# Proof there is a God

I am mostly with Dave as far as some god(s) but the god portrayed in the Christian bible cannot exist because it is too self contradictory. It is a logic impossibility. Might as well claim a square triangle or a god which exists & does not exist. >

OK, here is a riddle; why do we call observed mathematical universal functions (Mathematics) as a human invention, but unquestionably accept an unobserved God as the creative force that made everything work as it does?

IMO, if the concept of Mathematics is a human invention, then why is the concept of an all powerful God not also a human invention?
Is that not a fair question?

Last edited:
OK, here is a riddle; why do we call observed mathematical universal functions (Mathematics) as a human invention, but unquestionably accept an unobserved God as the creative force that made everything work as it does?

IMO, if the concept of Mathematics is a human invention, then why is the concept of an all powerful God not also a human invention?
Is that not a fair question?

I am not certain what you mean. The people who invented the automobile did not invent the physics that required. They figured it out.

1 + 1 equaled 2 long before anyone thought of it.

<>

I don't think so

"Why am I ugly?"

He didn't give me a formula

He said "It's gods will"
You must have talked to the wrong mathematician.

As I understand it it's a matter of symmetry (a pattern).

Leonardo da Vinci's 'Vitruvian Man' (ca. 1487) is often used as a representation of symmetry in the human body and, by extension, the natural universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry#cite_note-44

Interestingly, perfect symmetry is often seen as boring, uninteresting, whereas variations in the pattern give the object or person its specific "personality".

IMO, if Mathematics is a human invention, then why is God not also a human invention?
Is that not a fair question?

It's a question

Debatable if fair or not

I happen to think it is

I also agree god is a human invention

But here is a puzzle I just thought of

Most of the argument against god and now the Intelligent Designer is

how could anyone with unlimited power or a massive intelligence make such a stuff up?

Do you think humans made a similar mistake?

Granted times were very different and knowledge about everything was a lot less

But surely if you were going to invent a loving caring god you might at least give him pink and fluffy attributes

The god that finished up as the product of the scriptures does not appear as pink and fluffy

The mind set of the scribes appears to be

' we must rule by fear '

Would religion be more palatable if more pink and fluffy and loving?

Would there be more Thesist?

As it is I think the scribes (real)

stuffed up just like god (unreal)

Last edited:
I am not certain what you mean. The people who invented the automobile did not invent the physics that required. They figured it out.
But was God involved in any way ?

1 + 1 equaled 2 long before anyone thought of it. <>
Indeed, that's my position.
We discovered the mathematical nature and functions which existed long before we devised a language to symbolically identify these patterns.

You must have talked to the wrong mathematician.

As I understand it it's a matter of symmetry (a pattern).

Leonardo da Vinci's 'Vitruvian Man' (ca. 1487) is often used as a representation of symmetry in the human body and, by extension, the natural universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry#cite_note-44

Interestingly, perfect symmetry is often seen as boring, uninteresting, whereas variations in the pattern give the object or person its specific "personality".

I did ask another one for a second opinion

He said

I did ask another one for a second opinion

He said

I would say that was an off-hand compliment ( as compared to being obese)

Evidently my criterion is quite different from yours.

Hospitable - pleasant & favorable for life

Inhospitable - harsh or difficult for life
Those are relative terms.

Earth has, relative to the rest of the universe, the most pleasant and favorable conditions for life.

If you were to rate many various areas of this planet, what factors would you use?
You have extant evidence. The parts that are most hospitable to life are obvious - because they are covered in life.

If we were out there searching for planets to colonize, what factors would be involved? Would you not care how good or bad, as long as we can survive there?
Good = easy to survive.

I agree that objectively we cannot be absolutely sure, but the available evidence does not suggest an intentional sentient designer,

To be clear, I'm not suggesting he's busy designing. That's why I keep saying he's "cavorting". We don't have evidence that a god has been busy affecting the universe.
I was simply talking about it existing out there, minding its own business.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting he's busy designing. That's why I keep saying he's "cavorting". We don't have evidence that a god has been busy affecting the universe.
I was simply talking about it existing out there, minding its own business.

God created the Universe and everything in it in 6 days and rested on the 7th

Remember this was after a eternity of existence of doing nothing

In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was god

Now what would you do after doing nothing for eternity then 6 days off frantic activity?

Rest

I contend he fell asleep and forgot to wake up because he hadn't set an alarm

Perhaps for the best

How would it be if he woke up

Looked at the Universe and thought

I can do better

Poof were gone as he uses our Universe like a Lego kit for Universe 2.0

Anyone like to bet humans would be in Universe 2.0?

Earth has, relative to the rest of the universe, the most pleasant and favorable conditions for life.
.

You have no way to know that.

<>

.
DaveC426913 said:
Earth has, relative to the rest of the universe, the most pleasant and favorable conditions for life.
You have no way to know that. <>

But it isn't a question of most "pleasant", just most "favorable" and that may not necessarily be the most pleasant.
A super-nova is the most unpleasant condition imaginable. But it was the most favorable condition for the creation and eventual life on earth.

