An attempt to prove ‘God’ .. disprove if you like

Homepage Forums Epiphanies & Ideas An attempt to prove ‘God’ .. disprove if you like

0
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)    3 years, 2 months ago

I have been thinking that it can be done lately… if you want to disprove ‘God’ feel free.. It doesn’t matter to me exactly you think ‘God’ is (please share if you like tho).. but by ‘God’ I am referring to a creator that created us specifically.

My theory is that our existence is one of two things… Random, or rational… there are no other options…

Random being some scientific, mathematical inconsistent anomaly that placed us here on this earth, and able to take care of ourselves, not ‘God’… Rational being ‘God’ placed us here with deliberation (is that a word?)

To me, this reality makes it undeniable.. Our existence is full of rationality, mathematical consistences, analogies and paradoxes, where ‘God’s’ work can be viewed and reflected on ourselves..

0 votes, posted 05.24.2011 at 1:02 am
+

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Avatar of CosmicLemonade
CosmicLemonade (@cosmiclemonade)3 years, 2 months ago ago

Ben

“I wasn’t using that as an argument, its just a truth in the philosophy i use to approach all of this.”

My bad. I misinterpreted. I respect your truth, but it looked like an argument.

I wasn’t trying to argue, I just wanted to make some distinctions about your philosophic approach.

“there is no physical proof of religion, and regardless of anything you believe a human child raised in the wild would have absolutely no knowledge of anything remotely religious.”

No proof of religion, but the inspiration for most religions is based in what I have observed to be a experience that most religions people seem to have had in the past. Just because the interpretation of that experience was put into terms with cultural restrictions and, in some cases, completely misconstrued through editing or omission doesn’t mean the original experience was not valid.

A human child in the wild would probably have this experience way more than we do.

“and why do you think communication was detrimental to anything?”

I thought detrimental meant something completely different. I was really stoned I think. Please excuse me. I meant to say that it was important to our evolution not harmful.

+
Avatar of Kevin
Kevin (@benly150)3 years, 2 months ago ago

Aaron, I agree 100%. Religion holds meaning to people who believe in X religion. I believe religion can help people both physically and mentally. At the same time it’s not necessarily religion which is doing that (maybe it is because it is real ((who knows)), but instead i think it is the power of the mind reacting to your beliefs. I think we all know that the mind is way more powerful than any of us could ever comprehend.

“there is no physical proof of religion, and regardless of anything you believe a human child raised in the wild would have absolutely no knowledge of anything remotely religious.”

Not sure if this is true Ben. I can’t say for sure, but If it is human nature to search for meaning in ones life, and a higher power, I’m sure a child raised in the wild would come up with some sort of religion with some sort of God (unless the child got eaten by wild animals before any such ideas could come to fruition).

+
Avatar of Stephen
Stephen (@stepvhen)3 years, 2 months ago ago

Look the fact is. You can’t prove there is 100% and can’t prove there isn’t 100%. The only truthful course of action is to say “I don’t know”.

If beating a drum about your belief or lack thereof is more important to you than the truth, then the existence or lack thereof of a god is the least of your worries.

+
Avatar of Kevin
Kevin (@benly150)3 years, 2 months ago ago

Stephen:

Very well said.

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 2 months ago ago

Stephen – true <3

+
Avatar of Alex Eastman
Alex Eastman (@alex)3 years, 2 months ago ago

Agreed Stephen.

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 2 months ago ago

you can to prove it..

