I can prove the existance of God. Right now.

Why people still use Quantum Mechanics in arguments is beyond me. It's been disproven by pretty much every new energy related discovery made. You can't keep having an ever increasing list of "exceptions" without it being wrong.

 

Quantum mechanics has been disproved by what?

 

If you can read this now - there must be God...

Period!

God is 'the way things are' - not the men with long white beard. We, in our culture use term 'God' for 'the way things are'...

More things go out of our control the more in God we believe...

So God fearing people do remember there always is 'the way things are' - otherwise we would be Gods ourselves...

Does that prove anything?

 

Define God, and then I'll answer.

 

If god be real then he must have a practical nature. What function does god fill? Provider God. Protector God. Good God. My God is good, I want my good.
My good is God. There is no time when I do not want my Good. My God then is my aspiration at any given moment. Closer than our hand, nearer than our heart.

 

No. It's that mindless shit doesn't prove that there is a god. It is a whole lot more complex than that on scientific and theoretical standards.

 

Theologians and mystics from several religious traditions agree that God is ineffable, thereby defying precise definition. But I'll take a stab. I'm easy. I'll settle for the God of theism, deism, pantheism, and panentheism. I lean toward the latter, refined by process theology, based on my personal experience, but I'm open to alternative definitions. I experience God as a dynamic immanent and transcendant intelligent presence "in Whom we live and move and have our being"(to paraphrase Saint Paul). See Clayton and Peacock's In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World. God is SBOT (Something Big Out There) and GUM (God of Ultimate Meaning, aka Higher Power, Ground of Being, or Sum of Human Idealism).

 

It's all too subjective to have any existence beyond the belief itself.

If it can't be measured, it's not Real.

The belief itself is Real, but it does not follow that the thing believed in has Real existence.

 

Sounds like logical positivism. I thought that went out in the 50s. I guess the short answer is, I totally disagree. Most of the things I find meaningful in life can't be measured meaningfully: liberty, justice, democracy, etc. Feeble attempts have been made to operationalize them, but the results fall far short of the ideals that people are willing to live and die for. I agree with you that there is a high level of subjectivity where such beliefs are concerned, and therefore we can't really be completely confident that we are right about them. That's the case with every candidate I ever voted for in an election, but I continue to vote and think it's meaningful to do so, because I trust my judgment in making general political assessments, even though the candidate's performance usually contains many surprises and disappointments when it comes to particulars.

 

I would just observe that regardless of the apparent reasonableness of any claim, all the speculation and acts of attrition devoted to the subject are real exchanges of energy. They seem to be feeble exchanges do to the ambivalent or undecided nature of the image. Nothing to clearly focus upon, as our beliefs on the subject are perpetually modified.

 

Yeah, I think I'd agree with that. In an earlier post somewhere, I noted the paradox that, on the one hand, God is the central organizing concept of my belief-value system and the object of considerable emotion, but on the other hand, I agree with Geckopelli that my concept of God is vague. Although I think God is an interesting explanatory hypothesis for various phenomena I've addressed in earlier posts, I don't have a strong need to resolve the issue whether God exists as an independent entity, or whether (S)he is mainly a useful construct. To make a crude analogy (no blaspehemy intended) when I'm having sex with a significant other, it spoils the mood to consider whether or not (s)he exists. I act "as if". And I think it's one of the fascinating aspects of "the ambivalent or undecided nature' of God that "our beliefs on the subject are perpetually modified." Freud noted the paradox that he was advocating atheism on the basis of rationality, while his whole contribution to human psychology was to show how human actions are guided by unconscious, non-rational needs and drives. I try to be as rational as I can, while also being aware that complete rationality is impossible and denial of non-rational needs and longings might be unhealthy.

 

I believe that those things you point to as undefinable- justice, etc.- will be successfully treated mathematically, albeit statisticaly, eventually, and that Mathmatical Psychology stands in the future. That includes the human propensity toward "spirituality", but not the object (system?) of belief.

As far as not knowing what's coming with your canidate, I have to resort to Theoretical Physics and say, the Uncertainty inherent in a comlexed system (and the BS we get fed at election time is one hell of a complexed system!) makes that unavoidable.

 

I actually think that all words are definable and that mathematical psychology already exists. The reason words appear to be so inadequate to many occasions is because the meanings and purposes of language have been confused and misconstrued.

 

Just think of this....how do you think that everything you see and feel in the physical plane came to be? Someone had to have created it, right? It just didn't appear out of thin air. Our existence is someone's well thought-out plan or maybe it's just a dream.

 

God can't be proved through science because s/he would have to be predictable and follow laws, but God makes the rules s/he doesn't follow them.

 

God is the rule and the rule can be observed.

 

Well we kind of are "gods". Think about it. A man and a woman. 2 people. Now if the man shoots some of "himself" into the woman, then "his being" in "her being" will "create" another being, as many times as possible, me and you would not even be here if it wasn't for our ancestors individually "Creating us"...

I think it's foolish that everytime we as a people don't understand something we brush it off by saying "God", every Xfactor we encounter, it must be "GOD"!!!!!

 

I have no problem with the basic god concept, but once one starts assigning attributes to god in order to fill in the blanks-- well, that's string theory. Supreme Rationalizations.

Or worse, assumng that god can hear prayers, much less that it is willing to alter all existence at my-- or your-- request, is an act of conciet beyond redemption.

I contend that the existence of a supreme being is of no consequence; it's a difference that makes no difference. the definition of non-existence.

 

My problem with it is that it makes essential being meaningless.

 

Granted, it devalues individualism.

But we may well be below any god's evolutionary goal; perhaps individualism is just a step along the road to ---???

Consider that as one climbs the scale of evolutionary development, a propensity for Social Conciousness emerges. Perhaps one planet-one counciousness lies somewhere in the future.

I just can't bring myself to believe, without empirical evidence, that, in all the immensity of Existence, there is a Universial custodial being that has time to bother with a single individual.