#1 Can we prove God(s) exist?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    Hi,

    You can find new board on address: https://forum.ikariam.gameforge.com/
    Please register there to continue with usage.

    Old forum is in read only mode and will stay like that for some time

    Ikariam team

    • #1 Can we prove God(s) exist?

      This is part of a 5-part attempt I'm making to liven up this section. The subject is what the title is: Can we prove God(s) exist? Now to clarify that doesn't mean this is a question of whether or not God(s) exists (I think a discussion about whether God(s) exist would be boring) but if we can PROVE God(s) exist.

      For the sake of argument I will argue that we cannot prove God(s) exists. For that I prefer to use an Empirical argument where we can only have any confidence in those things we've had direct experience with. As none of us (I think) have ever had a direct experience where we saw, felt, heard, smelled, or tasted (excepting Catholic Communion) God(s) that it is pressed out of being able to be proven. In addition all sense experiences are subject to degradation with time and thus even a direct experience would not be certain proof as it could just be the ravaging of only having the memory that would be founding the argument.


      Heather wrote:

      But baka, how can you be the cop if you're not playing?

      HaNs Na MiTrAljEzU wrote:

      But then again, knowing Kaleg, it could also mean we're all screwed later.
    • I really hate to see a thread left so lonely, without replies. So I'll respond here, just because.

      In any case, the conversation would probably go this way:

      Person A: "No, we can't prove God exists; not on any scientifically-accepted basis anyway"
      Person B: "Scientifically-accepted? How do you mean?"
      Person A: "We can't prove God exists in the sense that we can touch Him, see Him or even smell Him."

      *clap of thunder*

      God: "Hey, what's all this talk about Me?"
      Person B: "See, I told He was real!"
      Person A: "But proof denies faith, and without faith, isn't God nothing?"
      God: "Oh."

      *God promptly vanishes in a puff of logic*

      Person B: "But Science can't disprove him either, can it?"
      Person A: "No, it can't."
      Person B: "But is scientific truth really the only truth?"
      Person A: "Well, I suppose not. It's the only objective one, though."
      Person B: "But doesn't subjective truth also count as truth?"
      Person A: "Yes, I suppose."
      Person B: "Therefore, if I believe in God, then He's real to me, right?"
      Person A: "Only to you."
      Person B: "Aha! Then He's real. And He exists."
      Person A: *shrugs* I'm a scientist. Not my fault we have different thought processes.
      Person B: Pub?
      Person A: Pub. :beer:

      *the Universe proceeds to tell a joke about an Atheist and a Theist walking into a bar*

      So, there you have it. God both exists, and doesn't.
    • First, to make sure I understand your argument correctly=
      conclusion= God exists and does not exist all at the same time.
      Premise 1: Any scientific proof of God ends His/Her/Their existence. Therefore He/She/They cannot exist as proven.
      Premise 2: Faith in God(s) is a truth that holds for the individual and therefore He/She/They exist.

      I'd debate the premise that faith is essential to God existing. For a brick to exist one does not need to have faith in bricks. So for the idea that any proof would automatically cease His/Her/Their existence is something I would debate on.

      In regards to that only conventionally scientific proofs could be accepted as a proof that, if proof ended the faith, I also debate that. Science in the past has shown to deny things which have later turned out to be true. In addition from a philosophical standpoint, there are questions that can only be solved in manners outside the conventional scientific viewpoint.

      If you could clear up any misconceptions on your argument I may have it would be appreciated. You seem like someone that would be interesting to debate whether or not one could prove the existence of God(s) with.


      Heather wrote:

      But baka, how can you be the cop if you're not playing?

      HaNs Na MiTrAljEzU wrote:

      But then again, knowing Kaleg, it could also mean we're all screwed later.
    • I'd debate the premise that faith is essential to God existing. For a brick to exist one does not need to have faith in bricks. So for the idea that any proof would automatically cease His/Her/Their existence is something I would debate on.


      Ah, but now we come to the argument of the nature of God. I think your perception of Him (or Her, or It for all we know), is that He is something physical and identifiable; like a brick as you say. That is, we can actually see or touch Him.

