Author Topic: What Would Be True Proof of God?  (Read 1435 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #29 on: July 14, 2012, 09:26:07 AM »
@TROG

So the whole universe is a living organism and we are just its intestinal bacteria. Or do you consider us a lesser portion of this universal organism? Like a molecule, atom or even an electron.

On a more serious note; I understand what you are saying, but in the end what makes you believe this organism is god and how would one go about proving such an organism exists, without using the concept of "FAITH."?
I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he'd run
 Yes I'd kill him with my Bible and my razor and my gun

Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.
Aristotle

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6457
  • Darwins +470/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #30 on: July 14, 2012, 09:30:31 AM »

I am not here to give argument about the existence of god, but rather show people a universal way to believe in something greater then themselves.
I read that as a contradictory statement:

If we believe in something greater than ourselves, are you not saying that
1. there is a god and that,
2. as god (at least for you) is established, and that
3. normal people believe in established things,
4. then we should believe in the god that you describe and believe in?

This is an argument for a god.

If you make this statement, you have not read the solid argument above that a universe that is 'god' cannot be differentiated from one that has no god.

You also make a statement about "all the universe being connected" or some such: this is trivial, i.e. it is so blindingly obvious that you need not state it.

It is the same as saying, if you drop a brick, it falls to the ground.

It is believed that in the beginning there was the Big Bang - all the material of the universe then came into existence. We are part of the matter of the universe therefore we are made of some of those atoms. I fail to see what a god has to do with this.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2012, 09:32:42 AM by Graybeard »
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline ButterFlavoredPam

Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #31 on: July 14, 2012, 03:03:12 PM »
Simple.  Reward me here, on Earth, consistently for following your "word".  Punish those on Earth, consistently, for not following your word.  Give me a reason to have faith in your almightyness. 

Otherwise . . . leave me the hell alone.
“In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides.”
 Heinrich Heine

Offline TherealityofGod

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #32 on: July 15, 2012, 07:15:42 AM »
@TROG

then the question stands as to why call what you believe 'god'? And how do you come to the conclusion that everything is part of one universal consciousness. We're still running up against the problem of evidense for your belief.

I call it god for the term creator, and although not proven the big bang is a well excepted theory that pretty much states the universe was a creation of itself. Its impossible to prove any greater being exist  that does not directly communicate with us. Even with an infinite amount of scientific data any such being (outside the scope of the gods you would read about in religions) because any of its actions would fall into the same category as us in being hard deterministic. So you could call anything a natural process.

So it comes down to what one would consider conscience. If our consciousness is nothing more then mechanical action, which i entirely believe it is. Then essentially all religions are wrong unless you consider a "soul" a specific piece of consciousness which has a measurable  quantitative value. Such as love and hate being specific circuitry within the brain which are activated with different stimuli. As we enter an increasingly scientific age any and all understanding of such will come to mean we are in fact soulless mechanical beings. But some people still have a innate need to describe or see beyond themselves, and understand possible mechanical reactions which can be considered a similar mechanic to our consciousness.

So essentially i would also consider it "god" for the fact it can never be fully understood on a grand scale by human minds. Like peering into a black hole, its impossible for us to comprehend something that contains more data then what exists in our minds times a trillion to the trillionth power . Thats why humans felt the need to create the term of god, for what cannot be understood. Even on the day we create machines that can grasp a far better understanding of our existence we as humans will never be able to see as much beyond empirical information which can have relatively no true meaning to us beyond whats possible to do with such data.

