What counts as evidence for God?

[Rabbattack]

What counts as Evidence that there is a God is the Same as Evidence that there isn't.

Neither can be proven, because the only people who truly know are dead.
In the end, Believing in god and not believing in god, neither are bad things. If you find comfort in a religion, if it inspires you to do good, to help people, then by all means, have that Religion! Same goes to those who don't have a Religion, there is no right answer to this question, in the end all we can do is try to make the world better for everyone.

There is evidence for science. Everywhere stretch (AKA, The Big Bang) can be proven but not god. Either way Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm tells you to do bad things like putting gay people and nonbelievers to death, anyone without testicles will not go to heaven, slavery is acceptable, and plenty of other things involving murdering people.

 

[PingPongCop]

There is evidence for science. Everywhere stretch (AKA, The Big Bang) can be proven but not god. Either way Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm tells you to do bad things like putting gay people and nonbelievers to death, anyone without testicles will not go to heaven, slavery is acceptable, and plenty of other things involving murdering people.

Woah, you got all of those things wrong. All of them. NONE of those are true for Christianity.

 

[PingPongCop]

There is evidence for science. Everywhere stretch (AKA, The Big Bang) can be proven but not god. Either way Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm tells you to do bad things like putting gay people and nonbelievers to death, anyone without testicles will not go to heaven, slavery is acceptable, and plenty of other things involving murdering people.

Woah, you got all of those things wrong. All of them. NONE of those are true for Christianity.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Woah, you got all of those things wrong. All of them. NONE of those are true for Christianity.

Actually it is. If a Christian doesn't uphold their 'First Testament' as the true word of God then the there are two possibilities:
1. An inherent acceptance that their perfect God is flawed
2. Their holy texts came about through contemporary human influence rather than the will of a God.

In other words, a Christian is full of crap if they cherry-pick... too bad that's what the Bible is designed for. Why do you think these religions have survived for so long? They include a moral justification for just about anything (so anyone can pick their favorite parts and call themselves a Christian). Priests don't care, they get their guilt-ridden donations and fresh supply of young meat either way.

 

[Rabbattack]

Actually it is. If a Christian doesn't uphold their 'First Testament' as the true word of God then the there are two possibilities:
1. An inherent acceptance that their perfect God is flawed
2. Their holy texts came about through contemporary human influence rather than the will of a God.

In other words, a Christian is full of crap if they cherry-pick... too bad that's what the Bible is designed for. Why do you think these religions have survived for so long? They include a moral justification for just about anything (so anyone can pick their favorite parts and call themselves a Christian). Priests don't care, they get their guilt-ridden donations and fresh supply of young meat either way.

Thank you again. I will agree with mostly everything you say in this thread.

 

[numble]

Well if there is a god, how can we define something greater our comprehension with concepts that we created? Sounds like we are trying to hold a higher power to standards we understand. Also, about the big bang... where did the matter and energy that formed the dense little ball that turned into the universe come from. Only asking because science says matter/energy can't be created nor destroyed.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Well if there is a god, how can we define something greater our comprehension with concepts that we created? Sounds like we are trying to hold a higher power to standards we understand. Also, about the big bang... where did the matter and energy that formed the dense little ball that turned into the universe come from. Only asking because science says matter/energy can't be created nor destroyed.

The universe is quite mysterious, that's for sure, but how is 'some incomprehensible being with incomprehensible intentions arrived incomprehensibly to do some incomprehensible things' an answer to anything?

 

[numble]

The universe is quite mysterious, that's for sure, but how is 'some incomprehensible being with incomprehensible intentions arrived incomprehensibly to do some incomprehensible things' an answer to anything?

Well it seems like if you can explain everything with science god doesn't exist if you fail to explain everything with science then its not a fair aurgument.

 

[LarsINTJ]

God is a self-contradictory entity, conceptually no more valid than a square circle.

Understanding the universe is like a massive jigsaw puzzle. We're slowly filling in the gaps, but the correct pieces can be very difficult to find. It just turns out that the 'God piece' is bigger than the entire board, so any attempt to place it covers everything else and answers nothing.

A devious religious person might suggest that God is the jigsaw board, which is to imply that God is the universe. Too bad it's completely fallacious to make the definition of God synonymous with 'the universe' then immediately ascribe God attributes which are contrary to our observations of 'the universe'.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'm surprised no one called Dre. out on his empiricism and philosophical dichotomy, or at least the way he's framing it. Where does one's understanding of logic and philosophy come from? I dare say, it could only come from our brains and the information it acquires, things that are entirely physical, non-supernatural, empirical, what-have-you. Although of course I'm sure he'd declare that there is a supernatural part to the mind that isn't necessary, provable, or consistent with the logic it supposedly generates. And my goodness, his reference to some not-cited study (which thus could've been poorly constructed or even false) that the irreligious are happier and thus, without demonstration, backs up the existence of God. I'm sure we could even play the source mining game where we'd find contradictory results on this subject in particular or pertaining to a large array of areas such as health, intelligence, knowledge, etc. and I can guarantee that some of which would possess conclusions that would discourage any theist from trying to argue or add superfluous padding to their argument at all. And personally I resent the appeal to such condescending attacks, as if there isn't enough erroneous discrimination in this world, particularly the U.S. where I live.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Just clarifying.

I'm surprised no one called Dre. out on his empiricism and philosophical dichotomy, or at least the way he's framing it. Where does one's understanding of logic and philosophy come from?

Logic is derived from the consistency of the universe, i.e. logic is possible because rules and forces within the universe do not change. That is empiricism. There is no logic without observation.

Truth bows to observation first and foremost.

