Is the universe not proof of God, or is evaluation that perfect?
826671
Not only universe is  a proof of God but even a very smallthing like atom also a proof of God.Perfection is possible if there is the God only.
1134652
NO,\n\nThe burden of proof is on those who believe in "GOD".\n\nYou can't make up a person and say that if you can't disprove his existance then he must exist.
852256
It's interesting because I use the same thought process as you to arrive at a totally different conclusion.  For me it is like, God doesn't fit into my "nice neat little box" so he can't exist.  That might sound close-minded so I'll elaborate.  In my eyes, science is beginning to understand more and more of the world and our origins.  Now when I look at the overwhelming evidence of evolution and even just the happenings around me, I form a general understanding of the world that I am comfortable with.  Now when something enters my world view (God) I have to examine the evidence and tinker with the idea to see if it fits.  The problem with God is, I've seen no evidence and he just plain does not fit.  With science, no matter what your mindset, the evidence is right there for you to see regardless of your bias or what conclusions you draw from it.  Basically, if I saw real evidence of God, I could attempt to rearrange the rules and see if he fits, but I don't believe I should have to break the rules to even see evidence of him.  That makes it sound like the first step to becoming a Christian is to delude yourself.
135596
Youre right, you cant prove it. But thats fine for most people, cause if you keep telling yourself thats something exist, its gonna exist. So you dont need a proof. If you keep telling yourself that theres God, God will exist. If you dont, then he wont. It simple. And about the Bible, I could write a book right now about a new God, bury it in the earth and then about 1000 years later someone's gonna find it, and there will be a new religion, and everybody will believe in my God. You know what im saying? So you cant prove anything, its just whether believe in it or not. If you do you'll see it.
257471
There is no one god, no argument with that. Does it prove that every single other claim by any religious system is false? Not necessarily. All the flaws you pointed out refer only to the axiom of single omnipotent entity. How about the collective of entitites who created the universe together, without actually creating the man, at least not intentionally? Just a suggestion, no brainwashing intended here.\nSome people have taken the modern science as a god of its own, and refer to it just as religiously as Muslims to their\ngod. I suppose this god has to be more benign, but that is not the point. How was Stonehenge built? The Pyramids?\nWhat happened a single second before the big bang? To my mind, science doesn't give satisfactory answers to those questions because it is intent on the materialistic view, rejecting the interactions of several kinds of energies.\nScientific assumptions are not invalid, they are just, in my opinion, part of the greater whole, of the science that encompasses everything that has been discovered, and more.\nIn the same way, I can see a seed of wisdom in certain religions, without accepting them as the whole truth.\nTo me, any inflexible outlook on the world, being totally monetheistic, or totally scientific, is inaccurate. Binary thinking, black versus white, is a the kids thinking mode. Adults ought to realize the world is more complex than that. And yes, there can be a Democrate who is a Republican. I would probably vote for such, because he would share some of the Republican opinions that I welcome, and some of the Democratic ones, that I would approve of.\n(Our problem is that there is no such person currently, we always choose one extreme or the other). T.S. Elliot said it's a property of the brilliant mind to contain two contradictory notions at the same time. At the same time, this is my own addition, inability to do so, is the trait of the younger mind. Not a worse one, just a younger one.\nThe fundamentalistic view of the Muslims is based on their inability to operate with complex notions. It is all about\nus versus the enemy, even if "us" happen to abuse us. Good versus bad, "we" being the good of course. And so on. Brainwashing is easier accomplished when the mind decids it wants simple explanations to anything, and is too rigid to accept any other. In main stream religions, Muslims are guilty of it more than most, no matter what the politically correct approach says. But they are not the only ones. Communists, Atheists, Democrates and other monotheistic religions are just as guilty of it, and there are many other kinds of thinking categorically.\nThe point is, don't dismiss everything, just because one crucial point of their creed fails. Or else, you're being just as inflexible in your mode of thinking as they're in theirs. Would you reject all mysteries of the world just because God doesn't exist? Would you believe in science as blindy as they believe in their god? What is then the difference between you? Are scientists not real people? Don't they write their dissertations to prove what they intend to prove? How many of them can be completely, inhamanly, objective when one of their baby projects is challenged? Some of them have simply different techniques of brainwashing. If they decide the string theory is looking good, how many scientific publications would be allowed that claim differently?  How different are some of them from the preaching pastors? Just food for thought, no attempt to convert, I don't really have anything to convert you to. LOL.
