Read the discourse on the method part 4 by René Descartes. He explains how he proved the existance of a greater being, whom he calls God. — René Descartes

Yes, I actually think the ontological argument for God's existence is the most powerful argument, but it must be properly understood. Kant's famous critique of the ontological argument is that "being is not a property", so I do not add anything to a notion by saying that it exists. Kant gives the notion of 100 thalers, and says that nothing is added to the notion if we say it exists. Existence adds no difference between the concept and its object.

So this strikes at one of the core issues of philosophy, which is the relation between Thought and Being. From the very beginning, philosophy aimed to close the gap between thought and being - that's what thought, in its endeavour of doing philosophy, aims to do - it aims to coincide with being. But one must notice here that it is precisely this gap between thought and being that is the mark of finitude. So this gap may hold for finite objects like 100 thalers. The thought of 100 thalers isn't the same as the being of 100 thalers, because the object is finite. But obviously, this gap between the thought and the object cannot hold for an infinite being, which is the subject of the ontological argument. As Hegel illustrated, the infinite being must be both Subject and Substance, both thought and object.

We do not know whether there are infinitely many twin primes. We can imagine the set of twin primes to be infinite. But if the set turns out to be finite, then we will have been imagining something infinite that does not exist. The gap between thought and object seems to hold for infinite beings just as much as finite ones, no?

Precisely nothing, actually. That is also the answer to the question of time. There was no time before time, and yet there was infinite time before time. I conclude this discussion with the reasoning that we humans, in our current knowledge, don't know enough to make a concrete, science-based conclusion on the existence or nonexistance of a God. The basis of religion (including atheism) is belief.

Unless we lose humanity and become a hyperdimensional being, we cannot prove or disprove a God.

we humans, in our current knowledge, don't know enough to make a concrete, science-based conclusion on the existence or nonexistance of a God. — Starthrower

Doubtful we ever will if God is defined as supernatural.

Unless we lose humanity and become a hyperdimensional being, we cannot prove or disprove a God. — Starthrower

But you can prove that we can't prove or disprove his existence? To disprove something one must have knowledge of that thing, no? Do you, then, have knowledge of God?

The issue isn't whether god exists or not. There are many variations of theism, many variations of atheism, and everything in between. Each of these perspectives can be matched with a certain scientific perspective, because science is itself a worldview( actually a large , constantly evolving spectrum of world views). And each of these perspectives provides a useful, pragmatic guide to understanding the social, psychological and ethical dimensions of life. The question is, what does one gain and what does one lose in the struggle to make sense of a world of other people, in choosing among these perspectives.
I choose my form of atheism not because I think theism is untrue( it is true for its adherents in the extent that it provides a practical guide for living ) , but because I think my atheist perspective achieves everything a theistic one does in explaining human behavior and ethical issues,and it also explains much that theistic frameworks cannot.

It doesn't make sense. The Universe ALWAYS existed. There was no creation time, or big bang for that matter. Our human brain needs to attribute "beginning" and "end" to everything, thus all the absurd theories. The Universe is infinite.

[Delete] @Baden

You prove it's not...

god does make sense, if he is alone. Adding billions of separated souls to a being who is omnipresent is illogical. An omnipresent entity leaves no room for individuals, or fragmentation of any kind, because multiple beings can’t occupy the same space and remain separate. If god were everywhere there could be no one else in a distinct location, because it would void gods omnipresence. So creation of the earthly variety would require god to split or shrink himself, and discard his omnipresence. Otherwise a limited identity could never take hold. This all assumes god is by definition omnipresent, but what god worth his salt isn’t.

Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why? — Starthrower

Yes, there's nothing apriori to suggest that all forms of being are necessarily time-and-space bound, and we already have examples of possible things that might not be (like numbers, qualia, etc.)

IOW, we usually construe "existence" as necessarily tied up with time and space - as taking up both. In fact we can't even conceive of a form of existence outside those conditions. But that doesn't mean there's no such thing. It's logically possible that time-and-space-bound existence is just one form of existence and that other forms have different parameters.

One way of looking at it is this: time and space are tied up with things existing together, being relative to each other, comparable to each other. IOW, time and space seem to be intimately connected to a world of duality, a world with separate things, that define their existence relative to each other. It may be the case though, that something that's truly alone, that has no other with which to compare it to, is outside of being compared with other things in time and space in that sense. There are also arguments for why this "thing" would have to be single, simple, etc. (i.e. if there is such a thing, then it automatically shoots up to the ranks of being God).

The long and the short of it is that we don't really know, and arguments can be made for both sides, and both points of view make sense in their own way.

