any religion i dont care which just prove to me that your god is real! thanks in advance

Why? It wouldn't make you believe in god anyway, right?

A belief is not something that one needs to prove to others in order to believe it. The belief is enough for many ...no proof is necessary. That's the basic principle of religious "belief". If you ain't got it, you ain't likely to find it in some silly "proof".

Baron Max

i still want prove that he/she/it is really

Prove? How? Even if he exists, it wouldn't be possible to prove it. There are lots of things that exist, people believe in them, but they can't be proven.

kill yourself,then you will know for sure.

I am God. I am real.

I have spoken.

dansufc

Please give us the criteria for what you would consider 'proof'. Without this, the request is indeed useless.

SouthStar,

Yes! Exactly.

Without first deciding what the criteria for what one would consider 'proof', the request is indeed useless.

proof: show something that I, nor anyone else, can refute with more certainty than what you have shown.
i.e. show a tangible piece of evidence that anyone can reproduce, if they so choose, that can prove the existence of a god beyond a reasonable doubt.

if god(s) really wanted people to believe in him/her/it/them then that evidence would exist.

Prove? How? Even if he exists, it wouldn't be possible to prove it. why, it's woould be quite easy.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
There are lots of things that exist, people believe in them, but they can't be proven.
like what.

if god(s) really wanted people to believe in him/her/it/them then that evidence would exist.

it's just that god wants people to believe in him by their own free will, so he leaves not much evidence... except some religious scripts

like what.

like if you love someone, you can't prove it

dansufc does have a very good point.

has anyone got any proof then that he does actually exist?

why is god always refered to as he?

Keep questioning, you may figure it out someday.

why is god always refered to as he?

Maybe because the English language is limited to either he or she. In my language there is no he or she word, but when I write in English, I have to use he because it's the most commonly used.

Keep questioning, you may figure it out someday.

First I didn't believe or disbelieve (unconsciousness), then I disbelieved (outer consciousness), then I believed (inner consciousness), and then I didn't believe or disbelieve (conscious unconsciousness).

(1) "As real as anything else."

• Humans invent gods
• Therefore, gods are ideas
• Ideas exist and have measurable value in the form of brain impulses
• Therefore gods exist

(2) "God the Abstraction, Slayer of Paradox?"

• The word "God", in various aspects, can represent an abstract state that means all there is.
• Viewing the totality of the existence is paradoxical
• This paradox is represented in the word "God" according to a monotheistic assertion
• This paradox is an idea central to human questions that defy answers, e.g.:
(What is the purpose of life?)
(What is reality?)
(What is death?)
--&c.
• Ideas exist and have measurable value in the form of brain impulses
• Therefore gods exist
• Furthermore, as the idea of "God" is a tool humans use to consider the "all there is", and thereby disarm the paradox, it can be said that,
• Gods exist and have function.

Prove that god is real? Read the bible. I mean what more proof could you possibly want? And if that is not good enough, there is no shortage of red-faced firebrand evangelist willing to explain it to you. Not only will they prove to you that god exist, they will let you know what it is god wants you to do. And I would warn against being critical of this new information. To do so will surely result in an eternity of unimaginable agony. So be sure aquire this proof with great caution.

First I didn't believe or disbelieve (unconsciousness), then I disbelieved (outer consciousness), then I believed (inner consciousness), and then I didn't believe or disbelieve (conscious unconsciousness).

I believe you, maybe.

any religion i dont care which just prove to me that your god is real! thanks in advance
god is just an idea.
a bogey man to scare simpleminded morrons into submission and obedience,
and exploit them financialy.

Prove that god is real? Read the bible. I mean what more proof could you possibly want?
how about something you can actualy see,touch,feel,measure,talk to...

bible is just a book writen by some ancient tribe of goat herders who made up all those silly Creation stories,
which btw completely contradict the reality of earths fossil record,scientific discoveries and all our knowledge of age of the universe,earth and how things work,buybull is just that ..a fictious fantasy,
and its sad anyone today in the year of 2005 would still believe it

And if that is not good enough, there is no shortage of red-faced firebrand evangelist willing to explain it to you. Not only will they prove to you that god exist, they will let you know what it is god wants you to do.
and number one on their list is;
Open your wallet!
www.objectivethought.com/atheism/carlin.html

And I would warn against being critical of this new information. To do so will surely result in an eternity of unimaginable agony.
Pascals wager again,huh?
it wont work for the simple reason that
people dont live for eternity b/c SOUL DOESNT EXIST! (www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html)

Prove that god is real? Read the bible. I mean what more proof could you possibly want?
if you are not joking then you have problems. I could write a book about how I am god, does that make me god? according to that reasoning it does. so here goes: I am god, I have all power over everything, send me all your money.

any religion i dont care which just prove to me that your god is real! thanks in advance

Hi. Interesting request.

It's been my personal experience that religion won't prove to anyone that God is real. A person has to experience God personally, I think.

Thanks for asking,

Coachette

For those of you who insist on being close-minded and stating your opinions as facts (i.e., 'God doesn't exist, so this thread is pointless'), where's your proof that God doesn't exist?

If such an entity ('he/she' really don't apply to God, for God is something that far surpasses the limits of human understanding) does exist, you should consider the consequences of living in constant rejection of this possibility. I'm not saying that any religion is right pertaining to its beliefs about heaven and hell and how one ends up in those places, but to assume that you have the cognitive ability to dismiss the existence of God is not only ignorant, but vain.

Consider this:

Every age, every generation has its built-in assumptions--that the world is flat, or that the world is round, etc.--there are hundreds of hidden assumptions, things we take for granted, that may or may not be true. Of course, in the vast majority of cases, historically, these things aren't true. So presumably, if history is any guide, much about what we take for granted about the world simply isn't true, but we're locked into these precepts without even knowing it sometimes.

The brain processes 400 billion bits of information a second, but we're only aware of 2,000 of those... that means reality's happening in the brain all the time. It's receiving that information, and yet we haven't integrated it.

Take a look at an atom. We think of it as a kind of hard ball. Then we say, "Oh, well, not really. It's this little tiny point of really dense matter right at the center surrounded by a kind of fluffy probabitlity cloud of electrons pooping in and out of existence." But then it turns out that that's not even right. Even the nucleus, which we think of as so dense, pops in and out of existence just as readily as the electrons do. The most solid thing you can say about all this insubstantial matter is that it's more like a thought; it's like a concentrated bit of information.

When you are not looking, there are waves of possibility; when you are looking, there are particles of experience.

These statements are merely some basic premises of quantum theory stated in the movie What the 'Bleep' Do We Know, a movie that questions everything about human perceptions of reality. The point is, what we assume to be real is based on our limited perceptions of our surroundings. We are composed of atoms, and the laws of physics on that level are completely, radically different from the laws that we observe with our senses.

So before you say that God doesn't exist, realize that you don't know anything.

like if you love someone, you can't prove itlove is a chemical reaction, so can be verified.
see here (http://www.cyberparent.com/love/)

You can't prove a negative. Your question is foolish. You can't prove that theres not a teapot orbiting Jupiter.

so no-one actually has any hard evidence then?

You can't prove a negative. Your question is foolish. You can't prove that theres not a teapot orbiting Jupiter.

Why can't you prove there's not a teacup orbiting jupiter? Theoretically, I mean.

And every idea has an oppisite idea. Like the idea that there is a god.

tao and teh!

see the conundrum you create when you fall into the trap of separating spirit from Nature, and then wonder if it is 'true'

People use to have spiritual ritual in groves.........NATURE was Goddess. you didn't/don't have to prove that, right

eventually patriarchs dominate and build buildings that split people off from Nature, and put 'God' in it, and far away from Nature

so then what do we get. we GEt people blinded to the Wonder of Nature wanting to know how to prove 'God' is real

it is a Comedy of Errors

love is a chemical reaction, so can be verified.
see here (http://www.cyberparent.com/love/)

I didn't mean that sort of 'love'. I mean if you love your father, can that also be proven? I defend the idea that nothing can be proven, you can only make it sound rational. Another question... can you prove that you exist?

