Starting a game here. If you don't want to participate then please don't. I'm curious to see if this can be done.

I'd like to see if people can either prove or disprove their Theist theory (Atheist, Deist, Christian, Muslim, etc)

I'd like to see some tangible proof. That can be whatever you decide is tangible proof. For example if you say "I see the sun and I know that something must have created it" that is considered proof to me.

But I'd just like to see what people have to say without relying on other sources to back themselves up. Quite often on here people source something that others are not very familiar with and so its a rickety debate at best.

So lets just stick with what we have to offer.


If I could suggest a format I would say that we limit each posts to two paragraphs. The first paragraph would be an example of your "proof" explained out. And the second paragraph would be your interpretation of this proof.


I'd like to also ask everyone not to side track the debate OT and to please not subtly insult one another.


Any takers?

Hi True, I'm game for a game, but before I start...isn't a theory something that isn't proven?? If so, how can we prove it?

I'll go first I guess!


Evidence: Lack of definition of God. I have noticed that when people begin to look at God theories there is this feeling of people "backing away" from analysis. God becomes "everything" "all knowing" etc etc etc. Initially in the discussion God was "known" to the person on a personal level. But then as you question the theory God becomes more elusive and "unknowable" and undefinable. If God "is" that's one thing, but the personalization of God and definition of God when it comes to "worshipping" God or believing in God seems weird to me. Evidence: Men wrote all of the religious texts and theories related to 'connecting to God" be it religion or spirituality.


To me I look at the definition of "GOD" the same way I look at the definition of the Universe. The Universe is too big for me to really comprehend its meaning, how it came to be or whatnot. Though I am a naturally curious person who is open to trying to understand things, I realize that some things are out of my reach. The Universe is known to exist in this manner. I don't necessarily believe all that we have assumed about the Universe but I know its out there and bigger than me! I don't "Believe IN" the Universe. I don't have faith in the Universe. Its just there. I see God theories the same way. I don't believe in GOD. If there is a God, then God by the definition I have been given by the believers, is beyond my understanding. But when believers decide that we have been given a source guide to help us understand God and hand me something written by a man, well its absurd to me. I reject their claim that their "books" "theories' "spirituality" etc is in any way connected to this great big being that exceeds the Universe, because I have the brains to see they are handing me something that was written by a man.

Well its an attempt. I don't think anyone can prove it either way. But I am curious what constitutes PROOF to YOU on a personal level.

What is that makes you believe the way you do?

Okey Dokey...I think it's more an issue for me that there is NO PROOF. I don't believe in aliens as I haven't seen one, I don't believe in ghosts, I haven't seen one, I don't believe in God, I haven't seen him. If I get absolute proof or enough proof, I then believe it I can change my mind.
I am an Athiest because I have never seen God and don't believe in what the Bible states because I was not there and it sounds like hogwash to me....

That sort of thing????????

Yep

My position is that I feel there might be a superior being/energy which we'll all eventually 'meet' when we die.....I don't believe 'God's' spoken word is the Bible,Koran etc....These were written by men and for what purpose I don't know or particularly care.....


I state this about the Bible because I don't believe that 'God' can communicate with people until they die and pass over to the 'other side'......

I hope this makes sense.....

Sorry True, I'm having difficulty mashing my thought processes on such a big subject down to two paragraphs. Would you mind lifting the format restriction?

I just cannot accept that a one celled life form (amoeba) can 'naturally' evolve into a human-being, or an elephant, or a lizard, or a fish, or a bird etc. no matter how long it has to do it.

I therefore conclude that there is some mysterious, unknowable (unknowable while we are in our present physical body) form of design behind life on planet earth. Some people call the designer/s God or Goddess. Others explore the mystery from a philosophical non religious base. That a seed will grow into a plant or a nut into a tree is a miracle in itself. Does this mean that there is a God? Not necessarily....but....people use that word in their search for understanding.

LOL it was a suggestion! Just put it in your own words.