490129
Valid point.  At the very best, if proven, any argument for a deity can prove "god".  I use a lower case "g" on purpose.\n\nAll the arguments for god (which, by the way, were derived by Aquinas from the pagan greeks) at best, only prove a deist creator.  None spell out a specific "G"od, much less Yahweh.\n\nThis is all despite the fact that centuries of rational thought have exposed the glaring holes in these arguments.  Nevertheless, as I said, even if they WERE rational arguments, the only "prove" deism, nothing more.\n\nSo we arrive at the same standpoint most people are anyway...is the God Yahweh?  Jesus?  Buddhah?  Allah? Native American Corn God?  Arguments for ID and a creator prove nothing about religion.\n\nJefferson and Paine were both strong deists, who bought every argument these theists could throw down about the existance of God (though great men both, not their strongest positions, in my opinion.)  However, both men abhorred Christianity and theism in general.\n\nArguments for "g"od get you absolutely nothing, and leave people exactly where they were before, choosing their own deity.\n\nThat is why the bible has nothing to do with proving "g"od.
171685
I don't think so....\n\n\nThat's really my debate against "perfect" God... perfection sort of implies (and if I'm correct, includes) that you can make without flaw.  perfect is synonimous with flawless, is it not?\n\nThen again, there is the question: did you intend it to be imperfect?  Because then technically, I guess you'd still be perfect...
800729
Whenever we argue about whether a thing can be proved, we should distinguish five different questions about that thing:\n\n\nDoes it really exist or not? "To be or not to be, that is the question." \nIf it does exist, do we know that it exists? A thing can obviously exist without our knowing it. \nIf we know that it exists, can we be certain of this knowledge? Our knowledge might be true but uncertain; it might be "right opinion." \nIf it is certain, is there a logical proof, a demonstration of why we have a right to be certain? There may be some certainties that are not logically demonstrable (e.g. my own existence, or the law of non-contradiction). \nIf there is a proof, is it a scientific one in the modern sense of 'scientific'? Is it publicly verifiable by formal logic and/or empirical observation? There may be other valid kinds of proof besides proofs by the scientific method. \nThe fifth point is especially important when asking whether you can prove life after death. I think it depends on what kinds of proof you will accept. It cannot be proved like a theorem in Euclidean geometry; nor can it be observed, like a virus. For the existence of life after death is not on the one hand a logical tautology: its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, as a Euclidean theorem does. On the other hand, it cannot be empirically proved or disproved (at least before death) simply because by definition all experience before death is experience of life before death, not life after death.\nIf life after death cannot be proved scientifically, is it then intellectually irresponsible to accept it? Only if you assume that it is intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that cannot be proved scientifically. But that premise is self-contradictory (and therefore intellectually irresponsible)! You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. Thus scientism (the premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs) is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith, a religion.\n\n\nI.\nThe first reason for believing in life after death is simply that there is no compelling reason not to, no objection to it that cannot be answered. The two most frequent objections are as follows:\n(a) Since there is no conclusive evidence for life after death, it is as irresponsible to believe it as to believe in UFOs, or alchemy. Perhaps we cannot disprove it; a universal negative always is difficult if not impossible to disprove. But if we cannot prove it either, it is wishful thinking, not evidence, that makes us believe it.\n\nNow this objector either means by 'evidence' merely empirical evidence, or else any kind of evidence. If he means the latter, he ignores all the following proofs for life after death. There is a lot of evidence. If he means the former, he falls victim to the self-contradiction argument just mentioned. There is no empirical evidence that the only kind of evidence we should accept is empirical evidence.\n\nIn most supposedly scientific objections of this type, an impossible demand is made, overtly or covertly-a demand for scientific proof-and then the belief is faulted for not satisfying that demand. This is like arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that "I have not found Him in my test tube," or like the first Soviet cosmonauts' "argument" that they had found no God in outer space. Ex hypothesi, if God exists He is not found in a test tube or in space. That would make Him a chemical or a meteor. A taxi trip through Cleveland disproves quasars as well as a laboratory experiment disproves God, or brain chemistry dispro
818319
very good!! you are starting to see the errors of your ways.  Fuzzy logic doesn't really hold true, that's why Science has to rule out the Bible as a credible source for anything.\n\nPEACE!  and have a GOOD day!
