I do believe in a God, but your point doesn’t hold so much weight because OF COURSE It doesn’t have solar system is unusual. Otherwise, we couldn’t have ended up here. Every solar system that has intelligent life has to be unusual, so what makes ours special?

Maybe it is special, but without these qualities it isn’t, so the same argument could be made of any solar system containing intelligent life.
It’s possible I explained this poorly, so this might be a bit confusing.

What question is not begged (is not fallaciously answered) by "a mystery"? None.

How is anything explained by or justified with "a mystery"? They are not.

If "god is the ultimate mystery", then a godly (i.e. inexplicable and unjustified) world is indistinguishable from a godless world (which is, after all, more parsimonious (begging fewer questions) than the "godly").

What was the traditional belief and actually your idea of ​​God? (that is, the belief that every person has had under the influence of the environment in which he was raised, before he encountered any wise thoughts about God)
Has this belief changed now? — Ali Hosein

I was brought up in the Baptist tradition. But I was never able to belive in gods, even as a child. You either believe or you don't. For me the idea of gods or 'a god' is incoherent - whether it's literalism or a more nebulous philosophical theism. Belief seems to me to be like sexual attraction, a preference you either have or don't. The arguments or justifications come post hoc.

Even if someone had the perfect proof it wouldn't change a thing. Why? Because many of the reasons or causes for believing or not believing in God have nothing to do with logic. Most of our beliefs are the result of culture, peer pressure, psychological predispositions, and a host of other reasons or causes. So, again, no proof, even if perfect would change a thing. Most people would still reject it. It's not a given that people would recognize good logic even if they saw it, and this is true even for people who have studied logic. Remember that most of the premises in an argument can be twisted this or that way. The arguments over the concepts alone can go on for years, and they have.

That said, I do think there are answers to some of these questions, but they raise other questions more difficult to answer.

If you believe we live in a simulation, or likely, what follows? God the simulator.

If you believe we live in a simulation, or likely, what follows? God the simulator. — Richard B

Not god necessarily. Here's what a currently limited AI thinks (ChatGPT)

The idea that we might be living in a simulation is a hypothesis explored in various philosophical, scientific, and popular culture contexts. If we consider the simulation hypothesis seriously, several speculative answers emerge regarding who might be behind it:

Advanced Civilization: One of the most popular ideas is that a highly advanced civilization, possibly our future descendants or an alien species, has created the simulation. This advanced civilization would have immense computational power and technological sophistication, allowing them to simulate entire universes.

Superintelligent AI: Another possibility is that a superintelligent artificial intelligence has created the simulation. This AI might have been developed by an advanced civilization or could have arisen independently. It could be running the simulation for purposes of research, entertainment, or some other reason beyond our understanding.

Post-Humanity: This idea suggests that future humans, who have reached a post-human stage of evolution and possess extraordinary technological capabilities, are running the simulation. They could be simulating past eras, including their own ancestors, to study historical events or for other purposes.

Extraterrestrial Beings: The simulation could be the work of an advanced extraterrestrial species. These beings might be curious about human behavior, evolution, or society, and are conducting a large-scale experiment by simulating our universe.

God or Deity: In a more theological or metaphysical context, some might equate the creator of the simulation to a god or deity. This aligns with certain religious and philosophical views where the universe is crafted by a higher power for reasons that might be unknowable to us.

Self-Simulating Universe: A more abstract idea is that the universe itself is a self-simulating entity. This concept suggests that the universe has the intrinsic capability to simulate itself through natural laws and processes, with no distinct external creator.

