God's Existence

[dairygirl4u2c]

that other thread had a lot of "god has to exist" stuff in it.
i'd be willing to entertain the idea that he doesn't, like many here apparently would be willing to do. and i don't think it's as irrational as saying 'can a circle be a square' or something like that.
so i decided to post this to see if there's more insight to be gathered.
plus i had been wanting to edit this some, to be a little more lenient to the "god can be proven' crowd.

[quote]Depends on the level of proof you want, and how you define God. But ultimately, if you define God in any meaningful terms, or with substantial level of proof, God's existence cannot be proven.

incidentally. I believe in God's existence, but I don't claim it's definitive proof.
the act of faith -- of its very nature -- involves man's free choice libero arbitrio


CAUSATION
everything we know has a cause. but we also have to recognize that we don't come across God phenomenon everyday, so to speak. if the first cause is God, wouldn't he required a cause too? God doesn't necessarily solve the problem.
if God can just be, the universe can just be.


Atheists often talk about how the spaghetti monster disproves God, cause we could have been formed by it. This is not analogous completely, but it makes an important point. That an intelligence made is is reasonable, that something specific like spaghetti did is random. But, it's still the point that it's arbitrary, like the spaghetti monster, to say intelligence is necessary.

Now, It does make sense say something caused us. If you see a bike rolling, that something pushed it makes sense. Ultimately this analogy does not necessarily fly either though, because a bike is specific, whereas the world is something that could have always been. (if god can alway have been, the world could always have been) we'd expect something specific to have a specific cause, but in something that's unique unto itself like existence as we know it, that isn't necessarily expected- we know bikes roling have causes cause we see it all the time it's the only thing to conclude at that level of specificity, and they're (creation v. bike) different things that could reasonably be treated different per anaysis.
So we have the spaghetti monster on the one side and the bike on the other, ha.

In broader terms, there is the argument a fortiori. if there's an unending chain of events back in time, something must have made that chian- if existance is, even if infinte, it has to be here as an effect of something.
but, as i was saying, not necessarily. If that can just be, so can God.

Some people insist there's "something" that just "has" to be. As Ronald Knox put it, you can add as many links and as large as you like to a chain, but at some point you have to have a peg to hang it on, reiterating the point of an infinite chain argument. Some people like to hang their argument on this "thing" that must just be.
it seems like this peg, or this thing that must just be regardless of existance is just extra fluff that theists use to say he must exist. cause if God an just be, existance can just be.
to say soemthing more needs to be is not necessary. ockham's razor, the simplest solution is prob right.
and even if there was oemthing more, it does't have to be God so much as the fabric of existance. it's just there and just is. that seems like part of existance to me, not soemthing separate from it. to use the metaphor, the peg is part of existance not soemthing separate from it.
and you can call it God, if it's even allowed to be argued that this just being is needed (which i don't think you can do) but that's not saying much.

now, the big bang actually helps verify the dogma of God's existence as certainty, because we stop talking about the never ending chain as much. But was there anything before the big bang? We shouldn't assume so, and if scientists are allowed to make presumptive deductions like this based on observations as a degree of proof, inductive while not deductive, the theologian should be able to too.
So, we see empiracally that there was a first cause, the big bang. if the big bang just happened as it were, is the first particles or group of particles that pushed the next ones then God? Or if it was random chance, is that God? To make God's existence mean anything, that is not God. If you define God as some abstract first cause, you're not defining him as much if it could just be a bunch of particles or random chance, or whatever.
-for example- imagine a 'primordial soup', just a bunch of things swirling around- that of it's nature just explodes producing the big bang. or some other ticking time bomb sceniario, that just is- like God can just be. or, the big bang wasn't the beginning absolutely, but really just the beginning from somewhere or sometime else considering dimensions etc.
-with a qualification. primordial soup, etc, has a sense of not being most intuitive. 'something about a ticking time bomb-ish scenario has too much inferential effect that something set it to explode'- 'even if something could just exist, like God- it's too much to expect a ticking time bomb would'--- this is a strong intuitive point for sure. and i think it does deserve respect, regardless of my thesis in this essay.
-if God can just be... then particles and those other scenarios can just be, or random chance can just occur.
So if particles etc and random chance are possible, then God's existence isn't proven. Even if we assume nothing before the big bang.


