Thread: Proofs and Dis-Proofs of God's existance

Originally posted by bradybaker

So...the universe can't be infinite, but God can?

Yeah, makes sense [/sarcasm]

Unless you are saying that the universe and God are one in the same...but in that case you aren't really saying anything at all.

yes thats what Im saying (kind of). Im saying that the universe projects itself into existence. It supports its own existence by being forceful. Existence itself needs to keep in existence. So existence needs to be infinite. You might call this force God. It all depends on what you call God if he is the creater of the world, Then yes he exists in some way or another. If something else like he has a mind of his own then that can't be proved.

Originally posted by Redeyedwolfking


yes thats what Im saying (kind of). Im saying that the universe projects itself into existence. It supports its own existence by being forceful. Existence itself needs to keep in existence. So existence needs to be infinite. You might call this force God. It all depends on what you call God if he is the creater of the world, Then yes he exists in some way or another. If something else like he has a mind of his own then that can't be proved.

So much far-fetched bullshit.
Come on, tone it down a few steps and it'll make sense again.
All this bullshit about 'god' and desperate attempts to finda 'reason' in existance.

Stuff is just there. Its pretty interesting, no doubt about that. Lets just analise the stuff thats there, and draw conclusions from that allright, instead of thinking up weird-ass ideas WITH NO BASE AT ALL, just because people are too arrogant and cant stomache the feeling of beeing nothing at all on a cosmic scale.

Originally posted by CT


So much far-fetched bullshit.
Come on, tone it down a few steps and it'll make sense again.
All this bullshit about 'god' and desperate attempts to finda 'reason' in existance.

Stuff is just there. Its pretty interesting, no doubt about that. Lets just analise the stuff thats there, and draw conclusions from that allright, instead of thinking up weird-ass ideas WITH NO BASE AT ALL, just because people are too arrogant and cant stomache the feeling of beeing nothing at all on a cosmic scale.

So you agree with me that stuff just exists because existence is infinite?

Desperate attemps to finda reason in existence is what Philosophy is all about.

Simply stated you cannot prove a negative.
Example
I could say there are blue apples probably 10 light-years away with big red feet and square yellow eyes that sing children’s songs to a god like figure that resembles Mr. Rogers 3 out of every 4 hour of their day. And they never miss a note. But you can’t disprove it.
On the other hand if a rocket was invented that could bringing one back to earth that would prove it. But never disprove

Originally posted by Redeyedwolfking
I think that the existence of God has the answer right in the sentence. I think that it makes most sense that existence is infinite and there for is the creater of itself. So god is existence

You think that it makes sense that existance is infinite, yet had a creator (hence a creation, hence a state before creation, hence isn't infinite) and that the creator is existance itself. So:

Existance is infinite, even though it had a beginning, because when there was no existance - existance decided to create existance?

And even through all that, why label existance god? Why not just.... existance? Why slap a word on it that implies sentience, conciousness, cognizance, personality, etc.

So you agree with me that stuff just exists because existence is infinite?[/b]

Please show how you get from

x exists
to
x exists because existance is infinite

-spoon

Originally posted by dreamtamer007
Simply stated you cannot prove a negative.

Not true. For starters there's never actually such thing as a purely negative statement. Every negative statement implies a positive. The negative statement(x) "The box in front of me does not have any cake in it" implies the positive statement(y) "the box in front of me contains something other than cake".

x implies y
If y is proved true, then x is proved false

Of course proving this negative is as simple as looking in the box in front of me (no cake ). As much as one can know anything, looking in the box lets you know wether or not cake is there. I just proved a negative.

With your example of the blue apple-men or whatever they were, its a little tricker. In your scenario of someone visiting the planet, if they were to not see any of these apples then yes - the negative would be proven.

But visiting the planet it a little unfeasable (and so is testing for god, since we're on that topic), but a "best guess" solution can be implemented. With a lack of evidence, even though you recognise it could be true, disbelieve it. And vice versa. Even though it is an unproveable statement (unless extreme time/money is invested) you can still come to a logical conclusion.

