Prove(or provide overwhelming evidence) to me the existance, or non existance of God

[Urban Ranger]

...God's inability to do something logically impossible for him to do does not count against his omnipotence.

Why is that? Is it saying that logic puts the absolute cap on what are possible and impossible? If that is the case, isn't logic more powerful than YHWH, thus disproving him (at least according to Orthodox Christian doctrines)?

[FrantzX]

Proof destroys faith.

[JCG]

If there's no proof, then it doesn't "destroy" anything. If there's no proof that something exists, but no proof of its inexistence, you can't say anything 100% certain about it within true and honest rationality (you can only be a logical sophist, if you want to).

But...In my admittedly biased opinion there is indeed a "God", in a sense, BUT that doesn't imply that "God" has to be omnipotent or omni-whatever as many tend to state ("God" might not even be the appropiate word, then, if you would insist.).

Not easy to explain, and nobody here really cares, so I won't try too much...^_-

Suffice to say that I don't believe that nothingness is all that's behind this universe, and that this universe has no meaning because it was created out of pure luck and chance at the dawn of time, as several atheists would like to argue...

To make a long story short, "God" would be, among other things, THE Will behind everything. Even behind the "wills" of atheists that refuse to consider such a concept.

Btw, Okham's (spelling?) razor is not "God". It is overrated. Just because a simple explanation is more likely in theory doesn't make it automatically true in practice.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Vesayen


There is no square root of negative 2, it is not a real concept, it is something which can only be expressed because our system of numbers blows .

By definition it isn't a REAL (as in real numbers) concept. Its an imaginary concept but it is involved in the real world around us.

Its used in electrical engineering amongst other things. Its not just a concept with no practical use.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by JCG
Btw, Okham's (spelling?) razor is not "God". It is overrated. Just because a simple explanation is more likely in theory doesn't make it automatically true in practice.

Ockham's Razor is only applicable to philosophical models, not scientific ones. As such, I can't see how there is a thing as "practice."

[Robert]

Say A != B, Can God make A=B?
Can God create a squared circle?
Can God overpower himself?
Can God create a stone that heavy that he can't lift it?

Do those questions prove omnipotence to be impossible.
Pherhaps, but the only thing you prove by doing that is that the word omnipotence is flawed.

Omnipotence is a word to describe the capability of God.

If God created humans with limited inteligence compared to himself, how could these beings describe the superior inteligence of their creator? They can only used flawed words for that.

There is one valid question, and it is: "Does God exist or not" if God exists (in christian way) than all questions about things being possible or not are invalid.

If I can use my phantasy, then I can imagine jumping of buildings, walking over water, killing people with my mind and ressurect them 2 seconds later. Dreams that might seem to take hours in your imagination appear to last only 2-3 seconds!

If we can do all that with our imagination, why would a god not be capable to do that?
The question is: Do I have a phantasy, if I do have it, I can use it the way I want it.

Talking again about the limits the creation has;
If a creation has no creator it must be able to have occured autonomous and independant to anything.

But we can't prove that. Like a baby can't remember anything about the period it lived inside the mother. How could a baby ever find out where it came from were it not that we observe babies being born all the time.

But we don't see universes being born all the time. Neither do we see macro-evolution happen. All we can do is guess.

Since everything we have ever observed has an origin, I think it's default to assume everything has an origin.

atheism is not the default.
neither is christianity.
But deism is the default.
It's been the default since forever, since every civilization always worshipped gods. It's only since 200 years that people think they can find their origination through self-appearance.

they come with a theory that's absurd if you take a neutral look at it, while higher powers are easy to imagine. We imagine gods and heros all the time. All fairy tales contain higher powers. As a kid we think our father is a god who can do everything.

But since everybody speaks about evolution as the default, most people think it is the default.
But at the same time, only about 1% of all those evolution believers really knows what evolution is all about.

But those 99% concider everybody who does not believe in evolution to be a total idiot. While they don't even know what they believe in themselves.

I can't prove that the christian God is God.
That's because it's beyond my limitations. How could I ever explain something that goes further than my imagination? All I can come up with is omniscience, omnipresence, and all that. Not because those words cover the whole ship, but because it describes what I see as the logical source of live, something that's beyond our imagination, but I can imagine one thing: we cannot have self-appeared. Nothing we ever observed created itself. Nothing appeared out of nothing.

Quantem Mechanics provides only a theory about particles popping out of nothing. It has not been observed. And it can not be observed because we cannot recreate the situation of the first moments of this universe. Just only because the first moment there must have been nothing, and now there is everything.

But still there are scientists who say that they can recalculate back untill 1.7 seconds before the big-bang.
It's all theories based on theories based on theories based on theories etc. etc. etc.
If one theorie appears to be flawed, all collapses as a cardshouse. But we cannot prove them to be flawed because we cannot test the theories, we did not observe it happen neither will we ever observe it happen.

But still does majority of the decadent western world put all faith on it.

