Can anyone prove the existence of God?

So use your knowledge basis, or any other one, and tell me how to prove Gods existence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lg,

OK.

The god method for answering any question was "we don't understand phenomenon x, therefore it must be caused by a god". This methodology has resulted in a 100% failure rate of confirmed results.

Science has a proven track record, the god concept, after thousands of years has yielded zero results.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a grossly inaccurate understanding of the method.

If you sincerely believe this (and aren't simply dumbing down a claim to increase the caliber of your argument) its no wonder you are an atheist

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I brought this up earlier but for some reason Emil decided it was better to divert.

The way toprove god's existence is much like the way to prove the existence of any person who is greater than us.

What do you suppose would be the first issue of proving the existence of the president (directly that is, so all second hand accounts like video , etc are not considered valid)?

 

lg,

In the past when I have ploughed through all the torturous meanderings of religious scriptures and claims and reduced the claims to their primary components I have always found - "there isn't a material answer so it must have been a god that did it". This is the route position of all theistic religious claims.

Also, the idea that there is some form of direct perception of god whereby no scientific method could be employed has two major problems -

1. Such claims cannot be distinguished from the more credible condition of delusion.

2. If an external influence can react with your neural networks then that would indeed offer an opportunity for science to investigate.

There are no proofs for the existence of gods because fantastic fantasies usually defy proof.

 

lg,

Why exclude proved recording devices? The chain of evidence from object, through reporter/recorder, transmission, to the viewer is well understood and accepted and verifiable by vast numbers of people. Such a tactic to exclude these is simple avoidance of the issue.

 

You could show the person, together with two or three other people (like a line-up), simultaneously to a bunch of different people, that are unaware of each other, and ask them how many people they count.
It seems that would do the job fine.. :shrug:

And also this:

 

@Cris and others

Science tells us about the laws that govern existence. So, we have found the laws and we came to understand "nature" better. I really cannot see how this should exclude and nullify God. To say "nature" did it is meaningless. Yes there are laws so that an apple falls down on earth upon dropping it - yes this is "natural". But "nature" is the PRODUCT of an intelligent creation. Why to accept all cause but not the ultimate one?!

Here is what God says in Holy Quran - Moon 54:49:

"Verily, all things have We created in proportion and measure." - please see note​

All creation had a beginning, even time and space. God put all of creation into existence. Very simple. He even says that in the Quran: that heavens and earth were one tiny mass that was exploded, see Prophets 21:30.

When it comes to nature of belief. I would say that believing that we had an origin that is from God, that there is purpose and that there is return to God, all that widens up and enriches all aspects of existence. There are ultimate truths. Accepting them makes a huge difference. You cannot compare belief vs. lack of belief.

* "We" is used in the Quran by God to refer to himself. This is an Arabic language thing. Kings can use this pronoun to refer to themselves too.

 

That's a supposition.

So is that.

And that.

Um, no it's not an "Arabic language thing". It occurs in quite a few (all?) languages.

 

Yosef,

I simply do not know who created the universe, nature, human.

Please read carefully my post No. 79 and tell your opinion.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2577411&postcount=79

Assumption that there is an entity of a superior intelligence is a plausible assumption.
But also evolutionary theory is a plausible assumption.
Many times and I think to these things and yet I can not find enough reasons to say that I found the answer.
But even assuming that there is a entity of superior intelligence,how have you concluded the following

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

what's his name,
that Satan exists,
that there is heaven and hell,
what he thinks about right and wrong,
what rituals he prefers,other in different religions.

You do not think you are jumping to conclusions?

 

because at the onset there is an insistence that second hand accounts be rejected

 

You think that is practical?
Get the president to directly come over with two or more others and play "guess who"?
I don't think anyone has ever had the president proven directly to them like that.

Actually you are missing a very integral first step.
If one doesn't have some sort of general knowledge of what makes the position of president unique and exclusive, one could pass off the green grocer as the president.
IOW at the very first step is some sort of framework that distinguishes the position from not only a green grocer, but also a minister or army general.

