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
Anonymous (@)3 years, 1 month ago ago

Curiosity and a thirst for knowledge are great qualities to have. I agree with you, I don’t think insults have a place in any discussion. But beyond that I thought this discussion was very good, a lot of different viewpoints were expressed and I do like hearing things from the other side.

+
Avatar of Meaghan
Meaghan (@ultraloveit)3 years, 1 month ago ago

It’s so refreshing to find a group of people who are willing to talk (And not blow the hell up, for the most part :P) about deep issues like this. Damn I really want to hug everyone. :P

+
Avatar of Don Bay
Don Bay (@donbay)3 years, 1 month ago ago

The idea of a Creator is really a vague statement in and of itself. It seems like most monotheistic sects will immediately assume an entity on “Him.” Buddhism and Taoism are little less apt to do this, however. So can you say that the evidence of a creator is 0 when a religion’s creator is almost reflexive to the act of creation? In other words, the creation itself is considered a conscious act that justifies that creation. Just as man holds itself as meaningful, creation also holds itself to meaning.

Anyways, point being that what if there is some higher power, a collective of preternatural energy that willed the universe into being? This doesn’t conflict with with the idea that man’s appearance is the product of science, even if science is actually wrong most of the time. (My reasoning for that is the fact that we’ve made many blunders in the past, you’re presuming that our current knowledge is dead on since it works, when in many years we may discover that we are slightly incorrect on our theories, and as a million years pass our generations won’t even consider what we have to be science if mankind still exists.) If you’ve paid attention to the studies of physics in the last five years, scientists are finding that Gravity, as we define it, is only accurately calculated up to a certain point, at which point the projected amount of pull exceeds the mass of some celestial bodies. Once you get past the size of Neptune, I think it was (sorry for not providing references I’ll post some if you don’t believe this) Gravity stops working the way science has defined it. The equation scientists use is therefore incomplete. Also, why would science talk about the things it cannot do? Like create an accurate model for the movement of sand? We use it as much as we can but mankind doesn’t have an infinite brain capacity, as much as society fails to recognize.

But what if something else out there does? What if computers became sentient, and excelled past us? The Western philosophy would be afraid of this, because we’re “chosen,” but the Oriental philosophers would just accept that creation is a changing thing, adapting, and the things that exist won’t always follow the same pattern. Mankind won’t always be on top. So what?

The only reason people choose science over any type of faith is because material objects give the immediate delusion of pleasure and security. Science provides to us reliably. We use it as a tool to get what we want, not to explain the universe; weapons and medicine are the first signs of advancement in technology. Arguably, this worldly “do for myself now” strategy is just as fictional as the “do for myself in the afterlife” strategy. Both paths lead to the same end- in theory, you may just decay without consciousness, or there may be some eternity in the beyond. The only way to find out for sure is to experience it.

Any volunteers?

+
Avatar of Don Bay
Don Bay (@donbay)3 years, 1 month ago ago

^And when I say Gravity doesn’t work as defined, I mean the mass has an inappropriate amount of pull.

+
Avatar of Don Bay
Don Bay (@donbay)3 years, 1 month ago ago

Also, as for the argument of other universes, Schrodinger’s cat is a good topic. And I think Elton John is the best candidate for a deity that mankind has to offer <— unrelated note.

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 1 month ago ago

I second that motion – ie: Elton John as Deity :)

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 1 month ago ago

I really want to hug Meaghan…and the rest of you too I guess :P

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 1 month ago ago

yes i follow… your odds are pathetic… but i acknowledge that with enough numbers it’s possible.. but i feel like an idiot for relying on the inconsistcies, and not the over whelming consistencies.. common sense.. how bout them apples

tho I’m certain in my mind, it is irrelevant, alright….. tho there is a disconnect to the abyss my arguement is that enough rational can be observed, therefore your forced into acknowleging a rational being, or your stuck acknowledging a random anomoly (i see no hole in at least limiting it to only one of those two possibilities)… But saying ‘because i am rational i came from a rational being’ is a slippery slope, and i have to do that… with infinite possibilities i can’t argue the math, or the concept… i just don’t like the idea of an inconsistenty creating life….

now wether we can agree or not that mathematics can prove reason, therefor god.. do you think there is any foundation to building from there… on the basis that there is a god… building to a higher level from there…? or do you find it an irrelavant arguement and rather have a different foundation, to build your ‘self’ to a higher level??

