Proof of the Existence of God

[BB73]

Assuming those two things ever met head on.

My point was related to something (God) on a conceptual level. I don't believe it's necessary to have the strongest force in the universe meet the most adamantine object in order to see whether an unstoppable force or an immovable object exists.

It's possible that neither exists. If Superman is the strongest force, but can't move Kryptonite, while Wonder Woman can move Kryptonite, then neither would exist.

To completely prove that one or the other existed would, I believe, require that the force encounter every 'stable' object in the universe. This would take an infinite amount of time, so it's not possible to prove in one person's lifetime. The converse would be true to test the object against all forces.

I was stating that the concept of either one actually existing precludes the existence of the other. To me, that proves that it is possible to conceptualize something that doesn't exist. Thus, the fact that something can be conceptualized cannot logically be used as part of a proof that something exists.

And I'm not saying that was done in Anselm's 'proof'. I'm just pointing out that the argument 'I can conceive of something, so it must exist' is faulty.

But I do believe in Descartes' cogito, BKB. But that's something different.

 

[kinch]

Regarding the idea that being able to conceive of something can be used to prove its existence:

One can conceive of both an unstoppable force and an immovable object.

The mere conception of them is no proof of their existence. In fact, by definition, the existence of either one precludes the existence of the other.

But what by definition must be an unstoppable force or an immovable object? That is the point of "definition" part of the proof. Only God (and, to get on another discussion, arguably Satan (or similar) has the infinite qualities as a matter of definition.

Also, thanks for addressing the proof. I was hoping to manage to start a thread on this one clear little subtopic and that it would not become about believing, not believing, what about the Ark, what about this proof, etc. etc. Like in class or something. :)

Taken by itself, this proof would not raise any religious issues, as it is a purely (il)logic driven exercise.

Ah, it was worth a shot.

 

[NightmaresDad]

The whole attempt of Man trying to "prove" or "disprove" God is obviously limited by Man himself (i think I'm hearing that as well from BKB if I read him correctly) and those flaws are obvious in the Buddha scriptures quoted. Buddha has the audacity to judge God or attribute observations he's made to be God's will? It's Buddha playing God. And ultimately when Men attempt to prove/disprove God, it is them playing God - defining Him within their own limitations of imagination, knowledge, and intellect.
the whole "logical" train of "if there is a God, he would be...." is flawed from the start - Man cannot define God!
Sorry, Kinch, I don't see the logic at all, or a reasoned chain from one statement to the next or to the conclusion, in the proof as presented. maybe I'll have to look into it in further detail.
As Grad points out, it comes down to Faith. the "proof" of God can only come after a Man acknowledges he is not God.
I guess, what I'm saying is that God can't be proven, only experienced.

 

[BB73]

I agree that it comes down to faith.

The rest can be a lot of mental masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I'm more of a 'hands on' guy.

 

[kinch]

I agree that it comes down to faith.

The rest can be a lot of mental masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I'm more of a 'hands on' guy.

I agree with the faith comment 100%. (Faith, to me, being not faith as in a "leap of," but instead being a devotion, a feeling, a belief, a certainty in the heart in the mind coming from something other than a proof or evidence, etc.)

I would also like to point out that the phrase "mental masturbation" may be my favorite new thing. I will endeavor to use it once a day for a week to solidify its place in my vocabulary.

 

[HabaneroBuck]

St. Anselm is a little too esoteric for me. Kinch says that it is the best argument for God. Well, from a philosophical rather than theological level, the first cause argument is the best. It's simple, too.

 

[Taosman]

The whole attempt of Man trying to "prove" or "disprove" God is obviously limited by Man himself (i think I'm hearing that as well from BKB if I read him correctly) and those flaws are obvious in the Buddha scriptures quoted. Buddha has the audacity to judge God or attribute observations he's made to be God's will? It's Buddha playing God. And ultimately when Men attempt to prove/disprove God, it is them playing God - defining Him within their own limitations of imagination, knowledge, and intellect.
the whole "logical" train of "if there is a God, he would be...." is flawed from the start - Man cannot define God!
Sorry, Kinch, I don't see the logic at all, or a reasoned chain from one statement to the next or to the conclusion, in the proof as presented. maybe I'll have to look into it in further detail.
As Grad points out, it comes down to Faith. the "proof" of God can only come after a Man acknowledges he is not God.

There is great misunderstanding about Buddhism. A lot of this is propagated buy various churches for their own reasons.

Firstly, the Buddha is not a God. He was just a compassionate , human being. His idea was to look at human suffering from a logical point of view.
This by itself has to eliminate God from the teaching. Because the whole idea was for the average person to change his/her mind, his/her thought patterns. Instead of spending time in the past or the future, which is a distraction , and causes suffering. Concentrate on this moment. Live in this moment. By being awake to this moment we can see where our thoughts are and be more aware of the suffering of those around us. Compassion.