And everybody who thinks different is an idiot.
And every scientist who comes up with a different view is a creationist, and creationists are idiots. How can we ever talk about neutral scientific research, if every scientists knows that if he comes with results that disprove evolution or big-bang, the entire scientific clan will dismiss him, whatever arguments he has?

[Robert]

loinburger : Which leads to the question, "then what created God." Usually the response is "the theory of cause and effect doesn't apply to God," but then one needs to answer the question, "why does the theory of cause and effect necessarily apply to the origins of the universe yet not apply to God, wouldn't it be much simpler to assume that the theory of cause and effect doesn't apply to the origins of the universe rather than add a seemingly unnecessary and arbitrary layer to the problem of origins." Why have a divine first cause at all? Or, why stop at just one (or two or three etc.) layer(s) of divinity?

It's quiet easy,
the create green, you need blue and yellow.
You don't need blue and yellow to create blue or yellow.

The universe is not "something" but it is all things we can observe gathered. The universe consists of stars, planets, clouds, commets..... etc. etc. etc. Without mass there is no universe.

We know that mass needs a cause.
We have never observed any mass that appeared without a cause.

We can be sure that mass needs a cause, thus this universe needs one.
We don't know if the cause needs a cause as well.
Pherhaps our cause does need a cause as well. But since our cause already goes beyond our imagination, how could we ever understand or exlpain the cause of our cause.

Besides that, why should the law of cause and effect which apparently is applicable for mass be applicable to our cause as well?

We can't apply the law of "We need blue and yellow" on green, but that doesn't mean that same law counts for blue.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by alofatti
This is a somewhat classical proof of the inexistence of an all-powerful being, which in this case we could call "god".
Let´s suppose that there exists an all-powerful being. Then, it is able to do absolutely everything, right? Well, then it is able to create stones.
Could it be able to create a stone that he couldn´t lift?
-If the answer is "yes", then there exists a stone that it can´t lift, therefore there are things it can´t do. In conclusion, he is not all-powerful.
-If the answer is "no", then he is not able to create that stone, therefore there are things it can´t do. In conclusion, he is not all-powerful.

Both ways conduct us to the inexistence of this all-powerful being.

Of course, I think of this more like a mathematical game rather than something more "serious". Some people would argue that it´s existence is bases in the idea of "fate" rather than "logic". I cannot say a thing in this aspect, just wanted to participate with this little game.

The "can god make a rock so big he cant lift it" as I said above, is not a real concept, it is an unreal concept, which can be only be expressed because language is imperfect.....it is no different then the square root of negative 2.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Without mass there is no universe.

The lack of mass doesn't preclude the existence of time and space. A universe suffering heat death wouldn't have any mass left, it'd all have broken down into free energy.

We know that mass needs a cause.
We have never observed any mass that appeared without a cause.

Whoah there, since when have we ever observed any mass appearing at all? Masses don't just pop out of thin air on a macro level, and observing them on a quantum level can be a bit tricky to say the least (not to mention that there is apparently no causal relation on the quantum level)...

We can be sure that mass needs a cause, thus this universe needs one.

When have we ever observed a cause for mass? How can we be sure that mass needs a cause if we've never observed the formation of mass on a macro level?

More to the point, when have we ever observed a cause for time, or space?

But since our cause already goes beyond our imagination, how could we ever understand or exlpain the cause of our cause.

So you're arbitrarily drawing a limit on the depth of cause-and-effect relationships, i.e. "anything I imagined into existence doesn't need a cause, because I imagined it into existence." Why not draw the limit one step sooner, i.e. "it is meaningless to discuss cause and effect for a system that is currently far beyond human understanding, e.g. space-time"?

Besides that, why should the law of cause and effect which apparently is applicable for mass be applicable to our cause as well?

We can't apply the law of "We need blue and yellow" on green, but that doesn't mean that same law counts for blue.

Indeed, why should the law of cause and effect be applicable to space and time (neither of which we have observed being created or destroyed)?

[Robert]

The lack of mass doesn't preclude the existence of time and space.

time is dependant on mass.
without mass you woult not be able to observe time.
Because mass changes, we talk about the appearance before the mass changed and after the mass changed.

humanity ordered it all in hours and minutes.

same with space. Space is nothing. If it were not for the sake of mass, we wouldn't know about distance.

Whoah there, since when have we ever observed any mass appearing at all?

we do, when a new child is born, a new peace of mass appears. But this mass has a cause, the mother.
A stone has a source, it comes ie. from a rock formation.

How can we be sure that mass needs a cause if we've never observed the formation of mass on a macro level?

than the only conclusion could be that mass must have been there for an infinite time back.

"anything I imagined into existence doesn't need a cause, because I imagined it into existence."

well, that's not true, because in that case I would be the cause.

Why not draw the limit one step sooner, i.e. "it is meaningless to discuss cause and effect for a system that is currently far beyond human understanding, e.g. space-time"?

well, at one point I do that. I leave it in the lap of the gods. I believe that there is a god who created and designed all of this.

