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

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

For the purposes I agree that God (as far as is defined in this thread) is eternal. Unchanging though I'll continue to debate.

Okay, I argue if he is omnipotent and eternal, that he would also be unchanging. He could not become greater or weaker, since that would mean that he was not omnipotent at some point in time.

I have some trouble with this. If such an entity is omnipotent, eternal and unchanging, then it must also be allknowingly - that is every kind of knowledge, sentation, feeling, experience etc will also be known to it.

If it is so, then what is the continual existence worth for it ? Nothing new to learn, no new feelings, know precicely what are going to happen - it will just be existence, or more correctly, the same state as a braindead - live to exist.

Why would such an entity want to create a whole universe with a single planet inhabited with worshippers ? These worshippers will not contribute anything to the entity because of it's total omnipotence.

Not even increasing the joy in heaven when adding yet another beliving soul makes any sense - how can you add to something already unlimited ?

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Do something that contravenes the laws of physics.

It's not a foolproof approach, because our knowledge of physics is incomplete. However that is probably the best we can ask for at the moment.

For example, cause a pot of water to boil without a heat source is a good start.

Sorry this is so late in the game, but... UR:

Lower pressure drastically in the area around the pot. No heat source, but the water will begin to boil away.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Q Cubed


Sorry this is so late in the game, but... UR:

Lower pressure drastically in the area around the pot. No heat source, but the water will begin to boil away.

You missed the point :

"Do something that contravenes the laws of physics."

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Tiamat
Why does everything have to be tangible? You don't see oxygen but you know it's there because you still breathe. It has been said if you have the faith of a mustard see you can move a mountain. Do you know how small a mustard seed is? That's the reality, that most of us don't even have enough faith to fill a mustard seed.

Has no one here experienced the power of prayer or a blessing from the universe if you will. I would venture to say that there are plenty of people on this board who have had some type of faith moving experience but won't mention it for fear of being slammed, but I would bet there are plenty here who have seen or been part of something spectacular.

1. One believes what they want to believe. The human mind is very good at doing that.

2. Faith isn't exactly an easily quantifiable substance or item, nor is it something that is exclusively "religious", so to speak. There are supposedly people with lots of faith, and there are people with very little faith. One can have undying and enormous faith in science, in reason, and very little faith in organized religion; or, one can have enormous faith in a priest as a person, but not so much in that same person as a priest.

Faith is tricky. I'm willing to bet that those you consider not having enough faith to fill a mustard seed actually do have that much faith--just not in a religious belief.

3. Experiencing the "power" behind a prayer or blessing and claiming it as proof that a higher power exists is really a matter of #1. One could just as easily gaze up at the stars, or watch a person dip his arm into molted lead and come out unscathed, feel the "power" behind it, and find science to be his or her "god", if you will. The mind is easily hoisted by its own petard.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle
All things being equal the simplest explanation must (be accepted) as true. Given the complexity of the Earth and mankind as we know it to be, the simplest answer is creation, certainly not chance and evolution.

Honestly, to me that strikes as an intellectually lazy argument. You could make the same point between Quantum Mechanics and God's control of the infinitesimal world. The latter's easier, but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

It's all right though--some will put their faith in God, Creation, and/or Intelligent Design, otherse will put their faith in godless chance.

Besides, arguing that there's an omnipotent being that created everything as a simple solution to, "yeah, it's all chance" isn't quite right, either. The former requires belief/justification of something that may or may not exist which is itself a complex being, while the latter requires belief in random occurences.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by BlackCat


You missed the point :

"Do something that contravenes the laws of physics."

I wasn't arguing the point, per se, just his example. I didn't edit the quote, though, as I figured its entirety would help explain the context.

[Q Classic]

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

Originally posted by Capt Dizle


Well, for starters, you might want to put a little effort into seeking God. If you wanted to prove the existance of a half fish- half bird creature rumored to live in some remote corner of the world, you might go there and look for it.

You're right about not being able to see it without looking for it. However, one must also be mindful of seeing things that may not be there.

The human mind is great at imagining patterns that don't exist. It's great at coming up with rationalizations.

Much as you'll never find your keys without looking for them, it's likely that you'll never find g/God without looking for him/her/it/them. The question isn't whether or not he'll find g/God. The question's rather whether or not g/God exists. If you don't have housekeys, no matter where you look, however you look, whatever you go through, you still won't find them.

