A Proof that God Exists

[quip]

The unnecessary kind of evidence? Not sure what you mean.

What would convince you? For example, if God Himself came to you and told you He was God - I get the feeling you'd still deny Him. Call it a hallucination.

You say there's no convincing evidence. But what evidence could convince you?

Some specific sight? Sound? Scientific discovery? Rational argument?

Seems you missed my point.

God could be as apparent as the grass under foot. Likewise, I need not put any more effort in wonderment/consternation over God's existence than I need in breathing.

"Evidence" could easily be rendered redundant. Though, this is not the case is it?

 

[glassjester]

Don't know, nor does anyone. Personally I don't believe the Big Bang event was an absolute beginning and a lot of top line cosmologists and scientists are now coming around to that view, including Roger Penrose. But it's highly theoretical at this time.

Belief in God doesn't hinge on the big bang being the ultimate beginning. Even if there is a multiverse, or if one of the theories of brane cosmology is right, it just kicks the can farther down the road.

The fact is, a physical universe exists. What kind of a thing would be capable of bringing this about?

 

[glassjester]

Seems you missed my point.

God could be as apparent as the grass in my local park. Likewise, I need not put any more effort in wonderment/consternation over God's existence than I need in breathing.

Though, this is not the case is it?

I must have missed your point.

What would make God as apparent as the grass in the park, to you?

 

[quip]

I must have missed your point.

What would make God as apparent as the grass in the park, to you?

Apparentness is self explanatory.

What's more interesting is exactly why a believer insist upon evidence from a non-believer?

 

[glassjester]

Apparentness is self explanatory.

What's more interesting is exactly why a believer insist upon evidence from a non-believer?

I'm sure you see the difference between asking for evidence, and asking what kind of evidence you would like.

In a restaurant, do you think the waiter is asking you for food?

 

[Hedshaker]

Belief in God doesn't hinge on the big bang being the ultimate beginning. Even if there is a multiverse, or if one of the theories of brane cosmology is right, it just kicks the can farther down the road.

The fact is, a physical universe exists. What kind of a thing would be capable of bringing this about?

And I've already told you, no one knows what may have caused the formation of the universe we experience. Making claims about it based on preconceived cherished beliefs just scream confirmation bias.

But the short answer to your question is: I don't know and neither do you, nor does anyone........ K?

 

[glassjester]

And I've already told you, no one knows what may have caused the formation of the universe we experience. Making claims about it based on preconceived cherished beliefs just scream confirmation bias.

I didn't make a claim. And I'm not asking you to say what exactly caused the universe, but rather what characteristics must a thing have in order to be capable of causing a universe.

I realize that's going nowhere.

I admit, I do not know much about your views. Are you an absolute materialist?

 

[PureX]

Let's examine this intuition which drives this "evident design"?

Take anything designed by man (say, a flat-screen TV) and place it in the middle of an open prairie. Why does this scene produce a odd image in your mind?
Because you've just juxtaposed an object of obvious designed origin against the backdrop of non-designed environs. The intuition of contrast and discordance is patently obvious.

The problem arises when you assert that this open prairie is likewise designed......based on the intuition demonstrated above? That's absurd, the intuition falls prey to its own inception...its illusory. What you stated above amounts to no more than: "nuhhh uhhh....god's design exists :AMR1: "

Of course it is designed, just as the TV was. The difference is that the TV was designed by man, and the prairie was not. This is why they appear "juxtaposed".

The smallest bits of energy that we know of manifest themselves in ordered patterns, and interact with each other according to a set of possibilities/limitations. This is the order that is determining the nature of (i.e., is 'designing') existence, itself, including maintaining it's ongoing integrity. Thus, it appears to us that establishing and maintaining the nature and integrity of existence is the intent of that order.

You can't get around this elemental fact of reality. Granted, the origin is a mystery, and the intention is implied, but you still can't get around this fact of reality.

 

[PureX]

Contradictions cannot exist PureX, not in physical reality. The universe (i.e. reality) will fight you if you attempt to live your life based on a lie because reality doesn't care whether you agree that it is real or not.

The point being that your positive results, assuming of course that they are objectively positive, is further evidence, if not proof, that the presuppositions upon which you've built your worldview are true.