      But my perception of God is different. God is generally considered omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. This means he's everywhere, is all-powerful, and knows everything. God is commonly analogized to the concept of infinity, without end and without beginning. By definition, such a being is beyond the comprehension of the human brain. Therefore, God is unfathomable. Can you feel and see infinity? Of course not. You cannot likewise touch or see God.

      Simply put, God is not JUST a brick. He's more like an invisible brick, capable of being present under every floorboard and wall panel, with both the power and knowledge to turn blue and create a planet full of His child-bricks in under 7 days. My brain isn't really capable of comprehending such a brick; because it was not designed to do so. This is why we can never scientifically prove that God exists, essentially because He's outside our realm of understanding. In fact, Science is founded on the assumption that the Universe is within the real of human understanding. God is not. That tends to piss Science off.

      This is why we need Faith to believe in God (or any god, for that matter). And to have Faith, you need Imagination. Therefore, we imagine God.

      Of course, and this is important, the fact that we imagine God doesn't make God any less real. There are really two kinds of truth, the objective and the subjective. God is merely part of the latter.

      Besides, if God really was WITHIN the realm of rational human understanding, then He wouldn't really be God, would he?
    • But my perception of God is different. God is generally considered omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. This means he's everywhere, is all-powerful, and knows everything. God is commonly analogized to the concept of infinity, without end and without beginning. By definition, such a being is beyond the comprehension of the human brain. Therefore, God is unfathomable. Can you feel and see infinity? Of course not. You cannot likewise touch or see God

      #2 might be an interesting discussion with you and if other people joined in.

      Ah, but now we come to the argument of the nature of God. I think your perception of Him (or Her, or It for all we know), is that He is something physical and identifiable; like a brick as you say. That is, we can actually see or touch Him.

      For a sense experience I would agree (and coming from the Catholic tradition too I've grown up with the Omni-all factors being taught) that by that mode it is impossible to prove His/Her/Their (always want to be politically correct considering the many differences on this board) existence via a sense experience such as see, hear, feel, taste, smell.

      I will grant that people can have faith in a God(s) and I can admire those people who wholeheartedly can have faith. However with faith it is not a PROOF as I understand the matter in which I define proof as a collection of evidence that gives an undeniable claim to the existence or non-existence of a thing or idea.

      Though to better understand how you're defining your terms (oh how the terms must be defined it seems) I would like a greater explanation by what you mean to be subjective truth.


      Heather wrote:

      But baka, how can you be the cop if you're not playing?

      HaNs Na MiTrAljEzU wrote:

      But then again, knowing Kaleg, it could also mean we're all screwed later.
    • Though to better understand how you're defining your terms (oh how the terms must be defined it seems) I would like a greater explanation by what you mean to be subjective truth.

      A subjective truth, simply, a truth no one else can experience to exactly the same degree and manner as you.

      Millions of people believe in God, yes? Right. But not everyone believes in God to the same degree. I might believe in God less than you, and you a little more than the person next to you. Others believe in different ways.

      This is a subjective truth. No one believes in God the same way, essentially because we all experience God differently.

      Objective truth is the opposite. This is a truth readily identifiable and believable by all. Like that brick we were talking about, if you showed me a brick I'd be like "oh, yeah, that's a brick". It's objective. You can show a brick to me, and I'd believe in the existence of the brick to the same degree in you (unless, of course, you're some crazy and believe in the brick's existence LESS than me :P ).

      Of course, this doesn't make subjective truth any less REAL. It's still rational, and that's all that matters, really.

      However with faith it is not a PROOF as I understand the matter in which I define proof as a collection of evidence that gives an undeniable claim to the existence or non-existence of a thing or idea.

      You prove my point, then. How can you evidence God?

      Person A: "Look at this leaf!"
      *Person B looks at leaf*
      Person B: "It's a leaf."
      Person A: "This leaf fell from a tree!"
      Person B: "Okay, easy enough to believe."