I'll admit that the comparison between something that's primarily intangible and something that's tangible isn't a perfect one.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle
I think it is presumptous for you to take me to task for not understanding an unproven theory.

Actually, all scientific "laws" are no more than theories. Theory of Gravity or Theory of Electromagnetism. However, they've been borne out by many observations which lend credence to their predictions.

It's the same way with the Theory of Evolution. It's not "proven", but the evidence points favorably towards it, and lends credence to it.

It's no more presumptuous for him to take you to task over your misunderstanding his faith, his religion, if you will, than it is for you to take him to task over misunderstanding yours.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

I wasn't arguing the point, per se, just his example. I didn't edit the quote, though, as I figured its entirety would help explain the context.

Then you are just making noise.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Then you are just making noise.

Of course. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Which, honestly, is what I feel discussions like these are. The battle lines have already been drawn. You've got the faithful on both sides.

===

That said, the argument that "miracles would prove God's existence" offends me in a slight way. Why?

It's the Miracle on 34th Street argument. Santa is proven to exist because the little girl gets her ****. It's a materialistic, selfish, and self-absorbed view of something that is difficult to translate into the first, and shouldn't be translated into the latter two.

I'll believe in God when I see **** happen, when I get ****... it's Miracle on 34th Street.

If that's what it takes for you to believe in God, so be it, but honestly? It's a stupid way of going about it.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Q Cubed


Of course. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Which, honestly, is what I feel discussions like these are. The battle lines have already been drawn. You've got the faithful on both sides.

Nice with some fresh air in this thread

You are quite rigth that the faithful has entered the barricades on both sides, but that isn't the point - those faithful will probably always exist - it's the weak in mind the battle is about. Oh, maybe also the barrage of arguments - it's always nice to find waeknesses in your opponents panzer.

===

That said, the argument that "miracles would prove God's existence" offends me in a slight way. Why?

It's the Miracle on 34th Street argument. Santa is proven to exist because the little girl gets her ****. It's a materialistic, selfish, and self-absorbed view of something that is difficult to translate into the first, and shouldn't be translated into the latter two.

I'll believe in God when I see **** happen, when I get ****... it's Miracle on 34th Street.

If that's what it takes for you to believe in God, so be it, but honestly? It's a stupid way of going about it.

No, that isn't in any way stupid. One thing is that a child believes in santa, but there are no reson why a grown up blindly should belive in some supernatural existence.

[Q Classic]

You are quite rigth that the faithful has entered the barricades on both sides, but that isn't the point - those faithful will probably always exist - it's the weak in mind the battle is about. Oh, maybe also the barrage of arguments - it's always nice to find waeknesses in your opponents panzer.

I'll admit it's nice to find weakness in an opponent. However, about the weak-in-mind-- is it really important to win them over? Those sufficiently weak-in-mind are convinced by pretty words and parlor tricks, not by Truth, Reason, or True Faith. Say it enough times, say it nicely enough, they'll come like ants to a picnic.

Words of silver don't make a real believer. They just buy one for a little while.

===

No, that isn't in any way stupid. One thing is that a child believes in santa, but there are no reson why a grown up blindly should belive in some supernatural existence.

Honestly? I don't like that children are lied to about Santa. I refuse to raise any of my offspring with the belief that some impersonal third party is going to give them presents, and is recording and tallying their behavior like some roly-poly ruddy-faced Big Brother.

I figure that if they are to get any presents, it will be from me--their parent. The one who's personally interested in their lives. Who tallys and corrects their behavior because it's my personal responsibility, my charge.

It's the same thing with God. Many grown-ups believe in a benevolent Big Brother g/God in the same manner that children believe in Santa--unquestioningly, unshakeably. What was it about having the faith of a child in ye olde Good Book? The problem with that, however, is that too many of those grown-ups only ask for his intercession in order to get ****--just like how children only ask Santa for presents and gifts. Rather than trying to be good and "moral" all year round, they only behave in such a manner when they think they can get something out of it.

And when they do finally get something, it's proof positive that some higher power smiled upon them. They got their ****. Ergo, Santa exists. Miracle on 34th Street.

