Is there proof God exists?

I'm relatively certain that the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle only applies as a microscopic/subatomic level, just like Pauli's Exclusion Principle. Actually, I am certain since the entirety of the theory relies on the fact that at the constituent level, a photon, required for sight, has enough energy to possibly change the state of the observed. This isn't the case in the macroscopic world.

0 Replies

One problem with proving the existence of God is the lack of understanding we have of his nature. If he exists, he very likely transcends our perceptions of space, time and causality. What if, in fact, he were to have fabricated space and time?

In the Hebrew bible, his name, Jehovah (Yahweh) is translated as 'He who causes to become'.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Our concepts like "human beings" or "God" have as much to do with how we differentiate them from other concepts as how they constitute a constellation of "characteristics". Thus to say "God" is "omnipresent" is basically a differentation from "temporal things" rather than an expression of measurable "physicality". The sleight of hand move by the "religious" is then to ascribe such (holy)"omnipresence" to "the soul" in differentiation to "the body", thereby completing a circular argument conveniently devoid of its differential origins!

God might be described as omnipresent, but I'm not sure that the soul would be. In any case, why is that a circular argument? If we say that absolute Being (as the impersonal aspect of God) is omnipresent, that differentiates it from that which is relative and finite. God is eternal, unbounded, absolute Being. That statement creates a concept in the mind, but the concept is not the thing itself. The thing itself (God) can only be known by a combination of knowledge and experience. One must have direct experience of the unbounded. However, without an understanding of what that experience is, confusion may result. On the other hand, knowledge about the unbounded without the experience leads to uncertainty. Knowledge and experience go hand in hand.

0 Replies

people have found mt. sainai and lots of other things that has to do with God

0 Replies

ilovepenguins wrote:

people have found mt. sainai and lots of other things that has to do with God

Maybe, but they should find God directly. The kingdom of heaven is within. God is experienced within. Experience the peace and bliss of God within and then you won't need archaeological evidence. Meditate.

0 Replies

ilovepenguins wrote:

people have found mt. sainai and lots of other things that has to do with God

No... they found what they *think* is Mt. Sainai.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote

Quote:

I'm relatively certain that the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle only applies as a microscopic/subatomic level.

I was not actually referring to the "Uncertainty Principle" itself but to Heisenbergs general aphorism

Quote:

What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.

(BTW it is also not the case that the mathematical "uncertainty principle" is only applicable to subatomic events....it is also well known in Fourier analysis of waveforms)

0 Replies

IFF,

There are only "concepts" ! A "word" is an abstract marker for a "concept" and stands for our "expectations of relationship". Thus the word "tree" stands not for "an entity in its own right" but for our interactional expectations of "treeness" ( woody, shady, not bushy etc..) . You only need to consider whether "trees" exist for an insect/bird etc to understand the essential relational aspect of a concept.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

ilovepenguins wrote:
people have found mt. sainai and lots of other things that has to do with God

Maybe, but they should find God directly. The kingdom of heaven is within. God is experienced within. Experience the peace and bliss of God within and then you won't need archaeological evidence. Meditate.

Actually, the kingdom of heaven is a real government, first mentioned in Daniel 2:44 and taught by Jesus, in the Sermon on The Mount, to be a subject of prayer.

If you believe the bible, that is.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

IFF,

There are only "concepts" ! A "word" is an abstract marker for a "concept" and stands for our "expectations of relationship". Thus the word "tree" stands not for "an entity in its own right" but for our interactional expectations of "treeness" ( woody, shady, not bushy etc..).

A thought or concept of a tree is not the same as the experience of a tree. If you are hungry, you need food, not the concept of food. My point was that you not only need food, but you need to have knowledge about food, for it to be of any use. (If someone handed you some strange type of food that you didn't recognize as food, you might toss it aside and go hungry.) Similarly, the experience of pure Being, or the condition of awareness without thought, would not be recognized without some knowledge about the absolute and relative aspects of reality.

Quote:

You only need to consider whether "trees" exist for an insect/bird etc to understand the essential relational aspect of a concept.

I'm afraid I don't understand this sentence.

0 Replies

IFF,

"Experience" is "interrelationship". We don't need to think "tree" when we are engaged in energy interchange between "it" and our "perceptual mechanism"....such "thinking" involves verbalization which is a unique specialism of human cognition which allows us to forward plan our future interactions. This is why I say "trees" do not have "existence" for other species. Their interactions with what we might call "tree" are different to ours depending on their physiology. Birds might be engaged in "perchness" or "shelterness" which might equally be afforded by the eves of a house. Thus for birds "trees" and "eves" are the same. (Ref Tinbergen animal experiments). Concepts are nodes of functionality.

