No Proof is NO PROOF for Inexistence of God.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

One reason I believe in a divine principle. But not a god.

I have googled 'divine principle' but have not found a definition and so i am wondering what you mean by the term 'divine principle'.

reply to post by logical7


Leaving God out of this for moment .................................
What a bizarre statement! "No Proof is NO PROOF"

reply to post by Itisnowagain

I have googled 'divine principle' but have not found a definition and so i am wondering what you mean by the term 'divine principle'.

It's a phrase that I cooked up. Divine principle means a law or code that supports construction rather than destruction.

The divine principle I speak of here is ideally neither conscious nor supernatural. It is, however, subtle and pervasive beyond our comprehension. We are too rough and clumsy to locate the needle amidst all the straw, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. It just means we're rough and clumsy.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


And you believe it to be 'divine'?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I have googled 'divine principle' but have not found a definition and so i am wondering what you mean by the term 'divine principle'.

The divine principle I speak of here is ideally neither conscious nor supernatural. It is, however, subtle and pervasive beyond our comprehension. We are too rough and clumsy to locate the needle amidst all the straw, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. It just means we're rough and clumsy.

edit on 13-2-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

It sounds as though you have faith that it is there but have not yet uncovered it.

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by Wonders

 

Jesus was not called the son of god during his lifetime. That didnt happen until about three hundred years after he died. Jesus did not claim to be the son of god. He only claimed to be a teacher a rabbi.

Were you there? How do you know this?

reply to post by logical7


It is not that complicated. DNA is a language, a machine that communicates with other machines to produce what we call life.

Intelligence is well intelligence.

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam. The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.

We are machines that are literally ran by approximately 100 trillion other machines, that we call cells.

We are machines that communicate with each other in an intelligent precise manor, with such mathematical precision that it is truly mind blowing. The capacity of our mind to contemplate and coordinate literally thousands of thoughts per second. Emotions that are tied to those thoughts to our environment and the others that surround us.

Science is left with an incomplete, convoluted, impossible to prove, full of best guess theories that explain how all of this came from nothing.

Or we can recognize that the level of intelligence at work in life and the physical world is so mind blowing that it points to intelligence.

Intelligence from intelligence or intelligence from chaos. Occam's razor always has been pro God.

The minimum assumption needed is the design itself. The design points to a designer. It would be like looking at Thomas Kinkaid's work and believing that someone though a bucket of paint on the canvas and this is what appeared. Since no one would believe that why would anyone believe that we were once a bucket of paint simply thrown on a blank canvas?

reply to post by sacgamer25


Why does it have to be a god though? Why can't the universe itself be the fruit of an intelligent reality? This kind of discussion makes me think we barely know anything about where intelligence comes from. And with that thought in mind, assuming the existence of a god is jumping several guns.

logical7

no they dint. you point at incosistencies that i dont even believe in. However you are using any and all fairytales and scriptures when i stated that i am not planning to rule out each claim.

I'm not asking you to believe the story is true, or to rule out anybody else's claims. We're trying to design a test that distinguishes other supernatural beings from gods. The stories we have, from whatever source, can help us think about what might happen if we tried to apply a proposed test. Genesis 18: 8 depicts supernatural visitors accepting the hospitality of Abraham's table. Whether it's a true story or not, it is a realistic situation, and illustrates a possible problem with the "determination of need" aspect of the proposed test.

then the 'created' stumbled upon some knowledge that the 'creator' dint have making the 'creator' a 'created' itself. If the created computer found patterns that a human couldnt, that makes humans also as created.

What's "stumbled upon" mean? Doesn't it just mean there is some chance that my creation will exceed me? If that happened, and it is possible for it to happen, then once it's happened, the creature is better. That's all that was claimed possible in the first place.

thats not possible objectively "insufficient data!"

Well, if it's impossible to distinguish Zeus from a leprechaun, then that pretty much ends the possibility of distinguishing Zeus from Gabriel, doesn't it?

So, even if the existence of supernatural beings is granted, then you still can't even make further progress on a proof of any god(s)' existence?

reply to post by sacgamer25

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by Wonders

 

Jesus was not called the son of god during his lifetime. That didnt happen until about three hundred years after he died. Jesus did not claim to be the son of god. He only claimed to be a teacher a rabbi.

Were you there? How do you know this?

You weren't there either, so you really can't prove her wrong. The whole point of Christianity is choosing what to believe. And as I keep saying: faith is simply shorthand for "I have this reason to lie to myself", with the reason being contextual.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


No but the book written about the man disagrees with her. And since it's the best historical evidence for him I will continue to stick to what is written about him without making assumptions.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

Why does it have to be a god though? Why can't the universe itself be the fruit of an intelligent reality? This kind of discussion makes me think we barely know anything about where intelligence comes from. And with that thought in mind, assuming the existence of a god is jumping several guns.

