Where To Start On The Existence Of God

[Antlerman]

No. Wait. The gods could simply reveal themselves to all people simultaneously removing the need for this "guesswork" once and for all. A uniform message delivered personally to all people even newborns. Personal experience and the need for "research" doesn't even enter the equation then.

 

mwc

 

To be fair you should also consider the possibility that God may have revealed himself to us in the form of signs, reasoning, or a universal message embeded in us.

This comes to one of the major problems with this question of considering the existence of some said God. Firstly, how is that a conclusion about God was ever even arrived at historically? In other words, since it's not based on empirical data and the interpretation that certain things are "signs" point to the evidence of God, where did the idea of God come from in the first place?

 

The rationale that this God that man somehow has knowledge of without direct evidence is known through "signs", comes full circle back to what I said before. That unexplained phenomena historically was explained with the supernatural. Now that we have science as a tool of explanation, where are these signs today??? The types of signs I see are typical through the world’s belief systems and take the forms of seeing the face of the Virgin Mary in the water stains on concrete pillars, or perhaps Arabic letters spelling Mohammad on the side of a Gold Fish? These signs always without exception have a rational explanation - unless of course you are using them as something to confirm a belief.

 

So these purported "miracles" attesting to so called "messengers" from this presumed God? Goodness, just look at how people "see" things today! Now factor in the heaping on of myth to someone, somewhere, at some time saw something! What you have is not evidence of anything. What you have is a testimony to the strong desire of humans to believe in something. This is not a sign of a God. It's evidence of man desiring to believe. It’s evidence of psychology.

[Grandpa Harley]

It's usually something showing the name of Allah in arab script, not the Prophet...

[Ouroboros]

or to the fact that the elephant existence has very low probability

Or the fact that you were born by your parents has an extremely low probability.

[Grandpa Harley]

or to the fact that the elephant existence has very low probability

Or the fact that you were born by your parents has an extremely low probability.

 

The probability of one specific sperm meeting and fertilising a specific ovum, and carrying to term is approximately the same as two oxygen atoms spontaneously fusing into one atom of gold. Each one of us defies the odds just by existing. However, that is no proof of a creator, just that remote chances occur all the time...

[Ouroboros]

or to the fact that the elephant existence has very low probability

Or the fact that you were born by your parents has an extremely low probability.

 

The probability of one specific sperm meeting and fertilising a specific ovum, and carrying to term is approximately the same as two oxygen atoms spontaneously fusing into one atom of gold. Each one of us defies the odds just by existing. However, that is no proof of a creator, just that remote chances occur all the time...

And then add on the probability of the parents having their parents and so on. I wonder if someone ever tried to see what the chances are that one person have the exact grand parents in 10 generations as they have? I'm sure the it's extremely unlikely, probably on the level of the probability of abiogenesis. But yet, people are born. Just like people still win on lotto. Probability is in my opinion a very bad argument for religion. Probability means that there is at least 1 (one) chance, ever so small, but yet there is one chance, and that is the chance that you are currently looking at after the fact. So the probability has collapsed into 1:1 when one looks at the chain of events after they're all done.

[Iyyob]

By guessing? We're lab rats in a game show?

 

that is completely not my intention and it is against my faith

 

i believe we are put on this earth to prove ourselves and be able to differentiate and therefore be treated differently. we are all unique because we have the freedom of choice and therefore the ability to be different. it is like two people working in the same company. one chooses to work hard and one chooses to be lazy. they choose to differentiate themselves and therefore they both should have different images in the company in terms of rewards, salary, position, complements ... etc. you cannot call those two employees lab rats owned by the management.

[Grandpa Harley]

EDITED - arrant nonsense from me... sorry

 

"you cannot call those two employees lab rats owned by the management."

 

Specious argument... Seems human will is powerful enough to overcome Godly plans... I maintain, the 'testing' you put forward makes us simply Lab rats to the creator. Life is a behavioural maze, replete with blind alleys and poison baits. BTW, it may be 'against your faith', but its simple double think pretty basal to religions. I'd suggest some form of deprogramming from your cult... but I'm deluded by Shaitan, of course...

