More than 300 proofs of the existance of god!

Remove all ads!

Why do you think that? 20 billion years over an infinite amount of time is nothing... (well exactly time wouldn't exist in case of the big bang status). what if the big bang only happens once in 21 billion years?

 

Good question! But only for the ones who want to have an explanation for everything. I believe in God. I don't have any proof, so I believe in God. I believe that God always existed, it's part of His divine being. Something I can not understand, but believe.
Much like Nakia said, but I did not become agnostic.

Now if any of you 'Monkey Advanced Special Projects' with the urge to understand everything could tell me how this Big Bang came into the picture without any kind of material whatsoever, I might get interested in becoming an ape myself.

Point here is:
I rather believe in something/someone I cannot understand, than trying to understand everything without having the prove of the very beginning of all we can see here.

 

2nd post ever... I'm loving the AoDA!

The problem of God & creation is one particularly dear to my heart, being a Physicist by trade & philosopher as a hobby... I've inhabited a few stand points over my (short) life, from hardcore Richard Dawkins-esque Neo-Darwinism to a personal definition of God as necessary... & places in between.

The problem when you start using science as a big stick with which to beat religion is that science only ever concerns itself with making provisional statements, the validity of which is dependent upon further experiment. Karl Popper defined the role of science quite well in "Conjectures & Refutations", which can be easily found on the web. It's not an absolute truth, although people can be as dogmatically assured of it as any "true believer". I know, I've been there!

As for proving the existence of God by mathematics...

Consider the equations 0 X 1 = 0, and 0 X 0 = 0. Both are equally valid. Using standard algebra, divide both sides by zero:

1 = 0/0; 0 = 0/0. Therefore, 1=0.

So, it appears we *do* have something equalling nothing.

The problem is that mathematics is a set of rules & notations for pushing around numbers; pull the lever too far and it *will* break. Messing around too much with zeroes is quite a good way of doing this (not as good as playing with infinities, but that doesn't count as they're not part of the number line).

Ignoring the dodgy algebra, this is the sort of argument that sees God as a "necessary being", which Aristotle called the "Prime Mover". This is probably the definition of God I can most easily accept: no prescribed form, only that which acts as jump leads to the Universe.

The other baggage - infinite power and benevolence, for example - causes all sorts of problems when one tries to fit God with real life!

For various philosophers takes on God, here are a few names to Google: Descartes, Hume, Reid, Aristotle and, of course, Nietzsche (look for the passage from "The Gay Science" colloquially known as "the madman in the marketplace"... it's a personal fave!)

Right... I *really* need to sleep now; there's the best part of a vampire den that needs to be cleared!

[ February 05, 2005, 11:58: Message edited by: The Magpie ]

 

OK Magpie, so I'm being over simplistic. But if I wish to create a picture I need materials with which to do it. I still say 'nothing creates nothing'. Something had to exist and what it is called I really don't care but the common term is 'God'.

AS to my being an agnostic I have been doing some research and it seems I'm not an agnostic. I just don't believe there are any clear answers, only questions.

We can have fun discussing/debating this question but I do not believe we will come up with any answers. And I am having fun and learning a lot.

 

Well, Nakia, I view myself as an atheist but that doesnt mean that I am presumptous enough to think that I have the answers. My presumption only goes as far as rejecting those who are arrogant enough to claim that they know the answers.

One thing I would like people to do is to make a clear distinction between biblical/torah/koran/any other mythical god and the "there might have been something to start it all" god. There is a world of difference between those two view points. People seem to ignore the immense leap between a possible entity sparking the creation of the universe into an entity dabbling into what creatures on one tiny planet can eat for dinner and which sexual partners they can choose.

However, if there must be something to start it all, doesnt that same logic leads to there needing to be something to start the thing that started it and so on and so on?

 

Nooooooooooooo! Magpie just did a division by zero! Now the world shall end!

 

Yeah... Sorry about that, Warrior! I think if my computer had realised what was going on, there'd have been problems! (The maths thing was a wee bit pedantic, I'll admit).

Nakia & joacqin have pretty much nailed it. The logic of "nothing creates nothing" and "what created the thing that created everything else" have been doing battle since the year dot.

Which side you fall down on is largely a matter of preference: the logic of both can be considered suspect, depending on your point of view.

