Must A God Exist?

[laura]

I currently am not athiest. For the sheer hell of it I believe there is a god, but don't know, care to know, and probably never will know anything about this god if he/she/it does exist. Recently I have been wondering if I should become athiest, because like T. H. Huxley, I also agree that it is silly to believe in something that cannot be proven. So I need to know if the existence of a god can be proven almost definitely. So....

 

Some scientists and people have concluded that a god must exist because there is apparently no other way the univererse could have come into existence.

 

Is this true-that there could be no other way-, or is it that there could be another way and our feeble minds just can't think one up?

 

Is any of this really proof?

 

*What's is everyone here's take?*

 

*Does anybody know of any other "proof" that a god must exist?"

[not1not2]

I currently am not athiest. For the sheer hell of it I believe there is a god, but don't know, care to know, and probably never will know anything about this god if he/she/it does exist. Recently I have been wondering if I should become athiest, because like T. H. Huxley, I also agree that it is silly to believe in something that cannot be proven. So I need to know if the existence of a god can be proven almost definitely. So....

 

Some scientists and people have concluded that a god must exist because there is apparently no other way the univererse could have come into existence.

 

Is this true-that there could be no other way-, or is it that there could be another way and our feeble minds just can't think one up?

 

Is any of this really proof?

 

*What's is everyone here's take?*

 

*Does anybody know of any other "proof" that a god must exist?"

 

My take on the matter is that the comprehending mind basically takes its collective sets of data (ie-5 senses, thoughts & emotions) and tries to make a comprehensive working mental model out of it. In order to make the mental model work, the mind uses convenient ideas such as 'God', 'Tao', etc. to explain the untangibles, unknowables & anamolies.

 

The thing is we go on like this without realizing that is happening all the time, so our mind takes it's own premises to be reliable and fully accurate. This is how erroneous belief systems develop and perpetuate themselves. The key here is to become aware of this process and include 'this process' as part of our mental modelling process. This creates a feedback loop which is keeps us continually reflecting, rather than simply falling back into our mental ruts that we've been creating ever since our mental process started functioning. This brings our awareness back to here and now and takes us out of living based of mental extrapolations based on limited information and incomplete analysis.

 

As far as experiences of 'higher' reality, beings and knowings is concerned, the mind can have all manners of experiences which function on different levels. Simple neuro-chemical shifts, induced by various triggers, have the capability of greatly changing the nature of our immediate experiences. Religious practices, intensive work, and other things which involve high level of concentration can trigger these shifts (or are at least correlated with them) as are drugs like LSD, THC and even alcohol to some extent. Music, sex, and other activities can also trigger these shifts, which vary greatly in their nature.

 

IMO, the variety of these experiences in combination with our cognitive and intelligent mental processes interact and may or may not suggest the existence of some Superpowerful 'other' or 'essence' or 'source'.

 

Additionally, experience demonstrates how things do not happen without causes, so one may draw the conclusion that existence had some 'external' or 'previous' cause. However, they may continue with this logic and realize that that cause must have also had a cause. This goes on and on ad infinitum, and basically becomes an infinite regression. This is one of those things that the intelligent mind cannot grasp or come to any satisfactory conclusion about.

 

Anyway, I'll guess I'll end here for now.

 

BTW, check out the elephant analogy of buddhism which demonstrates this idea quite well:

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/lofiversi...php/t22187.html

 

take care

_/\_

[All Gods Fail]

Some scientists and people have concluded that a god must exist because there is apparently no other way the univererse could have come into existence.

 

Is this true-that there could be no other way-, or is it that there could be another way and our feeble minds just can't think one up?

 

Ultimately, for me (a confirmed atheist) it comes down to evidence. There just isn't any convincing evidence that supernatural beings capable of creating and controlling reality exist. If they exist, they don't communicate with us, give any evidence of their existence, or otherwise show themselves to be real.

 

The only 'proof' that gods exist is from human testimony. And I know too much about human memory, perception and psychology to believe that testimony is very reliable.

 

In the end, yes, there very well could be a supreme being out there somewhere, but then again maybe I'm actually that being and just haven't realized it yet.

 

Once you start speculating on what could be, though, you're opening a bottomless can of worms. Every speculation can be countered by another one.

[NorthenSun]

*Does anybody know of any other "proof" that a god must exist?"

 

Your asking this question provides its own answer, which is: There is no proof that God exists. Otherwise, some kind soul would have long ago provided you with a book detailing the logic of this "PROOF". You would have read this book and said to yourself, "Yup, thats right, God exists, there is no need to waste any more time asking this question." You have not been provided with this book because it does not exist.