And Buddhism respects all religions. It does not attack religions or look to convert non-believers.

In the end it's just about what works for you.

 

[Steve19]

How can the created ever understand the Creator?

 

[Taosman]

How can the created ever understand the Creator?

Are we speaking of man or God?

 

[NightmaresDad]

The whole attempt of Man trying to "prove" or "disprove" God is obviously limited by Man himself (i think I'm hearing that as well from BKB if I read him correctly) and those flaws are obvious in the Buddha scriptures quoted. Buddha has the audacity to judge God or attribute observations he's made to be God's will? It's Buddha playing God. And ultimately when Men attempt to prove/disprove God, it is them playing God - defining Him within their own limitations of imagination, knowledge, and intellect.
the whole "logical" train of "if there is a God, he would be...." is flawed from the start - Man cannot define God!
Sorry, Kinch, I don't see the logic at all, or a reasoned chain from one statement to the next or to the conclusion, in the proof as presented. maybe I'll have to look into it in further detail.
As Grad points out, it comes down to Faith. the "proof" of God can only come after a Man acknowledges he is not God.

There is great misunderstanding about Buddhism. A lot of this is propagated buy various churches for their own reasons.

Firstly, the Buddha is not a God. He was just a compassionate , human being. His idea was to look at human suffering from a logical point of view.
This by itself has to eliminate God from the teaching. Because the whole idea was for the average person to change his/her mind, his/her thought patterns. Instead of spending time in the past or the future, which is a distraction , and causes suffering. Concentrate on this moment. Live in this moment. By being awake to this moment we can see where our thoughts are and be more aware of the suffering of those around us. Compassion.

And Buddhism respects all religions. It does not attack religions or look to convert non-believers.

In the end it's just about what works for you.

Speaking of great misunderstandings, your post is a great misunderstanding of my post.
I only referred to Buddha in the context of the quoted scriptures provided. I certainly did indicate that Buddha was not God, but was judging God and projecting his own values onto God.

Your next quote "Are we speaking of man or God? " was actually pertinent because that was what I was trying to get at with Humans trying to "prove" God one way or the other - they end up "creating"
their own version of God.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

... what I was trying to get at with Humans trying to "prove" God one way or the other - they end up "creating"
their own version of God.

This is my main problem with "organized" religion. God, so it seems to me, very often becomes an excuse to live the way one wants to live, and to justify living (and thinking) a certain way.

 

[Taosman]

Speaking of great misunderstandings, your post is a great misunderstanding of my post.
I only referred to Buddha in the context of the quoted scriptures provided. I certainly did indicate that Buddha was not God, but was judging God and projecting his own values onto God.

Your next quote "Are we speaking of man or God? " was actually pertinent because that was what I was trying to get at with Humans trying to "prove" God one way or the other - they end up "creating"
their own version of God.

In fact, the Buddha was not,"judging God and projecting his own values onto God."
But, rather looking at human suffering from a logical point of view.
Cause and effect.
Cause being our tendency to dwell in the past, and live in the future.
Like a sports injury doctor , trying to heal and prevent further injury.

The best cure to misunderstanding is what we do here, conversation.
This is a philosophical conversation, with no real right or wrong.

And the quoted scripture was the Buddha merely asking the Big Questions, the ones we all ask.

 

[buckeyegrad]

One of the most popular is the "first cause" argument according to which everything must have a cause, and God is considered the first cause of the Universe.

The "first cause" argument is one of the most misunderstood proofs in philosophy thanks primarily to John Stuart Mill. Mill misapplied Aristotle's law of causality by arguing that if everything must have have a cause, then there can be no God because there can be no "first cause"...in other words he did not allow for an exception to the rule in the first instance. The problem with this reasoning is that Aristotle's law of causality states that every effect must have a cause, it does not state everything must have a cause. The incorrect assumption by Mill and philosophers who have followed in his footsteps is that everything is an effect, which is not the case. Saying God is the "first cause" is perfectly acceptable according to the law of causality because God is not an effect, therefore he does not demand a cause or preconditions.

(Note: I did not discover this flaw by myself, rather it comes from the writings of the theologian R.C. Sproul, who himself is working from the apologetics of earlier theologians and philosophers.)

 

[Buckeyes85]

This is my main problem with "organized" religion. God, so it seems to me, very often becomes an excuse to live the way one wants to live, and to justify living (and thinking) a certain way.

In reality, you can remove "organized" from your point and it would not change a thing. And when that "justification" merges with power, you have the things such as the inquisition, terrorism, and to a lesser extent, the christian-right of america today.

 

[GoBucks89]

In reality, you can remove "organized" from your point and it would not change a thing. And when that "justification" merges with power, you have the things such as the inquisition, terrorism, and to a lesser extent, the christian-right of america today.

OK, so conservative Christians are the equivalent of terrorists, only to a lesser extent? How so? Do they kill innocent people "to a lesser extent"? I think your statement is extremely irresponsible.