It’s Christmas Eve! What Are We...
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Proving the existence of God
161 Answers
I've been having a very interesting discussion with 123everton on another thread about ultimate 'truth', as opposed to faith or belief, and this question stems from that.
Can you imagine trying to 'prove', beyond doubt, in a court of law, the existence of your God? How would you go about it?
Can you imagine trying to 'prove', beyond doubt, in a court of law, the existence of your God? How would you go about it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You couldn't. You could only argue that the existence of god was part of your own reality, and even then I'm not sure you'd be able to 'prove' that.
But that's the whole point isn't it? You're not supposed to be able to prove it, you're supposed to have faith. You have a choice whether to believe or not believe.
But that's the whole point isn't it? You're not supposed to be able to prove it, you're supposed to have faith. You have a choice whether to believe or not believe.
Faith - That is what you call believing without testifying it. The God which you can see and which has to prove himself is not good enough. That is where few Religions differ. They created different objects according to their own beliefs that how God might look like. In simple words, if you have to prove something, that is not Faith, and as I said earlier that it may not sound good enough to modern world but Faith has to be Blind, and certain things need not to be proven. In fact there are so many things which you can not prove with your given senses.
I can imagine building a case that God (or at least the God that most religions teach does not exist)
I unashamedly steal this from a post of Waldos some time ago.
Most religions would tell you that there is no sin in heaven.
They also teach that we have sin because we have free will.
Therefore there is no freewill in heaven which rather destroys the notion of heaven itself.
You'd also do well attacking the notion of a soul and citing evidence of mental damage destroying personalities - For a soul to survive death it must first survive life.
However if you take a wider view and try to attack the notion of an impersonal God who created the Universe and imposes order (Spinoza's God). You can at best attack it as irrational - Occam's razor and all that (after all where did that God come from?) but that's much harder.
Playing Devil's advocate for a moment if I were to try to prove Spinoza's God. I'd cite the fine tuning of fundamental constants necessary for life. I'd dismiss the notion of multiple Universes to explain this as a fancy without evidence merely constructed to explain inconvenient evidence and no more rational than the belief in a God.
I unashamedly steal this from a post of Waldos some time ago.
Most religions would tell you that there is no sin in heaven.
They also teach that we have sin because we have free will.
Therefore there is no freewill in heaven which rather destroys the notion of heaven itself.
You'd also do well attacking the notion of a soul and citing evidence of mental damage destroying personalities - For a soul to survive death it must first survive life.
However if you take a wider view and try to attack the notion of an impersonal God who created the Universe and imposes order (Spinoza's God). You can at best attack it as irrational - Occam's razor and all that (after all where did that God come from?) but that's much harder.
Playing Devil's advocate for a moment if I were to try to prove Spinoza's God. I'd cite the fine tuning of fundamental constants necessary for life. I'd dismiss the notion of multiple Universes to explain this as a fancy without evidence merely constructed to explain inconvenient evidence and no more rational than the belief in a God.
Allah(God) made the belief in the unseen the first step of faith�s acceptance. It is stated �Who believe in the unseen� (2:3)
Otherwise when few people asked Muhammed (pbuh) that where is Allah, is he far that we should call (Pray) loud or is he near to us. These verses came �I am near to you than (your) jugular vein� (50:16).
I know few people think why can we not solve this. But I do not think God has given us enough knowledge to solve certain things, otherwise it would have been solved by now. Alber Einstine's given examples are there. I know a lot of people say that Einstine's name was used, even that is right still whoever said that or who ever did that, does make sense. Even that example that in his room he had a model of the galaxy, someone asked him that it was very nice and who made that? "It just appeared itself" he said. How can that be possible that man said.
So if that was not possible how it is possible that all of this real Universe just appeared itself.
Otherwise when few people asked Muhammed (pbuh) that where is Allah, is he far that we should call (Pray) loud or is he near to us. These verses came �I am near to you than (your) jugular vein� (50:16).
I know few people think why can we not solve this. But I do not think God has given us enough knowledge to solve certain things, otherwise it would have been solved by now. Alber Einstine's given examples are there. I know a lot of people say that Einstine's name was used, even that is right still whoever said that or who ever did that, does make sense. Even that example that in his room he had a model of the galaxy, someone asked him that it was very nice and who made that? "It just appeared itself" he said. How can that be possible that man said.
So if that was not possible how it is possible that all of this real Universe just appeared itself.
Naomi, I'm not sure what you're getting at with this question. Surely no-one is going to claim that it is possible to prove the existence of god in court.
Keyplus has demonstrated what I think is the religious person's thinking on this, he seems to be taking the fact that you can't prove god's existence as a kind of bizarre piece of evidence that he does.
"Of course you can't prove he exists - he wouldn't be god if you could" type of thinking.
Keyplus has demonstrated what I think is the religious person's thinking on this, he seems to be taking the fact that you can't prove god's existence as a kind of bizarre piece of evidence that he does.