      (all good, right? we both agree the leaf exists and comes from a tree; now watch what happens)

      Person A: "This leaf fell from its tree BECAUSE OF GOD."
      Person B: "How do you mean?"
      Person A: "God, in His infinite wisdom, used his omnipotency to cause this leaf to fall from its branch! Praise be the leaf's holiness!"
      Person B: "Uhm... Are you sure it didn't just fall? by itself?"
      Person A: "Are you infringing on my rights?"
      Person B: "No, no, of course not."
      Person A: "I can bring you to court for that, you know?'
      Person B: "Yes, but I didn't mean to -..."

      *Person A stomps away, angrily muttering to himself*

      Person B: "Odd fellow."
      God: "If it makes you feel better, that leaf really did fall by itself.Well, through natural cause, anyway."
      *Person B shrugs*
      Person B: "Pub?"
      God: "Pub." :beer:

      If you showed me a brick, and told me it was a brick, I'd believe it was a brick. But, if you told me that the brick was holy, I might think of the brick differently from you. You cannot show objective evidence for God's existence, just as how you cannot prove that the brick was truly holy.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Zedmark ().

    • You can't prove god's existence for the same reason I can't prove that litter of invisible/odorless/intangible etc unicorns are playing polo on the top of my head.

      When you hide an idea away so it can't possibly be tested, you also end up with something that can't possibly be proven.

      Anyway, why prove something a god has gone through so much trouble to hide while we know it gets so much joy from blind faith?

      Schluups, Mad ruler of the Schluupsonians
    • -God of War- wrote:

      God existence is only based on the faith of the people, and those who have it, believe in him.


      For those who need proves and believe in actual things, he doesn´t exist.

      That means that his existence can´t be proven.


      ^basically what i was about to type

      Some Things Are Better Forgotten

      -Original 2009 ViP Delta and DARK Iota Player-
    • God existence is only based on the faith of the people, and those who have it, believe in him.


      For those who need proves and believe in actual things, he doesn´t exist.

      That means that his existence can´t be proven.
      Not scientifically proven, anyway. There's still the question of subjective truth, and whether it counts as truth or not.
    • Subjectivity is based on your point on view, and not on facts. Which is not accepted on scientific research, you either prove it with facts or you don´t, but there is no in-between.

      If we are to prove God existence, we by all means need to focus on Objectivity.

      and if you believe in subjective truth, then it´s the same as having faith on God. You are entitled to do so, but that doesn't means you are right, and you certainly can´t claim it as a truth. and even less use it to prove something.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by -God of War- ().

    • Which is not accepted on scientific research, you either prove it with facts or you don´t, but there is no in-between.

      You misunderstand me, War. My point was, can subjective truth be true as well? Is it still truth even if it isn't objective?

      If the answer is yes, then God exists. Not to all of us to the same degree, of course. Each of us will believe in God (or in a god) differently, uniquely according to our personal experiences. This may seem strange to some of the more scientific among you, but it's perfectly rational.

      To me, for example, God is like Argentina. I believe that Argentina is real. I don't live in Argentina though, and I can't show it to you right here and right now. And to TRULY prove Argentina is real without having to refer to a history book or atlas, I'd have to take a 14-hour or so plane ride to get to Buenos Aires. But I still believe Argentina is real, right? I've never been there, but I believe it's real, essentially because of the faith I have in it. The Faith I have in the invisible.

      God is similar. I believe He's real, and there are even written books and texts (like a history book or an atlas) that speak of God's existence. You can even reconcile the existence of God with many scientific facts and theories (like evolution). But I've never seen God, just like how I've never seen Argentina. However, I have faith in Him, the same faith I have in Argentina.

      Unlike Argentina, however, I can't take a 14-hour plane ride to prove God. This is their one dissimilarity. While Argentina is a physical place, within the space of human understanding, God is not. He exists in a realm beyond us and our comprehension. That doesn't make Him any less real, or any less true.

      So, in a way, God is real, and His existence is true. Sure, it's subjective. Still true though.

      I hope you understood that. It requires a little imagination. :D
    • I do understand you point, and it is valid, if you believe in something, it will be true for you.

      But if you believe in the opposite, then it will definitely won´t be true.

      So it works for both sides.

      But for the purpose of proving his existing, I think this approach can not be taking under consideration, it doesn't mean it is wrong, but if we are trying to prove something, then it isn´t admissible.

