Does God exist or not exist?

[sigurdV]

It does not matter if god exists or not since if god does not exist then Reality has to contain all necessary attributes of god.

 

In a sense then... Reality is god! So god exists! This seems to be a proof of the existence of god so how is it refuted?

 

My point here is that one function of god is to create reality... but that only moves the problem one step away,

 

since now one asks who created god? So god created himself they say.

 

So if theres no god... then why couldnt Reality do what god was supposed to do? We dont know if Reality is godlike or not, do we?

[robheus]

It does not matter if god exists or not since if god does not exist then Reality has to contain all necessary attributes of god.

 

In a sense then... Reality is god! So god exists! This seems to be a proof of the existence of god so how is it refuted?

 

My point here is that one function of god is to create reality... but that only moves the problem one step away,

 

since now one asks who created god? So god created himself they say.

 

So if theres no god... then why couldnt Reality do what god was supposed to do? We dont know if Reality is godlike or not, do we?

 

I think not, what you propose to say that reality could equally be based either on god or on matter itself, but then matter would have all attributes of god.

In some aspects you are right, namely for instance, matter does develop itself (we observe that to be the case).

But we can't attribute (self)consciousness to matter (all of reality), as reality itself can not have observer status or be observed, for that to be the case, reality would have to meet a reality outside and different from itself, but we already included all of reality in.

To be consciouss (of oneself) you need to be able to distinguish between yourself and the reality outside of yourself.

[Alan McDougall]

It does not matter if god exists or not since if god does not exist then Reality has to contain all necessary attributes of god.

 

In a sense then... Reality is god! So god exists! This seems to be a proof of the existence of god so how is it refuted?

 

My point here is that one function of god is to create reality... but that only moves the problem one step away,

 

since now one asks who created god? So god created himself they say.

 

So if theres no god... then why couldnt Reality do what god was supposed to do? We dont know if Reality is godlike or not, do we?

 

We are on the same page, I put it Existence is God and God is Existence and why cant God/Existence not have an underlying creative intelligent abilty

Edited July 11, 2012 by Alan McDougall

[ydoaPs]

In general one can not proof a negative.

 

That's not even close to true. In fact, that's the majority of what science does; it falsifies hypotheses via Modus Tollens:

 

p->q

~q

~p

 

Look at that, proving a negative in only three lines of logic!

 

 

 

The God I am looking at is not that of religion some great being sitting on a throne for example, to me this is nonsense.The entity I suggest underpins reality is ever existing an original thought that brought forth reality. We know scientifically in quantum machanics that atomic particles somehow need to be observed to exist!

 

To quote Bohr and Heisenberg ,

 

 

As our knowledge becomes wider, we must always be prepared. . .to expect alterations in the point of view best suited for the ordering of our experience.

 

The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has "not yet been understood is infinite". Whenever we proceed from the known into the unknown we may hope to understand, but we may have to learn at the same time a new meaning of the word 'understanding'.

 

Qantum mechanics shows that the materialistic common sense notion of reality is an illusion, i.e., that the objective existence of the world is an illusion.

 

I know about Buddhism and they do believe in a type of God. They call it the cosmic consciousness. They have their god but helives right here on earth in the form of the Dala Lama (spelling?)

 

Buddhists believe that there are beings that inhabit the various celestial realms. These are variously called angels, spirits, gods and devas by various cultures. But do Buddhists believe that a God created everything and manipulate human lives? No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. Modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the Creator-God idea have their origin in fear. They might have a valid pint here?

 

So, a wishy washy nondiscript thing indistinguishable from nothingness?

 

And, how might we falsify that?

 

We can't; it's vague to the point of not actually meaning anything.

 

Why should nature care about what to your mind is a "formal absurdity" ?? Quantum theory for instance already proofs to us that our ordinary logic and intuition is incapable of knowing what goes on on the quantum level.

 

You should not mix logic and intuition like that.