“what else can i do but beat my drum?”
“All it takes is to get with it! Fucking dance and don’t worry about truth or reality or God”

so how free does that make you…?? You guys have made valid points… so i think my only option is to try and build from there……….

and I know i’m beating my drum… and i will bring myself to shame before you will…

but to again keep my boat floating… consistency is where my arguement lies.. inconsistency is what your defending…

stepehn, i don’t understand the method to your madness… ppl that talk like that in my circles end up face busted… I have plenty of respect for you for the record and didn’t read your later post yet, where i think you explained it, i’m tired… but you get my temper going… it’s my own problem, and i don’t have to fight fire with fire, so i won’t go on…

cheers…

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 1 month ago ago

yes i follow… your odds are pathetic… but i acknowledge that with enough numbers it’s possible.. but i feel like an idiot for relying on the inconsistcies, and not the over whelming consistencies.. common sense.. how bout them apples

tho I’m certain in my mind, it is irrelevant, alright….. tho there is a disconnect to the abyss my arguement is that enough rational can be observed, therefore your forced into acknowleging a rational being, or your stuck acknowledging a random anomoly (i see no hole in at least limiting it to only one of those two possibilities)… But saying ‘because i am rational i came from a rational being’ is a slippery slope, and i have to do that… with infinite possibilities i can’t argue the math, or the concept… i just don’t like the idea of an inconsistenty creating life….

now wether we can agree or not that mathematics can prove reason, therefor god.. do you think there is any foundation to building from there… on the basis that there is a god… building to a higher level from there…? or do you find it an irrelavant arguement and rather have a different foundation, to build your ‘self’ to a higher level??

“what else can i do but beat my drum?”

“All it takes is to get with it! Fucking dance and don’t worry about truth or reality or God”

so how free does that make you…?? You guys have made valid points… so i think my only option is to try and build from there……….

and I know i’m beating my drum… and i will bring myself to shame before you will…

but to again keep my boat floating… consistency is where my arguement lies.. inconsistency is what your defending…

stepehn, i don’t understand the method to your madness… ppl that talk like that in my circles end up face busted… I have plenty of respect for you for the record and didn’t read your later post yet, where i think you explained it, i’m tired… but you get my temper going… it’s my own problem, and i don’t have to fight fire with fire, so i won’t go on…

cheers…

+
Avatar of Meaghan
Meaghan (@ultraloveit)3 years, 1 month ago ago

*Hugs Kirsten* :D Yay!

@ Matt: If by inconsistencies you mean lack of proof for God and the lack of proof for how the world was created, and everything in between, then yes I suppose I am defending those. My religion is based on Faith, there is no mathematical explanation for that, no?

@ Don: I like your thinking :D

+
Avatar of Don Bay
Don Bay (@donbay)3 years, 1 month ago ago

^Math is an essential component of science. Both were made by mankind to record patterns in nature that have been observable thus far and can be predicted/recreated for the benefit of mankind. The only problem with science is that we don’t understand what makes the laws of physics so constant. Have these laws always worked as such? We’d like to think so, since creatures before us have developed organically, with a biology that suggests they evolved to take advantage of these “laws.” But in truth we only know what mankind has recorded; i.e. we only know, for sure, that the algorithms we have would have worked since mankind’s discovery of them.

I know this is a large claim, but it’s just a possibility. Do I think science wouldn’t have worked a million years ago? I’m sure it would have. Is there a point, much further back, where physics didn’t exist? I believe there was a time like this, VERY far back, maybe before Earth was created. It’s just a theory, much like the laws of physics is just a theory.

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 1 month ago ago

no Meaghan incosistancies meaning lack of ‘God’, not lack of proof .. as stephen is saying, inconsistencies can happen in math, so it could have happened, therefor my arguement is bunk.. We don’t agree.. and I see it as a mook point.. inconsistency vs. consistency, i’ll take consistency everytime.. The biggest problem I have created is saying ‘because I am rational, I recognize what consistency is, and since life is consistent, it had to come from a rational being’, I can never truely prove the being without relating it to the self, so I was trying to skip it, and use math and science as automatic proof of a being, because it is rational and consistent… am I talking to you on your level now stephen?

to try and explain better meaghan.. the fibanacci sequence is repeatative,our dna sequences are reapetative, our tides are consistent, our time is consistent, necessary for life, a perfect alignment of baffling, complex math and science formulas.. so what i have tried to do is bridge a gap saying that because i recognize this as rational, and am writing off aligned anamolies as impossible, assuming each minute detail of our creation would be consisdered an anomoly, I am acknowledging a thinking, rational force, therefor ‘God’..