 

Now other people might provide you with a Bible, or a Koran, or some other religious book and say to you: "Here is the BOOK that provides all the proof you need that God exists." For some people in the world this does provide them with all the proof that they need. But many people remain skeptical, at least to some degree.

 

You are skeptical, you want proof. Sorry it does not exist. But keep on searching if you like. Lots of people like to discuss this topic. You are free to live your life as you choose, unless you believe that the world is wholly materially deterministic. Then you are stuck. However, there is no proof of this either.

[Joyous1]

I think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there may be some sort of god-being.

 

I would offer as an analogy the use of limes by sailors on long sea voyages. Long before scientists had discovered Vitamin C, sailors knew that eating limes prevented scurvy. They didn’t know why, they had no scientific evidence or FDA studies to support the practice; they just knew it worked so they did it.

 

Now we know about vitamin C, a simple daily pill can replace the lime. Most people would still prefer to eat a grapefruit or have a glass of orange juice with breakfast, but either solution works.

 

Although no one has ever been able to prove that praying for a sick person helps them to heal faster, many, many studies indicate that praying will improve the health of the person doing it. The ability to believe in a benevolent higher power promotes health and well being, especially for people who are involved in a community of like-minded believers. People of faith have stronger immune systems, lower blood pressure, and are less likely to experience clinical depression.

 

Like the sailors’ limes, religion helps people stay healthy. No one can say why, but the evidence is clear. Maybe someday someone will find the God-pill that works like Vitamin C. Some people will still prefer to get their MDR of faith in a church community, but the rest of us will all have a better understanding of the human need for faith and a more palatable means of meeting that need.

 

Until then I think it is safe to say there may be some underlying factor to faith, a kind of “god” if you will, that most human beings crave and truly need to achieve optimal physical and mental health. We don’t have the technology yet to explain or define it, but it is probably there.

[Ouroboros]

...

Is this true-that there could be no other way-, or is it that there could be another way and our feeble minds just can't think one up?

My opinion is that we can't even answer that question. We can only observe the natural phenomenon and cause/events in the world, and not beyond (if there is one). So I think that question doesn't have an answer and can not currently be answered.

 

Some cosmologists think there could be multiple universes, and ours is just one out of an infinite number. If that's true, and could be proven, what's next? Can we prove the multi-verse came into existence by a will of a "super-entity" or by "natural" events? And on the story goes...

 

Is any of this really proof?

No. Only postulations and arguments. Even logic have its traps, paradoxes and problems, so not even logic can really be used to completely explain either or. In the end, it's a person choice, and what you feel like. The only thing you can prove or disprove is when someone claims that they know exactly how and what God is. For instance claiming that God is all-powerful and all-benevolent etc, then there are arguments that can be used against it. The only "God" you really can truly believe in is the unknown and undescribable god. Which makes sense, since this supposed God must be beyond our understanding, so if we can't understand him, then we can't claim that we truly know or understand him, otherwise he would not be beyond our understanding.

 

*What's is everyone here's take?*

Many kinds.

 

*Does anybody know of any other "proof" that a god must exist?"

There is no proof either or. And the same goes for the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Choco-God, or the Supreme Cute Bunny.

[Thurisaz]

*What's is everyone here's take?*

 

I choose to believe in the High Gods of the North but don't claim to have any "proof" that isn't of the strictly personal nature.

That said, the big bang is kind of a border where all our understanding ends because all the laws of nature we know don't apply to singularities. Was the bang caused or not, and if yes, by what or by whom? Damned if I know... but then, why would I have to absolutely know for sure what happened back then?

[NorthenSun]

 

Although no one has ever been able to prove that praying for a sick person helps them to heal faster, many, many studies indicate that praying will improve the health of the person doing it. The ability to believe in a benevolent higher power promotes health and well being, especially for people who are involved in a community of like-minded believers. People of faith have stronger immune systems, lower blood pressure, and are less likely to experience clinical depression.

 

 

Soul, your logic is faulty. All you have demonstrated is that there are experiences in nature that are as yet unexplained by science. You have not demonstrated any connection to a 'god'. Of course this does nothing to prove that god does not exist either. But there are many unexplained things in the world. Life would be kind of dull if there was nothing new to discover.

 

And scientists asserted for years that the laws of aerodynamics did not allow for a bumblebee to fly.

