God exists

[Birdjaguar]

Why can't there just be "no thing", why can't "no thing" be empty? Why do we have to project our hopes/fears/fantasies onto the emptiness of existence? Can't we just leave "no thing" alone.

The answer of course is that religion/spirituality has been evolutionarily useful, building morale & bringing people together.

Spirituality & religion have never been about honoring all perspectives or truth. It's about feeling better & being unified as a community.

Even the newagey "God is everything, God is 'no thing', Jesus, Buddha, Allah are all my homies & point to the one true truth" type of people feel the need to claim their beliefs as truth.

Why can't we let well enough alone? Human nature seems to be such that we can't. We always want to know more, to organize what we know into something coherent and then tell others what we have found out. You might say that such traits are a product of evolution or culture or personality disorders, I would agree, but add that we favor such traits because the underlying unity of existence pushes evolution towards greater understanding.

You are right in that we don't have enough information to say definitely there's no God but in absence of evidence I'll carry out my life as if only my decisions for myself matter & treat the universe as uncaring & only responding to me when I do smart things. I feel like in our modern world this is adaptive & religion no longer is (show me the most religious countries & I'll show you the most backwards & self-destructive ones... mostly Islamic countries).

Don't change. You are doing it right.

You've got it backwards - Those who demand that we accept the existence of God merely begin their thinking with a different (and unreasonable) set of assumptions, which cannot be proven.

It is not possible to prove a negative, except for in very specialized cases. That's why our entire way of thinking here on Earth revolves around the fact that we put the onus of proof on the person making a positive statement - not on the person making a negative one.

I agree completely. All we do know it that the universe/existence does behave in some way. It may well include fact checking and evidence based study. But, it might also include the experiential and irrational. What if you had to master both to grasp the fullness of existence?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

In the case of God(s) the difference is that he/she/it could be anywhere, not just on my left hand.

However, not even "Prove that God isn't on my left hand" would be possible, since God(s) tend to be given supernatural powers, and as such could easily become invisible or some such thing.

"Prove that a visible God isn't on my left hand" - now that's something you could easily prove. I think. If you narrow it down well enough, it becomes easier to prove. If you leave it vague, and don't define the domain and leave it as "well, anywhere in the universe, duh", it isn't possible to disprove. And most Gods are defined as such - vague, can be anywhere, aren't limited to my left hand, have supernatural powers, etc.

I am afraid that may turn out to be tough to prove as well since human sight is quite imperfect and what may be hidden to it may still be possible to see through some other medium. Thats the gist of spiritual knowledge btw. One has to be able to percive existence beyond the natural limitations of senses and the sense bound mind.

 

[warpus]

So are we in agreement then that the Christian God (and many other Gods) would be impossible to prove the lack of existence of?

 

[Borachio]

Could you prove their existence?

(Assuming they do exist, that is.)

How would you convince a die-hard skeptic of their existence?

 

[warpus]

Could you prove their existence?

I couldn't, but if such Gods existed, it would be in theory at least possible.

Here's an imagined proof:

*sky opens up, angels sing, and a booming voice announces: "I am he who is God" (or whatever), some bushes catch on fire, some other magical stuff happens, and next thing you know you have an xbox 460*

It wouldn't be enough to convince everybody, but you get the idea.

 

[Borachio]

I suspect most people (of a non religious persuasion) these days would just think they must have ingested something recently. Intentionally or not.

If the booming voice was congruent with the beliefs of the religious, they might still have doubts (such a thing being outside of most people's experience).

And if it was obviously belonging to another religion, well... they still wouldn't believe it. Or would they?

I think there'd be a lot of selective viewing of the phenomenon.

 

[warpus]

Of course, but you can say the same thing about the only description we have of the Christian God - stuff that's written in the Bible.

Was it written down correctly? Was it a good description of what happened? Was it just someone on drugs seeing stuff that wasn't there?

Either way, it's the only description of that particular God that we have that's accepted by followers as "authentic". So if something matching those descriptions and those texts happen - we have no choice to admit that it's probably the same phenomenon as what happened 3,000 years ago (or whenever) that lead to people calling it "God".

And of course it wouldn't convince everyone, but it is proof, in some capacity. It is possible to produce it, in some situations. That's my entire point.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I think we have to acknowledge that if there is a diety of any kind itsnt eager to be known on mundane basis to the most humans on earth which is hardly surprising since if we accept the evolution theory as correct together with possibility of existence of this diety we can see that couple billions years means not much to it.