Indeed, why should the law of cause and effect be applicable to space and time

what is space?
every atom in your body concists of a center and electrons circling around it. There's a gap between the centre and the electrons. In fact you're more space than anything.

Electrons circle around atoms. Planets circle around stars. Stars circle around starsystems. Pherhaps we're a part of one big body, but we don't know.
Space depends on the size of the observe. Pherhaps God does not see any space in the universe, like we don't see space in our body.

But if there would be no atoms, no body, there would be no space as well. There would be just plain nothing. No stars, no planets, nothing....... how could we observe space in that case? How could we know what size the space has?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
time is dependant on mass.

Time is a dimension. Mass can warp this dimension, but the dimension exists with or without mass occupying it.

same with space. Space is nothing.

Space is three dimensions.

we do, when a new child is born, a new peace of mass appears.

The mass doesn't appear from nothing. It is simply the reordering of other masses into a new form. We haven't observed mass appearing, we've only observed mass being reordered.

than the only conclusion could be that mass must have been there for an infinite time back.

Or that the mass came into existence when time came into existence. If time doesn't extend infinitely into the past, then objects cannot exist for an infinite time back.

well, at one point I do that. I leave it in the lap of the gods. I believe that there is a god who created and designed all of this.

Fair enough, but that's "belief," not "evidence" or "proof." Belief is all well and good, but it doesn't answer the original question of this thread.

what is space?

A three-dimensional vector ordering. Space-time is a four-dimensional vector ordering.

But if there would be no atoms, no body, there would be no space as well.

No, there would be an empty three-dimensional vector ordering. It might not be terribly exciting, but it wouldn't be "nothing."

[Lemmy]

they come with a theory that's absurd if you take a neutral look at it,

what's more absurd? if you take a truely neutral look at it.

1. Life evolved over millions of years, each generation being slightly different then the previous generation, eventually evolving into life as we know it.

2. One magical being, has created everything you see, and then placed all sorts of evidence to test the humans faith in It.

But since everybody speaks about evolution as the default, most people think it is the default.
But at the same time, only about 1% of all those evolution believers really knows what evolution is all about.

But those 99% concider everybody who does not believe in evolution to be a total idiot. While they don't even know what they believe in themselves.

And how is that different from the past, when Roman-Catholicism was the default? Or before that, when the Roman gods where default., And before that in Asia, when Hinduism was default?
What the masses believe change over time, and it appears that right now, the masses are moving towards evolutionism, and away from creationism.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lemmy
what's more absurd? if you take a truely neutral look at it.

1. Life evolved over millions of years, each generation being slightly different then the previous generation, eventually evolving into life as we know it.

2. One magical being, has created everything you see, and then placed all sorts of evidence to test the humans faith in It.

That only works for the creationists.

[Rogan Josh]

Wow lots and lots of dodgy physics on this thread....

[Robert]

Time is a dimension.

that's a theory.
I say, time is not a dimension. Time differs from length and height and width. Time morely explains the difference between the 3 dimensions.

Space is three dimensions.

what's the difference between space and no space?
Can you define a situation where no space exists?

Would there still be space if there would be no mass?

The mass doesn't appear from nothing.

indeed, we don't know any circumstanses in which mass appears from nothing.

Or that the mass came into existence when time came into existence.

no, it's the other way around, time came into existence when mass came into existence. Or better: when mass started to transform.

But if mass and time came into existence at the same period, let's say you're right, what resulted into this sudden all new situation?

Fair enough, but that's "belief," not "evidence" or "proof." Belief is all well and good, but it doesn't answer the original question of this thread.

that's right.
But my believe is not more or less a believe than atheism. That's what I try to say. I even try to explain that believing in a higher being is more logical than believing in self-creating order.

No, there would be an empty three-dimensional vector ordering. It might not be terribly exciting, but it wouldn't be "nothing."

height, length and width are there to describe mass.
Without mass, those three-dimensions make no sence.

Like languages don't make any sence of there are no beings that want to communicate with each other.
those dimensions are a concept. But without mass, the concept is useless.

what's more absurd? if you take a truely neutral look at it.

1. Life evolved over millions of years, each generation being slightly different then the previous generation, eventually evolving into life as we know it.

2. One magical being, has created everything you see, and then placed all sorts of evidence to test the humans faith in It.

the first is more absurd.
You say that if you give one particle enough time it will tranform into a large scale of inteligent life, animals, colorfull eco systems.

That's as abserd as if you say that a monkey will type a book like shakespear did if you put him long enough after a typewriter.

and that's even easier!

And how is that different from the past, when Roman-Catholicism was the default?

it is no different. it's as wrong as the roman catholic church and the mass in the middle ages. The differences is that the current believers feel superior above those guys in the middle ages, while they do in fac the same.

the latin became scientific language,
the holy book became the scientific books (no-one read them in the middle ages as well)

and the priests are the scientists..........

count the differences............!