This notion of the unproveable statement brings up the burden of proof. The burden is usally placed on the affirmative side (in debate), or with those who claim something exists. This applies to the "proving a negative" this way: given an unproveable statement, believe it is false until it is proved. It's reasonable to believe these statements false, as long as we have evaluated available evidence - and don't ignore new evidence when it arises.

In the case of your apple-men we could notice the burden of proof is on you, but also evaluate the evidence we have access to because we're nice. Apples dont have a circulatory system or any mechanism for singing, so as it is an unproveable statement with evidence that contradicts it - disbelief. You're not proving the broad, all-encompasing, negative - but you are proving the negative inasmuch as we can know anything.

In the case of god we would again notice the burden of proof is on the god claim, but since we're nice . Providing evidence that I feel (and this is subjective entirely) provides enough to disbelieve the unproveable god-statement would take a long time, so you can fill in the blank. Problem of evil, lack of moral authority, contradictions in the text, the injustice of infinite punishment for finite crimes, the stupid/sadistic designer - you get the idea.

-spoon

Originally posted by spoon

Please show how you get from

x exists
to
x exists because existance is infinite

-spoon

I can't give you solid proof only logical proof.
If x exists then the force of existence is there. I dont know how it got there but I think it is most logical that something did not come into existence and then recreate another form of existence. How was God created anyway? if he is infinit and seperate from are existence, it would seem unpractical that he would then create another existence why didnt what he created first come into existence. I notice that existence its self is pure perfection (except for the ones it was created for).
So if its perfect it wouldent need another existence to make choices of what to make. Just let existence come into existence on it's own. It also seems logical that existence is outside of time so it had no beginning. So you might not wish to call it a creater but a stableizer.

You can still call the existence force God.

Originally posted by Redeyedwolfking
I can't give you solid proof only logical proof..

I uh.... don't follow you. Could you tell me again but organise it more.... logically?

I'll try and understand anyway:

If x exists then the force of existence is there. [/b]

Are you saying that if x exists, there is existance?

I dont know how it got there but I think it is most logical that something did not come into existence and then recreate another form of existence. How was God created anyway? if he is infinit and seperate from are existence, it would seem unpractical that he would then create another existence why didnt what he created first come into existence.[/b]

Umm... are you saying that the idea of god coming into existance and then creating another existance seperate to him/her/it is impractical? Ok...

I notice that existence its self is pure perfection (except for the ones it was created for).So if its perfect it wouldent need another existence to make choices of what to make[/b]

Ok, so you're saying that the idea of a god seperate to our existance doesn't make sense because a perfect existance doesn't need something seperate to make it.

Well, prove that its perfect. And you just actually disproved it in the above sentence with \"(except for the ones it was created for)\". If existance is infinte everything must be perfect, no exceptions.

It also seems logical that existence is outside of time so it had no beginning. So you might not wish to call it a creater but a stableizer. [/b]

If existance is out of time, how is there time in existance?

You can still call the existence force God.[/b]

Or you could call it pop-tarts, but that doesn't make it anything other than plain old existance. Why call it god? Is existance suddenly sentient?

-spoon is confused

I'm not too good at speed reading so sorry if I missed some stuff.

Someone mentioned that if the universe had a beginning then it is not infinate. That is not true - if you had one end of a piece of string and it had no other end, then is it finate? It keeps going forever. It has no end, no limit.

Also, there are numerous ways that people try and "prove" or "disprove" gods existance, but if there was a real way to prove it then we wouldnt be debating this. There is a counter arguement for EVERY substancial arguement on every side.

I myself do not disbelieve in god, but I do refuse to put faith in some "facts" that have been passed down through so many generations that whatever cause they had was probably lost long before I was born.

This is a topic I could rant on about for hours, but I believe that I have said more than enough.

I may not be able to completely make you understand what I'm saying. I think its hard to explain why I think this but I'll do the best I can.

yes I am saying that if x exists it exists.

The idea of god being seperate is not impracticle. But the Idea of a creater creating a creater to create something else he to could create on his own is.If you wanted to bake a cake and you were perfect in every way would you take the time to build another being just like you to do the same work. That would be a useless step to take I think.