Offline TherealityofGod

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #33 on: July 15, 2012, 07:20:36 AM »

It is believed that in the beginning there was the Big Bang - all the material of the universe then came into existence. We are part of the matter of the universe therefore we are made of some of those atoms. I fail to see what a god has to do with this.
Because God as master is a fairy tell. And god historically has several meanings;
1:creator
2:master
3:what cannot be understood
4:everything and/or nothing
5:something greater beyond mental scope


I am not here to give argument about the existence of god, but rather show people a universal way to believe in something greater then themselves.
I read that as a contradictory statement:

If we believe in something greater than ourselves, are you not saying that
1. there is a god and that,
2. as god (at least for you) is established, and that
3. normal people believe in established things,
4. then we should believe in the god that you describe and believe in?

but to answer what you said about something greater then ourselves, so do you consider yourself a god? you must, since we are greater then dogs, so therefore by your logic we are all gods but at the same time you say such cannot exist. I guess i should be more clear when i choose my words for god as i am using it in two different meanings. When i said i am not here to argue about the existence of god, i should have said a personal god. And when i say personal god, i mean a God that would condemn and judge people such as the god of most monotheistic religions.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 07:35:42 AM by TherealityofGod »

Offline TherealityofGod

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #34 on: July 15, 2012, 07:38:02 AM »
Simple.  Reward me here, on Earth, consistently for following your "word".  Punish those on Earth, consistently, for not following your word.  Give me a reason to have faith in your almightyness. 

Otherwise . . . leave me the hell alone.

This is a great example of how i mean people glorify themselves and expect some greater being to care for them and give them personal treatment. If there is any greater conscience in existence, i will be the first to clarify for you how utterly unimportant you and your existence is to it.

And without replying to every response individually, just so you know faith is norepinephrine, or another major neurotransmitter. I cant remember the specific name atm.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 07:51:40 AM by TherealityofGod »

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4638
  • Darwins +512/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2012, 07:48:36 AM »
So what you're saying is that the idea of "god" is essentially relative?  Someone who creates something is its "god", even though it might be otherwise ordinary in most respects?  Same thing with "master", and the other three are too ambiguous to be useful as definitions.  "What cannot be understood" is God-of-the-gaps, "everything and/or nothing" makes no real sense, and "something beyond mental scope" is arbitrary as well as relative.

Offline TherealityofGod

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2012, 07:53:38 AM »
So what you're saying is that the idea of "god" is essentially relative?  Someone who creates something is its "god", even though it might be otherwise ordinary in most respects?  Same thing with "master", and the other three are too ambiguous to be useful as definitions.  "What cannot be understood" is God-of-the-gaps, "everything and/or nothing" makes no real sense, and "something beyond mental scope" is arbitrary as well as relative.

Yes the idea of god is relative. Ask a buddist what is god, or a taoist, then a christian or muslim. It would seem every response ive read so far is strictly referring to yahweh or allah.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 07:57:21 AM by TherealityofGod »

Offline on:bread:alone

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
  • Darwins +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #37 on: July 15, 2012, 08:00:17 AM »
but by all standards we are each our own god, in every sense of the word.

just, you know, throwing this out there and all... but that last statement is like, the very foundation of laveyan satanism. if i were you, i would condiser sharpening my beliefs (and essentially, what you're describing sounds like convoluted pantheism with some sort of christian tumor).
i'm a street-walking cheetah with a heart full of napalm.

please, check out www.letsgetrational.com

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4638
  • Darwins +512/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #38 on: July 15, 2012, 08:04:14 AM »
Yes the idea of god is relative. Ask a buddist what is god, or a taoist, then a christian or muslim. It would seem every response ive read so far is strictly referring to yahweh or allah.
Exactly.  In other words, there's no consistent way to say "this is god".  What might seem godlike to primitive sapients would not necessarily seem so to technologically-advanced ones.

Offline TherealityofGod

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #39 on: July 15, 2012, 08:13:20 AM »
Yes the idea of god is relative. Ask a buddist what is god, or a taoist, then a christian or muslim. It would seem every response ive read so far is strictly referring to yahweh or allah.
Exactly.  In other words, there's no consistent way to say "this is god".  What might seem godlike to primitive sapients would not necessarily seem so to technologically-advanced ones.
Thats right so basically its impossible to prove a greater being exist but its clear the concept of what can be considered god by anyone asking exists in some way shape or form. I came here for the sole purpose of enlightening those who say prove to me god exist when its up to the person asking to look for evidence of what they consider to god to be existent. Whether it be a master, which is the universe as a whole if existence is hard deterministic. or if its the creator which made existence. Either way asking for proof of god is, and i do not mean to offend anyone, but an incredibly stupid and arrogant thing to ask. If a schizophrenic believed they could fly and shoot fire from their fingertips, and the chemicals in their brain made it appear to them and only them that they could. Then asking them to prove it  is just as silly as them asking you to prove you cant.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 08:21:54 AM by TherealityofGod »

