What would count as absolute proof that God exists?

[Gaber]

If the universe was created by a god that wanted people to know it exists, then everyone would know it exists. It would be as obvious as the sun and the moon. God would not have to rely on faith or belief. The fact that “god” is not as obvious to everyone as the sun and the moon is proof (to me anyway) that if a god exists, it does not care what we believe or think we know.

Except you used “it” to refer to the God idea, you still are presenting in the form of asscribing personhood to Deity. Is that your intention?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

If the universe was created by a god that wanted people to know it exists, then everyone would know it exists. It would be as obvious as the sun and the moon. God would not have to rely on faith or belief. The fact that “god” is not as obvious to everyone as the sun and the moon is proof (to me anyway) that if a god exists, it does not care what we believe or think we know.

The problem with your reasoning is that you are thinking of God as a “machine”, a robot pre-programmed.

You reason: If this…then that. If everyone at the restaurant eats potatoes …then I am eating potatoes. Which obviously may not be true. I may beating rice.

Actually I prefer rice. So, as I am a FREE man, I normally CHOOSE rice.

Though other people may think that I am eating potatoes.

 

[CarolVP]

“It would be as obvious as the sun and the moon.”

It is as obvious as the sun and moon, since the existence of the sun and moon mean that they were caused by something greater than them. Something cannot created itself.

I, for one, will accept that something greater than the sun and moon actually was the cause of their existence. I also accept that a greater being was the initial cause of my own existence. Therefore, I must be willing, not only to acknowledge this greater being’s existence, but I must be willing to give some homage, at the very least.

This is the basis of pagan worship and rites. When mankind can see the rationale for knowledge of a creator being, then mankind has the natural urge to do some homage. Sometimes it comes in the form of worship, and sometimes it takes the form of appeasement, or both. This is why it is stated that religion is natural to mankind.

 

[Boojie]

You do not get something from nothing.

This premise has not been demonstrated to be true. I would argue that “nothing” is an entirely imaginary, made-up concept (since, by most definitions of “nothing,” it would be impossible to exist), thus making any claims made about this “nothing” nonsensical make-believe at best.

NonServiam, You keep saying “this premise has not been demonstrated”. Why do I need to demonstrate that nothing comes out of nothing? Your definition of the word nothing is correct. Yes, nothing means non-existent or anything impossible to exist. It is the opposite of existence. Therefore to say nothing comes out of nothing is self -evident truth, there is nothing more to demonstrate. Shall I demonstrate the fact that “Whole is always greater that its parts”? Yes, Nonserviam, there are truths that are absolute, self-evident, that need no demonstration. If you cannot fathom that, I am sorry.

Something eternally exists because only nothing precedes existent being. This is a self evident fact. Your failure to understand this, would not serve or prove anything. Don’t pretend you don’t understand the word ‘nothing’. It is a valid word, used by all people which I suppose, includes you.

 

[NonServiam]

NonServiam, You keep saying “this premise has not been demonstrated”. Why do I need to demonstrate that nothing comes out of nothing?

Well, if you’re going to make an argument, you have to demonstrate that your premises are true and correspond to the world outside of your head. There’s no point in making an argument if your first premise doesn’t have any relation to anything that exists or has ever existed.

The premise in this case isn’t “Nothing comes out of the nothing.” The premise in this case is “Something cannot come from nothing.”

The point I’m making is that not only is this not a claim that can be demonstrated – and thus cannot serve as a premise in an argument – it’s close to being meaningless because it’s not a statement that concerns anything that has ever existed in the real world. As such, it’s worthless to try to use this premise to begin an argument.

Shall I demonstrate the fact that “Whole is always greater that its parts”?

I’m not really sure what to make of that claim. I guess its truth depends on what you mean by “greater.” For example, if we’re measuring “greatness” in terms of decision-making ability or wisdom, we might say that an individual on a committee can be far “greater” than the group in terms of decision-making. That would be an example of a part being “greater” than a whole.