 

Now stop making non points and spouting medieval superstitious crap and go bother some Christians or similar... they at least buy your snake oil insofar as they hold there is a concerned creator who cares enough to be down home nasty...

[EdwardAbbey]

It is possible that God exists and it is possible that God does not exists.

 

It is arrogance to reach a conclusion about God and never reshape this conclusion as you progress and learn from life and reflecting on life.

 

Instead of indulging in an endless debate on God's existence, we should focus our energies to a debate on how to research the existence of God.

 

Then let everybody form his own beliefs based on this research and life experience.

 

But more importantly, is for both sides to acknowledge that they must keep researching by bringing fresh ideas and new life experiences.

 

Or they fall back into arrogance.

 

The starting point for the argument for the existence of God should start with the assumption that such a God exists and then go from there. In this case, I am assuming you are arguing for the existence of the God of the bible correct?

 

That said, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim for such a creature. Lay out your evidence based on logical conclusions to prove your case. If you cannot then BibleGod is non-existent. Personal experiences, a feeling in your heart, an NDE or whatever, is not evidence for the existence of God or any God for that matter.

[Grandpa Harley]

Allah... I think you'll find it's Allah

[Legion]

I think True Guidance decided it was a mistake to come here. I kinda doubt he'll be back.

[Saviourmachine]

By guessing? We're lab rats in a game show?

 

that is completely not my intention and it is against my faith

 

i believe we are put on this earth to prove ourselves and be able to differentiate and therefore be treated differently. we are all unique because we have the freedom of choice and therefore the ability to be different. it is like two people working in the same company. one chooses to work hard and one chooses to be lazy. they choose to differentiate themselves and therefore they both should have different images in the company in terms of rewards, salary, position, complements ... etc. you cannot call those two employees lab rats owned by the management.

 

Okay, suppose there is a god. I'm playing the devil and her two advocates now. Suppose it is late. The night has fallen. It is dark outside, some stars twinkle like the eyes of your girlfriends. Somewhere behind the stars, or between the molecules in a fourth dimension, or in the flame coincidently hovering about my candle, there is god. It is quite insane to think like that, but suppose it is a sentient being. It would be quite a coincidence of course, quite anthropocentric. As if we do not only have a homunculus in our brain, but there is also one outside. Suppose that the thing is quite talkative too. Ah, no, in that case we all would have heard it babble. Okay, suppose then that it hides behind some helium atoms whenever it gets the chance. Yes, I think we can start here. Or perhaps it is quite a sneaky bastard, that does not want to be measured. In that case all tests would be fruitless, appleless, bananaless. The fun would disappear if the thing wasn't like that, so yeah, let us suppose it is such a fluid bastard. Now, I'm out of ideas. I think I like this world without the thing, ITILTWWTT. God? I had an overdose of god. Because the hobbit I describe is quite funny. The entity that was carved onto my six spare brain layers was some nasty creature. You know, remember some nightmare. Something big, ugly. It had also a split personality. The sudden transition of jehovah to jesus had some mayor consequences for my brain patterns. If I tell those experiences to my fellow atheists in this more or less atheistic country they are quite astonished that such things are possible. I still like to talk in unfamiliar tongues. It is like making weird movements hearing Rammstein or fill in what energetic stuff you are listening to. You feel free. Yes, I feel free, very free. Considering my past, I think what you have in mind is some mental prison. But anyway, show us the way. Oh, omniscient being, where do I have to start?

[Thurisaz]

It is possible that God exists and it is possible that God does not exists.

 

A God, yes. Even plenty of them.

The (abrahamic) gawd, no. That one is perfectly impossible (and fortunately so).

[Thurisaz]

they said about earth being flat .................. both religious and nonreligious at some point in history

 

The shape of the earth can be examined. A supernatural entity (per definitionem outside the reach of science) cannot.

 

Unless you know a way.

[Thurisaz]

To be fair you should also consider the possibility that God may have revealed himself to us in the form of signs, reasoning, or a universal message embeded in us.

 

Considering the countless religions in this world, this deity must have been either incompetent or completely apathetic regarding the question "how many people believe in me?". Do you agree?

