Prove god?

[Jackalope Joe D'Antonio]

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.

[Wayne Dirac]

And yet, rational people are swayed all the time to believe in God...

[Jackalope Joe D'Antonio]

If they are swayed to believe in god, then they are not rational.

[Wayne Dirac]

Says you; the ultimate judge of rationality.

[Jackalope Joe D'Antonio]

Says me and thousands of others with phds that can match and over take the knowledge of both of us. 

[Wayne Dirac]

There are thousands of others with PhDs who believe in a god that can also over take the knowledge of both of us.

[God ~blogs admin ~]

This idea that s PHD somehow gives you weight over someone is, to be frank and honest. Utter and complete BS.
~~~~
One can look at the universe, assume - due to some form of design - that there is a creator. Does that make him less rational? No, that makes him open to the possibilities. You cannot dictate who is rational, and who isn't; when your ability to think rationally is so obviously narrow minded in such a way that you aren't looking for evidence, you're merely looking for evidence that's fitting your world view/ 

[Fake Crowley]

In his defense, the belief in anything that can be doubted could be considered irrational.

Think of it this way: Either the arguments for God are valid and sound or they are not. If they are valid and sound, then anyone who denies them is being biased and illogical and close-minded and a whole lot else. If they are not valid and sound, then believing in them is ultimately irrational.

By this I don't mean to say that it's the same as believing in a contradiction, or something clearly, obviously false. I merely comment on the fact that believing something to be true based on an argument that a so-called rational person could just as easily deny as accept is not, in itself, rational. It might be right, but it isn't rational.

I would argue the latter example--of the proofs for God being shaky rather than firmly grounded, regardless of God's existence or absence thereof--to be the case, although this is mere opinion and, to be frank, hypocrisy on my part. The hypothesis is based on circumstantial evidence alone, in that I've met a few non-believers who aren't obviously irrational to the extent of denying a proof based on opinion alone. From this, we can infer that either a belief in God is irrational or it's irrational and self-deceptive to not believe that God exists--note that this isn't the same as believing in God's nonexistence, which is just as irrational as its theistic counterpart. I would argue that the latter is false, thus making the former true. In other words, a belief in God is irrational, by merit of rationality being something that no human truly possesses (I hope.)

 

[Fake Crowley]

It seems self evident that there are some things beyond our understanding--that our knowledge is not absolute, that we're wrong about a great many things, that some things are so complex that any human capable of understanding them would probably no longer be defined as a human, let alone a person. One could argue, without fear of contradiction, that one of those things we don't understand might vaguely fit under the label of God--that is to say, some natural force that works according to rules that we don't understand. Thus, "God," exists. It's a result of physics, and could be interpreted as the underlying rules that our universe follows.

 

Would it be sentient? Probably not. But then, sentience is arguably an illusion. On the cosmic scale, we're biological machines--free will doesn't exist. Do we have a sense of self? Well, yes, but we can, with enough time, figure out why that is, and I guarantee you that our sense of self follows rules, which, unless there's randomness involved, precludes the belief in free will.

 

In other words, your question is trivial. Yes, there is some force that created everything. It probably isn't intelligent, but there is a higher power that created everything. We call it reality.

 

Now, if you want to prove that there is something that created this universe that is self aware...well, I can't speak on the matter. I'd personally like to think there isn't, but I have no proof supporting that--merely wishful thinking. I suppose the answer is no, if only because thought and sentience don't exist, when you get to the heart of the matter.

[KevinC]

Interesting reading, quite a troll post by Fake Crowly... Anyway I see some people using words incorrectly, namely belief and faith as if they are interchangeable when they are not. While I don't believe or have faith in any religion, astrology or myth(including Atheism as a belief in the non-existence of a god) Alan Watt's makes a valid point about the difference between faith and belief in his brief analysis of Western and Eastern theology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIOe_zLrpwo - 5minutes 20seconds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When talking about proof of the Christian god and the inevitable claim that the Bible is literally true you need to be very careful about which version you are referring to. The new testament is apparently historically sound by the way of sources and verifications of them, as such this evidence is often seen as more relevant than scientific carbon dating, geology and anthropology and hence you won't be able to persuade a Christian that some of their specific claims are unlikely to have occurred due to scientific evidence because if person A is correct about 20 things the other thing he mentions has to be right as well... You just won't get over that hurdle.

Something that I found interesting is that the Old Testament is not as historically accurate and also that it has a lot of teachings that seem outrageous today, for example: Leviticus 24:14 "Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him." Then just 1 verse later this: Leviticus 24:16 "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." The very next verse says:  Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."

So anyone that "cursed without the camp" must be stoned, which is almost a death sentence, and anyone that blasphemes must be killed, BUT anyone that kills another man shall be killed as well. Not the kind of intellectual consistency you expect from a sentient being, but then I'm only mortal and this didn't make it into the New Testament.

Vertigo One, if you want to find inconsistencies in the Bible there is a project dedicated to pointing out Biblical scripture that doesn't work too well: http://www.project-reason.org/scripture_project/

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

So anyone that "cursed without the camp" must be stoned, which is almost a death sentence, and anyone that blasphemes must be killed, BUT anyone that kills another man shall be killed as well. Not the kind of intellectual consistency you expect from a sentient being

That's one of the most absurd ideas I've ever heard. We have a prison incarceration system, yet we criminalise kidnapping.

Vertigo One, if you want to find inconsistencies in the Bible there is a project dedicated to pointing out Biblical scripture that doesn't work too well: http://www.project-reason.org/scripture_project/

I have seen this before, and its been roundly criticised as mostly making points that arn't even contradictons. The ones that are, often have explainations.

http://www.brookhillscollege.org/bible-error-free-or-full-of-error

http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic...

http://opus.fm/v1/view/biblical_contradictions_now_with_pictures/

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm

Also, its a rip off of the following

http://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Visualizations/BibleViz

[KevinC]

Interesting point... the prison system is not something that works, so it's not a point worthy of defending which lends nothing to your argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FG2JLn1gJk

How does killing people for blasphemy fit in with The Golden Rule?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Interesting point... the prison system is not something that works, so it's not a point worthy of defending which lends nothing to your argument

Clearly then, you've misunderstood my argument. The argument wasn't based on whether it works, but whether we do it. The point being that we clearly accept the pricniple that the state does harm people, and that it is acceptable because the state is doing so in the interests of wider society. We do not accept the notion "the state hurt me (prison) therefore I am entitled to hurt it back".

How does killing people for blasphemy fit in with The Golden Rule?

If you show me where Jesus sanctions the killing of people for Blasphemy, I'll listen to you. The OT does, but the OT was, in many cases, written with a very specific survival context in mind. To blaspheme God was to A) Debase the group/society, which only held together because of things like this B) Debase God, who was the one who had done so much for them (brought them out of Egypt etc).