Actually... I know that emotions and thoughts are 'material' and they can be proven, if not now, at least in the future. So maybe God also exists, in the form of thoughts and emotions :bugeye:

I repeat...

so no-one actually has any hard evidence then?

i actualy can prove that there isnt a teapot on jupiter because it wouldnt survive. The Bible is a WHACKY BOOK says gays are wrong and loads of other stuff like cato said i could just write a book on my on made up religion saying my ps2 is my good and he speaks to me id get put in a mental home. So should all religious people for actualy believing god is real! apart from budahism (sp) i think.

edit; i never said god didnt exisit i just asked you to prove it

Think free of your social conditionings and try to find out what people may have misinterpreted as "God".

Think free of your social conditionings and try to find out what people may have misinterpreted as "God".

Easy question, since I have no social conditionings. 'God' is another word for the 'self' which is in all things.

I repeat...

so no-one actually has any hard evidence then?

Thats correct.

Easy question, since I have no social conditionings. 'God' is another word for the 'self' which is in all things.

Just curious, how do you not have any social conditionings?

prove to me that you are real and not a bot.

What I would really like to see is for a theist to prove that their god is real and everyone else is delusional.

what is real mr. george bush?...WMDs?...

why, it's woould be quite easy.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

like what.

I agree. It is a natural that we accept something doesnot exist unless we have a proof that it does.

Just curious, how do you not have any social conditionings?

How? Why would I have? Maybe because I'm not so affected by outer things...

what is real mr. george bush?...WMDs?...
People. What is made. What can be done in this life by human hands.
That is enough for me.

This is what I believe:
1. I think
...therefore I exist.
2. I can see things around me that are complex beyond the powers of conception of my mind alone
...therefore the world is real and I did not create it.
3. A creator must exist in order to make a creation
...therefore there must be a God who created the universe along with me

If you look further, there is historical support for several of the events reported in the Bible (such as Noah's ark, I think), and within the Bible itself there is also extensive corroboration between and among the old and new testament authors. So there you have it, the foundation of my faith.

How? Why would I have? Maybe because I'm not so affected by outer things...

Unless you spent your childhood removed from society without parents to raise you, I'd say you have some kind of social conditioning.

This is what I believe:
If you look further, there is historical support for several of the events reported in the Bible (such as Noah's ark, I think), and within the Bible itself there is also extensive corroboration between and among the old and new testament authors. So there you have it, the foundation of my faith.

There's historical support for a great flood found in slews of mythological and relgious writing.

3. A creator must exist in order to make a creation
...therefore there must be a God who created the universe along with me


If we were to use this analogy; then there must be a SUPERIOR GOD that created god, that created the universe. And thus we have an infinite regression of gods.

God is only real; if your delusional enough 2 belive that there's such a thing.

God is a tool to manipulate the ingnorant masses. Dictators love god.
i.e. Bush believes he was appointed pres. by god.

God was the answer for anything unknown. It still is.

Godless.

Dano9700: There's historical support for a great flood found in slews of mythological and relgious writing.
*************
M*W: Historical support...found in myth! That proves it all, doesn't it?

Unless you spent your childhood removed from society without parents to raise you, I'd say you have some kind of social conditioning.

I have spent my life removed from everything but myself. Even if "I" am with people, my MIND is not with them. I am the only existence.

Even if you spend time with people, you can still feel as though you were alone with yourself and even if you're alone you can feel as though you were not alone. When people are around you, be as though you were alone, and when you are alone, be as though there were people around you.

Godless: If we were to use this analogy; then there must be a SUPERIOR GOD that created god, that created the universe. And thus we have an infinite regression of gods.

Maybe God 'exists' in some form outside our understanding of the term. If he does not have the same existence as us then he need not be created himself. The world is composed of atoms, made up of subatomic particles, made up of quarks, made up of bundles of energy or something. God is not any of those things, but rather is spiritual in nature.

banana: the supernatural/spiritual world, is only real to you (subjective reality)for it to be real to everybody(objective reality) it must effect one or all the senses.
which it has not done yet.
look at my post on page one, quote "The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing."

CAREfull how you ASK a question. it might have a hidden premise in therer your not aware of. which this question does

the premise is YOUR preconceived understanding of what 'God' is. ie., a transcendental sky-god-father figure who is craftsman of the universe.....riiiiight?. from there the questioner says...'go on...prove god exists'
well, the very idea is flawed anyway. that idea comes from a long line of patriarchy that separates 'spirit' from Nature, making you believe--indoctrinating you that 'matter' is besides the point. that what IS important is 'spirit in the sky'.....rigght? so your focus is on up there, and down here is totally ignored

YET if you really want to know spirituality, you need to begin opening up to Nature

so if you ask again, understanding all of that, i would say try some of this. Fruits of the Moon Tree. and soon you would understand what God/dess is

Banana to suppose that a god exists outside of the realm of our known existence is only the excuse given by theists, because they themselves can't prove the existence of the entity.

On another matter, the false conclusion that there are "other realm of existence" is totally bogus, existence is what we perceive, and what we with our super telescopes, and tools have been able to see, no other existence exists, i.e. no heaven or hell exists, to suppose that other realms of existence exists is to deny "this" existence.

Furthermore the idea of god, is part of our primitive mind set. Our mental capabilities of ancient past created the gods, these were voices of hallusinations, and visions from dreams, still today schizophrenics have visions, and dreams of gods, and what not. However "god" is a word with no identity. Thus in order for one to prove the existence or non-existence of the entity one has to know what god is, since god is a undentified entity no one can prove of it's existence or lack there off.

We can't prove a negative. We can't prove that there is no Easter bunny or anything supernatural for matter. What we do know is that it is highly unlikely.

We can't prove a negative. We can't prove that there is no Easter bunny or anything supernatural for that matter. What we do know is that it is highly unlikely.

We can't prove that there is no Easter bunny .

yes you can.

yes you can.

alteredperception is correct. It can't be proven. The claim 'the easter
bunny exists' can be contradicted with known factual information (evidence).

Maybe God 'exists' in some form outside our understanding of the term. If he does not have the same existence as us then he need not be created himself. The world is composed of atoms, made up of subatomic particles, made up of quarks, made up of bundles of energy or something. God is not any of those things, but rather is spiritual in nature.

If God is eternal then He could not have a creator since He would have no beginning point that requires a creator.

are you guys arguing about the easter bunny? AGAIN!

why is god always refered to as he?
Because in the Biblical and Scripture times men were often referred to as stronger, smarter, faster, brighter, etc. human beings to females. To the men of the time females were nothing but someone to bear and take care of children and a family. So, therefore, in the reference to God in the sense of The Holy Bible we refer to God as He. Also, we should capitalize the h- in He and the g- in God for we are referring to the specific God of one religion. For some reason, the apostles were sticklers like that.
Personally, I feel that God is a third sex, and not a hermathrodite. Foolish assumption, but that's what they said angels were in the Scriptures.
-Dan

the mis-take i sense your arguments are making is: dismissing deep experience, which postivist science labels 'subjectivity'.....i am not saying that visions, non-ordinary experiences ISN'T subjective, i am just being aware of how the postivist mindset operates. in this case, splitting 'subjective' from 'objective' and at the same time denigrating the former and deifying the latter

yu are basically denying the deeper part of yourself. thi is not to say that if one has a vision of 'God' that that is 'true'.

I need to explain. i feel therer can be visions whose symbols can emphasize divisive beliefs. for example, an idea might be integrated that matter is illusion, and evil, etc. THAT i would challenge. But BECAUSE of the danger of that, doesn't ALSO mean that Deep Experience per se is false. it is deepening experience, felt. to oppress this capacity of us is wrong!

If God is eternal then He could not have a creator since He would have no beginning point that requires a creator.
Yes, but we believe that the universe is eternal, unless you are going to argue that, and I highly doubt that you can prove that. Perhaps God is in a dimension that we cannot fathom, as in Kurt Vonnegut's novel "The Sirens Of Titan," the tranfa-whatever-dibulum or something. In it the man, Niles Rumfoord, is trapped in this scientific phenomenon and appears on every planet for particular points in time all throughout the solar system, apparently trapped within a sunbeam of sorts. Here is the point of this: He could go forward and backward in time, and he knew what was going to happen and thus told people waht they were going to do and did things that did not change the future, but rather helped it more easily maintain it's way. Basically, God could be in another dimension in which we have no comprehension (Just as Einstein has spoke about with various dimensions) and is in past, present, and future all at once. Therefore, he could have created himself at one point, and has always existed despite having to create himself. Confusing, isn't it? Then again, we cannot comprehend it and only come to it with theory. It's like being able to look forward and see your back, and then throwing a baseball at it and hitting yourself.
No wonder people have so much trouble with this, they give themselves brain aneurisms just like I just did.
-Dan

I have a question, what do you mean by g/God? Do you mean just a higher being, because that is more easily believable than an unmaterial entity that we can only rely on belief via our minds. People believe that we were put here by someone else, perhaps aliens, who would then be considered a god, and we were made in their eyes as was them. However, that would be agains the grain of evolution. WE can create tiny forms of life, can we not? So how is it illogical to believe that someone before us created us in the same way, and that cycle could have always gone on for eons and eons. Perhaps we were what could be said as just a kid's science experiment in a petri dish. After all, we are just carbon when it comes down to it.
-Dan

any religion i dont care which just prove to me that your god is real! thanks in advance

And if we don't don't prove(whatever that means) God's reality, are we to assume that God does not exist?