I quess the bumblebees never studied law.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I don't have a proof that God does not exist. Taking the totality of religious claims and experience, I find it more plausibly and consistently explained on the assumption that religion is a human invention than on the assumption that god/s exist.

[Ouroboros]

Although no one has ever been able to prove that praying for a sick person helps them to heal faster, many, many studies indicate that praying will improve the health of the person doing it. The ability to believe in a benevolent higher power promotes health and well being, especially for people who are involved in a community of like-minded believers. People of faith have stronger immune systems, lower blood pressure, and are less likely to experience clinical depression.

Actually they have done a thorough scientific test of it. And it proved that "remote" praying had no effect, while praying in the presence of the sick, and laying hands on them improved the healing time. And the explanation could be that the person getting "hand-on" prayer would be more positive about the outcome. There are other studies showing that the attitude of the patient is very important for the healing. It really doesn't matter which faith or what a person believes, just that they have a conviction they will get better, will improve their healing. (positive thinking) This has also been proven in sports and leadership and many other areas, that our attitude and "belief" what's going to happen, gives a better edge.

 

I don't have a proof that God does not exist. Taking the totality of religious claims and experience, I find it more plausibly and consistently explained on the assumption that religion is a human invention than on the assumption that god/s exist.

Yes, I agree with that.

 

Even though there's no proof either or, still the most reasonable and likely conclusion is that a god does not exist, at least not in the common or traditional sense.

 

(Am I starting to sound like Ssel? )

[NotBlinded]

...

Is this true-that there could be no other way-, or is it that there could be another way and our feeble minds just can't think one up?

My opinion is that we can't even answer that question. We can only observe the natural phenomenon and cause/events in the world, and not beyond (if there is one). So I think that question doesn't have an answer and can not currently be answered.

Hi Hans!

 

> My opinion forthcoming<

 

I think we only observe the effects of natural phenomenon, not the causes. So what is to say that the cause is not perfectly natural also? And, if we cannot observe the causes, maybe it is because the cause is in the effect?? What I mean is that there is no outside force causing things. The force is inside the effect, not outside of it.

[NorthenSun]

The only "God" you really can truly believe in is the unknown and undescribable god. Which makes sense, since this supposed God must be beyond our understanding, so if we can't understand him, then we can't claim that we truly know or understand him, otherwise he would not be beyond our understanding.

 

Thats good, I love it.

[NorthenSun]

 

Actually they have done a thorough scientific test of it. And it proved that "remote" praying had no effect, ...

 

I just saw on TV yesterday some group of Christians out to perform this 'experiment' again. People will probably keep this up forever until they can get any kind of result that even remotely supports their position.

[Joyous1]

Soul, your logic is faulty. All you have demonstrated is that there are experiences in nature that are as yet unexplained by science. You have not demonstrated any connection to a 'god'.

 

I don't understand where my logic is faulty.

 

If partaking of limes prevents scurvy, then it is logical to assume that there is something in limes that promotes health even if you don't have the technology to isolate and define Vitamin C.

 

If partaking of religion improves immunity, lowers blood pressure, and prevents depression then it is logical to assume that there is something in religion that promotes health, even if we don't have the technology to isolate or define it.

 

Arguing about whether we can call that thing "god" or not is mere semantics.

 

On the other hand, insisting that we call it God would be silly. We could just as easily call it the Supremely Cute Bunny.

[not1not2]

An interesting take on the subject by a Korean Zen master:

 

After one of the Dharma Teachers was finished with his introductory remarks, he asked those congregated to direct their questions to Zen Master Seung Sahn, Soen Sa Nim. One of the visitors asked if there was a God.

 

Soen Sa answered "If you think God, you have God, if you do not think God, you do not have God."

 

"I think that there is no God. Why do I have God if I think God?"

 

"Do you understand God?"

 

"No, I don't know."

 

"Do you understand yourself?"

 

"I don't know."

 

"You do not understand God. You do not understand yourself. How would you even know if there was a God or not?"

 

"Then, is there a God?"

 

"God is not God, no God is God."

 

"Why is God not God?"

 

Holding up the Zen stick, Soen Sa said "This is a stick, but it is not a stick. Originally, there is no stick. It is the same with God for originally there is no God. God is only name. The same is true of all things in the universe."

 

"Then is there no God?"

 

"The philosopher Descartes said, 'I think therefore I am.' If you do not think, you are not, and so the universe and you are one. This is your substance, the universe's substance, and God's substance. It has no name and no form. You are God, God is you. This is the 'big I,' this is the path, this is the truth. Do you now understand God?"

