Thread: Does God Exist? (with Proof)

If you don't know what you are, how can you claim what anything else is?

He tried, he failed.

- His description of the big bang was wrong;
- The Qur'an's description of the "earth and moon each traveling in it's own orbit" sounds a lot more like geocentricism than the (correct) heliocentric view;
- The other facts he said first appeared in the Qur'an had all been discovered by the time of the Muslim book's writing.

Even if the Qur'an had unique knowledge in there, it wouldn't prove the existence of a god.

Lastly, to address his first point that the universe needs a creator, here's the awesome Carl Sagan:

Hahaha I saw that video before, complete bullshit.


Maybe try kindergarten, to win souls. Maybe the children there lack the basic amount of healthy skepticism to see trough his nonsense.

Basically the guy is lying, there was no primary nebula from which the universe 'split'. There was a single point which expanded into the universe; so basically the Koraan is wrong if you know the correct scientific facts and not some lie that has been made up to fit the Koraan.

Cool Sagan quote.

You cannot prove God, nor can you prove Reality. Both concepts are essentially one and the same.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

A God is a 'supernatural creator and overseer of the universe'. Reality is 'that which exists'. As a supernatural creator and overseer of the universe does not exist, God is not Reality.

Originally Posted by Xei

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

A God is a 'supernatural creator and overseer of the universe'. Reality is 'that which exists'. As a supernatural creator and overseer of the universe does not exist, God is not Reality.

'God' is a loosely slung term these days, Xei.

Incorrectly, rather.

If you're not talking about that then you're not talking about God, and you should make it clear what you are talking about.

Words aren't there to be bastardized at the user's whim, otherwise language becomes worthless.

Originally Posted by Xei

Incorrectly, rather.

If you're not talking about that then you're not talking about God, and you should make it clear what you are talking about.

Words aren't there to be bastardized at the user's whim, otherwise language becomes worthless.

The word 'God' has been long bastardised, you know that.
So have Wikipedia definitions, not that I'm discrediting that.

Point is, God is commonly used as a term from a standpoint of many things, including 'nature', 'everything', 'nothing', and the list goes on.
In fact, in many games 'God-mode' doesn't refer to a non-existent 'supernatural creator of the universe', and it is widely accepted without correction, even if bastardised.

Not really, in God mode the whole idea is that you are all powerful and immortal...

OED says 'creator and ruler of the universe', so basically the same things as Wikipedia.

Certainly if something has neither of those qualities then it doesn't deserve to be called God. That's the point of words; they mean specific things.

For example, if people are using the word 'God' to just mean 'Nature'... well, that is incorrect. The word they should use is 'nature', and they are atheists.

Originally Posted by Xei

Words aren't there to be bastardized at the user's whim, otherwise language becomes worthless.

I liked this quote.

Originally Posted by really

You cannot prove God, nor can you prove Reality. Both concepts are essentially one and the same.

I second this.

...but probably for different reasons, lol.

~

Originally Posted by Xei

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

A God is a 'supernatural creator and overseer of the universe'. Reality is 'that which exists'. As a supernatural creator and overseer of the universe does not exist, God is not Reality.

lol, nice try...


Semantics, again?

Hardly.

Why do people insist on seperating accepted scientific theory and the concept of a God? I understand why anti-theists do it, but why should theists do it? If there is no reason to believe in something than you shouldn't... But there are reasons to believe in God seperate from dogma. And the idea of the universe having conciousness and definin the laws of said universe isn't super-natural. In fact, that would make the big bang and evolution very natural as defined by God. That would be in his nature.

The point at which religion stops being a search for truth is the point where it turns to pure paradigm. You can't go into a study about God with the idea in your head that if you discover anything contrary to your beliefs you'll shun it and try to find justifying evidence. Then it isn't science.

Now, regarding this threads title, there are evidences of God and they are present in religous texts, but they are not proofs. Faith is the evidence of that which is unseen, not belief in solidarity or absolute definity.

