Physical Evidence Of God

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Something my mom once taught me …

Actually, there is plenty of physical evidence for the existence of God.

For some unjustifiable reason, God seems to have gotten the reputation that he is invisible.

Partly, that’s because of God’s spiritual aspect. Like us, God’s spirituality – God’s heart, mind and soul – is imperceptible to the senses of sight, sound, touch, taste and smell. Spirituality is simply not concrete (physical). Only through the inner “sense” of true intuition are we aware of the spirituality of our self. We can only “withinly” “sense” our spirituality via intuitition because our spirituality exists within us and nowhere else. And our heart’s ontology tells us that others, like God, have spirituality too.

But, as to the concrete (physical) evidence of God’s existence, one can most certainly see, hear, touch, taste and smell God, just as we can so-sense the existence of another human being.

But, in the instance of sensing God, size really does matter!

“What? You can’t see God?”

“No, I can’t – God’s invisible.”

No he’s not, just look around you."

“Okay, I AM looking around me, all I see is earth and trees and birds and others and sky and space and all – I don’t see God.”

“Well, just what do you think all of that stuff is, anyway?”

“What?”

“All that stuff you see, that’s God.”

“No it isn’t, that’s just a bunch of stuff, that isn’t “God”.”

“Yes it is – it’s a part of God.”

“A “part” of God???”

“Yes, it’s just a part of God. Surely you weren’t expecting to see ALL of God when you looked around!? God is the name of the infinite universe which is infinitely huge. You can’t see ALL of God – your eyes can’t see that far. When you look around, you’re just seeing a part of God, not all of God, just the part within your vision.”

"Ohhhh … … "

“Wait a minute. So when you looked around for God you were really expecting to see a “whole person”???”

“Yeah … I guess I was.”

“Well, that doesn’t make sense, does it?”

“Heh, heh – I guess you’re right. I never thought of it that way. God isn’t invisible. It’s just that I’m seeing only a teeny tiny part of great big God when I look around. Wow! I didn’t even really know what I was looking at!”

2

Pantheism is a beautiful myth. But not all beautiful things are true, at least not at literal face value. The universe is not a person and has no personal characteristics. What we as humans bring to the universe’s table is unique, fragile, and confined to our little corner of the cosmos.

The divergence of opinion between theists and atheists ultimately arises from their different answers to this question: is the universe made for us, or are we made for the universe? A theist tends to say that the universe exists for our sake. It is designed, fine-tuned, and evolved so that we may thrive. An atheist counters that there is an appearance of the universe being made for us, but the appearance is deceiving; the truth is, we are merely adapted to living in it.

The universe is not our servant or our stage; we are its guests, here for a short time, and that time only because it has housetrained us.

3

What about panentheism, as I presented – is that a beautiful “myth” too?

If so, how do you know it’s a myth?

How do you know that?

Why couldn’t the universe be a “person” just like we are composed of “people” (our cells)?

Don’t smaller things reveal themselves as community components of larger things?

After all, quanta are us … and one man’s relativity is another man’s quantum. :wink:

Is it possible that you are being a bit overly restrictive in what might be your rush away from religion?

My run-in with atheists is that they don’t really think that there is even an “appearance” that the universe is “made for us”.

But regardless … is it possible that both theists and atheists could be somewhat in error in their position here?

That’s it? That’s the truth of it?

Are you sure?

Again, how do you know that?

I would think our universe made some planetary adaptions for us, too, with our help.

Our relationship with the universe does seem more cooperative to me than one-sided.

But I can understand where deceiving appearance can lead to the conclusion that the bigger thing is always the boss.

“Housetrained” – how cute.

My experience is that we are part of the universe, a necessary, obviously, part of it, or we wouldn’t be.

I can’t help but wonder if the universe is just as dependent on us as we are on our “housetrained” cells that compose each of us.

Perhaps time and events will make the answer to that question more evident.

4

How do you know it to be true? You made the positive claim that looking at the universe proves there is a God, but I don’t see a connection. Burden of proof is on you.

Natural Selection pretty much shows that animals adapt to their surroundings, their surroundings do not adapt for them.

We die. We Rot. Yet the universe goes on.

5

Are you equating people with cells? They share SOME of the same qualities, but they are far from the same thing.

