Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

A Proof That God Exists


  • Please log in to reply
364 replies to this topic

#16    MysticStrummer

MysticStrummer

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,062 posts
  • Joined:15 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Old Yharnam

  • The great path has no gates. Thousands of roads enter it. When one passes through this gateless gate, he walks freely between heaven and earth.

Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:20 PM

View PostAquilaChrysaetos, on 26 March 2013 - 04:02 AM, said:

You and many other people as well. I think that if the truth can be known about many other things, then why not God? It only stands to reason that if we can know for a fact about many other sciences, than we can know for a fact about God.

God is not a science. Saying "There are none so blind than those who do not wish to see." is a statement about faith, not proof. God's existence will never be proven. God's existence will also never be disproven.

Ummon asked : "The world is such a wide world, why do you answer a bell and don ceremonial robes?" ~ Zen Flesh Zen Bones

#17    goodconversations

goodconversations

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 123 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:A human body

  • We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are. Anais Nin

Posted 26 March 2013 - 04:01 PM

I don't think the existence of God can be proven. If even tangible things that we come to know of by means of senses, observence, or experience are perceived and interpreted differntly, how about the Unseen? Faith, unlike conviction, is never a matter of evidence. Evidence is used to convince someone of an idea not to make them have faith in a being. The whole effort and energy invested/spent in trying make people believe that God exists or doesn't exist is a waste to me and it prevents people from reaching Ataraxia. As the Pyrrhonians believe: "given that neither the sense impressions nor the intellect, nor both combined, is a sufficient means of knowing and conveying truth, one suspends judgement on dogmatic beliefs or anything non-evident."

Posted Image
There's nothing more
erotic than a good
conversation

#18    GreenmansGod

GreenmansGod

    Mostly Harmless

  • Member
  • 11,340 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Hurricane State

  • May the laughter ye give today return to thee 3 fold.

Posted 26 March 2013 - 04:17 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 25 March 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but as a proof of the existence of any kind of deity this fails totally.

The following statement:

can not be considered to be proof since it has no supporting evidence to back it up. It is no different to me saying "if Manchester United win the English premiership the Moon, by necessity, must be made of cheese."

Unless I can establish a necessity for the Moon being made of cheese if Man Utd win the premiership then there is absolutely no logical validity to my statement. They are unconnected facts.

The same holds true with your argument, for it to be proof of God you must establish that a Universe with a beginning can only exist if there is a god. Without that all you have is a logical fallacy.

Live long and prosper, Waspie you nailed it.

"The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost; for none now live who remember it."  Galadriel

#19    Mystic Crusader

Mystic Crusader

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arizona

  • "What would you rather be, a bus driver, or a super terrorist?"

Posted 26 March 2013 - 04:54 PM

View PostAquilaChrysaetos, on 26 March 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

First, I never mentioned the bible.

Second, you just attempted to counter a supposed "claim" with a claim.

Third, you proved my point that your position is not rational, it is volitional. If you were rational you would be open to all possibilities, at least to those that could be supported by evidence. However instead you respond with rash opposition.

You do not want to find God. You have already decided you do not like him, nor want anything to do with him. I'll respect your decision, however I will not waste my time ministering to the volitionally blind.

Again, where is the proof?  As Waspie said, it is logical fallacy.

“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” - Blaise Pascal

#20    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 26 March 2013 - 06:36 PM

View PostChewiesArmy, on 25 March 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

But we don't know if the universe is eternal, infinite, large, small...etc. Who is to say the big bang was the actual beginning?

Not to get into the whole 'the proof for or against God' argument, but this is why I am so conflcted when it comes to God, religion, and creationism vs evolutionism. Nobody knows anything for sure. I like to believe there is a god, but the bible kills my belief. I like the bible, I like the stories with Jesus, and I hope there is a God, but so much of it is so improbable. I look at evolutionism the same way, as in, there is so much that science doesn't really know...but it makes sense, kind of...although also very improbable.

I guess I don't see the necessary proof in either explanation.

Someone who knows better than you and myself must have the credibility to be trusted with the message that the big bang gave origin to the universe. If Cosmologists throughout the world unanimously adopted the findings of Lemaitre since 1922 it is because, for lack of something more assuring, the theory that the universe had a beginning is as good or better than the theory of the eternity of the universe. Otherwise, scientists would not have been so ready to adopt the latter.

Now, for your difficulty to believe in God because of the Bible itself try to get some expertise in metaphorical language. If you are not an atheist you must have been in close contact with them to have acquired the same evil of the common theist to anthropomorphize God with human attributes. Therefore, it is not the Bible but the theist
who believes in talking serpents that scares you away from the probablility of the existence of God.

