Is there proof God exists?

fresco wrote:

IFF.

The problem is this. Many people have experienced an overwhelming "holistic love" feeling (including myself) without the need to call it "God". Indeed there is some evidence which indicates that such experiences can be drug induced or triggered by brain stimulation.

Yes, this is an experience that occurs naturally to many people. (I'm not sure if your "holistic love" feeling is it, but it may be.) Perhaps I'm asking for trouble by calling it "God", and I notice that many spiritual teachers avoid talking about God because of the all nonsense that the world implies in our culture. I have tried to redefine God so as to indicate what I mean, but I don't think I was too successful in getting that across. Also, yes, it does have to do with the brain, because the brain is the mechanism by which consciousness is aware of the world and, through self-transcendence, aware of itself. It might be possible to induce an experience of this sort through psychoactive drugs although that may also have some negative effects as well. With drugs you can't be sure what type of experience you are going to have. As for "brain stimulation" the experience of transcendence involves the cessation of mental activity while maintaining awareness, so I'm skeptical that stimulating brain activity could produce that, although its conceivable.

Quote:

Therefore however pleasant and comforting this may be in an uncertain world, the move to call this "the Truth" is rationally questionable.

It is not truth because it brings me some new information or insight about the world. It is truth because it gives me insight into my true nature -- the inner silence, bliss, and love that is what I am. How do I know that this is my identity, and not just some transient experience? I have stayed with this practice for over 33 years and the experience has deepened to the point where I can clearly observe I am not my thoughts, my mind, my emotions, perceptions, etc. Those things are outside of me. My reference point has shifted. This is not a trivial insight. The process of ego identification is the primal error from which all other human errors arise. We try to find ourselves in things and end up losing ourselves in them. It is the basis for endless seeking. We seek to enhance our sense of self through endless modifications of body, mind, emotions, new experiences, etc., but it doesn't work. We are left restless and seeking. Only inner peace brings contentment.

Quote:

Furthermore, it could also be thought of as pernicious because it gives succour to all-comers who claim "the Truth" including the fanatics.

You are correct that all the fanatics who claim to have some divine truth or message that they want to share with the world are charlatans. They have contributed to the discrediting of religion and spirituality. This makes it difficult for the seeker to find true spiritual teaching. Many people have become cynical as a result and feel that spirituality is bullshit. However, it is my belief and my experience that there is real spiritual teaching. One has to seek it out and approach this topic with both skepticism and an open mind. People would do well to find the "evidence" in terms of their own experience, as opposed to what other people say about the subject.

0 Replies

i've never had a holistic love experience

there is an awful and rather pathetic joke about wholes or holes and love or sex but I'm not going to go there.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Indeed there is some evidence which indicates that such experiences can be drug induced or triggered by brain stimulation.

What other experiences can be triggered or induced by this manner or means?

.......

0 Replies

Bartikus,

I'm not sure where you are going with this but the literature on brain stimulation is vast and includes all aspects of the pleasure-pain dimension, heightened "awareness", and the triggering of memories and hallucinations.

0 Replies

I was only asking a question.

0 Replies

there is no proof whatsoever god exists

if only because no one can satisfactorily define what they mean by god

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

there is no proof whatsoever god exists

if only because no one can satisfactorily define what they mean by god

Are you asking for 'natural' proof of the 'supernatural' ?

Seems an odd request.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
there is no proof whatsoever god exists

if only because no one can satisfactorily define what they mean by god

Are you asking for 'natural' proof of the 'supernatural' ?

Seems an odd request.

Nothing odd about it.
IGve me some other standard of proof to use, and I'll prove using your own standard that god doesn't exist.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
there is no proof whatsoever god exists

if only because no one can satisfactorily define what they mean by god

Are you asking for 'natural' proof of the 'supernatural' ?

Seems an odd request.

Nothing odd about it.
IGve me some other standard of proof to use, and I'll prove using your own standard that god doesn't exist.

