that a finite human mind could not possibly comprehend anything about an infinite mind, including whether or not such a mind existed. Therefore, people should stop worrying about the existence or non-existence of God, much less what God might want from us.
 
Buddha said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unless God didn’t want to create the universe. Then it might just have arisen naturally.

It seems to me that a being with no desires at all would qualify as God under this definition.
 
Buddha said:
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
Click to expand...


Thanks, I did see it, you published a book. ;)
Looking forward to the thread, I love talking about evolution.


As far as omnipotence goes, I feel similarly about infinity. It can look good on paper but doesn't translate well to the real world.
 
theprestige said:
This.

Einstein figures out relativity, and it's been non-stop relativity action ever since.
Click to expand...
"Non-stop relativity action" sounds like it could be science porn. A niche product, but perhaps lucrative nonetheless. Hmmm... I'm thinking 'Atom and Eve' perhaps or maybe 'The Double Slit Experiment'...



Guy proves that God exists, and a couple hundred years later, it's like, "literally who?"
Click to expand...
I know, right? So what's the only answer really, that can be given, except "weeeellll... uh... god works in mysterious ways heh heh heh!"



jrhowell said:
Unless God didn’t want to create the universe.
Click to expand...
I've mentioned this before but it fits here too: who says that god has free will? I don't think humans have free will, as it's commonly understood; but hey, why not pile another assumption on top of all the other ones that are haphazardly flung about, right? (Not that I'm saying you're doing this. Just want to make that clear. :) )
 
The Norseman said:
I think it's rather humorous that all these proofs are either hundreds of years old or based on books/writings that are hundreds or even thousands of years old and there has not been one single thing in the intervening time since that has reinforced that conclusion.
Click to expand...


Worse than not finding a single thing to reinforce the God-conclusion, in those intervening hundreds (and thousands) of years there has of course been an absolutely overwhelming mass of irrefutable evidence to show why those God-conclusions were wrong (they were always just superstitious beliefs drawn from and age of ignorance, and never really "proofs" or worthwhile "conclusions" anyway ... though even today millions of people such as William Lane-Craig constantly repeat such "logic arguments" claiming to prove that the Christian God must exist).
 
At risk of being a killjoy but this thread is supposed to be about Buddha's claim that he can prove the existence of his god. Diverting into discussion of historical attempts by others to do so just lets him wriggle around without providing that proof.

Lets bare in mind that Buddha not only claims that he's managed what no theologian has ever archived but also that he knows better than all reputable biologists and can disprove the theory of evolution. These are big claims and so far we've seen no evidence to back it up.

Buddha, you've made a claim, that you "can use the methods of deductive logic to prove that the Creator exists", do so or show the integrity to withdraw the claim.

I realise you're new to the firum, but here if you want to boast about your unprecidednted accomplishments people will expect you to back it up.
 
Mojo said:
What have you got?




Not really, because thought experiments generally start with a big fat “if”.
Click to expand...
You could start with "if" if you want. For example, "What if God doesn't exist. Can I prove that?"
Einstein begun his quest with, "What if speed of light doesn't depend on a coordinate system. What kind of experiment I would have to run to prove that?" Later there were experimental confirmations of his idea. But he started with a thought experiment.
 
People do get that any argument for "God" that would just as easily "prove" the existence of Zeus, Odin, Q from Star Trek or Mr. Mxyzptlk is completely meaningless right?
 
I think I already defined God the way I see him. To me the word "God" defines somebody who can achieve anything he wants, including creation an universe.
 
The Norseman said:
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?
Click to expand...
There is a minor logical flaw in your reasoning-- you assumed that all miracles are claimed to be caused by God. This is not correct. 15 years ago Russian government released their previously classified files of ESP research (The CIA had done similar research but it is still classified). Some of Russian videotapes were aired on channel 13 in NYC (this is a PBS channel). I saw the woman sitting at a table, the box of matches was floating in the air in front of her, this was a telekinesis session. It looked like a miracle to me although God was not involved in it. Other than saying that the tape is fake, could you provide a reasonable explanation of the telekinesis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom