Can the existence of God(s) be proven or disproven Via religion or otherwise?

I got into an argument about this with a friend of mind and I was wondering what others thought. I can't really get my head around such a topic, since I always go back to the argument, that puts human beings at the level of advanced animals, with nervous movements, and reflex's that form our every emotion.

In any case, I would love to hear everyone else's opinion on such a topic.

The topic being
Can the existence of God(s) be proven or Via religion or otherwise?


I guess i should put my thoughts up here:

I consider almost all religions to be an advanced form of a group mentality. Kinda like animals who form packs together with a leader at their head.  In religions case, weak willed people are brought together by a much more powerful person with an idea to control the rest of them. In this case, this idea is religion, preying on ones fear of the unknown (death) enticing them to believe that some higher power is watching over them. So, to summarize, religion was a product of human instinct to band together.

Oddly enough,
Taking that into account, due to probability, there is no way to 100% disprove that there is no higher being in the universe , and if it exists that higher being will almost certainly not spend its time watching 6 odd billion people go about their daily routines.
(and no we are not alone in the universe, although there is a chance we are alone in the galaxy [Fermi's paradox + drakes principle prove this somewhat]) How can we as a civilization be so self centered as to think we are the most important in the universe...

Wow, that's a lot of writing.

Honestly, there is non way to prove or disprove God.

If you disprove God, then the religious will say that God defies science, and therefore, basically, falsified the tests to hide his presence. The Scientists would be fine with it.

However, if you prove God, then God is no longer a celestial omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, but something finite and measurable, and therefore, nothing more than another form of life, which would enrage the religious, and say that God cannot be measured and is infinite, and what science found must be something else. The Scientists, however, would call the research, as it deals with deities...



What I mean to say, science may one day be able to prove (or, at the very least, find to a 90% probability) whether this is or is not a God, but, no matter what, the research will be dismissed as ridiculous and hocus-pocus...

I agree, there is no concrete way of knowing if there really is a god or not, short of him/her/it coming down and telling us as much. But even then, how would we know that creature is God? Even if God were to appear, there would still be people that wouldn't believe it.

On a more existential view of your question, on a personal level, anyone can prove God does or doesn't exist, in the sense that what you believe makes it real. To Christians, God has already been proven to them, because they believe in him, and that is all the proof they need.

So on a scientific level, no, it is completely impossible to prove or disprove God, or any other deity. But on a spiritual level, anything you believe is real is real. It may not be real to others, but if you subscribe to the theory that no one really exists but yourself, then the opinion of others doesn't really matter anymore.

Hmm, so the existence of god cannot be proven or dis proven, due to the fact that both sides believe with their hearts that they are right

Can't be proven or dis-proven, so you might as well just live your life happily, and it couldn't hurt to be nice to people.

Sorry was I being mean to someone? Sorry XD My apologies

Although I may be wrong (and I often am), I believe that what Arlen was trying to get across was that sure, we can't prove that there is a being which will punish us if we do bad and reward us if we do good, but who cares?

Just live a happy life and be kind regardless of the reward or punishment.

(ammirite?)

(urrite)

Right,that's how we should live

These are people who believe they telepathically talk to a man in space, who sits on a thrown in their heart. Which by the way is the thing that controls emotions, not the brain.

Man "I hear a voice in my head that tells me to donate to charity."
Phycologist "What's his name?"
Man "Yodal'guff."
Phycologist "You my friend, are crazy."

Christian "I hear a voice, it tells me to slaughter livestock and cover myself in their entrails."
Phycologist "What's his name?"
Christian "Yahweh"
Phycologist "You my friend, are normal."

Psychologist*

Psychologist*

Google told me Phycologist  and RMRK's spell checker keeps saying it's Physiologist. What, I don't know what going on no more. ;___;

That's something else, lol. According to dictionary.com, the former has to do with botany and the latter has to do with living organisms.

phy relating to phylum?
psy relaiting to psyche?

Even though I'm a christian, I know the christian god has many flaws and can be sort of dissproven
However a God who's traits haven't been defined cannot be dissproven

Definetly cannot be proven or disproven. There are things that show signs of there being a god and there are signs of him not. Personally, I do not believe in god, I am a total science freak and a realistic person in general. I can't wrap my head around the thought of god, especially with all of the things going on now. Then again though the opposite can probably be said about that so there is no proof of there being a god or not being a god.