Faith bridges the same gap

that is the best I can explain my attempt at this theory…

+
Avatar of CosmicLemonade
CosmicLemonade (@cosmiclemonade)3 years, 1 month ago ago

“inconsistency vs. consistency”

The real question to ask: is the unifying factor of the universe order and happiness or chaos and death.

The real answer is a dichotomy because there could be no order without the unifying factor of chaos. The universe is unified and ordered, but it is chaos through which we can experience this unification.

If anyone knows anything about chaos theory, please post.

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 1 month ago ago

That is a pretty tough question… and I have no idea… could go either way I guess

but you don’t feel like life’s creation has bypassed chaos..?? And shows consistency, time after time, I mean the universe sure… it’s a good point… I never liked the chaos theory.. obviously lol

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 1 month ago ago

and stephen I wasn’t taking this post super serious.. it was just an ‘attempt’.. may have been rambling.. but i was sticking to my guns.. my last post is the best I can put it..

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 1 month ago ago

Stephen, for all that ripping on me you did, removing me from your friends list, and just being ludicrous.. I’m still waiting for your retort..

Defend your posiition, as I have…. Or I guess since it’s just anything is possible, it could have been a bunch of pink unicorns that are non-beings, so wtf is there to talk about… for as much brains as you claim to have you seem like nothing but a know it all to me… get over yourself… you are not better than me.. and your arguement is garbage… i’m sure with all your genious you can think of better framework than that… where pink non-being unicorns could have done it… I didn’t keep up with the post professionally, it’s not my job, GET OVER IT.. I was having fun with it… but if pink unicorns is your answer after you run your fat mouth like that… go fuck yourself

If your going to blast a post… at least have some class about it

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 1 month ago ago

@Matt: I see what you’re saying but it seems to me that your argument still stems from an inability to understand. The same as someone who says they don’t understand or can’t comprehend the universe so therefor it must be a creator. Now you seem to have more of an understanding than that but at the basic level you’re saying that even though you see how some of the things work, you can’t accept it as being random and therefor must be a creator. Please correct me if I’m wrong, I’ve been away for a bit.

I have yet to see any actual evidence of a creator, I’m not closed off to the idea and if presented with evidence I will take it into consideration. But consistencies, enormous odds and fear are not legitimate arguments for a creator.

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 1 month ago ago

I’m sorry i didn’t give you feedback on this sooner… I have to make a leap with that… by saying that because what can be known is as complex, aligned, and rational as it is.. so is everything else, even tho we can’t explain it yet..

Our bodies are little universes, and we can see enough in there, to not need to explain the universe.. there is so much thought, and reason, in our own bodies.. you see what i’m saying?

Now i totally agree that you cannot get to the begining, and how it was created.. so I get where your coming from, but do you see my point? … i’m not trying to just say ‘well i don’t get it so it must be god’ .. i’m saying look at how much can be gotten, and saying ‘it must be god’..

I pointed out what I saw as the major flaw in my arguement above.. but you have to make a jump one way or the other.. and i’m attempting to say it’s more rational that a thinking ‘god’ (again i dont’ really care what you call it, non-beings has yet to be argued to me) did this, instead of radom anomolies and we are just some cosmic lottery, that got jammed, and started spitting out jackpots over and over again on earth… lol not trying to get carried away but that is my view if it’s not god.. and i haven’t seen otherwise yet

Maybe this analogy would work… does a house just build itself, with shingles, and a front door, ect..? I’m saying life is that detailed, there is that much reason behind it, it was built.. But it is a big jump to say it was a being… but it seems irrational to say it wasn’t… did that make more sense?

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 1 month ago ago

I respect that viewpoint, and if that works for you then I have no problem with that. But to me I don’t see that as a legitimate argument for a creator. Looking back at the billions of years that brought us to this point surely does seem rational, to look at us and see how complex we are it would be easy to say that a creator did that, but to me that’s a cop out. But I think if you were able to be there for ever step that led us here you would see that this is just one of the trillions of possible outcomes of life. I’m sure somewhere else there are other beings whose evolutionary path lead them somewhere else, but right now I’m sure there are some of them looking back on theirs and saying “how could this not be intelligent design?” I don’t look at it as us hitting the 1 in a million jackpot over and over, I look at it more as a random number generator with a certain outcome assigned to each number, and this is simply the outcome that played out here.

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 1 month ago ago

tho i was hoping my arguement would get farther, that ackowleging order all around us, forces us to acknowlege we came from order … it’s still a jump, but remember it’s a jump no matter what.. i’ve tried to make the case that it is more rational to say it was a creator.. you have to jump so which way are you going to jump?

