Could God prove the existence of God?

[Andrew]

If a human 1000 years ago was brought up in todays society, why wouldn't it be able to build a plane much like a normal person who has gone through all the training. I doubt our biology 1000 years ago prevented it.

I don't know how to build a plane... I could if I had the education and experience, which a person 1000 years ago could if they had the same education and experience as I would.

[Caid Ivik]

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.

A plane is not a part of life. Of life actual 1000 years back. Even today you have people fully living and yet not having any idea about planes. Experience, knowledge and ability to explain are not the same.

[The Spac]

I would have to say this discussion could go on forever because people's view of god is different for each and everyone one of us, so god may prove himself to some of us and may not to others because those others believe god is something different.

For those of you say god is all knowing and ominpitent that is also one view of yours of god, so god could prove he is all knowing and omnipitent (however he may do so) might work for you, but it would not be a suitible demonstration of his godhood for me because I believe god to be other things then.

Which persons version of god are we discussing here ;)

[stefanhendriks]

I think my "plane example" is taken litteraly. Perhaps this example is more close to my view (which i find very hard to explain in my non-native language).

Someone who is born blind. Has no sense of sight. But still 'senses' the world in his way. He will hear better, feel better, experience life/etc completely different. People who have sight, rely more on that, then on touching, smell and hearing.

What i try to explain, i think we are somehow 'blind' for other senses that do exist, but we cannot see. Like, we sometimes explain 'paranormal' stuff by people who 'sense' stuff we (most of humans) cannot. Does this mean its crap? Or does this mean those humans have a'sixt sense'. Therefor, 'experiencing' the world/life, different?

[The Spac]

I agree completely.

There is a quote lying around here somewhere let me find it...

<3 minutes later>

"The innocent do not believe in evil."

- Scytale 'Dune Messiah'

[Caid Ivik]

It's not crap, but it also isn't part of their life. For innocents, there exists no evil. For blind, there exists no visual perception. Simply, it's matter of subjective experience. My subjective life contains many factors, but not for example a joy of hunting a boar, while others cannot even imagine their life without it. Does it mean I lack something? If something is possible, it has not same value as existant. Well, for that we have religion, because we always lack something, so we need to worship an infinite (what else could satisfy us...) God. Otherwise, we find the fullness of life in other things, which will control then our future experiences by own, unique way.

As the Prophet said: "The problem of leadership is inevitably: Who will play God?" (GEoD)

[Anathema]

No No... you are missing the POINT.... Edrico said it is impossible for God to prove the infinite pole to a HUMAN.  One of the reasons it is impossible (aside from our minds being inable to process infinite data) is that if the pole caused the universe to implode then nobody would be alive to understand what just happened.  He would present the infinitely long pole and then everyone would be dead and that wouldnt prove anything to any human.  A line is a better example... however since our minds cannot process infinte data then God could not prove it to us that way either. So there is no problem with Edrico's statement.

I wasn't criticising the point itself, but his analogy. God cannot be disproved, the infinitely long pole can (and the line too- of what would it consist? Anything made out of energy/matter with infinite proportions would gobble up the universe)

God can be infinite, because doctrine says he's not tied to natural laws. He can therefore not be disproved.

Poles and lines cannot be infinite because our universe doesn't allow it. Therefore, they can be disproved.

And for that matter, in theory God can prove he exist. He just can't prove his omnipotence beyond doubt. Though Edric said that anything wich can't prove his alleged omnipotence might well be a powerful alien, I chose to read "proof" as "proof beyond reasonable doubt"- because no proof is absolute proof. You cannot absolutely prove A is the father of B for example just because their genes match, as there's still a 0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (give or take) chance there's another individual walking aroudn with the same genome as A. However a genetic match is clearly proof far beyond reasonable doubt.