[dr_funkenstein]

It is possible that God exists and it is possible that God does not exists.

Indeed. It is also possible that square circles exist. Oh wait a minute...

It is arrogance to reach a conclusion about God and never reshape this conclusion as you progress and learn from life and reflecting on life.

I'd like you to name me one - just one - example of something that might happen in my life or yours that would cause me to rethink my belief.

While you're doing that, I'll begin thinking of some possible ways that square circles might exist.

Oh wait - was that too arrogant?

Instead of indulging in an endless debate on God's existence, we should focus our energies to a debate on how to research the existence of God.

Then let everybody form his own beliefs based on this research and life experience.

I'll get right on that - just as soon as I figure out how to research the existence of square circles. I know there must be a way to prove conclusively if they exist or not, I just know it!

But more importantly, is for both sides to acknowledge that they must keep researching by bringing fresh ideas and new life experiences.

Yes - clearly research is the key! Some ideas, though they might APPEAR to be self-refuting (like square circles for examples) in reality are just elusive, and you just need to spend thousands of man-hours on research!

Or they fall back into arrogance.

Indeed. You know I hate those arrogant sons-of-bitches who keep insisting that a square circle simply cannot exist. I mean... have they been to every corner of the universe? Do they know everything? No! So how do they know that they don't exist?

 

Arrogant bastards.

[Thackerie]

After about 20 years of trying to find god, I've lost interest and given up. If he wants to reveal himself, he knows where to find me.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Thinking True Mis-Guidance'd fled these environs....

 

Anytime you face an allah-ite with most of the logical pie, one that tastes good, but they cannot digest, they usually leave..

 

Funny to hear the folks from allah.r.gonna.be.all.over.you.dhimmitudes.org carp and 'splain *their* versions. "MY diety is OK, you screwlooses need tightening.."

 

I guess I'd rather be watching tanning sunkissed heavenly bodies of all sorts out on the river now, rather than wondering if allahbot can fix his own problems..

 

kFL

[Grandpa Harley]

There's been a lot of Islam-o-spam over the past six months to a year, mostly coming from from Turkish sources.

 

One of the bigger worries in the midst of the EU is that Turkey is getting less and less secular.

[Guest Aryeh]

It is possible that God exists and it is possible that God does not exists.

 

It is arrogance to reach a conclusion about God and never reshape this conclusion as you progress and learn from life and reflecting on life.

 

Instead of indulging in an endless debate on God's existence, we should focus our energies to a debate on how to research the existence of God.

 

Then let everybody form his own beliefs based on this research and life experience.

 

But more importantly, is for both sides to acknowledge that they must keep researching by bringing fresh ideas and new life experiences.

 

Or they fall back into arrogance.

 

Where do we start? You start with the number 1.

 

I've uploaded a proof of God's existence on youtube at:

 

and on Godtube at: http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?view...0eea9e4fcf8f36b

 

Please, pass the word about this proof video, share it with your friends.

[Astreja]

I've got better things to do than watch YouTube. Please summarize your so-called "proof" in point form. Also explain why you think that your proof validates the god of the Bible, but not the various gods of other religions.

[Thurisaz]

I've uploaded a proof of God's existence on youtube at:

 

So where's the "proof"? The only proof I see in your video, morontheist, is that you move the goalposts such that (once the viewer accepts their positions) your claim appears to be true. Too bad that there's no reason to assume that the posts can only be set up where you want them.

 

"God" != "1" (automatically, for everyone). That may be what you think, but speak only for yourself and your morontheist cultist buddies.

 

Dismissed.

 

Nice try.

[WilliamFWN]

It is possible that God exists and it is possible that God does not exists.

 

It is arrogance to reach a conclusion about God and never reshape this conclusion as you progress and learn from life and reflecting on life.

 

Instead of indulging in an endless debate on God's existence, we should focus our energies to a debate on how to research the existence of God.

 

Then let everybody form his own beliefs based on this research and life experience.

 

But more importantly, is for both sides to acknowledge that they must keep researching by bringing fresh ideas and new life experiences.

 

Or they fall back into arrogance.