I dare say, it could only come from our brains and the information it acquires, things that are entirely physical, non-supernatural, empirical, what-have-you.

All ideas within the brain arise from prior sensory input, pure original thought is impossible (try to think of an entirely new colour). 'God' is the psychological desire for a permanent parental figure, an aspect of the universe which answers feelings of dependency/desire like a mother to a baby crying out for breast milk - that's what prayer is.

Although of course I'm sure he'd declare that there is a supernatural part to the mind that isn't necessary, provable, or consistent with the logic it supposedly generates. And my goodness, his reference to some not-cited study (which thus could've been poorly constructed or even false) that the irreligious are happier and thus, without demonstration, backs up the existence of God.I'm sure we could even play the source mining game where we'd find contradictory results on this subject in particular or pertaining to a large array of areas such as health, intelligence, knowledge, etc. and I can guarantee that some of which would possess conclusions that would discourage any theist from trying to argue or add superfluous padding to their argument at all. And personally I resent the appeal to such condescending attacks, as if there isn't enough erroneous discrimination in this world, particularly the U.S. where I live.

I will continue to attack religious ideology without mercy because it fills children's heads with disgusting threats and lies about the universe, subsequently rendering their capacity for critical thought inert. This child abuse needs to be illuminated.

It isn't my fault if someone is so irrationally attached to an idea that they take personal offense when the faulty foundations are revealed. It's not discrimination when somebody rejects compassion.

 

[Sucumbio]

Evidence is everywhere if you believe in that sort of stuff. If you don't then there is none to be had. So basically you have to have "faith" first, and foremost, and then ask yourself where the evidence is. But as for something like a scientific proof for God, nah, never was, never will be, I'm afraid.

@above harsh but true. Religion seems to do way more harm than good these days...

 

[DavingTheWorld]

When I came to Christ on March 27th , 2013, God has definitely manifested himself towards me. I started developing a heart for the poor, changing my sinful ways, getting prayers answered, etc. So to answer your question on how he manifested himself to me visually, it was through dreams/visions that I received that needed to be told to certain people. It was through simple things like praying on my knees and hearing my Christian channel across from me announce my name out of the blue. Saying something in my head and the Christian channel responding to it in a matter of seconds. I find that when I'm searching for answers to parts of the Bible that are confusing to me, somebody immediately comes my way to answer it in the most amazing non-coincidental ways. For instance, I was working at a venue in a mall selling Christian T-Shirts and some guy approaches me who was a local pastor not to far away. I've had a dream the night before about my masterbation/pornographic addiction where God was showing me just how disgusting it was to him through symbolism. And so when I had a heart to heart with this man, he told me his coming to Christ moment was March 27th, 1983. The same exact date as mine just 30 years earlier. I knew it was God's plan for him to meet me and consult me. It's the small things that add up. Now would this make you a believer, probably not. But it did for me. And I can guarantee you that if you come to Christ, God will manifest himself to you the only way you can understand, so that you will trust in his Word. At first it might be coincidental/second-guessing yourself, but after awhile you'll come around as long as your not in that "perform a miracle for me" mind-set. So yeah.

Can I just say that all you guys are amazing. Who would've expected a religious conversation to burst out of a Smashboards forum. One thing for sure that cannot be denied is this, we all love Super Smash Bros. !!!

 

[JesteRace]

This thread is completely asinine. But it's 3 in the morning and I'm wide awake, so f*** it, here we go.

The only acceptable evidence for anything is an observation or demonstration of its properties.

God's properties in and of themselves do not include things like the beauty of nature, healing the sick, or personal happiness or comfort. Which means none of those things are even remotely relevant.

The properties of omnipotence and omniscience have already been shown, even in this very thread, to be logically impossible.

The rest of God's properties lie outside of what can even be observed or demonstrated.

At this point in time, based on how we understand the universe to work, and based on the definition of God, it is not actually possible to provide good evidence for God. It just isn't there.

Now, while unlikely, it is technically POSSIBLE for our understanding of the universe to change to a point where God's properties could be observed or demonstrated. However, until that actually happens, all you have is speculation. And speculation is f***ing pointless.

 

[pinkdeaf1]

0

This thread is completely asinine. But it's 3 in the morning and I'm wide awake, so f*** it, here we go.

The only acceptable evidence for anything is an observation or demonstration of its properties.

God's properties in and of themselves do not include things like the beauty of nature, healing the sick, or personal happiness or comfort. Which means none of those things are even remotely relevant.

The properties of omnipotence and omniscience have already been shown, even in this very thread, to be logically impossible.

The rest of God's properties lie outside of what can even be observed or demonstrated.

At this point in time, based on how we understand the universe to work, and based on the definition of God, it is not actually possible to provide good evidence for God. It just isn't there.

Now, while unlikely, it is technically POSSIBLE for our understanding of the universe to change to a point where God's properties could be observed or demonstrated. However, until that actually happens, all you have is speculation. And speculation is f***ing pointless.

And so concludes this pontless question, brought about by an even more pointless human endeavor.

 

[Toon612Link]

What evidence proves there isn't?

 

[JesteRace]

What evidence proves there isn't?

1. This is a very stock theist argument that's been destroyed countless times
2. It's off-topic in this particular thread.
3. I'll humor you anyways. See, what makes this question faulty is that you could use it for just about any absurd idea. It's what we call an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If I told you there were goblins in your house, but you can't see, hear, smell, or feel them and they leave no trace of their presence, you most likely would not believe me. Then I tell you that technically, you can't prove to me that they aren't in your house because of the convenient properties I gave them. The reasonable conclusion is so what? In the world of reason, we have to prove things DO exist, not the other way around. So, while any out of the infinite number of unfalsifiable hypotheses could technically be found true, if there is NO evidence for it, there is no logical reason to accept it.

