Proof of God

[Harris]

Harris Wrote:
...give thanks to the balance and harmony among the forces and objects of the universe that provide you most comfortable atmosphere and all life supporting resources without any of which you would not be able to survive. Fine-tuning works so well that you even do not bother to contemplate over the reality of this universe. You think that nature should work for your comfort and enjoyment as if it is your servant.

Robvalue Wrote:
How am I meant to do this? How do I give thanks, and to what? Also, my life is fucking shit, so really I'm not all that thankful.

Robvalue Wrote:
Atheists are not in general claiming there is no god.

Can you really still not understand this Harris? I've written about this in detail on my website. Please check it out if you are still confused about this.

Robvalue Wrote:
Apparently I should be more grateful to an indifferent universe for my brief and highly unenjoyable existence.

Robvalue Wrote:
If God is as obviously real as we keep getting told, why all the dishonest tactics all the time?

Robvalue Wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear how I'm meant to give thanks to this creator thing, Harris, whatever it may be.

Where do I go? What do I do? How can I know it is getting my message?

Robvalue Wrote:
Most likely One started taking off his clothes, so I think that must have been the wrong one to see about this.

Since Harris gave me this advice I'm hoping he will take ownership of it and tell me what I'm actually meant to do.

Do I just think thankful thoughts?

Robvalue Wrote:
Why should we need anything in its place?


robvalue Wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear how I'm meant to give thanks to this creator thing, Harris, whatever it may be.

Where do I go? What do I do? How can I know it is getting my message?

Norman Humann Wrote: It depends.

If you ask a priest, the answer will be his bank account number.

First, let me make it clear that whatever I am writing here is not to get any material gain or appreciation from any one. I am not hoping to get true justice from this meniscal life.

I am only trying to convey the truth by using best logical reasoning in hope perhaps some of you might be able to understand that human life is not Hee Hee Haa Haa and no one can get absolute knowledge and ultimate satisfaction within this short life span.

People have intuition through which they judge between right and wrong and they have power of analyses, which they can use to build logic to get to the unseen realities. This life is sufficient for a person that he could realise the reality of the universe and then accept the existence of God or reject it. No more and no less.

I would be in position to give you some advice only once I feel that you really do not perceive the universe including your own body as a product of chance, accident, or nothingness.

Until you adhere the idea that Universe is the product of chance, accident, or nothingness your thoughts would endure a nomadic state about everything including your own being.

In this rootless state occasionally, you may cling to the idea that your ancestors were monkeys or donkeys. Seldom may you have thoughts that your life is “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Sometimes you may think because death is the end of you hence all your endeavours should be targeted to the maximum gain of enjoyment.

Is pleasure, comfort, and satisfaction the ultimate goal of your minuscule life or perhaps you are simply abusing your freedom by misusing intelligence and logic for the fulfilment of your selfish desires?

The folly of the hedonistic life turns man into a slave or a beast. Because so many of our pleasures are either ephemeral or unattainable, we are assailed by anxiety or grief.

The true believer in God and in the day of judgment will not succumb to grief, because he understands that nothing in this world of generation and corruption is ever permanent and that whatever cannot be turned away should be ignored or disregarded, since it is often the product of passion and not of reason, for reason summons us only to what is susceptible of bringing about profit sooner or later; grief does not bring any advantage. That is why the perfectly rational man will only follow the summons of reason and will never follow the summons of passion or allow himself to be led by it or get close to it.

Harris Wrote:
The right way to say is:

Atheist: there is no God
Theist: Prove it.

Bennyboy Wrote:

That's retarded. /thread

From you I was not expecting such a serious reaction on a simple joke.

Harris is blatantly misrepresenting the atheist position and being dishonest about what we think?

I'm shocked. Absolutely and utterly surprised. I've never seen this before.

You have full right to disprove my argument against atheism and represent atheist’s worldview (if there is any) in honest and diligent manner.

"We are star stuff".
Electrons and other elementary particles, the sort that make up everything we know of... those are eternal, in a time-forward sense.

Going back in time, we hit the Big bang and we can't say...

“Anything that has a beginning has an end.” That means a thing that has a beginning cannot be eternal. This is the law of nature and no one can challenge that.

It means the building blocks of the Universe have always been there. Like the building blocks of my body had been around for a long long while before they assembled into me.

You have a unique identity. There is no other you. You had a beginning and you will have an end. After your end, nature would not reassemble you again and you will never come back to this earth. End of the story.

Does that matter whether your elements were present in the eternal past or they will remain in the eternal future when there is no you? Do you have any reason to think that matter is eternal?

Harris Wrote:
Is “Natural” some law or force or is it some mystical phenomenon. How and why NATURAL is happening. What exactly NATURAL is? Do you have ANY scientific definition for it?