It’s not. THe universe will go on long after we’re dead.

6

Sabrina, you’re getting tricky with definition. Though you may define everything we see as part of god, it does not offer any more evidence for the aspects of god that atheists disagreed with before the definition was changed. There is still equal ground to take issue with the aspects of god that you admit are imperceptible. What I mean is that you have shown us no evidence for god in this thread, simply redefined god to include things in evidence. This strikes me as ad hoc.

7

Technically if there is a God and he did make all that is known and seen then he literally is everything, logically speaking.

Example:

If I build a cabinet out of wood it would not be me, it’s a cabinet of wood. But if I make the tree from myself with particles I designed and created from my life force and cut it up and made a cabinet, then the cabinet would actually be me, or at least a part of me.

Is this a logical statement?

8

Purpose is the best evidence for a intelligent designer, unfortunately most here are pure relativist and don’t believe in absolute purpose even though we live and act and do all things for and of purpose. Everything we see and think and ponder is about purpose, even this forum and our language and writing ability. Our awareness of existence and choice is about purpose. I would challenge anyone to find one thing that we humans do that is without purpose, then show how all this evidence is not valid to show at least a possibility of a master purpose. How we can create our own purpose from nothing, why would this evolve specific to humans if it has no purpose in its self?

Back to the old “something does not come from nothing” axiom.

Who can argue with such irrational thinking from the majority of these forums?

9

It makes sense to me.

So if you participated in the creation of a child, is that child a part of you?

And if you created a life, is it not possible that a life created you that you were part of … and so on on back to … infinity?

And what is it that can be infinite?

Only God.

And how in the world can something come from nothing?

Something must come from something.

That means that there was a root something that was always there.

And what is it that can be always there?

Only God.

10

That’s like me saying: “And what is it that can be infinite? Only the universe.”

You’ve yet to prove that the universe was created, that it was in fact a God that created the universe and whether or not the universe is a part of God. The only argument I have seen is “look at how beautiful the universe is, that’s because it’s a spec of God!”

11

As I also said, and how in the world can something come from nothing? Something must come from something. That means that there was a root something that was always there. And what is it that can be always there? Only God.

When we speak of God, we speak of an omni-everything being: omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent.

Thus God is always, everywhere and everywhen.

That would mean there is no place in existence where God is not, that there is no such thing as nothing.

So, everything is therefore a part of God.

The only way that would not be so is if nothing exists in some given where and when.

So far, we’ve yet to discover the presence of nothing. Space, dark matter, the gap between the tiniest differentiated pieces of matter that we’ve found, all have been shown to be something and not nothing.

Thus the evidence for God’s existence is pretty overwhelming.

In the face of overwhelming evidence, the rational perspective would be that it is the onus of those who doubt the overwhelming evidence of God’s existence to be the ones to prove their position.

12

If something must come from something, then where did God come from? Know what else can be always there? A Godless universe…

Actually, there’s a lot more nothing in the universe than matter. And there’s still no evidence for God.

13

Well that’s just it, my dear – when you speak of infinity, then, by definition, you must be speaking of an aspect of God, as, by name, only God is infinite.

That makes sense.

If instead we said that God came from something, then that would be contrary to definition, and that which we then called God simply wouldn’t be.

You’re getting it. The universe is infinite.

The universe is the what that is infinite, and the who of the universe is the universe’s name: God.

Every living thing can have a name. Every person has a name. You have a name, I have a name, a name someone else has given us, more or less.

Why is it so hard for some to acknowledge the universe its proper, applicable, given name?

Why is it so hard for people to do that?

Why?

Amusing, as I experience it just the other way around, and really so, as I’ve found absolutely no evidence of nothing at all.

So tell me about all this nothing in the universe.

In light of the continually substantiated E=MC^2, which stipulates in its assertion of the conservation of matter in its two proportional states that, in effect, nothing cannot possibly exist, I’d like to hear about all of the nothing you’ve discovered for certain that runs counter to our most solid scientific assertion.

14

Jeez, how many times does this have to be explained to you before you get it.

Nothing made the first thing; it always was, without beginning or end. Since you like proof so much, take a poke at proving that this is not logical.

