The 100 proofs of God.

But it is wrong to pull down a belief system just because some one feels its wrong you can debate existence of a divine all powefull being but never offer more than theory and conjecture with no actual true evidence in all of history a devine being has never shown them selves whos to say we are not different aspects of that being you could not disproove that theory as we only veiw time as a biological need to mesure existence which we become free of when we pass from matter to energy

[mickiel]

Originally Posted by electrum198

But it is wrong to pull down a belief system just because some one feels its wrong you can debate existence of a divine all powefull being but never offer more than theory and conjecture with no actual true evidence in all of history a devine being has never shown them selves whos to say we are not different aspects of that being you could not disproove that theory as we only veiw time as a biological need to mesure existence which we become free of when we pass from matter to energy

I think we are an " Aspect of that being", I would agree with that; we are conscious because that being is consciousness. We are in that image.

[revolver]

The only time you need proof of God is when you believe in a personal God, for God is all there is, nothing is separate from God. Those who realize this don't bother trying to prove it, how can you prove water to a fish ?.

[mickiel]

I like proving things, which is why I am not against science, although I am a believer in God.

Originally Posted by mickiel

It is habitually said that God cannot be proven, something which I seriously disagree with. But people have said this so long, its dug into their unbelief system. But I often claim that God can be proven in a belief system; and I will list 100 proofs as a " Start;" because there are far more than 100. These are ways to prove God to yourself; in no certain order;

1. Consciousness. A stunning proof of God. No matter how life reproduces itself, only one kind can produce its kind! No Zebra can produce an elephant, and no ape can produce a human. Nothing unconscious can produce consciousness. Consciousness was produced by a consciousness. Intelligent thinking was began by intelligent thinking. Consciousness can only be traced by consciousness, consciousness can only be understood by consciousness, and consciousness can only be reproduced by consciousness; Thus consciousness in humans is a proof of a Conscious God.

The level of the power of consciousness reveals the orgin of consciousness to be on a far greater level, in order to produce consciousness. Meaning consciousness couldnot have began from things that are far " Less than it is itself." The origin of consciousness must be greater than consciousness in order to produce it; which points directly to God.

2. Life. Life is proof of God, because life can only come from life; a simple fact which is undeniable. Life cannot be produced from absolute zero. In fact, nothing can be produced from absolute zero. There are no examples of life producing itself from nothing. Humanity woke up into conscious life years ago, and humans have been trying to figure out how and why ever since. The reason how and why has consistantly stared us in the face of our reason and points to God. And no matter how much we try to point to other things, it will always keep comming back to him.

All of the proofs that you bring up aren't proofs, but logic. All in the human mind. Note that I take absolutely NO issue with the idea of a God, or even the idea of proof (I am a biostatistician by trade)... rather, that proof by logic cannot prove the existence of something (beyond simply proving relations within the human mind). The best we can say is that "the human mind cannot conceive of any other possibility than x". Mathematics is perhaps the only field where logic itself is adequate and mathematics at the deepest level is itself an exploration of relations in the human mind. It only becomes science when it is applied to something in the real world ("oh hey, this really cool mathematical concept can describe something I saw in the world!"). In fact, read about Godel's incompleteness theorem. Almost every logical theory has inconsistencies... and the more things a theory purports to explain, the more contradictions exist in that theory.

Proof comes from REPEATED observations in nature over many different "cases", with a method to limit bias. "I can't conceive of life coming from something not alive, therefore God exists" is misleading at best, disingenuous at worst. A single person's lifetime spiritual experiences, as prone to bias and delusion as it may be, is more valuable than logical proof... That is because, until the process of logic is used to test something that is observable in the real world, it isn't science in any way. Even the most theoretical predictions and observations of physics are based on the observation of something real... and they aren't accepted as theories until they are able to repeatedly predict the behavior of nature in an OBSERVABLE and easily MEASURABLE manner. Not a vague "there is a prophecy that shall eventually be fulfilled" manner, but an "if this happens, this will follow x percent of the time"... or an "On January 24th, 2025, this specific, indisputable thing (no vague things like "a shift in consciousness") will happen" manner.

Ideally, though, spiritual science and psychology will develop to the point where people can observe similarities and differences in spiritual experiences ACROSS religions and cultures, and control for bias (e.g. bias is likely demonstrated in this case: when a Christian has an experience, they see Christ, when a Buddhist has one, they see Buddha, when a Vaishnavist Hindu has one, they see Vishnu). Only when we can do the three things that I mention below, can we claim a modicum of proof:

1. Form a hypothesis... for example, we are all part of the collective unconscious, or an all knowing, all powerful God created us, etc. (this is the easy part)

2. Test it over many people of different faiths... and those of no faith, and all sorts of other conditions that could prove and disprove it.

3. See if you can repeat the results (one of the most important steps)

and

4. Interpret the results WITHOUT an attachment to how the results turn out (what if the results were against everything you believed? Is it possible that you could accept that? Ask yourself if you could accept that your findings might potentially invalidate part of your belief system. If not, then your mindset prevents you from even conducting science at the most basic level. Isaac Newton was one of the most brilliant minds in science... and his theory of physics was proved as faulty when Einstein came along. Einstein was one of the most brilliant minds of our time... until Feynman came along and proved many of Einstein's conceptions as faulty. Even if one claims to be the equivalent of an Einstein in their connection with and understanding of God... are you prepared to have your understanding demolished and your theory of God re-written? If not, then it is impossible to consider ones self as a spiritual scientist.

If we just do step 1 and form a hypothesis and give a reason for it, this isn't proof, this is opinion. Opinions aren't "bad", in fact, with something as ambiguous as spirituality and religion, we will all have some... but they are not science. Sorry if this came off a little blunt. I'm just serious about science

-TaoSandwich

[revolver]

Originally Posted by mickiel

I like proving things, which is why I am not against science, although I am a believer in God.

So you have proved God, please tell me more.

[mickiel]

Originally Posted by revolver

So you have proved God, please tell me more.

Well you can look at my thread " The 100 proofs of God", or take a peak here;

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/ge...-real-113.html

Its just too much to cover here and now.

[revolver]

Originally Posted by mickiel

Well you can look at my thread " The 100 proofs of God", or take a peak here;

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/ge...-real-113.html

Its just too much to cover here and now.

Well instead of me reading all that, can you tell me the best answer you have.

[mickiel]

Originally Posted by revolver

Well instead of me reading all that, can you tell me the best answer you have.

Well when you said " Tell me MORE", I had thought you wanted a lot of proof. Now you ask for a " Best answer", by which I think you mean the one singular best proof, which would have to be Jesus. And archaeology helps us with his existence. We have the place he was crucified, Golgotha; we have the city it happened in. We have the river he was baptized in; Jordan; we have a garden that he prayed in, we have the actual house of Mary and Martha, two of his best friends, we have the home of one of his deciples, we have the actual bones of a priest who slapped him and the actual bones of Simon the Cyrenian, who carried his cross. We have the actual gate he was marched through on his way to be killed, we have a piece of the stone he stood on before Pilate, we have two possible grave sites that he was buried in, so even the best answer has many details to it.

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by Eudaimonist

There is no God, and that's okay.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Careful. Convincing oneself that God doesn't exist may be even more foolish than being convinced that God does exist. The truth is that you don't know if God exists. Be real with yourself.