 

[LarsINTJ]

You don't need evidence to accept the non-existence of a self-contradictory entity.

 

[Reginleif]

I think there has to be something.

 

[Desu_Maiden]

Anything you want to count as evidence towards God's existence can be counted as evidence for God's existence.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Anything you want to count as evidence towards God's existence can be counted as evidence for God's existence.

"How can God exist?
...because God exists."

Did the circularity not occur to you?

If God is synonymous with the universe then it's a redundant term. If it is not synonymous with the universe then the idea of God must possesses specific supernatural properties which are invalidated against empiricism and rationality.

i.e. if God possesses properties which are directly opposed to empirical truth, then it's ridiculous to claim that all empirical truth is evidence for God. It's exactly the same as saying: 'It's cold - therefore clouds are giant invisible rainbow squirrels which burp gamma rays'.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

There is no evidence of a god, at least not the Christian one.

Miracles? No such thing.

People try to find the smallest things to reinforce their faith. People think seeing Jesus's face on a pancake or a piece of toast somehow means its a sign from God.

God may not be able to be proven that he/she/it cannot exist, but science makes God un-necessary.

 

[Sucumbio]

Sigh... Okay, here's an example of "evidence." Again, you really have to believe in this sort of thing for it to matter. Even if NASA themselves had been the ones to make this "discovery" skeptics would still find a way to dismiss it as false and believers would believe it whether it was world renowned scientists or their next door neighbor. Asking for evidence for God is basically missing the point of what God represents, so you'll never actually get it until you "accept God." Which if you need evidence first in order to do that.... yeah, catch-22. This would be why it's best to just leave the whole thing alone But yeah, technically speaking the Catholic Church upholds Miracles of the Eucharist to be direct scientifically provable evidence of God.

Spoiler

At seven o’clock in the evening on August 18, 1996, Fr. Alejandro Pezet was saying Holy Mass at a Catholic church in the commercial center of Buenos Aires. As he was finishing distributing Holy Communion, a woman came up to tell him that she had found a discarded host on a candleholder at the back of the church. On going to the spot indicated, Fr. Alejandro saw the defiled Host. Since he was unable to consume it, he placed it in a container of water and put it away in the tabernacle of the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament.

On Monday, August 26, upon opening the tabernacle, he saw to his amazement that the Host had turned into a bloody substance. He informed Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, who gave instructions that the Host be professionally photographed. The photos were taken on September 6. They clearly show that the Host, which had become a fragment of bloodied flesh, had grown significantly in size. For several years the Host remained in the tabernacle, the whole affair being kept a strict secret. Since the Host suffered no visible decomposition, Cardinal Bergoglio decided to have it scientifically analyzed.

On October 5, 1999, in the presence of the Cardinal’s representatives, Dr. Castanon took a sample of the bloody fragment and sent it to New York for analysis. Since he did not wish to prejudice the study, he purposely did not inform the team of scientists of its provenance. One of these scientists was Dr. Frederic Zugiba, the well-known cardiologist and forensic pathologist. He determined that the analyzed substance was real flesh and blood containing human DNA. Zugiba testified that, “the analyzed material is a fragment of the heart muscle found in the wall of the left ventricle close to the valves. This muscle is responsible for the contraction of the heart. It should be borne in mind that the left cardiac ventricle pumps blood to all parts of the body. The heart muscle is in an inflammatory condition and contains a large number of white blood cells. This indicates that the heart was alive at the time the sample was taken. It is my contention that the heart was alive, since white blood cells die outside a living organism. They require a living organism to sustain them. Thus, their presence indicates that the heart was alive when the sample was taken. What is more, these white blood cells had penetrated the tissue, which further indicates that the heart had been under severe stress, as if the owner had been beaten severely about the chest.”

Two Australians, journalist Mike Willesee and lawyer Ron Tesoriero, witnessed these tests. Knowing where sample had come from, they were dumbfounded by Dr. Zugiba’s testimony. Mike Willesee asked the scientist how long the white blood cells would have remained alive if they had come from a piece of human tissue, which had been kept in water. They would have ceased to exist in a matter of minutes, Dr. Zugiba replied. The journalist then told the doctor that the source of the sample had first been kept in ordinary water for a month and then for another three years in a container of distilled water; only then had the sample been taken for analysis. Dr. Zugiba’s was at a loss to account for this fact. There was no way of explaining it scientifically, he stated. Only then did Mike Willesee inform Dr. Zugiba that the analyzed sample came from a consecrated Host (white, unleavened bread) that had mysteriously turned into bloody human flesh. Amazed by this information, Dr. Zugiba replied, “How and why a consecrated Host would change its character and become living human flesh and blood will remain an inexplicable mystery to science—a mystery totally beyond her competence.”

Only faith in the extraordinary action of a God provides the reasonable answer—faith in a God, who wants to make us aware that He is truly present in the mystery of the Eucharist.
The Eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires is an extraordinary sign attested to by science. Through it Jesus desires to arouse in us a lively faith in His real presence in the Eucharist. He reminds us that His presence is real, and not symbolic. Only with the eyes of faith do we see Him under appearance of the consecrated bread and wine. We do not see Him with our bodily eyes, since He is present in His glorified humanity. In the Eucharist Jesus sees and loves us and desires to save us.