This is true even of atheists who reject the existence of God but still base their lives on the truths that are implied by His existence. Again, contradictions cannot actually exist. The fact the the atheist's beliefs are in tacit contradiction to the precepts upon which they live their lives, doesn't change the validity of the precepts. To whatever degree a man's life is working, it is based on the principles of rationality (i.e. reality) and to the extent a man's precepts are irrational, his life will be self-defeating, self-immolating and self-destructive.

In short, it is the fact that man's mind is capable of rational thought that proves God's existence. The atheist BELIEVES that the human mind came about through mindless, random chaos but a thing cannot be greater than its cause. A mind cannot come from its opposite.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete, we actually agree on something!

 

[Hedshaker]

I didn't make a claim. And I'm not asking you to say what exactly caused the universe, but rather what characteristics must a thing have in order to be capable of causing a universe.

I realize that's going nowhere.

I admit, I do not know much about your views. Are you an absolute materialist?

Your query has been answered twice already. How can anyone have any idea about supposed characteristics of which we know nothing?

Beyond that is just guessing, and that is pointless.

 

[Interplanner]

I'm inclined to agree.


What properties must the cause of the universe have?

I'm not sure what 'religion' means there. The things the Bible is talking about (Romans 1 is talking about the manifestation of God in created things) are not 'religious' if you mean they do not ever, ever show in physical reality.

The position of the Biblical message is that God's acts are manifest there, hidden in plain sight. In that sense intelligent design is not 'religious' either. No more than the ocean's tides are.

 

[quip]

Of course it is designed, just as the TV was.

Based upon what...whishful thinking?

The difference is that the TV was designed by man, and the prairie was not. This is why they appear "juxtaposed".

The thing is, humans incorporate specific designs to circumvent some danger or limitation from the natural world. Humans mimick the order of nature in a designed manner for some purpose or essence as motives for their efforts. Nature has no such ulterior purpose, it exists for its own sake. What you are doing is projecting man-kind's purposeful design upon nature and inferring a "God" from this projection. It's an attachment to illusion begetting further illusion.

The smallest bits of energy that we know of manifest themselves in ordered patterns, and interact with each other according to a set of possibilities/limitations. This is the order that is determining the nature of (i.e., is 'designing') existence, itself, including maintaining it's ongoing integrity. Thus, it appears to us that establishing and maintaining the nature and integrity of existence is the intent of that order.

You can't get around this elemental fact of reality. Granted, the origin is a mystery, and the intention is implied, but you still can't get around this fact of reality.

I'm not attempting to "get around" anything....I'm simply dispelling chimeras.

 

[quip]

I'm sure you see the difference between asking for evidence, and asking what kind of evidence you would like.

In a restaurant, do you think the waiter is asking you for food?

Perhaps, if there happened to exist an ontological debate concerning food. Otherwise, this exposes itself as just another irrelevent dodge of the very subject at hand. (Hint: food retains an apparent ontological basis. God...not so much.)

 

[PureX]

The thing is, humans incorporate specific designs to circumvent some danger or limitation from the natural world. Humans mimick the order of nature in a designed manner for some purpose or essence as motives for their efforts. Nature has no such ulterior purpose, it exists for its own sake. What you are doing is projecting man-kind's purposeful design upon nature and inferring a "God" from this projection. It's an attachment to illusion begetting further illusion.

Yes, I understand that in nature the intention of the design is inferred by the result. That does not automatically mean it is an "illusion", however. In fact, it is A REASONABLE INFERENCE.

Please explain to me how it is unreasonable to infer that the outcome of design is it's intention, or how you can know such an assumption to be an "illusion".

… You can't.

I'm not attempting to "get around" anything....I'm simply dispelling chimeras.

No, you're not dispelling anything. All you're doing is trying to label it according to your own liking. When you can reasonably justify such labeling, you will have accomplished something. But you have not done so, yet. And I do not believe that you can.

 

[quip]

Yes, I understand that in nature the intention of the design is inferred by the result. That does not automatically mean it is an "illusion", however. In fact, it is A REASONABLE INFERENCE.

Please explain to me how it is unreasonable to infer that the outcome of design is it's intention, or how you can know such an assumption to be an "illusion".

… You can't.

What outcome, what result are you striving for (on the behalf of nature)?
You hold the belief that you act willfully and intentionally as a functional aspect of the universe thus, (via inference) the universe itself must be driven by a similar, albeit more influential, force of will. This inductive error is otherwise known as a composition fallacy.

