The existence of God can never be proven

[fullywired]

That is a proposition to be debated. Not a statement of fact.

If you can't prove it and you have said you can't then there is nothing to debate

[Mr Walker]

If you can't prove it and you have said you can't then there is nothing to debate

NO I have said that the existence of god can be proven to an individual using the same scientific methodologies and evidences by which an individual proves anything to be real.

I have secondly said, that NO individual experience can be proven to a second/third party who was not there to share the experience, not even what you ate for breakfast.

So (the real physical existence of) god is provable, and is proven to many individuals. But those proofs and evidences can not be effectively shared with others who lack the same experiences So one person cannot prove the existence of god to another. But then they can not prove the existence of anything to anyone who has no personal experience of its existence.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Frank Merton]

I don't think there is a God, at least in the Western sense of a personality or motivated being acting in history and revealing Itself through whatever means, most importantly through people such as prophets or holy writings. These ideas, even though the thought is denied, are plainly anthropomorphic descendants of thunder gods.

Something on the lines of the Tao seems more likely, as a source of sentience.

[Mr Walker]

I don't think there is a God, at least in the Western sense of a personality or motivated being acting in history and revealing Itself through whatever means, most importantly through people such as prophets or holy writings. These ideas, even though the thought is denied, are plainly anthropomorphic descendants of thunder gods.

Something on the lines of the Tao seems more likely, as a source of sentience.

Tao is close enough. But it too remains a human interpretation of the divine. EVERYTHING we know and sense about the divine comes via our ability to think, and is shaped and influenced by the ways in which we think The natue of the divine is such tha this is how a connection between it and human consciousness must operate. I especially identify with these points

Tao or Dao (/taʊ/, /daʊ/; Chinese: 道; pinyin: Dào (help·info)) is a Chinese concept signifying 'way', 'path', 'route', or sometimes more loosely, 'doctrine' or 'principle', or as a verb, speak.

Yes a relationship with "the divine" is a path or way There are many such paths. The relationship you establish also determines ones physical path through life.

Tao is not a 'name' for a 'thing' but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe. Tao is thus "eternally nameless” (Dao De Jing-32. Laozi) and to be distinguished from the countless 'named' things which are considered to be its manifestations.

This is true also, but being human I still name it. My name for it is the cosmic or universal consciousness. Call it tao by all means.

the object of spiritual practice is to 'become one with the tao' (Tao Te Ching) or to harmonise one's will with Nature (cf. Stoicism) in order to achieve 'effortless action' (Wu wei). This involves meditative and moral practices. Important in this respect is the Taoist concept of De (德; virtue).

I cant agree more. This is a critical practical element of a relationship with divine Harmonise with nature and other people Stoicism or control of emotion and physical sensations, and living with a moral and virtuous ethical intent at all times.

It can, however, be known or experienced, and its principles (which can be discerned by observing Nature) can be followed or practiced.

Absolutely true.

In Confucianism and religious forms of Taoism these are often explicitly moral/ethical arguments about proper behavior, while Buddhism and more philosophical forms of Taoism usually refer to the natural and mercurial outcomes of action (comparable to karma). Tao is intrinsically related to the concepts yin and yang (pinyin: yīnyáng), where every action creates counter-actions as unavoidable movements within manifestations of the Tao, and proper practice variously involves accepting, conforming to, or working with these natural developments

I call this the law of natural consequence but indeed, it is again, a real and powerful force.

I also equate qi or chi directly with physical power of the holy spirit, as this force is known in Christian theology.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Frank Merton]

Thanks for the "lesson" in Chinese religious philosophy.

[Mr Walker]

Thanks for the "lesson" in Chinese religious philosophy.

No I didn't intend this as a lesson. I was explaining how I see all paths as connected. If I lived in asia I would be a buddhist or a " Daoist".

My relationship with god is the prime element to my life, but I can live that relationship under many umbrella forms, because it is a personal relationship with the tao or the universal consciousness.