T
K
O

Hi Deist:

We've been over this before. It goes to whatever your standard of proof is - doesn't it? For when it comes to certain beliefs - scientific proof will not be considered; however when it comes to God - scientific proof is imperative. Interesting how emotional decisions effect each of us. :wink:

0 Replies

dictionary.com wrote:

IMPERATIVE (im·per·a·tive)
-adjective
1. absolutely necessary or required; unavoidable: It is imperative that we leave.
2. of the nature of or expressing a command; commanding.
3. Grammar. noting or pertaining to the mood of the verb used in commands, requests, etc., as in Listen! Go! Compare indicative (def. 2), subjunctive (def. 1).
-noun
4. a command.
5. something that demands attention or action; an unavoidable obligation or requirement; necessity: It is an imperative that we help defend friendly nations.
6. Grammar.
a. the imperative mood.
b. a verb in this mood.
7. an obligatory statement, principle, or the like.

baddog1 wrote:

For when it comes to certain beliefs - scientific proof will not be considered; however when it comes to God - scientific proof is imperative.

I'm not sure if you meant to put "imperative." The word imperative directly contradicts your post. Perhaps you meant "irrelavant."

However, even if you put "irrelavant" or "not" before imperative, I disagree. However, I am fortunate enough to not have to worry about defending that notion because like I said, I can just as easily disprove god, without the scientific or legal standard or evidence.

Even entertaining the notion of a supernatural standard of evidence, I believe that too many testimonies would suggest that god does not exist, and if the evidence were to converge on the conclusion that a supernatural being exists, the conclusion would not be that it was omnipotent or even nessisarily a good being.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

dictionary.com wrote:

IMPERATIVE (im·per·a·tive)
-adjective
1. absolutely necessary or required; unavoidable: It is imperative that we leave.
2. of the nature of or expressing a command; commanding.
3. Grammar. noting or pertaining to the mood of the verb used in commands, requests, etc., as in Listen! Go! Compare indicative (def. 2), subjunctive (def. 1).
-noun
4. a command.
5. something that demands attention or action; an unavoidable obligation or requirement; necessity: It is an imperative that we help defend friendly nations.
6. Grammar.
a. the imperative mood.
b. a verb in this mood.
7. an obligatory statement, principle, or the like.

baddog1 wrote:
For when it comes to certain beliefs - scientific proof will not be considered; however when it comes to God - scientific proof is imperative.

I'm not sure if you meant to put "imperative." The word imperative directly contradicts your post. Perhaps you meant "irrelavant."

However, even if you put "irrelavant" or "not" before imperative, I disagree. However, I am fortunate enough to not have to worry about defending that notion because like I said, I can just as easily disprove god, without the scientific or legal standard or evidence.

Even entertaining the notion of a supernatural standard of evidence, I believe that too many testimonies would suggest that god does not exist, and if the evidence were to converge on the conclusion that a supernatural being exists, the conclusion would not be that it was omnipotent or even nessisarily a good being.

T
K
O

I meant to use the word 'imperative' as per the definition, although I could've (and should've) been more clear in stating my case. I should've said that many on here will never consider that God exists w/o scientific evidence proving otherwise. [Thus the inclusion of the word; 'imperative'.] I maintain that position.

You further claim that you can disprove God w/o the "scientific or legal standard or evidence". By excluding those standards of evidence - it appears as though you're making it clear that it is an emotion-based decision for you; much like loving your Mom and vice versa. [Of which there is no scientific proof].

No proof - only feeling. Fair enough.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

[.....many on here will never consider that God exists w/o scientific evidence proving otherwise......

Your are quite correct, baddog, and it is their loss.

As we know, many things are not 'provable' by scientific means, nor even by legal evidentiary standards.

I got up this morning, brushed my teeth, packed my lunch, let the dog out and did a number of other things that I could never 'prove' by scientific means, nor to the satisfaction of a court of law.

Why?

Nobody saw me do them, and the 'evidence' is largely circumstantial , if indeed ANY evidence exists at all for some of these actions.

Does that mean that I did not do these things, or that it is not 'true' that I did them?

Obviously not.

But there are some (relatively few) who seem to think that without 'proof' then something cannot be 'true'.

Maybe they just need to think about it a little more.

Your example of love is a classic example.

There is no 'proof' of Mom's love for you.

Does that mean it's not real, or just not quantifiable?