Nature simply IS; is random; in constant flux and has no end-goal to achieve....your "reasonable inference" is no more than a presupposed construction of some abstruse idealized form of will. Hence, it's illusory disposition.

 

[exminister]

It's not illusory. The order is there, or existence could not maintain itself. And the fact that it does maintain itself, implies that doing so is the intent of the order.

We don't know the origin of this order and it's apparent intent, but it is evident for all to witness and contemplate. Saying that it's not is not a reasonable argument.

I am a bit of amateur astronomer. When I look at the universe it isn't what I would called designed. It looks rather chaotic. Life as we know it is extremely rare. Except where we live currently we would die instantly elsewhere. It is a hostile universe that at any moment could snuff out life as we know it with a relatively small asteroid. We are not the center of the universe. We are not the center of our galaxy or even center of our solar system. In Sci-fi terms we are on a rebel outpost. Stars are exploding that are millions of light years away. Asteroids and comets even whole planets are crashing into other objects. The earth we live on is unstable and wobbly and predictably on a path of destruction. As we go around the sun we wobble so that we don't wind up in the same space, which is also due the expanding universe. I don't sense a clean design or order, but it is haphazard. Statistically there are billions and billions of stars and trillions of planets. Design would tell me life would be welcomed just about everywhere. Instead chaos would lend itself to rarity.

Why do you think a chaotic universe shows order?

 

[OCTOBER23]

A Buddhist goes into the Pizza parlor and asks for one with everything.

Why don't Buddhists vacuum in the corners?
Because they have no attachments.


I hear reincarnation is making a comeback.

 

[PureX]

I am a bit of amateur astronomer. When I look at the universe it isn't what I would called designed. It looks rather chaotic. Life as we know it is extremely rare. Except where we live currently we would die instantly elsewhere. It is a hostile universe that at any moment could snuff out life as we know it with a relatively small asteroid. We are not the center of the universe. We are not the center of our galaxy or even center of our solar system. In Sci-fi terms we are on a rebel outpost. Stars are exploding that are millions of light years away. Asteroids and comets even whole planets are crashing into other objects. The earth we live on is unstable and wobbly and predictably on a path of destruction. As we go around the sun we wobble so that we don't wind up in the same space, which is also due the expanding universe. I don't sense a clean design or order, but it is haphazard. Statistically there are billions and billions of stars and trillions of planets. Design would tell me life would be welcomed just about everywhere. Instead chaos would lend itself to rarity.

Why do you think a chaotic universe shows order?

You seem to be assuming that chance cannot be part of the design. Why?

Existence is the result of both chaos (chance), and limitation (order). Chance alone would result in only chaos. Limitation alone would result in only stasis. Neither of which could ever produce … anything. As they are absolute conceptual states. But existence occurs in the balance between these two states. Chaos provides the chance for things to happen, while limitation provides the opportunity for some of those things to maintain, while others cannot. A 'structure' is thus enabled.

Put more simply, energy can express itself is some ways, but not in others. And the ways that energy can and does express itself, determines the nature and maintains the integrity of existence. There is order in the way energy is being expressed. And that order provides the design through which energy is being expressed as existence.

The design includes both chaos (chance), and limitation (order).

 

[lifeisgood]

Well, I say, let's prove God exist, then we can bring Him down to our level and he can be like us, feeble, diminutive, unpowerful, lost, going to and fro looking for something.

 

[PureX]

What outcome, what result are you striving for (on the behalf of nature)?
You hold the belief that you act willfully and intentionally as a functional aspect of the universe thus, (via inference) the universe itself must be driven by a similar, albeit more influential, force of will. This inductive error is otherwise known as a composition fallacy.

Energy is "the force of will". Energy is "something trying to happen". Literally. How else do we describe it?

Nature simply IS; is random; in constant flux and has no end-goal to achieve....your "reasonable inference" is no more than a presupposed construction of some abstruse idealized form of will. Hence, it's illusory disposition.

Existence is an event taking place. It is not an object that "simply is". It's a happening. It is energy being expressed, as chaos, and as limitation, simultaneously. And that limitation within the chaos is providing the order that is 'designing' the way the energy is being expressed: the way existence exists.

We do not know the origin of the energy, or of the limitations within it that design existence. But both now exist for us to contemplate, and we exist to contemplate them.