Asking if God makes sense - is inevitable

What I believe is empirically true is man has an ingrained curiosity or drive to search for a meaning for his existence. And this drive almost inevitably leads to an evaluation of theism.

Why are we pushing the rock up the hill?

We can’t answer the question as a matter of fact. It would be easy, but I am not sure in any real sense better, If God appeared on the evening news, parted the Atlantic ocean and made the sun rise in the west – and told us to believe, or else suffer an eternity in hell. Is that a world of saints, or a world of sheep?

It would be equally easy if science unequivocally established as a matter of fact how the universe (meaning all we know of what exists or might exist) came into existence. Would we still search for meaning ? Would there be another hole that a being like a God could fill ? Or would that void need to be filled in outer ways ? Materialism, hedonism, acceptance, humanism ??

But neither of those options are available to us right now. So we find things we believe to be true and we act on those beliefs accordingly - to give us reason to push the rock up one more time.

However, we are reasoned beings, and we don’t want to be fools. We want what we believe to true stand the test of fact and reason. So we think. We find or develop reasoned arguments that test our beliefs. And that is where we are.

It is a fact, that man searches for meaning
It is not a fact that God is, or is not.
It is reasonable to believe God is, or is not
By faith one can believe and act accordingly to be theist or atheist.

To make "sense"to me means understanding that the concept is rational, logical, and reasonable. In my (our??) world, the Western World, and from the perspective of a scientist, the concept of god does not make "sense" . The existence of a god is a profound phenomenon which requires profound evidence, so far for which has not ever been presented.

A great being or something creating everything else yes. How the bible says god made the world with crayons as though it was a coloring book sounds like nonesense. There might be other species outside our solor systems and universes. Its thought big bang created something out of nothingness and it changed.

I agree that the bible god is nonsense, but then shouldnt any other god? The bible god is just one of perhaps hundreds in human history. Can you explain why it makes sense that a "great being" or creator should make sense?

If there are other species outside our solar system, that is not evidence of a god.

To make "sense"to me means understanding that the concept is rational, logical, and reasonable. In my (our??) world, the Western World, and from the perspective of a scientist, the concept of god does not make "sense" . The existence of a god is a profound phenomenon which requires profound evidence, so far for which has not ever been presented. — Life101

Just don't think that is true. There are many who would rightly call themselves scientists who are theists. Even one or two philosophers.

Beware of a scientist who believes there is a god. I didnt take a gallup poll but most probably do not believe. Unless you include charatans like deepok chopra a scientist. Some would say Einstein was a believer, which is not true. Etc etc.

true scientists believe n the scientific method. And reasoning by observation or inference/experimentation.

oops, no edit function as I wanted to add- the scientific method can not of course, prove that a god does not exist. But it s the gold standard of proving what does. Again , as i said, extraordinary clams need extraordinary evidence. Show me the evidence.

Some would say Einstein was a believer, which is not true. — Life101

Walter Isaacson’s biography, Einstein’s Universe, has a chapter devoted to the topic of Einstein’s God. It shows prettty conclusively that Einstein was no atheist. He certainly didn’t believe in organised or congregational religion, but there is a well-known quote which says:

I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written these books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.

Also

You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

Show me the evidence. — Life101

A believer would answer that the Universe IS the evidence.

An omnipresent entity leaves no room for individuals, or fragmentation of any kind, because multiple beings can’t occupy the same space and remain separate. — ShowOfForce

Why? This is not true even about ordinary things - why should this be true about a hypothetical supernatural thing?

Further to the above - there’s a very good WIkipedia article on Einstein’s religious views. Overall, I don’t agree with everything he says about the matter, but I admire his sense of ‘cosmic ethics’. I rather think the ‘personal God’ that he rejects is rather a Santa Claus figure, but it’s certainly true that this is how ‘God’ occurs to many believers, and insofar as that is the case, then I reject such a belief as firmly as does he. But - that’s not all there is to it.

People,

I agree that the question of Einstein's belief can be interpreted as yes/no. We can go on and on on this like many other threads on this forum. In short, all I wish to say about it is he could not explain all in the universe (the link between relativity and quantum mechanics among other endeavors), so like many of us, when there s no explanation we easily submit- there MUST be a god.

Moving on, and away from that to my man point, Make a claim, supply the evidence. There have been now a few posts back/forth, which I . very much appreciate, but so far, as I expected, no evidence had been supplied for this preposterous claim that there s such thing as a god, a "celestial being", some would say creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

Again, show me the evidence, not articles from a quick google search on wiki.

sorry, I misspelled a few words above, but cant seem to find the edt function. Any help appreciated. I am still learning about this site as a new member.........