Xei: You remind me of one of those old upper class women with the monocle.

Originally Posted by Xei

Not really, in God mode the whole idea is that you are all powerful and immortal...

OED says 'creator and ruler of the universe', so basically the same things as Wikipedia.

Certainly if something has neither of those qualities then it doesn't deserve to be called God. That's the point of words; they mean specific things.

For example, if people are using the word 'God' to just mean 'Nature'... well, that is incorrect. The word they should use is 'nature', and they are atheists.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pantheist

this is the belief that god is the universe itself.

Originally Posted by ForgottenDream

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pantheist

this is the belief that god is the universe itself.

Id est, atheism.

Xei: You remind me of one of those old upper class women with the monocle.

lawl I can kind of see where you're coming from in this thread...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pantheist

this is the belief that god is the universe itself.

As Scatterbrain said; pantheism does not really exist (the term is not uncontroversial, I should perhaps point out). It is another worthless synonym for atheism.

People who call themselves pantheists are at best semantic, at worst very confused and deluded.

Originally Posted by Xei

lawl I can kind of see where you're coming from in this thread...

As Scatterbrain said; pantheism does not really exist (the term is not uncontroversial, I should perhaps point out). It is another worthless synonym for atheism.

People who call themselves pantheists are at best semantic, at worst very confused and deluded.

the same can be said about anything and everything (confused and deluded).

Howso? Science is steadily exposing many truths.

Originally Posted by Xei

Howso? Science is steadily exposing many truths.

true, but there's more to life than just science. at least for me. for example music, which can be considered delusional, or art, friends, family. all these can be considered delusional depending on your views, including science itself. i'm not against science or reason by any means, there's just many truths, not just one, or at least many ways to look at it. looking at the universe as god is one of those ways to look at it, and it's not just giving something a name, it comes with the belief that we are an aspect of the universe, therefore we are in essence god/nature itself.

edit: don't get me wrong, it doesn't mean i believe in nonsense like the supernatural or paranormal.

I don't think any of those things you listed are really 'delusions' as such. They are solid concepts in our minds; I don't take science so far as to say that the mind does not exist.

But I still can't appreciate the necessity of pantheism. Using the word 'God' to mean 'reality' is totally pointless in my eyes...

You say it bears connotations that we are an aspect of the universe, but again... I see no distinction between this and naturalism. It seems a rather obvious fact to me, nothing worth mentioning..?

This is what I mean by people just being confused... pantheism is just as cold as nihilism, but wrapped up in warm language, I think. Unless you could explain what you mean a little clearer... that is my position.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't think any of those things you listed are really 'delusions' as such. They are solid concepts in our minds; I don't take science so far as to say that the mind does not exist.

But I still can't appreciate the necessity of pantheism. Using the word 'God' to mean 'reality' is totally pointless in my eyes...

You say it bears connotations that we are an aspect of the universe, but again... I see no distinction between this and naturalism. It seems a rather obvious fact to me, nothing worth mentioning..?

This is what I mean by people just being confused... pantheism is just as cold as nihilism, but wrapped up in warm language, I think. Unless you could explain what you mean a little clearer... that is my position.

i see your point, i guess you would have to be delusional in the first place to think that anything i mentioned is delusional lol. i meant to say pointless, but for some reason delusional is what came to mind which is incorrect, thanks for pointing that out. i guess we have fairly the same views it's just i was trying to say it's too black and white from theism to atheism, etc. there are subtle differences when using different terms, it seems incomplete to just say i'm an atheist, or i'm a theist. that's all i meant. as for different truths, what i meant by that is, there is a truth to music, friends, etc, and there is also the delusion of truth that we make up. music, and friends physically exist, but that's not the reason why we like them, it's the "idea" of music, and the mindset that comes with listening to it, and the feeling of happiness that comes when there are good friends around.