Proof that God exists

[Mystic]

In understanding what the essence and heart of morality is, lies a proof of God. And understanding that requires you to investigate what love truly is and what it truly knows and whether it's the truth of how things are created, defined, valued, and known.

And it's the leader and guide, and this is what the bible means when people took the name of God and call themselves by it, it means they took the position of Aaronic priesthood and Kingship of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses was sent with clear authority so that people disbelieve in the false authority of Pharaoh, and Saul was that which is asked for by the people and by Moses words, when he prayed that his knot of on his tongue may be relieved. And Aaron was to be prayed to do that, because hope even in the darkest surroundings is the only way to act, and God got rightfully upset with Moses praying for the one he would send to relieve his knot, because Aaron would succeed him, and to despair in his lifetime is understandable, but not with regards to his successor.

And it's sad that Moses and Mohammad had knots on their tongues and their hearts were constrained due to what people would say and the propaganda of ignorance, while, they were not niggardly regarding the knowledge of the unseen they knew and wish to spread.

And the heart of what morality is the hardest to define, it makes Messengers look egoistic, and people misinterpreted Jesus' words and made into an equal to the Creator and Source of the universe.

And part of the wisdom of mentioning "the Compassionate, the Merciful" is to say, the name of God is the utmost mercy, and had it been possible for God to beget an equal, there would not be but sons of God as his equals, such is the compassion and love of God.

But there is a vast difference between the eternal and originated, the one who lacks no life, and the one who hardly possesses life compared to the Source. We are nothing compared to God, even those who we exalt and should not exalt others to that level of leadership and guiding position in morality and religion, are nothing compared to God.

Even the best of those who race ahead from the emigrants to God and helpers of God, they are nothing compared to the source.

Love knows no bounds and it is arrow and sword aimed at the highest sky, which is absolute love, sheer greatness, and ultimate wisdom, and perfect beauty and only it can judge accurately, because is by the definition the truest form of judgment and best of judges.

[Conspiracy_of_reason]

Way to miss everything i just said 

If I did, I apologise.

[vulcanlogician]

Way to miss everything i just said 

If I did, I apologise.

I think you're both missing each other a bit. I think CoR made some good points about religion as a social construct... sort of taking a gods-eye view of mankind. Think of human culture in the sense of a bacteria "culture"... if a lab technician is experimenting with certain cultures of bacteria she can set up conditions in which some of the bacteria do not survive/reproduce and others do. Under these laboratory conditions, certain strains of bacteria will thrive, others will not.

Now impose this concept on humanity. In the stone and bronze ages, certain "cultures" of humans adopted a religious outlook which created social cohesion. This helped some scattered tribes unite against others. To keep with the metaphor: the "laboratory conditions" of the stone ages favored this religious strain. Now the whole world is civilized, and just like religion was valuable to to the ancients, science helps us survive under these new laboratory conditions. Religion is now a relic, or worse, something that stands in the way of science. The science strain now benefits our survival, and religion has long outlived its usefulness.

I think CoR's argument stumbles where it tries to draw a line to faith and makes claims about mankind's "faith" in science. Science is demonstrable, and in this way conforms to reality despite the laboratory conditions de jour. Had we some way to transmit scientific information to stone age tribes in a way they could comprehend it, and they subsequently used science as their force of social cohesion, they would have dominated all other tribes in their vicinity. Likewise, if we were to transmit Mormonism, a relatively modern religion, back to stone age tribes they would have been none the better for it.

So, CoR, you made some good points about how religion has been valuable to the cultures who practiced them, but you failed in equivocation of science and faith.

[Conspiracy_of_reason]

If one believes in religion then that is one's reality.

We generally find it useful to separate unique internal realities from the common reality.  No one doubts that religion is real to the religious.  That doesn't change the troubling detail of how the devil doesn't come when he's called.  It's an interesting way to talk around a point of contention but it relies on a fundamental equivocation.

I think you have only partially quoted me there. I do go on to qualify that remark in my post. I'm clearly not talking about individual internal realities but the common reality that is religion. The point you raised with reference to the devil is really only an issue of a particular kind of dualist religion and not relevant to religion in general. We don't want to get into wheter or nor all reality is subjective, we'll be here all night.

