I have been an atheist for a while and have always been looking for an argument that will prove the existence of A GOD. A GOD is in all caps to show that I am not looking for you to prove the christian god or the greek gods, all i want is proof of the existence of a higher power that created all things. He does not have to be a moral being, nor does he have to give to craps about his creation. I just want someone to prove that he is there (I use he because in the English language we assume masculine when no gender is put forth). So anyone of any background of any knowledge level go for it.
Oh and as a side note, yes you do have to prove that god is there, i don't have to prove he is not. It is like asking someone to prove that a dragon exists when the dragon will become undetectable the minute a person looks at is. The same is true for god. He does not exist in our plane of being as I have been told oh so many times and therefore cannot be detected in any way. So don't come in here and say that I have to prove that there is no god. That is for another debate.
You're wrong. You're just listing the physical phenomenon that have been attributed to gravity. That isn't the same thing as proving gravity exists. That requires a great deal of maths etc.
If that were true, then those physical phenomenons would have to be able to occur in the absence of gravity. Which, to my knowledge, is impossible. Saying gravity doesn't exist is like saying pi is not infinite. Gravity just exists. Pi is just infinite. That should be all I have to say.
I don't think you understand what I am saying.
"Gravity" is a specific set of understandings about the nature of matter's relationship with other matter. It may however prove to be that said understandings are inaccurate. Although the physical phenomenons may be the same, what causes them may not be accurately described by the mathematical workings we use currently known as gravity.
I am not saying that I don't believe that this is an accurate description of gravity and what it is, but I am simply saying that the existence of gravity can be proven based on its effects on every object or being that exists on earth. (just a note, don't think I'm being overly argumentative, I just enjoy a good educated debate.)
No, it can't. You have just described a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon is not in and of itself a proof of gravity. There may be more than one way to arrange the mathematics that provide explanation for those same physical phenomenon.
No, YOU described it as a physical phenomenon. I quoted you. I do not think that the behaviors of objects and beings on earth is in itself gravity. I think these behaviors PROVE gravity because these things could not happen without gravity. I also believe that the mathematics prove gravity's existence. But they are not required to prove it. It's like if you were to list the characteristics of a certain person without saying their name. Someone who knew that person would guess who it was very quickly without having to that person's genetic makeup, because they would be more apt to recognize an acquaintance based on who they are, not the chemistry of their body.
Your still not getting me.
The physical phenomenon do not prove gravity.
Gravity is one possible explaination for how the phsycial phonomeon are caused, but the fact that they are there does not, in and of itself prove gravity.
To explain why, imagine if someone said "That's not gravity, that's the invisible elfin beams, pulling everything to make it work and stick together" you might say that that's stupid, but they would say "but look, everything is sticking together, that proves the beams are there".
Saying that the physical phenomenon, the behaviours of these things, proves gravity exists, is wrong. It is more complicated than that.
Except that I can prove gravity exists, and it doesn't matter if you call it by another name (like invisible elfin beams). it has an effect on our world in a meaningful, measureable way.
No, you can't prove it exists. Positive proof is practically impossible. All you can do is describe the phenomenon and disprove alternative explanations. The fact that you have an explanation that fits all the available facts does not mean you have the correct explanation.
The question behind is God there is not a question of facts and truth. It is a matter of faith.
"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He whom this emotion is a stranger who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe is as good as dead. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dulll faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms. This knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."
Actually, you can be asked to prove that there is not a God.
Another common claim of the New Atheists is that you ‘can’t prove a negative’ – where what is typically meant is a negative existence claim of the form ‘X does not exist’. Rhetorically, this claim functions to legitimize the idea that evidence needn’t be provided for God’s nonexistence. After all, if evidence cannot be provided for a proposition it would be irrational to expect one to provide some, and so reasonable to believe that evidence isn’t needed. But the claim that you can’t prove a negative cannot help the atheist. That is because, on each of two possible ways of interpreting what it means to ‘prove’ something, it is generally false that you can’t prove a negative (and often true that you can’t prove a positive).
Consider first, proofs which deliver certainty, as in mathematics or logic. Such proofs are sometimes possible for negative existence claims, such as the claim that there is no greatest prime number. One can also prove with certainty that there are no Xs whenever the concept X can be shown to be incoherent (like the concepts round square, or 3pm on the sun). Of course, it is true that many negative existence claims cannot be proved with absolute certainty, but the same holds for positive existence claims, for example, from science or common sense, such as that there are electrons or tables and chairs. So there’s nothing special here about negative existence claims.
Turn next to proofs which aim to establish only the probable truth of their conclusions. These are the sorts of proofs which result from successful scientific and other empirical investigations. In this sense of ‘proof’, it is easy to prove the non-existence of many things: for example, that there is no pomegranate in my hand, or no snow-capped mountains in the Sahara Desert. And while it may be difficult or impossible to even in this weaker sense prove the non-existence of many things – goblins, sombreros in the Sombrero Galaxy – the same goes for many positive existence claims – that Aristotle sneezed on his 20th birthday; that there is a transcendent deity; that there is a sombrero somewhere in the Sombrero Galaxy. So, again, there is nothing unique about negative existence claims. The unfortunate saying that one can’t prove a negative should be dropped.
The examples given for proving a negative here are different in nature from proving the non-existence of God, in that God is an unfalsifiable claim, due to God's alleged immaterial nature, there's no criteria or method by which to test it, whereas there is a criteria and method for testing if there's a pomegranate in the author's hand or a mountain in the Sahara (which, just to be nit-picky, there are, and they're snow-capped, I was in Morocco earlier this month.)
The point is that the fact we can't prove God does not exist doesn't mean that we default to thinking God does exist, much in the same way, to use a tired argument, that you can't prove there isn't an infinitesimally small teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars, but with the caveat that it's too small to be detected by any instruments we have. That doesn't mean the teapot exists.