Could God prove the existence of God?

[Sneakgab]

Akricu's Santa analogy was considerred a ''red herring'' due to the fact that he replaced God with things that can actually be proved. But what if he replaced God with things that, like God, demanded infinite evidence. For example, what if he said that believing in Edrico' infinitely long straight line was as logical as believing in God? It seems to me that God cannot be proved nor disproved. He cannot be proved due to requiring infinite evidence, and cannot be disproved because that would require a knowledge of everything which would require knowing whether or not God existed.

However, basing the existence of God on faith seems like madness to me. He is as believable as any thing that can not be proved nor disproved.

[Acriku]

The main point of my post was that any argument along the lines of "There is no proof for the existence of God, therefore God does not exist" is invalid, because proving the existence of God is impossible regardless of whether God exists or not.

That's what I figured the point of your post was, as I noted that to Gunwounds. I agree, that is an invalid statement. A more sound statement would be "There is no proof for the existence of God, therefore it is reasonable to not believe in God."

Also, while it may be impossible to absolutely prove God's existence, it's certainly possible to give evidence for his existence to the point of being as supported as the Law of Gravity. There is no absolute proof in science, so technically it is possible to support the God theory with enough evidence to be credible in the scientific world, and even to the average person on Earth.

[Wolf]

And, also, certainly, lack of proof does not equate disproof.

[d3m0nger]

If God cannot prove his own existence, then he is not omnipotent, since there is something he cannot do.

There is a better way of saying this.

If god can do anything, can he name something that he cant do?, no he cant and therefor he cant do everything.

For me this is enough evidence that he cannot exist.

Can God draw a square circle? No. Does that mean He is not omnipotent? No, because a square circle is a logical contradiction; it is impossible a priori.

If god cant draw a square circle it would mean that he is not allmighty, which would contradict everything God stands for

One who is allmighty should be able to do the illogical, a 5 year old can understand this.

[Acriku]

I wanted to mention this earlier, but forgot. If God cannot perform the illogical, then he could not have created the universe out of nothing. Also, according to the bible, he created light before he created stars. Does that seem logical to you?

[Dude_Doc]

In a way, everything could be possible. I mean, we are born with logical laws all around us since birth, our body learns it before our brain does. Only around 15 years we can come to understand these things.

Now, suppose God would create a square circle, he wouldn't actually have to do this "thing" with these laws. He could simply change some logical laws, and there you have it: a square circle. Maybe this is kind of hard to understand, but I think that we simply can not comprehend logical contradictions, such as a drawing being a square and a circle at the same time.

Then what is the reason? Well, maybe it is because God actually uses logic when He creates. I mean, is there any useful purpose for a square circle? Maybe the universe would look totally crazy if everything concieved of was possible?

I don't really know. Maybe everything has a purpose, it just happened that the square circle wasn't picked to play any role this time...

[nampigai]

to take up my last point.

as I understand Jesus was said to be a jew right? However the jewish god from the OT was an Angry god, demanding an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Now suddenly wit the birth of Jesus the teaching is love and to turn the other cheek?

Honestly I can't find the comparison.

To me the Church is one big hoax created by women hating men (Pete hated Mary Magdalene) it is used as a power factor and to opress and scare the people into submission, and it sickens me.

[Anathema]

Also Edric, the problem with your analogy is that God cannot be disproved. You can disprove the existence of an infinitely long pole because as you said the mass would make the universe implode, and another problem is that the universe isn't infinitely stretched.

God escapes this reasoning because if he exists he is supernatural and not bound by the rules of our universe, wich he created. However you're trying to attribute a supernatural attribute (infinity) to  a natural object (a pole)

[GUNWOUNDS]

In a way, everything could be possible. I mean, we are born with logical laws all around us since birth, our body learns it before our brain does. Only around 15 years we can come to understand these things.

Now, suppose God would create a square circle, he wouldn't actually have to do this "thing" with these laws. He could simply change some logical laws, and there you have it: a square circle. Maybe this is kind of hard to understand, but I think that we simply can not comprehend logical contradictions, such as a drawing being a square and a circle at the same time.

Then what is the reason? Well, maybe it is because God actually uses logic when He creates. I mean, is there any useful purpose for a square circle? Maybe the universe would look totally crazy if everything concieved of was possible?

I don't really know. Maybe everything has a purpose, it just happened that the square circle wasn't picked to play any role this time...

I agree.... if God decided to draw a square cirlce he would simply re-define what a square and circle really are... it would just be a matter of semantics.  I think its our minds that are not able to imagine illogical things.  But God is not limited to what we are able to comprehend.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Also Edric, the problem with your analogy is that God cannot be disproved. You can disprove the existence of an infinitely long pole because as you said the mass would make the universe implode, and another problem is that the universe isn't infinitely stretched.

God escapes this reasoning because if he exists he is supernatural and not bound by the rules of our universe, wich he created. However you're trying to attribute a supernatural attribute (infinity) to

[erjin999]

Can we not ultimately say we cannot comprehend the proof God presents us therefore we can never have it proven that God exists.

If it is proof we can understand, its just a trick, or some other totally possible natural phenomenon.

What I am trying to say is that ultimately are we not too flawed to understand God ?

[stefanhendriks]

I think if God exists and had to prove himself, he could do it via other ways then the material ones described here. If he could tell everybody on the streets, about their lives. Things nobody could know of these persons, and vice versa. People will be convinced quickly.