The only reason I don’t like the number generator or single lotto ticket arguement is because I don’t find it fair to assign everything that has happened in life to one lousy number… to me it’s an alignement of specific numbers over and over again… not saying random design isn’t possible, cause i don’t know what is possible, i just can’t see random design here….

I tried hard not to cop-out… narrowing the jump down, we are a random design, or a rational design… someone tried to point a flaw in that assumption… but i didn’t think it was legit… is my assumption unreasonable??

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 1 month ago ago

I didn’t mean for it to sound that way, it’s not a cop out if that’s what you believe. I think maybe it’s like that optical illusion with the old lady/young lady, once I see it one way it’s hard for me to see the other. This is the way I’ve always seen it.

And I didn’t mean to make it sound like the single lotto idea, I mean the number generator as in at every step along the evolutionary ladder the conditions were such that it lead us to the next along our path. That at every rung of the ladder a new number was generated.

I hate that this sort of degenerated into an argument, because it shouldn’t really matter what anyone else thinks. If you can rationalize it to yourself then that is all that should matter.

For me it just goes back to the infinite theory, and I do believe in infinity therefor, mathematically, we had to happen this way eventually. It can be hard to see it that way because in an infinite spectrum whatever your vantage point is is the center. But I don’t think both take a leap as you say, I’ve acknowledged that science is fallible and that has been proven many times in the past. But it is really all that I have, it is our understanding of the things around us based on what we can see and also what we have the capacity to understand. It is much easier for me to say that I clearly don’t have the capacity to understand everything that is happening in the universe than it is for me to give myself up to the idea of a creator.

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 1 month ago ago

well i actually intended on argueing with atheists so the arguement was caused by me…

and it’s not that i’m being closed minded because i have tried very hard to patch together a no god theory, and i just can’t do it… I think it’s irrational, i wasn’t picking a fight, but i did want a debate, and i wasn’t going to just let my boat sink… i was trying to build a case against it… with more life found in the universe the anomoly theory breaks down completly, and i feel there is nothing more the athiest can hold onto, maybe i’m ingnorant… there would have to be some force of reason then.. I just dont know how to disassociate reason with a being tho, i mean even if we create an AI system, that produces specific coding, randomly, similar in a sense to DNA, or in terms of evolution.. THE AI STILL HAD TO BE CREATED… stephen brough up a non-being, i’m guessing AI like entity, that could have done it.. but he didn’t make a case…

It’s a hard topic, but i personally find value in it… i like the idea of god, it makes everything possibile.. thinking about what has been done, and i like talking about, like it’s a game….. that maybe a mook point tho… i don’t know if proving god exists really means anything or not…..

+
Avatar of
Anonymous (@)3 years, 1 month ago ago

Maybe I’m oversimplifying or even completely misunderstanding your argument, but it sounds to me like you’re saying that we function too perfectly here, we work too well to not be of intelligent design. But we don’t, look how easily our bodies decay, how easily we can be destroyed by tiny bacteria or in the case of cancer and AIDs, our own bodies defeat us. We don’t work perfectly here, we just work.

To go back to the lottery idea, 1 in a billion seems like a long shot, but if I buy a billion tickets my chances approach 100%. I feel the same is true for our cosmic lottery, there are billions of worlds out there with billions of outcomes, it’s all too reasonable to me that we are just one of those.

+
Avatar of Don Bay
Don Bay (@donbay)3 years, 1 month ago ago

“It is much easier for me to say that I clearly don’t have the capacity to understand everything that is happening in the universe than it is for me to give myself up to the idea of a creator.”

The idea of a God can’t be proven, neither can the lack of God’s existence? Is that what you’re saying?

+
Avatar of Matt P
Matt P (@mkp843)3 years, 1 month ago ago

well i can’t argue with that, we break down and die, i just see it as the grand design, but our bodies are still super complex bro, and specified… but building from here what my beliefs are would end up completly warped… they are already warped! lol

I get that… see, god thought of everything that’s why there is a billion empty stars for this one in a billion arguement… kidding… I get it, but from THERE, from earth, the math just isn’t right, so many things happened from there… it’s just nutty to me to think an idea of ‘random’ did it… like evolution, how is that not mathematical/scientific genious… it’s mind blowing, but you can look at and see the wheels turning… but they aren’t just turning, they are thinking…… but i think we have reached a merry go round….

How can ANY order come to pass, if the random theory applies?

+