Christianitys God cannot technichally be disproven, however, there are many flaws...for example, God apperently thought the world was flat. He made it, so how could he not know it was round?

You know we have a spell check button here? Use it.
Second, where did it say God thinks the world is flat?

Well Isaiah 11:12 says something about the four corners of the earth, but that's not really speaking from God's point of view so I contributed in no way.

'The 4 corners of the Earth' is more figurative anyway. 

God can be proven, but he can not be dis-proven.

No matter what scientists do there is no way to show that god is not pulling the strings to make it seem that he doesn't exist... or that he exists but never does anything... or that, well, you get the point

If on the other hand, god does something like... descend from the heavens as a 40 foot tall Steve Martin in every city and town in the world simultaneously and speaks in a language not spoken since the beginning of time yet understood by all simply stating "hey, I exist." Then we can pretty much prove it.

Heck, it doesn't even have to be that drastic, maybe just have praying make something 90% more likely to happen for those belonging to a specific religion... that's not proof per-se but really dang close.

It wasn't until I was like 7 did I even question the existence of god. I sat a soda can on a table and said "God, if you're there and really love me, so much that you gave your only... etc, then knock this can over."
The can stayed where and it was, and I became an atheist.

If there is a god, why can't he move a can for me?

It wasn't until I was like 7 did I even question the existence of god. I sat a soda can on a table and said "God, if you're there and really love me, so much that you gave your only... etc, then knock this can over."
The can stayed where and it was, and I became an atheist.

If there is a god, why can't he move a can for me?

That doesn't prove that there isn't a God or a God who can't move cans. That just proves that you told God to knock a can over and the can didn't move.

I'm not saying it proves there isn't one, I'm saying it doesn't help trying to prove him.

If there is some kind of divine being, I don't think it/he/she would like to be asked to demonstrate their powers, thus, it is extremely hard to prove or disprove the existence of a god/gods

Why do people think there is a god?

They want to believe in the mystery...

You wouldn't, but what if you saw fire, or lightning, or something, without any knowledge of it what would you say?

You would wonder where it came from, and would make up something to explain it, in order to have a sense of stability.

You wouldn't, but what if you saw fire, or lightning, or something, without any knowledge of it what would you say?

probably ... RUN!

no seriously though that without science would be seen as an unexplainable force, possibly by monsters or a god.

Can't be proven or dis-proven, so you might as well just live your life happily, and it couldn't hurt to be nice to people.

this over and over.

Just to throw my thoughts out there.

I've thought about this before and I honestly have to say its near the lines something like is god real or is god fake that it cannot be proven. Because many of us want to believe this we do believe god is real, but some of us blindly do not want to believe in other religions which are the same typically just worded or created differently.

We as humans cannot really know what happen after death or we cannot know at the moment, time will tell if we can or cannot. Maybe you are right and this is a instinct thing or a self powering thing where one takes control of everyone else and controls their fears but we cannot be sure about this. Life is what many of us would call a learning experience, or even dare I say a mystery.

So basically I'm saying its a 50% chance that he is real and a 50% chance he isn't. Just the same with magic, and aliens. We can't be sure in this time further exploration is needed, and so on. Or so I believe.

I think almost everything can be explained. But i also believe some things shouldn't. The existence of a god to me is ludicrous. Yet at the same time i think the reason for us being here would have something to do with a higher power. Not someone who is all powerful no. Put it this way, what if someone created life in mold, what if we are that life?

Its silly, but i cannot live without seeking an explanation. Much like with the beginning of earth and our solar system. It all starts somewhere right? apparently two gases collided or whatnot but tell me this. if no life existed where did the gases come from. What was before those gases, and what was before that?

I don't know, no one knows and maybe no one living ever will. Does it need to be explained though? In many cases religion makes people better people, they make them happy, feel safe and as long as they think there might be a better place or something more then here they don't fear little things. I would love to be content and believe someone was watching over me.

The people i have met without religion are always unhappy. Religion gives us a reason to live, without that it feels like there is no purpose for us being here. Why do  anything if after we die there is nothing left? Why spend our lives working, learning and loving if its just going to end as though it was never there?

But i am rambling about something debated many times before. Will be interesting to see where this goes.

Well, I dunno about science proving god's existance, but I know for a fact it can't prove his non-exisistance. The Scientific Method can't prove a negative. I know, splitting hairs....