Science can tell us what happened in the past, it can make very acurate and detailed observations of history which we then use to predict the future, but it provides no proof of future events. That is to say we can guess that gravity will work tomorrow because it has done every day since observations began, but that doesn't mean it will be the same tomorrow and any belief that it will be the same is pure faith. It doesn't matter how small the margin of error is, it is still there and to deny the existance of this margin of error is an emotional, human reaction not a 'calculated acceptance'.

Sure, maybe the sun won't rise tomorrow morning.  Science isn't in the proof business...it's in the evidence business.  It doesn't offer any proof that the sun will rise tomorrow......it just offers a crushing mound of evidence that it will.

Fair point on the issue of proof verses evidence, so I'll rephrase. Science offers 'a crushing mound of evidence' that the sun has risen in the past, not that it will rise tomorrow. It's a subtle distinction but important.

Anyone who claims to have a scientific analytical mind cannot invoke the concept of 'progress' without brteaying that idea instantly. Progress against what? What is the empirical scientific measure of progress? There isn't one, its an emotional human concept (it's Victorian in origin, fashioned out of cast-off Christian concepts) that has no place in modern science.

Lots of words derived their first use in the victorian era.  They had very colorful slang as well.  Nevertheless, you can refer to whatever specific standards a person is referring to when they refer to progress.  If we, for example..refer to progress in the context of increased life expectancy and food security then this presents a concrete metric for human progress, or for scientific progress.   This may not be what a victorian person would have seen as progress...but so what?

I have to ask again, progress against what? It's actually a fine example that demonstrates my point. You believe that increased life expectancy is human progress, but what are you measuring that against? Humanity has no universal goals against which to measure it. We might desire more life but that is not an objective measure. If you are suggesting how we feel about things is enough to create a measure against which we can show progress then you cannot exclude religion. There are more Christians today than 1000 years ago, they are (mostly) all happier because of it, therefore religion shows real progress, if we use your measure.

My point is science provides change, I accept that. Some of the change I like, I have a positive emotional response to because I'm more comfortable and I believe I can have a longer healthier life, but this is all based on how I feel and not some independent universal measure. I can reject the notion that this is progress, in the same way I reject that religion drives progress. In this respect, science and religion are the same, you cannot reject one without contradicting yourself with the other, so I reject both.

---

If I did, I apologise.

I think you're both missing each other a bit. I think CoR made some good points about religion as a social construct... sort of taking a gods-eye view of mankind. Think of human culture in the sense of a bacteria "culture"... if a lab technician is experimenting with certain cultures of bacteria she can set up conditions in which some of the bacteria do not survive/reproduce and others do. Under these laboratory conditions, certain strains of bacteria will thrive, others will not.

Now impose this concept on humanity. In the stone and bronze ages, certain "cultures" of humans adopted a religious outlook which created social cohesion. This helped some scattered tribes unite against others. To keep with the metaphor: the "laboratory conditions" of the stone ages favored this religious strain. Now the whole world is civilized, and just like religion was valuable to to the ancients, science helps us survive under these new laboratory conditions. Religion is now a relic, or worse, something that stands in the way of science. The science strain now benefits our survival, and religion has long outlived its usefulness.

I think CoR's argument stumbles where it tries to draw a line to faith and makes claims about mankind's "faith" in science. Science is demonstrable, and in this way conforms to reality despite the laboratory conditions de jour. Had we some way to transmit scientific information to stone age tribes in a way they could comprehend it, and they subsequently used science as their force of social cohesion, they would have dominated all other tribes in their vicinity. Likewise, if we were to transmit Mormonism, a relatively modern religion, back to stone age tribes they would have been none the better for it.

So, CoR, you made some good points about how religion has been valuable to the cultures who practiced them, but you failed in equivocation of science and faith.

Goodness, it's a big topic.

Thank you for the recognition on some of my points.