"Of course you can't prove he exists - he wouldn't be god if you could" type of thinking.
St. Thomas Aquinas had a go at it, in Summa Theologica.
It's well summarised here:
http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/aquinas.htm
It's well summarised here:
http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/aquinas.htm
Sorry for posting all these links, as I believe this is the only way. Otherwise we can not prove it with a nicely framed Photo.
http://www.islamherald.com/html/curious_minds. htm#Evidence%20of%20God?
There is information at the bottom of this link (once opened) The Existence of GOD.
http://www.islamherald.com/html/curious_minds. htm#Evidence%20of%20God?
There is information at the bottom of this link (once opened) The Existence of GOD.
Good grief!
http://www.harunyahya.com/Existence_of_God.php
Firstly, it's just a reiteration of Palley's watchmaker, which as an argument has been utterly refuted more times than I can possibly mention.
Secondly, it's full of either basic errors or outright lies (I can't say which):
"The claim of the theory of evolution, the unique method of denying the existence of God, is no different from this. According to the theory, lifeless atoms formed amino acids by chance, amino acids formed proteins by chance, and finally proteins formed living creatures again by chance. However, the probability of a living creature being formed by coincidence is less than the probability of the Eiffel Tower being formed in the same manner, because even the simplest living cell is more sophisticated than any man-made structure in the world."
The author clearly doesn't understand the absolute basics of evolution. Evolution is the exact opposite of chance. It is explicitly not random.
No need to bother further with that one.
http://www.islamherald.com/html/interfaith/gen eral/god/inatheism.htm
http://www.harunyahya.com/Existence_of_God.php
Firstly, it's just a reiteration of Palley's watchmaker, which as an argument has been utterly refuted more times than I can possibly mention.
Secondly, it's full of either basic errors or outright lies (I can't say which):
"The claim of the theory of evolution, the unique method of denying the existence of God, is no different from this. According to the theory, lifeless atoms formed amino acids by chance, amino acids formed proteins by chance, and finally proteins formed living creatures again by chance. However, the probability of a living creature being formed by coincidence is less than the probability of the Eiffel Tower being formed in the same manner, because even the simplest living cell is more sophisticated than any man-made structure in the world."
The author clearly doesn't understand the absolute basics of evolution. Evolution is the exact opposite of chance. It is explicitly not random.
No need to bother further with that one.
http://www.islamherald.com/html/interfaith/gen eral/god/inatheism.htm
Ah, Dr Naik again. Is he your favourite 'expert' Skyplus? Let's have a look at what he says...
Well, we've got the reiteration of supposed scientific facts that we've already discussed, and frankly Dr Naik's arguments that black means white when talking about the light of the moon are no more persuasive this time than last.
Then we've got some cack-handed application of the laws of probability that are so flawed I suspect a small child would be able to spot at least some flaws with the reasoning (most probably the completely arbitrary attribution of levels of probability to various factors).
We've got notions such as 'the Qur'an mentions every living thing is made of water' presented as hard science. Early Muslims were followers of the Greek philosophical traditions and therefore not only is this a completely vague concept, it's not even a muslim conception, it's Greek!
Ditto the embryology stuff - which is simple reportage of dissection and other medical knowledge much of which was Greek in origin. Even if it were absolutely correct (and it's not) how does saying something that is available for human observation throw any light on whether a deity is necessary? Mere attribution is hardly enough.
The article - as does your previous Dr Naik article - glosses over all the many examples of supposed science that even the most devout Muslim cannot reconcile with science: for example, the claim that sperm comes from between the back and ribs (86:6-7) or the idea that bones are clothed with flesh (23:13-14) which is the exact reverse of actual embryology, where bones develop after the flesh.
How about 18:85-86 where a man walks to find the sun setting in a muddy puddle. Absurd.
67:3-5 and 71:15-16 says the moon is higher in the sky than the stars. Again, palpable nonsense.
If this is a divinely revealed text, why is it so very incorrect?
Well, we've got the reiteration of supposed scientific facts that we've already discussed, and frankly Dr Naik's arguments that black means white when talking about the light of the moon are no more persuasive this time than last.
Then we've got some cack-handed application of the laws of probability that are so flawed I suspect a small child would be able to spot at least some flaws with the reasoning (most probably the completely arbitrary attribution of levels of probability to various factors).
We've got notions such as 'the Qur'an mentions every living thing is made of water' presented as hard science. Early Muslims were followers of the Greek philosophical traditions and therefore not only is this a completely vague concept, it's not even a muslim conception, it's Greek!
Ditto the embryology stuff - which is simple reportage of dissection and other medical knowledge much of which was Greek in origin. Even if it were absolutely correct (and it's not) how does saying something that is available for human observation throw any light on whether a deity is necessary? Mere attribution is hardly enough.
