What would it take to prove / disprove the existence of God?

[Ben Kenobi]

The spontaneous hurricane i mentioned in the post would classify as one. Of course you'd have to have the majority of weather people and scientists in agreeance that this hurricane was indeed spontaneous and uncaused by all normal things that cause hurricanes. Any natural even would occur, as long as it was proveably spontaneous.

"A wicked and adulterous generation demands a sign..."

Why do you believe that everyone will accept a miracle even if it is performed in front of them? If you read scripture, the Israelites in the desert got tired of eating manna from heaven!

[Ben Kenobi]

There are about three sources of proof for Gods existence.

1) from the holy book
2) through peoples communication with God
3) miracles, or things that contravene the laws of physics; as they are complete, not what we know now; also if you wanna be nice you could use events that fit within the laws but are spontaneous (sp?), for example an instant hurricane.

The first starts with the assumption that God exists and is circular argumentation. However given the fact that we cannot know everything about the history of this world we cannot falsify the books account in its entireity. However we can bring enough doubt upon enough sections of the book that it brings the first assumption back into consideration, the onus removed from us to disprove and moved onto the those who have to now prove rather than assume.

A difficult position. It seems the game always becomes a burden on those who wish to prove the existence of God. You are the very first who has attempted to cite scripture as proof that there is a God, so that should tell you something about the quality of your argument. Perhaps you should deal with the arguments already raised in favour.

Secondly, who, heap of issues surrounding this one. Soo many different types of conflicting gods with which people talk to. Are the actually in communication with God? Communication with God has to be people who actively talk or got talked too by God, not your everyday church goer who believes God is with them.

That's a fair response, but again, no one here has cited God speaking to them as evidence in their favour. In terms of the superiority of Christianity, which is not the topic of hand, one would have to compare the various revelations brought by God.

The last one is where the only real proof for Gods existence can lie. Its the only one that is objective enough to be convincing enough for everyone. Interesting to note is that it is you cannot infer any attributes to a God through just a miracle test. Attributes require the other two to describe. A miracle just proves that there exists a being that is either able to contravene the laws of physics (completed laws) or provide a spontaneous event that is sufficiently awe inspiring, not a being that has specific attributes outside of omnipotent and omniscient.

Okay, but at the same time, you cite a spontaneous deviation from the established norms as sufficient proof of God. I'm not sure how you reconcile the two. I've argued that as soon as you establish the existence of God, specific attributes will come logically.

However given no evidence of the last one you cannot still entirely disprove the notion of a God that does not intervene with the universe in anyway. This would be an omnipotent and omniscient creator so to speak.

Um, no. If we have already proven God's existence through miracles, then we have also established his intervention on the world.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Elok is very right. The christian God doesn't want you to believe in his existance.
The question is: are you your own god and will you create your own morals and decide yourself over good and evil, or do you accept a higher power in your life who's your God.

So, if love is the most important message in life, then the question to you is: are you able to truly love? Or do you hate others oftenly and fail to live up to the most important thing of life?

If you think you're doing a good job: then you can continue to be your own God. Just don't blame God for not being your God anymore. (which is in fact what 'hell' is, being outside the presense of God, all by yourself)

For morals: I think that societies generally prove decent moral guideance, which is based historically on various religions anyhow.

Accepting higher power. What is that?

Now onto your ability to do good - I cannot tell that Christians or other religious folk is able to do good any better than atheists. Thus this is an argument without merit.

Well people who blame God for things in their life, they surely have some other issues, and should perhaps talk to a priest, but most of the non-believers are indeed not those people.

That's a fair response, but again, no one here has cited God speaking to them as evidence in their favour. In terms of the superiority of Christianity, which is not the topic of hand, one would have to compare the various revelations brought by God.

Anyhow what makes the Christian version of God the "right" version? I am sure that many are wandering what's up with that, there is quite a lot of choice and the usual honest person can hardly distinguish one from another (even withing Christiantiy itself). As for doing what should be done. ie moral life - well many people have problems with that including almost all Christians (at least those who are in public places)... their professed beliefs didn't help them much. Thus why should one believe them?