183571
How can you prove that it does exist?  Faith is not proof it is opinion.
439110
When I call something a fact it is not really a fact but rather an assumed fact.\n\nFact: God is defined as being greater than anything that can be imagined. ( The defined as is an important part of the proof)\n\nFact: God exists in understanding. (a person can imagine that a god exists)\n\nFact(dubious): If God exists in understanding, We can imagine him as greater if he exists in reality. ( The idea is if you imagine the great god as only existing in our imagination, and then imagine him existing in reality He would be greater in the case where he exists in reality.)\n\nNow here is the squeeze play. Go back to the definition of god as being greater than anything that can be imagined. Now of the two possibilities, that god exists only in our imagination, and God exists in reality, only the later that god exists in reality fits the definition of God, Therefore according to this logical construct God Must exists. I like to call this a logic box. You build parameter that insures an outcome that God exists. \n\nThe problem shows up in that are all the facts real, and also just because something can be logically shown to fit a definition is the definition true.
691863
God chose to make it impossible to prove his existence so that he could seperate those with faith from those who cannot believe in things greater than themselves.  Proof of God's existence would eliminate free will and the ability of humankind to become more than it is.  The universe was created by intelligent design so that an alternate explanation for existence was possible so that faith would be possible.  You can believe that God created himself and the universe or you can believe that all of the matter and energy in the universe suddenly created itself but you cannot prove either.  We live in a universe bound by the laws of causality.  Every thing has a beginning and an end and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  There has to be a starting point to causality and you must decide what you believe in based on what you can perceive in the human spirit and the world around you.
402489
An observable rule in the material universe is that nothing is the cause of itself, or if you prefer, everything is caused by something else. Think about it for a while... \n\nThe question becomes tricky when we realise that the entire physical universe is a single entity but with innumerable parts. We cannot help but ask, what is the cause of the universe? Clearly the answer cannot lie within the universe as that would contradict what is an observable fact, therefore, the answer must lie outwith material existence. Does the non-material in fact exist? It has too otherwise we have to call into question the ability of reason to reach the truth and the achievements of science certainly demonstrate that human reason is capable of great things.\n\nThe non-material cause of the universe has to be powerful (check out the immensity of the universe and space!), intelligent (look at the order found in the material world - the motion of planets to the human brain to sub-atomic particles), and personal, since intelligence without personhood is unthinkable.\n\nThis non-material, powerful, intelligent and personal being we call God.  How was God created? As a non-material being the physical laws of science do not apply. Therefore God is not created but the cause of what exists, pure being.\n\nAs Christians we claim this God as the God of revelation but since His existence is attainable by pure reason He is also acceptable to deists.
1167496
I find interesting the use of probability to explain god. I mean, they use well known (and limited) data to explain how unlikely (even if possible) it is for life to start as a mere accident. Even though, these people seem to forget to apply the same logic and known data to explain god, if the experiment is a fair experiment, that is, using known data in both experiments, the probability that a being like god actually exists is 0. ZERO probability.
20557
1. There is no God\n2. The universe cannot be a computer simulation running from "God's" computer
1044555
I utterly agree with you. \nAny religion I know of has one (or more) creator/god which made the world and humans. This is not something that can be proven but a matter of faith. Faith as such means believing in the unprovable (this, by the way, would include atheists - if it is impossible to prove god's existence,  it is also impossible to prove the opposite). \nAs such anybody's faith is valid. \nHowever, many religions actually state that their God is not only the only one, but that all other faiths are false. And a fair amount of religions do require their believers to proselitize and show all others the errors of their ways. \nI believe that a lot of the disagreements between religions stems from that - I am right, you are wrong. Very often people of faith will feel they need to point out the errors of your way in order to save you, firmly believing that their faith is the only true one. \nBut I still think you are right - it seems to me that showing other people the "rightness" of your faith would be best done by showing them what an exemplary life you live and what a wonderful loving religion you follow. This is unfortunately not likely to happen anytime soon.
220781
Dear sweet one, \n\n  There is no proof.  If there were proof, then the global population would be in perfect agreement.  There is faith, and there are theories.  And nothing more.