 

There must be something that exists always, something to cause Big-Bang.Before and after Big-Bang it must exist.And it must be the first,it can't be created by something else.If you want to call it "God",then make it.

And NEARLY all proofs in that page are just ... nonsense!

And Theory of Evolution may be incomplete,there are blanks in it.It isn't WRONG.But at least it is the way to truth.One day, there will be a complete theory of Evolution with more strong proofs.

 

Joacqin has posted what IMO is the best statement.
On the other hand I think Magpie just proved that there is a god.

Now I am going to try and confuse ...ah.. I mean clarify the issue further.

We tend to think in absolutes. To me math is precise. Now before someone makes a comment about 'Modern Math' I have to say that I have taught modern math and written a modern math course. But that's another topic.

Magpie has pointed out (maybe not intentionally) that even this is false.

People who believe in Science tend to take that as an absolute but science is always changing. What is accepted as true today may be found to be false tomorrow.

When it comes to Religion we get even more complicated because each believes theirs to be the absolute.

I am writing this gibberish while not feeling well and with a fever so take for what it is - a fevered fantasy. The whole thing is some sort of Cosmic Joke. I better stop now.

 

It gets even more messy when people start taking things on faith in science or using scientific methods (such as their own logic which they tend to believe to be unfailing, basing on their own interpretation of sacred scriptures) to create religious rules.

At some point in history, someone inferred from the Bible that the Earth was flat and made a religious tenet of it. And there was a good Christian who paid with his life for scientifically proving the opposite. Such things really, really need not happen.

 

@Nakia

There are you bringing in the laws of this universe, cause-and-reaction, to a realm before it's creation.

Not that all people see cause-and-reaction as a law of this universe, the ones who don't believe in the meta-physics but do believe in free will are one.

 

Got me, Morgoth!. I guess I do believe in cause-and-reaction. Hooray! I believe in something.

 

@MoN,

It was kind of a rhetorical question which I kind-of answered in the next paragraph.
I find it vastly amusing that someone can throw out the big bang theory on the basis that the mass had to come from somewhere, but is willing to believe that an inteligent being can exist without the same requirement.

I don't need an explanation for everything, but it seems to me that religion is just that - the concept of a God being responsible for creation is how folks try and explain stuff to themselves.

Question for TL, If God exists why would he have to be Logical?

[ February 07, 2005, 15:16: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

Oh sorry, Carcaroth, I didn't want to flame or sound rude etc. (I don't know if you thought I was )

Agreed, I need to be more specific, but (again) I can't find the right words...
Too often, people try to 'outsmart' my believe with reason. They try to convince me that my believe is bullocks. But their seasoning ends with believe as well, since they can't find the answers to some things. I chose to believe it must be something divine or supernatural, an intelligent person rather than witless stuff.

NM, there's no ending to such conversations.
It's nice I can still disagree with you people. It's just a pitty you disagree with me...

 

Personally, I firmly believe in logic. I have yet to encounter a logically valid theory in favor of the existence of God, or any sort of supreme being. I have also not found a logically valid theory against it. I guess you could say I'm an agnostic.

Sophomore year in high school, my chemistry teacher believed in the big bang theory with far more conviction that almost any Christain I'd met believed in God. A friend of mine argued with him for an entire hour, trying to convince him that there was no evidence of the big bang having happened. The teacher would not accept my friend's arguments to be even remotely valid, yet he offered no evidence supporting the big bang theory. I believe my teacher may have thought somewhat along these lines, however: Evolution is indisputable. If evolution is true, then God cannot exist. Something had to create the universe, therefore the big bang actually happened.

Just goes to show that there are fanatics on either side of every debate. That was a very entertaining hour

 

Logic? Oh no, now you've invited someone to wade in with the "it's not about logic, it's all about faith" angle.

 

Ah, not the old "two-sided coin" argument! That means there's a 50:50 chance of faith or logic coming up and we're just the product of random chance. Heads - order, Tails - chaos.

 

The problem is that we are just not designed to think in the probably up to 13 dimensions. Time is the fourth dimension. Think of us as being 2D pictures stacked together over a distance - the distance is our existence. Of course it's not that simple, but the analogy serves. My point (I KNEW I had one somewhere) is that Time, with the other three well known dimensions (Height Width Depth (or whatever you call them)) is nothing but a device for measuring the universe. Time, like the others, came into existence for our universe at it's beginning. Beginning as opposed to creation.