God V's no God.proof V's no proof.?

Question: God V's no God!.proof V's no proof!.!?

i often read/hear comments on the existense/non existense of some form of God or other!.
some say yes,some say no,
some say prove the existence some say prove the non existense!.
its near impossible with our intelligence to just blindly accept and have faith a God exists,
BUT,
with the creation of what started the begining of absolutely everything from the very first energy measurment,it seems difficult to accept "something",a God!? didnt begin all!.

whats your opinion!?
please only reply with a non-insulting opinion whatever yours is!.
eg: people who believe in god are dumb,or i feel sorry for people who dont believe in God!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

It's a big question, and you got some interesting answers!. Of course you will get different answers from believers and non-believers, and among the former there will be numerous answers depending on the religious tradition the answerer comes from!. I think the common denominator of all religious answers would have to be that the existence of God is primarily an article of faith!.

Now, this throws up many new and problematic questions, of which I want to focus on two in particular!. First, is such faith in a creator God reasonable!? After all, we would have to rely on evidence of a non-empirical nature!. Taking it on faith to many seems somewhat arbitrary and not very reliable!. Second, and here I return to your initial question, if God's existence is an article of faith, can there be a proof of God's existence!? Can something we believe in be proven, for then it would not be something we believe in anymore!.

Let me begin with the first question, is faith reasonable!. You will encounter a particular argument quite commonly these days where religious beliefs or notions of the divine are being considered irrational, since they are based on nothing that can be empirically determined!. Basically, the argument is quite compelling!. It basically says that the only way we can reliably investigate reality is by performing experiments that test hypotheses about the nature of things !. The evidence for or against the existence of something is thus the result of empirical testing!.

None scientific evidence, emotions or experiences, for example, such a world view finds unreliable, because you may feel something but your feelings might simply be the result of underlying physiological processes that make you believe things that are not there at all!.

One could paraphrase such an overly reductionist view in the following axiom:

Science is the only way to the truth!.

Again, it seems compelling; believe what you cannot falsify!. But there is an intrinsic problem with this statement!. It is in fact absolutely paradoxical, and as such, more or less useless!.

Let me explain: The statement is actually a metaphysical statement and not a scientific one, for it cannot be tested by an experiment!. (As metaphysics I understand any attempt to discover principles of ultimate reality with the goal of understanding!. Reality here, you could actually perceive of the way that Philip Dick did, namely as that which still remains even if you stop believing in it…) If it were true, it therefore would actually disqualify itself and end up being a useless statement!. It’s the old liar’s paradox all over again…

Consequently, if you want to adhere to such a materialist scientism as the notion that only empirical evidence is permissible in our investigation of reality, you first have to resolve the issue of this paradox!.

There is another argument against such scientism, and it also has to do with metaphysics!. Here now, the argument lies on the nature of science itself!. It can be argued that science is possible only because of metaphysics, insofar as you have to have a certain metaphysical assumption in place in order to do science in the first place!. This assumption would be that the universe is intelligible and that your scientific models have ontological correlates in reality!. Your measurements thus have to represent the universe as it really is!. Now again, this basic assumption is entirely unscientific, in that it cannot be tested scientifically, since without it scientific testing wouldn’t exist to begin with!. It has to come first!.

I think this refutes any overly reductionistic argument as you will find it especially in the writings of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens!.

That said, does it also show that faith can be reasonable!? Well, at least it opens the possibility of reasonable faith!.

Now, faith in the religious sense is not merely shooting off ideas about how the world is and where it comes from, even if some make it sound as if it were!. For all theistic religious traditions there is the notion that the divine reveals itself to self-conscious beings like humans!. Revelation can come in many forms, one being a personal experience!.

At this point you might ask, whether experiences are not too individualistic to constitute good evidence!. Fair enough!. But think of that!. Have you ever felt love!? Can you tell me what it is!? Most likely you have, and most likely you will fail to tell me what it is!. And yet, based on your description I will come to say that I know exactly what you are talking about, even though I have not felt your feelings or your mine!. Does that mean then that I can rely on your experiential evidence or do I have to ignore it because it is not empirical!?

Well, you could say I have to do neither, I could simply revert to psycho-physiological measurements and I could measure love!. The question is, whether that “measurement” would (a) truly and comprehensively explain love, and (b) whether one could distinguish the measurement from other psycho-physiological states with similar symptoms!. I think that love is more than its physiological correlates, and I would wager that most people would do too!.

Experience therefore is indeed good, reliable and permissible evidence for the existence of something, even if we couldn’t fully grasp the nature of the thing we experience!.

If I come to believe in something as existing based on my experience I therefore do not merely make stuff up, I actually might have something reasonable to say!. One way to “test” this idea is to talk about my experience with others to see whether they can relate to it, just like we did with the experience of love!.

Given that the majority of humans have had religious experiences of some sort, we can actually conclude that posing the existence of a transcendent divine entity might not be at all unreasonable!.

Which brings me to the second question!. The proof is of curse a tricky issue, since it always requires some intrinsic logic that is irrefutable!. In mathematics that works great!. I can easily prove that 1 + 1 = 2!. But when it comes to God, can I still do the same!?