 

"Yes, I think that there is no God, and I have no God."

 

"If you say that you have no God, I will hit you thirty times. If you say that you do, I will still hit you thirty times."

 

"Why will you hit me? I don't understand. Please explain."

 

"I do not give acupuncture to a dead cow. Today is Tuesday." replied Soen Sa.

 

 

http://www.kwanumzen.com/pzc/oldnewsletter...&aaboutgod.html

[Joyous1]

An interesting take on the subject by a Korean Zen master:

 

I love it!

 

There is no spoon either, btw.

[NorthenSun]

I don't understand where my logic is faulty.

Soul, I took your opening statement "I think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there may be some sort of god-being." to mean that you believed that a 'God" was the explanation for the gap in our understanding of how religious practices seem to have a positive influence on the health of some people. This is the faulty logic of "God of the Gaps" which tries to fill in a lack of scientific explanation with a religious one.

 

However, after reading your post again, I see that you may have meant only that people want to and do use the concept of God as their label for how unexplained events occur, rather than simply saying "unsolved mysteries". Then I would agree with you. If you want to say that "unsolved mysteries" are evidence of god, then I say no, they are only evidence of unsolved mysteries. The mystery may be solved at some future time, but todate, the causes of past mysteries have not turned out to resemble any traditional concept of 'god'.

 

By analogy, the universe appears to be expanding at a rate unexpected and explained by known physical laws. This 'unsolved mystery' probably has some root cause. One could say that a 'god' is the reason for this phenomenon, but physicists have proposed a new force called Dark Energy. How shall we label Dark Energy, more like a 'god' with intelligence and purpose or more like the other kind of inanimate forces occuring in nature?

[Ouroboros]

Hmm... I think therefore I am, if I don't think, I am not. So only thought exists.

 

Here's my little story of the House with the (supposed) Golden Treasure.

 

Two men (or women, whichever you like) entered a house of infinite number of rooms. One man believed there is a Golden Treasure in the house, while the other fervently believed there was not.

 

They went into the first room and did not find the treasure. This of course made the second man conclude there wasn't any treasure, while the first man said the treasure could be in the next room, so they went into the next room. And this room was also empty.

 

They kept on going from room to room, and still the first man held on to the thought that a treasure did exist, while the second was certain there was no treasure.

 

Which one of the men were right? Logically the second man had more support for his belief, since every room that was empty increased the probability for no treasure, while if they did find the treasure, his opinion would be completely moot. The problem is that even if the probability increases to the infinite, it still will never be 1 to 1.

 

Will they every know?

 

Hi Hans!

 

> My opinion forthcoming<

 

I think we only observe the effects of natural phenomenon, not the causes. So what is to say that the cause is not perfectly natural also? And, if we cannot observe the causes, maybe it is because the cause is in the effect?? What I mean is that there is no outside force causing things. The force is inside the effect, not outside of it.

Do we really know what is the cause and what is the effect?

 

Is the cause just an effect of another cause, and the cause just an effect from previous cause? That leads to the question, does a "first cause" exists? Probably not. Or maybe Big Bang simply was the first cause.

[NorthenSun]

Logically the second man had more support for his belief, since every room that was empty increased the probability for no treasure,

 

Hans, sorry, but faulty math logic. The probability never changes for either man no matter how many rooms they look in, because there is still an infinite number of rooms to look in.

[NotBlinded]

Hmm... I think therefore I am, if I don't think, I am not. So only thought exists.

 

Here's my little story of the House with the (supposed) Golden Treasure.

 

Two men (or women, whichever you like) entered a house of infinite number of rooms. One man believed there is a Golden Treasure in the house, while the other fervently believed there was not.

 

They went into the first room and did not find the treasure. This of course made the second man conclude there wasn't any treasure, while the first man said the treasure could be in the next room, so they went into the next room. And this room was also empty.

 

They kept on going from room to room, and still the first man held on to the thought that a treasure did exist, while the second was certain there was no treasure.

 

Which one of the men were right? Logically the second man had more support for his belief, since every room that was empty increased the probability for no treasure, while if they did find the treasure, his opinion would be completely moot. The problem is that even if the probability increases to the infinite, it still will never be 1 to 1.

Unless they check the door that leads inside, not outside.

Hi Hans!

 

> My opinion forthcoming<

 

I think we only observe the effects of natural phenomenon, not the causes. So what is to say that the cause is not perfectly natural also? And, if we cannot observe the causes, maybe it is because the cause is in the effect?? What I mean is that there is no outside force causing things. The force is inside the effect, not outside of it.