 

What is absurd though is that you assume that the infinite can be counted, because clearly a counted infinity is an absurdity because it contains a contradiction in terminis (the infiinite is by definition uncountable).

 

There are indeed Countable Infinities.

 

Let us suppose for a moment you have a line extending to infinity at both ends.

 

You can now place two points anywhere on the line and measure it. No matter where you place the points the distance measured between them always yield a finit answer. Does that in anyway "proof" that the line is finite?

No, of course not. Because there is no limit to where we can place the two points on the line, so we can always create a longer distance between the two points by placing them further apart, so there is no upper limit to the distance between the points.

 

Which in other words shows that the line itself is infinite.

 

Now you might say, but I don't believe that in nature there can be the infinite, but then, that is just your assumption.

Nature can be different then we think it is.

 

We can even add an infinite number of finite numbers and get a finite result!

 

For instance, [math]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{2^n}}=1[/math].

[Moontanman]

We are on the same page, I put it Existence is God and God is Existence and why cant God/Existence not have an underlying creative intellegent abilty

 

 

Why would it have to? Why add yet another layer of complexity? What do you gain in understanding by doing so?

[Alan McDougall]

Why would it have to? Why add yet another layer of complexity? What do you gain in understanding by doing so?

 

Why not the universe is unimaginably complex, so maybe an unimaginable intelligence underlines that complexity?

[ydoaPs]

Why not the universe is unimaginably complex, so maybe an unimaginable intelligence underlines that complexity?

 

Occam's Razor?

[robheus]

That's not even close to true. In fact, that's the majority of what science does; it falsifies hypotheses via Modus Tollens:

 

p->q

~q

~p

 

Look at that, proving a negative in only three lines of logic!

 

You are right of course, but that holds true for logical stuff. As we can also proof a square circle does not exist (assuming normal metrics/geomotry).

 

You can not proof for instance that there isn't a pink teapot flying round in the universe, or that unicorns don't exist and stuff like that.

[Greg H.]

That's not even close to true. In fact, that's the majority of what science does; it falsifies hypotheses via Modus Tollens:

 

p->q

~q

~p

 

Look at that, proving a negative in only three lines of logic!

 

 

Are you really proving a negative, or are you simply concluding that the assertion p is false?

[ydoaPs]

You are right of course, but that holds true for logical stuff. As we can also proof a square circle does not exist (assuming normal metrics/geomotry).

 

You can not proof for instance that there isn't a pink teapot flying round in the universe, or that unicorns don't exist and stuff like that.

 

Yes, you can. If a pink teapot is flying around the universe, certain effects are exemplified (p->q). Conditions mutually exclusive with said effects are actually exemplified (~q). Therefore, a pink teapot is not flying around the universe (~q).

 

This is the backbone of science. This is what falsification is. We take the conditional created by the hypothesis and set up a test in order to prove the opposite of the consequent. It's how we proved that luminiferous aether doesn't exist.

[Moontanman]

Yes, you can. If a pink teapot is flying around the universe, certain effects are exemplified (p->q). Conditions mutually exclusive with said effects are actually exemplified (~q). Therefore, a pink teapot is not flying around the universe (~q).

 

This is the backbone of science. This is what falsification is. We take the conditional created by the hypothesis and set up a test in order to prove the opposite of the consequent. It's how we proved that luminiferous aether doesn't exist.

 

 

Well then, can you use that to falsify the concept of god?

[Greg H.]

Well then, can you use that to falsify the concept of god?

 

Not really, because the standard scientific investigative method assumes you can test the predictions of your assertion - God, according to the standard Christian definitions, lies in the realm of the untestable, and you cannot falsify what you cannot test.

[ydoaPs]

Well then, can you use that to falsify the concept of god?

 

 

No. "god" is vague to the point of being meaningless. You can, of course, falsify various specific deities, though.

[Dekan]

Yes, you can. If a pink teapot is flying around the universe, certain effects are exemplified (p->q). Conditions mutually exclusive with said effects are actually exemplified (~q). Therefore, a pink teapot is not flying around the universe (~q).