And if we don't don't prove(whatever that means) God's reality, are we to assume that God does not exist?
I think that you cannot say that he does not exist if we cannot physically prove it, simply because we cannot prove nor disprove it, there is no real debunkery happening that can completely disprove the lack of God, am I correct, or have I been out of the loop for years? I have Aetheist friends who even believe in a higher being, so come on now.
-Dan
PS TOTALLY off topic, I know.

paulisdead: Yes, but we believe that the universe is eternal, unless you are going to argue that, and I highly doubt that you can prove that.
*************
M*W: Welcome to sciforums, paulisdead. I like your Username, but I hope you're not referring to yourself!

Yes, the universe is eternal -- to us mere humans. It will be here long after we've gone.
*************
paulisdead: Perhaps God is in a dimension that we cannot fathom, as in Kurt Vonnegut's novel "The Sirens Of Titan," the tranfa-whatever-dibulum or something. In it the man, Niles Rumfoord, is trapped in this scientific phenomenon and appears on every planet for particular points in time all throughout the solar system, apparently trapped within a sunbeam of sorts. Here is the point of this: He could go forward and backward in time, and he knew what was going to happen and thus told people waht they were going to do and did things that did not change the future, but rather helped it more easily maintain it's way. Basically, God could be in another dimension in which we have no comprehension (Just as Einstein has spoke about with various dimensions) and is in past, present, and future all at once. Therefore, he could have created himself at one point, and has always existed despite having to create himself. Confusing, isn't it? Then again, we cannot comprehend it and only come to it with theory. It's like being able to look forward and see your back, and then throwing a baseball at it and hitting yourself.
*************
M*W: No, it's not really all that confusing. The 'original' concept of god is in our dimension, and we see it everyday, weather permitting. The problem is an error of semantics. The 'original' god to ancient humans was the sun which evolved into the 'son of god.' The 12 signs of the zodiac were the constellations, later called the apostles. God didn't create himself. Everything was created by the Big Bang. It was like an explosion probably taking billions and billions of years to occur. We are still experiencing the ripple effect from the BB, but according to our perception of relativity, it is happening so slow that we can't really perceive it. However, now that mankind has created the measurement of time, we can see and feel every 24 hours go by, every day go by, every week go by, every month go by, and every year go by. As of yet, we cannot perceive the past return or the future we have. All we have in this dimension is the present.
*************
paulisdead: No wonder people have so much trouble with this, they give themselves brain aneurisms just like I just did.-Dan
*************
Dan: It's simple, really. The problem is that Christians, Jews and Muslims would disagree with my theory. For some reason, they don't quite understand that the monotheistic god they believe in was only their anthropomorphized sun god of ancient Egypt.

Again, welcome to sciforums where all your questions will be answered with love.

~ Medicine*Woman

Godless: since god is a undentified entity no one can prove of it's existence or lack there off.

Yeah you're right, the question posed in this thread can never really be answered satisfactorily by reasoning or otherwise. It's the same with history in that it cannot be proven; one could always argue, even against photographic evidence, that an event were some sort of conspiracy. Nevertheless, for me the fact that we exist at all as humans shows beyond reasonable doubt that a creator exists (it also happens that I have nothing to lose and everything to gain in believing). As for the easter bunny, I'm sorry to report that he (or she) was killed in a traffic accident some time ago. I saw it in the newspaper.

Medicine Woman,
your theory is quite intriguing and I don't doubt that the egyptians might have worshipped the sun, considering that they built pyramids oriented in a particular way towards it. However, according to the bible, God made himself known very early on to people such as Noah and Abraham. If the concept of God originated not from himself but from the sun, I don't see why the early authors would have any reason to replace that with a more abstract concept.

]I think that you cannot say that he does not exist if we cannot physically prove it,[/b]

Ok I'll go with that and rephrase my premise: does lack of evidence make theism irrational?

we cannot prove or disprove it[existence of God]

Sounds like hard agnosticism, that we cannot know one way or the other. How do we know we can't know?

We can't disprove anything supernatural. But we can firmly assert that it is highly unlikely.

God is supernatural. The supernatural doesn't exist. God doesn't exist.

I will provide strong logical evidence showing why the supernatural doesn't exist.

Is there any need for a first cause?

by Nathaniel Branden:

Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?
Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a causal explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created god? Was there a still earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?
It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.
This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all causalchains. Existence -not "god" - is the First Cause.
Just as the concept of a causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.
The man who asks: "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence.
Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking; "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists; you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go.

Assuming that N. Branden, shares the same strong, hard opinion as yours, on what non-circular reason does he base the statement "the supernatural doesn't exist"?

On another matter, the false conclusion that there are "other realm of existence" is totally bogus, existence is what we perceive, and what we with our super telescopes, and tools have been able to see, no other existence exists, i.e. no heaven or hell exists, to suppose that other realms of existence exists is to deny "this" existence.

you are saying here that there is nothing left to discover, your super tools have explored everything there is to explore and the conclusion is 'nothing exists that we cannot percieve'
its like a blind man declaring 'i have seen the world with my own eyes and there is nothing to look at'

Assuming that N. Branden, shares the same strong, hard opinion as yours, on what non-circular reason does he base the statement "the supernatural doesn't exist"?on the fact that, it has no objective effect, on the five senses.


you are saying here that there is nothing left to discover, your super tools have explored everything there is to explore and the conclusion is 'nothing exists that we cannot percieve'correct, but they would'nt be super tools just your senses.
of course you could always believe, your imagination is real, could'nt you.

replace 'supernatural'--a term which suggests something more than natrual--with 'deepernatural'......so a deeper sense of natrual would imply spirituality wouldn't it?
This is what pre-patriarchal Earth religion was all about. experiencing reality in a deeper way. beyond the confines of an egoic boundary, or rigid sense of one's self
Can THat be proven? how you mean? by the criteria of a mindset that dismisses subjectivity? obviously not. that mindset is coming from a sperficial understanding of the individual and reality

correct, but they would'nt be super tools just your senses.
of course you could always believe, your imagination is real, could'nt you.

how do you mean the supertools would be just your sense, do you mean extensions of the senses?

I thought you first used the terminology supertools, but it was godless.
so I'm sorry for the mixup.

however we all have things to enhance our senses, sometimes just feel more normal

it's your senses that discern things not the enhancements, the enhancement just help like hearing aids, glasses, etc..

you are saying here that there is nothing left to discover

Wrong!.


your super tools have explored everything there is to explore and the conclusion is 'nothing exists that we cannot percieve'

Wrong again!!.

What I mean is that every thing that we perceive, with our telescopes, Hubble for example, Microscopes, quantum physics, etc..is all that we know that exists, I've never declared that we've discovered everything there is to discover, fact is we've barely scratched the surface. However what I am saying is that no other "reality" exists beyond this one, no other existence exists beyond this one, because in order to prove such an existence one would have to do it from that "other" existence, since you can't than there's no way to prove any other existence other than the one we can perceive. Hence no "outer, or other" dimension of existence exists, because in order to belive such a farce you would be denying this one!.

Godless.

replace 'supernatural'--a term which suggests something more than natrual

Actually, it means NOT existing in nature.

This is what pre-patriarchal Earth religion was all about. experiencing reality in a deeper way.

No, it was the same as it is today, people believing in things that don't exist.

If a god existed, there would be a single religion with every person on earth knowing that god.

However what I am saying is that no other "reality" exists beyond this one, no other existence exists beyond this one but that does not say that in 'this reality' we have percieved all that exists. so there is existence existing beyond our perception of existence.

proof: show something that I, nor anyone else, can refute with more certainty than what you have shown.