"Moral superiority" exactly something that a professed Christian should not persue, exactly the cause if you are wandering why most people find Christians annoying, and the cause of many dead people throughout history.

[Elok]

CS: I didn't say God "doesn't want" us to believe, only that I imagine He deliberately makes it possible for us not to if we don't want to. Just want to make certain that I'm not misunderstood.

OFITG: Like you pointed out, much of societies' moral guidance is based on historical religious beliefs. What happens when those go away? I think we're in a transitional period now, one that we've been kept in for many years. It's been at least half a century since existentialists like Sartre told the world to "open its eyes" to a world without God, and a full century since Nietzsche announced His death, but so far as I can tell their challenge has gone basically unheeded. It's discussed by a few pompous intellectuals, Goth teenagers, and college students working on their senior theses, but most of the world has no obvious experience of nihilism. The world moved on to feminism, postmodernism, and who knows what else. Nihilism is only found in fun movies like "The Big Lebowski." And crappy ones like "Fight Club," I guess.

Why hasn't there been a real answer to the big problem of a godless world? Is it because religious faith is still persistent in much of society, or are we just stupefied by media bombardment, or what? I've never been to Europe, so I have no experience with a society that's mostly devoid of religious enthusiasm. The impression I get from the news is that they fill the God gap by arguing over lunatic ideologies and bureaucratic details in the EU and disliking each other (or us), but I obviously can't say for sure. I'm not trying to be socratic here, it's genuinely puzzled me for a while.

[Flip McWho]

BK -

A difficult position. It seems the game always becomes a burden on those who wish to prove the existence of God. You are the very first who has attempted to cite scripture as proof that there is a God, so that should tell you something about the quality of your argument. Perhaps you should deal with the arguments already raised in favour.

The burden of proof should lie with those who believe in Gods existence. You cannot assume that God exists and then work to disprove that. You must start with no assumption and then follow through and prove that God exists based on whatever criteria you decide, with which others may refute. The book is indeed proof for a God with characteristics. Most of Gods personality comes from the book. Most religious people accept that the book is aided by God if not directly written by him. Example, if you removed the Holy Bible from history then God definitely would still be around but this God would be a different beast to the Christian God. The bible as proof if more proof of the Christian Gods attributes rather than a proof for a God like figure as such.

Also that post wasn't in reply to anybody at all, I haven't read the middle couple of pages yet, doing that shortly.

Also to note by talking to God I mean people who were/are in direct communication with God, for example the various authors of the Bible and the various priests and what not who think they are the word of God in this modern day. These are the ones who have proclaimed what God is to be like (usually based through either an interpretation of the relative book or their own personal communication)

Okay, but at the same time, you cite a spontaneous deviation from the established norms as sufficient proof of God. I'm not sure how you reconcile the two. I've argued that as soon as you establish the existence of God, specific attributes will come logically.

Firstly remember I accept no miracles that the bible is the only evidence for, so God would have to provide a miracle in my life time to count as evidence (there have been no proven miracles to speak of before in history as far as I'm aware). From God providing only one example based on the criteria provided in my previous post you can only infer that God is all powerful and all knowing (even then the spontaneous event could just be by the aid of technology in which case the God knows more and is more powerful but may be unable to act outside the laws of physics, thus making it harder to infer all powerful and all knowing). Even if God preforms the miracle in a seemingly benevolent way your sample size is too small to justify attributing god with benevolence.

Um, no. If we have already proven God's existence through miracles, then we have also established his intervention on the world.

Touche. Though, remember by miracles I'm talking a miracle that would prove to the vast majority (yes you will always get people who won't believe no matter the proof but you get that with everything and most of those people are very close minded to start with) that God exists. Given the criteria I stated. So a miracle would prove that God has the ability to intervene in the world but not whether God has already done so or not. Proof of that comes from the other two evidences in my post.