I am not trying to define the word God. And if I was I would use only one word, love. So any thought that you have about something that is bigger than man that defies our comprehension will suffice for what I call God.

The important thing to recognize about not worshiping false God's has very little to do with the one true God or force or whatever term or lack of term makes you comfortable. People were asking there false God's for material wealth and even sacrificing their children in fire. There are many prosperity churches today that have destroyed the message in the bible who worship a false God.

Money for the most part has become our source for idol worship. We worship dollars made of wood and coins made from metal. These idols have become more important than the invisible God, because of the things we covet. This is why it is important to worship the true God, and why the only word I would use to describe him is love. I think anyone who would make love the only thing worth pursuing would find what they are looking for.

reply to post by sacgamer25


If you are using the word 'god' in place of the word 'love', then you should probably call 'god' a her, since love is right there with intuition and imagination in the right brain, associated with females.

Male thinking is purely physical, logical, hands on, mathematics and engineering type stuff. Very poor pronoun to use for a being that is focused on something so nonphysical and emotional.

reply to post by sacgamer25

No but the book written about the man disagrees with her. And since it's the best historical evidence for him I will continue to stick to what is written about him without making assumptions.

If we're talking about best historical evidence, then my biology, history, and psychology books call your Bible a fairytale and your god a psychopathic authoritarian. Based on verifiable real-life case studies and proven scientific methods that have been and will continue to be used to probe the secrets of the universe.

Not to mention that the book you're talking about is so politically potent that to think it's remain untouched by the power-grubbing minds of archaic officials is simply laughable. When your average life span is less than 60 years, you're worried less about spiritual honesty and more about not dying a horrible death. Plagues, famine, murder, natural disaster...protection from these things requires money and control. Guess what the Bible asks for? Taxes and obedience. It's a politician's manual to owning the world.

Best historical evidence? It's a waste of trees.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
There is no proof that God exists. There is no proof that God does not exist. That's why it's called FAITH. It can't be proved or disproved. It falls outside of evidence or science. You either choose to have faith or you choose not to have faith.

Saying that God definitely exists is just as ignorant as saying that God definitely does not exist. Nobody can reasonably demonstrate that either way.

However you only need one piece of evidence to know God exists, and you need omniscience and omnipresence to know God doesn't exist anywhere in the universe or in any dimension. One position needs just one piece of evidence, the other position requires absolute knowledge.

That's why one cannot prove a negative.

edit on 12-2-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

You can never KNOW god exists, but you can believe in its existence. Belief and knowing are entirely different things. The only thing you can ever KNOW is your own existence, everything else is belief and acceptance. With that being said, as much as you want to think you know god exists, you don't; you can't.

You can know of the fruits of what you call god and have things reveled to you from things that most humans have no idea off. But you will not get 100% proof that will convince all because that is not allowed yet. There is a reason people that some people who are spiritual becomes very happy at least bodily. Once you are in the bliss then you know it and that something in the experiance of being here has changed. If you want to be atheist then be atheist. I was not spiritual at all before I had my change so you do not have to worry about missing out. When you are ready for it then it will happen no matter what your views are, so if you do not need to know the mysteries then do not seek until you do.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

For one, the general description of "God" complete contradicts his entire story. For another, the "God" mythos is based on an amalgamation of preceding religions. They just won't admit it.

reality can be shown in myths but all myths are not realities. There are more than one explanation for things. Either amalgamation or the same basics/stories from the same God.
I do search for the truth. Do you? Or do you think that my search is ultimately going to end at a place which you have reached ages ago.

I don't assume it was by chance, but I
don't assume it was a god either. A
spider designs a perfect web. Would
you call that spider intelligent? A drop
of water forms a perfect circular ripple.
Would you call the water intelligent?

so you do agree that the spider was created by a pre determined course/code that started with the start of universe. Btw spider is animate while water is not.

One reason I believe in a divine
principle. But not a god.

if you mean a physical god then even i dont. Maybe you mean a passive divine principle, would you explain and correct me if i am wrong.

Have you ever taken a biology class? It
doesn't sound like it.

either a deflection or you should enlighten me on how the orgin of first organism is explained by 'science' in just a few sentences if possible.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Everything you posted up there is not proof of a god.

its a proof of a created universe. which you call code. When i ask who coded the code, and you reply nobody it just happened by 'chance' then we are back to square one. (i am assuming ofcourse)
you just found a belief that explains/justify the observations of intelligent code in nature yet denies god, dont worry we all do that.
I guess you have a better explanation as you had said that you dont think it was 'chance'.

