Proof That God Exists

..."accept as their"... lies.

Truth is lord and "his" father is the sanity of Reality.

 

I'm not arguing about whether there is a god.

What I want to point out is the mistake of pitting religion v. science. The two are very different ways of considering what's going on. They don't use the same logic. Their central purpose is different. The foundational principles aren't the the same.

Since the two have very different methods of considering what is evidence, proof, logic, objective (how v. why), etc., no argument in the framework of one realm is likely to carry any significant weight in the other. That is, using science to prove there is (or isn't) a god is just is ridiculous as using references to god to try to convince science of a young earth, world wide flood, or the actual existence of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

In that cite, the author was using nonsense science to "refute" science in some way. Not only was the science wrong, but the whole idea of trying to do that is wrong.

My "magical being" reference was more to emphasize the vast difference in the topics of religion and exploration of the universe using science. I should have formulated it in a way that was less confrontive, but the citation irritated me - I hate it when people fabricate nonsense and pretend it is the central concept that someone ELSE believes.

No. God is always claimed to be vastly more than just "awesome power". At the very least, the God concept includes intellect and purpose - perhaps purpose we don't understand, but purpose nevertheless.

You don't have to forgive science for not knowing the answer to some question. The catch with science is that it comes from humans, and humans don't have all the answers. Religion understands that fully. So, since we don't know all the answers, science can not have a method of proof like math has. Thus, science recognizes that and has several different mechanisms for weeding out mistakes that humans make.

 

But nevertheless you believe that Truth reveals Reality to men and sane people want to live there,... right?
You have that belief, true.

 

Sane people want to live ... where?

I still think you're in a desperate search to try to meld science and religion - Truth? Reality?

 

Sane people want to live in Reality.
Right?

Others prefer Fantasy Worlds they accept based upon lies.
But you avoided the question about your own religious-like belief in Truth, didn't you?

 

So, you're asking me to believe in a secular God?

 

Yeah,...
Believe that Reality is our master, and his son is Truth.

That is the bottom line.

 

Fair enough but why express the idea in language dripping with theological and sexist overtones?

 

So, God will eventually come to an end?
How comforting.

 

Nope I do not, I assert there is no such thing as the Judea-Christian god or any other religious version, very different from what you are trying to foist upon me.

Interesting link and read (have read it before) perhaps you can point out where it says that the universe has NEVER existed in another form, Professor Hawking talks only about the beginning of this universe which very well may have occurred as the theory states, that does not change the idea that this universe existed in a different form prior.

 

What you think matters little.

- - - Updated - - -

You have been refuted numerous times on that point yet still you assert it

 

I have not offered you a religious GOD. At least Hawking is willing to see alternatives. Hawking did publish a paper defending the GOD concept.

Neither you nor I can speak affirmatively that the Universe was formed on X day and this is what happened.

My concept of GOD is clearly different from yours. However, this does not mean the GOD spoken of in Christianity is not correct either.

 

Perhaps I have assumed something incorrect and if so I apologise, it is just that when one is in the religion and philosophy forum on a topic with the title "proof that God exists" and the OP uses scripture as a basis of that proof, it tends to lead to the conclusion the aforementioned God is the Judea-Christian version.

Where have I stated I am not open to alternatives?

I have never claimed that the universe was formed on 'x' day.

The problem of any version of God is that they all fail infinite regression, the only plausible answers to when the universe began IMO is it came from nothing or there was never a beginning point merely a change in form, and remember I am not stating that as a fact just as an opinion.

 

If you regress all life, all matter, you return to zero. This tells me there was a creation. It does not make sense that all we see now always existed. We both offer our opinions.

 

Why doesn't it makes sense to say existence always existed despite claims from mathematicians and the fact none of us can grasp or deal with infinity. The question that always naggs at me is why does out species even bother attempting to manipulate ideas about the infinite. Vanity?

 

It is not vanity for me. I know about abiogenesis. Science deals with the beginning of life. Since life began, it is natural to me that the universe began. The idea of the steady state universe at the moment is not commonly accepted by cosmologists and others.

 

Offering to swallow things from religious people is a dangerous enterprise.

 

Unknowability about the origin of the universe notwithstanding the tens of thousands of hypothetical ideas about it we still are far from comprehending this. And when man cannot satisfy himself with a thousand answers he resort to religion. But the answer he finds in religion is still more unconvincing. God is just a name and what people still believe is in a power that is incomprehensible through science. I therefore divide my time between science and religion in my quest for truth.

 

You return to zero for this universe in it's current form.

can we at least agree that the idea of a creator will always fail infinite regression?

 

May I ask, based just on science, why you reject the idea of the Creator?

The question is basic. This is the real question. Most fundamental.

Can nothing create all we know exists?

Can a rock self create? Can Hydrogen self create? Does it take a third party that for convenience alone I call GOD?

Before we try to operate on regression, we need to be at the root cause of the entire universe or maybe more than one. We don't know a lot, but this is mind work in my opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't believe you grasp the most fundamental elements yet. Check my post just prior to this post.

 

I don't, I reject the organised religious version of the Creator, one that was created by man in order to excert control over others.

Again I have never asserted the above.

All of this still relates to the first cause or even if there was a first cause.

Agreed, but lets us assume for a moment that there is a point where this universe in its current form started, some would say that it was started by an entity that has existed for ever .. yet they cannot comprehend that our universe may have existed for ever in one form or another .. seems strange to me, that on one hand they accept forever when it invovles God, but not for anything other opinion.

 

If the problem is where did GOD come from, or anything to do with his being created, can this topic really be discussed?

We know the universe does exist. It is faulty logic in my opinion to assert GOD is over morals. MEN published the various books.

We in my church study. We are asked just one thing. PRAY over this. If PRAYER gives a person his truth, then he did what he could. My church tells us that GOD has a family of GODS. As to morals, we leave this up to GOD to do his will upon the dead.

We believe in 3 variations of death rewards.

Is this all true? This universe is too profound to simply have self created. GOD may indeed employ a lot of help.

 

Jim Jones
David Koresh
Billy Graham
Pat Robertson
Joel Olsteen
Saul...Paul
and the list goes on and on....

 

I have irrefutable scientific proof that God exists. This is evidence so clear that Atheists will not be able to use their normal tricks and their ‘Perceived Logical Superiority’ in order to shoot it down. I have the math.

Divinity = Complexity/Scientific Facts or C/F.

Divinity = 1c/1000f = 0.001d. Not very divine and this makes sense, because only someone who knew nothing about rocks would think them divine. No one would erect and pray to a chunk of rock.
Complex diseases are an 8c and science’s explanation of the recovery, 3f. That gives us 2.666d. Now there is definitely some divinity involved here!
Origin of life: 10c Facts that science can tell us about the first seconds of it starting: 0f

Divinity = 10c/0f = flying miniature diplodocus pollenating brain flowers for food

Wait, no sorry. Let’s do that again…

Divinity = 10c/0f = three headed women fertilized by Saturn and then gave birth to planet Biscuit which was later renamed to Earth by a conquering alien race of Cauliflower

One more time, the divisor can be twitchy:

Divinity = 10c/0f = an entity that may or may not look and think like us created the universe and us six thousand years ago in his image.

There we go, proof! Just ignore the last bit about not being seen again; it’s not to be taken literally.

I hope now we can put this ridiculous debate to rest in the face of this clear and compelling evidence. Christianity’s version of events is the only one that can possibly make sense and those that still deny it just can’t math very well.
http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Scientific-PROOF-that-God-Exists-20141213

 

Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/computer-scientists-prove-god-exists/story?id=20678984