Hope you're having a good day, baddog. Cool

0 Replies

real life wrote:

But there are some (relatively few) who seem to think that without 'proof' then something cannot be 'true'.

Maybe they just need to think about it a little more.

There is no evidence for the existence of god or a supreme creator. You assert, without any evidence that this being exists. Its not for me to prove non existence, in any case its not possible to prove a negative. It is for you to support your assertion with logic and evidence.

The strongest thing you can say in your defence is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But as the thing you assert exists is not some trivial entity but the supreme creator of all things, common sense suggests there really should be a little more to work with than that bald statement.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

real life wrote:

But there are some (relatively few) who seem to think that without 'proof' then something cannot be 'true'.

Maybe they just need to think about it a little more.
There is no evidence for the existence of god or a supreme creator. You assert, without any evidence that this being exists. Its not for me to prove non existence, in any case its not possible to prove a negative. It is for you to support your assertion with logic and evidence.

The strongest thing you can say in your defence is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But as the thing you assert exists is not some trivial entity but the supreme creator of all things, common sense suggests there really should be a little more to work with than that bald statement.

hi steve

The issue I addressed was:

What KIND of evidence is an atheist or an agnostic asking for when they say 'there is no evidence of God, is there?'

In my experience, most of them default to a request for scientific evidence.

Perhaps you are different. What type of evidence are you looking for?

And do you acknowledge that relatively few things can be proved by that standard?

(Think about most of the ordinary activities you perform on a daily basis. You thought about music. Could you prove that? You considered writing a letter. Could you prove that? You ate lunch in the park and fed the pigeons. Could you prove that?)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
real life wrote:

But there are some (relatively few) who seem to think that without 'proof' then something cannot be 'true'.

Maybe they just need to think about it a little more.
There is no evidence for the existence of god or a supreme creator. You assert, without any evidence that this being exists. Its not for me to prove non existence, in any case its not possible to prove a negative. It is for you to support your assertion with logic and evidence.

The strongest thing you can say in your defence is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But as the thing you assert exists is not some trivial entity but the supreme creator of all things, common sense suggests there really should be a little more to work with than that bald statement.
What KIND of evidence is an atheist or an agnostic asking for when they say 'there is no evidence of God, is there?'

In my experience, most of them default to a request for scientific evidence

well any kind would be a start. Just stating a belief is not evidence. And I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting there are different kinds of evidence. catch ya later

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
dictionary.com wrote:

IMPERATIVE (im·per·a·tive)
-adjective
1. absolutely necessary or required; unavoidable: It is imperative that we leave.
2. of the nature of or expressing a command; commanding.
3. Grammar. noting or pertaining to the mood of the verb used in commands, requests, etc., as in Listen! Go! Compare indicative (def. 2), subjunctive (def. 1).
-noun
4. a command.
5. something that demands attention or action; an unavoidable obligation or requirement; necessity: It is an imperative that we help defend friendly nations.
6. Grammar.
a. the imperative mood.
b. a verb in this mood.
7. an obligatory statement, principle, or the like.

baddog1 wrote:
For when it comes to certain beliefs - scientific proof will not be considered; however when it comes to God - scientific proof is imperative.

I'm not sure if you meant to put "imperative." The word imperative directly contradicts your post. Perhaps you meant "irrelavant."

However, even if you put "irrelavant" or "not" before imperative, I disagree. However, I am fortunate enough to not have to worry about defending that notion because like I said, I can just as easily disprove god, without the scientific or legal standard or evidence.

Even entertaining the notion of a supernatural standard of evidence, I believe that too many testimonies would suggest that god does not exist, and if the evidence were to converge on the conclusion that a supernatural being exists, the conclusion would not be that it was omnipotent or even nessisarily a good being.

T
K
O

I meant to use the word 'imperative' as per the definition, although I could've (and should've) been more clear in stating my case. I should've said that many on here will never consider that God exists w/o scientific evidence proving otherwise. [Thus the inclusion of the word; 'imperative'.] I maintain that position.

You further claim that you can disprove God w/o the "scientific or legal standard or evidence". By excluding those standards of evidence - it appears as though you're making it clear that it is an emotion-based decision for you; much like loving your Mom and vice versa. [Of which there is no scientific proof].

