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

[phiwum]

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

It's an interesting point, but I'm not sure I buy it. Kant said something about how we interpret every event as caused by physical laws. I think this is right, which means that God himself, were he to create a fantastic miracle, could not convince us that he exists. Rather, our tendency is to re-interpret physical laws to explain the miracle.

I totally take your point, of course, that many Christians would balk at the notion that God could not prove his own existence. Obviously, these idle thoughts are not in line with Christian orthodoxy.

 

[phiwum]

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.

Nice point.

 

[Rincewind]

Huh?

0=0 is definitely true and non-falsifiable. (Usual interpretation of the symbol "=", of course).

Similarly, all bachelors are unmarried is definitely true and non-falsifiable.

The second quote isn't necessarily true - I once worked with an Angela Bachelor, married to John Bachelor.

OK - I'll get my coat...

 

[phiwum]

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.

Er, I'm no historian of science, but far as I understand it, Einstein was reacting to the Michelson-Morley experiment. He wasn't just smoking pot and wondering what-if.

 

[phiwum]

Except, of course, you cannot prove a negative.
The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim.
Like you.

No, that's not at all how logic works.

To deny that God exists requires the same burden as to assert that he does. In either case, a claim is made and requires evidence or argument. There is no distinction between the so-called "positive" and "negative" claim. (Indeed, just think a bit about the problems of nested quantifiers, or whether we should simply accept Goldbach's conjecture since it is a so-called negative claim.)

NOTE: What people refer to as "negative" conjectures are really better understood as universally quantified statements. After all, "This car is not brown" is easy to confirm. "No car is brown" is rather harder to confirm, but why give a pass to exactly those statements which are hard to confirm? I can't tell whether or not there's a Diet Pepsi can on Pluto, but I sure ain't going to assume it's so on the grounds that it's hard to disprove.

 

[Apathia]

How disappointing! A thread about a "proof of an existence of god," but no proof forthcoming.


In the name of comic relief (we could use some here), I offer a "proof."

I say follow the money. American money says "In God we trust" on it.
If there is no God, the money is worthless.

(Yep. There are fool Christians that use this one seriously.)

 

[P.J. Denyer]

And getting back to the point of this thread. Where is Buddha's proof for god?

 

[JoeMorgue]

And getting back to the point of this thread. Where is Buddha's proof for god?

I sense a roadmap of how he's going to at some point in the hypothetical future prove God once we all agree to certain conditions forthcoming.

 

[aleCcowaN]

You could start with "if" if you want. For example, "What if God doesn't exist. Can I prove that?"

You, again, trying to sell "proving the non-existence of something" as something pertaining to the field of logic.

Quite lame.

 

[aleCcowaN]

This is a split thread, I didn't start it. The original thread was about modern atheism, I just replied to it.

...replied with an off-topic. Hence, this thread does exist, which is more than what can be said about your personal definition of god.

 

[aleCcowaN]

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?

I suggest you to read the MA, which you voluntarily accepted. You're kind of trying to derail your own thread.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

No, that's not at all how logic works.

To deny that God exists requires the same burden as to assert that he does. In either case, a claim is made and requires evidence or argument. There is no distinction between the so-called "positive" and "negative" claim. (Indeed, just think a bit about the problems of nested quantifiers, or whether we should simply accept Goldbach's conjecture since it is a so-called negative claim.)

NOTE: What people refer to as "negative" conjectures are really better understood as universally quantified statements. After all, "This car is not brown" is easy to confirm. "No car is brown" is rather harder to confirm, but why give a pass to exactly those statements which are hard to confirm? I can't tell whether or not there's a Diet Pepsi can on Pluto, but I sure ain't going to assume it's so on the grounds that it's hard to disprove.

Only that isn't what's going on at all. I don't believe the claims that one exists, there is a very big difference here.

Your example fails because we can investigate that claim, We can send a deep space probe and find out.

This is not so with god claims, Worse yet the "evidence" brought forth almost always boils down to 'Well you just have to believe'.

 

[kali1137]

This proof deserves a separate thread, I promise I will post it soon. Right now I do not even know if I can start a thread because I have not the posting quota yet.

How exactly does a thread already created for your proof deserve another thread? Sadly this is just like every other poster who comes along and claims to have the answers. First come the OT dodges - check, then come the promises if we are just patient enough - check, and finally the excuses - I didn't start this thread...............not enough posts yet to share what I want.......check. Just once it would be nice if someone who boldly proclaims they have the "proof" could actually back it up. Your kind do more harm than good for your cause. Each time a theist claims and never delivers, it's proof to me that it's all BS.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

How exactly does a thread already created for your proof deserve another thread? Sadly this is just like every other poster who comes along and claims to have the answers. First come the OT dodges - check, then come the promises if we are just patient enough - check, and finally the excuses - I didn't start this thread...............not enough posts yet to share what I want.......check. Just once it would be nice if someone who boldly proclaims they have the "proof" could actually back it up. Your kind do more harm than good for your cause. Each time a theist claims and never delivers, it's proof to me that it's all BS.

Yeah, if he'd posted his proof then even if we hadn't been convinced by it (I know, what are the odds?) he'd have earned some respect for putting his money where his mouth is. This is just sad though.

Buddha, post your proof or withdraw you claim.

 

[The Norseman]

Been interested in everything to do with biology since I can remember.

I was trying to make a joke but didn't include smilies or anything. The joke failed.

There is a minor logical flaw in your reasoning-- you assumed that all miracles are claimed to be caused by God.