In collaboration with Ron Tesoriero, Mike Willesee, one of Australia’s best-known journalists (he converted to Catholicism after working on the documents of another Eucharistic miracle) wrote a book entitled Reason to Believe. In it they present documented facts of Eucharistic miracles and other signs calling people to faith in Christ who abides and teaches in the Catholic Church. They have also made a documentary film on the Eucharist—based largely on the scientific discoveries associated with the miraculous Host in Buenos Aires. Their aim was to give a clear presentation of the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject of the Eucharist. They screened the film in numerous Australian cities. The showing at Adelaide drew a crowd of two thousand viewers. During the commentary and question period that followed a visibly moved man stood up announcing that he was blind. Having learned that this was an exceptional film, he had very much wanted to see it. Just before the screening, he prayed fervently to Jesus for the grace to see the film. At once his sight was restored to him, but only for the thirty-minute duration of the film. Upon its conclusion, he again lost the ability to see. He confirmed this by describing in minute detail certain scenes of the film. It was an incredible event that moved those present to the core of their being.

Through such wondrous signs God calls souls to conversion. If Jesus causes the Host to become visible flesh and blood, a muscle that is responsible for the contraction of a human heart—a heart that suffers like that of someone who has been beaten severely about the chest, if He does such things, it is in order to arouse and quicken our faith in His real presence in the Eucharist. He thus enables us to see that Holy Mass is a re-presentation (i.e. a making present) of the entire drama of our salvation: Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection. Jesus says to his disciples, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will not believe” (Jn 4: 48). There is no need to actively seek out wondrous signs. But if Jesus chooses to give them to us, then it behooves us to accept them with meekness and seek to understand what He desires to tell us by them. Thanks to these signs, many people have discovered faith in God—the One God in the Holy Trinity, who reveals His Son to us: Jesus Christ, who abides in the sacraments and teaches us through Holy Scripture and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

Scumbio, that counts as evidence?! An article from a CATHOLIC magazine?

I think if this was ACTUALLY true, it would have been all over the news, CREDIBLE newspapers, and tweeted about for days and days.

Again. Miracles do not exist. This is some made-up story to reinforce faith for those who, rightfully, was questioning it.

If God didn't want his own people to doubt his existence, why the hell doesn't he just show himself. Oh, because "God works in mysterious ways." Just too easy. Person cured of disease? PRAISE HIM (with no credit going towards the doctors, mind you)! Person dies during disease? God works in mysterious ways...

To me, God just represents for a scape-goat to have any responsibility. Just let God handle it. God knows everything. He knows that Stalin, the evil non-believer, would have killed millions of his own followers. Does nothing.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

To seriously answer the topic's question though:

Spoiler

 

[Brother AJ]

I think there has to be something.

Why does there have to be something? What does it matter?

 

[Reginleif]

Why does there have to be something? What does it matter?

Because we live in a universe with infinite possibilities, and who's to say surely nothing else exists except for what we have now?

 

[Brother AJ]

Because we live in a universe with infinite possibilities, and who's to say surely nothing else exists except for what we have now?

Well, not surely, but I currently see no reasons TO believe there is a God, and so I remain in a state of doubt until proven otherwise.

What is it that we "have now", and how does this point towards the conclusion that there "has" to be something?

 

[Reginleif]

Well, not surely, but I currently see no reasons TO believe there is a God, and so I remain in a state of doubt until proven otherwise.

What is it that we "have now", and how does this point towards the conclusion that there "has" to be something?

ok, thanks for sharing your viewpoint
the origins of the universe will always be mysterious. the material world can't possibly be the only thing that exists in my opinion.

 

[Sucumbio]

Scumbio, that counts as evidence?! An article from a CATHOLIC magazine?

I think if this was ACTUALLY true, it would have been all over the news, CREDIBLE newspapers, and tweeted about for days and days.

Again. Miracles do not exist. This is some made-up story to reinforce faith for those who, rightfully, was questioning it.

If God didn't want his own people to doubt his existence, why the hell doesn't he just show himself. Oh, because "God works in mysterious ways." Just too easy. Person cured of disease? PRAISE HIM (with no credit going towards the doctors, mind you)! Person dies during disease? God works in mysterious ways...

To me, God just represents for a scape-goat to have any responsibility. Just let God handle it. God knows everything. He knows that Stalin, the evil non-believer, would have killed millions of his own followers. Does nothing.

Well, hence the quote marks, lol. "Evidence." Besides my own personal opinion, I think there's a much more insidious truth behind the incident. I think it's far more likely, though ghastly to think about, that someone actually broke into the church at night and swapped the wafer for a piece of human heart, and based on the evidence at hand, it was more than likely pulled while the person was still alive. I wouldn't be surprised, in South America especially there are sects of Christians that re-enact the crucifixion right on down to the nails in the hands and ****. But as for the article not being genuine, I do not believe this to be the case. I think the forensic scientist named drew no unnecessary conclusions (though the article does embellish the religious connotations slightly. The difficulty is that the investigation stopped once the wafer was analyzed, there was no detective to dust for prints at the scene, no one to question the witnesses, etc etc it was just a triple blind test of the specimen.

As for the rest of your post, I understand where you're coming from, but Catholics have answers to all those objections (of course). That's not to say you're not entitled to your opinion, just pointing out that your reasons could be countered by Christians. I'd give you the examples myself but I've learned in these sorts of discussions it's really not important.

 

[Claire Diviner]

What I can definitely say is that the bible is not proof that a god exists. Anyone can write anything and pass that off as true events. If that were the case, then any fictional book could in theory be based on actual events, including "The Lord of the Rings".

The only way to prove if a god exists is if some kind of supernatural force is actually scientifically recorded and documented. I find it quite the coincidence that with the rise of things, like photography and video, supernatural miracles have become absent. The only ones who will know for sure are those who have already passed away, and as the saying goes, "dead men tell no tales".