 

[NonServiam]

Don’t pretend you don’t understand the word ‘nothing’. It is a valid word, used by all people which I suppose, includes you.

Obviously it’s a “valid” word, but when people use it in daily speech, they’re usually referring to an absence of something in particular. For example, I might say, “There’s nothing on that table over there,” but of course there are at least air molecules on the table – when I say “nothing,” I’m referring to the lack of objects of the table.

Or when I say, “I have nothing to do today,” obviously I still am capable of doing things and will do things. What I mean by “nothing” is the absence of any set plans.

But when people say “Something cannot come from nothing,” they’re not talking about the absence of a specific thing, as I am in the above examples. They’re talking about the origin of the universe, and the “nothing” they’re talking about is the absence of all existent things, which, by its definition, has never existed and cannot possibly exist.

One cannot draw accurate conclusions about the properties of something that has never existed and cannot possibly exist. Thus, we cannot accurately conclude that “Something cannot come from [this kind of] nothing” because [this kind of] nothing isn’t a real world absence, like those other kinds of nothing are.

 

[Boojie]

Obviously it’s a “valid” word, but when people use it in daily speech, they’re usually referring to an absence of something in particular. For example, I might say, “There’s nothing on that table over there,” but of course there are at least air molecules on the table – when I say “nothing,” I’m referring to the lack of objects of the table.

Or when I say, “I have nothing to do today,” obviously I still am capable of doing things and will do things. What I mean by “nothing” is the absence of any set plans.

But when people say “Something cannot come from nothing,” they’re not talking about the absence of a specific thing, as I am in the above examples. They’re talking about the origin of the universe, and the “nothing” they’re talking about is the absence of all existent things, which, by its definition, has never existed and cannot possibly exist.

One cannot draw accurate conclusions about the properties of something that has never existed and cannot possibly exist. Thus, we cannot accurately conclude that “Something cannot come from [this kind of] nothing” because [this kind of] nothing isn’t a real world absence, like those other kinds of nothing are.

Nonserviam,
Please answer this question: Can you get something out of nothing? Yes or no? I bet you a 5-year old kid would say no because a kid would know the meaning of the word nothing. I am sorry to make you look stupid but it is obvious your shallow argument made me say it. Most atheists wants to appear smart by trying to make simple, rational things irrationally complicated.

BTW, statements ‘nothing comes out of nothing’ and ‘something cannot come from nothing’ mean exactly the same, they are not different like you want to tell us.

The word ‘greater’ as used on that phrase, means mathematically greater. Sum is always greater than any of its addend. But you already knew what I meant. You just want to be irritating. Am I over estimating you?

Also yes there are words that has different shadows of meaning, but I already told you the specific meaning of nothing as used in this thread, it is the opposite of existence which is nonexistence. Standard dictionary says:

non·ex·is·tence (nng-zstns)
n.

1. The condition of not existing.
2. Something that does not exist.

Therefore we can say logically: “something that does not exist cannot cause anything.” And this statement is self-evident, meaning this statement is absolutely true whether I and you and everyone else, like it or not. I and everyone else don’t need to demonstrate it. If you still don’t get it, I am sorry, so be it. You are entitled to your thoughts. Good luck.

 

[tonyrey]

The problem with your reasoning is that you are thinking of God as a “machine”, a robot pre-programmed.

It isn’t even evident that animals are mere machines!

 

[tonyrey]

If the universe was created by a god that wanted people to know it exists, then everyone would know it exists.

Why do you assume we need to know - rather than choose to believe?

 

[Gaber]

If the universe was created by a god that wanted people to know it exists, then everyone would know it exists. It would be as obvious as the sun and the moon. God would not have to rely on faith or belief. The fact that “god” is not as obvious to everyone as the sun and the moon is proof (to me anyway) that if a god exists, it does not care what we believe or think we know.

