Religion Has Maciamo proved that God doesn't exist?

Can somebody prove that he does exist? ( for the rest I won't go much into the thread not, maybe later, but im just wondering about anybody can prove that he does exist... please don't feel you have to response on this post because it's to short for this thread, but maybe you can think about it)
 
Maciamo said:
We can of course speculate that something similar to human emotions could exist in an "immaterial form", for which we have not the slighest proof or even sign of existence. This is really far-fetched, and personally I think that aliens or fantastic creatures in all their forms are extremely more likely to exist than "immateriality". Even if "immateriality" exist, it wouldn't increase the likelihood of an omnipotent/creator god.
Click to expand...
This is bit I need. Since you concede that it's possible (if extremely unlikely) that information can exist in an immaterial form, we can't establish the truth of the first premise with absolute certainty - so we can't claim the proof. But it might still count as a scientific theory, if we can agree that a personal god 'contains' information. What do you think?
 
Dutch Baka said:
Can somebody prove that he does exist?
Click to expand...

From an individual point of view, existence is merely what we can sense or exist in our mind. Therefore, if the "idea of god" exist in our mind, this "idea" does exist (but that doesn't prove that it refers to something outside our mind).

We are going a bit too much into Descartes's philosophy here. Personally I think it is both ridiculous and useless to limit existence to what is in our mind, as our senses only "partially fool us". Of course our eyes and hear are not perfect, and only sense a limited range of signals, but what they sense does exist (of course, we could still argue that our brain misinterpret the information received...).
 
In the strictest materialistic sense- proving that God exists scientifically means producing some measure of material proof- which has not been done. However there is no material proof of non-existence- which would be rather impossible. Proof of the existence of God is available, but it is neither objective or material- and would not be considered scientific at all. The fact that according to a graph posted in an earlier thread, nearly 90% of the global population believes in the existence of God (or gods if you look at the methodology) is some indication of how prevalent this belief is and how persuasive the subjective, non-scientific proof is.
 
At me such "feeling", that I already saw this "film"... many times...:mad: It probably "hobby" - to deny the God, demanding the proof of his existence from "believers (?!)"... Such "incorrect" statement of a question...:note:
When I offered (the blessing the modern saved up knowledge allow to do it "without effort") to people specifying questions about confirmations of existence of the God to tell to me about the reasons of process (for example) origin and becoming of our solar system except for the general phrases from the school program (or scientific editions) about the theory (!) of similar process I heard nothing in the answer, that would give real (not theoretical) a picture of the reasons and systems of origin. They came to a conclusion, that all their knowledge there are only reflections of the knowledge of someone's theories received by them, reflections, etc.(.......)
Then I asked them, that you want from "believing" people, whose choice is caused only by that they in it trust (!!!) and all... What for you ask them about The one who about itself does not ask them (?)... The god never spoke people - " tell to me about me "... He only spoke - " trust in me and follow my laws "... And through "wisdom" of these laws - "Belief" became a part of a life of people... ( ) And, as a rule, when people thought of that "believing" people only trust in "It" adherents " denyings of the God " became little bit "clarified" in the irreconcilable aspiration - " to find out the answer from people which only trust in this God "...
But and for reception of "proofs" of existence of the God to start follows even from correct perusal of the Bible. For today for people - that the "God", that "Lord God" - is not present distinction... First it is necessary to "manage" this book to "read", and then search a"author"...:blush:
 
Maciamo said:
Seeing it this way, I must admit that god, and any gods ever imagined by humans, all exist, as ideas in our minds... But so do dragons, elves, all kinds of aliens and anyone's wildest fantasies. In fact, I do believe that dragons or other fantastic creatures might exist somewhere in the Universe, under different living conditions than on Earth now. It might even be possible to genetically engineer one of those creatures in the future. After all, dinosaurs did exist, and are not so different from the dragons of fantastic movies (well, I admit that our genetically engineered dragon may not throw fire :eek:kashii: ). I am very open minded about the possibilities of the universe. I do believe that an infinity of life beings exist on an infinity of planets somewhere in the infinity of the Universe. But we humans may never reach another of these planets, or if we do, not many of them, given our short life-span and the long distances, because I am more skeptical about light-speed travel...
Click to expand...
What do you mean?
That elves, dragons and the like could have been aliens or something?
Makes me think about String Theory!
 
Well, Power77, you've revived quite an old thread, but I find the subject interesting.

I think the problem with discussing "does God exist", at least for people who grew up in the Western world, is that arguments are often based on the Abrahamic religious concept of a god that is big enough to create a universe full of galaxies and small enough to care who you sleep with. And I think that idea is nonsense. Any god that created the universe would, according to me, have to be outside its creation, so would not be personally involved in the lives of individuals, and we would not be able to ascertain whether such an entity exists.

Could there be other, more personal "gods" that are part of this universe, "eternal" only from a human perspective and interested in being involved in the lives of individuals? My European ancestors certainly seem to have thought so - the Moon Goddess, for example, must obviously have been seen as a part of this universe, but living on a different dimension, so that people only saw an external image in the physical world and needed to enter the world of meditation or dreams to meet the persona behind the physical presence. And it's obvious that many ancient Europeans believed that such Gods and Goddesses existed, and that they could interact with them. Of course, modern material science would set such parameters as to exclude the possibility that such entities could exist, while arguing for the existence of things such as quarks and dark matter, things that cannot be seen but whose existence can be inferred by the believer. I am not quite so quick to believe in quarks and dark matter or quite so quick to dismiss the possibility of the existence of Gods and Goddesses who are part of our universe, which demonstrates how unscientific my mind is. But I do think that the existence of a god that is both transcendental and personal is quite improbable.
 