      As I said, everyone is entitled to their believes and opinions, which can´t be judged by anyone.

      But under this topic of proving something, it doesn't really matter what you believe in, unless you have something to sustain it.
    • But for the purpose of proving his existing, I think this approach can not be taking under consideration

      God cannot be scientifically "proven", not because there is no evidence regarding His existence (arguably, the presence of Life or the presence of the Universe at all can be proofs of His existence), but because God CANNOT be known. Understand me. :) Science assumes that everything in the Universe is knowable and within the reach of Human understanding. God does not conform to that assumption.

      Therefore, although we can give "theories" about the existence of God (that the Universe was made because of Him; intelligent design and all that), I can't show you God Himself, essentially because He has no physical form to speak of.

      My point is, God is both provable and not. Subjectively, and objectively. I just want people to understand that subjective truth is as legitimate and rational as objective truth.
    • Zedmark wrote:


      God cannot be scientifically "proven", not because there is no evidence regarding His existence (arguably, the presence of Life or the presence of the Universe at all can be proofs of His existence), but because God CANNOT be known.


      Well, there's no evidence for his existence either, lol. Presence of life and the universe is proof that life and the universe exists and maybe that there are other forces in action that caused them to be the way they are. There is nothing that shows that some sort of being created it knowingly, which is why it is not proof a god exists.

      Understand me. :) Science assumes that everything in the Universe is knowable and within the reach of Human understanding. God does not conform to that assumption.


      I feel like any argument along the lines of "god exists beyond...." "there are some things we can't comprehend..." are just total cop-outs. There is no way to carry on any sort of discussion with things like this. These essentially say "these rules that we hold everything else to, yeah, let's just not worry about them this time." I mean, imagine if that was used anywhere else besides god.

      "1+1 = 3"
      "using everything we know about math, 1+1=2."
      "the specific equation 1+1=3 exists beyond our mathematics. We cannot comprehend this, but it's true."


      Therefore, although we can give "theories" about the existence of God (that the Universe was made because of Him; intelligent design and all that), I can't show you God Himself, essentially because He has no physical form to speak of.


      The existence of something is always based on what we can observe physically. Even our consciousnesses; we can visualize electrical impulses in our brains in mri scans. Once again the cop-out thing.

      My point is, God is both provable and not. Subjectively, and objectively. I just want people to understand that subjective truth is as legitimate and rational as objective truth.


      "Subjective proof" isn't proof. Otherwise you are also saying that hallucinations of things are proof that they exist. Like Kaleg said, "subjective proof" can totally hold up for your own self, but agreement of existence requires that other people can also experience what you experienced.
    • I'd prefer a liturgy based on:
      "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
      Galileo Galilei

      ... 500 years ago.
      Are we going backwards?

      What would be bad about a god that reveals itself correctly? Boom fact: god exists and it's that one and that is it's correct liturgy. Yes, people couldn't say "I have faith", but what are we gaining from that?
      You have no idea how much I cringe when some fool born in a christian family, surrounded by christians, in a community that abhors unbelievers, get's all happy about itself proclaiming it "found jesus"... yah you found it alright, it was tattooed on your forehead by your context.


      But no, you can't prove god existance simply because that meme made pretty sure to not make any testable predictions.
      And no: one day the roman empire (like all others) will also end is not a prediction; it's simple common sense.

      Schluups, Mad ruler of the Schluupsonians
    • havent read the thread as yet, just thought id share what i thought on the question

      there is an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to answering the question, its called onthology. over thousands of years many a wisemen have tried to answer the same question, and have in their own way come up with several areguments, theories etc

      you might want to take a look at some of the onthological arguments by lord calvin, Avicenna, socrates, khalil jibran, and several others

      you might want to take a look at some of the links and notes on this page, its a link to some course notes by a professor at princeton

      princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/lecturenotes.html

      sig by Myself

      Bekofskivitch wrote:

      Thread summary: proposed future e-fight after e-threats over under-inflated e-price of e-rocks.

      disclaimer: this post is solely my viewpoint and may not fully reflect the views of my alliance

      Alpha Omega

      The post was edited 1 time, last by usman ().