My comment on 'faith' in science comes from the very fact that science is demonstrable, but only in an historical sense. Science demonstrates what we have observed in the past. We can use this information to make predictions about what we expect something to do in the future (say gravity) and so far this has worked out for us. In fact, it is only as good as the next wrong prediction, then science goes in search of a better answer. Gravity is a good case in point. We know what gravity does, we know gravity appears to be constant, but we don't actually know what gravity is. We have merely convinced ourselves we know what it is and that it is constant. In 'reality' (there's that word again), we only know that gravity has behaved in the way we expect it to so far (historically) and using that information we can predict (i.e. make a guess) as to how it will behave tomorrow. The preponderance of historical evidence seems to suggest this is a certainty but it is, in fact, still only a guess and it is human heuristics that equates the quantity of historical evidence to the level of certainty in our prediction (i.e. guess). Mathematically we have created levels of certainty (sigma) to help us express this, but they never reach 100%, because nothing is certain. Yet we believe science tells us it is certain.

Using the abstract systems of equivalence and mathematics we have successfully obfuscated the 'faith' at the heart of our apparent certainty in scientific evidence being able to predict the future... but whether we like it or not, it's there and even science recognises it's there.

cor

[vulcanlogician]

Yet we believe science tells us it is certain.

Empiricism comes with its own set of epistemological constraints--we can never have certain knowledge through empiricism.

If we believe what science tells us is certain, then we are wrong. Science provides a framework in which conclusions can be reached based on experimental data. Anyone who understands science knows that. As long as we keep observing the universe, new data can come to light which challenges our previous conclusions.

Again, science requires little faith on our part. If we misunderstand gravity, there are enterprising theoreticians and experimenters who make it their life's work to correct this misunderstanding. "We might have gotten gravity wrong," is something you hear physicists say in pop science literature. Contrast this with your statement: "Yet we believe science tells us it is certain." Science doesn't tell us it is certain. It tells us that this is the best empirical understanding we have at this point. Contrast with religion. Religion "tells us it is certain." That's why so many reject it.

On a side note, I noticed you flubbed your quotation of Khemikal above. (It happens with newcomers.) The link below will give you the basics of BB code so you can understand things (like how to quote segments of another post point by point instead of the whole thing etc.)

https://atheistforums.org/thread-3560.html

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you have only partially quoted me there. I do go on to qualify that remark in my post. I'm clearly not talking about individual internal realities but the common reality that is religion. The point you raised with reference to the devil is really only an issue of a particular kind of dualist religion and not relevant to religion in general. We don't want to get into wheter or nor all reality is subjective, we'll be here all night.

Yeah, I chunk it up for clarity most of the time.  There is no such thing as a "common reality of religion", as all of the warring sects and every apologist who comes here with a different story about the same magic book makes perfectly clear.  Every religion has it's fair share of devils, the rituals never work.  

Fair point on the issue of proof verses evidence, so I'll rephrase. Science offers 'a crushing mound of evidence' that the sun has risen in the past, not that it will rise tomorrow. It's a subtle distinction but important.

Theres a crushing mound of evidence the sun will rise tomorrow as well.  It's a fun little chestnut we call orbital mechanics.  

I have to ask again, progress against what? It's actually a fine example that demonstrates my point. You believe that increased life expectancy is human progress, but what are you measuring that against?

It doesn't matter what I believe.  All that matters is that by referencing examples we are setting metrics.  If a person mentions progress..you ask them what they mean..and they say x, y, and z....there you go.  We could only insists that we haven't made progress or that it's some murky non-thing -before- a person lists off what they're using as metrics.  After that - it's just an issue of checking the numbers.  

Humanity has no universal goals against which to measure it.

Why would humanity have to have some universal goal for there to be progress?  Most of the time that's not how progress is made...though I'm sure it would help if we all came together to do something.  Just an interesting thing that stuck out, sidebar. 

We might desire more life but that is not an objective measure.  If you are suggesting how we feel about things is enough to create a measure against which we can show progress then you cannot exclude religion. There are more Christians today than 1000 years ago, they are (mostly) all happier because of it, therefore religion shows real progress, if we use your measure.

Progress doesn't always bring the happy feels, ask the luddites.  Does how you feel about something change the fact that we've raised the global life expectancy?  If you felt differently about it..would it go down, or up?  

No, no...and no.   