 

This is the backbone of science. This is what falsification is. We take the conditional created by the hypothesis and set up a test in order to prove the opposite of the consequent. It's how we proved that luminiferous aether doesn't exist.

 

A good point - in Science, the test is what matters. This suggests a possible scientific way to test whether the Christian God exists.

 

Look at it this way: God supposedly sent Christ to Earth, in order to preach His message to us. The message is recorded in the New Testament of the Bible. By reading this New Testament, and accepting the message it contains, and believing in it - we will be saved and go to Heaven.

 

The New Testament is therefore of supreme importance. It's a text which is absolutely essential for our salvation. And to get this text to us, God went to a lot of trouble - He had to create a "Son", ie Christ. How He did this seems mysterious, as there's no sex in Heaven. It must have been a major effort on His part. And not likely to be something He'd lightly repeat - if He exists.

 

So to put His existence to the test, suppose we try this experiment:

 

We gather up all the printed books of the New Testament - every copy in the world, and burn them all. Also we erase the NT text from all non-print media like CDs, computer chips, every possible storage medium. So all traces of the NT are completely wiped out.

 

Then we wait to see whether there's any reaction. Should we try it, do you think?

[Moontanman]

A good point - in Science, the test is what matters. This suggests a possible scientific way to test whether the Christian God exists.

 

Look at it this way: God supposedly sent Christ to Earth, in order to preach His message to us. The message is recorded in the New Testament of the Bible. By reading this New Testament, and accepting the message it contains, and believing in it - we will be saved and go to Heaven.

 

The New Testament is therefore of supreme importance. It's a text which is absolutely essential for our salvation. And to get this text to us, God went to a lot of trouble - He had to create a "Son", ie Christ. How He did this seems mysterious, as there's no sex in Heaven. It must have been a major effort on His part. And not likely to be something He'd lightly repeat - if He exists.

 

So to put His existence to the test, suppose we try this experiment:

 

We gather up all the printed books of the New Testament - every copy in the world, and burn them all. Also we erase the NT text from all non-print media like CDs, computer chips, every possible storage medium. So all traces of the NT are completely wiped out.

 

Then we wait to see whether there's any reaction. Should we try it, do you think?

 

 

But the new testament is not obviously true, it is indeed more likely totally made up centuries after the fact. There is no independent record of anything Jesus did until almost 100 years after his death and that is almost certainly false and inserted in someone else's writings a couple hundred years later by christians who are notorious for lying to support their religion...

 

There is no local conformation of the Life of jesus other than the new testament, no record of 3 hours of darkness during his crucifixion, the earth quake, the walking dead saints, these are things even non believers would have noticed... No record of a miracle worker among the jews no record of anything in the new testament other than the new testament that was written well after the fact...

[Alan McDougall]

But the new testament is not obviously true, it is indeed more likely totally made up centuries after the fact. There is no independent record of anything Jesus did until almost 100 years after his death and that is almost certainly false and inserted in someone else's writings a couple hundred years later by christians who are notorious for lying to support their religion...

 

There is no local conformation of the Life of jesus other than the new testament, no record of 3 hours of darkness during his crucifixion, the earth quake, the walking dead saints, these are things even non believers would have noticed... No record of a miracle worker among the jews no record of anything in the new testament other than the new testament that was written well after the fact...

 

 

A scientific indication of his enormous knowledge that was impossible to be understood was time was hidden in the parable of the mustard seed.

 

The Parable of the Mustard Seed

 

Jesus told them another parable: . . . (Matt. 13:31-32)

 

They asked him, Lord tell us what the Kingdom of Heaven is like?

 

THE MAN OR GARDENER IN THIS PARABLE IS OBVIOUSLY GOD

 

To which he replied!

 

"The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches

 

Maybe he was telling them something they could not possibly fathom at the time, because to them it made absolutely no sense, so why use a nonsensical parable, unless it was meant for a much much later age like the present time. I am not the first to speculate around this parable but the below in my personal take on the idea.