Its interesting to me how in your argument you question a one celled life form "naturally evolving" into a human being but not how a seed can grow into a tree?

I think it's a good suggestion...it concentrates the mind. Sometimes too long posts can get boring...even when they're about interesting things.

Evidence: The peace or lack of peace felt in nature. The calm or unrest felt by animals and humans when attuned to a higher awareness.

The Dec. 2004 tsunami that impacted Indonesia was preceded by the movement of wildlife away from coastal areas. Somehow, the animals knew something was coming. Scientists have tried to explain this as the animals' hightened senses making it possible to 'feel' the earthquake that caused the tsunami and understanding that 'feeling' as a sign of danger. If that were true, then why don't animals in California flee when minor earthquakes hit? Yes, they respond to the occurence, but they don't move inland. Perhaps it's a hightened awareness of a higher power. The same can be said for humans feeling at ease while in nature. There have been countless times when I, and others, have felt the peace inspired by being in a forest, on a lake, climbing a mountain, etc. I, and others, have felt distress from being closer to nature at times. I believe that it's a closer relation to a higher power/God/Goddess.

Good one devol! Great Post! I agree that this is something worthy of contemplation. Very good point.

Let me try again


Evidence: The violence that seems to be related to religion.


Most religions are supposed to be about a "higher state" of being, moving closer to God etc. And yet nearly every religion has had a history of fighting over who is right.

(And this is where Atheism doesn't get blamed in the Communist regime. Communism was not a debate over which theist philosophy was correct. It was a side note in the Communist regime, not a motivating factor)

But historically these supposed believers to this day are shedding blood for the sake of their beliefs.

The mathematical complexity of the physical universe suggests to me a being of extreme intelligance.

Why so? Why not just random chaos that when viewed from a great distance seems to suggest order.


IOW

If you take afdjkhfudhgdfkghjk;afdua and ahda;hfdfhdha;fhdfha and a'djfkdhfdhf;kafd;kfhad


That's just me randomly typing on the key board, but you can see a pattern in it already?

No-one has the definitive answer to evolution v creation....but I can prove empirically that given the right conditions a sunflower seed will grow into a sunflower...that an acorn will grow into an oak tree. I don't know how, or why...but I know that it does.

I surpose you could argue, philosophically, that an ameoba might be the seed for a whole branch of life forms and that if you could watch it for a billion years you would see it grow into a human etc. but this demands the same leap of 'faith' as believing in God.

I do agree that "belief" in evolution theories as presented requires a leap of faith. I do believe that evolution is the 'new religion'

I think down the pike they will find out something else altogether is going to explain things.

But I like your seed to the tree of life! Cool idea.

Thanks for the compliment, True!
You're post is very true. However, I don't know that it's a good argument for the proof or disproof of God/Goddess.

Any believer's failure to follow his/her religion's practices and laws is not the failure of that religion's deity/deities. Adherence to a dogma is an individual, personal choice. As such, the violence committed by a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. is a personal choice, not a Holy one.

The universe can be viewed on a micro level. The atomic structures that glue our world together does not suggest random chaos. Funny how it takes higher education in physics and Mathematics to understand random chaos. That would be explainable perhaps by statistics not the former.

Microlevel from the Human perspective no? As I said if one stands back far enough everything seems to have a pattern.

But it might just be chaos.

Take pictures from a high enough distance and the cloud swirls on the planet look like a pattern. But on earth it would appear random no?

I'm a Gaian neo-pagan. We believe (among other things) that the universe itself is the body of God. Here's my logic:

1. When I look at newborn babies I observe that they are born with intact personalities. The only reason this isn't commonly accepted is that babies are so physically weak when they're born that they can't express their personalities. Every physical milestone that a baby makes (lifting his head, etc) instantly reveals another aspect of his personality.

2. When I contemplate my own psyche, I can't believe that it is nothing but a series of electrical and chemical reactions. There's some sort of whole tying everything together.