Um.... I can barely 'prove' that I am really sitting on a chair typing this message or that an apple really exist.

Descartes' radical doubt: since I know that I have been deceived by my senses before, there is no way I can prove that they are not deceiving me right now.

Hume's skepticism and the problem of induction: we only gather information from our senses and these form our ideas. However, ideas can never be only founded on reason alone, we rather function by habit and joining events together. In addition, there is no rational foundation to believe that what occured the first 100 times I did something that it will still occure the 101st time. This said, reason itself is bankrupt and powerless to form absolute judgements.

Russell also had a similar complaint concerning epistemology, but my memory is shaky and I don't feel like digging it up again. (So go look if your that interested).

This said, there is no way I can prove the existence of God more than I can prove that an apple is really in the room and really red. Humans function by conjectures which are not founded on anything else than contingent experiences which could logically change at any whim. Thus we are stuck with conventional wisdom.

Prisme

P.S.
Despite all the above, Descartes had an interesting argument as to the existence of God which escapes the problems of senses: since nothing in this world could trigger our senses in the belief of a God (see, touch, smell, taste, hear), the idea of God must have been ingraved by our Creator in our souls. That is why we have a distinct cognitive impression of a unknownable and absent thing in the world.

banana: Medicine Woman, your theory is quite intriguing and I don't doubt that the egyptians might have worshipped the sun, considering that they built pyramids oriented in a particular way towards it. However, according to the bible, God made himself known very early on to people such as Noah and Abraham. If the concept of God originated not from himself but from the sun, I don't see why the early authors would have any reason to replace that with a more abstract concept.
*************
M*W: Well, there's the problem -- the bible. If Moses wrote the first five books and talked about his monotheistic Yahweh, he was referring to the Sun. However, it's highly doubtful that Moses did the writing, especially since his own death was described in detail.

I don't believe that "God made himself known," since early humans perceived the Sun to be God. The "early authors" perpetuated the mythos of the Sun God and, as time passed, the original monotheistic deity was anthropomorphized which complicated matters. Bottom line, the sun's the sun, and there is no God.

jcarl: Ok I'll go with that and rephrase my premise: does lack of evidence make theism irrational?
*************
M*W: Yes, because if there were a God, we would all believe in it, and there would be no gray areas. Humanity would believe in One religion not a gazillion. If there were a God, there would need not even be religions to worship all the different gods. But, it's easy really, there is no God.
*************
jcarl: Sounds like hard agnosticism, that we cannot know one way or the other. How do we know we can't know?
*************
M*W: If there were a God, it could be proven without argument. It would be obvious and real. Man would not question the existence of God. But, because there's doubt -- there is no God.

If Moses wrote the first five books and talked about his monotheistic Yahweh, he was referring to the Sun
that not very likely, the word now interpreted as lord and pronounced in some misguided quarters yahweh does not have any connection to the sun. the letters which make up the name YHVH are symbols of the four elements Y fire H water V air H earth. jesus is nothing to do with the sun either the hebrew name YHShVH which we now pronounce jesus although its hebrew pronunciation is yeshuah was the the same four elements with the fifith element Sh spirit.

jcarl:

1-Ok I'll go with that and rephrase my premise: does lack of evidence make theism irrational?

2-M*W: If there were a God, it could be proven without argument. It would be obvious and real. Man would not question the existence of God. But, because there's doubt -- there is no God.


1- "Does lack of evidence make x irrational?"

Evidence or the lack of evidence has nothing to do as to whether something is rational or not. For example, it is compleatly rational to say:
"Roberto comes from Mexico" even if I can't prove it or it turns out to be false latter on.
Evidence has more to do concerning if x is proven or not, thats it.
But then again, proof is pretty subjective stuff.. back up 4-5 posts and I already explained why.
It is even more erroneous to claim that "where there is doubt there is inexistence", I won't even bother refuting that statement.

In any case, faith is not founded on Reason (the philosophical exercise). This however does not mean they are inherently irrational (in the chaotic sense), but rather that they have a seperate foundation (revelation). So your wasting your time by attempting to apply rules that belong to Reason to faith based jugements.
This point of view is extensively argued in Kant's groundbreaking work "Prolegomena to any futur metaphysics".


2- It does not follow that "if x existed we could prove it". In the past, many things existed without us knowing of them. In the futur, we will discover things that existed without our knowledge of them. Thus many things existed without having the necessity of human proof to validate their existence.
In other words, things that exist simply exist. They do not require us -the humans- to think of them or to conceptualize them in order for them to be present in the material world.
This said, existence has no need for our capability to demonstrate its own being-in-the-world.

Conclusion:
It is always funny to see how people who claim to be objective and non subject to faith often find themselves entertaining arguments that are far from objective and have many presuppositions that resemble those found in religious presuppositions of the world.

Bottom line, the sun's the sun, and there is no God.

There they go again! Presupposition that one somehow follows the other OR that the conclusion is somehow proven with what was previously stated. Order please!

*************
M*W: Yes, because if there were a God, we would all believe in it, and there would be no gray areas. Humanity would believe in One religion not a gazillion. If there were a God, there would need not even be religions to worship all the different gods. But, it's easy really, there is no God.[/b]

So if everybody believed in the existence of a giant fairy with no one doubting, would that make the giant fairy reality? If so, since when is Truth dictated by consensus?

M*W: If there were a God, it could be proven without argument. It would be obvious and real. Man would not question the existence of God. But, because there's doubt -- there is no God.

Two questions:
1. What constitutes "obvious"?
2. How does this answer the question how we can know that we can't know?

on the fact that, it has no objective effect, on the five senses.

So what you're saying is that supernatural can't exist because it can't be verified naturalistically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that begging the question, that naturalistic observations are the only means of knowing anything?

I think medicine woman is stuck on a certain medieval definition of God. Like the one that says He controls everything, sees everything and knows everything. If such a God existed, humans would most likely be more aware of it.
Of course, this does not make it impossible that such a God could exist and at the same time be perpetually be out of intellectual reach to humankind.

In addition, by stating: "there is no God" medicine woman seems to oversimplify the debate. Indeed, there are many kinds of gods conceivable.

For example, God could be like Plato's Demiurge: he created the world and has left it to grow by itself.

Christian God: he is our creator and sent his son to save us. (Now there are so many variations of christianity, there could also be a legitimate debate as to which wing of christianism is right: evangelical, baptist, roman, anglican...)

Primitive gods: (Greek or hindu gods) gods are forces which control the universe and thusly human existence through their own and conlficting natures.

Agnostic God: I cannot know enought to speak of Him, but I sense the possibility of His existence.
or as Blaise Pascal said:
What can be seen on earth indicates neither the total absence, nor the manifest presence of divinity, but the presence of a hidden God.

Aristotlean God: He is the first Cause of the universe.

Cartesian God: Without God, we would be unable to practice morality since we would lack transcendance. God is thus our only moral bearing.
(paraphrased)


So, someone who would hastely claim "there is no God" would have to prove the impossibility of all those definitions of God (including others since I haven't mentionned them all).
This said, if someone is to claim that there is no God in existence, they really should specify what they are talking about and what are the proofs which show that God\gods do not exist instead of only moving hot air.

Prisme

jcarl: So if everybody believed in the existence of a giant fairy with no one doubting, would that make the giant fairy reality? If so, since when is Truth dictated by consensus?
*************
M*W: By this interpretation, yes. If "everybody believed in the existence of a giant fairy," whether or not it was reality, it would be the general consensus and difficult to argue.
*************
jcarl: Two questions:
1. What constitutes "obvious"?
*************
M*W: "Obvious" means the "truth, that which is "easily discovered, seen, or understood."
*************
jcarl: 2. How does this answer the question how we can know that we can't know?
*************
M*W: We cannot know that there is a "God." We cannot know that there was a "savior of mankind." Therefore, the debate goes on whether there was a god and whether there was a savior. The confusion lies in the fact that there was no god and no savior, and many illiterate christians refused to seek the truth.