If a being can prove that he created the Earth, inspired the prophecies and can bend the laws of physics, would he not be God, despite the fact you never get to witness his full potential? You can even maintain that if Christians start to accept him as God, he is God because he is just that- the object of worship.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I If a being can prove that he created the Earth, inspired the prophecies and can bend the laws of physics, would he not be God, despite the fact you never get to witness his full potential? You can even maintain that if Christians start to accept him as God, he is God because he is just that- the object of worship.

Yes i would accept this statement.

[Caid Ivik]

If something would create the Earth but won't give a trace to being not only the creative force, but also the substance of creation itself, I would say we have to search further. That's why Hebrews left celestial gods, which all (from moon-god of Ur or egyptian Aton to the life force of Tiamat and Baal) lack something. As Anselm tried to show, a true term of God has to explain and prove itself by itself.

[GUNWOUNDS]

If something would create the Earth but won't give a trace to being not only the creative force, but also the substance of creation itself, I would say we have to search further. That's why Hebrews left celestial gods, which all (from moon-god of Ur or egyptian Aton to the life force of Tiamat and Baal) lack something. As Anselm tried to show, a true term of God has to explain and prove itself by itself.

His example didnt just include the creating the earth... he mentioned bending physics and inspiring the Biblical prophecies.  I understand where you are coming from but Anathema has a point.

Honestly tho i still think Wolf stated it best of how God would truly prove himself to us by merely stripping away any false sense of "choice"  Basically we would have to acknowledge him for who he is just by standing in His very presence.

[Dude_Doc]

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.

Well, if I understood it right, you point to the faction that "thanks everything that it exists". And sure, it could be some underlyin sence or responsibility to thank nature (today, for example, when people talk of environmeltal care), or the sun (the great ancient civilizations that prayed for to a central sun-god), or even the universe (Christendom, Islam, etc) that we exists.

But we must also know the reason for existance. Is it logical that "nothing" started it all, or that some intelligent higher force saw existance as greater, better than non-existant? How does "nothing" compare that? So, this is one of the hard reasons I believe in a higher intelligence - one that puts existance (at least our existance) before non-existence. But as I said before, religions holds some pointers and meaning, but they do not quite right set the stone for me.

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...

I won't try to start a fire-war with you, but this is exactly the kind of question that many times irritates me. To me, it's like people saying "of course there are other civilizations, people are soo stupid", or "of course there are higher dimensios, we're just stupid and ignorant to experience them".

But why is this? Why must there be higher dimensions? Why must there be aliens on other planets? Why must there be, like in your question, higher sences? Why not be proud to be human - I mean, to hear, to see, taste, feel and to smell, give me a reason for anything else? Isn't there five sences enough? On a planet with billions of spicies alone, we are one of three (monkeys and dolphins) to be self-aware, and to be (compared to other spicies) highly intelligent.

And besides, if there is other sences, maybe we will experience them in the future?

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.

There is a difference. The only thing that is needed is how to build the plane - i.e. a factory, the metals and so on. They just didn't know, or hadn't invented it yet. One can't blame us for being stupid (in the future) not to have invented a cure to cancer, AIDs or any other dicease earlier - simply because we just don't know. To have completely new sences is another matter - it is to change our DNA, to have a completely new lifestyle.

Interestingly enough, I've probably said it before among many others, but maybe humans CAN comprehend "the other"? I mean, one can't say that we can't because we don't know. We are prone to long stories, and long stories do have short conclusions - i.e., I can tell how Adam became a killer and shot Sandy and himself, or I can tell the conclusion: "in short, it depicts how Adam became a killer and shot this girl and himself". Well, unless the information requires deep knowledge of all aspects of everything, but then again, why would it need to have those aspects to understand one thing?

Someone who is born blind. Has no sense of sight. But still 'senses' the world in his way. He will hear better, feel better, experience life/etc completely different. People who have sight, rely more on that, then on touching, smell and hearing.

Exactly. We can not learn to see, therefore when this person first (somehow) sees, he or she must adapt to his or her environment.

Or does this mean those humans have a'sixt sense'. Therefor, 'experiencing' the world/life, different?

Heh, do people who have more luck have a sixth sence?