3. The personality of a baby and the unity I perceive as my mind are two examples of the same thing.

---------------------------------

4. When I consider anatomy, biochemistry, etc. it is obvious to me that I am the result of evolution. There is a common heritage connecting me to every other living thing on earth. Since life sprung from chemistry I am also related to the inanimate world.

5. I experience myself as having two intertwined natures: my mind and my body. It follows that other living things in the world have two-fold natures as well. These natures are so closely related that it's impossible to say where one begins and the other leaves off (think of psychopharmacology, for example).

6. Since mind and matter are connected it seems possible that they follow the same rules. In other words, the spiritual world behaves the same way as the physical world.

7. Biophysicists have observed that our planet (or any distinct ecosystem) function like a single living entity in that it has a state of equilibrium and a bunch of interconnected cycles that balance eachother out. (google "James Lovelock" or "Gaia Theory")

8. When something in the physical world ends it's existence it decomposes and goes back into the raw materials for future life. Since the spiritual world behaves like the physical world, it follows that mind also returns to a collective whole.

9. The earth behaves like a single organism. When the lifeforms that comprise it die, they physically return to the earth. When life ends it spiritualy goes back to the collective whole which is the "mind" of the earth. In neopaganism this is the "earth goddess or "Gaia".

-----------------------

10 We are part of a greater mind, Gaia. That mind is part of an even more inclusive mind. Eventually you get to the biggest mind of all, the mind of the universe. This is God.


Whew... that was pretty garbled!

This is basic stuff, i wrote this all in a copy once when I was younger but i can't find it I'll try my best to remember and type it out. God, heaven, hell it's in the bible but it don't really make sense. ok so, you die and you go to heaven and live in paradise forever and ever and ever. Now just think about it... eternity is a long time, a very long time.. in fact it's forever it will never end. You are going to get bored sometime?? To live forever kind of gets rid of the value of life because if your short life on this planet is nothing compared to what going to happen after then kill yourself now, we're waisting our time here and plus you are going to exist forever. Now a guy kills a women and she goes to heven, this so called paradise which is amazing and all that, while the guy who killed her goes to trail, gets the death penalty, gets executed, goes to hell for eternal suffering... Now is this not a bit harsh. You bring a woman out of this bleak world and put her into paradise and in return your givin the death penatly and go to hell for "eternal" punishment and excrusiating pain for the rest of your days. Now you could say that it's not about wear she goes after you kill her it's the intention behind the killing he's getting punished for but you get my point about the eternal suffering, right? I had more stuff in the copy... I want to find it.

Oh yes i want to talk about the random causality stuff too. You see the thing about causalty is that there's a cause and an effect. Here's the thing, is the effect totally random or can the effect be only one effect. Like in maths 2+2=4 two and two will always be the equivalent of 4 and will never change unless on of the values was 3 or 5. So basically if one ball hits off another ball like in snooker it's only ever going to move one way and the effect will always be one effect, it will never vary. This implicates that there is no free will because everything in the universe is.. you could say a film but you can't rewind. You can't rewind energy, it's like a screensaver just keeps going. Our conscoiusness creates illusions and one of these is that we alive and we make choices for ourselves and i do what i want to do and that cr*p.

I am too lazy today to write such a summary of my worldview/frameworks, so I will instead use snipets from the two prior posts that cover most of the fundamentals (with commentary):


I view the universe based on systems theory. It is a nested set of systems.


agreed


I do not see "mind"/"body" separation. This separation is an arbitrary deliniation made by man. (in essence, i do not agree that the "mind" exists at all).


extending from above, there is no spiritual world.


agreed

see the "mind does not exist" above.


agreed that the universe is a single system (or more precisely a single supersystem). What is refered to here as "spirituality" does not go anywhere. It stays exactly where it is.
-----------------------


We are parts of systems which are parts of systems.... the universe is not a mind (again see minds do not exist) . The system that is the universe just is. It is not "super", or "god". It is an assembly of its subsystems. Key here being that the universe is defined by its subsystems. The critical systems are at the base, not the top.


agreed that free will is one of the most persistant illusions. However, we can only not rewind energy in the current configuration of the universe. Also do not forget that the effect can be cause (and is quite often). Things are not so linear.