Our existence is either rational or random.. Just because there are things beyond your scope does not give you any consistency or stable agruement for saying we were not created. It is undeniable there is logic in life, a billion things all lined up in a perfect row to make life…. Not even close, to one random anamly. There is no logic in saying, a billion, one and a billion anomolies happened in a row to make life.. makes zero sense… We you realize that is not possible, you have no choice but to say it was done intentionally, and as a being of some reason, I say it was done by systematically.. not randomly.. Therefor, rational = ‘God’. Only a reaonable, rational being could have created what we experience… if that’s not the case, you would need, billions of mathematical/scientific anomolies, to line up billions of times in a row.. and create life…… yea right

+
Avatar of Kevin
Kevin (@benly150)3 years, 2 months ago ago

Matt, you don’t get it. Anything is possible. ANYTHING. Is it likely a billion miracle anomalies happened in a row to make us what we are today? Maybe not, but it is possible. Is it likely there is a God who made us for his enjoyment and he may or may not have a set of rules he want’s us to follow? probably not but it is possible. Is it likely we are all one being dreaming our our own existences, gaining information for what we would like to create? I don’t think there is a good chance of that either. But it is possible. If it is so hard to believe that so many amazing anomalies happened to lead us here today, shouldn’t it be just as hard to believe that there is an amazing anomaly which we call GOD who has created us and everything around us? This supposed being who created everything is just as an unfathomable anomaly as a million miracles happening in time and space to “create” us. Nothing can be proven. Nothing, because everything is possible, and everything is impossible.

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 2 months ago ago

Matt: I tend to agree with you. I feel that there is too much order and complexity in the Universe for it to have been an accident…And everyone who disagrees – it’s all cool. The fact is no one is sure. Namaste xxoo

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 2 months ago ago

Matt: I tend to agree with you. I feel that there is too much order and complexity in the Universe for it to have been an accident…And everyone who disagrees – it’s all cool. The fact is no one is sure. Namaste xxoo

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 2 months ago ago

but what i’m saying is the fact that you are unsure, forces you to acknoledge ‘God’ .. after the fact that you acknowlege the rationality internaly and externally.. there is no other explainantion than ‘God/Creator’.. it is the absense of anomolies.. therefor ‘God’

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 2 months ago ago

And Ben, you can never get to why we happened, ‘Conversations with God’ that Aaron outlined is the best description of why I have ever heard… but just because you cannot answer why does not mean you can say there is no ‘God’, by doing so you are saying we are a line of anomolies, and that is not even close to plausible.. That is my entire arguement..

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 2 months ago ago

Devon, I think this..

Matt: How long do you believe the earth has been around?

the earth is billions or more years old

creationists: is evolution still out of the picture?

no, we were evolved over time.. there is not logical reasoning to disassociating a creator with that fact tho.. it took a long time, yes.. so what..

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 2 months ago ago

Do you believe any religion has an accurate depiction of of how our creation occurred?

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 2 months ago ago

Devon: Which religion? I think it’s obvious that Christianity has it wrong. And to believe in God one doesn’t need to follow a specific religion.

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 2 months ago ago

I didn’t really read whole discussion, but will to later.. Just a quick question.

How to prove or disprove “GOD” when you don’t know what you’re trying to prove or disprove?
First of all, whole “GOD” thing is really foggy because every religion have a different “GOD” interpretation. So, basically you’ll have to prove or disprove every interpretation of “GOD”.

+
Avatar of Kayne Wong
Kayne Wong (@kayne)3 years, 2 months ago ago

Christianity, like all other faiths have a view. If they are wrong, then everyone is wrong because frankly, speaking as a Catholic with extensive studies into other religions; every religion I’ve ever encountered that isn’t bonkers ((revolving around copious amounts of human sacrifice, brainwashing Kool-Aid space cults (and even a few of these are ok… To a point)) are all the same. To a degree. Nearly every religion wants good things for good people, uses an afterlife concept to threaten believers into compliance (even the concept of reincarnation moves you up and down a scale) and has very similar ideals and concepts. Just the details differ. And even then, less then you would thinks.

Science from the get go can explain everything, every reaction has a result and every result triggers a new reaction. Thus is life, science, every moment of inertia. The fact is science has never been truly at war with God. Some scientists have been because of their own bias. Darwin himself never sought to disprove God, he only seemed to pull back the curtain and show the nature of the magicians trick.