Never mind that. We must acknowledge that these people (if real/non-faking) once found out about their sence, so they were "upgraded". But the question still stands: do they experience life differently? They don't "know" anything more, they don't see or hear better. Scientists have put out theories that mental evolution is the next form of evolution - mind power, or whatever one might call it. Power to moove objects, to know what people are thinking, know where they have been without personally being there. These could be the early "signs" of such evolution.

Once again, one must take into consideration if these are gifted, or if all humans will experience the same thing one day.

[stefanhendriks]

A sixth sense is something you cannot know off, and cannot compare since you (and i) do not experience it. I don't say humans are 'upgraded' either. Its just i have the feeling, much more is going on on this planet, or in live in general, but we are 'blind' to see that.

People with a sixth sense often feel things we cannot feel. Or, we can feel, but we do not want to know about. Like, explain to me how twins have that very strong bound even when seperated. (even when they where seperated when just born, and meet years later...).

I am satisfied with what i have, i live in a good country. No wars near to me. I got a home, my house does not get flooded with water (yet). And although i am not always satisfied about everything going on here, i'd oftenly think about how lucky i am since there are many more people who simply do not have what i have.

Its not my point to irritate people with saying there is more, but its in my opinion an ignorance to say life is just that: The earth, a few stars, nothing more, nothing less.

This discussion can go forever, since we are entering the area "belief". And there you have it. I am not a believer in "God" but i do belief things. I can never pursuade you from my point of view, since you simply don't believe it. And thats not a bad thing, its your personal right.

I think its good to keep things small, because humans cannot 'understand' the enormous size of life itself (in space, time, dimensions). Hence, most humans understand 'life' how it is nowadays half anyway.

The topic was more about how God could prove his own existance. My opinion as stated before, he does not have to ;)

[Caid Ivik]

His example didnt just include the creating the earth... he mentioned bending physics and inspiring the Biblical prophecies.  I understand where you are coming from but Anathema has a point.

Honestly tho i still think Wolf stated it best of how God would truly prove himself to us by merely stripping away any false sense of "choice"  Basically we would have to acknowledge him for who he is just by standing in His very presence.

Bending and creating isn't the same. I can take source code of this forum and change it, but I won't be neither a creator nor I'd be going to improve it ;)  If we talk about God (or anything else) we must be exact in terms. Otherwise, we are only presenting subjective views, not discussing a matter. The main point of thread was that even such presentation would not be enough to persuade us. Sensual experience is doubtful; even rational one isn't that clear. True God must be able to convince us trough the mind. Like it was by Anselm or Kant.

[stefanhendriks]

Basicly; if God was able to create us, and thus we are part of him (or his work). There would be no doubt that He would be able to show us that He is the one. We cannot deny it then, we will just know ;)

[Caid Ivik]

Well, just don't say "part", but "participants"  ;)

[JesusSatan]

perhaps the problem is none of you have an accurate concept of what infinity means

example : let N be the collection of all positive whole numbers

clearly N contains infinitely many elements (since there are infinitely many positive whole numbers)

it can be shown that the number of elements in (cardinality of) N is the same as the cardinality of all whole numbers, is the same as the cardinality of all fractions,... etc

all these collections contain an infinite of elements

now consider the collection of numbers between 0 and 1, and they can be any numbers, for example 1/Pi is in the collection, because 1/Pi is between 0 and 1. this collection has strictly more elements than the collections discussed earlier (even though both are infinite). so we see there are different types of infinity.

now observe a result proved by euler in a less decadent age :

1/1^2 + 1/2^2 + 1/3^2 + 1/4^2 + 1/5^2 + .... = Pi^2/6

Said in plain english "The sum of all squared reciprocals is equal to Pi^2/6"

by the ... i mean etc, added on forever and ever. it turns out that although this series has infinitely many members, it has finite value, namely Pi^2/6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable [these were the collections or "sets" i discussed earlier, like the set of all whole numbers, we call "countably infinite"]

it can be shown that the interval i considered earlier, the collection of all numbers between 0 and 1, is uncountable, and we say "uncountably infinite"

[Caid Ivik]

How perfect you Leibniz, now read previous posts that infinity which we talk about is not the mathematical...