Bhuddists say the beleif leads to a dulling of awareness, that the only way to truly be aware of something is to know it. I'm not exactly sure what context the words "know" and "belief" are being used, but I figure if I believe in something- act like it's there, talk to it, interact with it- that makes it real to me. I mean, there are whole sects of faith who can suspend themselves from hooks in their scrotum or whatever, and they can do it because they know their god/gods/other are within them, giving them strength. That's enough proof for me to say that, at least for the guy hanging from a pole by hooks in his sac, god exists.

i see religion existing for a few basic reasons.

1) anything unexplainable must be a higher being, whether it be aliens or a god... (yes that's right people call alien fanatics crackpots... nothing much is said to the main religions, even though they're pretty much the same in essence.)

2) a reason to not fear death. (aswell as a reason to fear death which i'll come to)
yay life after death! i soooo want that... let me join your club :p

3) purpose of being. not only does the existence of a god allow people to think they have a set reason, it also lets them follow someone, which you can't deny... many many humans love to follow leaders.

4) control. aswell as encouraging people to do good, you can also control them to follow you by threats of hell. the crusades shows the true power of religion, whether it be real or not. they can command people to fight for beliefs that may not be true through fear and blind loyalty.

these are just opinions i find to ring true, they neither disprove or prove, however i am stating that most humans need to have faith in something more powerful than them, otherwise they'd just not care, if that's how it is now that's how it's always been... (so technically religion and curiosity brought the world of science and history)

Here is my answer that it can be proven scientifically

You are made of cells, correct? Cells are living.
Cells are made out of atoms, and atoms are not living.
Why should there be life? How can something not living produce something living?
In all technicalities, you CAN'T be living, it is not

As for aliens and such, they must be living too, and they must be made of atoms, and are something living made of something non-living.

Most "leaders" of most religions are only there for power and controll. Look in the Bible, there are a whole lot of examples there, especially in the new testament.

Life after death? Well, it has been proven that you loose a few ounces the moment you die, so souls do exist, and technically you aren't alive right now (refer to comments above) and no matter in this universe is made or destroyed (so they say) so you have to go by religion to tell you that. (I can tell you that hell exists. Many people who were brought back from the edge of death have almost died from fright from what they say they saw. I think that I'm just going to be a really good person so that I don't have to see that, and that's just my personal opinion.)

the loss of weight could be due to the release of dense gasses from your body at the time of your death, but I have no clue, as that was a random shot in the dark with no rememberance of how heavy CO2 is compared to oxygen... (althouh, I assume that there is 2 oxygens and a carbon, it is much heavier, yes?) And, this may not account for all the weight change, but ya know, it doesn't mean souls exist because we get lighter upon death.

Here is my answer that it can be proven scientifically

You are made of cells, correct? Cells are living.
Cells are made out of atoms, and atoms are not living.
Why should there be life? How can something not living produce something living?
In all technicalities, you CAN'T be living, it is not

As for aliens and such, they must be living too, and they must be made of atoms, and are something living made of something non-living.

Most "leaders" of most religions are only there for power and controll. Look in the Bible, there are a whole lot of examples there, especially in the new testament.

Life after death? Well, it has been proven that you loose a few ounces the moment you die, so souls do exist, and technically you aren't alive right now (refer to comments above) and no matter in this universe is made or destroyed (so they say) so you have to go by religion to tell you that. (I can tell you that hell exists. Many people who were brought back from the edge of death have almost died from fright from what they say they saw. I think that I'm just going to be a really good person so that I don't have to see that, and that's just my personal opinion.)

I highlighted all the parts of your post that don't make any sense. You're welcome.

Here is my answer that it can be proven scientifically

You are made of cells, correct? Cells are living.
Cells are made out of atoms, and atoms are not living.
Why should there be life? How can something not living produce something living?
In all technicalities, you CAN'T be living, it is not

If you're going to argue that nothing on this planet is living, then the entire definition of life is meaningless.
 
Just because atoms aren't living by definition doesn't mean that life can't come from them.
Think of a building. It's made of bricks. Just because the bricks aren't buildings themselves doesn't make it impossible for the bricks to make a building.
 