Yes, that is well said. Belief is about us, not God. However, if you wish to know yourself in depth, you can do that by several means. If you do, there will be a point at wihch you make some discoveries relative to the nature of belief and of God.

Similar to the different kinds of talk therapies only dealing in rationsl linear thought, and ignoring, except by accident, that the brain runs on coding, religions goes instraight lines and as an institutin tends to ignore depth while claiming to be the embodiment of that "depth. Symbolically, it might be. But it is still up to you and your work to make the necessary self discoveries. These do not entail faith, other than that you are confident that if you look you will see. Or, that if you listen, especially to silence, you will hear.

Faith will then be discovered to have a rather different place than those who “have” it claim, or youo yourself expereinced. That does not mean that there is anything wrong with faith, as such. But it has to be known, eventually, as “belief” as distinct from knowledge." That is discovered, and the journey of discovery can begin when faith is no longer sufficient, or doesn’t prove to have fulfilling answers. For some, faith will be sufficient until whenever, and that is fine. For others, not. And when it is not/knot, you can cut it (re-legio means sto tie back to) and walk, or run, or fly. But it is up to you, not the religion, to free yourself from the bonds that you have put on yourself by your constraints of idea and language, whether those were inculcated or conjectured.

 

[CarolVP]

‘The point I’m making is that not only is this not a claim that can be demonstrated – and thus cannot serve as a premise in an argument – it’s close to being meaningless because it’s not a statement that concerns anything that has ever existed in the real world. As such, it’s worthless to try to use this premise to begin an argument.’

I find this line of reasoning quite irrational. Surely it is self-evident that if, in our world full full of physical and natural laws, the concept of ‘nothing’ can be understood as the absence of something or anything, even if it be, in common parlance, not exactly what it means philosophically.

I agree with others in saying that we don’t need to demonstrate the truth of the statement that nothing can possibly come from nothing. Clearly, an absence of anything cannot, suddenly and from nowhere, being un-moved or un-caused, appear as something. Just as I may not hold out my hand and an apple appear of its own accord, without the causation from another, so too a complete absence of anything cannot simply become something. Our known, natural and physical laws show us basic principles, which, in logic, and sometimes over time, have become self-evident.

Those of us who believe in God rely completely on the demonstrations within the physical universe to reason to the existence of an outside agent of creation/causation.

My knowledge of the existence of God would not tell me that gravity doesn’t exist, or that I can, through natural means, defy it. Sane theists accept the laws of the universe. We may not be able to explain them, or even to understand them to any degree, but we accept them as they are.

Thus, I do not have to demonstrate that nothing can ever come from nothing (philosophically speaking), since it is logical and self-evident from the laws in place in our universe. I could (theoretically) create a perfect vacuum in a super-strong, perfectly-sealed beaker, and leave it alone for billions of years. A ‘something’ would not appear within the vacuum, even after that length of time. Only interference from an outside source could possibly make a ‘something’ appear.

Since I cannot possibly create this theoretical vacuum-and-billions-of-years scenario, I cannot actually demonstrate it. Does this make it untrue? How can I actually know that nothing will appear? Can I accept that the physical laws of the universe establish self-evident principles on which to base my knowledge?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The Beatific Vision. Meeting God in Person.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The Beatific Vision. Meeting God in Person.

I was saying NO at first sight but, on second thought, you may be right.
I will think it over.
But cant we have an absolute proof here on Earth?
for instance: a flower, the hummingbird, the galaxies, the Bosom of Higgins…

 

[Gaber]

I was saying NO at first sight but, on second thought, you may be right.
I will think it over.
But cant we have an absolute proof here on Earth?
for instance: a flower, the hummingbird, the galaxies, the Bosom of Higgins…

In the “Bosom of Higgins?” ! That is excelent, if intentional.