 

[LarsINTJ]

What I can definitely say is that the bible is not proof that a god exists. Anyone can write anything and pass that off as true events. If that were the case, then any fictional book could in theory be based on actual events, including "The Lord of the Rings".

The only way to prove if a god exists is if some kind of supernatural force is actually scientifically recorded and documented. I find it quite the coincidence that with the rise of things, like photography and video, supernatural miracles have become absent. The only ones who will know for sure are those who have already passed away, and as the saying goes, "dead men tell no tales".

If a supernatural force can be qualified/quantified by science then it's not supernatural. Science represents incremental progression, not regression. 'Supernatural' is irrelevant as far as truth is concerned.

There are no experiences to be had after death, just as there are no experiences before birth. Experience requires physical sensory input, memories are physical connections within the brain.

 

[Claire Diviner]

If a supernatural force can be qualified/quantified by science then it's not supernatural. Science represents incremental progression, not regression. 'Supernatural' is irrelevant as far as truth is concerned.

The "god particle" was but a myth or "supernatural" until science discovered it (the Higgs Boson). The sun rose and set and was believed the sun and the universe revolved around the Earth, and was considered a "supernatural" thing that couldn't be explained. In time, assuming science discovers the mystery behind what happens after death in terms of conscious thought, the now "supernatural" will become common scientific knowledge like everything else science has since explained. Remember that everything in existence, even the supernatural, requires energy, and so long as energy exists, supernatural phenomena will forever be a physical thing and qualified for scientific study with enough time and knowledge.

There are no experiences to be had after death, just as there are no experiences before birth. Experience requires physical sensory input, memories are physical connections within the brain.

Which pretty much goes with my point when I say "dead men tell no tales". That said, when we die, the energy that makes up our very body is not totally destroyed, since atoms can't be destroyed; energy merely changes, including the energy that makes up the electrical pulses of our mind, including the ones that make up our memory.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not claiming we'll have conscious thought after death, nor am I saying we'll keep our memories. Just that the very energy that makes up our mind will also change into goodness knows what, so something has to happen to us after death in some way, shape or form. Our very essence that makes us our own individual may be forever lost, but we will remain in existence, even if as tiny atomic fragments scattered into the ether.

Before I was born, as far as my mind told me, I never existed, and my lack of existence was of no hindrance to me. My lack of conscious existence after death will be of no concern either, since I will no longer be capable of worrying, among other things, even if knowing such a possibility before we actually die does suck.

 

[Octillus]

The "god particle" was but a myth or "supernatural" until science discovered it (the Higgs Boson). The sun rose and set and was believed the sun and the universe revolved around the Earth, and was considered a "supernatural" thing that couldn't be explained. In time, assuming science discovers the mystery behind what happens after death in terms of conscious thought, the now "supernatural" will become common scientific knowledge like everything else science has since explained. Remember that everything in existence, even the supernatural, requires energy, and so long as energy exists, supernatural phenomena will forever be a physical thing and qualified for scientific study with enough time and knowledge.


Which pretty much goes with my point when I say "dead men tell no tales". That said, when we die, the energy that makes up our very body is not totally destroyed, since atoms can't be destroyed; energy merely changes, including the energy that makes up the electrical pulses of our mind, including the ones that make up our memory.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not claiming we'll have conscious thought after death, nor am I saying we'll keep our memories. Just that the very energy that makes up our mind will also change into goodness knows what, so something has to happen to us after death in some way, shape or form. Our very essence that makes us our own individual may be forever lost, but we will remain in existence, even if as tiny atomic fragments scattered into the ether.

Before I was born, as far as my mind told me, I never existed, and my lack of existence was of no hindrance to me. My lack of conscious existence after death will be of no concern either, since I will no longer be capable of worrying, among other things, even if knowing such a possibility before we actually die does suck.

What I like about this is that it very much ties into the concept that basically maybe God is just the physical manifestation of that energy or spark of life that exists in all of us. Maybe the notion of faith, is that no matter what whether plant, animal, human or fungus we all interact on this small ecosystem and weave a big tapestry of life in our biosphere.

Ultimately it's not so different, and even the cruelty in humanity's heart is still a reflection of our ability to interact with our physical world.

It's not a flowing white beard, but more of a flowing river that we're all adrift in, and I think it's rather beautiful that way.


Except of course that Satan is real and he holds us in his hearts. Hail Lucifer!

 

[Jaedrik]

(I see this is a very old thread, but I feel the need to add a little)

It's actually possible to rationally disprove 'God' based on its common definition and attributes.

God is defined as an eternal, immaterial, all-knowing and all-powerful entity - immediately there are problems:

1. If God is eternal, then why is the idea necessary to 'explain' the creation of the universe? If we grant that something may exist eternally then Occam's razor compels us to cut god from the equation and simply say that matter/energy has always existed eternally without the need for a designer. If we grant that a deity created the universe then we posit the principle 'that which exists must have been created'. What created the deity? Another one? Another one after that?

2. God cannot be immaterial. We have long since clarified the connection between consciousness and brain activity - to say that consciousness can exist without matter is the same as insisting that it's possible to breathe without lungs.

3. Back to the first point. If god cannot be immaterial, then it cannot be eternal because all cellular life eventually deteriorates and dies.

4. God cannot be all-knowing and all-powerful at the same time. If I know exactly what will happen in the future then I would invalidate my own knowledge if I had the power to interject and change the course of history.