So now that I gave you the first step, what do you suppose is the next?

 

What specifically have you ploughed through to come to that conclusion?

I only ask because I have never encountered a claim that runs along the lines of "we are baffled in the pursuit of of knowledge of x so god must have done it and this is the final last word in our analysis/direct perception of god/god's nature."

assuming of course that there is no other means to confirm something outside of scientific (I assume you mean empirical) methods.

scientific methods (aka empirical) begin at the point of the senses
(some) philosophical methods begin at the point of the mind (which happen to also clarify how knowledge based claims that begin at the senses are necessarily limited)

Actually they simply defy the senses ... or more specifically, our ability to relegate the phenomena to a controlled environment or with controlled variables (but given that the phenomena contextualizes not only our senses but also our existence and the world we exist in, it would be absurd to think that one could)

Of course all this doesn't mean that the attempt to know something about it is absurd ... its only absurd if one insists on measuring the validity of the claim with a methodology that precludes the possibility of approaching the subject

 

Yes, I think it is very practical. If people are actually looking for a way to prove that the president exists, that is.

Really? I don't think so.
The fact that he is a president is of no relevance whatsoever to the question of whether or not he exists.
If you put three people and the president together in a line-up and ask people independently how many people they see, they will all say 'four'. That in itself is enough to prove the existence of the president.
They don't even have to know that the president is amongst the four people as long as it is independently established by others. But that's another topic.

 

Folks, do not see lg's tactics?
Ask stupid questions wanted a "presediente" (which can be any "president") to be angry and to divert the discussion.

Answer for he, I posted it in another thread, is:
"There is nothing.Only I exist, something immaterial,in an immaterial universe.
Everything I think I see, hear or feel, is just a dream.
There is no god, no purpose, even you lg not exist.
I was just dreaming.
Or is your dream and I do not exist? I have to think about this.
But what does it matter if there is anything and everything is just a dream?" :scratchin:

 

Then I think you have to explain why absolutely no one gets proven who\what the president is in that fashion

If you don't have a qualitative model (ie know the qualities that distinguish it) for the object of inquiry, you can't determine it.
In the absence of this, you could just as easily place 4 green grocers in the queue

IOW if you don't begin the inquiry with some understandings of the qualities of the president, any attempt to further investigate it results in nil at worst or accepting something on faith totally bereft of any philosophical framework (ie without the means to work out whether it is true or not) at best
:shrug:

 

huh?
You ask how god can be proven
I suggest in the same manner that we prove persons who are in superior positions than us
You crack a half assed joke about all politicians being semi-professional
Now you suggest I am diverting it
:shrug:

Actually that is more or less Mayavada philosophy, which is celebrated as being hair breadth away from atheism

:shrug:

 

yosef,

We know of nothing that has been created, only transformations of matter/energy. We have no reason or indication to conclude that nature was created by an intelligence. We only have experience of man's inteligence and man has never created anything outside of evolutionary processes.

There is no precedence or evidence that anything can be created or was ever created.

Baseless speculation. If there was a point when time didn't exist then nothing could have ever begun. Even if you assert a god exists outside of time it would be impotent without time since any action of creation necessarily involves a before and after condition, i.e. the passage of time, hence time must have existed before such a god.

Basesless fantasy.

It is essentially the difference between delusion and living in a fantasy world, that you advise, and accepting and dealing with reality, that is a lot more harsh than your nonsense Islamic dreamworld.

 

lg,

You mean hearsay. If I needed proof that the President existed I can visit one of the live presentations and see for myself.

In the case of gods there is no such option but people claim he is real, how can they prove it?

 

Ok
So assuming you have the right qualitative model for who\what the president is, what other criteria do you think there might be.

For instance why do you suppose that you can't have the same experience in your dining room? Why do you suppose the same opportunity is not available to, say, Bin Laden?

That all depends on whether there are parallel stipulations for god's direct perception much as there is for the president