Unfortunatly, thinking it over will only get one so far. Charlemagne ll is right about the Beatific Vision part. But not, I’m afraid, about the “in Person” part, unless he has a radical understanding of what that means, since he capitalizeed it. If “Person” in that usage means someone like Jesus, that’s true, if you recognize Him. Calculate your chances of that. If the usage of Person means “you” after death, there is the question of whether “person” survives death.

If you are Christian, likely you beleive that that happens, as you believe in the survival of the soul. But is soul the same as person? And is the understanding of soul correct? For my part, I have serious doubts about the accuracy and completeness of that idea, though it does point to something actual.

 

[tonyrey]

In the “Bosom of Higgins?” ! That is excelent, if intentional.

Some are massive (not quite as large as bosons) but Higgins didn’t seem to regard Eliza’s bosom as inordinate. It was only her Cockney accent that he found undesirable because he wanted her to be a fair lady.

 

[Gaber]

Some are massive (not quite as large as bosons) but Higgins didn’t seem to regard Eliza’s bosom as inordinate. It was only her Cockney accent that he found undesirable because he wanted her to be a fair lady.

Love it!

 

[PumpkinSeed]

That he exists. Either he does or he doesn’t. There is no existing “a little bit” or “maybe”. Either you do or you don’t. The same is for God.

Believe that he exists or doesn’t, that’s your call, but there is no ‘in between’.

 

[Sunlight]

Ezekiel 37:13 You shall know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and make you come up out of them, my people!

peace

I am confused. I thought that when we die, our souls would go straight to judgement. So, if that’s the case, wouldn’t we know that Jesus is lord then? But in this passage, if we wait for graves to open up, then where are our souls all the time before the graves open up? Are we not aware of consciousness until that point? Can someone explain please? This passage confused me now I am not sure what to think. thank you!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

In the “Bosom of Higgins?” ! That is excelent, if intentional.

Unfortunatly, thinking it over will only get one so far. Charlemagne ll is right about the Beatific Vision part. But not, I’m afraid, about the “in Person” part, unless he has a radical understanding of what that means, since he capitalizeed it. If “Person” in that usage means someone like Jesus, that’s true, if you recognize Him. Calculate your chances of that. If the usage of Person means “you” after death, there is the question of whether “person” survives death.

If you are Christian, likely you beleive that that happens, as you believe in the survival of the soul. But is soul the same as person? And is the understanding of soul correct? For my part, I have serious doubts about the accuracy and completeness of that idea, though it does point to something actual.

No, it was not intended.
I went to Google Images and still cannot find out what part of the Body is. It seems that it is feminine but I could not find out.
I am glad you got a good laugh and that I learnt how to spell boson.

Sorry, you will get good laughs after death because YOU=your Soul=your Spirit=your Person=Person will go on living.
It simply undressed the body and flew high and above the stars.
You do not need to believe, do not worry, it will happen the same, you will go on living either you believe or not…

Please answer this question:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=677822
Thanks

 

[NonServiam]

Nonserviam,
Please answer this question: Can you get something out of nothing?

If by “nothing” you mean “the absence of all existent things,” then the honest answer is “I don’t know” because no one has ever observed the absence of all existent things and indeed, as far as we know, it has never been the case that there has been an absence of all existent things.

I am sorry to make you look stupid …] BTW, statements ‘nothing comes out of nothing’ and ‘something cannot come from nothing’ mean exactly the same, they are not different like you want to tell us.

My irony meter just broke.

By the way, they might be the same if the first were phrased “Only nothing could ever come out of nothing.” I know you think that nuance, along with clear definition and explanation, are anathema to understanding, but the opposite is the case.

The word ‘greater’ as used on that phrase, means mathematically greater. Sum is always greater than any of its addend.

Well, first of all, if you’re trying to use this idea to discuss the universe and its origins, you’re comparing apples and oranges: your “greater” pertains to numbers, apparently, not to the material world.

But second of all, even in terms of numbers, what you say isn’t always true. -5 plus -3 equals -8, a number lower than both of them.