you'd just be stomping your foot saying that a first cause, ie God, can just be without a cause, cause he's the first cause and can't have a cause before him. it's like a leap of logic that's not necessarily warrnated or based on anything we've seen as humans empiracally.

definitive proof would be proving either logically that there was a first cause, beyond particles and random chance. proving that there wasn't anything before the big bang that went back on and on. as of now we just have evidence for God. like if you see a dark spot, you have evidence that it's a shadow and thus would need an object causing it, but it could also be a natural dark spot where the sun don't shine. (no i'm not saying in anyone's behind.....) i think it'd be techincally inductive proof not deductive.


ORDER AND INTELLIGENCE
same for intelligence. that there is order to hte universe doesn't prove God.
First, you're arguing that something complex, ie existance, was created by something that would be presumably even mroe complex?
where'd complexity of God come? if God complexity can just be, the universe can.
ockham's razor. The simplest solution would be the most probable.
and even if you conceive of God as nearly pure simplicity, it's still in principle if not more complex in the sense of complicated nature, existence is more complex in the sense that God is just an extra layer. again, ockham's razor.

that order could just be could mean that order just happened to occur, if we assume random chance and particles.
if you define intelligence as order then sure, but that's not saying much. you have to give the intelligence consciousness to mean anything substantial.

same with somethign complex like a watch. it's just proof, even more proof, but not exhaustive. when you look at something complex like a watch, it didn't spring up out of nowhere. it got here as an end product of earth formation, and evolution, and trial and errors and all that. if it did just spring up, you'd have something.
if life can form from elementary particles, that would eventially give rise to evolution to complexity.



but, order, to the magnitude that exists with humans etc, tends to be almost miraclous to some. i don't think it's unreasonable to argue that order is so complex as to be almost miracalous, and put it in the proof for God category. but, i think that it could have just evolved to what it is supports the no definitive proof argument. the ultimate question remains, that why would something complex require something even more complex?

high order is indicative of "irreducible complexity" see wikipedia, and so inteligent consciousness but not definitively.

----
as a side note... a word on presumptive proof. if a population who has a distinguishing characteristic... say they grow third arms. and the only thing that makes those people different than the population at large is that they believe in God, then it's very good "proof". the flaw in modern atheism is that they say "their mind could be growing the arm and it's related to their belief but that doesn't indicate God". this is true, it's not definitively proven, but the atheistic mindset is not the most obvious. when you see a population, it's the distinguishing thing itself. you could argue the belief is distinguishing, but when something apparently outside occurs, indicates an outside entity, on its face anyway, that's most plausible.
i never hear of flesh growing when it shouldn't on atheists as it does on theists etc. maybe cancer remissions, maybe.
anyway, you could argue that miracles are proof, but, still, why would something complex ie miracles require something even more complex, ie God? This goes with the argument about about order and how it's almost miraclulous…. It's not definitive proof but at least with miracles, it's much closer.
www.nderf.org another presumpive indication of God without explanation.
**remember: you don't presume the least obvious explanation
----

"God as existance". a catharisis so theists can certainly claim God exists. no one would deny existance, rational people anyway. and you can call that God if you want, but it's not saying much

-as a final point, as a theist, from the order and causation sections respectively -- i do use the following for proof og God's existence, in the sense of 'evidence' but not in the sense of 'definitive proof', given how intuitive they are: the 'creation eg people are too complex', and 'ticking time bomb, needs something to set it to explode- that's just too intuitive'[/quote]

Edited July 20, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatherineM]

You should see the movie "Expelled."

[Saint Therese]

I agree.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1925268' date='Jul 20 2009, 12:59 AM']that other thread had a lot of "god has to exist" stuff in it.
i'd be willing to entertain the idea that he doesn't, like many here apparently would be willing to do. and i don't think it's as irrational as saying 'can a circle be a square' or something like that.
so i decided to post this to see if there's more insight to be gathered.
plus i had been wanting to edit this some, to be a little more lenient to the "god can be proven' crowd.[/quote]

The existence of God can be proven if you want it to be proven.