I take back what I said about that it doesent need to be seperatly created because it's perfect. It is true that everything in the universe connects perfectly.
I think that if God could create anything he would of created everything perfect don't you. We may seem like un perfect beings but we are actually perfectly created for the perpose of our existence what ever that may be. We are not perfect because we make choices. Ex: we can kill our selves for no reason how ever stupid that may sound. If we did not make choices everything would be predetermined and no one would controle it so there for existence would pretty much be useless if you think about it.

Time is only physical. I think time will just always exist I think it never began and it will never end. Existence may reset itself physically it might slam together and explode back into a rebirth state. Maybe time rolles out like a movie and replays itself I can't prove it those are just my opinions about time.

"why call it God" I dont know. yes it could be called pop-tarts. But I choose to call this God because it is still the creater of existence.

The mind cannot really comprehend infinity. We can only speculate something that has no beginning or no end in a Frazee or with the use of words but to truly see or imagine something infinite is only theoretical and we should accept the limits of or mind. What kind of mind would it be if we could not imagine something unimaginable. It’s like a paradox. Because knowing everything is a contradiction. If you know everything then that would include not knowing something.You would know how not to know somthing.

Originally posted by cynical_bob

Someone mentioned that if the universe had a beginning then it is not infinate. That is not true - if you had one end of a piece of string and it had no other end, then is it finate? It keeps going forever. It has no end, no limit.

Twas me.

A variable (x) with an infinite range is defined as: -infinity < x < infinity.
The range of your string example would be: 0 <= x < inifinity.

If you're holding a piece of string at a terminating end, and it goes on for infinity. It has an end. You're holding it.

Where's the string at x = -1? Where's the universe at time = -1?

-spoon

ETA: oh and redeye, I gots to go get drunk now but I'll think about it and post tomorrow.

Originally posted by spoon


Twas me.

A variable (x) with an infinite range is defined as: -infinity < x < infinity.
The range of your string example would be: 0 <= x < inifinity.

If you're holding a piece of string at a terminating end, and it goes on for infinity. It has an end. You're holding it.

Where's the string at x = -1? Where's the universe at time = -1?

-spoon

ETA: oh and redeye, I gots to go get drunk now but I'll think about it and post tomorrow.

Heh, he's right ya know...

Meh, I suck at Physics, I suck at Math. I can tell you what I've seen, what I know, what I think, but I can't calculate anything for crap. I can do basic, high school logic. That's it.

I like to read other people calculate and use more complex logic and stuff. I'm interested in where this thread has gone and is going. Keep up the good intellectual work, guys!

Sorry I can't contribute jack...

I have a feeling that the next post is going to prove me wrong and I am possibly getting way out of my league, but hell, i'll have a shot anyway.

Originally posted by spoon

If you're holding a piece of string at a terminating end, and it goes on for infinity. It has an end. You're holding it.

Where's the string at x = -1? Where's the universe at time = -1?

If something continues for infinity, then perhaps it's starting point is not a starting point but rather a beginning point (x>0 in any case)

Maybe time='-1' and universe='-1' is equal to string='-1' (no string).
Because the string is going for an infinate distance but has an end (which can be regarded as the beginning with regards to the universe and time)
A negative position is relative. If you regard the negative of the string to be no string, like the cake, then the string indeed has a negative (no string). Therefore the negative to the universe in this example is equal to the negative of the string - no universe, but that doesnt mean that the positive (universe) is not infinate, does it?

I am sorry that I carried the string example over, it was never any good in the first place.

Feel free to tear my arguement to shreds.

I think that the term "god" is probably a misdiagnosis. I doubt there is some being separate from ourselves who is a thinking, feeling, willing being. I think what god there is if there is one is more of a collective consciousness that we all make up(or at least me) that shapes and determines reality, not a real physical reality, but a more subjective reality. I don't think it's right to identify god as an entity outside of ourselves, although I wouldn't go so far as to proclaim solipsism.

Or maybe we're just random chunks of matter floating around in the cosmos.

heres a proof.....the chances of the univese coming together n its working order and complexity radomly with no one making it is 1 in (A very large number.Cant remember exactly)

Ok. This may seem irrelevant, but in my own twisted world I think it is a very strong point in this "debate."