Life after death? Well, it has been proven that you loose a few ounces the moment you die, so souls do exist,

What happened to "scientifically proven"? There's absolutely nothing scientific to suggest that losing a few ounces after you die equals having a soul. What about all the fluids and wastes that escape your body after you die? I'm sure completely voiding yourself has to account for at least a few ounces. >_>

What happened to "scientifically proven"? There's absolutely nothing scientific to suggest that losing a few ounces after you die equals having a soul. What about all the fluids and wastes that escape your body after you die? I'm sure completely voiding yourself has to account for at least a few ounces. >_>

we cant forget all that oxygen stored up in your lungs

The main problem in proving the god existence is religion.
All the bases of scientific or theological studies are in god's religious belief, and not in logical thinking.
It's obvious that the Bible (and similars) is not proof for nothing, anyone that studied a bit of history can reach this conclusion.

I do believe in something more than the matter, maybe God if you guys want to call this way, but not the religious one.
All I can refer to now, is the most rational and conclusive material that I saw, the Book of Spirits by Allan Kardek, interesting reading: http://www.spiritwritings.com/kardecspiritsbook1.html#Proofs

And this quote from Newton:
"This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

At the end, the only proof that I have is my rational conclusions. And that is most than sufficiently for me.

Meaning, something up there created everything?


An odd question is, if matter can't be created form nothing, where did it all start, something must have made matter.

Cause and effect. The humans made the cars, but not the trees and planets. For that reason you need a cause (and a intelligent one, a rock or a dog can't make a game). If you have an intelligent cause for the planets, you will don't need nothing else, because there is nothing left that this intelligent could not create. Simple this way.

If the humans had created the trees or the animals, surely that you would not need nothing else than ourselves (nor god neither bearded elder).

The most difficult thing for atheists to get thinking in anything besides the matter itself is that they are a lot influenced by religious misbeliefs. Everything that they can think about the "besides" come from religious foolish. Ironic. (not generalizing, but in most cases)

I'm not talking about the god, the true and powerful. Or about a magic energy. I'm talking that the matter is not all.

Arent planets created by rocks being drawn in from bigger rocks gravity?

Altough I like where you're coming from.

And from where the gravity come from?
Well, if the gravity is a random event, surely you don't need of the above question.
But gravity is a intelligent law wich creates a intelligent effect.

If the gravity is random, at any second (or much less than that) all the universe can blow out.

Imagine a thing that occurs all the time and every time it occurs it maintains the same structure. Multiply that by a billions of years and billions of events, if that is a mere coincidence of the matter itself, without an ordered intelligent , I can call that a miracle, because the mathematical possibilities are near impossible.
I don't believe in miracles, and you?

It's the same conclusion that Newton had. It's only rational thinking, it's not a proof, I can't prove nothing, you all can't prove nothing.

Edit: Instead of Newton, I will post now an Einstein quote:
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."

gravity is not something that is exactly the same everywhere. It is something that is moves around the orbit of larger gravities (e.g. the earth has a center of gravity that rotates around the sun, and each of them has a different strength and nature)

The fact that this is maintained is no more impressive than looking at a computer for 10 years and realizing that the computer doesn't break into a million pieces for no reason. That is, things don't change by themselves. They need a catalyst to change.

As soon as we find a proper catalyst to change the gravity, we could make it less stable, just like if we found a proper catalyst to change the state of a computer (e.g. a hammer), we could make it less stable (e.g. be smashed by a hammer)

But the same goes for things that were created naturally.



Now, as for your whole thing about everything must come from something else... Well, no duh.

A decent majority of people who believe in the big bang theory and the like acknowledge that, even though they have a theory on how the universe was created, they don't know how that super-condensed piece of matter came to be, and why it exploded. That isn't the important part of the big bang theory, though.

The most important part of the big bang and evolution theories is everything that happened after the bang was initialized, that is, as soon as the matter started to explode, that is the important part.

It shows a theory on how the rocks and gasses that make up the galaxy may have come to be where they are, and how they might have changed to become habitable.

gravity is not something that is exactly the same everywhere. It is something that is moves around the orbit of larger gravities

What. Are you trying to say that objects, by default, orbit around objects with greater gravity? It will only orbit if it has the velocity to allow it to orbit. If it initially had no velocity, or if its velocity didn't meet the requirements to send it into orbit, it would just head directly toward the object or entirely miss it. It sounds to me you don't know how gravity works. Gravity is just the attraction between objects with mass.

guilty as charged.

I have been totally winging that stuff for years.

gravity is not something that is exactly the same everywhere. It is something that is moves around the orbit of larger gravities (e.g. the earth has a center of gravity that rotates around the sun, and each of them has a different strength and nature)

The fact that this is maintained is no more impressive than looking at a computer for 10 years and realizing that the computer doesn't break into a million pieces for no reason. That is, things don't change by themselves. They need a catalyst to change.