5. God cannot be all-powerful. To be all-powerful is to possess infinite complexity and all examples of complexity in nature have arisen from gradual evolution over millions of years. Complexity requires reproduction and death, it does not randomly pop into existence.

6. God cannot be all-knowing. If a single all-knowing entity were to exist then it would validate determinism and thus nullify free will. (admittedly, this is a preference of mine, although it is well founded. I would elaborate, but that's an entire argument in itself). Religion seems to assert that free will exists despite also believing in an all-knowing god - pure contradiction.

In short, the definition of god can be broken down into 'that which does not exist, exists'... Well done.

Back to the OP though. The word miracle is just a lazy way to 'explain' gaps in human knowledge which are later filled after much prejudice. Naturally, we should not immediately jump to 'God did it'! when we fail to understand new phenomena.

Potential evidence for God is no more viable than evidence for a square circle, it simply cannot be.

1. It is necessary to explain the creation of the universe because causation demands that there be some first uncreated creator. You have already acknowledge the impossibility of an infinite series of causation. If the principle of causation is true, then, we must take the only other route available, that is there is a first creator which is itself uncreated. This does not violate the principle of causation because it is not contradictory to say that its reason for existence is sufficient within itself, but this is not to say that God created himself, as such would imply God be subject to temporal change, and thus not eternal, rather it is to say that God never was not. Occam's razor ostensibly makes the first uncaused cause the material universe, as you say, yet God is immaterial. Clearly, granting that there must be a first uncaused cause, which is God, it cannot be the universe, for the universe is substantially material, and God is that which is immaterial. Thus, pantheism is refuted.

2. Allow me, sir, to introduce another common godly attribute: infinite. Allowing God be infinite, God cannot be material, for matter implies spacial limitation, and therefore finiteness.

4. This implies a temporal progression. Since we have already established God is eternal, it makes sense to claim that, to God, all times are now, since he is substantially unaffected by the passage of time.

5. I do not understand. To be all-powerful implies one has sufficient potentiality in itself to bring to actuality all things which are not intrinsically impossible, such as a square circle. This does not require infinite complexity.

6. Causation is not a fundamentally materialistic notion. If it were, then God would have to be material, which, as we showed above, is not possible. Determinism cannot be understood as the only method of causation because determinism is exclusively material, and having demonstrated that God causes that which is immaterial, with himself for example as being immaterial, it is no contradiction to say that God can cause that which is free will.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I was preparing to address the topic’s question by examining things through the lens of substance dualism versus monism (which I will certainly post eventually), but this response caught my eye. I know you were writing in response to another, but I’ll simply address the material as-is. Not that at the time of writing, I didn't read the post of your interlocutor, so forgive lapses in context beforehand.

1. It is necessary to explain the creation of the universe because causation demands that there be some first uncreated creator. You have already acknowledge the impossibility of an infinite series of causation. If the principle of causation is true, then, we must take the only other route available, that is there is a first creator which is itself uncreated. This does not violate the principle of causation because it is not contradictory to say that its reason for existence is sufficient within itself, but this is not to say that God created himself, as such would imply God be subject to temporal change, and thus not eternal, rather it is to say that God never was not. Occam's razor ostensibly makes the first uncaused cause the material universe, as you say, yet God is immaterial. Clearly, granting that there must be a first uncaused cause, which is God, it cannot be the universe, for the universe is substantially material, and God is that which is immaterial. Thus, pantheism is refuted.

I think we can all agree that there is (probably) a metaphysical bedrock [1]. If you continue to ask “Why?”, your chain of inquiry, if left unabated, will ultimately lead to the answer of “Because it simply is”.

If there is an infinite multiverse, what grounds that infinity? If there is an eternally recurrent cycle of universal inflation and implosion (whether we have the same universe, or different ones at each iteration), then what grounds that cycle? If there is only our one universe, then what grounds it?

This bedrock must be “uncaused”; it must simply exist. I think that much can be said without contention. The question, then, is the nature of this bedrock—which is to say, whether this bedrock is God (by any definition), or something else.

With that in mind, there are a few things that I’d like to underline, regarding your first point here:

-I take issue with your usage of the term “creation”, here. A creation, by definition, has a creator (who created the creation); if you characterize the universe as being “created”, then you necessarily invoke a “creator”. But is this a warranted assumption? Clearly the universe was caused—something evidently “happened” for the apparent singularity state of origin to inflate and expand—but that doesn’t necessarily mean the universe was therefore created. In what way was the universe not just caused, but created? How does the latter follow from the former?

-I don’t know what it means for something to be “immaterial”; in fact, I’m not exactly sure what it means for something to be strictly “material”. Whence comes this distinction? What is material, and what is immaterial? How can one tell the difference?

-Perhaps the biggest hang-up (for myself, anyway) is in the relationship between causation and time. Time is a requirement for causation; in fact, “time” can be defined as a succession of states (where this succession is what we call "causality"). “Time”, then, would simply be the term used to describe the discrete measurement (or observation, or experience) of that succession of states.

So time must “pass”, however incremental, for A to lead to B. If time, however, is a property of space-time, and if space-time “begins” at the causation of spatio-temporal inflation (i.e. the so-termed “Big Bang”), then there couldn’t be a “before” to that point. You can’t have time before time, or space outside of space, as that is a contradiction in definitions.

Space and time don’t exist beyond space and time, but God would (by virtue of Its nature). But if God is beyond “time”—a causal succession from one state to another—then God can’t be eternal, as eternity (to my knowledge) is usually defined as an “infinity” of temporal states. Time without beginning or end, as it were. You could say that God, as the metaphysical bedrock, is unchanging, so every “state” of that eternity would the same state. But if so, then God cannot “cause” anything, because God is always in that one state—unless God’s singular state is always one of enacting causation. But that means that God could not freely have caused the universe.