Prisme: I think medicine woman is stuck on a certain medieval definition of God. Like the one that says He controls everything, sees everything and knows everything. If such a God existed, humans would most likely be more aware of it.
Of course, this does not make it impossible that such a God could exist and at the same time be perpetually be out of intellectual reach to humankind.
*************
M*W: Far from it! The only true god would be humanity.
*************
Prisme: In addition, by stating: "there is no God" medicine woman seems to oversimplify the debate. Indeed, there are many kinds of gods conceivable.
*************
M*W: Sure. There are many gods believed in by mere humans.
*************
Prisme: For example, God could be like Plato's Demiurge: he created the world and has left it to grow by itself.
*************
M*W: Maybe, but...
*************
Prisme: Christian God: he is our creator and sent his son to save us. (Now there are so many variations of christianity, there could also be a legitimate debate as to which wing of christianism is right: evangelical, baptist, roman, anglican...)
*************
M*W: There are "so many variations of God" that that no god could exist!
*************
Prisme: Primitive gods: (Greek or hindu gods) gods are forces which control the universe and thusly human existence through their own and conlficting natures.

Agnostic God: I cannot know enought to speak of Him, but I sense the possibility of His existence. or as Blaise Pascal said:
What can be seen on earth indicates neither the total absence, nor the manifest presence of divinity, but the presence of a hidden God.
*************
M*W: It's a matter of perception.
*************
Prisme: Aristotlean God: He is the first Cause of the universe.

Cartesian God: Without God, we would be unable to practice morality since we would lack transcendance. God is thus our only moral bearing.
(paraphrased)

So, someone who would hastely claim "there is no God" would have to prove the impossibility of all those definitions of God (including others since I haven't mentionned them all).
This said, if someone is to claim that there is no God in existence, they really should specify what they are talking about and what are the proofs which show that God\gods do not exist instead of only moving hot air.
*************
M*W: There is no god in existence. The existence of "God" cannot be proven; therefore, the people who believe in this "God" do so under false delusions. Therefore, no "god" exists.

jcarl: So if everybody believed in the existence of a giant fairy with no one doubting, would that make the giant fairy reality? If so, since when is Truth dictated by consensus?
*************
M*W: By this interpretation, yes. If "everybody believed in the existence of a giant fairy," whether or not it was reality, it would be the general consensus and difficult to argue.

Indeed it would be general consensus, but would that make it true? Obviously not: truth and non-truth are not contingent on a consensus. But what you said earlier was that since people squabble and essentially disagree about the existence and/or attributes of God, that is proof--or evidence at least--that no God exists. While your premise "God does not exist" may or may not be true, but the existence of such a being is in no way connected to how man practices religion.

M*W: "Obvious" means the "truth, that which is "easily discovered, seen, or understood."

What would constitute "obvious" evidence of God?

[B]
M*W: We cannot know that there is a "God.

Restating the premise does not explain how we know that to be true. What I am searching for is how you can know that we cannot know.

God exists in the mind, so he is real.

Medicine Woman: The existence of "God" cannot be proven; therefore, the people who believe in this "God" do so under false delusions. Therefore, no "god" exists.

If all your beliefs are based on absolute proof, then the only thing you can believe is your own existence (as per Descartes). I think it has already been pointed out that this logic is critically flawed because your premise does not necessarily lead to the conclusion given.
jcarl has asked the question twice, "What would constitute "obvious" evidence of God?" This is significant because unequivocal evidence of anything besides one's own existence can never be attained. The only way of "knowing" something is to make a judgement about the credibility of the evidence, which clearly depends upon one's perception of it. If someone has preconceptions about the existence of god (i.e. does not exist until proven to exist), they will naturally tend to interpret the evidence in a way that supports their position. The argument will never get anywhere if to prove something means to achieve absolute certainty.

The point is we don't need to prove God. The supernatural is unncessary. God is supposed to be the first cause of the universe. But the totality of existence doesn't require a cause because causality presupposes existence. Time also presupposes existence. If existence didn't exist there would be no causality and no time.

God is supposed to be the first cause of the universe. but then you are also getting hung up on a certain definition of what god is.

as i have said before if god exists god is within existence whether percieved or not, and being within that existence there is no cause required for gods existence because existence just exists.

So what you're saying is that supernatural can't exist because it can't be verified naturalistically. I did'nt say that, nobody would be so stupid, until such time as they can possibly prove the existence of a supernatural realm, I will stick with what I know now, and use my senses to guide me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that begging the question, that naturalistic observations are the only means of knowing anything?naturalism neither denies nor affirms the existence of God, either as transcendent or immanent. However, naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation. Reference to moral or divine purposes has no place in scientific explanations. On the other hand, the scope of science is limited to explanation of empirical phenomena without reference to forces, powers, influences, etc., which are supernatural.

If all your beliefs are based on absolute proof, then the only thing you can believe is your own existence (as per Descartes). I think it has already been pointed out that this logic is critically flawed because your premise does not necessarily lead to the conclusion given.
jcarl has asked the question twice, "What would constitute "obvious" evidence of God?" This is significant because unequivocal evidence of anything besides one's own existence can never be attained. The only way of "knowing" something is to make a judgement about the credibility of the evidence, which clearly depends upon one's perception of it. If someone has preconceptions about the existence of god (i.e. does not exist until proven to exist), they will naturally tend to interpret the evidence in a way that supports their position. The argument will never get anywhere if to prove something means to achieve absolute certainty.are we back to this, banana as said on another thread all it takes is this...

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.
To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist


The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:

The thing exists.
It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

is that helpful.

God is the force behind creation.
he is not human, we are not created in his image, this is just humans way of inflating our own importance, we also use religion to give meaning to our existence.
God is nature.
Before the current round of Gods, yes we have gone through many believes in our time us humans, many religions existed that deified nature, astarte, mother nature, the female the nurturer giver of life.

To me it makes more sence to worship the miricle that is all around us than to worship ourselves in the form of god made in our own image.
Why are we so arogant as to believe the creator of all the universe and beyond made us in his image, my god we consider ourselves the bees knees don't we!!!

When I listen to grown men going on about the bible, sin and son's of god and resurrections and I see the symbol of this religion is such an offencive cruel symbolism (cruxifiction) I think ...the real evil in this world is organised religion, maybe it is this that is holding back our spiritual advancment as a species.

Until we take off these blinkers, we aint going to see anything.

I did'nt say that, nobody would be so stupid, until such time as they can possibly prove the existence of a supernatural realm, I will stick with what I know now, and use my senses to guide me.

How would we go about "proving"(very loose term) the existence of the supernatural? What would we use?

How would we go about "proving"(very loose term) the existence of the supernatural? What would we use?on this, your guess would be as good as mine.
at the present time it would be redundant to try and prove a negative as Supernatural forces can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Supernatural claims assert phenomena beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, which are often in direct conflict with current scientific theory.
I am prepared to wait, someday someone may find a way.

Ok if there's a god which god is it?. Click (http://www.geocities.com/thewitchescircle/biggg.htm)

The existentialist...thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be a priori of God, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is that we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoyevsky said, If God didn't exist, everything would be possible. That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. --Jean Paul Sartre

God contradicts Free Will of all living beings including itself:
click (http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/rm.html#FreeWill)

A little bit of what M*W was talking about: click (http://www.usbible.com/Astrology/moses_sun_signs.htm)

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." Carl Sagan.

The Onus of proof is and has always been of those who make the claims of such an existence. Thus! No one, not a single person in history has ever proven even his/or her own existence, then how the hell is anyone going to prove a god?.

Godless.

Just because you cant see something doesnt meen it doesn't exist

I believe that evolution occured and evolution is like a chain of dominos
One thing happens after another. But who set up the dominos? The Answer is GOD.

god is a bigger domino in a chain of bigger dominoes set up by super god. but super god was a super domino in a chain of super dominoes set up by mega god, but mega god was..... /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////__
who started that? me thats who!

Dominos are predestined. They will fall in a set pattern.
Evolution could have turned in a transfinite number of directions depending on an even greater number of random factors.

One thing happens after another. But who set up the dominos? The Answer is GOD.

And your evidence is?.

George's take on Religion: Click (http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/carlin.html)

Why the Big Bang is No Help to Theists: Click (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html)

Godless.

Just because you cant see something doesnt meen it doesn't exist

This is true. And just because someone would like something to be exist
doesn't mean that it does.


I believe that evolution occured...

Occured? Past tense? It's a non-stop process of adaptation through
variation.


and evolution is like a chain of dominos One thing happens after another.


I don't understand the metaphore. Maybe it can be ellaborated upon
how evolution is like a chain of dominos.


But who set up the dominos? The Answer is GOD.
[/QUOTE]

Why is it necessary for the 'dominos' to have been 'set up' by someone
(assuming the metaphore is clarified)?