The article - as does your previous Dr Naik article - glosses over all the many examples of supposed science that even the most devout Muslim cannot reconcile with science: for example, the claim that sperm comes from between the back and ribs (86:6-7) or the idea that bones are clothed with flesh (23:13-14) which is the exact reverse of actual embryology, where bones develop after the flesh.
How about 18:85-86 where a man walks to find the sun setting in a muddy puddle. Absurd.
67:3-5 and 71:15-16 says the moon is higher in the sky than the stars. Again, palpable nonsense.
If this is a divinely revealed text, why is it so very incorrect?
Well if I'm playing devil's advocate today - and why not?
I don't think the blind watchmaker argument is so poor when considered together with the time intervals.
I think we can agree that life couldn't have started to evolve during the Hadean eon of heavy bombardment so that's about 3.9 billion years ago and the earliest fossil life is from 3.85 billion years ago.
So we have 50 million years to go from amino acids to photosynthesizing organic matter.
When we consider that we still don't have a decent model for the start of life and we think about all of the protein synthesis and catalysts that need to work together that's pretty remarkable.
So remarkable in fact that some prefer the idea of pan-spermia over it.
Now I'm not saying that it couldn't have happened but I do think you have to take the blind watchmaker argument seriously in this context
I don't think the blind watchmaker argument is so poor when considered together with the time intervals.
I think we can agree that life couldn't have started to evolve during the Hadean eon of heavy bombardment so that's about 3.9 billion years ago and the earliest fossil life is from 3.85 billion years ago.
So we have 50 million years to go from amino acids to photosynthesizing organic matter.
When we consider that we still don't have a decent model for the start of life and we think about all of the protein synthesis and catalysts that need to work together that's pretty remarkable.
So remarkable in fact that some prefer the idea of pan-spermia over it.
Now I'm not saying that it couldn't have happened but I do think you have to take the blind watchmaker argument seriously in this context
Waldo - your problem are as follows,
1 - You are looking for errors and not for God, And God says when people look for errors, then I make them go round and round in circles, That is true in your case. I have already given you answers to few of your sayings about Quran. You know where they are. Greeks did they have Microscope, I doubt it as same question was asked to De Keith L Moore the famous embryologist that Dissection could have given the knowledge, and he said we are talking about when the only way you can see the embryo by microscope.
2 - All your arguments, may be people will agree with you as you might be saying in more philosophical way than the others here, but then again you are still sitting somewhere in an attic, and your name is WALDO, So who would people of knowledge trust,
a - A Waldo or People like Dr Keith Moore, Dr Zakir Naik, and so on.
b - however if you can prove me that you are the re-incarnation or Albert Einstein or someone else then I will trust your views,
In the end you might say that Greeks have two legs, two arms and one head, may be Muslims copied that as well.
1 - You are looking for errors and not for God, And God says when people look for errors, then I make them go round and round in circles, That is true in your case. I have already given you answers to few of your sayings about Quran. You know where they are. Greeks did they have Microscope, I doubt it as same question was asked to De Keith L Moore the famous embryologist that Dissection could have given the knowledge, and he said we are talking about when the only way you can see the embryo by microscope.
2 - All your arguments, may be people will agree with you as you might be saying in more philosophical way than the others here, but then again you are still sitting somewhere in an attic, and your name is WALDO, So who would people of knowledge trust,
a - A Waldo or People like Dr Keith Moore, Dr Zakir Naik, and so on.
b - however if you can prove me that you are the re-incarnation or Albert Einstein or someone else then I will trust your views,
In the end you might say that Greeks have two legs, two arms and one head, may be Muslims copied that as well.
The human eye cannot see x-rays, electricity, magnetic fields etc, yet no man of science would dispute with their existence based on fact and proof. Yet with just as much or more proof on God being the creator, the same scientist makes the excuse, "We cannot see him."
If today we were to receive even one intelligent message from space, scientists as a whole after confirmation would conclude that yes, intelligent life in space has been confirmed. Yet when millions of intelligent messages are found in our DNA, the same scientists don't even look at it in consideration of an intelligent creator. Perverted standards.
The fact is that the world owes its being to something other than itself. The laws of nature did not create the universe since they cease to exist at the earliest point in creation. The laws of mechanics did not originate the laws of mechanics because when the universe was a singularity, they did not exist.
The laws of evolution don't come about through the laws of evolution because in order to work they require a pre-existing order and pre-existing entities governed by that order.
If today we were to receive even one intelligent message from space, scientists as a whole after confirmation would conclude that yes, intelligent life in space has been confirmed. Yet when millions of intelligent messages are found in our DNA, the same scientists don't even look at it in consideration of an intelligent creator. Perverted standards.
The fact is that the world owes its being to something other than itself. The laws of nature did not create the universe since they cease to exist at the earliest point in creation. The laws of mechanics did not originate the laws of mechanics because when the universe was a singularity, they did not exist.
The laws of evolution don't come about through the laws of evolution because in order to work they require a pre-existing order and pre-existing entities governed by that order.