As soon as we find a proper catalyst to change the gravity, we could make it less stable, just like if we found a proper catalyst to change the state of a computer (e.g. a hammer), we could make it less stable (e.g. be smashed by a hammer)

But the same goes for things that were created naturally.

No difference. By explaining how gravity works you're only describing a process, and a process in a intelligent order. What I say is that, things are not random. You can explain everything, but nothing occur without cause and consequence. We have some "scientists" that are defensors of coincidence, but surely there's no coincidence, the belief in coincidence is blind as believing in religion. Unless, you believe in miracles.

Science is the disproving of coincidence. Also, I think you're confusing intelligence for nature. Intelligence is a characteristic ascribed, (by the obvious use of the word,) to a living creature. Gravity, as your example goes, is not a "process in a (sic) intelligent order." Gravity is a natural element of the universe that we reside in. Truthfully, I don't even know why I'm taking the time to type this, since you're obviously either a kid, not very legible, or a non-native English speaker. Elitist Debate has gone down the shitter. There should be an age gate on this board.

gravity is not something that is exactly the same everywhere. It is something that is moves around the orbit of larger gravities (e.g. the earth has a center of gravity that rotates around the sun, and each of them has a different strength and nature)

The fact that this is maintained is no more impressive than looking at a computer for 10 years and realizing that the computer doesn't break into a million pieces for no reason. That is, things don't change by themselves. They need a catalyst to change.

As soon as we find a proper catalyst to change the gravity, we could make it less stable, just like if we found a proper catalyst to change the state of a computer (e.g. a hammer), we could make it less stable (e.g. be smashed by a hammer)

But the same goes for things that were created naturally.

No difference. By explaining how gravity works you're only describing a process, and a process in a intelligent order. What I say is that, things are not random. You can explain everything, but nothing occur without cause and consequence. We have some "scientists" that are defensors of coincidence, but surely there's no coincidence, the belief in coincidence is blind as believing in religion. Unless, you believe in miracles.

That whole argument is, to me, the same fear mongering as religion

"There must be a god otherwise gravity is something we can not trust to stay there"
"There must be a god otherwise when you die, you are nothing anymore" 

If as you say things are not random, then there is still no reason to believe in a god as even if you did everything would still happen, if you prayed to a god or if you didn't life would roll on the same way.

Randomness doesn't exist.

About the concept of matter and that it cannot be created:
Matter can be converted to energy, or reversed.

That is how fission and fusion work. Fission works by colliding 2 atoms to create 1 larger atom whose mass is lower than the total of the 2 reagents. The change in mass is converted to energy in the form of heat that is then used to drive turbines to generate electricity.

The same applies to fusion. How this can work is that the lowest mass/matter-ratio on the table of elements is iron, which has the element mass of 55.8 (compared to 1 for hydrogen or uranium with 238).

This is why the cores of stars (which start as gas clouds, hydrogen etc.) is eventually made of iron. The creation of higher mass/matter-ratio elements are formed from supernovae where the immense amounts of energy start higher mass/matter-fusions. The immense energies also start fissions so more smaller atoms are re-created.

The big bang theory works somewhat like this:
A huge amount of energy and/or matter gathered in the universe, resulting in a colossal explosion (and conversion of energy to mass).

Scientists have noted that all astrological parts are moving away from us, at different velocities, which would indicate that the universe is still expanding.

The theory of continuation I find most believeable is that (because of gravity, although weak and over immense periods of time) in the end, the universe will start to contract and shrink. This would then eventually lead to a new "big bang", after all mass and energy has been gathered again.
This would mean that the universe we live in now could be just one in a series of "big bang" universes.

Also, the formula for gravity between bodies of mass is constant, and exists everywhere. No questions there (from me at least).

Just thought I'd try clear things up with the matter/energy/gravity part for y'all. The theory of continuation-part is just the theory I cling to.

If matter is moving in an outward direction with nothing to stop it, while gravity is getting weaker as the space between the matter is constantly growing, why would gravity eventually cause everything to start moving back together?

Well there is the theory that the universe will expand forever, of course, too. Might be more believable.
No matter what you believe about the continuation though, it's a matter of billions of years, and I think humans will have died out if and when the universe would start shrinking anyway.