Elok -

I didn't say God "doesn't want" us to believe, only that I imagine He deliberately makes it possible for us not to if we don't want to

But how can you be sure that the diety you are believing in is the right one? Basically this line boils down to I believe because this is what I believe.

Like you pointed out, much of societies' moral guidance is based on historical religious beliefs. What happens when those go away?

Here it depends on what you define as moral (for example the whole gay thing, to some its immoral, to some it doesn't matter) and the purpose of those morals. The purpose of religious morals is to lead you into the paradise by living according to the way a supreme authority figure desires you. The purpose of societies morals is to ensure cooperation so society can function. The supreme authority figure being the law which (theoritically at least) is applied to all equally. The morals between the religious and societal systems are indeed gonna be different. But at least with the societal system those laws are subject to change as society grows.

God essentially seems to provide a solution to the problem of death and meaning to life and this is the problem with a godless world, it offers nothing in the way of an answer to these two issues.



Now to read the middle couple of pages.

[Flip McWho]

Now, if God must be eternal, then he must also be unchanging, immune to the effects of time and entropy, since everything we see in the natural world decays, for God to be eternal, requires him to be unchanging.

Eternal does not necessarily have to follow. Why does God have to be eternal? The only creator sure but that does not automatically lead to thinking that God must be eternal.

God in his mercy created us with the ability to do evil, in that we could choose evil over the good. He did this, so we may freely choose to love him. Now, Adam and Eve are different from us, in that they were free from original sin, they could have chosen to remain sinless for their entire lives. We, however are afflicted by original sin, in that no matter how we live our lives, we will fall into sin. Thus, the actions of Adam and Eve, brought sin to humankind.

Whats merciful about giving us the ability to do evil? Allowing us choice I suppose. Secondly and on a tangent, original sin. I've never understood why we are still carrying the blame for two people who lived thousands of years ago. I am not Adam, I bear little similarity to Adam except in physical form. My choice in the garden could well have been different putting me in that situation. Yet I'm still afflicted with original sin. Why?



Basically this:

But God, as a supernatural entity (no other properties) is not proovable or disproovable.

is essentially my position. All the other properties are got from either the book or the people in communication with God

Inferring peace love and happiness from the world is more than likely just your own optimistic outlook upon life.

[Flip McWho]

Elok -

but all of the expansive secular ideologies I've seen (that have a true moral component) have a stand-in for God

This imo is essentially true as well. However I don't see where the connotation that this is a bad thing arises. Humans obviously want to know why acting in a certain way is the right thing to do. In the religious case this is to appease God, in the secular case its to appease whatever ideal is held at the top. At least here with the secular you can argue the ideals that provide the best moral system for whatever ends. The religious one is completely arbitrary and unproveable.

[Flip McWho]

which way would you rather err?

Pascal's Wager Argument.

My POV of human nature is our reactions to various external events as stipulated by evolution. That is the nature part. Then you round that out by nurture, i.e. our upbringing. The society a person is in certainly has a major impact on his values.

You can't deny the role that society must play, and soceity in some shape, way or form has existed for a very long time.

So you would say then that we are conditioned by evolution to find a starry night beautiful?

Nothing to do with evolution. A beautiful starry night triggers an emotional release inside our body, possibly at the thoughts such a sight unleashes, the sense of wonder. We are afterall interpreting the world through our own eyes and different things float our different boats and these different things are determined by what we interpret.

[Ben Kenobi]

Eternal does not necessarily have to follow. Why does God have to be eternal? The only creator sure but that does not automatically lead to thinking that God must be eternal.

Sure it does. For how would God, if he were the only creator, create himself? He therefore must be uncreated, which also means that he is eternal.

Whats merciful about giving us the ability to do evil? Allowing us choice I suppose.

For without choice we cannot truly love. That's why it is merciful that he gives us the choice.