Pocaracas Wrote:
In this case, Natural phenomenon is mindless.
Can be studied, probed, measured... somehow...

You are trying to assimilate something, which is mindless as the foundation to develop your mindful arguments. Amusing!

errr.... I am aware of no beings apart from this universe. So sentient and non-sentient begins are part of the universe and have come about through a long, long chain of events.
If causality is a strict thing for all fields, even quantum, then it was going to be this way.... if not, then some randomness played a part.

Either way, I am not aware of any being apart from the Universe and I cannot fathom how could someone become aware of such beings... can you?

You are not aware of:

1. what life is
2. What is death
3. what is sense
4. what is consciousness
5. Why we sleep, (science does not have a clue.)
6. what is gravity,
7. Is the universe finite or infinite?

Yet you are conscious being living in the universe, you sense and feel, you sleep and wake, and you use gravity in every moment of your life.

You believe in all those unknown things without knowing them but you are reluctant to use your logic to realise an obvious fact that:

Why there is something rather than nothing?

You missed my point. I wasn't talking about the multiverse, I was talking about the pre-expansion state of our immediate universe. Pre-expansion, there was no time and no space. All that we know regarding the laws of physics (and thus causality) are made a nonsense by this state. Consequently we can't assume that causality has any meaning in the context of a pre-expanded universe and I certainly can't imagine how anyone would be able to know enough about it to posit the existence of a disembodied mind with universe-causing abilities, especially since, as you say "if they do indeed exist, for they are forever outside observational reach."

If we consider time as 4th dimension then our minds have trouble in perceiving 5th. We cannot give analogies or metaphors to depict 5th dimension without having any sense of it. By looking at 4 dimensional world we may come to a logical sense that there may be more dimensions and perhaps we are right because mathematics and physical laws force us to think in that direction. Take the example of string theory, which states there are 11 dimensions. The question is how to explore those dimensions when we have no physical and no logical tools in hands.

Consider we are part of those dimensions and events in them are affecting our physical and psychologies states. Perhaps our mind is part of those dimensions and because those dimensions are unapproachable therefore, we cannot give proper explication to our minds no matter we are using it in every mundane activity of our daily life.

Perhaps universe emerged in one of those unknown dimensions and because its laws and principles are unknown, the cause of the universe is yet not identified.

Think if we (somehow) get observational access in those dimensions, can you imagine what kind of world we may encounter, the world of which we have no sense and no knowledge, the world to which no one could ever give definition by means of physical properties of the 4 dimensional world.

Data from near death experiences shows that a person somehow start perceiving the other world (other dimensions) at the time of his/her death.

If you bring unknown dimensions as depicted by physics and mathematics and the experiences of dying people together then it makes sense that those dimensions and the invisible world about which all Prophets of Bible and Quran had reminded unequivocally are only two different approaches to the same reality.

By the way, Quran does give solid understanding on how God has created the universe. Compare the following verses with the modern theory of Big Bang.

“Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?”

Al Anbiyaa' (21)
-Verse 30-

I thought you said that god's "forever outside observational reach"? How can you be in the position to talk about the known qualities of something, which is, by your own definition, fundamentally unknowable?

We have come up to the ideas of multiverse, string theory, and black holes through the forms of objects and by the pattern of activities they contain and the final causes of their different vital processes. Not necessarily, we should observe in order to believe, we could reach the unseen truth by using logical structures and pattern within the observational reach.

Consider the following series of numbers:

1, 3, 9, 27, 81, - - -, n

By looking at the pattern it is not difficult to make a logical prediction what would be the “n”

The design, pattern, sequence, harmony, order, symmetry, etc. in the universe and in our ever-changing bodies provided us logical reasons to believe in the unseen “forever outside observational reach” God.

Something which is unobservable & unknowable can't have any 'logical evidences'. You're contradicting yourself.

Universe is more than sufficient evidence for the existence of God if you observe it with an honest eye.

Harris Wrote:
God is an uncaused being because once you answer, “who created God?” that answer fires infinite series of question, “who created the second God that created the first God?” and so on. In simple words, the question “who created God?” means there is no universe but because there is universe therefore the question “who created God?” is wrong.

Ben Davis Wrote: This is just gibberish.

Do you have something better than that?

I've already done the 'cosmological' argument in this (& my previous) post. If you'd care to present any arguments from fine-tuning or intelligent design, I'd be happy to address them.

I already had responded to your reasoning against cosmological argument. In few of my responses, I also touched intelligent design and fine-tuning.

FatAndFaithless Wrote: Harris is blatantly misrepresenting the atheist position and being dishonest about what we think?

I'm shocked. Absolutely and utterly surprised. I've never seen this before.

Stimbo Wrote: It's the only way he can make his own argument work. It's sad, really.