Very interesting post. I think it is very intriguing the way you suggest that the punishment for the murder is too extreme because that brings up a whole other aspect of Justice through God.

But my favorite thing you have written is that you can't "rewind energy" that right there has me thinking for a bit. What an interesting concept. I don't know if I agree with you but WOW.

Hyper, not to deviate but whilst i have you for a sec... ( sorry folks but this man is amazing to me) I have a inquiry aren't the observed and the observer the same thing anyways, don't we tend to project upon others/things (whatever you want to label it) parts of our own physcological processess, when we find within ourselves, fears weaknessess, angers, offences etc we may rid ourselves of these burdens by fastening on to things/ persons outsides of ourselves doesn't this show the tendencies of the mind ...that basically its an image which appears as a "actaual"

If your mind doesn't exist then what (what part of you) is disagreeing with me? A disorganized set of electrical charges riding on little molecules of serotonin? Why would such a structure come to exist as a unit?

project is a good term for it. we create our realities through active and passive filtering of stimuli (based on biological and experiential history).



why wouldn't it? It came about because interactions/events let to it.

In my version of reality, it came about because it succeeded in filling a need. True, the need it filled may have started as a brainless need to acquire energy and use it to reproduce. But why should something want to reproduce? Why should there be a will to live at all? Why should the chemical components of your body create structural copies. What difference does it make to each carbon molecule what it fastens to next?

The fact that will exists implies that mind exists as well

thats not will, its habituation, and the universe is full of it.

Siara welcome to UM,

Hyper this comes off so rote for you.... LOL....I'm hoping to get it just as you, bam bam done deal... ...

I disagree. I believe that it is will.

Changing course in our debate...

While I wait for your reply I'm messing around with my violin playing some Bach. Why are humans capable of enjoying music? Biologically and physiologically, it is an utter waste of time. So why does every human culture create it? To me it is an extension of the will to create structure.

habit and habituation are mental qualities. A consciousless entity can not develop habits or become habituated.

the argument for free will again...its been done so much ...Each human culture is a hand me down of the ones befeore give or take....wouldn't you agree, i don't think its deeper than that..when i was leanring classical piano i thought "oh my gosh how complicated" till I took music theory class and its really very simplistic, actaully very easily duplicated....

Here's my argument.

Evidence: Imperfection. Why would perfection beget imperfection? If God is all knowing, all powerful, and timeless, then what is the point of creating such an imperfect world? How could he draw satisfaction from it? It would be like looking ahead a few moves into a chess game and then playing those moves the exact same way, do you feel any different about it in either case? If god is perfect, why would he create? Creation implies a need for something, perfection does not need anything. This is the paradox of consciousness. Beings with needs and desires attempt to fill those needs and desires by increasing wealth, power, etc. in areas they feel they are lacking in. If you are lacking in nothing, do you need anything? Maybe some will argue that God was just experimenting or was bored, or wanted to show other beings heaven. Well, then why did he create a world in which most beings do not reach heaven, and with so much suffering? Such an imperfect world is clearly not the creation of perfection. Look at a modern technological device. Everything is there for a reason. Everything is put into that device to serve a purpose, every last chip and circuit. You see straight lines and smooth curves, because those shapes are the best to be used. After all, who would want a television with lumps all over the bottom varying in size? This is the closest humanity can come to perfection. But for a being that is perfect, creating perfection is easy. Where are the straight lines on the earth? Where is the purpose for every last little detail? The earth is a chaotic clump of elements. It is not organized, it is not perfect. Of course, we try: we build cities, tall buildings, courthouses, farms, we make it operate as smoothly as we possibly can to support life, but it's not perfect. Most modern humans would have trouble simply surviving on their own in the natural world. So, if God gets no more satisfaction from making the earth than from imagining it, why would he do so, and cause the suffering of many inferior beings? Is he not empathetic? But then wouldn't he be imperfect?