No proof - only feeling. Fair enough.

highlighted in red: this "or" should have been an "of." typo. my bad.

I think you've misunderstood my post independant of my typo though. I'm saying that those such as RL arguing that other standards of evidence will prove god, don't nessisarily prove god. If we were to allow that type of standard, we'd be able to prove all sorts of things that weren't true. I could prove god was a tyrant (that was for you neo... just so you could reject it...lol) very easily. I could prove that an alien warlord froze a bunch of aliens and threw their bodies into a volcano on earth, and that's how we have our souls. Name it, I could prove it.

What other types of evidence exist? Think about how many miracles have been proven to be hoaxes. How many people believed in that moment that they had evidence by testimony.

Regaurdless of what type of evidence you use: scientific, legal or pretend such as RL, you still have to collaborate your evidence. If their is supernatural evidence, it isn't coverging on your thesis. It's not even converging, ergo it isn't really evidence at all.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

real life wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
real life wrote:

But there are some (relatively few) who seem to think that without 'proof' then something cannot be 'true'.

Maybe they just need to think about it a little more.
There is no evidence for the existence of god or a supreme creator. You assert, without any evidence that this being exists. Its not for me to prove non existence, in any case its not possible to prove a negative. It is for you to support your assertion with logic and evidence.

The strongest thing you can say in your defence is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But as the thing you assert exists is not some trivial entity but the supreme creator of all things, common sense suggests there really should be a little more to work with than that bald statement.
What KIND of evidence is an atheist or an agnostic asking for when they say 'there is no evidence of God, is there?'

In my experience, most of them default to a request for scientific evidence
well any kind would be a start. Just stating a belief is not evidence. And I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting there are different kinds of evidence. catch ya later

Well, there are different kinds of evidence, such as empirical, circumstantial, eyewitness, etc.

There are also different standards of proof, such as legal, scientific, etc

Ok, catch ya on the flip side.

0 Replies

As for evidence of god...

empirically...none.
circumstancial...plenty, but dubious at best.
eyewitness...plenty of testimony, but most of the testimonies contradict each other.

As for standards of of proof. The standard of proof you seem to want us to adopt, is the no standard. The standard in which everything is admissible.

This should be a big hint as to the foundation on which you stand.

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
real life wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
real life wrote:

But there are some (relatively few) who seem to think that without 'proof' then something cannot be 'true'.

Maybe they just need to think about it a little more.
There is no evidence for the existence of god or a supreme creator. You assert, without any evidence that this being exists. Its not for me to prove non existence, in any case its not possible to prove a negative. It is for you to support your assertion with logic and evidence.

The strongest thing you can say in your defence is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But as the thing you assert exists is not some trivial entity but the supreme creator of all things, common sense suggests there really should be a little more to work with than that bald statement.
What KIND of evidence is an atheist or an agnostic asking for when they say 'there is no evidence of God, is there?'

In my experience, most of them default to a request for scientific evidence
well any kind would be a start. Just stating a belief is not evidence. And I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting there are different kinds of evidence. catch ya later

Well, there are different kinds of evidence, such as empirical, circumstantial, eyewitness, etc.

There are also different standards of proof, such as legal, scientific, etc

Ok, catch ya on the flip side.

fair enough. As I said any kind of evidence, empirical, circumstantial, eyewitness would do for a start. Regarding standards of proof, agree. It may even be possible that god as a legal entity exists...insurance policies refer to acts of god (presumably to enable insurance companies to sue god and recover costs). But here surely we only mean proof or evidence building to a conclusion or "proof" in a scientific sense. A warm glow inside and feeling of contentment is not proof of the existence of god. Its more likely to "prove" someone's culinary skills. Getting hungry.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

...Regaurdless of what type of evidence you use: scientific, legal or pretend such as RL, you still have to collaborate your evidence. If their is supernatural evidence, it isn't coverging on your thesis. It's not even converging, ergo it isn't really evidence at all.

T
K
O

Not intending to speak for RL - but what do you mean by "collaborate your evidence"?

0 Replies

Is there proof God exists?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know