Here's a fun one, why isn't the desire for life an "objective measure"?  You either do or don't want to live.  You either are or are not alive.  Objectively desiring something objective seems like a hell of alot of objectivity for something that isn't an "objective measure".  

My point is science provides change, I accept that. Some of the change I like, I have a positive emotional response to because I'm more comfortable and I believe I can have a longer healthier life, but this is all based on how I feel and not some independent universal measure.

IDK, 365 days...12 months, 1 year.  Seems like an independent universal measure.  Either you can expect more of them or you can't, and it doesn't seem to matter how you or anyone else feels about it. 

I can reject the notion that this is progress, in the same way I reject that religion drives progress. In this respect, science and religion are the same, you cannot reject one without contradicting yourself with the other, so I reject both.

You reject science or human progress?  You can reject the latter if you like...but not because there's no such thing, or because it's a victorian word that has no place in science, or because there's no "universal goal", or because there's no objective or independent standard.  There is such a thing and here we are (and all that we are) as a testament to it.  Lots of words and concepts are putatively victorian.  We haven't had to band together into a universal goal to effect it as of yet, and it abounds with needling detail on the specific and objective metrics we use to assess it.  

Imagine everything else is shit.  We're doing no better anywhere else......but we live longer.  Isolate that one metric from all the noise.  Can you tell me, without irrelevance and rationalization...why a level headed person might hesitate to call that progress?  Just that alone?  Of course that's not the only metric being referred to when a person discusses human progress, is it?  If we listed every category we're doing better in it would take us eons.

You could -only- be insisting that the things we call progress...while they objectively do exist and have occurred and are an improvement over old metrics..aren't all that we make it out to be. They just aren't so awesome, lol. Well...the luddites didn't think so either...and yet the very things they destroyed, and the very force they attempted to resist....was a component of human progress all the same. You won't find me smashing up any cotton mills.



@Vulcan.
"Provisional certitude".

[Agnosty]

Evolution tells us that species do not exist, just random drifts of genes interacting with each other subject to environmental changes. We must accept that the term 'species' is a collection of arbitrary divisions that humans use to help us manage genetic distinctions in neat packages, but, according to evolution, outside of the human imagination 'species' do not exist. The most scientifically accurate way to describe us would be as a 'system' of genes.

Very wise observation.

As with every other animal humans impact their environment and those changes feed back on us. This is the classic core concept of Complex Adaptive System Theory, part of what used to be called Chaos Theory. The two critical points in the life cycle of a system (and humans are a 'system') are the conditions under which the system is initiated and the point at which the system feeds back on itself, but these two critical points are the same for any system, the human system is not unique in this respect at all.

Seems like you're saying there is only one system.  I agree.

Yet, when we talk about scientific research and study we do so in the name of human progress. Scientifically speaking this is not a valid concept, there is no universal measure we can use as a yardstick to say 'this' is better than 'that', for every scientific change we make there is feedback on the system. While in the short term we may be living longer, more comfortably with less diseases, long term, - among many other things - we are depleting our resources and creating mega resistant bacteria that will bring infection and death to future generations (for example). We carry out scientific research to look for solutions to the problems we create for ourselves in the belief we will find them, but this is pure faith. We may find more short-term solutions, but the human ‘system’ will always be subject to system feedback and environmental change, and there is nothing we can do about that. Scientific study and research, to paraphrase Michael Stipe, is a simple prop to occupy our time, it cannot deliver the 'progress' it promises, there is no 'better future' because the ultimate evolutionary apex of any system is, and always will be, extinction. And we can never escape that.

Exactly.  We can't have a game where "good" always wins.  We can't have all good and no bad.

Whatever country you live in, whatever language you speak, whatever colour your skin, whatever distraction you use we are all united in one thing, we will all ultimately die. There are many distractions from this inevitability, but it is inescapable. It makes no difference what we study, research, learn, change, develop or whatever else we believe will benefit the tribe, ultimately nothing will be remembered, and it will all burn away into the background of a universe that doesn't care about our ridiculous little human race.

But... we will persist because we have faith.

You lost me here because if we don't exist distinct from the universe, then how can we persist?  And what is faith and why is it important?