Your sadness shows that atheism is indeed facing profound conceptual problems.

Simple. We're all here talking about 'god'. It is obviously a thing. The question is what kind of thing. Damned if I know.

The form of a thing is its shape, appearance, pattern of reaction, and (in the case of a living thing) its way of changing over time and acting, in fact, all the properties that make it the kind of thing it is. However, human sensation and human consciousness is entirely a different realm and should be handled in different manner.

Can you define feeling of taste in terms of physical thing by giving it properties of physical objects? It makes no sense to suppose some one kind of thing to be the common referent of expressions of completely different logical types.

All monotheistic religions agreed that God is outside space and time and God is immaterial. Being outside space and time itself opens a whole new universe of entirely unknown laws and principles in entirely unknown dimensions. Therefore, metaphors like “thing” may not be pertinent to portray God.

Quran has not left humanity in darkness and has given some understanding about the appearance and personality of immaterial God. People cannot grasp the idea of immaterial realm, as they do not have the access to it and their knowledge and sense are extremely limited. Therefore, Quran has given examples form the physical world to define things in the immaterial world so people could comprehend the ideas with ease.

“Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.”

An Nuur (24)
-Verse 35-


Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.

Al Ikhlash (112)
-Verses 1 – 4

Harris Wrote: The right way to say is:

Atheist: there is no God
Theist: Prove it.

Esquilax Wrote:
If you have to lie about what your opponents say to win an argument, then you don't have much of a position.

I thought you are a talented guy and would grasp the idea behind my response but unfortunately I was wrong.

Argument like:

Question: Prove there is God
Answer: Prove there is no God

is kind of stuff that has no weight in it.

If you want to disprove God then give proper logic and reason. Otherwise repeating prove, prove, prove means nothing.

I'm on record, multiple times, even in conversation with you, indicating that this is not my position. So you're either not reading my posts, or you're lying about what I think in order to gain some rhetorical advantage. Either way is a completely dishonest and shitty way to go about an argument.

Here in this forum most of the time I am facing short and duplicitous kind of phrases the target of which is mostly to create an attack on my person. There are perhaps only couple of people who really conduct discussion in a proper unpretentious sense. Unfortunately, I found you to be in love of making attacks on my person rather than bringing proper influential arguments in a literary manner.

ChadWooters Wrote: Always setting up the same straw man, I see.

Harris Wrote: Perhaps you have some alternate of God.

Esquilax Wrote:
So, here's another perfect demonstration that Harris is not reading what people are saying before he disagrees with them: Chad is another theist, agreeing with what Harris says, and yet Harris posts a response as though he's disagreeing. The man literally has no reading comprehension skills.

I have mistakenly took Chad’s phrase as a critique on my argument for that I apology. Although you have raised this point to attack on my personality, yet I am thankful to you that you had directed my attention to this mistake.

Harris I assume you don't believe in fairies.
Now prove there are no such things as fairies.

Now this is unfair isn't it, the one putting the "there are faries" argument is the one who supplies the evidence then the unbeliever gets to evaluate it.

How do we provide the evidence for no god?

Well there is no evidence FOR a god but apparently the complete lack of anything tangible is no barrier to the belief that something exists because hey c'mon you know.

Theists set out your proof and I get to look at it and see if I am convinced.

And I want actual physical things that can be verified by scientific method not namby pamby "arguments"

I do not believe in fairies as I found no evidences favouring them. I believe in unseen God because universe, my own body, and my consciousness provided me sufficient evidences for the existence of God.

When I say, “prove there is no God” it is only a rhetorical response to the question “prove there is God.”

Science is helpless in giving explanation to many phenomenon. These even include scientific stuff for example, gravity that we use and exploit everyday but have no idea what it is. I hope you get the idea.

There is solid theory that demonstrates our Universe could have come from 'nothingness'. your assumption is incorrect, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it not true. Which is a theme that runs through most of this abject nonsense.

“Absolutely nothing caused the Big Bang” presupposes that “Absolutely nothingness once existed,” but no conceivable experience could ever directly verify this affirmation. Any confirming or disconfirming experience would exist and would thus falsify the claim. No examples of absolute non-existence, or of causation by non-existence, could ever be given directly in any conceivable experience. In addition, we cannot reason inductively about such things since we have no instances with which to start.

Nothingness = Not Anything

In fact, theory without anything is no theory. Nothingness cannot be based upon:

Quantum particles
Quantum fluctuations
Gravity
Microwave
Energy
Vacuum
Dark energy

All these have physical properties. They are “things,” they are not “nothing.”

Thanks for the video. See how a theist philosopher responded to an atheist physicist who had used metaphysical question “Why there is something rather than nothing” to prove physical world out of nothingness.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-universe-from-nothing