How to prove God exists.

[Michael]

Theists claim that a god exists, I don't believe them because they have not met their burden of proof.

In my experience, it's typically that theists don't meet *your personal* burden of proof, not their own standards.

 

[Michael]

I think Michael would have big problems squaring his position with the Nicene Creed. His theology is as off the wall as his physics.

My physics actually works in the lab, and I don't personally find it difficult to square my position with the Nicene Creed.

 

[Skreeper]

In my experience, it's typically that theists don't meet *your personal* burden of proof, not their own standards.

If they want me to believe it, they have to meet my standard. And that shouldn't be so hard as they make it out to be.

 

[Michael]

No I am not, metaphysical naturalism implies atheism, or at the very least deism.

You really should read up on Panentheism.

 

[Michael]

If they want me to believe it, they have to meet my standard. And that shouldn't be so hard as they make it out to be.

In my experience, it's only "hard" because atheists tend to deviate from a purely "scientific" standard of evidence as it relates to the topic of God. They attempt to impose a purely empirical cause/effect laboratory standard of evidence as it relates to the topic of God, but not to anything else in the universe.

 

[Skreeper]

In my experience, it's only "hard" because atheists tend to deviate from a purely "scientific" standard of evidence as it relates to the topic of God. They attempt to impose a purely empirical cause/effect laboratory standard of evidence as it relates to the topic of God, but not to anything else in the universe.

That's why I think it is more productive if people actually present what they think is evidence so others can respond why they don't accept it.

 

[Freodin]

In my experience, it's only "hard" because atheists tend to deviate from a purely "scientific" standard of evidence as it relates to the topic of God. They attempt to impose a purely empirical cause/effect laboratory standard of evidence as it relates to the topic of God, but not to anything else in the universe.

But that is what you do, isn't it?

Here you are, claiming that "[your] physics actually works in the lab", using "purely empirical cause/effect laboratory standards", I guess.

But you are quite willing to ignore this for your philosophical claims.

Or have you managed to produce "awareness" in the lab?

 

[Michael]

Exactly. Nothing could convince an atheist, because for them it is axiomatic that, come what may, there must always be a naturalistic explanation.

Wouldn't a naturalistic explanation of God do the trick?

 

[Michael]

But that is what you do, isn't it?

Not me. I'm not assigning any supernatural properties to the universe. Even "awareness", whatever it might be, shows up on Earth in a myriad of different forms.

Here you are, claiming that "[your] physics actually works in the lab", using "purely empirical cause/effect laboratory standards", I guess.

Cause/effect standards of evidence in fact.

But you are quite willing to ignore this for your philosophical claims.

How? I'm not assigning supernatural properties to the universe to start with. All the "properties" I've ascribed to the universe show up in real labs on Earth.

Or have you managed to produce "awareness" in the lab?

That would be the *observer* that shows up in the lab and makes the 'observation' possible.

 

[Michael]

That's why I think it is more productive if people actually present what they think is evidence so others can respond why they don't accept it.

Maybe we better start defining the term "evidence" before we start discussing cosmology theories.

Atheists, scientific evidence, God, cause/effect demonstrations, and theoretical physics.

 

[Skreeper]

Maybe we better start defining the term "evidence" before we start discussing cosmology theories.

Atheists, scientific evidence, God, cause/effect demonstrations, and theoretical physics.

I would prefer if we could skip that step. Present an argument or evidence and I can respond to that.
I doubt the people 2000 years ago had to have detailed discussions about the nature of evidence and theoretical physics to prove their god is real.

 

[Michael]

I would prefer if we could skip that step. Present an argument or evidence and I can respond to that.
I doubt the people 2000 years ago had to have detailed discussions about the nature of evidence and theoretical physics to prove their god is real.

An Empirical Theory Of God
An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

 

[Skreeper]

An Empirical Theory Of God
An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

Can you summarize it or explain it a little bit for people who have no understanding of plasma atmospheres, ionic plasma or electric discharge theory? Is an understanding of such complicated scientific subjects necessary to prove a god exists?

Excuse my ignorance in these sciences but usually I'm confronted with the kalam or "just look at the trees" or "I don't understand evolution therefore god".

 

[Michael]

Can you summarize it or explain it a little bit for people who have no understanding of plasma atmospheres, ionic plasma or electric discharge theory? Is an understanding of such complicated scientific subjects necessary to prove a god exists?

Excuse my ignorance in these sciences but usually I'm confronted with the kalam or "just look at the trees" or "I don't understand evolution therefore god".

You might look up Panentheism. It's basically a *cosmology* theory which suggests that the whole universe is a living being. Essentially everything around you is a part of a living entity called "God".

You don't need to know much about physics to know that the universe exists, but you may need to know something about those subjects if you expect me to provide you with "evidence' that one cosmology theory is better than another.

 

[Skreeper]

You might look up Panentheism. It's basically a *cosmology* theory which suggests that the whole universe is a living being. Essentially everything around you is a part of a living entity called "God".

You don't need to know much about physics to know that the universe exists, but you may need to know something about those subjects if you expect me to provide you with "evidence' that one cosmology theory is better than another.

Your faith status says Christian. So are you a panentheist who also thinks the bible is the divinely inspired word of god?

 

[Michael]

Your faith status says Christian. So are you a panentheist who also thinks the bible is the divinely inspired word of god?

I would tend to agree with the Gospel of John that the Living Word Of God is Jesus Christ, not an inanimate object. I have no problem embracing my love of Christ and also embracing Panentheism.

 

[KCfromNC]

A deistic god, who creates a universe and then walks away from it, taking no further interest in it, might just as well not exist.

So? It is still a type of god.

 

[lesliedellow]

Wouldn't a naturalistic explanation of God do the trick?

There is no such thing. God transcends creation.

 

[Michael]

There is no such thing. God transcends creation.

If by transcend, you mean "more than", perhaps so. Even still, a preference for naturalism does not automatically lead to atheism.

 

[lesliedellow]

You really should read up on Panentheism.

The Eastern Orthodox version of panenthism reduces to the doctrine that God maintains the universe in being. Nothing particularly controversial there, but also nothing to turn God into a testable hypothesis.