This code does not
require the existence of a god. It is a
natural product of time/space. It is required for time/space to exist.

so infinite 'big bangs' happened with every possible combination of codes and just one got it perfect! yes thats more likely and nobody can ever know otherwise. Seems like faith to me.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

No but the book written about the man disagrees with her. And since it's the best historical evidence for him I will continue to stick to what is written about him without making assumptions.

If we're talking about best historical evidence, then my biology, history, and psychology books call your Bible a fairytale and your god a psychopathic authoritarian. Based on verifiable real-life case studies and proven scientific methods that have been and will continue to be used to probe the secrets of the universe.

Not to mention that the book you're talking about is so politically potent that to think it's remain untouched by the power-grubbing minds of archaic officials is simply laughable. When your average life span is less than 60 years, you're worried less about spiritual honesty and more about not dying a horrible death. Plagues, famine, murder, natural disaster...protection from these things requires money and control. Guess what the Bible asks for? Taxes and obedience. It's a politician's manual to owning the world.

Best historical evidence? It's a waste of trees.

I believe the creator is greater than man. And not one thing that the bible claims is refuted with anything that can be called a fact. And my God is not only the creator but the caretaker of a book and a message. The words of the bible have changed so insignificantly in the last 2000 years that we are talking about a simple handful of questioned verses. The real message in the bible has not changed.

Just because the bible has been used to control people doesn't mean that it was written to control people. The bible was written to tell people to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. It is a guide book to all the shortcomings of men and how to overcome them so that you can be a better person.

If leaning how to love completely means I am somehow under control then so be it. Let me live and die under the control of love. Not only is this exactly what I want it is what I pray for everyday.

Just so you know, your biology, history and psychology books all came from the same people you claim the bible came from. But you believe them and not the bible.

I believe God and not men and man's psychology books are a complete waste, the truth to helping a man is found much clearer in the bible, and it actually works. There are many people who took no pills and claim that the bible and Jesus completely changed their lives in ways that they were incapable of themselves.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

This is my belief. I will freely admit I have little evidence to support it. But I entertain the possibility because it excites me. I at least possess a rational viewpoint concerning its reality, unlike you.

making up a belief and admitting it as unlikely doesnt make you rational. Rationality dictates that you dont keep believing it if you dont have evidence.
I can say too, yes i dont have a concrete proof of God yet i choose to believe. Now call me rational!

reply to post by logical7

reality can be shown in myths but all myths are not realities. There are more than one explanation for things. Either amalgamation or the same basics/stories from the same God.

Amalgamation. Those stories that were amalgamated existed before the Judaic god was ever thought of. Ra, Mythra, Odin, and Zeus all existed before "God". Ash Wednesday is today. Did you know that Ash Wednesday is not actually Christian? It is based on the Nordic tradition of marking one's forehead with ash in order to receive the protection of Odin. Wednesday was originally Odin's Day. And another name for Odin is Ygg, which means World Ash.

The Norse practice which has become known as Ash Wednesday was itself, drawn from the Vedic Indian religion. Ashes were believed to be the seed Agni , the Indian fire god. It is from this name that the Latins used for fire, ignis. It is from this root word that the English language got the words, ignite, igneous and ignition. Agni was said to have the authority to forgive sins. Ashes were also believed to be symbolic for the purifying blood of the Vedic god Shiva, which it is said had the power to cleanse sins.

As I said: amalgamation. Dozens of ancient cultures have been dismembered and their remains absorbed into the cannibalistic cult of Christianity. Dozens of religions blended together under one name, and their origins demonized to hide the lie.

That's just ONE example. So as they say: come at me bro.

so you do agree that the spider was created by a pre determined course/code that started with the start of universe. Btw spider is animate while water is not.

The code existed before the universe existed as it is today, I think. Otherwise, something else had to create the code in order to create the universe. Which would require a god. Which would require a consciousness, which would then invite temptation for judgment. Which would make me hate being alive because I'd never know if my choice was my own. My own sanity is irrelevant as well, seeing as how no god would allow us to do what we're doing to each other.

Water is animate. Everything is animate. At the deepest level, there are particles in motion. The only time particles are not in motion is when matter has reached 0 kalvin, which essentially means that all heat (generated by motion) is gone. Not to mention the bacteria inside the water. And the foreign material that is almost always floating around.

if you mean a physical god then even i dont. Maybe you mean a passive divine principle, would you explain and correct me if i am wrong.

In its purest form? Subtle or passive, yes. A falling building is not subtle, but the force that brought it down is.

either a deflection or you should enlighten me on how the orgin of first organism is explained by 'science' in just a few sentences if possible.

Scientists are still working on that. Even so, that does not mean the first ridiculous answer you can come up with is fair game, because even without a definite answer, there are probabilities and requirements already in place. Your answer does not qualify.