So this is what, to me above all else, makes it clear there is not an intelligent designer of our universe. It is far too hectic, too random, too unpredictable to be the work of a perfect being.
This does of course use the assumption that God is perfect. Maybe there is an imperfect God? Who knows. Maybe a unicorn made it all... I'm just debunking the common theory .

distracted.....

everything, and i do mena everything, habituates. Counsciousness is not a prerequisite for habituation.

Of course God exists. Everything exists. If God truly didnt exist the very concept of God would not exist. There is no barriers between what we think and what we see the only barriers that exist are the ones we imagine ourselves. The "physical world" and realm of thought are both comprised of energy. God is everything including energy so all one needs to show for evidence is energy. So creation is proof of God because God is creation. In fact it isnt really creation but God.

God is the awareness science cannot define, the atheism in the atheist and also a universe without God for God is all possibility without exception. Because God is everything yet transcends everything, any way we interpret it is going contain elements of paradox, just like consciousness. Science for an example cannot explain consciousness without contradicting itself because consciousness defies the five senses.

We view reality not "out there" but in the the different cortexes in the brain as thought. But the brain also is a thought of itself existing within consciousness and hence physical and phantasy are just as subjective as each other.

bravey, you stert off so good, hon god is generic term to desribe another form of infantile adapation identification , adaption is the process by which the attitudes of another are taken over as if they were their own...many call this god....but its jsut a term to defne whats going on...

These are your, and I stress, your opinions. They're unfounded statements. There's absolutely no proof that everything in existence is related to thought or whatever other strange concepts you post. God, as most people define it, is a perfect intelligent being who many believe to have created the universe. Please state your opinions as opinions, not facts. It's hard to debate someone who continually states theories such as these as fact and or proof, and if you said something like that in any respected meeting of scientists or just learned people in general, you would not be taken seriously. Theories are fine, but all they are are theories until they have any sort of evidence.

Give me an example of habituation without consciousness.

water forming a groove as it runs.

thanks. i agree. i was going to post but it got kinda off topic and to many big words being used.lol

Well duh .....as if it isnt obvious that the word God isnt what it symbolizes. Same goes with anything in language or symbols. Also if one through mystical union realizes the oneness of himself and therefore God, what is there left to know or adapt? God to be God must be all therefore no purpose can exist that hasnt already been fulfilled and no stages of spiritual development to aspire to that havn't already been achieved.

The Spirit of the universe is all pervading. To become one with God is to become one with all and the all wouldnt be the all if anything was left out of it. God is all and therefore aspects of the all are evidence to prove God's existence. God is not left out of the all that it pervades.

Ultimately the best I can describe this using limiting and finite words is to say that the whole world is a manfiestation of God in God.

But everything that we know of is energy. My opinion is that God is all energy and beyond energy. God is immanent as well as transcendent.



Some cultures and religions define God without using the word God like Mahayanist Buddhism and Taoism to cite two examples. Hinduism defines God as all pervading consciousness, so does Taoism, Sufism, Christian mysticism, Mahayanist Buddism (universal mind) etc...

According to Hinduism The Godhead Brahman is all that exists and doesnt exist. However in Hinduism there are many numerous personal Gods, demons, titans, angels etc which fit your description of what you think god is like , that are symbolic of the infinite and various aspects and manifestations of the all inclusive Godhead.

Mahayanist though doesnt use the word "God" uses the term "universal mind" and describes that the foundation of the individual and that of the universe is one and the same and there for the individual and the universe themselves are one and the same and this sameness is no other than the universal mind.

There are many many more examples but I'd be forced to quote and to write too much.

You must understand that there are more than one definitions of God. We should be asking what evidence is there for a certain definition of God. Not everyone follows the orthodox prescription given by western institutionalized religions, that God is only a transcendental figure giving out mysterious orders that are upheld by a preistly cast. My intuition tell me that God and creation are one and the same.