So what is a "god" exactly as I'm still curious about that part. One should start with a clear definition of something before one moves on to researching it. If you can define "god" clearly and without semantic garble, I'll be pleased (some may note that I wrote something similar a bit earlier: there still needs to be a clear definition of "god").

[mwc]

It is possible that God exists and it is possible that God does not exists.

 

It is arrogance to reach a conclusion about God and never reshape this conclusion as you progress and learn from life and reflecting on life.

 

Instead of indulging in an endless debate on God's existence, we should focus our energies to a debate on how to research the existence of God.

 

Then let everybody form his own beliefs based on this research and life experience.

 

But more importantly, is for both sides to acknowledge that they must keep researching by bringing fresh ideas and new life experiences.

 

Or they fall back into arrogance.

 

Where do we start? You start with the number 1.

 

I've uploaded a proof of God's existence on youtube at:

 

and on Godtube at: http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?view...0eea9e4fcf8f36b

 

Please, pass the word about this proof video, share it with your friends.

From what I saw (and it took 6 looooooooooong minutes) your "proof" confused "god" (mangoes) with the basket. I therefore posit that there is yet a higher power that is equal to one and your "god" is simply another "mango" as are we all.

 

But, looking at what I just wrote that means that my "higher power" could also be just another "mango" and so I now posit that there is another power beyond that which is equal to one and the previous higher power I mentioned is simply another "mango."

 

Oh, wait. Hmmmm...this is mango thing is harder than I thought it would be. It's much easier when you assume your conclusion is valid before you start your "proof." Let me get back to you.

 

<me walks away mumbling>god is one since we're all mangoes but god must be a mango too since he also exists so something had to have put him in the basket of mangoes so it must be equal to one but then that must exist so it has to be a mango so into the basket it goes...gah!<>

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

It is possible that God exists and it is possible that God does not exists.

Where do we start? You start with the number 1.

It's rare to see Muslims and Christians walk hand in hand. They do it as long the debate is about "God" in general, but when it comes to the details about how to be a believer, well then we'll have war.

 

Aryeh, you do understand that True Guidance is a Muslim, right? So when you're done proving God, then it's up to you to prove Jesus is God too, and for TG to prove Mohammed went to Heaven. Who will win this competition of fiction?

 

And what do you mean with "You start with the numbe 1", I thought you would start with number "3"?

 

--edit--

 

I watched your video and I can only say, junk, pile of crap, you found some little cool mathematical slight of hand and you think you proved God.

 

Lets see, how did you start your argument, you pointed to that one had to believe rather than knowing, because history and science came up empty. Okay. So we start with assuming God.

 

Then you want to prove God by using empty sets and the number 1. Well, I'm not sure what you really meant there, but you basically try to make a mathematical proof based on the First Mover argument. The first problem is, what numbers do you have in the set? Do you know all the numbers, and do you know if the set really have a starting point? If "1" is item 0 in your set, then God was created too, and this set is part of a superset with yet another "1" in it. Hmm.... Maybe the set really is an infinite set in both directions? Why can't it be? Maybe there's isn't any one particular starting point you can call "1"? Then God doesn't exist, and the set is infinite, and we're the "gods", and this is heaven, and we only have one shot at living it. So don't waste it on a fantasy.

[angel.white]

for me I see the argument is still valid without any priori assumptions. That is God may or may not exist.

Anything may or may not exist. Quoted from:http://www.what-the-hec.com/?p=76

"The statement “you can’t disprove a god exists” is definitely true. You can’t. As Bertrand Russell points out, you also cannot disprove the existence of a tea kettle orbiting the earth, for similar reason. The point is, once again, to illustrate where the burden of proof is."

 

I think we should consider how to go about researching the existence of FSM, IPU'S, and the tooth fairy.

Oh my invisible goddess! I was washing my whites and my reds last week, and MY LAUNDRY CAME OUT PINK!

 

Probability is in my opinion a very bad argument for religion. Probability means that there is at least 1 (one) chance, ever so small, but yet there is one chance, and that is the chance that you are currently looking at after the fact. So the probability has collapsed into 1:1 when one looks at the chain of events after they're all done.

No matter how unlikely a chance is, given an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of attempts, it will eventually come to pass.