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4638
  • Darwins +512/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #40 on: July 15, 2012, 08:32:50 AM »
It's not silly, stupid, or arrogant at all.  Take your example of the schizophrenic who believes they can fly and shoot fire from their fingertips.  The fact that they believe those powers are real doesn't make them real.  If they try to fly, they'll be unable to; if they try to shoot fire from their fingertips, they won't actually be able to burn things.  They can't prove their powers exist outside their own minds, which means those powers don't actually exist.  Same thing with the belief in a god.  If someone claims a random pattern on a piece of toast is evidence of their particular deity's existence, then it's reasonable to ask them for other such pieces of evidence.

Offline TherealityofGod

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #41 on: July 15, 2012, 08:43:35 AM »
It's not silly, stupid, or arrogant at all.  Take your example of the schizophrenic who believes they can fly and shoot fire from their fingertips.  The fact that they believe those powers are real doesn't make them real.  If they try to fly, they'll be unable to; if they try to shoot fire from their fingertips, they won't actually be able to burn things.  They can't prove their powers exist outside their own minds, which means those powers don't actually exist.  Same thing with the belief in a god.  If someone claims a random pattern on a piece of toast is evidence of their particular deity's existence, then it's reasonable to ask them for other such pieces of evidence.

So what If they tried to fly and could, and could burn things, and it was all in their own mind. Can you prove you exist outside of your own mind? despite what you may think its actually impossible. You cannot prove that you truly exist outside of your own mind, and evidence you present could simply be the same as a hallucination. Even if you get an audience to applaud and agree with you, can you prove with no doubt that they exist outside of your own mind? You can only prove relativity, and if everything exists relatively then god can only be proven relatively, only to the observer. So if god exists as being omnipotent then how could it be possible to prove his existence when you can only understand relative events and not something non-relative, something that's considered impossible by mechanical functions.

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 611
  • Darwins +48/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #42 on: July 15, 2012, 09:31:49 AM »
Every person here discussing god as it was interpreted by another man for the sole purpose of controlling other men is just as ignorant as the author.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4638
  • Darwins +512/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #43 on: July 15, 2012, 01:11:23 PM »
So what If they tried to fly and could, and could burn things, and it was all in their own mind. Can you prove you exist outside of your own mind? despite what you may think its actually impossible. You cannot prove that you truly exist outside of your own mind, and evidence you present could simply be the same as a hallucination. Even if you get an audience to applaud and agree with you, can you prove with no doubt that they exist outside of your own mind? You can only prove relativity, and if everything exists relatively then god can only be proven relatively, only to the observer. So if god exists as being omnipotent then how could it be possible to prove his existence when you can only understand relative events and not something non-relative, something that's considered impossible by mechanical functions.
You're positing the gnosis argument, the idea that information from the senses is not reliable.  And while it's accurate as far as it goes, it isn't really a good argument.  You see, while it's true that nobody can absolutely prove anything, we can rule out things which are definitely not true.  Like the schizophrenic's 'abilities' to fly and shoot fire.  We can confirm that none of those happen in reality when the schizophrenic says they do, meaning that they only exist in the schizophrenic's mind.  Whereas when I write a post and put it up here, everyone who reads this board can independently confirm that I did indeed write a post.  While it's true that there's no way to guarantee that those confirmations are not just 'hallucinations', the fact that they are invariably consistent is a telling point in their favor.

To put it another way, when the schizophrenic claims to use his powers, nobody else can confirm it.  When I claim to write a post, anyone can confirm it.  So, when someone claims to speak to God, nobody else can confirm it, because there's no evidence of it that exists outside of their own mind.  So while everything may be relative, some things are much more inconsistent than others.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #44 on: July 15, 2012, 01:58:58 PM »
@TROG

then the question stands as to why call what you believe 'god'? And how do you come to the conclusion that everything is part of one universal consciousness. We're still running up against the problem of evidense for your belief.