The same problem arises if you hold that God is timeless instead of eternal (which is a more apt descriptor due to this extra-temporality clause). Instead of an infinite number of identical “states”, you would simply have a single state (which again must always be one in which God is in the act of creation). For God to have created space and time beyond space and time, then God would need the ability to change states. And this, by the definitions of time, space, and causality as we understand them [2].

If we grant that scenario, then “time” can’t be a specific property of space-time (because time transcends the apparent “boundary” of our observed space-time). In such a case, then wouldn’t the “boundary” that distinguishes space-time from what lies beyond be an arbitrary one? If this “meta-time” has different properties than the time we understand and experience, then what are the properties of that meta-time?

Clearly, there is much to unpack when it concerns God, time, and causation. And the above also applies to space (which we can broadly define as a volume in which things exist). If God exists beyond space, then what “contains” God? Is God the container of Itself, much as space is the container of the universe? How can a thing be said to “exist” if there is no “place” where that thing, or the idea of that thing, or whatever else resides, at a metaphysical level? A meta-space, if you will?

A curious conundrum, to say the least.

[1] I use metaphysical in the philosophical sense (things pertaining to existence), not in the sense of “transcending” the physical (because I don’t currently know if the bedrock can or cannot be conceived in naturalistic terms).

[2] If an idea or a concept is unintelligible, or incoherent, or cannot otherwise be conceived or understood, then it cannot be meaningfully discussed. If meta-time cannot be meaningfully discussed or understood, then there’s not point, strictly speaking, in discussing it—not because it might actually be true, but because it would be as productive as speaking word salad, or gibberish.

2. Allow me, sir, to introduce another common godly attribute: infinite. Allowing God be infinite, God cannot be material, for matter implies spacial limitation, and therefore finiteness.

-What does it mean for God to be infinite? What properties of God are infinite?

If God transcends the “space” of our universe, then does this mean that God is “spatially” infinite? Would this not mean then mean that there is space beyond space?

-I again see this “material”-”immaterial” distinction. Are you saying that a thing is “material” if it “exists” within the apparent boundary of our space and time? And that, by definition, all things beyond our space and time are “immaterial” (God included)?

If we suppose a multiverse, is each universe material, and the shared meta-space in which they coexist being immaterial? Also, what is the substance of immaterial things? I realize this may seem a daft question, if immaterial things are simply non-material things. But I am once more wondering as to what a non-material thing might be.

If you invoke things like “ideas”, “thoughts”, “minds”, “consciousness”, or “spirit” as being immaterial, then this is a matter of substance dualism (which I will be addressing in a forthcoming post to this thread). You can discuss such a tangent if you like, though I’m only going to respond in full after I post that aforementioned musing (which is furthermore tied to the thread topic of God and evidence).

4. This implies a temporal progression. Since we have already established God is eternal, it makes sense to claim that, to God, all times are now, since he is substantially unaffected by the passage of time.

-If we follow my own deliberations on the subject, then God, by virtue of interfacing with our space-time, would interface with all causal states (or “frames”) of the universe (due to omnipresent transcendence and immanence). God “encompasses” the entirety of our universe’s timeline (the sum of all states arranged in causal sequence).

-By virtue of “residing” [3] beyond time, then God naturally can’t be “affected” by the “time” of our universe. God isn’t part of the causal system (though can interact with it, as is usually held as a capacity of God). So in this, I suppose we’re in agreement.

The point of contention would lie in how God, who is unaffected by time, can affect time (or interface with it).
[3] Residing in meta-space, where things that are beyond space can be “found”. I’m using spatial terms (residing, found, beyond, etc.) to describe meta-space, so these terms are breaking down. You might therefore say that there is no use in conceiving things in those terms. But you invoke such terms the moment you begin to speak of things “beyond” time and “outside” of space.

5. I do not understand. To be all-powerful implies one has sufficient potentiality in itself to bring to actuality all things which are not intrinsically impossible, such as a square circle. This does not require infinite complexity.

-Hmm. If omnipotence is defined as the capacity to enact all possibilities which are not intrinsically impossible—that is, all things that are logically coherent and consistent—then what would omnipresence be?

The capacity to be in all spaces and times simultaneously? If so, God would also exist in all meta-spaces and meta-times at once. But how “big” is meta-space”, and how “long” is meta-time? Are they finite or infinite? If God is infinite, then I suppose the latter must apply.

Still, the concepts of infinity and spacelessness/timelessness seem at odds with one another.

6. Causation is not a fundamentally materialistic notion. If it were, then God would have to be material, which, as we showed above, is not possible. Determinism cannot be understood as the only method of causation because determinism is exclusively material, and having demonstrated that God causes that which is immaterial, with himself for example as being immaterial, it is no contradiction to say that God can cause that which is free will.

-How does causation, or the act of causal influence, pertain to the material, or not pertain to the immaterial? Are all things that are immaterial beyond causation by definition? If so, then they cannot change, be changed, or enact change.

But if God, an immaterial entity, is something that cannot change or be changed, but can enact change, then must we invoke a concept of “meta-causation” to reconcile causation with changeless-ness [4]? Or is God necessarily intertwined with our space and time, so that the causation of our universe is not something God chooses to do, but is a innate property of his (meta-)temporal state?

-As per my deliberations, determinism wouldn’t strictly be a property of that which is material, but that which is causal. If determinism is the model in which events are the inexorable outcome of conditions that existed prior, then we necessarily need causation, or a causal system, for such conditions and their outcomes to be expressed and manifest.