Giacommo refers in his answer to the argument of the ultimate mover and he raises some questions!. Let me just respond to this particular one, since it is such a common argument for Christian theology!.

Basically, the notion goes back to Aristotle, who argued that each movement requires an efficient cause, and since there cannot be an infinite regress, that is, an endless line of causes, there has to be an ultimate one – an unmoved mover!. In Aristotle’s universe there were of course spheres, and these spheres were causing the motion in the universe!. However, to the outermost sphere, that of the stars, Aristotle assigned consciousness!. This sphere desired the pure and ultimate good, which is the ultimate mover!. The ultimate mover as such then is the state desired by the highest efficient cause!. It was the desired state that motivates the outermost sphere to move in order to attain the ultimate perfect state!.

Now, St!. Thomas Aquinas adopted Aristotelian thought to Christianity!. His question though was not about movement, but about being!. Being for Thomas is actuality, and actuality is good!. Non-being is actually bad!. In his five ways of proving the existence of God, Thomas basically makes one and the same cosmological argument, namely that there cannot be an infinite regress!. It basically says that the being of things requires the possibility of being (which he also calls potentiality) and a formal cause (which you can think of as the informing principle of the thing)!.

This requires one more step here!. The informing principle, or essence, of a thing determines the substance of the thing!. As such, a human being is composed of all sorts of things, muscle, hair, bones, etc, but it is still one substance – human being namely, which is determined by the informing principle acting on the different parts that have the potentiality of being human and unifying them, making them undergo a substantial (formal) change an become a new unified substance!. Calcium in the bone now is part of that one new substance human being!.

When it comes to the essence of things, Thomas argued for a hierarchy of being!. For example, a rock has a certain essence together with a certain existence (esse)!. In plants, that have live but no senses etc!. being is even more perfectly actualized than in rocks!. Animals on the other hand have attained an even more complete state of being, since they have senses and sense knowledge!. Humans now have intellect, and so constitute even a higher state of being!. Angels are pure form and have substance!. They are thus even higher!. God is ultimate and absolute being; he is infinite actuality!. As such, he is absolutely transcendent, and the final point of the great chain of being!.

Giacommo’s question about the cause of God, while intuitively understandable, misses the point insofar as that God for Aquinas is (a) transcendent and therefore without cause (God is necessary, not contingent), and (b) infinite actuality, and as such cannot be surpassed by something that would be infinite + 1 (which still is infinite)!.

Now, is such a proof convincing!? I guess if you buy into the basic premises it is!. I personally don’t like it since I don’t find the premises necessary!. Though I find belief in God reasonable, I don’t need an ontological proof of God’s existence to belief!.

Hope this helps!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE ACCEPTING THERE IS A GOD -----THEN ASK YOUR SELF THIS ----COULD SOMETHING AS COMPLEX AS D!.N!.A!. HAPPEN BY CHANCE !? --IT WOULD TAKE MORE FAITH THAT D!.N!.A!. HAPPENED BY RANDOM CHANCE THAN THE DESIGN OF GOD !. THINK ABOUT EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE -----ALL BY RANDOM CHANCE !? THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE NUMBERS BIG ENOUGH FOR THOSE KIND OF ODDS !. YES GOD IS REAL AND I PERSONALLY KNOW HIM -----AND YOU NEED TO also !.Www@QuestionHome@Com

When God is present you know!.
Its like you can't prove you are love, you just know it!.
Proof's are for mathematicians and scientist!.
Faith is for the believers!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I will say this, something intelligent did create what we have, this I know for sure,
Anything else in my opinion is speculation! We really don't know for sure actually what it is , but there is something out there did create!Www@QuestionHome@Com

There is NO God, only if you create it!.

Open your hearts, explore your world, to PROVE if God is there!.

Another answer, GOD IS NOT PHILOSOPHY!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

why does creation must have a beginning!? a circle has no beginning!.

where did god or "something" comes from!? if god always existed then, by the same reasoning, why can't the universe just always existed!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

My opinion: God is shrinking!.

Because god is what we label the gap where our knowledge of the universe ends!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

if god was real why didnt he write a manual for all cures of disease!? if he made us he will know how to cure it!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I see many problems with the "god as first mover" argument!. Namely that by the same logic god must be subject to something even greater!. If god is the creator then who created god!? Why doesn't god need a creator!?
The second problem I see is that by inciting god as the creator because we do not know with certainty the exact event that took in the origin of the universe, is merely answering the variables in the equation with a random guess!. There has been many things in history which were unknown to us and we answered these with supernatural explanations!. An example of this is thunder,lightning and rain!. The greeks had Zeus, the aztecs Tlaloc, an in northern Europe Thor!. This is repeated over and over again, why can't we learn from history and accept that there are some things which are unknowable and some thing which perhaps we might never know as proposed by Stephen Hawkings!. But history has revealed to us that a supernatural explanation for natural events is simply not rational!.
Furthermore science turns into philosophy, which then turns into theology by answering the question with god!. Why did god create!? if god is the first mover, then what moved/compelled god to create!? Does god have a purpose in it's existence!? Did god have a choice!? etc!.!.!. etc!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I don't quite understand the argument that the existence of this universe must be explained, so let's posit an entity whose own existence cannot be explained!.