Do we really know what is the cause and what is the effect?

 

Is the cause just an effect of another cause, and the cause just an effect from previous cause? That leads to the question, does a "first cause" exists? Probably not. Or maybe Big Bang simply was the first cause.

Or...the first cause is also the middle cause and the end cause. It's a continual causation.

 

I'm just throwing thoughts around Hans...please don't take it as preachin'.

[Joyous1]

 

However, after reading your post again, I see that you may have meant only that people want to and do use the concept of God as their label for how unexplained events occur, rather than simply saying "unsolved mysteries". Then I would agree with you. If you want to say that "unsolved mysteries" are evidence of god, then I say no, they are only evidence of unsolved mysteries. The mystery may be solved at some future time, but todate, the causes of past mysteries have not turned out to resemble any traditional concept of 'god'.

 

I'm not talking about unsolved mysteries in general, but the specific and measurable health benefits of faith. People who believe in "god" and participate in a faith community are measurably healthier. I think it safe to say that there is some force at work. We don't know what it is, but Believers call it god. You and I are uncomfortable with the word, but until we can identify and define this force scientifically "god" is the only term we have.

 

I'm willing to concede that "god" might turn out to be a is a previously unidentified hormone. Until we know for sure I'm not comfortable calling myself an atheist. Agnsostic is a better fit.

 

By analogy, the universe appears to be expanding at a rate unexpected and explained by known physical laws. This 'unsolved mystery' probably has some root cause. One could say that a 'god' is the reason for this phenomenon, but physicists have proposed a new force called Dark Energy. How shall we label Dark Energy, more like a 'god' with intelligence and purpose or more like the other kind of inanimate forces occuring in nature?

 

I thought Dark Energy was what we generate on this board (at least according to the posters on christianforums).

[Skankboy]

I think it safe to say that there is some force at work. We don't know what it is, but Believers call it god. You and I are uncomfortable with the word, but until we can identify and define this force scientifically "god" is the only term we have.

 

But they did give you the name of this "force", it's call the "placebo effect". Sugar pills have exactly the same effect. If you believe you will be healthier, you will. It's as simple as that. If you believe you are going to be sick, you will.

 

Where the lack of understanding comes in is how the mind does this, not the source of the health improvement. No supernatural source required...

 

IMOHO,

[Ouroboros]

Logically the second man had more support for his belief, since every room that was empty increased the probability for no treasure,

 

Hans, sorry, but faulty math logic. The probability never changes for either man no matter how many rooms they look in, because there is still an infinite number of rooms to look in.

Okay. Which means the possibility for a God to exist is just a high (or low) as he doesn't.

[NorthenSun]

I'm not talking about unsolved mysteries in general, but the specific and measurable health benefits of faith. People who believe in "god" and participate in a faith community are measurably healthier. I think it safe to say that there is some force at work. We don't know what it is, but Believers call it god. You and I are uncomfortable with the word, but until we can identify and define this force scientifically "god" is the only term we have.

 

I'm willing to concede that "god" might turn out to be a is a previously unidentified hormone. Until we know for sure I'm not comfortable calling myself an atheist. Agnsostic is a better fit.

 

There are benefits to being in a community of faith, at least one that helps and looks after its members. Is one of the results of these benefits a statistically meaningful overall rate of better health for the members, yes it could be. But, there are many alternative explanations for why this could be in opposition to some God force. The people could have better health insurance as a whole. The people could be less apt to participate in risky activities like smoking, unprotected sex, reckless driving, etc. The people, as a whole, might have a more positive attitude on life which translates into less stress and damage to their bodies.

 

If you are comfortable saying that this unexplained health "force' could be anything ranging from a previously unidentified hormone up to an action of god, why must "we" accept the term 'god' for it. To me, the term 'unexplained mystery' is much more appropriate.

 

Of course you are welcome to call yourself anything you are comfortable with: atheist, agnostic, ex- christian, christian, whatever. As has been said, there is no proof that god does or does not exist.

 

However just one thing to ponder, if there is a god that provides subtle health benefits to his followers, why couldn't he have given Hitler a small brain aneurysm and maybe prevented the death of 6 million of the Jewish community of faith?

[Ouroboros]

Or...the first cause is also the middle cause and the end cause. It's a continual causation.

 

I'm just throwing thoughts around Hans...please don't take it as preachin'.

Same here!