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.
Burden of proof, is, in point of fact, not important. The following is taken from Philosophy now
Another familiar strategy of atheists is to insist that the burden of proof falls on the believer. If that’s right, it may allow the New Atheists to avoid evidentialism’s requirements, and rationally maintain atheism without evidence. But is it right?
The concept of ‘burden of proof’ (Latin, onus probandi) originally goes back to classical Roman law, and it remains important in legal theory. Who has the burden of proof, and what it consists of, is determined by a judge or by established rules which vary across legal systems. The same is true of formal debates which occur in a variety of formats. The idea of ‘burden of proof’ also has application in non-formal settings; for example, in academic disputes or public controversies. However, without a judge or rules to determine who has the burden and how it is to be discharged, it becomes unclear how the concept is to be applied, or even whether it has clear application.
Yet although the concept of burden of proof in informal settings is ill-understood, that does not stop many from confidently proclaiming how the burden of proof should be assigned. The most egregious mistake is to think that it is a matter of logic. Rather, the burden of proof is a methodological or procedural concept. It is, in Nicolas Rescher’s words, “a regulative principle of rationality in the context of argumentation, a ground rule, as it were, of the process of rational controversy” (Dialectics, 1977). Another error is to presume that the burden falls on whoever is making the grammatically positive statement. However, positive statements can often be translated reasonably faithfully into negative statements, and vice versa: the statement ‘everything happens for a reason’ can be expressed as ‘there are no coincidences’, and ‘there is nothing supernatural’ can be restated as ‘reality is wholly natural’. A third problem is that to be taken seriously many negative statements – ‘there are no atoms’, ‘there are no coincidences’ – require evidence, whereas the corresponding positive statements do not.
It is sometimes said that one acquires a burden of proof if one’s statement runs counter to received opinion, and it does seem that burden of proof often falls in this way. But this proposal has problems too – one being that a person can legitimately take on a burden of defending a widely-held position to those who are ignorant of it or its defense (teachers do this, for example). It may be that the best we can hope for is something like the following: in situations in which participants to a discussion are expected to take seriously the claims made by other parties, all participants bear a burden to provide support for their claims, if asked (see James Cargile’s paper ‘On the Burden of Proof’ in Philosophy 72, 1997).
The concept of burden of proof in informal settings is too complicated to sort out here, but fortunately, we don’t have to, because the question of which side has the burden of proof in an argument is largely independent of the question of what evidence is required to rationally believe any of the positions. Suppose for example that someone claims that there are no electrons, and that person bears the burden of proof. It’s not the case that so long as their burden hasn’t been discharged people can rationally believe that electrons exist without evidence. On the contrary, as evidentialism says, evidence is required for the belief to be justified even if there is no burden to defend the belief. This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something we have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the New Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism.
We could go on all day about in what context a particular statement qualifies as anything. Language is a pain in the neck, defining a concept, and therefore what may or may not be testable in that concept, even more so.
And whether or not the burden of proof is on the believer or the non-believer, the original poster is asking 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
So first, define the God, baring in mind that it could be any kind of God, so long as it is actually a God. Original poster used criteria "a higher power that created all things"; everything else that God may or may not entail is neither relevant or irrelevant. Then argue why that God exists.
Deflecting the deflection doesn't answer the question.
I, however, already proposed that if we define gravity as a higher power that created all things, then, if we can prove that gravity exists, then God is gravity. Given that we assume it does, based on observable events, indeed ones that occur right at the earliest expanse of knowledge about the universe's creation itself, then I would assume that if GOD IS GRAVITY then God, does actually exist.
Please feel free to discuss!
I really didn't bother to read much of the OP's post because it was 20 pages ago and decided to jump towards the more recent discussion.
I have a problem with the god/gravity thing. God is such a warped term with large implications. I can't stand that people are calling the Higgs Boson the God Particle because it completely overstates the significance of the particle. Same thing with calling gravity god. In our western culture, god evokes theistic beliefs (which is why you'll see Einstein with quotes about God with people being unaware that he's referring to the laws of physics).
If the OP wants to worship something higher power, then he should worship math. But that won't make math god. At least not in any useful terms.
If GOD is gravity then even science can't dis/prove it, although it seems to be pretty darn important to everything.
I would say that gravity, according to the contemporary physics,
1) A higher power
2) Created all things
It's also a weak power which may account for why we can't see it directly, why it seems to be so lopsided in places, and why it doesn't give a toss about anything (it just gives a toss :P)
When it comes to physics I am well and truly a novice....that one was pulled out of my ...urh...hat.
Well, yes I see what you mean though....hmmm. Also if we're made from star dust due to gravity then that would give credence to the idea that we're made in god's image, too.
How awesomely funny would it be if it turned out that the universe was actually shaped like the flying spaghetti monster. You know, don't eat the worm holes :P
I see you have blessed by his noodly appendage.
You are wise in the ways of the menu.
It can't be proved, and it can't be disproved. It's what you think. Religion is man made!
What about the notion that religion is a response to revelation from God?
I don't think someone just went and said, "hey everybody let's pray to some big guy in the sky with for reason." In the beginning of Christianity (or any religion) there had to have been something to make those people become religious; whether it really was an act of God or not, no one will know for sure. But even if God existed, I don't believe He really made all of those rules you find in the Bible to be a Christian. That's the part where religion is man-made - MEN made those rules. If that makes sense. :-)
I disagree. Remember though, there are only two commandments in the Bible that matter. Love God, and love your neighbour (others) as you love yourself. That's what Jesus said. Upon those two, everything else in the Bible is based.