Also, with current technologies, not all of the described examples by Edric can be explained or relativated. (ie, if God would rise a mountain, etc). Humans cannot deny higher powers are at work here. Unless these people even deny the reality they live in is not even reality but the matrix ;)

[GUNWOUNDS]

Can we not ultimately say we cannot comprehend the proof God presents us therefore we can never have it proven that God exists.

If it is proof we can understand, its just a trick, or some other totally possible natural phenomenon.

What I am trying to say is that ultimately are we not too flawed to understand God ?

well i think God could prove himself via Wolfwiz's proposed method.

[Dude_Doc]

Although, in another mindset, to proove the existance of God, it also depends on how oneself is affected. I don't remember what movie or book I read that had this quote: "The one that gives you food is your God" (The Omen part 3, no?), and in a way, this could be true.

I mean, a God that showed you some miracle isn't very much of a God: most probably any advanced alien civilization could do this. But a God/being who healed the sick, gave food for the hungry and satisfaction for the angry (?), well, then we can talk about who's being the master.

[Faetarius]

Stefan the point was talking about technologies far in advance of our own.  ie Alien technology. Thus the raising of a mountain could be achived with technology that us lowly humans haven't discovered yet. And as to telling people's life stories, that could be accounted for by citing that the person had merely done immense amounts of reasearch and surveilance. An unlikely situation admittedly, but not impossible.

If it's one thing the human race has been good at so far, it's finding ways to find explanations for EVERYTHING. And so even if god did perform miracles of every varity, shape and form, we would probably still find some way to explain the events away. (As was already stated by Edric O)

Oh, and erjin999, I must admit I'm curious. How does the existance of aliens prove the existance of god to you?

[stefanhendriks]

ofcourse humans are able to explain everything. But then again, there is no sense made in most explenations. Therefor, i think God can prove himself. Because there is no sensible explenation. Saying that God is not able to prove himself due humans make up any explenation to make the 'prove' worthless, is just ignorance beyond any limit.

as an addition:

You could ask yourself the same question:

- is the world real?

- what is real?

- prove to me you are my mother! And no, DNA tests can be falsified!

- prove to me the earth is round! Yeah, i know, we have traveled , but i don't see any evidence it is truly round!

- <fill in any question>

basicly, if you don't want to believe something or don't WANT to accept a fact you will always find a way to support such ignorance.

Therefor, if God truely exists, standing infront of us. Showing us our mighty power, let us feel he is the one , etc, etc. Then only if you don't WANT to believe you will say the prove is worth nothing.

I'd like to ask this: Does God NEED to prove himself?

[Caid Ivik]

World is composed of realies (things); so if there is at least one thing, the world is real.

[Dude_Doc]

I agree with Stefan. God must, and will eventually have to proove himself. If the New World Order is/will be real (or whatever you call Satan's future global power), and Jesus will return, well then we must know, right?

[stefanhendriks]

Personally i don't believe in a "God". Though i would not be suprised if some higher power exists, and could reveal it/him/her -self.

[Dude_Doc]

I think the main question is if one believes in a "beginning" or if everything is an eternity. One of my friends said that scientists have theorized that "everything" has been going on for all eternity, and will do so forever. If this is correct, well, then it is, and everything we know is just a materialistic eternal and mindless process. By this theory, time and materia has existed forever, and never had a beginning in the first place. And who says that this is impossible? As I said, in the end it is a matter of believeing or not.

Then there are the "theory" of what we know, that there is a beginning, that time and materia as we know it did not just come out of nothing, and that there is no eternal process - in other words, that God (or a very high and intelligent power) created it all.

Personally, I do believe that there was a beginning - that there is a God. The reason I don't believe in that everything just happened is because for me it is near impossible that materia, let alone time, just started. Then, of course, I dispute whenever there is a correct religion, or if God is involved in any way in our daily lives.

[Acriku]

Would it be right to say that God is the spark that created everything? A lot of physicists allude to God not in the religious sense but in the sense that whatever created us, be it some singular force or something, is God to us. To the degree that they would start worshipping this starter, but just to acknowledge it.

[Caid Ivik]

Scientists know nothing of it. If world is created by something out of time laws, then we cannot talk about "beginning", "start" or "primordial spark" as source. Creative force itself was only an emanation of something unknown.

[stefanhendriks]

as i see it, we try to explain how life is and 'started' with the terms and knowledge know now. I believe though that our knowledge out our world, reality, whatever, is as little as a little child just being able to walk on its own feet. In other words, we try to explain something with little to no knowledge.

One says its God. One says there is no God and time just started. It does not matter how you put it, in the end we won't live long enough ever to have this figured out. ;)

Edit:

For some clarification, what i mean is that (as how is ee it) humans do not have the ability to 'experience' the world or, life, as it is in a whole. Since we only have 5 senses, there are probably senses that we don't even know about and we cannot even imagine what it is to have them...

[Caid Ivik]

These 5 senses plus all the reflective activity is not enough for you to define your life? We do experience our life with every moment, we just cannot describe it. It's not a same perception as that of the whole world.

[stefanhendriks]

what i mean is that the 5 senses are probably not enough to 'experience' life on its fullest. THerefor, anything we cannot explain (because we only sense half of it) , we will try to explain but not with all the knowledge that we can gain or have...

Its like, asking a human 1000 years back to build a plane... They don't have the knowledge, the mind, the ability to think that way. Etc.