If matter is moving in an outward direction with nothing to stop it, while gravity is getting weaker as the space between the matter is constantly growing, why would gravity eventually cause everything to start moving back together?

Gravity is slowing things down by pulling opposite the direction they are moving.  So the force that is supposed to stop it is gravity, and then when it stops, it's highly likely to move in the direction gravity pulls it.

Science is the disproving of coincidence. Also, I think you're confusing intelligence for nature. Intelligence is a characteristic ascribed, (by the obvious use of the word,) to a living creature. Gravity, as your example goes, is not a "process in a (sic) intelligent order." Gravity is a natural element of the universe that we reside in. Truthfully, I don't even know why I'm taking the time to type this, since you're obviously either a kid, not very legible, or a non-native English speaker. Elitist Debate has gone down the shitter. There should be an age gate on this board.

I'm 20 years old. Thanks.

If as you say things are not random, then there is still no reason to believe in a god as even if you did everything would still happen, if you prayed to a god or if you didn't life would roll on the same way.

I said that there's no god. I'm not trying to prove something, it's only my rational thinking.
You're a lot influenced by religions. Stop talking about the old bearded man of religion.

erenik
You explained a whole process of ordered cause and consequence. No difference. In a logical thinking, you need a intelligent cause for a intelligent effect. Or the things are random.

Intelligent seeming things can happen easily happen as a result of random occurrence.

But pure random events are only interpreted as random, by "intelligent" Beings such as ourselves. Perhaps said random events are actually part of a pattern.

But pure random events are only interpreted as random, by "intelligent" Beings such as ourselves. Perhaps said random events are actually part of a pattern.

Or perhaps your perception is flawed and limited and you feel as thought there simply must be a pattern when it is truly random occurrence.

Something seemingly intelligent happens, such as the right chemical composition in the right place, the right distance from the sun, and suddenly it must be intelligent.

It can very well just be random.

I understand the reasoning, in hindsight, mainly because the natural law that everything returns to chaos... And if that were true, expecting things to be maintained would be ridiculous, but honestly, I don't buy into that whole chaos notion, and instead believe that everything is constant unless acted upon by an outside force (which is a more commonly accepted belief, at least, where I am)

There are too many outside forces for anything to remain constant.

Perhaps my perception is flawed considering I attributed a lot of stuff to random occurrence in my first post, sorry about that.

Stop implying randomness exists. Every event is caused by another event, and the future was set the moment anything began to exist. If I threw a dice and it landed on 4, I, along with other elements, caused it to land on 4. If I would have thrown it a slightly different way, it could have landed on another number. If you rewound time and played everything again, it would be the same every time. Technically, everything is predictable.

I won't stop implying randomness exists, because I believe it does.  Yes there is a cause and effect series, of course.  But that doesn't mean that the effect of a cause cannot be random.

Why would the effect of a cause be random?

Why would the effect of a cause be random?

Why not?

Why would the effect of a cause be random?

Why not?

Because logical thinking says that if the circumstances are exactly the same, the results will be exactly the same every time. There's no reason why randomness would exist.

"Random" is a matter of perception. If I was walking down the street, and a bird shit on my head, I'd think, "Wow, that was random."
To that bird, though, taking a shit is not a random thing to do.

It's not random. That would have happened again under the same exact circumstances.

Right, but you're making an assumption that the world is predestined, and there is no such thing as free will. What you're saying is basically, "If that stuff happened again, it would happen again."

Right, but you're making an assumption that the world is predestined, and there is no such thing as free will. What you're saying is basically, "If that stuff happened again, it would happen again."

I believe that's the logical way to think from what we know and observe. But then again, there are other, seemingly impossible, unexplainable things that make absolutely no sense to me, like consciousness, self-awareness and the idea that at one point, energy (and existence) were randomly(?) created, despite the law of conservation of energy. We just have more of a reason to believe that randomness is nonexistent. It's much more easy to explain why randomness doesn't exist than does.

But then again, there are other, seemingly impossible, unexplainable things that make absolutely no sense to me, like consciousness, self-awareness and the idea that at one point, energy (and existence) were randomly(?) created, despite the law of conservation of energy.

Oh dear god.

I believe that's the logical way to think from what we know and observe. [...] It's much more easy to explain why randomness doesn't exist than does.

Just because it's easier to assume that there is no such thing a random, doesn't mean that it is the right answer. 