Ben


#21    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 26 March 2013 - 06:49 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 25 March 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but as a proof of the existence of any kind of deity this fails totally.

The following statement can not be considered to be proof since it has no supporting evidence to back it up. It is no different to me saying "if Manchester United win the English premiership the Moon, by necessity, must be made of cheese."

Unless I can establish a necessity for the Moon being made of cheese if Man Utd win the premiership then there is absolutely no logical validity to my statement. They are unconnected facts.

The same holds true with your argument, for it to be proof of God you must establish that a Universe with a beginning can only exist if there is a god. Without that all you have is a logical fallacy.

It also holds true with Lemaitre's argument that the big bang gave origin to the universe. There is no solid evidence to substantiate that possibility asside from scientific speculations. As long as cosmologists don't produce anything better for the origin of the universe, the theistic claim of a divine Creator must enjoy its place among all other probabilities and not be discarded as an idle tale.  

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 26 March 2013 - 06:50 PM.


#22    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 26 March 2013 - 06:57 PM

View PostAquilaChrysaetos, on 26 March 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

Before the existance of modern science, people generally viewed the universe as being similar to bread dough. It had no definate shape, except for the shape God molded it to be. This stance is understandable considering how little they knew at the time. However now with Modern science, people have learned more and more that the universe is something more of a gigantic machine that runs on and on like a clock, and yet for some reason people suddenly assume based on this knew found truth that the universe must have suddenly created and designed itself. To me the fact that the universe undoubtedly has a beginning, and has laws that are ever so perfectly fine tuned to support life, is even more proof of the existance of God rather than the original "bread dough" idea.

God does exist and he can be scientifically proven, so that mankind is without excuse. The biggest evidence can be found simply in the air you breath every day, but nevertheless, more proof has, can, and will be given.

I do agree with you Aquila. The big bang does give off the idea that the universe created and designed itself as if something can create itself. That's another evidence for
the Creator. That nothing can be the creator of itself. That's simple Logic.

Ben


#23    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:24 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 25 March 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

Now, since the universe had indeed a beginning, a proof had be established for the existence of God, blessed be He!

So what precludes a Big Crunch following a Big Bang? From what I understand, it used to be thought that there was not enough matter in the cosmos for it to implode upon itself in a big crunch, and that the universe would continue expanding forever. But recent science refutes this with the discovery of dark matter.

This sounds more in agreement with Vedic texts that speak of multiple extinctions and creations of the universe.


#24    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:43 PM

View Postredhen, on 26 March 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

So what precludes a Big Crunch following a Big Bang? From what I understand, it used to be thought that there was not enough matter in the cosmos for it to implode upon itself in a big crunch, and that the universe would continue expanding forever. But recent science refutes this with the discovery of dark matter.

This sounds more in agreement with Vedic texts that speak of multiple extinctions and creations of the universe.

Tell me Redhen, do you really know what is dark matter? ... or dark energy which is an accident of dark matter? The other day I was watching "Nova" in the History channel when a cosmologist would say that it is an enigma. They "feel" that's out there but no one is able to give a definition to it. I tell you something: If Science does not come up with a good explanation soon enough theists will be more than happy to proclaim that cosmologists are dillydallying with another evidence of God. Guess what? IMHO, the scientists are so to speak doing the work of Theology: Providing the evidence for the existence of God.

Ben


#25    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:13 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 26 March 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Tell me Redhen, do you really know what is dark matter? ... or dark energy which is an accident of dark matter?

No, I am not an astrophysicist, if that's what you are asking.

Quote

IMHO, the scientists are so to speak doing the work of Theology: Providing the evidence for the existence of God.

Even if there was a big bang with no corresponding big crunch, that's not a proof for God. It has been established that certain particles can "pop" into existence out of "nothing". Mind you they don't last very long, but it proves the principle that nature abhors a vaccuum.

Also there's the circular reasoning argument, which begs the question who or what created God?

Then there's the cultural bias. How do you know it's the Abrahamic god that created the cosmos and not a different deity?


#26    Blueogre2

Blueogre2

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:25 PM

God cannot be proven to exist, the best you can do is present an argument where his existence can be seen as a possibility. That being said why bother trying to prove God at all? I mean honestly he either exists or not. Either  way it has little to do with everyday life because even if God does exist he seems to be uninterested in dealing with human beings. So why worry about it all? If God wants to get our attention I think he can do so whenever he wants.