Take a piece of paper and cut it lengthwise, leaving about an inch between the scissors and the edge of the paper. You should now have a piece of paper 1 inch wide and 11 inches in length. Take one end and twist it 180 degrees, so the surfaces of each end are facing opposite directions. Tape one end to the other. You should have a ring with a single twist in it.

It looks like a 3 dimensional object. Right?

Draw a line on one side of it, going from one end to the other...

Oh... This object seems to have only one side? Oh dear.

Does that mean we have a 2 dimensional object? Impossible. It could be mapped in all three axises (what's the plural form of axis?), or can it?

In my opinion, both language and math cannot explain anything. Its just the most suitable thing humans have come up with.

Wanna know something interesting? The base ten method of math isn't the only one in existence. The Aztecs (I think) had a 60 base math system, and they created some crazy shit. Someone else I believe had a 3 base system. Math seems so concrete, yet, in actuality, its a language just like any other.

Language can have its limits. Some languages don't have an "I" signifier. Imagine that.

I doubt I contributed anything to this "debate". If you are at all interested, my opinion, which is based entirely upon my personal experiences, not logic voodoo... is that we have the incapacity of determining or conveying the existence of a diety (or dieties, I don't discriminate). The existence of God (or god, since capitilzation is the ultimate "yay or nay" ) is something that either is or isn't regardless of belief/scholarly aptitude/acid intake. Just do or say what comes naturally and forget about this garbage. Too much time is wasted arguing/debating/fretting/soulsearching/fighting "religious wars".

Why can't we have intense threads like this over sex, drugs, and Don Knotts?

Originally posted by loose id
Ok. This may seem irrelevant, but in my own twisted world I think it is a very strong point in this \"debate.\"

Take a piece of paper and cut it lengthwise, leaving about an inch between the scissors and the edge of the paper. You should now have a piece of paper 1 inch wide and 11 inches in length. Take one end and twist it 180 degrees, so the surfaces of each end are facing opposite directions. Tape one end to the other. You should have a ring with a single twist in it.

It looks like a 3 dimensional object. Right?

Draw a line on one side of it, going from one end to the other...

Oh... This object seems to have only one side? Oh dear.

Does that mean we have a 2 dimensional object? Impossible. It could be mapped in all three axises (what's the plural form of axis?), or can it?

It's called a mobius strip, and I assure you, it does not throw the concept of mathematics into disarray.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%F6bius_strip

Originally posted by loose id
Wanna know something interesting? The base ten method of math isn't the only one in existence. The Aztecs (I think) had a 60 base math system, and they created some crazy shit. Someone else I believe had a 3 base system. Math seems so concrete, yet, in actuality, its a language just like any other.

Wanna know something else interesting? Any number in any base system can easily be converted to any other base sytem.

Example: The base 8 representation of 12345 is 30071

If you want to convert to a base system greater than 10, you simply use letters.

Example: The base 11 representation of 61236 is 4200A

That's what we \"logic voodoos\" like to call \"basic algebra\".

Originally posted by loose id
Language can have its limits. Some languages don't have an \"I\" signifier. Imagine that.

\"It's easy if you try.\"

Originally posted by loose id
Just do or say what comes naturally and forget about this garbage. Too much time is wasted arguing/debating/fretting/soulsearching/fighting \"religious wars\".

Why can't we have intense threads like this over sex, drugs, and Don Knotts?

Humanity bores me....for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by loose id
Imagine that.

Image this...

a first dimension. can you see it in your mind? not too hard? ok

now imagine the perfect union of two first dimensions. Kind of looks like, what? A second dimension? ok, I guess that was kinda easy.

now imagine the perfect union of two second dimensions (or visualize as a perfect union of a second dimension and a first dimension if you wish.. same result).. Can you see it? ok, yeah looks like a third dimension

now imagine the perfect union of two third dimensions (or visualize as a perfect union of a third dimension and a second dimension)... kind of looks like, what? call it a fourth dimension if you want, but what does it look like?

can you see it? now imagine the perfect union of that with itself (or the union of that and a third dimension).

keep going in that manner and don't stop... each time you can see the new result, keep going.

don't reply until you've completely blown your own mind.