 

This might mean, the Kingdom of Heaven is (The universe) like a Mustard Seed the Smallest Seed is (The Singularity) in his Field is (Existence Infinitely) yet when it Grows is (The expansion of the universe) the Largest of the Garden is (Whole multi-universes) Plants is (Again the whole universe) becomes a Tree is (The expanded universe we see today) Birds of the is ( life) Air is (Space-time) Perch is (Seeding life) on its Branches are (Branches are galaxies).

 

His plants might mean that HIS FIELD (ALL EXISTENCE) there is many other universes in existence. Plants=universes, Garden=multi-universes of all of existence?

 

These are my own particular thought by Alan

[John Cuthber]

Or maybe it's total cobblers.

 

"Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree"

For a start plenty of seeds are smaller than mustard seeds. For example, opium poppies were known at the time and they have smaller seeds than mustard.

Also mustard grows into a herb, not a tree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_plant

[Alan McDougall]

Or maybe it's total cobblers.

 

"Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree"

For a start plenty of seeds are smaller than mustard seeds. For example, opium poppies were known at the time and they have smaller seeds than mustard.

Also mustard grows into a herb, not a tree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_plant

 

I know all of this but is does not change the meaning of the parable or my idea of what it might mean?

[John Cuthber]

True, but it could also mean that a giant hamster will be elected mayor of Pluto.

That's the trouble with starting from nonsense- It could mean anything, but it probably means nothing.

[Prometheus]

I know about Buddhism and they do believe in a type of God. They call it the cosmic consciousness. They have their god but helives right here on earth in the form of the Dala Lama (spelling?)

 

Buddhists believe that there are beings that inhabit the various celestial realms. These are variously called angels, spirits, gods and devas by various cultures. But do Buddhists believe that a God created everything and manipulate human lives? No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. Modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the Creator-God idea have their origin in fear. They might have a valid pint here?

 

Just need to correct you on quite a few things here.

 

Buddhism certainly does not teach about a cosmic consciousness. Such a belief would be akin to the Hindu concept at the Atman and Brahman, which Buddhism does not regard as true. Some Buddhists might believe it though, especially the new age westerner Buddhists. The closest i can think of is the Zen concept of 'Buddha nature' which all humans possess. However, this is simply a belief that all humans have the potential to realize serenity in their lives.

 

The Dalai Lama is certainly not a god, the Buddha himself is not considered a god. Tibetan Buddhists regard as the current Dalai lama as the 14th incarnation of their spiritual leader. Buddhists from other schools just regard him as a pretty wise guy, but not their spiritual leader. Interestingly the Dalai Lama said he would stop believing in reincarnation if he was given sufficient proof - hopefully someone will take him up on that offer soon.

 

Buddhism does teach various celestial, and other, realms. Most Buddhists believe this literally, but a large minority take it only to be figurative.

 

You claim to be a Buddhist. I would recommend you read the 10 imponderables in which the Buddha taught such concerns were not part of his remit of teaching. The 10 imponderables lists certain things the Buddha explicitly said he did not teach and never commented whether he believed in them or not. This included creation stories and whether the universe was infinite/eternal.

 

Let science answer these questions, for it is a most excellent method. It is a waste of time for any religion, or metaphysical system of thought, to ponder such things, and it also misses the point. The Buddha taught to relieve the suffering experienced by man, not to explain the workings of the world. Any religion that is not to the benefit of man is a waste of time: the existence of god(s) or otherwise is irrelevant to the human condition.

[Moontanman]

 

 

A scientific indication of his enormous knowledge that was impossible to be understood was time was hidden in the parable of the mustard seed.

 

The Parable of the Mustard Seed

 

Jesus told them another parable: . . . (Matt. 13:31-32)

 

They asked him, Lord tell us what the Kingdom of Heaven is like?

 

THE MAN OR GARDENER IN THIS PARABLE IS OBVIOUSLY GOD

 

To which he replied!