We will believe in science, god, enlightenment, fate or whatever else will bring us a better tomorrow, because it gives us hope. These constructs are our lifeboat in a sea of endless nothingness, they provide focus in the confusion, they comfort us in the long dark tea-time of the soul. These constructs embody a force that is irresistible, it is present in our imaginations, it is perpetual in our worlds, it is constant in our Universe. Whichever one we pick we put our ultimate faith in it, we believe in it because we must, it is our imperative.

So, we believe an illusion for comfort?  I can see value in that, but is it necessary?  Why isn't the truth also comforting?

Belief in science over any god or any other Universal force is just an exchange of prop. If you accept the primacy of science, then you also accept the primacy of every other prop because to reject them would be to deny the very force that drives us to create these structures. Which is why of all modern structures, Law, Politics, Sports, etc. only Science is held up to account against Religion...

because they are the same and just as faith gives us hope in a better tomorrow and drives scientific study, it also embodies god, they are as real as each other.

Seems like a poetic way of saying science is as faith-based as religion.

The moon is there; do you see it?
Yes I see it, but I do not believe it is there.
Well, it's a free country; believe what you want.

Ultimately, everything believed is a matter of preference.

[Brian37]

Rational

I'm going to have a go at Rational.
 
Evolution tells us that species do not exist, just random drifts of genes interacting with each other subject to environmental changes. We must accept that the term 'species' is a collection of arbitrary divisions that humans use to help us manage genetic distinctions in neat packages, but, according to evolution, outside of the human imagination 'species' do not exist. The most scientifically accurate way to describe us would be as a 'system' of genes.
 
As with every other animal humans impact their environment and those changes feed back on us. This is the classic core concept of Complex Adaptive System Theory, part of what used to be called Chaos Theory. The two critical points in the life cycle of a system (and humans are a 'system') are the conditions under which the system is initiated and the point at which the system feeds back on itself, but these two critical points are the same for any system, the human system is not unique in this respect at all.
 
Yet, when we talk about scientific research and study we do so in the name of human progress. Scientifically speaking this is not a valid concept, there is no universal measure we can use as a yardstick to say 'this' is better than 'that', for every scientific change we make there is feedback on the system. While in the short term we may be living longer, more comfortably with less diseases, long term, - among many other things - we are depleting our resources and creating mega resistant bacteria that will bring infection and death to future generations (for example). We carry out scientific research to look for solutions to the problems we create for ourselves in the belief we will find them, but this is pure faith. We may find more short-term solutions, but the human ‘system’ will always be subject to system feedback and environmental change, and there is nothing we can do about that. Scientific study and research, to paraphrase Michael Stipe, is a simple prop to occupy our time, it cannot deliver the 'progress' it promises, there is no 'better future' because the ultimate evolutionary apex of any system is, and always will be, extinction. And we can never escape that.
 
Whatever country you live in, whatever language you speak, whatever colour your skin, whatever distraction you use we are all united in one thing, we will all ultimately die. There are many distractions from this inevitability, but it is inescapable. It makes no difference what we study, research, learn, change, develop or whatever else we believe will benefit the tribe, ultimately nothing will be remembered, and it will all burn away into the background of a universe that doesn't care about our ridiculous little human race.
 
But... we will persist because we have faith.
 
We will believe in science, god, enlightenment, fate or whatever else will bring us a better tomorrow, because it gives us hope. These constructs are our lifeboat in a sea of endless nothingness, they provide focus in the confusion, they comfort us in the long dark tea-time of the soul. These constructs embody a force that is irresistible, it is present in our imaginations, it is perpetual in our worlds, it is constant in our Universe. Whichever one we pick we put our ultimate faith in it, we believe in it because we must, it is our imperative.
 
Belief in science over any god or any other Universal force is just an exchange of prop. If you accept the primacy of science, then you also accept the primacy of every other prop because to reject them would be to deny the very force that drives us to create these structures. Which is why of all modern structures, Law, Politics, Sports, etc. only Science is held up to account against Religion...
 
because they are the same and just as faith gives us hope in a better tomorrow and drives scientific study, it also embodies god, they are as real as each other.

cor

Um no, evolution DOES NOT claim to be random, that is the opposite of "natural selection".