(I'm in the the middle of a 30 page paper, so Im not sure what this has to do with this thread, but it sure let me clear my head for a minute.. now back to the drudges)

Technically, the proof of the existance of God is undeterminable. I'll admit that It's absurdly easy to defy God and His existance. The fact that the bible is made up of stories and so-called "miracles" is just as easy to proclaim as the fact that we are all our own "god". Sure it sounds convincing on paper and is even pleasing to hear. It makes us feel normal and helps us cope with day to day lifestyles. I'm also confident that if you explained your technical reasonings to any average person on the street they'd be hardpressed to disagree with you. But God is not just an easy answer. First of all the existance. That shouldn't even be a thought of question. A quick glance at the world itself and there's your answer. Everything as complex as photosynthesis, genetics, your circulatory system, DNA, and heredity to the mere simple fact that the sun rises for you every morning shows that there is existence of a God. And anyone who wishes to argue from the standpoint that God does not exist, I'd love to hear their side of the story. From this point, we find different beliefs and avenues that give us options as to which religion "best fits" us. Buddhism, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, and atheists are all prevalent in our society. The hard part is distinguishing good from evil. Right from wrong. For the most part, all these religions all fall under the fact that there is a God. Buddhist have buddha, Muslims have allah, Christians have Jesus, etc. Now I'm not proclaiming what is good or evil. I can only expound on what I have been able to come across and realize since the begininng of my existance. There is a God. Praise Him. Thank him everyday for what you have been given. Follow the bible and live by the teachings of Jesus Christ. The debate on whether or not Jesus was the son of God can be argued at another time, but getting back to what I was trying to explain earlier: God wasn't supposed to be made easy. The fact that people sit back and say that reality is what our godly mind portrays to us daily to keep us sane is ridiculous and absurd. Life shouldn't be that easy and it's not. Find God. Search for Him if you haven't found him. Pray everyday to God and thank him for the sun. Read the bible daily and really delve into the scriptures. I'd like to challenge those who do not believe in God to at least humor me on this. Ask Him for guidance and direction. When you fall, lean on Him. I've been a believe my whole life and I've never been more sure than I am right now that there is a reason behind everything, and when people try to define that reason, that's when confusion sets in and there's talk of non-existance. Don't try to figure it out. Trust me, it's far over any of our heads.

Originally posted by bigunit224
And anyone who wishes to argue from the standpoint that God does not exist, I'd love to hear their side of the story.

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13747
Unfortunately, the answer isn't quite as simple as \"God did it\".

Originally posted by bigunit224
Don't try to figure it out. Trust me, it's far over any of our heads.

?!?!?!?! You can't be serious. Please tell me that was a joke.

I can recomand you to start reading what Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy said, and you will find out - that everything is more complex than you know it- and in time you will answer your questions yourself. You will understand about Christian esoterism, the mision of Christ, the Sun, solar sistem, human being configuration, meaning of Bible, about the spiritual worlds and their manifestation, karma and reincarnation, etc.

No bradybaker it wasn't a joke. I don't see how u think it was. These people are sitting here arguing over the "proof"...... substantial proof that God exists or not. I think it's quite a joke that people are actually attempting to prove it! Where do you gain this proof? What could possibly give you the correct answer to this paradox?

Originally posted by bigunit224
Where do you gain this proof?

It's quite easy. Define where god should be. Then check if he/she/it is. Example:

Zeus lives on mt olympus with the pantheon.
*climb climb climb climb* .... no zeus?
Disproof of god.

Of course that only works that easy for dead religions. Of course there's easy proof against them... that's why noone believes. You see, once people started getting smarter and demanded proof from religion, religion had to start coming up with harder to falsify answers. In a modern context mt olympus would be interpreted figuratively to mean a metaphysical place. Maybe he's not there anymore because we're all guilty, dirty sinners. Meh, it works for christianity.

But that aside, there's proof against a particular definition of god. Since you're obviously christian, what makes your god unfalsifiable? And since your christianity implies a disbelief in all other gods but yahweh (monotheism and all) - what makes all other gods falsifiable?

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen F. Roberts

-spoon