I state again that perception is the flawed element in the formula.  The human mind excels in finding patterns and flourishes in an organized environment.  It only then makes sense that it'd be impossible to truly perceive randomness, as we are so entirely focused on patterns and formulae.

I think you're getting wrapped up in false use of the word "random".

I believe that's the logical way to think from what we know and observe. [...] It's much more easy to explain why randomness doesn't exist than does.

Just because it's easier to assume that there is no such thing a random, doesn't mean that it is the right answer. 

I state again that perception is the flawed element in the formula.  The human mind excels in finding patterns and flourishes in an organized environment.  It only then makes sense that it'd be impossible to truly perceive randomness, as we are so entirely focused on patterns and formulae.

But it takes an amount of faith to believe something that isn't proven or easily understandable. It seems like a bad argument to make in a thread about the existence of God when it would make much more sense to say things aren't caused by random events, but a standard way of thinking where specific causes make a pre-designated effect occur. Randomness vs creationism is mostly faith vs faith, based on what we know.

"Randomness vs. Creationism" is not a correct juxtaposition. That's like saying "Wallpaper vs. Carpeting". The two are not at odds.

"Randomness vs. Creationism" is not a correct juxtaposition. That's like saying "Wallpaper vs. Carpeting". The two are not at odds.

Both take faith, considering we really don't have much evidence to support either. They're similar in that sense. Saying "randomness exists" is just like saying "God exists", while saying "neither randomness nor God are proven to exist" isn't like either, because it doesn't take faith.

I wasn't really arguing against the existence of God(s), I was just saying that people assuming something intelligent has to be behind something 'appearing intelligent' is ridiculous.  And I brought up random occurrence as one example of possible 'intelligent appearing' events, happening on their own without being set into motion by some 'intelligent being'.

I wasn't really arguing against the existence of God(s), I was just saying that people assuming something intelligent has to be behind something 'appearing intelligent' is ridiculous.  And I brought up random occurrence as one example of possible 'intelligent appearing' events, happening on their own without being set into motion by some 'intelligent being'.

I wouldn't have brought up randomness at all, as you don't even need randomness to explain gravity, the position of the earth or anything else. But it doesn't really matter.

The question is can a omni type being exist? Use humans for example. We were made in Gods image. God is supposed to have unlimited knowlage, most phycologists and scientists agree that the human brain can aquire and store unlimited amounts of knowlage. The only thing is that we will never live long enough for our brains to collect that knowlage. Can God be omni present? Yes, good old Albert Einstien proved that time is relevent. If a being of some sort can seperate itself from time than it can exist away from the boundries of time. Esencially that could make this being ageless, and also immortal, if you body or what have you is unaffected by time you could very well exist forever. Being all powerful doesnt have to be some magical explination, if you are all knowing than you esencially have the power to do anything. Religion and Science, when applied correctly with one another, can bring about theories and ideas that a person on either one side or the other could never come up with. Without the idea correctly applied to eachother, than you are simply doing nothing but limiting yourself to a universe that, quite frankly, has no limits.

Meh, define God first. No one ever said that God was an omniscient being (I think, correct me if I'm wrong).

This video answers everything.

Can the existence of God(s) be proven or disproven Via religion or otherwise?

No. Just saying. No debate from me. lol

God... A non-material being used to rule the manners of many civilizations... Whether you agree or not with God, you can't prove it's existance nor it's non-existance. Logic rules says "While it's not completely true, assume it's false", but if you assume God as false, you can't explain the things science still ignores using another way. Therefore, if you assume God as true, you can't explain why things are so different than these said by him, or his religion. It is a mere act of faith to believe, and since there's no certain proof of the existance of God, both arguments are valid. Most christian believers just use the Bible (other religions' believers just believe their God and don't complain about others') as the ultimate proof, but we're talking about a book, maybe writen by some other men. Science followers and scientist, of course, believe in the experiments and iterated results, so they have a better way of explaining and convincing people.

Summary: Believe what you want 

God... A non-material being used to rule the manners of many civilizations... Whether you agree or not with God, you can't prove it's existance nor it's non-existance. Logic rules says "While it's not completely true, assume it's false", but if you assume God as false, you can't explain the things science still ignores using another way. Therefore, if you assume God as true, you can't explain why things are so different than these said by him, or his religion. It is a mere act of faith to believe, and since there's no certain proof of the existance of God, both arguments are valid. Most christian believers just use the Bible (other religions' believers just believe their God and don't complain about others') as the ultimate proof, but we're talking about a book, maybe writen by some other men. Science followers and scientist, of course, believe in the experiments and iterated results, so they have a better way of explaining and convincing people.