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 2 months ago ago

But if you believe in the universe/s as infinite then we aren’t an anomaly, we were basically mathematically bound to happen. And I think to say that we are a billion, billion to one miracles is incorrect. A billion things happened during our climbing of the evolutionary ladder that made us into what we see today, but a billion different things could have happened and we could have come out completely different. This is just the chain of events that led us here. And somewhere else there could be an earth-like planet where the events happened differently or not at all, that’s just the way our universe works. I’m fine with people believing whatever they want, but for me, to say that just because there’s no evidence against something, or that something is too complex for our understanding that it must be a higher power’s doing, makes no sense. I can only go with science, and science isn’t an exact thing, it is just our current understanding of the universe based on what we can see and have the capacity to understand at the moment. Right now we don’t have the capacity to understand all of the goings on in the universe. I look at it like this, before Newton people weren’t just floating around waiting for him to discover gravity, it was there he just put the scientific principle to it. Everything in the universe that ever has been and ever will be is here, we just need to evolve to a point where we can understand it.

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 2 months ago ago

Science is “God” .. and what i’m trying to define is ‘Creator’ so if ‘god’ isn’t working for you for this arguement just say creator.. we were created by a being through rationality, and that is proved with the reason of science! I say science is consistent, repeatative, there are small inconsistent variables, like exactly which way to the wind will blow, but the bigger variales still dictate to that princible, which would be currents and heat and cold and whateverelse.. this holds life together, consistency, rationality, science, I just can’t agree that science is inconsistent…. science is rational, therefor our existence is rational, therefor we have a ‘Creator’ .. there is no way around it dammit lol.. and by saying the contrary, your arguement is that random anamolies have lined up, over and over and over and over… so i’m just going to say it… bullshit….

And Mike I do not see this universe as endless.. I see it as a spec, and limited, I believe that other dimensions are where infinity is, that is how space is infinite in my mind, not this universe.. Your point looses validity to me when I think of the endless amounts of anomolies that lined up… it was not one anomoly first off, it was a trillon and one anomolies.. it’s just not impossible.. Life won the lottery 80 billion times in a row?? come on

what i’m saying mike is that by acknowledging rationality in life, you have no choice but discern it as either a rational source, or a radom/unrational source… and a random set of cirmumstances would in no way, line up consistecntly enough to create our situation.. I will agree that it is over my head, but because of that, I believe I have proved that there is a creator

now what “God/Creator” is, how much power he has, or why he is, or what the purpose is, .. is a whole diff subject.. And I would think it could only be hypothesized really.. but to even start you would have to agree there is a creator.. I don’t feel like my boat is sinking…

+
Avatar of Stephen
Stephen (@stepvhen)3 years, 2 months ago ago

“but what i’m saying is the fact that you are unsure, forces you to acknoledge ‘God’”

But it doesn’t. You’re saying ti makes both likelihood’s equally plausible thereby giving them some form of concrete reality.

That might be how you look at it, but that’s deeply flawed.

You’re not acknowledging God….

You’re acknowledging your own uncertainty. The focus isn’t the concepts in question but your uncertainty

” .. after the fact that you acknowlege the rationality internaly and externally.. there is no other explainantion than ‘God/Creator’.. it is the absense of anomolies.. therefor ‘God’ ”

Could you give me this part in plain english?

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 2 months ago ago

I’m trying to use math… our existence is either a mathematical consitency, or it’s a mathematical anomoly..

So.. after you ackowlege all the internanal rationality, and external rationality. The mathematical consisteny. You can no longer defend life, as an unintentional anomly.. And just because the mathemtics go over our heads, does not allow us to deny a creator.. The math is right in front of your face.. and you can see some of.. that is enough.. and the fact that you cannot explain something after you see the reason and consistency in life, is also enough.. to me, I can see you argueing the later, but not the first part.. you can see the math right in front of your face

absense of anomolies… i mean, how many anomolies would have to tak place in order for us to be apple to pick an apple of a tree standing up straight, pull it back, eat it, see it, taste it, have the specific taste of sweetness to our palet, be good for you.. so many anomolies.. like, insanity.. or look at the digestive system.. even if you wanna say everything was on autopolite, it’s begining still has rules, and reason.. if/then.. preditors didn’t just randomly develope killing power.. it had reason, it had a mathematical consitency in a set of circumstances, and without reason or rationality, you cannot have significant consistency.. not in the flesh anyway..