I call it god for the term creator, and although not proven the big bang is a well excepted theory that pretty much states the universe was a creation of itself. Its impossible to prove any greater being exist  that does not directly communicate with us. Even with an infinite amount of scientific data any such being (outside the scope of the gods you would read about in religions) because any of its actions would fall into the same category as us in being hard deterministic. So you could call anything a natural process.

So it comes down to what one would consider conscience. If our consciousness is nothing more then mechanical action, which i entirely believe it is. Then essentially all religions are wrong unless you consider a "soul" a specific piece of consciousness which has a measurable  quantitative value. Such as love and hate being specific circuitry within the brain which are activated with different stimuli. As we enter an increasingly scientific age any and all understanding of such will come to mean we are in fact soulless mechanical beings. But some people still have a innate need to describe or see beyond themselves, and understand possible mechanical reactions which can be considered a similar mechanic to our consciousness.

So essentially i would also consider it "god" for the fact it can never be fully understood on a grand scale by human minds. Like peering into a black hole, its impossible for us to comprehend something that contains more data then what exists in our minds times a trillion to the trillionth power . Thats why humans felt the need to create the term of god, for what cannot be understood. Even on the day we create machines that can grasp a far better understanding of our existence we as humans will never be able to see as much beyond empirical information which can have relatively no true meaning to us beyond whats possible to do with such data.
isnt there a term with less baggage that more accurately describes what youre attempting to convey? As far as creator, I think if thats what you mean then creator is a better term. However, you would need to provide some sort of evidence for the notion that everything is a creation. For example, right now I think I lean towards the notion that everything we know as existence was simply always there. To suggest there is a creator ignores THAT very idea. If it wasnt, then we simply wouldnt be here to discuss it. We tend to look at that question from your perspective of "something mustve started it" and I disagree until someone provides me evidence of that something.

I see no need to create a god to answer things I dont know, perhaps that was the case (and it seems likely). Now I can just say, "I dont know"

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #45 on: July 15, 2012, 10:34:18 PM »
Thats right so basically its impossible to prove a greater being exist but its clear the concept of what can be considered god by anyone asking exists in some way shape or form. I came here for the sole purpose of enlightening those who say prove to me god exist when its up to the person asking to look for evidence of what they consider to god to be existent. Whether it be a master, which is the universe as a whole if existence is hard deterministic. or if its the creator which made existence. Either way asking for proof of god is, and i do not mean to offend anyone, but an incredibly stupid and arrogant thing to ask. If a schizophrenic believed they could fly and shoot fire from their fingertips, and the chemicals in their brain made it appear to them and only them that they could. Then asking them to prove it  is just as silly as them asking you to prove you cant.

The basic problem I attempt to address with this thread is that what can truly be considered god may not actually exist.

If I could take a car, an iPhone, some penicillin, and an AK-47 (with plenty of ammo) back to the middle ages, I don't think it would be very hard to convince the locals that I was a god. So how could we be sure any being that might show up and demonstrate some impressive powers isn't doing essentially the same thing?

And, for the record, I only asked what the members of this forum would consider to be satisfactory proof of god, not for anyone to provide said proof.

As for your delusional schizophrenic, it wouldn't be hard to prove him wrong. Just tossin' him off a roof should do it.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline ctrpapa

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #46 on: July 16, 2012, 05:24:20 PM »
"What Would Be True Proof of Hrsxdfiqo?"

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: What Would Be True Proof of God?
« Reply #47 on: July 16, 2012, 11:36:06 PM »
"What Would Be True Proof of Hrsxdfiqo?"

I assume you think you're being incredibly clever with this nonsensical post, but it adds nothing to our discussion on this thread. If this is the kind of tripe you intend to bring (back) to the forum then I would guess that most folks here wouldn't mind if you just go ahead and disappear for another year.

On the other hand, if you have anything of actual substance to add to the discussion, please enlighten us.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.