Summary: Believe what you want 

Your theory is noted and rather correct. However, it seems that the topic of debate has switched to being about proof as to whether or not there is a god, and what constitutes "intelligent design", both factors being a major part of the initial question.

It has been stated by nearly everyone in the topic thus far that we cannot prove or disprove god, at least, not yet, and that we must believe whatever we wish. It has also been stated that if these beliefs lead to people with better values, than who cares if god exists, so long as the belief makes people better and more kind.

So heres what I'm told in Grade 12 physics.

Life happens to be Several small Laws of the unvierse + several accidents.

Personally, i believe the thought process that a younger scientifically less intelligent humans saw things they could not begin to comprehend.

Lighting
The sun
The moon
Weather
Birth
human cycle

Thats why before each discovery in my own opinion the previous religions said the god created that.

Before we understood things such as the sun and moon and weather, there were gods that "Looked" after those, i mean the Egyptians and others had Sun gods, Moon gods ect.

And now, one of the main questions left is how and why the universe was created, and that is what science can not prove, and other religions are there to fill that void currently.

Today's Belief is tomorrow's fairy tale

*puts away the mop and broom*

Topic removed of spam and drama. Continue your religious argument, if there's any left.

I understand that this is a necro-post to a degree, but I do have something to say.

There's a reason science is filled with more "theories" than "laws"... Today's scientific laws could be disproven by new understandings of things in the future.

Indecision is still a decision, as you have decided not to decide.  As such, "non-belief" is still a belief.  Even atheists beliefs are based in faith.  Faith that there is nothing beyond this life because they see nothing beyond it, but faith nevertheless.

I've read this entire topic, and I note that almost all references to "god/gods" are based on judeo/christian philosophies (that includes muslim, btw).  There are other religions out there, and they have vastly different beliefs.

Regardless of belief, religion tends to give people direction in life.  It gives them the ability to press forward, and in modern times, to do so with the respect of others in mind.  My personal beliefs are a bit antiquated by some peoples mindsets, but I believe that there is a divine entity out there.  I believe it is part of all things, whether we perceive these things as living or not.  Yes my beliefs do fall under the category of animist, of pagan, of reincarnationist, but they are my beliefs, and as long as I believe them, they are true to me.

**Edited to remove what offended Holkami.  The rest was still more than just viable to the conversation.**

I was into it until the "magic is real" bullshit. Let this topic die.

Can something prove that God exist ?
I don't think so, because by definition, God(s) would be something beyond us, unreachable by the human spirit (otherwise, it would something 'imaginable', and then, something 'finite', which is contradictory with god's definition).

To me, the existence of religions only prove that men need to think of something which give a meaning to their short lives : without god, nothing's forbidden, but nothing's meaningful either !

I would agree with you, but you necroposted.

That doesn't take credibility away from his argument. Stop backseat moderating, it's really fucking annoying.

Besides that, Elitist Debate tends to not really need anti necroposting rules because generally new people are just commenting on an old discussion and it can easily revive the topic.

Anyway I'n ofthe opinion that no it can't be proven or disproven at this point. will we ever be able to knowfor sure, probably not.

Specific Gods such as the Christian Gods, greek gods, egyption gods etc can easily be disproven as they are portrayed by their religions.

However a god outside of religious texts cannot be disproved or proven. In the same sense you can't prove or disprove there is a ball of seal cum floating very close to the sun that doesn't burn up because it has super heat resistant powers.

Actually, we can prove that. By looking for it. But I do get your point; for all we know there is a ball of seal cum floating around the sun.

I don't even see why existence of gods would make a difference. If they're real, they'd give you a life so you can do what you want with it. It's like when a country intervenes in another's revolution, it takes the fun out of it.

Well it depends which one is real, from the things I've read in the bible I really hope it's not the Christian one lol But yea, if there is a God, it almost definitely won't be any of the Gods man has written about imo

Homer Simpson disproved god!

But in all seriousness here are my thoughts.

I'm not a religous believer, as I don't see how a magical man in the sky or outer space can possibly exist. I do however believe Jesus existed and was crucified. I don't however believe he ever came back to life. I don't belive there is a god, but I do belive it will never be possible to prove or disprove that (s)he exists.