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 2 months ago ago

That’s why I put universe/s meaning whether you believe in just this universe as infinite or you believe in many universes being the infinite, either way it goes forever. So a narrow minded view would say that it was just a trillion anomalies that brought us here, but if it’s infinite then the math would suggest that we didn’t just happen, we had to happen eventually. And somewhere else in the infinite there is a planet similar to ours where those trillion things happened differently and maybe life on that planet didn’t turn out the same or didn’t turn out at all but in the infinite spectrum of things those were bound to happen too. And to just write that off as a creator makes no sense to me.

I think you’re getting caught up on the term science, science is simply the terms we put to the things that are already there. You can take us completely out of this situation and things will still work the same, that’s not evidence of a creator, that’s just the way things work in this universe. There might be a different universe out there where the laws of the universe that we have observed are completely different, we just don’t know.

To say “Life won the lottery 80 billion times in a row? come on” is foolish. The outcomes of those could have been completely different and we could have ended up looking and functioning in a different way, or being completely different beings, but you could still make that same statement regardless of how we turned out. The fact is, this is how it worked out on this planet. Trillion to one odds mean nothing on an infinite scale, it’s like the infinite monkey theorem: “The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In this context, “almost surely” is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the “monkey” is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces a random sequence of letters ad infinitum.”
The truth is, if you believe in infinity then there are an infinite number of universes, with an infinite number of worlds, with an infinite number of different outcomes for life. But that in an of itself is not an argument for a creator. For me that would just be an easy escape because of something that is beyond my comprehension.

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 2 months ago ago

you might have put a little hole in my boat but i’m not worried ;) ..

I don’t want to let go of the rationality I see in front of me.. the purpose that I actually can see.. And I was trying to use science to defend rationality as consistency..

But once we actually see how divere life in this galaxy is I believe my hole is plugged… it would again be to inconsistent with anamolies..

and abosolutely won the lottery a billion times in a row… or you’d have a reptile leg, and chicken wing, and no teeth and wouldn’t breathe, couldn’t talk, the possibilites are endlessly flawed, instead of endlessly fuctional… pure rationality brother…

And i believe i have the monkey arguement sussed… we are not a radom word… we would a radom novel writin in 12 different languages by that monkey.. didn’t happen

if you can prove rationality in life, you can prove a creator… otherwise the things i have stated above would be the case… And that is proven mathematically

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 2 months ago ago

I’m not sure what exactly the monkey argument was but the lottery one is flawed. To say that we would have had a chicken wing or a reptile leg or wouldn’t breathe is saying you don’t believe in evolution. Evolution brought us to this point, survival of the fittest, and clearly no teeth, or a chicken wing and especially an inability to breathe would not make you the most fit for survival. My understanding is that evolution follows the path of least resistance, it’s not a trial and error, there’s nobody going “maybe a chicken wing and no teeth, oh that didn’t work? ok let’s try again.” We can look at it as a cosmic lottery to be born in this time and place as the people we are, but once life was on this planet and the situation was right, evolution took us the rest of the way. We developed the way we have out of necessity, we are the best adapted to survive here. But I don’t even believe that we are the top of the evolutionary ladder, at least not mentally. Because look at what we do to ourselves and our environment, I think there’s a step above us, a “homo novus” if you will. A new breed of human that is conscious of the way we have to live and work together if we hope to survive as a species. But I feel that’s another discussion all together.

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 2 months ago ago

Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not closed off to the idea of a creator, I just don’t see the evidence at this point. But if “science” can some day give an explanation of a “creator” then I will try to understand it then. It’s just too big of a leap for me at this point. But I must say that this has been one of my favorite discussions.

+