Its not nothing (electromagnetism and gravitons and such), its just not physical as it has no physical properties, but there is much evidence to its existence by the affects we can see from it, kind of like a God. Wow, what a coincidence, could it be ……nah, your right, just because you can believe in the existence of electromagnetism and gravity and such with no physical evidence is no reason for any of us to think you should hold the same standard for proof in a God, how sill of some of us.

Carry on with your contradictions and fence jumping, didn’t mean to interrupt.

15

dorkydood wrote:

Let me explain, in detail, the above sentence, which was specifically included to address your counter-argument, but obviously didn’t deter you from using it.

You’re arguing that nothing made the first “thing” (I’m assuming you mean God), that it always existed, and always will exist. I’m using the exact same argument to explain universal constants, like the strong atomic force, but at no point adding God into the picture. I have no interest in proving my own arguments wrong, so I’ll pass on your offer.

Gravity isn’t a “thing,” it’s a theory. And I very much believe in the existence of theories, because man made up theories (they haven’t existed since the dawn of time). A theory, at least in scientific terms, is an established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena.

The known facts and data for gravity are the detailed experiments Newton carried out, and the formulas and equations he came up with to explain and predict the observed affects of two masses on one another. They work very neatly.

If what you intended to mean is that we don’t know exactly what causes masses to interact with one another the way they do, then you would be correct. Although the answer has not yet been discovered, it is certain that scientists will not settle for “God does it.”

16

We can communicate with almost any living creature in some manner
from our dog to the bug we’re forcing to move in a different direction,
and many less intelligent creatures can communicate with us
but
an almighty powerful creator, purportedly the MOST intelligent being,
can’t muster the power to say ‘Hi’ audibly???

I’d say that’s physical evidence that believers have been duped.

17

12.15.06.1786

This has to be one of the silliest threads ever to exist on ILP. The fact that it’s in the Philosophy Forum rather than the Religion is only the begining of my laughter.

Indeed, I will go to a tree and immediately feel, see, and hear Thor and the rest of the Norse gods and goddesses! No wait, it’s the Greek gods and goddesses! No wait, it must be… yes, must be… The Great Penguin God of Antartica!!! I can feel him waddling along as his beak opens and utters the holy name that is his own and at once divinely blesses the world to one day succumb to the next Ice Age, and that name is so holy, that it cannot be understood by human ears, seen by human eyes, or comprehended by the human mind!!

18

:laughing:

19

There are those who have claimed to have heard God speak to them. Of course, they are certifiable. Maybe you have to be nuts to hear God speak.

On a similar note, a friend of mine recently told me about the little daughter of a friend of hers, a little girl who is about one and a half years old, who the other day in mass was looking up at the ceiling, and she suddenly began waving, as if to say hello to someone, smiling, as she just kept waving, silently, smiling. A few days later the family visited another family and the little girl was shown the nativity decoration in that family’s home. They pointed out to her Mary, Joseph, Jesus, and the little girl just watched. But when they pointed out the angel, the little girl suddenly started waving hello to the angel in the same style as she was waving to the ceiling the other day in church, as her parents again watched, this time quite a bit stunned. And no, there were no angel decorations on the church ceiling.

I can’t help but wonder if those whose brains just aren’t quite as tight together as yours or mine, those whose brains are either not quite developed yet or are weirdly not all that together for some reason, have a bit of an advantage on those of us more normal people. And I’ve also wondered if we more mental folk lose something valuable for being so smart, something that might help us “hear” better.

But maybe those who claim to literally hear and see God or angels and stuff are indeed merely hallucinating. I must honestly admit that that would be my guess.

Things are the way they are, and for a reason, I would imagine, whatever that reason is.

Maybe we’re supposed to hear other things that are only around us. Maybe we’re not supposed to hear God speak. I don’t know.

But if you ever do see the mouth of God nearby, if you can see his lips move yet you don’t hear him say anything, it may be time to have your ears checked.

20

Wait a minute. You’re not serious about that Penguin God of Antartica. I can tell. You’re being sarcastic. Cute. Very funny.

But why would you think this thread belonged in the religion section?

I wasn’t talking about religion.

I was just talking about God.

Last I looked, God and religion were not mutually inclusive.

But I do wonder why it seems to be important to you to mistakenly treat the two as if they were.

Maybe that’s just your philosophy to treat God and religion as if they were mutually inclusive.

To each their own, I suppose.