If you don't want it to be proven, it will not be proven.

You can spend life in one camp or the other, read a lot of books and make a lot of arguments, but in the end you're as dead as the countless others who spent their lives asking and debating all these same questions. Good luck with that. Let us know when you find out where love comes from.

[Oliver]

The majority of this is similar to Richard Dawkins arguments. I'll post my bit later.

[Hassan]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1925595' date='Jul 20 2009, 11:51 AM']The existence of God can be proven if you want it to be proven.

If you don't want it to be proven, it will not be proven.[/quote]


No. Proof is not epistemically contingent.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Oliver' post='1925607' date='Jul 20 2009, 12:12 PM']The majority of this is similar to Richard Dawkins arguments. I'll post my bit later.[/quote]

maybe similar.
his idea of dealing with miracles, is to say 'they did a study wehre those who were prayed over had no difference than those who didn't'. never mind all the other arguments tehre. or the other studies that showed different.

and he actually would argue the spaghetti monster thing. he didn't make the distinctions needed like i did- it just made him look bad.

and he'd just rehash old things like 'what caused God?', without going more in depth.

other than that, dawkins is mostly just full of too much puffery and vanity and venom. that's how he gets his book so full.



i do remember one thing he said about religion though (not God per se) that i found interesting. he said religion to man is like a moth to fire- the only reason the moth does what it's doing, is cause it's always gone to light successfully. and he says the only reason humans go to religion, is cause they listen to their parents wrongly. now, the parents are teaching these thigns for a reason though. it could be argued either way, depending on one's predispositions. but, it is an intersting analogy.

Edited July 21, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[tinytherese]

I really enjoyed reading The Case for Christ. The only other book that has taught me more is the Bible. I'd like to read The Case for Creator as well someday.

[philothea]

For most people the case for or against the existence of God cannot be definitively proven.

For some, rare people, the existence of God is a tangible fact. And many of those people -- patriarchs, apostles, and saints -- have written down what they witnessed and experienced, along with a lot of accompanying insight about the meaning of creation, and how life is meant to be lived.

No doubt many unknown mystics have also experienced God as an undeniable fact.

So, the question is -- if you're one of us ordinary folk who have the blessing of seeing God only through faith: do you embrace the available testimony, and act on it (and see where it leads) or do you instead choose to do disbelieve and do nothing?

[Oliver]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1925915' date='Jul 21 2009, 03:02 AM']maybe similar.
his idea of dealing with miracles, is to say 'they did a study wehre those who were prayed over had no difference than those who didn't'. never mind all the other arguments tehre. or the other studies that showed different.[/quote]

He went into alot more depth then just studies. He attempted to show miracles can't exist by saying anything is possible and gave an example of a marble statue of mary waving where all the particles would by 'chance' move all at once to create the effect and so in his logic because it was pure chance a maricle cannot exist. However he destroy's his own argument because if anything is possible, then why isn't a miracle possible?

He then goes onto probability and finds out the odds for stuff and very stupidly makes the statement that life existed by a 1/1,000,000 odds where instead it is much higher, even to the point where you could argue an intelligent creator/design was necessary. This then questions the time it took his non-thiest evolution to take place, because with his logic for life to exist this complicated (such as humans) it would of taken MUCH longer then 4.5 billion years.

I could go on explaining how science points to a creator and morals etc but I won't. Both theism and atheism arguments just seem to go circles around each other.

Does my belief in God come from reading several atheist/theist books and logically trying to find proof of God? Defaintely not.

My belief in God comes from my experiences in life and that he has answered many of my prays. My mother who had suffered from synus pain every winter for the last 10 years and then going to Lourdes and praying and put holy water on her face and she hasn't suffered from it again. My faith truely strengthed when i went to Medjugorje and felt something truely wonderful there. The only reading that has given me an insight is testimonies and stories from christians, especially from Medjugorje. Some of their stories are soo amazing its puts no doubt in my mind that there is a God.