There may be some good arguments for God's existence!. The one you mentioned is not one of them!. The philosopher David Hume did away with it centuries ago, and his reply is regarded as one of the most certain arguments in philosophy!. In fact, it is used by a philosopher on this site as a example of a philosophical issue which was decisively solved: http://www!.askphilosophers!.org/question/!.!.!.

If complex existence could be explained internally, without the need to invoke a greater power as explanation, there would never have been any reason to need to invoke God as a cause of the universe!. If complex existence cannot be explained internally, God must be explained, and so is no solution to the question of existence!.

Why can't we just say the universe is an amazing and wonderous place, filled with mystery and deserving the highest awe, and any attempts to place this amazing event in ordinary terms (by, for example, requiring some sort of magical creator to have made it) is not only logically groundless, but degrading to the very sense of awe that makes the universe so amazing!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

Personally I feel that most people who say " if you dont' accept jesus into your heart" are the ones that are dooming the world

If i was an all powerful, omnipotent being who created everything and has a "plan" for everyone, then obviously he knew that I would be an atheist in my life, and accepted that fact!.

What i don't accept is people who think that by going to church or repenting they have a gold pass to this " heaven "

according to them I could murder 20 people, and right before my execution!.!.!. I repent!.!.!. and bam!.!. I'm golden!. all the kudos in heaven for me!.

But if i didn't believe and lead a good life!. I'm going down!.!.

If this being was all powerful, he would understand reason and therefore see a gray area in life, rather than the black and white view preached by christian doctrine!.

I don't believe, and I never willWww@QuestionHome@Com

i believe there is God ~~~ and ONLY 1! for example i read this good story the other day:

There was once a man who was very close to his barber they talked and shared their interests while he got his haircut!. Once the topic came up about religion and the barber said "I dont believ in God, if there was a God then why would there be so many bad people in the world and why would the world be so dangerouse!?" the man couldn't come up with an answer 2 this but when he walked outside he saw a homeless man with a VERY LOOOOOOOOOOONG beard and the same with his hair!.
The man asked "Why do you not cut his hair!? There are so many people who don't get there haircut by you aren't there!?"

The barber answered "That is because they don't come to me!"
"Exactly" said the man!.

As you can c the only reason you could think there isnt God is cuz u havent come 2 him yet!. The proof is the Bible---- what u think 4 men were bored one day so they made up a 1000 page book about some made up man!? Didn't think so! Why would families pass down lies 4 generations and generations!? Why do you think parents would lie and say that there is life after the death of their children!? Hm!? yea thats right--- i can b deep!!!

Just my humble opinionWww@QuestionHome@Com

One of the reasons we have a hard time understanding God is that we are finite beings and he is infinite!. Everything in my temporal life has a beginning and an end (except plastic, apparently!.) Can I conceptulize a God who had no beginning!? No, but I can understand that if He was created then where did the being that created Him come from!. So, I accept his eternality on faith!.

You accept on faith that a chair will hold you every time you sit in one without testing it first so everyone has faith!. Some would say we have faith that the chair will hold us based on evidence because most chairs in our lives have held us!. I have faith in God because He has proved Himself to me in answers to prayer and through His word!.

Regardless of whether you accept this premise or not, every religion requires faith so you're not going to get away from that issue!. The Bible says that faith that is not seen is not faith!. In other words, if God were to appear before you, you would not believe in Him through faith, but because he appeared to you; therefore, you have no faith!. Faith is a big part in believing!.

I believe you must use your intellect!. I don't want to insult other religions, but if you read their literature, does it make sense to you!? The Bible makes sense if you study and don't take just a piece of it to establish a religion that says what you want it to say!. Too many people create God in their own image rather than study the Bible honestly to find the truth!.

Briefly, I will tell you that I believe God has dealt differently with man during different times, that we are now in the Age of Grace, that loving us as creations in His own image, God gave his son to die for us so that we could be acceptable in His sight and spend our eternal lives with Him in heaven!. I believe that The Sacrifice of the Lamb was the final sacrifice and gave us all we need!. It is a gift; you cannot earn salvation!. I believe that when you accept Christ's sacrificial gift, that the Holy Spirit indwells you so that you have access to the mind of God through the Holy Spirit and through the Bible which is His word!. Being a Christian is not about getting rich or having a good life or proving to the world that you are "good"!. It's about loving God and getting to know Him and learning to rely on Him in times of trouble!.

What I don't understand, I accept on faith!.

You might read some books on apologetics if you're interested in proof!. I can recommend Norman Geisler, C!.S!. Lewis, Francis Schaffer and Josh McDowell, but there are many others and Lewis and Schaffer are hard reading!. Just do an internet search on Christian apologetics or an Amazon search on one of the authors!. On Amazon, you can read (on some books) the first few pages so you can see if it is hard reading or not!. Of the ones, I've listed, Josh McDowell is the easiest reading!.Www@QuestionHome@Com