M*W: There are "so many variations of God" that that no god could exist!
*************

Again, your conclusion is not supported by your premise. Many different variations of a table does not necessarily mean that no table exist.
(ex: japanese table, square table, round table, tall table, red table...)


M*W: There is no god in existence. The existence of "God" cannot be proven; therefore, the people who believe in this "God" do so under false delusions. Therefore, no "god" exists.
*************

You have again confounded "Knowledge" and "Faith".
Saying that because people cannot -prove- God (by factual knowledge) they are thusly wrong to -believe- in Him (faith based facts) simply does'nt make any sense for one subject has nothing to do with the other.

Lets break it down aristotelian style:

1-The existence of God cannot be proven
2-Therefore those who believe in God suffer from delusion
3-Therefore no God exist

-How did you arrive to proposition 1? It looks like a conclusion not a premise.
-How those proposition 2 result from proposition 1? How is lack of proof be the cause for delusion? Many university professors disagree with each other and claim that the other side lacks proof... are they all delusional?
-How does proposition 2 entail proposition 3? It is rationally possible that one single man can be wright while everyone thinks he is delusional.
example: Copernicus!

It is commencing to be distressing to argue with someone who seems to have no bearing on what is a valid arguement and what is not.

========================
Quote from Godless quoting J.P. Sartre

The existentialist...thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be a priori of God, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is that we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoyevsky said, If God didn't exist, everything would be possible. That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. --Jean Paul Sartre

Although it is true that Dostoyevsky had a certain existentialist tendancy, it is very clear that at the same time heoffers prowerfull critics to those who would reduce human existence to utilitarianism. In his novel Crime and punishement he tells the story of an old woman who was rich and did nothing with her money while the protagonist could use it in much more practical ways. He decides to murder her and flee with her money. Of course, Dostoyevsky then demonstrates how human conscience is much more powerfull than mere calculations based on practicality; indeed the protagonist finds himself deeply haunted by his action and cannot find any way to be happy again.
This said, I think Sartre is a radical philosopher which human consciousness has grown out of. Indeed, people who only dress in black, open their minds with jazz music and reject all forms of conformity are long gone. With time, its clear that people still hold a value to the meanning of a life despite the past fads philosophy had in the 60's to '70s.

On another point, Sartre says: "it very distressing that God does not exist". Personnaly, I think it would equally be "distressing" for people like Sartre to find out that God DOES exist, for it would force them to adhere to a particular world view that they may not wish to live under.

This is true. And just because someone would like something to be exist
doesn't mean that it does.

I know



Occured? Past tense? It's a non-stop process of adaptation through
variation.

No shit, I meant I belive it is true and it began long ago




Why is it necessary for the 'dominos' to have been 'set up' by someone
(assuming the metaphore is clarified)?[/QUOTE]

I belive a greater power is responsible for evolution,
Thats what I meant by the domino metaphor

I belive a greater power is responsible for evolution,
Thats what I meant by the domino metaphor

I understand. Where does the belief come from? Is it perhaps something
that just 'feels' right?

on this, your guess would be as good as mine.
at the present time it would be redundant to try and prove a negative as Supernatural forces can not be shown to exist by the scientific method.

Well how do you know that that--emprical evidence--is the only method of determining reality?

I am prepared to wait,

So, let me get this straight. If somebody walked up to you and asked you if the supernatural existed, would you just withhold judgements, saying something like," I really haven't a clue about anything supernatural." I'm not saying belief like this is good or bad, just seeing if this what you really believe.

Someone someday may find a way
What do you mean by this? Do you mean: possibly someone may find a naturalistic way of observing the supernatural? Or are you opening the door, albeit slightly, to a non-empirical route of knowing Truth?

paulisdead: Yes, but we believe that the universe is eternal, unless you are going to argue that, and I highly doubt that you can prove that.
*************
M*W: Welcome to sciforums, paulisdead. I like your Username, but I hope you're not referring to yourself!

Yes, the universe is eternal -- to us mere humans. It will be here long after we've gone.
*************
paulisdead: Perhaps God is in a dimension that we cannot fathom, as in Kurt Vonnegut's novel "The Sirens Of Titan," the tranfa-whatever-dibulum or something. In it the man, Niles Rumfoord, is trapped in this scientific phenomenon and appears on every planet for particular points in time all throughout the solar system, apparently trapped within a sunbeam of sorts. Here is the point of this: He could go forward and backward in time, and he knew what was going to happen and thus told people waht they were going to do and did things that did not change the future, but rather helped it more easily maintain it's way. Basically, God could be in another dimension in which we have no comprehension (Just as Einstein has spoke about with various dimensions) and is in past, present, and future all at once. Therefore, he could have created himself at one point, and has always existed despite having to create himself. Confusing, isn't it? Then again, we cannot comprehend it and only come to it with theory. It's like being able to look forward and see your back, and then throwing a baseball at it and hitting yourself.
*************
M*W: No, it's not really all that confusing. The 'original' concept of god is in our dimension, and we see it everyday, weather permitting. The problem is an error of semantics. The 'original' god to ancient humans was the sun which evolved into the 'son of god.' The 12 signs of the zodiac were the constellations, later called the apostles. God didn't create himself. Everything was created by the Big Bang. It was like an explosion probably taking billions and billions of years to occur. We are still experiencing the ripple effect from the BB, but according to our perception of relativity, it is happening so slow that we can't really perceive it. However, now that mankind has created the measurement of time, we can see and feel every 24 hours go by, every day go by, every week go by, every month go by, and every year go by. As of yet, we cannot perceive the past return or the future we have. All we have in this dimension is the present.
*************
paulisdead: No wonder people have so much trouble with this, they give themselves brain aneurisms just like I just did.-Dan
*************
Dan: It's simple, really. The problem is that Christians, Jews and Muslims would disagree with my theory. For some reason, they don't quite understand that the monotheistic god they believe in was only their anthropomorphized sun god of ancient Egypt.

Again, welcome to sciforums where all your questions will be answered with love.

~ Medicine*Woman
I would reply to you on your arguments, but I am too tired. However, thank you for welcoming me, the name paulisdead is Paul Is Dead, AKA Paul McCartney, with the whole Beatles conspiracy backing that.
-Dan

Yes, but we believe that the universe is eternal, unless you are going to argue that, and I highly doubt that you can prove that.

I am currently looking for arguments concerning whether the universe is eternal or not. There seems to be much disagreement on this point. Do you have any arguments that suggest that the universe is eternal?

If the universe is eternal our own sun should have burned itself out an eternity ago. The entire universe should have suffered a heat death an eternity ago and there would only be darkness now. Even the cycling universe theory seems a lot like an impossible perpetual motion machine. That seems very unlikely to me as well. Just my thoughts. Thanks!

On another point, Sartre says: "it very distressing that God does not exist". Personnaly, I think it would equally be "distressing" for people like Sartre to find out that God DOES exist, for it would force them to adhere to a particular world view that they may not wish to live under.

Sarte has been dead since 1980. He don't wish to live any longer. He's already gone.

I've just begun reading him btw, I do find him interesting, but not my tipe of philosophy either. I'm not an existentialist. I only study philosophy as a hobby.


I am currently looking for arguments concerning whether the universe is eternal or not. There seems to be much disagreement on this point. Do you have any arguments that suggest that the universe is eternal?

First of all what is "eternal"?.

One can't fathom till the end of time, one can't even begin to imangine eternity. Existence has existed eternally, and shall continue to exist eternally. Only for a brief nano second do you and I exist on this planet, and when the times come that our sun eithre blows up--Supernova or dies out it has only been a day; compared to the eternal past of existence and it's eternal future.

Godless.

Well how do you know that that--emprical evidence--is the only method of determining reality?I dont as I've said already, hereI did'nt say that, nobody would be so stupid, until such time as they can possibly prove the existence of a supernatural realm, I will stick with what I know now, and use my senses to guide me.

naturalism neither denies nor affirms the existence of God, either as transcendent or immanent. However, naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation. Reference to moral or divine purposes has no place in scientific explanations. On the other hand, the scope of science is limited to explanation of empirical phenomena without reference to forces, powers, influences, etc., which are supernatural.and hereon this, your guess would be as good as mine.
at the present time it would be redundant to try and prove a negative as Supernatural forces can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Supernatural claims assert phenomena beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, which are often in direct conflict with current scientific theory.