Secondly and on a tangent, original sin. I've never understood why we are still carrying the blame for two people who lived thousands of years ago. I am not Adam, I bear little similarity to Adam except in physical form. My choice in the garden could well have been different putting me in that situation. Yet I'm still afflicted with original sin. Why?

For the same reason other characteristics pass on. For example, you would never say, how do you know that I have the knowledge of good and evil, I'm not Adam, am I? You do share certain traits with Adam, even as you differ.

This idea of sin is that you can resist these temptations, but being weak, we cannot do so always.

[Ben Kenobi]

A beautiful starry night triggers an emotional release inside our body, possibly at the thoughts such a sight unleashes, the sense of wonder. We are afterall interpreting the world through our own eyes and different things float our different boats and these different things are determined by what we interpret.

So how does this sense of wonder differ from the argument you put forth earlier, where the Christian supposedly says that a starry night brings him closer to God? Same feeling, different name.

[Ben Kenobi]

I am sure that many are wandering what's up with that, there is quite a lot of choice and the usual honest person can hardly distinguish one from another (even withing Christiantiy itself).

A very good point. I hope Whaleboy doesn't mind if I answer your question.

There are differences between the three big monotheistic religions, which are the ones we are discussing here since we are assuming the existence of one supreme God.

Judaism says that they are the chosen people because of the covenant made first between Abraham, and later, between Moses and the nation of Israel. One of the promises, among others is that God will send a messiah as the saviour of his people. The difference between Christians and Jews is that the Christians believe that Christ fulfilled the Jewish prophecies in the Old Testament as the promised messiah, while the Jews still wait for their saviour.

Muslims, claim their descent through Abraham, rather then the son born to Abraham by Sarah, Isaac, they believe that their nation came through Ishmael, Abraham's son by his concubine. They believe that the messiah was Mohammed, and that Christ was one of the prophets, like Elijah.

The major difference between all three hinges on Christ. If Christ is truly the Messiah sent by God, then it makes more sense to be a Christian, then it does to be a Jew or a Muslim. If Christ is not who he says he is, then you must examine the claims of Muhammed, or accept that the Messiah has not yet come.

The claim of Christianity is that Christ proved that he is the Son of God through his death and resurrection, a miracle beyond those of any of the other prophets from God. The Jews claim that the Christians stole the body, while the Muslims claim that he did not in fact die on the cross.

As for doing what should be done. ie moral life - well many people have problems with that including almost all Christians (at least those who are in public places)... their professed beliefs didn't help them much. Thus why should one believe them?

Why single out Christians? If you sincerely believe that the Muslims or the Jews do a better job of keeping a holy life, then you have your answer to your earlier question.

[Ben Kenobi]

The burden of proof should lie with those who believe in Gods existence. You cannot assume that God exists and then work to disprove that. You must start with no assumption and then follow through and prove that God exists based on whatever criteria you decide, with which others may refute.

Fair enough. How do you deal with the creation of the Earth according to such specifications as to allow human life? Do you believe that to have arisen solely through random chance?

The book is indeed proof for a God with characteristics.

Uh, then why did I bother to work with Whaleboy without any citation from the bible. You are the one who is bringing the bible and insisting that I am drawing the characteristics from the bible, when all I have done is follow through logically from the principle that there is one supreme God.

You are right, that I could cite the bible, but why should I waste my time when you have just said that you don't accept the bible as evidence of God?

Example, if you removed the Holy Bible from history then God definitely would still be around but this God would be a different beast to the Christian God. The bible as proof if more proof of the Christian Gods attributes rather than a proof for a God like figure as such.

Which is why I haven't cited anything from the bible to prove the existence of a God. You are quite right here, that God should have what we call natural revelation, or things that anyone can see in order to come to know God.

Revelation in Scripture is considered special revelation, in providing knowledge that we could not come to know through observation or experience. This becomes very important to answer the question of how can anyone come to know God without knowledge of scripture?