Anyway that is my bit.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Oliver

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1925846' date='Jul 20 2009, 07:42 PM']No. Proof is not epistemically contingent.[/quote]

I don't know what you mean. There is evidence on both sides of the debate. For the most part, people are convinced by the evidence that supports what they've observed and learned in life. Nobody is unbiased.

[Didacus]

[quote]For those who believe, no explanation is necessary, for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.[/quote]

[Semalsia]

Any imaginable physical thing that happens in the world could always be explained by some potential natural phenomena. Therefore, I think, it is not possible to have any sort of evidence or proof for the existence of God or gods (which necessarily would be non-physical, most would agree) as the other physical explanations would always dominate.

Likewise it would be impossible to disprove God's existence by observing the physical world. And since all we have is the physical world, there's nothing we can say about God.

The above also leads to the conclusion that all religions are and will always be wrong.


[quote]Let us know when you find out where love comes from.[/quote]

How is love any different from lust or hunger, and what does it have to do with the existence of gods?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Oliver' post='1926429' date='Jul 21 2009, 06:32 AM']He went into alot more depth then just studies. He attempted to show miracles can't exist by saying anything is possible and gave an example of a marble statue of mary waving where all the particles would by 'chance' move all at once to create the effect and so in his logic because it was pure chance a maricle cannot exist. However he destroy's his own argument because if anything is possible, then why isn't a miracle possible?

He then goes onto probability and finds out the odds for stuff and very stupidly makes the statement that life existed by a 1/1,000,000 odds where instead it is much higher, even to the point where you could argue an intelligent creator/design was necessary. This then questions the time it took his non-thiest evolution to take place, because with his logic for life to exist this complicated (such as humans) it would of taken MUCH longer then 4.5 billion years.

I could go on explaining how science points to a creator and morals etc but I won't. Both theism and atheism arguments just seem to go circles around each other.

Does my belief in God come from reading several atheist/theist books and logically trying to find proof of God? Defaintely not.

My belief in God comes from my experiences in life and that he has answered many of my prays. My mother who had suffered from synus pain every winter for the last 10 years and then going to Lourdes and praying and put holy water on her face and she hasn't suffered from it again. My faith truely strengthed when i went to Medjugorje and felt something truely wonderful there. The only reading that has given me an insight is testimonies and stories from christians, especially from Medjugorje. Some of their stories are soo amazing its puts no doubt in my mind that there is a God.

Anyway that is my bit.[/quote]

well said.
he did 'attempt' other arguments. things like the crying mary statue, or the rarity of life etc, just made him look bad. they hardly qualify for arguments. that mary would cry, is either a hoax, or it's very closely and surely a miracle, and all that stuff you said. and the rarity thing, is possible as i argued in my essay- but it's too intitively, and arguably logically, far fetched to think God's not involved. maybe i should include the 'logically far fetched' thing. i'd argue it's still not proven even if far fetched, though. i'd classify this as at least somewehre between plausibly and reasonably far fetch, see. if it were less than plauisble, the argument is still possible to say God isn't proven, but it's hanging by a thread.

maybe a theist who disagrees with me would argue it's not even plausible, and thus proven. that's an interesting point, leaving it merely 'theretical' that God wouldn't exist. (though it's still not quite the same as asying a square is a triangle etc)
yeah the miracles things is hard to beat- say it's all mass mind control? suggession?
it's like all these things are staring atheists in the face, and they insist on keeping hteir heads in the sand. or certain hard to prove miracles happen to theists and not atheists? again, it's almost astounding they wouldn't believe. i've always argued that. maybe i didn't drive it home enough above, though.

i guess these are good insights that you caused us to draw. thanks.

Edited July 22, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

some scientists like to theorize that the universe is like an accordian- expanding and collapsing. i guess this could be thrown into the alternative to God of the big bang, along with primordial soup and/or a ticking time bomb scenario. ie, it's just as plausible to say an accordian situation exists wihtout cause, as it is to say God does without cause.