And no, no faith required in scientific method. That is why you collect data, set up formulas and control groups, TEST AND FALSIFY, and hand over to peer review to see if they come up with the same conclusions. NO FAITH REQUIRED.

Faith is not equal to scientific method.

[Agnosty]

Empiricism comes with its own set of epistemological constraints--we can never have certain knowledge through empiricism.

All statements must be supported with empirical evidence; except this one

Science provides a framework in which conclusions can be reached based on experimental data.

Science also provides a framework for egoic and political competition where conclusions are reached based on what one wants to show.  See: Climate Change, The War on Fat, Social constructs of race and sex, and... well, maybe the list would be shorter if I stated the exceptions, which are: ____________.  

Again, science requires little faith on our part.

Appeal to authority is not faith?  Why hire a scientist if we can't have faith in his professional opinion?  When mom goes to the dr, I must have faith that someone in the sciences has done their job, which almost certainly they have not, hence all the lawsuits.

If we misunderstand gravity, there are enterprising theoreticians and experimenters who make it their life's work to correct this misunderstanding. "We might have gotten gravity wrong," is something you hear physicists say in pop science literature.

No one has an invested interest in gravity.  Who says, objectively, "We may have gotten Climate Change wrong."???  (Unless they're a climate denier where they have invested interest in saying that.)  If any pro-CC scientist said CC may be wrong, he'd be fired immediately.  In science, you either tow the line or get no funding.

Contrast this with your statement: "Yet we believe science tells us it is certain." Science doesn't tell us it is certain. It tells us that this is the best empirical understanding we have at this point. Contrast with religion. Religion "tells us it is certain." That's why so many reject it.

Yes, true, but people believe science says things for certain whether it was the intention of science or not.  See the topic on "Laws" a few pages back.  And the fact that people have faith in science is harnessed for political gains.

---

Um no, evolution DOES NOT claim to be random, that is the opposite of "natural selection".

If not random, then it's teleological.  Can't have it both ways.

And no, no faith required in scientific method.

If you don't have faith in it, why use it?

[vulcanlogician]

Empiricism comes with its own set of epistemological constraints--we can never have certain knowledge through empiricism.

All statements must be supported with empirical evidence; except this one

I'm more of a rationalist than you might think. Which one of my above statements are you mocking? The one about epistemological constraints, certain knowledge, or both? You don't need empirical facts to show that empiricism is useful.

Science also provides a framework for egoic and political competition where conclusions are reached based on what one wants to show.  See: Climate Change, The War on Fat, Social constructs of race and sex, and... well, maybe the list would be shorter if I stated the exceptions, which are: ____________.  

Again, science requires little faith on our part.

Appeal to authority is not faith?  Why hire a scientist if we can't have faith in his professional opinion?  When mom goes to the dr, I must have faith that someone in the sciences has done their job, which almost certainly they have not, hence all the lawsuits.

If we misunderstand gravity, there are enterprising theoreticians and experimenters who make it their life's work to correct this misunderstanding. "We might have gotten gravity wrong," is something you hear physicists say in pop science literature.

No one has an invested interest in gravity.  Who says, objectively, "We may have gotten Climate Change wrong."???  (Unless they're a climate denier where they have invested interest in saying that.)  If any pro-CC scientist said CC may be wrong, he'd be fired immediately.  In science, you either tow the line or get no funding.

Contrast this with your statement: "Yet we believe science tells us it is certain." Science doesn't tell us it is certain. It tells us that this is the best empirical understanding we have at this point. Contrast with religion. Religion "tells us it is certain." That's why so many reject it.

Yes, true, but people believe science says things for certain whether it was the intention of science or not.  See the topic on "Laws" a few pages back.  And the fact that people have faith in science is harnessed for political gains.

You are critiquing science as it is practiced. Sure, there are problems with how science is conducted (like publication bias among other things). But I was speaking of science more abstractly. Would you say that science practiced perfectly, that is, without hindrance from socio-political pressures of any kind, would be a worthy vessel for empirical knowledge? If so, then we agree.