Religion and faith are tricky things. I will admit that I'm not the most devout person out there, at least in terms of traditional religion. I'll also admit that I've caught myself falling victim to that sort of opportunistic behavior. I wager it's just human nature to try to make good with the more powerful in hopes of receiving side benefits (in terms of nation-states, ancient Korea practiced it and called it sadae~).

That's my main problem with these arguments about faith. If they're not arguing in the Miracle on 34th style, they're often blindly faithful. One argument is offensive to me, because it seeks to force something above petty concerns into performing cheap parlor tricks, and the other because it's the kind of belief and love that one can get from a stupid dog--kick it away, box its ears, they'll still come back, tail wagging and tongue ready to lick the hand that slapped it.

[Elok]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Elok's claim was that nontheistic ethic and moral would automatically would end up in abuse and extinction, where a theistisic ditto wolud prevent it. Christianity is an obvious example that this claim isn't true.

Okay....once again....I did not say that. Please remove the dark glasses from your eyes and the crack pipe from your mouth. All clean? Good. Read carefully:

"Nontheistic moral systems lack coherent justification for their directives. All human beings have some form of moral sense or inclination, but complex systems of belief are required to convert this vague sense into meaningful directions. Secular systems, while not innately 'bad,' do a poor job of explaining the end purpose of our moral urges. In the place of a reason, they typically use faulty definitions of terms or various forms of begging the question. The actual real-world implementation of any such system, whether secular or religious, depends greatly on the personality of the individual following it (among other things). I am not concerned with arguing specific moral directives at the moment. What I am concerned with is the more abstract problem of defining the idea of 'good' in a useful way."

I hope that was more clear to you.

[Q Classic]

*edit*

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
I'll admit it's nice to find weakness in an opponent. However, about the weak-in-mind-- is it really important to win them over? Those sufficiently weak-in-mind are convinced by pretty words and parlor tricks, not by Truth, Reason, or True Faith. Say it enough times, say it nicely enough, they'll come like ants to a picnic.

Words of silver don't make a real believer. They just buy one for a little while.

I seroiusly doubt that I can change people such as BK, but I try to make them ask themself a question or two - guess they try the same.

That is the hardcore battle let it be as it is. The other thing is those you call weak-in-mind. You ask if it's important to win them over ? I'll say that it's the most important thing that is concerning this. It's a question wether they are going to teach ID or science on the local school. I think that it's worth while to take a battle about. Actually, I prefer preemptive strikes - if ID in some way gets their foot inside, it's more difficult to throw them out.

Honestly? I don't like that children are lied to about Santa. I refuse to raise any of my offspring with the belief that some impersonal third party is going to give them presents, and is recording and tallying their behavior like some roly-poly ruddy-faced Big Brother.

I figure that if they are to get any presents, it will be from me--their parent. The one who's personally interested in their lives. Who tallys and corrects their behavior because it's my personal responsibility, my charge.

Well, when I mentioned santa claus, it was in the like of the boogie man or the troll beneath the bed. Not something that I thought that children should learn to belive in. I meant it as something that a childs imagination could invent.

It's the same thing with God. Many grown-ups believe in a benevolent Big Brother g/God in the same manner that children believe in Santa--unquestioningly, unshakeably. What was it about having the faith of a child in ye olde Good Book? The problem with that, however, is that too many of those grown-ups only ask for his intercession in order to get ****--just like how children only ask Santa for presents and gifts. Rather than trying to be good and "moral" all year round, they only behave in such a manner when they think they can get something out of it.

And when they do finally get something, it's proof positive that some higher power smiled upon them. They got their ****. Ergo, Santa exists. Miracle on 34th Street.

Religion and faith are tricky things. I will admit that I'm not the most devout person out there, at least in terms of traditional religion. I'll also admit that I've caught myself falling victim to that sort of opportunistic behavior. I wager it's just human nature to try to make good with the more powerful in hopes of receiving side benefits (in terms of nation-states, ancient Korea practiced it and called it sadae~).

That's my main problem with these arguments about faith. If they're not arguing in the Miracle on 34th style, they're often blindly faithful. One argument is offensive to me, because it seeks to force something above petty concerns into performing cheap parlor tricks, and the other because it's the kind of belief and love that one can get from a stupid dog--kick it away, box its ears, they'll still come back, tail wagging and tongue ready to lick the hand that slapped it.

somehow I think we agree on a lot.