What the west calls the holy spirit, others call qi, but we all experience the same real power and force. I wasn't trying to teach anyone anything. I do that professionally, including comparative religious theology to teenagers in a govt school. I have just started the Christmas holidays and would like a break form teaching. I just took a few points from Wikipedia and showed how I see a direct comparison between my own observations of the divine and those of tao

For example this further quote

A central tenet within most varieties of Daoism is that the Dao is ever present , but must be manifested, cultivated and/or perfected in order to be realised. It is the source of the universe and the seeds of its primordial purity rests in all things. The manifestation of Dao is De which rectifies and invigorates the world with Dao's radiance

matches precisely my own experiences with the cosmic consciousness and with its nature

Edited December 14, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Frank Merton]

The Buddhism I grew up with is a Vietnamese flavor of the Buddhism of China, and in China Buddhism was heavily influenced by Taoist thought (much less by Confucianism), although the leading Confucian teachers are revered here.

This event linked the Buddhist idea of sentience and the Taoist thought of whatever the Tao is (I want to say universal mind but that is all wrong), sentience being made possible by the presence of the Tao. No doubt this is some Buddhist somewhere trying, as Buddhists are admonished to do, to find truth wherever they go, but I think in this case it works.

[Mr Walker]

The Buddhism I grew up with is a Vietnamese flavor of the Buddhism of China, and in China Buddhism was heavily influenced by Taoist thought (much less by Confucianism), although the leading Confucian teachers are revered here.

This event linked the Buddhist idea of sentience and the Taoist thought of whatever the Tao is (I want to say universal mind but that is all wrong), sentience being made possible by the presence of the Tao. No doubt this is some Buddhist somewhere trying, as Buddhists are admonished to do, to find truth wherever they go, but I think in this case it works.

That is pretty much identical with my own understandings and experiences, but put much more succinctly.

The closest semantic/western concept I can come up with in words is universal mind or universal consciousness, but it is much more than that alone.

Perhaps this is why Daoists don't like to use words to explain/label/define the idea. It can limit the understanding which has to be experienced to be fully known.

[fullywired]

Mr Walker, on 14 December 2013

There you go again making statements you can't substantiate.Show us the scientific methology that proves the existence of god please .just the method not a litany of irrelevant comments

fullywired

[Mr Walker]

There are some variations on the scientific method I use a variety of them to cross check and verify but in simple steps here is the method I am talking about

Observation

Recognise a problem or a issue arising from observation.

Create one or more hypotheses.

Test the hypotheses by experimentation, research, and further observation.

Analyse all this data objectively, using logic and rational thinking. (this can involve many skills from statistical analysis to different forms of thinking skills such as synthesis, extrapolation, comparison, evaluation etc)

Come to a conclusion based exclusively on the data and logic..ie do not use either belief or disbelief in outcomes, as a criteria for judgment, and don't use wishful thinking either way.

Continue to test this conclusion creating a refined hypothesis.

Repeat the process to enable verification, and or, further refinement, of your hypotheses.

That is basically what I learned from my parents as a young child, at school and university, and from research and reading, and what I apply to EVERY unknown in my life.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Mark56]

"G-d invented G-d so we could understand Him."

Daniel Mat (Jewish Scholar)

[Frank Merton]

"G-d invented G-d so we could understand Him."

Daniel Mat (Jewish Scholar)

I dunno; more likely we invented Him and He went along with it.

[White Crane Feather]

Whats on second? Then who's on third?

Yes & no ... I don't know.

[fullywired]

There are some variations on the scientific method I use a variety of them to cross check and verify but in simple steps here is the method I am talking about

Observation

Recognise a problem or a issue arising from observation.

Create one or more hypotheses.

Test the hypotheses by experimentation, research, and further observation.

Analyse all this data objectively, using logic and rational thinking. (this can involve many skills from statistical analysis to different forms of thinking skills such as synthesis, extrapolation, comparison, evaluation etc)

Come to a conclusion based exclusively on the data and logic..ie do not use either belief or disbelief in outcomes, as a criteria for judgment, and don't use wishful thinking either way.