#27    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,937 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 26 March 2013 - 10:05 PM

Exactly what do we mean by the term "God" for the purpose of this thread?

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#28    The Id3al Experience

The Id3al Experience

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 917 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

  • "Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe"

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:29 AM

View PostAquilaChrysaetos, on 26 March 2013 - 03:46 AM, said:

Thus reaising the question however, where did the multiverse come from?... It just keeps backing up to the point of which everything came from literally nothing, which just can't be explained. So even with "multiverse theory," it still goes right back to the same point.

You were saying about the laws of the universe and how precise they are. Im just saying in the multiverse theroy its just probibillity that govern the laws.

My theory is, like empty space (having virtul particles etc), hyperspace is much the same, just potential energy, that has always been (they say energy cannot be created nor destroyed) so that brings me to beleive, there is an infinite amount of energy producing such universes.

The debate i have with myself, is wether or not that energy is sapient. I beleive it is not, but through the connection of energy we are (As my beleif is we are all gods - just not the ones in the bible of course)

My favortie saying is: When you look up at the stars at night, you are looking at yourself, through yourself, experiencing yourself.

Cheers Aqulia :)

Watch this space

#29    AquilaChrysaetos

AquilaChrysaetos

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 590 posts
  • Joined:01 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wherever the wind takes me...

  • "Some people wish to be the sun, so they can brighten your day. I wish to be the moon, which shines down upon you in your darkest hour."

Posted 27 March 2013 - 07:11 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 26 March 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

You're just asserting claims about others' psychological state (evidence please that Havoc 'does not like him') based on pretty much nothing, which is odd for someone who is chiding others about what is rational and what is not. Regardless, depending on how you read the rules of this forum, I don't know that you are supposed to be 'ministering' here at all.

I understand how you could come to that conclusion, however this is not the only conversation I've had on here with Havoc and through many other conversations he has made his stance abundantly clear that he does not like or want to have anything to do with God. Also, what I mean by 'ministering' is simply expressing my thought on the matter. Everyone does it on here. Even you did so with the above statement. So I assure you nothing has wrong has been done through that.

View PostMysticStrummer, on 26 March 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

God is not a science. Saying "There are none so blind than those who do not wish to see." is a statement about faith, not proof. God's existence will never be proven. God's existence will also never be disproven.

This is to all on here who claim that the existance of God cannot be proven:

How do you know that as absolute fact? Saying "God's existance will never be proven" is a statement about faith, not proof. Ironically you must prove your statement is true, which you cannot. To say that is to assume you know an absolute truth that "God can never be proven", and my question is simply "How do you know that for sure?" Simple, You don't.

Therefore, it actually makes much more sense to attempt to find the answer to this age old question, rather than to take a pure faith stance such as "God can never be proven" and just give up. I believe the truth is out there, he either exists or he doesn't, and therefore the truth can be known.

View PostHavocWing, on 26 March 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

Again, where is the proof?  As Waspie said, it is logical fallacy.

Again, I won't waste my time with someone who has already made up his mind.

View PostBen Masada, on 26 March 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

I do agree with you Aquila. The big bang does give off the idea that the universe created and designed itself as if something can create itself. That's another evidence for
the Creator. That nothing can be the creator of itself. That's simple Logic.

It is simple logic, which is why there is no excuse for mankind's denial of God. Machines don't make themselves. Simple logic.

However I can understand and sympathize with those who still doubt. I did for quite some time. Mostly over the constant bombardment of materialist dogma that has been thrown at me ast truth, claiming to be supported by large amounts of evidence, the likes of which I've yet to see.

That's why I believe without a doubt that God's existance can be proven, and that the only real issue with God is purely based on two things: lack of understanding, and willful denial. It has nothing to do with lack of evidence.

Jesus Christ - Matthew 28:18-20 said:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Posted Image


#30    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 27 March 2013 - 07:23 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 25 March 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but as a proof of the existence of any kind of deity this fails totally.

The following statement:

can not be considered to be proof since it has no supporting evidence to back it up. It is no different to me saying "if Manchester United win the English premiership the Moon, by necessity, must be made of cheese."

Unless I can establish a necessity for the Moon being made of cheese if Man Utd win the premiership then there is absolutely no logical validity to my statement. They are unconnected facts.

The same holds true with your argument, for it to be proof of God you must establish that a Universe with a beginning can only exist if there is a god. Without that all you have is a logical fallacy.

I think the proof of the statement is in the evidence of a 1st cause...

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users