That which is immaterial isn’t non-deterministic because it is non-material, then; that which is immaterial is non-deterministic because it is non-causal. Which poses the problems touched on throughout this response (mainly, how something that is non-causal can enact change, which is itself causal).

Basically, all this boils down to is questions about where you get your definitions from. Space, time, causation, material, immaterial, eternal, infinite, finite; you use these terms, but I don’t know the definitions you use for them. With the conventional definitions I've been applying, many contradictions and irreconcilable ideas emerge. Perhaps your definitions are more suitable, then.

In any case, feel free to respond to all this. Again, I don’t think I will respond again in turn until I have completed my aforementioned post concerning the thread’s topic proper. Still, hope I’ve given you something to think about (because you’ve evidently done so for me).

[4] If we define causation as "that which perpetuates change", then we clearly are working with irreconcilable terms. Which would thus require something to allow for reconciliation, whether that be revised definitions or something else.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I appreciate the response above, though I think most people will find it difficult to follow. I agree, it really just comes down to a faulty definition framework and thinking such magical words somehow provide a counter-argument.

1. It is necessary to explain the creation of the universe because causation demands that there be some first uncreated creator. You have already acknowledge the impossibility of an infinite series of causation. If the principle of causation is true, then, we must take the only other route available, that is there is a first creator which is itself uncreated. This does not violate the principle of causation because it is not contradictory to say that its reason for existence is sufficient within itself, but this is not to say that God created himself, as such would imply God be subject to temporal change, and thus not eternal, rather it is to say that God never was not. Occam's razor ostensibly makes the first uncaused cause the material universe, as you say, yet God is immaterial. Clearly, granting that there must be a first uncaused cause, which is God, it cannot be the universe, for the universe is substantially material, and God is that which is immaterial. Thus, pantheism is refuted.

God doesn't need a cause due to being 'immaterial'?

Material - that which is composed of matter or energy.

If God is neither matter nor energy then it does not exist by definition. You're literally saying that nothing created the universe by invoking God as an answer.

2. Allow me, sir, to introduce another common godly attribute: infinite. Allowing God be infinite, God cannot be material, for matter implies spacial limitation, and therefore finiteness.

Magic word No.2: Infinite. This somehow cancels out the self-contradictory nature of immaterial? Infinity multiplied by zero is still zero.

If God resides outside the bounds of the universe then you can't ascribe it properties to begin with, we can't just make stuff up and call it true.

4. This implies a temporal progression. Since we have already established God is eternal, it makes sense to claim that, to God, all times are now, since he is substantially unaffected by the passage of time.

'Temporal progression' is simply humanities way of abstracting the collective motions of our material universe. God outside space vs. God outside time - same thing.

'Eternal' specifically means to exist without beginning or end. Again, why exactly is God necessary in the equation of the universe if we are to allow the possibility of eternal existence?

People originally thought that the Earth was the center of the universe, it generated needless complications which were never truly resolved.

5. I do not understand. To be all-powerful implies one has sufficient potentiality in itself to bring to actuality all things which are not intrinsically impossible, such as a square circle. This does not require infinite complexity.

Omnipotent - to possess infinite power over all matter and energy, such inevitably implies infinite complexity relative to the universe.

If we're using different definitions, then there isn't much else I can say.

6. Causation is not a fundamentally materialistic notion. If it were, then God would have to be material, which, as we showed above, is not possible. Determinism cannot be understood as the only method of causation because determinism is exclusively material, and having demonstrated that God causes that which is immaterial, with himself for example as being immaterial, it is no contradiction to say that God can cause that which is free will.

Immateriality (i.e. non-existence/nothing) is causeless, thus everything which exists has a cause. If God exists, then it is material and subject to causation.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I appreciate the response above, though I think most people will find it difficult to follow. I agree, it really just comes down to a faulty definition framework and thinking such magical words somehow provide a counter-argument.

My post was more myself trying to work through these notions from scratch; I didn't take any audiences into account (save Monk, naturally). I try to be clear in my deliberations, but the rather abstract notions we're working with here can be cause for obfuscation of the big picture (so apologies to anyone who reads my post and feels a sudden dizziness XD).

Definitions are definitely the key here. The issue is that we're trying to derive definitions for things we have zero capacity to understand or experience ("beyond" space, "before" time, non-causal things acting causally, etc.). Such notions are so removed from our experience that it's either not worth talking about them at all, or it becomes very Twilight Zone when we do (e.g. the meta-time, meta-space, and meta-causation of metaphysics).

The other issue is with the plurality of ontic substances, and how they are supposed to interact. My forthcoming meditations on the matter aim to examine how the "material" and "non-material" substances are supposed to interact (which ties into how evidence for God's existence may or may not manifest in a way that can be observed and understood by our experience). Hopefully, it will be interesting to read; if you're a fan of my preceding post above, then you'll be wanting to keep an eye on this thread over the next couple of days.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I would suggest that nothing can never possesses influence over anything. Only the material world is capable of interacting with itself.

There are likely many underlying universal mechanisms we have not yet acknowledged as part of our definition for existence, but it's pretty safe to assume that these potential discoveries will not look anything like the decorative wall of some bronze-age temple, nor will they validate blatant contradictions.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I would suggest that nothing possesses no influence over anything. Only the material world is capable of interacting with itself.

There are likely many underlying universal mechanisms we have not yet acknowledged as part of our definition for existence, but it's pretty safe to assume that these potential discoveries will not look anything like the decorative wall of some bronze-age temple, nor will they validate blatant contradictions.

Well, I'll certainly have much more to say on that very soon.

If I ever get around to finishing it. XS