[JesusSatan]

How perfect you Leibniz, now read previous posts that infinity which we talk about is not the mathematical...

please reconstruct your sentence so it makes sense. thx

[Caid Ivik]

Should I reborn myself in UK to match your linguistical prerequisites? Point was that infinity of god (by most theologists which talked about it; ua Plotinos, Anselm, Eckhard, Cusanius etc) is more like borderlessness. It's a translation either of hebrew term ain soph or greek apeiron.

[SpiceGuid]

Could God prove the existence of God?

He doesn't need.

What you ask for is a way to convert everybody by brutal evidence, that is by brute force.

You are just ignoring what make us humans is we are free.

God has indeed many ways to prove his existence, their names are mainly pain and hope, faith and death. Any other way would be treated as what it is: an imposture.

Anyway imposters never claim they are God, they claim they are the son of God, or the returned son of God or someone else high enough to be emotionnally worshipped but not high enough to be logically dismissed.

And the history proves it makes no difference: if people believe you are the son of God then these people believe you also are God, even if you are a simple mortal!

Actually the tricks of God, the tricks of an imposter or the tricks of the girl you love are the same, none of them need evidences or magic.

[GUNWOUNDS]

He doesn't need.

What you ask for is a way to convert everybody by brutal evidence, that is by brute force.

You are just ignoring what make us humans is we are free.

God has indeed many ways to prove his existence, their names are mainly pain and hope, faith and death. Any other way would be treated as what it is: an imposture.

Anyway imposters never claim they are God, they claim they are the son of God, or the returned son of God or someone else high enough to be emotionnally worshipped but not high enough to be logically dismissed.

And the history proves it makes no difference: if people believe you are the son of God then these people believe you also are God, even if you are a simple mortal!

Actually the tricks of God, the tricks of an imposter or the tricks of the girl you love are the same, none of them need evidences or magic.

Not true... Pharoahs claimed to be God and were worshipped as such.  There was no logical dismissal.  Usually the substance of the person is eventually exposed and thats how fakes are discovered.  David Koresh in Waco, Texas claimed to be Jesus but he was obviously shot down when his behaviour was closely examined (he slept with 8 yr old girls).  And the US government came in and assassinated his butt.  People can claim to be all kinds of things... and they even claim to be God himself without being logically dismissed.  There is really no observable trend... except that the ones that are obvious fakes go down in flames pretty fast while someone like Jesus who people believe to be the genuine article leaves a legacy for + 2000 years.

[Acriku]

Not true... Pharoahs claimed to be God and were worshipped as such.  There was no logical dismissal.  Usually the substance of the person is eventually exposed and thats how fakes are discovered.  David Koresh in Waco, Texas claimed to be Jesus but he was obviously shot down when his behaviour was closely examined (he slept with 8 yr old girls).  And the US government came in and assassinated his butt.  People can claim to be all kinds of things... and they even claim to be God himself without being logically dismissed.  There is really no observable trend... except that the ones that are obvious fakes go down in flames pretty fast while someone like Jesus who people believe to be the genuine article leaves a legacy for + 2000 years.

It was not always glamorous for the Jesus story... it barely survived in the beginning, and needed nothing short of a few crusades to save it for longer. There were a couple times when it was nearly wiped out. At any rate, Hinduism has survived for more than twice as long as Christianity. Certain religions are just not as obviously fake.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, you can also see that hinduism of 21th century radically differs from ie its form in 10th century BC. Religions aren't "creatures" which may or may not "survive", it's a way of thinking. There can be only very few forgotten (to use the right term) religions.

[nemafakei]

"Certain religions are just not as obviously fake."

That and not as easily falsifiable...

[Caid Ivik]

I would rather like to hear some definition of "false religion"...