I certainly did not assume any such thing; I could have been slightly more careful with my example conclusion but if you read the rest of it, I *clearly* say, "...disprove all supernatural or miraculous events" which is certainly not limited to a god. Also, one can easily strike out the last three or four words of that sentence and everything still makes perfect sense and loses nothing.

So, nice try.

The word "omnipotent" means different things to different people, to me it means nothing.

You're the one who's claiming your god is omnipotent. That's exactly what "someone who can do anything he wants to" means. I've already said this several times. How could you be unclear about this?

I assume that the word "entity" means that he has a physical body.

Hold up there! Why would you have to *assume* anything? I thought you had proof? I thought you have evidence of some kind that concludes that "god exists"?

This is just rich. LOL

In other words, you are saying you have proof of a thing which can "do whatever he wants" (i.e., is omnipotent) yet have to assume a physical body? Let me see if I get this right: you have proof of something which is literally not provable but must assume something which is provable but highly unlikely.

I do not believe in spirits, souls, astral bodies, Holy Spirit, etc. Once these beliefs are discarded, the only remaining possibility that he has a material body.

Noooo... there still remains the "possibility" of it simply not existing.

"Purposeful" would mean that he created the universe on purpose. But the purpose is not known to the mankind, so I do not think that this word is applicable to the Creator.

Why not? You're presuming a physical body, why not just presume a purpose too?

I think Buddha has a valid point that even if there was proof of a supernatural miracle (which isn't the case in that video) that would not automatically also prove the existence of God.

Please see above. Stripping out those last four words is all that's necessary.

I wrote, "There is no possible material cause that can explain this event. Therefore, it is a miracle and caused by god."

So okay, I can't go back and edit it now so here: "There is no possible material cause that can explain this event. Therefore, it is a miracle and caused by god."

I mean, I could have been clearer about what I was quoting and what I was generally commenting on, true. I used, "...and caused by god" because that's what the OP is all about, though the method of disproving miracles and supernatural events is the same, no matter the cause.

Anyway, I hope I've cleared that up and apologies for my lack of clarity.

Of course that just makes Buddha's task of proving God's existence all the harder. Miracles don't count.

Exactly. Even if we were looking at an actual miracle caused by some supernatural entity, there's nothing that we could know or discover about it to actually prove it (and IanS also commented about this way better than I).

 

[MikeG]

P+7

This thread started a week ago, the 9th of July. The fact that the OP hasn't even attempted to begin presenting his claimed proof is noted.

 

[Crossbow]

This proof deserves a separate thread, I promise I will post it soon. Right now I do not even know if I can start a thread because I have not the posting quota yet.

Well, ...

the whole purpose of this thread is to provide you a platform to post your proof of god. So if you actually do have such proof, then please post it here.

By the way, I do hope that you are aware of the fact that while there are billions of people who absolutely sure that god is a real thing that does actually exist, however no one in all of human history has actually ever been able to provide any objective proof of the existence of god. Therefore, if your proof of god is indeed valid, then you would be publishing the most remarkable document that the world has ever seen.

So good luck to you.

 

[IanS]

No, that's not at all how logic works.

To deny that God exists requires the same burden as to assert that he does. In either case, a claim is made and requires evidence or argument. There is no distinction between the so-called "positive" and "negative" claim. (Indeed, just think a bit about the problems of nested quantifiers, or whether we should simply accept Goldbach's conjecture since it is a so-called negative claim.)

NOTE: What people refer to as "negative" conjectures are really better understood as universally quantified statements. After all, "This car is not brown" is easy to confirm. "No car is brown" is rather harder to confirm, but why give a pass to exactly those statements which are hard to confirm? I can't tell whether or not there's a Diet Pepsi can on Pluto, but I sure ain't going to assume it's so on the grounds that it's hard to disprove.

Most educated atheists that I know are not so silly as to claim they know as a matter of certainty that God cannot possibly exist. Instead what they do and what I do, is simply say that all genuine evidence from 21st century science (and, actually, also from history), is very strongly against the possibility of a God of that sort (i.e. a miraculous supernatural creator of the universe, creator of Man etc.).

Also re. the claim that even if the God visited us today and performed all sorts of miracles, people today would say the miracles were not “proof” and that they might be just some sort of clever trick or illusion – that is simply not true. The fact is that if todays scientists witnessed, checked and tested the claimed miracles, and could find no other explanation except to agree that the actions did indeed appear to be supernatural and in clear contravention of all known theories (“laws”) of physics and chemistry, then they would happily conclude that the individual did indeed appear to have supernatural powers … they would not be sitting about for years & decades obstinately insisting it must be some sort of undetectable fraud … if it did actually appear to be the case after proper investigation, then science would certainly accept it (that's precisely the way all of science works … and it's precisely the way all genuine scientists work) …

… of course it would have to be something pretty amazing which genuinely did appear to be breaking all the established theories of science.

 

[abaddon]

Can we please get the terminology correct.

An atheist claims that they do not believe in any god or gods. This is a statement of fact and does not bear any further burden of proof beyond that statement.

An anti-theist makes the claim that no god exists and as such does have a burden of proof for that claim.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Well, ...

the whole purpose of this thread is to provide you a platform to post your proof of god. So if you actually do have such proof, then please post it here.

By the way, I do hope that you are aware of the fact that while there are billions of people who absolutely sure that god is a real thing that does actually exist, however no one in all of human history has actually ever been able to provide any objective proof of the existence of god. Therefore, if your proof of god is indeed valid, then you would be publishing the most remarkable document that the world has ever seen.

So good luck to you.

Well he also seems to think he knows better than all the actual biologists, geneticists, paleontologists and other non-nutbars who believe in evolution. Quite the renaissance man.

Come on Buddha, where's the proof?