Wayfarer,

You say "a believer would answer that the Universe IS the answer". Is that really adequate for you? That because one can not explain the universe entirely, (as Darwin explained life for Biology/evolution) that we should simply submit by deferring to a god for the answer?

That approach is dark age Europe-esque. Because there was no better understanding, no better science, in a society rampant with illiteracy, ignorance, and despotism we submit it has to be god's work.

show me the evidence, not articles from a quick google search on wiki. — Life101

I read Isaacson's book on Einstein, and I recommend it.

You say "a believer would answer that the Universe IS the answer". Is that really adequate for you? — Life101

I didn't say it was adequate for me. It's a philosophical discussion.

But, for argument's sake, let's say I did believe that. Say I'm a believer and am perfectly familiar and comfortable with Darwinian evolution, as I'm not a fundamentalist creationist. But as it is, I then say 'nothing would have existed in the first place, without the original act of creation, and if nothing existed, then sure as hell life couldn't get started'. And science doesn't really have an answer to that. Why the universe exists, 'why there is something rather than nothing', is not necessarily a scientific question at all. It might be, or it might not be. So asserting that 'belief in religion is a medieval superstition', is simply an expression of prejudice, it is not any form of reasoned argument, nor does it communicate a grasp of the issue. Sure, there are ignorant religious fundamentalists, but there are also ignorant scientific materialists.

no evidence had been supplied — Life101

What kind of evidence would you consider? What kind of evidence would you expect of a 'supernatural cause of existence'?

One of the problems with answering this question, using science, is the connected to the philosophy of science. As an example, say I had a dream. I relate my dream details to a group of scientists. My account would never be accepted as fact, even if I am honest and accurate, since my dream violates the philosophy of science. There is no way to verify my claims, nor is there any way for others to reproduce my dream, for verification. Yet, paradoxically, we have all had dreams and can understand that my claims are not out of the realm of possibility. However, it violates the philosophy.

There is a wide range of brain/mind data that is real and even common, but is not consistent with the philosophy of science. This type of data is connected to what is called soft science. The philosophy of science was designed to help segregate physical sensory based reality; verifiable, from internal psychological reality, which is also real. The former is assumed to be objective; verifiable, while the latter is assumed to be subjective; not easily verifiable.

Say God, was a physics dark energy affect; hypothetically, that requires the brain work as a delicate receiver. The input signal triggers output, in the brain, such as a dream or vision. This type of data; dream and visions, which are not uncommon, violates the philosophy of science, since it is not verifiable or repeatable. Instead, science would prefer God be defined as someone who is tangible, so we can use mechanical instruments to determine if God is a repeatable observation. However, this may not be how you observe this affect so it is never seen that way.

If you look in the bible, for example, many affects that are claimed to be connected to God are based on visions and dreams. These type of output affects are connected to a special analytical tool called the brain. However, the human brain does not network with other brains in a way that is consistent with the philosophy of science. It is not the same as computers and telescopes. We do not have the tools to get a direct feed between brains for verification.

The human mind is the final frontier of science. We first needed to isolate external reality, so we have a firm foundation. Internal reality will come last, as knowledge of the outside isolates the inside. The philosophy of science, would then need to be updated, to deal with the unique experiences of the mind that are based on common human experiences; dreams and visions.

One of the problems with answering this question, using science, is the connected to the philosophy of science. As an example, say I had a dream. I relate my dream details to a group of scientists. My account would never be accepted as fact, even if I am honest and accurate, since my dream violates the philosophy of science. There is no way to verify my claims, nor is there any way for others to reproduce my dream, for verification. Yet, paradoxically, we have all had dreams and can understand that my claims are not out of the realm of possibility. However, it violates the philosophy. — wellwisher

That is factually incorrect. Dreams are a subject for science - and I don't just mean "objective" measures like REM observations, brain imaging, etc. - dream reports are in fact used in psychology and cognitive science. Similarly, religious scriptures and other historical documents of dubious factual value are used by historians. You just need to know how to work with your source material.

Changing it a little, would it be a good or a bad thing if God did reveal Himself so as to remove all doubt.

He breaks in every TV station in the world, parts the Atlantic Ocean, starts the world spinning the other way, you name it. There is no longer any reasonable doubt, God is fact.

He signs off by saying, you all need to love one another, stop hurting each other, share all this stuff I gave you, and if you do - paradise to level you can't understand awaits you.

Do we now have a world of saints, or sheep?

This is not true even about ordinary things — SophistiCat

And why would an ordinary thing be similar to an invisible consciousness.

That's what I said, no? I don't really know what sort of an entity an omnipresent consciousness would be - but that's all the more reason for doubting pronouncements about it being possible or impossible for such an entity to be collocated with other entities.