The age of the dinosaur must have been a very pleasant earthly condition for a few hundred million years. Just look at the enormous size animals it could sustain.

OTOH, a lot of those really really big animals were predatory and that made it very unfavorable for a lot of the abundant smaller animals.

I agree, it's all relative.

IMO, a great part of the evolution of species is due to certain demanding conditions where only a specific adaption insures survival (apart from sheer luck or numbers).

Natural selection must exist for the evolutionary process and that means nature tests us with unpleasant conditions. Where there is life, there is death. But a few survive to breed..

And, from a scientific perspective, can a planet that has only a pleasant conditions even exist, physically, mathematically?

Continual growth of life itself would eventually be restricted by the exponential function.

Last edited:
.

You have no way to know that.
I am not speaking for planets we've never encountered. If our sample size were only one planet, that planet would be the most favorable. (i.e. on a list of 1, it is at the top)

It doesn't makes sense to ask what might be "more favorable" than the one example we have.
How can you draw a conclusion about what is more favorable than what life has evolved to deal with?

Natural selection must exist for the evolutionary process and that means nature tests us with unpleasant conditions. Where there is life, there is death. But a few survive to breed..
I still insist that the unpleasantries are all competition-related (i.e. other life).
If any organism were left to its own devices on Earth and not have to deal with competition, it would thrive and very rapidly take over.

The unliving Earth is not harsh at all. It is an eden of resources and materials. If there happen to be any areas hostile to life, then life just doesn't grow there.

I still insist that the unpleasantries are all competition-related (i.e. other life).
If any organism were left to its own devices on Earth and not have to deal with competition, it would thrive and very rapidly take over.
Yes, until the exponential function prevents any further growth. It would take perhaps a thousand years, even at a 1% growth rate.
A steady growth rate of 1% p/yr results in a doubling time of 70 years. If that sounds reasonable, you need to check out the effects of the exponential function. It will astound you how quickly this number increases within a few hundred years.
Example: take a chess board, place 1 wheat grain on the first square, 2 on the second, 4 on the third, 8 on the fourth, etc. When all the squares of the chess board are filled, you have some 300 x the world's harvest of wheat! I believe the equation shows (2^64) - 1
The unliving Earth is not harsh at all. It is an eden of resources and materials. If there happen to be any areas hostile to life, then life just doesn't grow there.
I completely agree, but even areas hostile to life may be necessary for its secondary effects, such as glaciers, snow capped mountains, geysers, the Poles, etc.

People often overlook the fact that the earth IS an entire ecosystem, and everything is connected and contributes to life.

Last edited:
Theists claim Earth is so well suited to us that it must have been designed to be that way. 1 problem with that is it is much more probable that life which was X degree suited to the planet naturally came about & survived. Another problem with it is that objectively this planet is nowhere near what it would be if designed for us by an omnipotent, wise, intelligent, benevolent god. Obviously, the wisest, intelligent humans could do much better if they only had the power.
This argument has been used against theists thousands of times & always justified.
If I try to determine how nutritious a food is, I do not compare it to other foods. I compare it to what the average human body needs.
When deciding how well a student is doing, I do not compare her to other students. I go by what she needs to learn.
Whether my clothes are comfortable & durable does not depend on comparison to other clothes.
How well I get along with John & Mary is not determined by how well I get along with everyone else.
Either your car does well getting you to & from places or it does not. It does not matter how well other cars do.
Sometimes someone complains about something & are told it is a problem for everyone.
A frustrating aggravating problem is a frustrating aggravating problem no matter how many or how few have it.
I have a hearing problem & how serious or minor it is does not depend on other people's hearing. It depends on what I need my hearing to be.
Obviously, humans & many animals would be better off in a better environment.

<>

Obviously, humans & many animals would be better off in a better environment.
This is not obvious.

Describe this better environment.

Obviously, the wisest, intelligent humans could do much better if they only had the power.
I think I understand the thrust of your argument, but I must take exception to this statement.

We
do have the power to change the earth's climate and we are changing it.
But I don't think it's for the better. GW and all that.
Plenty of intelligence, very little wisdom.

Whatever conditions existed on earth, up to a few hundred years ago, it was relatively stable and predictable. This was before we started reclaiming (pumping, fracking) millions of years of sequestered CO2, and spewed it back into the atmosphere, completely changing weather patterns.

Dumping our waste products into the ocean, increasing its acidity, and of course GW will eventual cause a few major floods, which may well cause the displacement of millions of people and other species.

When things start happening on a global scale, be very afraid. There is no power stronger than Nature itself. Don't mess with Mother Nature. What happened to the wisdom that came up with that sage advice?

I did not say or imply humans cannot change the climate. The climate has not been stable for very long periods of time. It cycles. Climate cycling is probably part of the reason for current warming tho humans probably have contributed much to it & we certainly are not trying much to help the situation. Even in the short time humans have been here climate changes have been such that it is a wonder many humans survived.

<>