Also that post wasn't in reply to anybody at all, I haven't read the middle couple of pages yet, doing that shortly.

Ah, that explains a few things. I apologise for my earlier comment, I'd rather not have to keep repeating myself.

Firstly remember I accept no miracles that the bible is the only evidence for, so God would have to provide a miracle in my life time to count as evidence (there have been no proven miracles to speak of before in history as far as I'm aware).

That's why I highlighted your earlier portion. You are asking scientists to confirm the presence of a miracle, where the truth is that how can you rely upon the advice of someone else to confirm for you the belief in your heart? If the scientist disagrees with you, then I would think you would take your own interpretation. This is the problem with relying upon miracles to work on someone who's heart is closed.

Even if God preforms the miracle in a seemingly benevolent way your sample size is too small to justify attributing god with benevolence.

Look at it this way. When you write a book, or complete a project out of your free desire to make something, are you not proud of what you have made? This is the same with God, I believe, that he loves his creation just as we do with our own.

Touche. Though, remember by miracles I'm talking a miracle that would prove to the vast majority (yes you will always get people who won't believe no matter the proof but you get that with everything and most of those people are very close minded to start with)

And that's the point. Why do you require a miracle for proof, if those with closed hearts can simply dismiss what has happened? There has to be a willingness to accept God before he can be proven.

I make this point from my own experience. I haven't always been a Christian, most of my life has been away from him. It will be five years come a couple months, and one of those in the Catholic church. For me, I had to first ask about God, and about Christianity, before I could have any hope of accepting Christ.

[Flip McWho]

Sure it does. For how would God, if he were the only creator, create himself? He therefore must be uncreated, which also means that he is eternal.

Just because something has always existed does not mean it will always exist. No beginning does not have to mean no end.

For without choice we cannot truly love.

True and a very nice sentiment actually.

For the same reason other characteristics pass on. For example, you would never say, how do you know that I have the knowledge of good and evil, I'm not Adam, am I? You do share certain traits with Adam, even as you differ.

Don't we all possess knowledge of good and evil because that is what original sin was all about? Partaking in the tree of life and learning the difference between good and evil? Holding us to original sin no matter how far removed from the orginal in descedence is like crippling us from the beginning. It's akin to blaming me for a hereditry disease my great x10 grandfather brought to the family, or alternately holding me responsible for the debts my great grandfather acquired.

This idea of sin is that you can resist these temptations, but being weak, we cannot do so always.

This I won't deny. But I don't see how this applies to the concept of original sin.

So how does this sense of wonder differ from the argument you put forth earlier, where the Christian supposedly says that a starry night brings him closer to God? Same feeling, different name.

I don't think I put that argument forward, wasn't it Tiamat? Anyways in answer, there is no difference. But from that you cannot assume the existence of God. In this example it all depends on how the person defines their where their sense of wonder is derived from. In one case the person believes its God, in the other its from the beauty, the scale, what it implies/means, alsorts. People interpret different things onto the things they see, you cannot assume the existence of a God based on these.

Fair enough. How do you deal with the creation of the Earth according to such specifications as to allow human life? Do you believe that to have arisen solely through random chance?

I believe the term random to be a strawman. And yes I accept evolution. I also believe that there are things about the process that science can't tell us yet but shall oneday maybe.


Ok, as far as the whole bible thing goes. Originally it wasn't in any shape, way or form in answer to anything you had stated earlier in this thread. It was purely a stand alone segment. As far as your arguments about his characteristics goes it falls under category number 2 in that post of mine

Ah, that explains a few things. I apologise for my earlier comment, I'd rather not have to keep repeating myself.

Ah awesome.

This becomes very important to answer the question of how can anyone come to know God without knowledge of scripture?