Extrapolating to the "God concept"...this is significant to some merely because it allows them to forward plan for their interactions with others and particularly for their "deaths". We should note that other species seem to get on quite well without such a concept !

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
In terms of Math, imagine trying to prove that a factorial exists between any two integers. That is to say that 2.5!, e!, 3.14159! exist. You can't, because it is without (outside) definition.

I'll assume you didn't actually mean to say that the three non-integers you placed above are in fact integers? I've noticed many of your posts have an air of superiority, but then fall flat because you've said something completely silly/contrary in them. Perhaps you should keep your "laughs" about my posts to yourself until you can perfect your own. :-D

Reread. I was refering to the fact that they were not integers. I choose this example specifically because the three numbers I gave could not be defined.

IFF - almost true. Half ingeter values can be explicitly expressed. In this case I conceed the 2.5! as being a poor example. pi! and e! are still perfectly good examples as they are nonterminating.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Addressing the original question

If people say God is real for them, God exists and that is proof.

Does an idea exist?

Its things we have no concept of or that have never been imagined that dont exist.

Everything else is reality, including a creator god if thats what you believe.

0 Replies

If there were a god then I would surely muchly be the very proof of it.

0 Replies

So if people can just claim that god exists - and he does... Why is it when children (or adults) claim that they have an invisible friend, we automatically assume this is either immagination or lunacy?

0 Replies

are you denying schizophrenia exists?

Or that when the man says he has voices in his head, he hears voices in his head?

0 Replies

I think you read my post backwards. What I said is that your "proof" of god could but just that - dementia.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

IFF,

"Experience" is "interrelationship". We don't need to think "tree" when we are engaged in energy interchange between "it" and our "perceptual mechanism"....such "thinking" involves verbalization which is a unique specialism of human cognition which allows us to forward plan our future interactions. This is why I say "trees" do not have "existence" for other species. Their interactions with what we might call "tree" are different to ours depending on their physiology. Birds might be engaged in "perchness" or "shelterness" which might equally be afforded by the eves of a house. Thus for birds "trees" and "eves" are the same. (Ref Tinbergen animal experiments). Concepts are nodes of functionality.

Somebody's been reading philosophy books.

I agree that animals are "pre-thought" -- they appear to lack the capacity for conceptual thinking to any significant degree. It is also true that my experience of a tree may be different than your experience, and certainly would be very different than a bird's experience of a tree. This is the variability inherent in subjective experience. The whole point of science is to try to remove this subjective element so that we can come to a consensus as to what the word "tree" means. The implied assumption is that the tree exists independent of our subjective experience of it.

Quote:

Extrapolating to the "God concept"...this is significant to some merely because it allows them to forward plan for their interactions with others and particularly for their "deaths". We should note that other species seem to get on quite well without such a concept !

Other species are incapable of conceiving of death. They live in the present moment, and lack the ability to conceptualize the future. One of the reasons humans consider the "God concept" is because they conceive of their own mortality and wonder about their future. It is not the only reason. Other reasons include wondering about the cause of human suffering, why the universe exists, what is its purpose, what is moral behavior, how we can be happy, etc. As with a "tree", there is the concept and then there is the thing itself. When we think about God, we are forming a mental concept. That is not God. God is experienced as the source of love and bliss within. We may not be able to know God completely, just as we may not be able to know the tree completely, but we can have an experience of God, or the tree, which helps us to form a more meaningful mental concept.

0 Replies

IFF,

I won't labour the point but "thing in itself" seems antithetical to your holistic transcendent position (or at least to my undestanding of it). BTW most of these thoughts are mine, not from philosophy books which I find (to the gratification of a vain "me") seem to agree with me. (I'm thinking particularly of post modernists such as Foucault). Also, as I have said elsewhere, "objectivity" is an idealistic myth. "Science" may have the advantage of using the relatively culture free meta-language of "mathematics" thereby laying greater claims to "consensus", but as Godel has shown, even scientists are hostage to the nominal assumptions of axioms outwith their systems.
Such assumptions are ultimately bounded by the functionality of our "particular" physiological and social needs and we even tend to make assumptions about those !

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

When we think about God, we are forming a mental concept. That is not God. God is experienced as the source of love and bliss within. We may not be able to know God completely, just as we may not be able to know the tree completely, but we can have an experience of God, or the tree, which helps us to form a more meaningful mental concept.

So God is not a mental concept but God can help us form a more complete mental concept about God. You're beginning to loose me IFF.

0 Replies

Is there proof God exists?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know