So, let me get this straight. If somebody walked up to you and asked you if the supernatural existed, would you just withhold judgements, saying something like," I really haven't a clue about anything supernatural." I'm not saying belief like this is good or bad, just seeing if this what you really believe.my personal view is, I doubt very much that they will ever be able to determine a method other than the empirical, but as I've said it would be stupid for me or anybody for that matter, to completely rule out the possiblity.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean: possibly someone may find a naturalistic way of observing the supernatural? Or are you opening the door, albeit slightly, to a non-empirical route of knowing Truth? read last paragraph, remember man once thought the world was flat, and the sun went round the earth, but we know different now.

Sarte has been dead since 1980. He don't wish to live any longer. He's already gone.


No shit Godless. I gather that your half assed remark on the authors death was favored in order to avoid commenting on my original rhetoric to wich I don't understand why you quoted above your comment:

-Personnaly, I think it would equally be "distressing" for people like Sartre to find out that God DOES exist, for it would force them to adhere to a particular world view that they may not wish to live under.-

No shit Godless. I gather that your half assed remark on the authors death was favored in order to avoid commenting on my original rhetoric to wich I don't understand why you quoted above your comment:

Forgive the "pun" however I'm not to familiar yet with Sarte's work, as I mentioned right below I've just begun reading him, to make an assesment of your "rhetoric" would have been a deliberate lie or inconclusive view. Because of my unfamiliarity with both Sarte's and Dostovesky's literature works. I've never read "Crime & Punishment" as yet, but the book has been recomended to me several times. I have however read "The Idiot" and by that pice of literature I gather that Dostovesky to be atheistic in his ideas.



Personnaly, I think it would equally be "distressing" for people like Sartre to find out that God DOES exist, for it would force them to adhere to a particular world view that they may not wish to live under

It is already "distressing" since most "DO" believe in such an entity and they rule the people accordingly to religious rhetorical ideals. But how about the otherway around?. When say a person like the Pope who has recently passed away finds out that actually NOTHING EXISTS. That there's no god, that he basically wasted his whole life living and promoting a LIE! and that what he saw in his final moments of life was an illusion of the mind been cut of of oxygen and blood supply to the brain, he might of seen the "light" and headed towards it upon his death only to find out that after that there was only "DARKNESS" and thus he finally died.

The delussional mind set of not accepting death gives us thought of "heaven" a nirvana after existence, a place of peace and tranquility. However in reality how can such a place exist?. The opposite of heaven is Hell!. this used only to "manipulate" with fear, your reward for following religious rhetorical BULL SHIT, and if not done so accordingly to rhetorical religious crap your punishment would be "hell". If that's the case Hell is about to bust out of it's seems!.

But if you still content in believing that such a place exists you might as well visit here (www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html)

Godless.

so is he real then?

can i see an actual photo if he is please

so is he real then?

can i see an actual photo if he is please

God is not physical, so it may be hard to take a photo of God HIMSELF. There is nothing which he can be compared to, so that he would become "visible". He has no "opposite", like 'soft' is the opposite of 'hard'. You know what hard is because you know what soft is, but you do not know what God is since there's no comparison. Everything in this world is relative, you know.

I guess the universe (everything) is the most precise physical manifestation of him. The universe is the heat, God is the fire which causes the heat. Also, everything that is good, is God. Take photos of good things, then you can have a small picture of what God looks like.

It's interesting that some know so much about something that is not physical and not visible.

Yet, scientists know so little about the universe which is physical and is visible, and the more they do know shows no indication of what some think they know.

Curious...

It is already "distressing" since most "DO" believe in such an entity and they rule the people accordingly to religious rhetorical ideals. But how about the otherway around?. When say a person like the Pope who has recently passed away finds out that actually NOTHING EXISTS. That there's no god, that he basically wasted his whole life living and promoting a LIE! and that what he saw in his final moments of life was an illusion of the mind been cut of of oxygen and blood supply to the brain, he might of seen the "light" and headed towards it upon his death only to find out that after that there was only "DARKNESS" and thus he finally died.

The delussional mind set of not accepting death gives us thought of "heaven" a nirvana after existence, a place of peace and tranquility. However in reality how can such a place exist?. The opposite of heaven is Hell!. this used only to "manipulate" with fear, your reward for following religious rhetorical BULL SHIT, and if not done so accordingly to rhetorical religious crap your punishment would be "hell". If that's the case Hell is about to bust out of it's seems!.

But if you still content in believing that such a place exists you might as well visit here (www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html)

Godless.

1- For the second time, you have not adressed what I was invoking:
If Sartre critics believers as being 'frail' without God, I say that people like Sartre would be equally 'frail' if they discovered God existed for they would be obliged to recognize something bigger than themselves and their petty free will... this would cause them "distress"

2-If the pope found out that no God existed.. how could he then juge that he 'wasted' his life as you put it? With no God (creator), life HAD no meanning from the get-go, so he might as well as been pope than a mechanic or insurance salesman.. it wouldn't of changed anything according to you. Right?

3-Of course, when people usually see "the light" they are usually clinically dead... so he wouldn't "then die". And it you're dead, you couldn't conclude whether your going to heaven or hell now could you?

4-What do you define as accepting death? We don't even know what death is, how can we know how to accept it? By the way, don't bother replying that death is 'the end of all things for that person' since you can only say that from a living standpoint; we still don't know what death is for the dying.
"Death is the only certainty of life, and yet the greatest unknown. Understanding death is understanding the meanning of life" -Forgot

5-I'm afraind I have no idea of what to make with your heaven and hell segment. But since your bias seems more against organized religion than objective Creation or after-life events, I'll leave you to your conclusions.

Prisme

prismeobjective Creation is an oxymoron.

why do you think people cant accept the end of life?

If the pope found out that no God existed, while he was alive obivously, he could only conclude he'd wasted his life.
however life has meaning regardless, theres certainly no need for a sky daddy.

"Death is the only certainty in life, and yet the greatest unknown" why whats to know, your dead.
it's not possible to understand death, what's to understand, you die your dead.

paulisdead: I would reply to you on your arguments, but I am too tired. However, thank you for welcoming me, the name paulisdead is Paul Is Dead, AKA Paul McCartney, with the whole Beatles conspiracy backing that.
-Dan
*************
M*W: Thanks for explaining your Username. I thought it might have referred to Paul of Tarsus. Rest up, and we'll discuss later.

it's not possible to understand death, what's to understand, you die your dead.

if i really could die...
why am I still alive?
why are you still alive?
why is everybody always alive?
after so many years...
still...
here i am.
alive.
like always.

yorda will die.
the person will die.
but the impersonal self remains.
it exists in the future humans.
and in the future, it seems that "I" (the self) still exist.
like always.

and in the future, it seems that "I" (the self) still exist.
like always.

That is what theists want to believe, that they will exist forever.

Silly theists.

prisme

objective Creation is an oxymoron..

Ok genius... prove it to me. I heard guys like you life by proof. Without proof its just an opinion.



why do you think people cant accept the end of life?.

Many do by just accepting the arrival of death. It doesn't have much to do with with belief systems.
You accept to get a ticket, to have rain on your parade just like you can accept death; they are all things you cannot control.


If the pope found out that no God existed, while he was alive obivously, he could only conclude he'd wasted his life.

Well no audible. Being a Pope in a meanningless life is the same as doing any other meanningless activites.


however life has meaning regardless, theres certainly no need for a sky daddy.

You mean you found the meanning of life!?!?!? Please share with us all!!!! :eek:


"Death is the only certainty in life, and yet the greatest unknown" why whats to know, your dead.
it's not possible to understand death, what's to understand, you die your dead.

Um, thats precisely what I warned you about but fell into anyways. You are explaining to me what death looks like to the living... not the dead!

Prisme

and in the future, it seems that "I" (the self) still exist.
like always.

That is what theists want to believe, that they will exist forever.

Silly theists.

Gee Q, you seem well connected with the laws of the universe. Care to expand on your knowledge which you flaunt impllicitly?

Interesting... not a single 'believer' has been able to produce a proof...

Fascinating... how 'non-believers' cannot rationaly grasp that the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.... oh and can't manage an argument for ****.

Proof is on another thread, heres the link
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=269

Prisme-
We don't understand how the universe works yet, so how can you assume the existence of god (a supernatural entity). Rational people don't claim they understand things that currently transcend them. Instead we methodically build upon what we do know and test the truth of new theories. This is the only effective way to learn the truth.