God simply "is". The universe isnt good or bad it just is and finding this "isness" within oneself and accepting it as the most fundamental truth of existence is the key to finding supreme inner peace (something which I havnt found but still have faith in ).




I have given you my reasons for stating my opinions as facts. I dont need a consensus of scientists with their cut and dry methodological (and sometimes insufficient) methods to prove that I am right. As far as I am concerned I couldnt care less what scientists at a respected meeting or "learned" people in general take me serious or not.

As far as I am concerned how am I meant to take them serious if they cant even define or show the origin of consciousness which is just as much fundamental to science as it is religion. No consciousness no reality (that we can prove anyway) yet science still tries to convince us and itself that the world is independent from consciousness.

b

Part of the growth process is to see oneself as an individual this would imply to seperate ones self from the herd,, collective, dogma , philosophys etc..otherwise one dosen't grow up sort of like the one who loses his identity becomes a puppet and claims a mysterious force calling it god for example or fate ..god as currently defined is bascially adapting to and imitating ideas, hand me down theorys , authority over , liking ideas that sound clever or neato, really kool and making them your own..calling these ideas god as they seem to be admirable to some and what not....

Ever heard of Carl Jungs archetypes? Or if not how about this. According to Orthodox Ethnology certain concepts are natural for us as much as it is natural to be born with a liver. Dr. Paul Radin explains in his book Primitive Man as Philosopher that Orthodox ethnology " has been nothing but an enthusiastic and quite uncritical attempt to apply the Darwinian theory of evolution to the facts of social experience." And he adds that "no progress in ethnology will be achieved until scholars rid themselves once and for all of the curious notion that everything possesses a history; until they realize that certain ideas and concepts are as ultimate for man, as a social being, as specific physiological reactions are ultimate for him, as a biolological being."

Also Im not going to create my own "theory of the universe" simply for the sake of being original. Why would I want to when my intuition tells me that the "Truth" can be found in the writings of the perennial philosophy and be applied to see this "Truth" for oneself?

I trust in my intuition.

The perennial philosophy (the philosophy that influenced to write my first post in here for what I think is evidence for God) is about developing oneself via detaching oneself from the self to discover the true self.

Also I have never advocated "dogma" or "organized religion" for that matter. I have always maintained that we should be allowed to come to our own conclusions. However it is in my opinion that one will never be able to say anything worthwhile unless they inwardly digest that which has been taught or said by one's betters. Having a free mind isn't taking on a Nilhilistic attitude towards all scriptures, sciences or philosophies but trusting within oneself what one feels to be valuable and worth learning and not.


Truethat I apologize for quoting Dr Paul Radin. It wasnt for the actual topic at hand on the post but to demonstrate a point to supra sheri. It wont happen again

Because it's a complicated matter. A simple unfounded theory isn't good enough. You can't just say "it's all what we want it to be and God is everything and everything is God". That's not science, that's philosophy. The universe is too vast, amazing, and complex to simply write it off as big brother in heaven... And science wants to properly explain it. There was a point when we couldn't explain the sun, when we couldn't explain weather, when we couldn't explain electricity, etc. But science properly explained them over time and now we know exactly what gives you the ability to shock someone after rubbing your feet off the carpet, or to be struck by a bolt of lightning from the clouds. Some day, origins will be explained. But that's a much bigger task, and a quick semi-poetic theory won't do.

How can God be omnipresent and omnipotent unless he is in everything? And the God I am talking about isnt "a big brother in heaven" more like a big brother watching itself because everything is itself.

Also let me point out that without consciousness there is no God because then we wouldnt be conscious of the concept God to debate its existence. Hence why I agree with the mystics when they teach that God is infinite consciousness and that all worldy phenomena exists in it, of it and by it.

You lost the debate then. You should be able to paraphrase the point you wanted to make.

If Im out Im out.