[h=1]How to Argue That God Does Not Exist
Edited by MrsB, Maluniu, EvilFlame, Ash Furrow and 86 others
[/h]Many zealots are very defensive concerning the nonexistence of god. Often times, an atheist will be verbally challenged simply because of their lack of religious belief. It is at these times when one could raise these questions. However, it should be noted that while proving nonexistence is a logical impossibility, proving existence on the basis of fideism (by faith) is harder still.
http://www.wikihow.com/Argue-That-God-Does-Not-Exist

The Origin of the Universe
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

What Happened Before The Big Bang
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/10/15/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/
 
What´s the origin of all information in the universe?What was first,the information or the function?(ex.DNA,RNA)
 
No, he hasn't.
As long as you do not know how the cosmos was created, these kind of statements have no value.

With respect,
-E-
 
Echetlaeus said:
No, he hasn't.
As long as you do not know how the cosmos was created, these kind of statements have no value.

With respect,
-E-
Click to expand...

So, as long as we don't know how the cosmos was created, it makes more sense to believe that the world was created by an angry Bronze Age sky god? And that humankind is in a fallen state because a snake talked some woman into eating an apple? Yah, that seems logical.
 
Aberdeen said:
So, as long as we don't know how the cosmos was created, it makes more sense to believe that the world was created by an angry Bronze Age sky god? And that humankind is in a fallen state because a snake talked some woman into eating an apple? Yah, that seems logical.
Click to expand...

There are many theories.
As long as Physics cannot explain what was before the Bing Bang, it is not irrational to believe that a supreme power may exist.

This supreme power may not be the God of the Bible or other earthly religions.
 
Echetlaeus said:
There are many theories.
As long as Physics cannot explain what was before the Bing Bang, it is not irrational to believe that a supreme power may exist.

This supreme power may not be the God of the Bible or other earthly religions.
Click to expand...
Yes it is irrational to believe in anything just because science can't explain yet. Why do you need to believe, can't you say "I just don't know"?
 
LeBrok said:
Yes it is irrational to believe in anything just because science can't explain yet. Why do you need to believe, can't you say "I just don't know"?
Click to expand...

I just say that some people have the need to believe, and my point is that as long as I cannot prove otherwise, I have no problem with the possible existence of a supreme being.

Can I prove the existence or non-existance of a "god"? Absolutely NO.

To my understanding it will take a long, really long time---I doubt that it will happen though---for the scientists to explain the beginning of everything.

Some scientists even believe that we live in a 2D world, and what we see as 3D is just a projection. Don't ask me more, I think it was an article in Nature two or three months ago.
 
Echetlaeus said:
I just say that some people have the need to believe, and my point is that as long as I cannot prove otherwise, I have no problem with the possible existence of a supreme being.

Can I prove the existence or non-existance of a "god"? Absolutely NO.

To my understanding it will take a long, really long time---I doubt that it will happen though---for the scientists to explain the beginning of everything.

Some scientists even believe that we live in a 2D world, and what we see as 3D is just a projection. Don't ask me more, I think it was an article in Nature two or three months ago.
Click to expand...

Please refer to the article that Angela mentioned. It offers and explanation as to why we seem to have a need to attribute intentionality to what may be simply natural processes, so that we also have a need to imagine an actor behind those events where there may in fact be none.
 
Aberdeen said:
Please refer to the article that Angela mentioned. It offers and explanation as to why we seem to have a need to attribute intentionality to what may be simply natural processes, so that we also have a need to imagine an actor behind those events where there may in fact be none.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is true that humans have the tendency to create gods, nonetheless this does not prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being.
Modern Physics is based on quanta and strings, which tend to describe the world better than before.

It may be true that the world works this way, but theories have changed many times. Hopefully research will lead to a better understanding of things.

Probabilistic as the world may be, it should have a beginning. This very beginning is the ultimate question ... I like to call it πρώτη αρχή.

P.S. You are about to become Marquess soon :p
 
Last edited:
Echetlaeus said:
I just say that some people have the need to believe, and my point is that as long as I cannot prove otherwise, I have no problem with the possible existence of a supreme being.

Can I prove the existence or non-existence of a "god"? Absolutely NO.
Click to expand...
As long as we can't disprove the negative let's believe in Santa Clause and Fairies too, and whatever you can imagine, right? In this case everybody should imagine a god he/she likes and believe in it. Why do we need to fallow someone else imagination in form of organized religion?

Someone wise said long time ago, that if you invented something and want people to believe in it, the proof is on you.


Some scientists even believe that we live in a 2D world, and what we see as 3D is just a projection. Don't ask me more, I think it was an article in Nature two or three months ago.
Click to expand...
Not really. Just because one can imagine something it doesn't mean one needs to believe in it. Scientists, and people in general, can imagine possibilities, and when it seams plausible they can call it hypothesis. It is not even a theory yet.
Now, when you understand the belief as the way devotees believe then certainly these scientists don't believe in holographic universe. When you understand a belief as something being remotely possible then yes they believe.
 
Yes, you can believe in whatever you want as long as someone cannot disapprove that belief.
If scientific procedures have shown that this belief ain't true, then it is not wise to believe in that anymore.

My point is that she/he, as a human being, has the right to believe, and some people with different opinion without proof, should not fight them for what their beliefs are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 47439 times.

Back
Top