 

"The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches

 

Maybe he was telling them something they could not possibly fathom at the time, because to them it made absolutely no sense, so why use a nonsensical parable, unless it was meant for a much much later age like the present time. I am not the first to speculate around this parable but the below in my personal take on the idea.

 

This might mean, the Kingdom of Heaven is (The universe) like a Mustard Seed the Smallest Seed is (The Singularity) in his Field is (Existence Infinitely) yet when it Grows is (The expansion of the universe) the Largest of the Garden is (Whole multi-universes) Plants is (Again the whole universe) becomes a Tree is (The expanded universe we see today) Birds of the is ( life) Air is (Space-time) Perch is (Seeding life) on its Branches are (Branches are galaxies).

 

His plants might mean that HIS FIELD (ALL EXISTENCE) there is many other universes in existence. Plants=universes, Garden=multi-universes of all of existence?

 

These are my own particular thought by Alan

 

 

How could this philosophical dribble possibly confirm the veracity of the new testament?

[adam1]

With all of the diverse testimonies from the ancients to present about the various beliefs in a god into the modern era, it would seem neive to ignorea strong probablity, at the very least, that their is the existence of a supernatural realm of some kind and therefore a presence of some sort or sort of deistic beings humankind has learned to refer to as a god.

 

To ignore such a unbiquious extent and duration of such beliefs, purporteded dialogs, experiences and the enormous force of its influence throughout cultures on every continent of the world that were once entirely once enitriely culturally isolated form one anothe, would be tandamount to burying ones head in the sand. Lets face it folks, the universal belief in a god has always been there. That discount to avoid the need for a basic investigation into the subject would be similar to denouncing that the sun has risen daily since at least the beginning of recorded astronomical observation.

[Moontanman]

With all of the diverse testimonies from the ancients to present about the various beliefs in a god into the modern era, it would seem neive to ignorea strong probablity, at the very least, that their is the existence of a supernatural realm of some kind and therefore a presence of some sort or sort of deistic beings humankind has learned to refer to as a god.

 

Then again logically it probably means they are all wrong and it's all made up...

 

To ignore such a unbiquious extent and duration of such beliefs, purporteded dialogs, experiences and the enormous force of its influence throughout cultures on every continent of the world that were once entirely once enitriely culturally isolated form one anothe, would be tandamount to burying ones head in the sand. Lets face it folks, the universal belief in a god has always been there. That discount to avoid the need for a basic investigation into the subject would be similar to denouncing that the sun has risen daily since at least the beginning of recorded astronomical observation.

 

Isn't it more like assuming the sun revolves around the Earth because it looks that way? How can something supernatural be investigated by a methodological process that relies on natural means?

 

No wait there was that study of the power of prayer.... didn't exactly confirm anything supernatural...

[adam1]

The metaphor of the sun was used only as a analogy not a parallelism of an empirically based scientific experiment.

 

A refresher review of the scientific method may be helpful to refresh the understanding that the fundimental premise of all science is founded on allowing ONLY the consideration of natural process as the singular means and explanation for the existence and phenomenon of all things.

 

That, of course, immediately excludes anything relating to an investigation of the existence of the supernatural..... including the effects of ...prayer.

Edited July 19, 2012 by adam1

[John Cuthber]

The metaphor of the sun was used only as a analogy not a parallelism of an empirically based scientific experiment.

 

A refresher review of the scientific method may be helpful to refresh the understanding that the fundimental premise of all science is founded on allowing ONLY the consideration of natural process as the singular means and explanation for the existence and phenomenon of all things.

 

That, of course, immediately excludes anything relating to an investigation of the existence of the supernatural..... including the effects of ...prayer.

If the "power of prayer" is actually real, then it is part of the nature that God (if He exists) created.

It is, therefore perfectly open to exploration by experiment.

The experiment was done.

It failed to show any effect.

 

This shows that the power of prayer is either small (i.e. below the detection limit of the experiment) or non-existent.

 

So praying is either pointless or nearly pointless.