The reasons for that can be various just like the reasons for conception of the universe as such in such a scenario but one thing seems to me probable: to be able to get in touch with this diety you will likely have to be able to "fool it" at least for a moment becouse whatever it is that prevents you to be in direct contact with it cannot exist aside but is likely directly or undirectly sanctioned by this diety -- so in fact you need to be able defeat God or some of its Force. That is unless you want to take the approach of a devotee.

 

[timtofly]

I think we have to acknowledge that if there is a diety of any kind itsnt eager to be known on mundane basis to the most humans on earth which is hardly surprising since if we accept the evolution theory as correct together with possibility of existence of this diety we can see that couple billions years means not much to it.

The reasons for that can be various just like the reasons for conception of the universe as such in such a scenario but one thing seems to me probable: to be able to get in touch with this diety you will likely have to be able to "fool it" at least for a moment becouse whatever it is that prevents you to be in direct contact with it cannot exist aside but is likely directly or undirectly sanctioned by this diety -- so in fact you need to be able defeat God or some of its Force. That is unless you want to take the approach of a devotee.

How does one go about "fooling" God? I agree that the only way to prove something is to have some if not all control over the individual aspects of the hypothesis. If God is not a willing partner to your endeavor, how does one go about forcing God to cooperate? The other hurdle is to override the freedom of an individual to choose for themselves. Even if one could prove God, God still leaves it up to the individual to choose.

I may be wrong, but it seems that Warpus accepts some accounts of revelation, while still allowing himself the option to choose not to accept God.

The onus is still on God. While humans can be used as instruments of revelation, they can not solely bare the burden of proof. Relying on humans, spirits, or miracles and leaving it up to the human experiences is still akin to humans making the whole thing up, and does little to help prove God. God still has to be the one who educates or enlightens an individual. And in the end it is only the responsibility of each individual to accept it or not.

 

[warpus]

I'm not sure what you mean by revelation or what you mean exactly by choosing not to accept God.

If a hyper intelligent and/or powerful being showed up, I would accept that it exists. Depending on the powers on display, of course. If they were consistent with what's described in the Bible, I would probably have no choice but to admit that it's the same entity. Whether it's actually God is another question, depending on how you define "God".

 

[timtofly]

I'm not sure what you mean by revelation or what you mean exactly by choosing not to accept God.

If a hyper intelligent and/or powerful being showed up, I would accept that it exists. Depending on the powers on display, of course. If they were consistent with what's described in the Bible, I would probably have no choice but to admit that it's the same entity. Whether it's actually God is another question, depending on how you define "God".

Those who wrote about "proof" in the Bible also claimed to have no choice in accepting God, and others who had the same opportunity still chose not to believe it. Because of that you have one group of Christians called Calvinist, and another group called Arminians. One has to conclude, logically they both cannot be correct. Who decides who is right and who is wrong?

Leaving the choice up to the individual may tend to paint God as unjust. If God forces a person to not have proof, then that person should not be held responsible for the lack of knowledge. It is hard for me to understand how God claims that he has given all humans proof, and yet there are humans who claim they have no proof.

I do empathize; there are humans who claim they have proof the world evolved over 4 billion years, and I do not accept it nor believe it.

 

[warpus]

It's up to you whether you accept facts or not, I suppose.

 

[Old Hippy]

I do empathize; there are humans who claim they have proof the world evolved over 4 billion years, and I do not accept it nor believe it.

thank you for emphasising, me and my God appreciate it, She spent a lot of time and effort going to all the trouble

 

[bhavv]

Lol believes in the bible, does not believe in evolution.

Typical creationist.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

How does one go about "fooling" God? I agree that the only way to prove something is to have some if not all control over the individual aspects of the hypothesis. If God is not a willing partner to your endeavor, how does one go about forcing God to cooperate? The other hurdle is to override the freedom of an individual to choose for themselves. Even if one could prove God, God still leaves it up to the individual to choose.

Well judging by this worlds absurdities fooling isnt foreing concept to God. As of now we have been mostly beggars in relation to it but what if God isnt too keen on having an army of slaves but rather a partners? How do you fool God? You cant unless it wants to be fooled which may not be totally unlikely but first one needs to have a little bit of qualification...

 

[timtofly]

Lol believes in the bible, does not believe in evolution.

Typical creationist.

Does is really matter what I believe?

 

[Borachio]

I don't think it does. Not much, anyway.

I think it matters what you do.

 

[Rashiminos]

Does is really matter what I believe?

It does to some creatures.

I will try to proove here that we NEED to believe in God.

Is it a coincidence that an attempt at proving an undecidable question features a typo within a particular word?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I found this pearl on youtube thread:

Link to video.

 

[Borachio]

It does to some creatures.

How so?

How does me simply believing (or not believing) in some pan-dimensional entity affect any creature at all, in the slightest way?

No creature is even going to know it, unless I tell them.