proof of god

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

is god the creator of man, or is man the creator of god?

From mans own inherent capacities we can derive the idea of god.

My knowledge/awareness is limited, a perfect being is omniscient(all-knowing).

My actions are limited, a perfect being is omnipowerful(not limited in any way).

I can only be in one place at any given time, a perfect being is omnipresent(present everywhere simultaneously, since it can’t be limited).

Now, if we we’re to hold that god had all these aforementioned charactoristics; considering god as the fundamental forces which mold the cosmos would account for the aforementioned charactoristics.

Omniscient(the universe is 14 billion years old and still going strong, how many mechanical engineers have built a machine that effective? aka god got it right the 1st time);

Omnipowerful-Omnipresent(the forces which molded the universe are still present today, nothing escapes the effects of these forces, even light and space itself can be distorted or bent by gravity, which is one of the universes fundamental forces)

Now,if we hold god to be these fundamental molding forces, there is one more thing we can’t help but do. We are all going to die, and the atoms and molecules that make up our body will spread out amongst the soil ect.

When you think of it, our bodies are designed to return to god(or to nature/natural forces)
because we are more or less biodegradable for lack of a better word.

None of this actually proves from scientific fact that god exists, just that the idea of a perfect being is inherent in a rational human as a product of they’re own imperfection.

If we think of god as the fundamental cause of the universes relative order, science is the search for god. We just have a few different names for him(gravity, electromagnitism, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, dark matter, dark energy).

Kinda reminicient of the Greek gods…each with specific power…

gravity brings matter together, dark energy accelerates the expansion of the universe.

Could dark energy be Satan? The opposite of god?

that last ones off the crackpot index…

2

You’re better than this, Trevor.

3

Does god exist?..proof none…evidence; an iffy book written 2000 yrs ago.

Coclusion; god does not exist

4

that… doesn’t make any sense. even if we have no proof that God exists (which, we don’t! i’ll admit it, it’s all belief and a lot of judgement calls. but to pretend there is no leap of faith in christianity is just ignorant.)

sorry.

even if we have no proof that God exists, you don’t have any proof that he doesn’t! it’s like atlantis. i can’t prove it wasn’t there, but you can’t prove it was. see how that works?

5

If god = nature, then he’s a cruel man indeed. Look at the suffering in the world, and look how worthless the individual is.

6

What’s wrong with suffering? What’s wrong with being worthless?

7

That gets into the iffy area where you’d have to admit that Santa Claus is as real as God, is as real as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is as real as the Easter Bunny, ect. I mean, we can’t disprove their existence, now can we?

So either take religion as a faith-based concern (fair) of don’t.

8

There’s nothing wrong with worthlessness, whereas there is with suffering. In facr, to say suffering is a bad thing is tautological. What’s your point?

9

that’s my point. things like this always come down to a leap of faith. we believe we can disprove santa claus because we have stories of where the story came from. however, if you want to believe in him, no one on this earth can prove you wrong.

10

It depends on what you mean by the word ‘God’.

Many times we use the same word and refer to different concepts.

But if the definition is derived from a Book written by shady characters, with unknown ulterior motives, during ambiguous and uncertain circumstances about events that happened before their time and passed down to them from hearsay – they called it the voice of God – and it is about an authoritarian, vain, threatening, demanding, self-contradicting, anthropomorphic, God then dig away, my man.

I’ve been opening threads bearing the same title for years.
Until now nothing to even consider as approaching a serious argument.

11

How odd - I was thinking the exact opposite: that suffering can indeed teach lessons, if not promote wisdom outright, while worthlessness is something truly (speaking of tautology) worthless.

12

you dont need to suffer to learn a lesson, how retarded… the same lesson can be learn by being the matter being explained.

13

Hello all,

Here are some ramblings. The discussion seems to suppose that there is, in fact, evil in the world. If there is a right and wrong, there must be a moral law-giver. If there is no moral lawgiver then there is no moral law. If there is no right or wrong, there is nothing to base “right” and “wrong” on so there appears to be a problem. We know that there are right and wrong things, (you all seem to suggest above). Without God, there is no law, without God there is no hope. Without God there is no meaning. Without God, the atheist makes a commitment to live that way.

Russell, as many of you are aware, was asked, “What will you say if you are wrong and stand before God after death?” He said, “You didn’t give me enough evidence.” Pascal when talking about the “consequences of loss” looks at the possibility if he, “Errors in supposing it false.” His conclusion was if our idea that it is wrong, is wrong, there is no recovery.

Without God there is no absolute moral law, no ultimate hope, no point of reference for meaning, and if it is wrong there is no possibility for recovery.

If atheism is true then ultimately there is no moral law in this universe. Any moral pronouncement is either utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective, or emotive. Anything good or bad is only from your environment. As Nietzsche says, This is like the mad man who came out and said, I’m looking for God! Where is god? I’ll tell you. We killed Him. Must not we become God? We try and fill in.

Without God there is a complete loss of meaning. There is no point of reference that defines what the meaning of life is all about. Like the Mythological Sisyphus, rolling the rock up the hill only for it to roll down again. If atheism is correct then I hope you enjoy “Roll the rock up the hill.” When it gets there maybe you can build a building. If you ask, “then what?” You will be told “Don’t ask then what, just be happy with putting the rock up the hill.” There is no more to it.

Connections

14

Yes.

Bah, confusion has crept in here. The original post that I responded to was:

There are two questions relating to suffering and worthlessness separately: are they bad? and are they useless? People have been mixing these questions up this thread.
Suffering is bad but not totally useless. Worthlessness is cloudier, but still more bad than good.

15

Good. So it seems like it’s a better idea to discuss morality in present day contexts than to dwell on old stories of gods and angels. And everyone can look for meaning by himself instead of having it spoon-fed to him.

16

That’s not what I said, genius.

Yeah, I’m real confused. :unamused:

17

Actually, I completely disagree with Oni here. There are many, many lessons in life that can only be learned through experience and often that experience is painful.

That is, by-and-large, what causes people to mature – people learning the lessons of life which cannot be taught by anything save experience and suffering.

18

Hi Del,

As I’ve heard it said, with that type of approach, “we are defining our own reality and like a hall of mirrors we will end up defining ourselves.” A hall of mirrors reflect only each other and in the end point back to the condition of their users without having established anything about the way things really are. Truth is the name we give to that which agrees with our instinctive preferences it is what we call our interpretation of the world especially when we want to foist it on others. I’m talking about an objective moral law giver not subjective like you are proposing sir/maam.

Connections

19

Hello all,

If we are saying “Man is the measure of all things.” My question is “Which man?”

20

each of them

-Imp