Very interesting question really. IMO I have nothing against personal believers, people like you who have come to believe through education on the matter and will defend your beliefs. However I object to the christianity (any religion really) that comes to affect the whole of society through politics and laws. If a law cannot be given a secular rational basis it should be no law. I, if I ever discover religion in a meaningful way, will act accordingly but I will never (at least never hope to) hold that other people should live as I do. People should come to faith through their own search not through others coercions. At the moment of my life I have no desire to search for God as I feel it would be fruitless and I don't need it right now, maybe later, if thats the case I'll search later. This is just my own personal look on that question.

That's why I highlighted your earlier portion. You are asking scientists to confirm the presence of a miracle, where the truth is that how can you rely upon the advice of someone else to confirm for you the belief in your heart? If the scientist disagrees with you, then I would think you would take your own interpretation. This is the problem with relying upon miracles to work on someone who's heart is closed.

One persons belief does not a God make. Some people are absolutely convinced that people are spying on them, that does not make it true. All I want is an easily quantifiable miracle. One that preferably contravenes the laws of physics, for me even the generally accepted ones we have now would do.

Look at it this way. When you write a book, or complete a project out of your free desire to make something, are you not proud of what you have made? This is the same with God, I believe, that he loves his creation just as we do with our own.

This of course assumes that God shares similar characteristics with us, which would be derived from the bible wouldn't it? Made us in Gods image doesn't it say.



Lastly, the vast majority of us atheists/agnostics aren't close minded, we've looked at our evidence and deduced our conclusions, the evidence we see doesn't add up to a God.
And isn't that exactly what we are doing here? Asking about God.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Elok
OFITG: Like you pointed out, much of societies' moral guidance is based on historical religious beliefs. What happens when those go away? I think we're in a transitional period now, one that we've been kept in for many years. It's been at least half a century since existentialists like Sartre told the world to "open its eyes" to a world without God, and a full century since Nietzsche announced His death, but so far as I can tell their challenge has gone basically unheeded. It's discussed by a few pompous intellectuals, Goth teenagers, and college students working on their senior theses, but most of the world has no obvious experience of nihilism. The world moved on to feminism, postmodernism, and who knows what else. Nihilism is only found in fun movies like "The Big Lebowski." And crappy ones like "Fight Club," I guess.

Why hasn't there been a real answer to the big problem of a godless world? Is it because religious faith is still persistent in much of society, or are we just stupefied by media bombardment, or what? I've never been to Europe, so I have no experience with a society that's mostly devoid of religious enthusiasm. The impression I get from the news is that they fill the God gap by arguing over lunatic ideologies and bureaucratic details in the EU and disliking each other (or us), but I obviously can't say for sure. I'm not trying to be socratic here, it's genuinely puzzled me for a while.

Ok maybe a little on EU "God" gap. I have lived in a Communist country, and there the "God" gap was filled by the party, rather miserably filled but it was filled. (only because there was not enough $$$ to fill the gap instead)

In EU proper is a "normal" secular society, the "God" gap is filled with £££ mostly, but it is up to the individual to fill it for himself, as an added benefit there is no pressure in EU public life to fill in "religious" anything so people are really free to fill it in for themselves (OK it varies from country to country, but "officially" there is none, and in most countries there really isn't). Don't forget that most "reeligious" people fill that "God" gap in their lives with $$$ but they only speak of something else while in reality their life and beliefs are based on materialism.

So that is what fills the life of an ordinary human. I want the house and the car and whatever comes next - we cannot know, so "fill in the blank". Some however figure out that there indeed is God - even in EU where there is no real public pressure- and fill in the gap with some kind of religious belief. I think that is the most interesting part - people without rational need for God will still discover him and pursue a life around him regardless of their environment.

Other than that haven't got much to add apart from "The Big Lebowski" was awsome ...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Why single out Christians? If you sincerely believe that the Muslims or the Jews do a better job of keeping a holy life, then you have your answer to your earlier question.

The point is that one would expect religion to make a difference in a persons life and regardless of religion it does not. People are both good and bad regardless of their professed belief system thus it is a moot point to tie in moral life with religiosity.