How about proving that god is not real?

proof: god didn't create humans as stated in the bible, but evolution did.

but who created evolution?

Prisme - I read the link you provided. It really gives some good information about many different philosophies. But the author is clearly wrong, and relies on insufficient information to conclude the existence of God.

The author uses Sir John Eccle's explanation of consciousness, which is not fact. Consciousness isn't fully understood, but it is becoming more understood as purely materialistic.

The author also tries to disprove an eternal existence theory. Read my earlier post where I quote Dr. Branden. He explains how the totality of existence requires no cause because causality presupposes existence.

"consciousness isn't fully understood, but it is becoming more understood as purely materialistic"

focus on the first part of that sentence. isn't fully understood. then understand that that non-understanding is still keeping that limited understanding in its mechanical mode.

It is really only materialistic scientists clinging to this mode. Many other scientists, etc are now not trying to materialize consciousness.
Also checkout Christian de Quincey www.deepspirit.com --a professor of philosophy--who explaines how consciousness and matter-energy are ALWAYs togther, but unlike matter-energy which has 'extension' and thus can in principle be 'measured', consciousness has no extension--is 'not-located'--so cant be. it is more like inner FEELING of matter-energy

if you do check him out, look for where he talks about 'energy-talk' and 'consciousness-talk' and how not to confuse them

Without proof its just an opinion.no it's an oxymoron, objectivism means, One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events.
An emphasis on objects rather than feelings or thoughts in literature or art.
creation however means The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.
An original product of human invention or artistic imagination.
so we can gaver from this that creation in the biblical sense( without any solid base or evidence) is not objective. so putting the two together is an oxymoron.
reference (http://dictionary.reference.com/ )

Well no audible. Being a Pope in a meanningless life is the same as doing any other meanningless activites. the question was'nt doing/being in a meaningless life the question was If the pope found out that no God existed.
then he could only conclude he'd wasted his life, but he could have pride in anything he may of accomplished for humanity.
You mean you found the meanning of life Please share with us all to propagate the species, to strive to be the best you can be, to endeavour to make all the lives you come in contact better in someway, also the ones you dont, and above all to enjoy your short time here, and to have pride in anything you may of accomplished.
Um, thats precisely what I warned you about but fell into anyways. You are explaining to me what death looks like to the living... not the dead!please done be a moron, how can you explain what it's like to be dead to a dead person. WOW!!!!!

proof: god didn't create humans as stated in the bible, but evolution did.

God and evolution don't necessarily oppose.
They oppose only if by "God" you mean that strawman sky-daddy.

Fascinating... how 'non-believers' cannot rationaly grasp that the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.... oh and can't manage an argument for ****.

Proof is on another thread, heres the link
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=269

I looked at the proof. To my surprise, it asked two very good questions:


“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
“What caused the Universe?”


The conclusion was that 'God' did it based on the notion that no explanation
currently exists that is adequate. In other words, "I don't know; therefore,
'God' did it". At this point the notion that 'God' exists has automatically been
assumed and used as a substitute for truth in the absence of knowledge.

While reading, I found this gem of an assertion:


The Steady State Theory is true even though it has been contradicted
by physical observations...


Which essentially says "I accept it's true and don't require supportive or
contradictory evidence for my acceptance". In other words, this is a 'belief'.

Next, I noted this gem of a questions:


"Did the Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?"


This question by today's standards is lacking... to demonstrate this, I would
challenge anyone to:

* Show me an example where 'nothing' exists.
* Show me an example of anything that created itself.

Lastly, I came across this question:


"Why was the Universe Created?"


It makes the assumption that 'purpose' must exist.

Regardless of all the above, the article did not show any evidence to support
the notion that 'God' exists.

Oh and Prisme, you are correct... absence of proof does not mean that
something isn't true. I claim the 'easter bunny' exists and I have no proof that
it exists then it doesn't mean the claim is not true. So, how is it that we
both 'know' the 'easter bunny' doesn't exist?

So, how is it that we
both 'know' the 'easter bunny' doesn't exist? :eek:
Say it isn't so!!!
:eek:

Fascinating... how 'non-believers' cannot rationaly grasp that the absence of proof is not the proof of absence....This isn't restricted to "non-believers" but to people who don't grasp logic.
One of the classic "believer's" arguments is along similar lines: "you can't prove it isn't therefore it's reasonable to have faith that it is."

Building upon what Sarkus said, saying you believe in God is not a reasonable assertion. We can rationally deduce theories, about what we do not have sufficient knowledge of, that are within the scope of possibility using probabibalistiic thinking.

The link Prisme provided made a big point about how absurd it is to think life on Earth formed just buy mere chance. It said so many things need to happen that the probability of life forming is extremely small and it is better explained by saying God did it. This is a cop out answer. The truth is, in an eternal (or if you don't believe in an eternal universe, a very large universe still does the job) universe anything that has a chance of happening will happen.

If Sartre critics believers as being 'frail' without God, I say that people like Sartre would be equally 'frail' if they discovered God existed for they would be obliged to recognize something bigger than themselves and their petty free will... this would cause them "distress"

Well that's an assumption; no one can predict what would thousands of non-believers, atheists, muslims, jews, hira-chrishnas, and a boat load of non-christian faiths would do if the "christian god suddenly appeared to be real".

What would you do?.

If the pope found out that no God existed.. how could he then juge that he 'wasted' his life as you put it? With no God (creator), life HAD no meanning from the get-go, so he might as well as been pope than a mechanic or insurance salesman.. it wouldn't of changed anything according to you. Right?

At least he would have known that if he had lived as a mechanic or a salesman he would have not wasted his life on living a "LIE". and has led millions to believe on this "LIE" and assumption that a god existed. And I don't know about you, BUT I CERTAINLY DON'T NEED A GOD! for my life to have meaning just as millions of other's life have meaning without the "christian god" or Zues, Allah, Chrishna, and a variety of other gods here (http://www.geocities.com/thewitchescircle/biggg.htm)

Of course, when people usually see "the light" they are usually clinically dead... so he wouldn't "then die". And it you're dead, you couldn't conclude whether your going to heaven or hell now could you?

Not true! many individuals with near death experience have seen "the light" and lived to tell about it. I'M ONE OF THEM!!!. For me there's no such place as heaven or hell, I truly ACCEPT death, because I don't look forward to "reward" or Punishment according to some accient literature laws.



-What do you define as accepting death?

Read above. Furthermore by accepting death is knowing that one will no longer exist. Not here, not in heaven, nor in hell.

I'm afraind I have no idea of what to make with your heaven and hell segment.

Ignorance is bliss.

Godless.

show me a photograph of your "god" and your "heaven" and your "hell" and i will go along with your blissfully ignorant and meaningless existance.
seriously. present photographic proof that christianity is the right religion and i will go along with it.
if you cannot, then..you are SOL. you're not getting this one, conversion-forcers.

Lol, another debate on the existence of god.

Lol, another debate on the existence of god.

No kidding. It's hard to influence someone whose conclusions are based on
emotion (which is at least 3x more powerful than rational thought). Desire,
Fear, Attractiveness, Euphoric hallucination... and on the opposite spectrum
truth.

God is obviously a reflection of everything human imagination could conjure up. God is nothing more than a bunch of human concepts that don't truly exist. God is a comforting thought, and idealistic view of the universe that gives us a false sense of purpose. The truth is we have to create our own meaning for our lives. We give our lives purpose, its an ability our advanced form of consciousness has enabled us to do.

Let us accept our inability to be omniscient. Let us not irrationally justify that which we do not know.

Why does God exist?

Because we want him to.

Yea this thread is dead.

All I have to say is, for someone that does not exist he sure gets a hell of a lot of press!

I was just wondering how the second law of thermodynamics would fit into the "eternal universe, chance creation" argument, since the progression of entropy seems to mean that the universe began at some point in a highly organized state. Maybe I'm mistaken?

banana: that has been covered here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46119)

any religion i dont care which just prove to me that your god is real! thanks in advance

A visit from Satan would prove that there is a God.

Really, who would make a deal with the Devil when you know your going to get screwed in the afterlife?

I alredy screwed satan, and it was sweet. I offer my soul for immortality.

G.

Immortality on a dying planet..

johnny why do you think satan is the bad guy,and not your personal god.
why do you think satan would frighten a non-believer, if he has no believe in god, he also has no believe in the devil, or an afterlife.