Continue to test this conclusion creating a refined hypothesis.

Repeat the process to enable verification, and or, further refinement, of your hypotheses.

That is basically what I learned from my parents as a young child, at school and university, and from research and reading, and what I apply to EVERY unknown in my life.

I knew you couldn't resist it.trying to blind me with a torrent of verbosity but not answering the question.There is no scientific evidence of the existence of god .

fullywired

Edited December 15, 2013 by fullywired

[Mr Walker]

I knew you couldn't resist it.trying to blind me with a torrent of verbosity but not answering the question.There is no scientific evidence of the existence of god .

fullywired

Then I do not the understand what you are asking of me. As an individual I used, and still use, this method to verify the existence of EVERYTHING around me. It works exactly the same for the existence of god as for the existence of my wife; so via the application of this methodology, I can have the same certainty of knowledge that god has a physical and independent presence, as I can that my wife does.. Just because you have no scientifically verifiable for the existence of god, doesn't mean the evidence does not exist. Would you make that false assumption about anything else, or is you disbelief blinding you?

You asked me to show you the scientific methodology which proves the existence of god. I did exactly that.

I can demonstrate my use of the methodology in application to the existence of god but what would be the point? Your engrained and total disbelief would override any thing I said. Ie I cant possibly prove god exists (even to myself) because you believe he does not. LOL Do you have any idea how silly that sounds, if you apply it to anything other than god.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

Yes & no ... I don't know.

You got it right lol.

[fullywired]

. Post Mr Walker, on 15 December .13

What I am asking, is for you to provide evidence in a scientific sense .that would have to be repeatable, observable and conducted with a program of triple blind examiners to remove potential biasing of the results. have you made such tests and had verifiable results. if so you have evidence of gods existence, if not all you have is faith

fullywired

[settlingtheworld]

The existence of God can never be disproven though and the assumptions of science about how the universe was created is still just a theory.

Edited December 17, 2013 by settlingtheworld

[ShadowSot]

The existence of God can never be disproven though and the assumptions of science about how the universe was created is still just a theory.

Yes, like germ theory and atomic theory and the theory of relativity.

[Frank Merton]

The existence of God can never be disproven though and the assumptions of science about how the universe was created is still just a theory.

Something you plainly don't get: all of science is theory. That is what makes it science and not religion.

[settlingtheworld]

Something you plainly don't get: all of science is theory. That is what makes it science and not religion.

So no one can or can't say conclusively how the universe was formed. The creationist view is just as valid as the Big Bang theory we just don't know.

[settlingtheworld]

Yes, like germ theory and atomic theory and the theory of relativity.

I thought science only dealt in facts.

[Rlyeh]

A scientific theory is the explanation of said "facts". That said, the creationist view doesn't even come close, its a failed hypothesis.

[ShadowSot]

So no one can or can't say conclusively how the universe was formed. The creationist view is just as valid as the Big Bang theory we just don't know.

No the creationist hypothesis is not as valid. It offers no supporting evidence and is ultimately not falsifiable, which really reduces it from being even a hypothesis.

[+Link of Hyrule]

The existence of God can never be disproven though and the assumptions of science about how the universe was created is still just a theory.

One needs to determine the difference between a philosophical theory and a Scientific Theory. In philosophy and general everyday usage, a theory is a speculation, a guess at what may have happened. The evidence is then weighed against it to check its validity. In science a theory is quite different. Science observes facts, data and such and forms a hypothesis. This hypothesis is then rigorously tested, bombarded with all the data, added tests and experiments, repeated by other professionals, and if the hypothesis backs the data, it becomes Theory. Thus things such as gravity remain theory to this day. Evolution has passed muster to move from hypothesis to Theory. Creationism hasn't. And never will.

Oh, I'm a Christian, by the way. I believe the Bible is God's Word, and that Genesis 1-11 was written as a theological discourse on God rather than an historical or scientific account of what actually happened.