@Fire Ologist
@Igitur
@180 Proof
@Tom Storm
@Sam26@Richard B
@bert1
Thank you for your participation.
@Fire Ologist Your point of view is interesting, that instead of proving God, we should deal with the feeling of God, and I am not looking to prove God, but I am looking to clarify this issue and find or build my relationship (as a human being) with it.
In my opinion, the most important human problem is "God's problem".
Maybe this post didn't get a lot of feedback (although people's views on this matter are very important to me because I'm going through a mental transition) because I didn't answer his questions myself. Now I will answer it myself, maybe more people will contribute maybe the path is clarified a little.
First question: What was the traditional belief and actually your idea of ​​God?
My answer: God, in the traditional attitude and the personal and social conditions in which I was brought up, is an all-knowing and all-powerful being who is able to intervene in the affairs of his servants, and whenever I have prayed to him and he has answered, have mercy on me. He said, and if he did not answer, it was because of his wisdom. Although this God cannot be seen on earth, he is omnipotent on earth and does whatever he wants. And it seems to me that this unlimited knowledge and this unlimited power that I have imagined for God has formed in me in a negative way. Because wherever I have not been able to solve a problem, I have sought to attract his ability in my favor by praying.

Second question: Has this belief changed now?
My answer: My belief in God is changing, which means I want to change this traditional belief, which in my opinion is wrong and based on "self-will" rather than "pure truth", that's why I seek to understand people's attitudes.

FWIW, I'm a ... pandeist. Thus, my "god" (pandeus) is the encompassing absence concealed by "all gods".

My answer: God, in the traditional attitude and the personal and social conditions in which I was brought up, is an all-knowing and all-powerful being who is able to intervene in the affairs of his servants, and whenever I have prayed to him and he has answered, have mercy on me. He said, and if he did not answer, it was because of his wisdom. — Ali Hosein

I have no belief in a 'sky wizard' or 'magic man'. My thinking about gods hasn't changed much since I was around 8. The idea simply doesn't resonate in any form.

A more sophisticated theology as expressed by, say, Paul Tillich, David Bentley Hart or Richard Rohr are much more interesting to me, but I am still not a customer, just an interested bystander.

Of course, I have examined the arguments used to defend various accounts of gods - since they are impossible to avoid if you talk or read about this subject. I find none of the arguments especially compelling.

I want to change this traditional belief, which in my opinion is wrong and based on "self-will" rather than "pure truth", that's why I seek to understand people's attitudes. — Ali Hosein

The truths I recognise are contingent products of language and culture. I do not believe that humans can have certain knowledge (or capital T truth) of the universe or that there is a transcendent realm we can know. The quest to discover 'reality' as it really is, seems to have become a god substitute for many people. This is the one area where I have changed. I used to think that science would build us ultimate knowledge and that we would come to know everything.

Can anyone prove a god, I enjoy debates and wish to see the arguments posed in favour of the existence of a god. — CallMeDirac

To prove from what?

There is no context-free proof. A thing like that does not exist. You always need system-wide premises, i.e. an axiomatic theory that you first accept without proof.

If the next question is going to be, Yes, but how do you prove your system-wide premises? then we have landed in the middle of a pointless exercise in infinite regress.

In "Posterior Analytics", Aristotle already pointed out why you will eventually always have to accept unproven system-wide premises. After the 2500 years since Aristotle, this will obviously not stop infinite regressionists from engaging in their favorite exercise, i.e. infinite regression.

Kurt Gödel has proven the existence of a godlike entity from five axioms in higher-order modal logic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

It means that the belief in a godlike entity is equiconsistent with the belief in five axiomatic modal expressions.

The standard criticism on Gödel's proof is obvious and should be expected:

Most criticism of Gödel's proof is aimed at its axioms: as with any proof in any logical system, if the axioms the proof depends on are doubted, then the conclusions can be doubted. It is particularly applicable to Gödel's proof – because it rests on five axioms, some of which are considered questionable. A proof does not necessitate that the conclusion be correct, but rather that by accepting the axioms, the conclusion follows logically.

Every proof implies at best equiconsistency with the system-wide premises explicitly relied on in the proof. A proof can never mean more than that. There simply does not exist a proof that embodies more truth than that. That is simply not possible.

Still, Gödel's proof has the merit of raising the bar.

Instead of attacking the notion of Godlike entity, one must now first learn higher-order modal logic and attack the five axiomatic expressions in his proof. Atheist often seem to believe that they are smarter than religious people. Fine, in that case, show us your mettle and try to meaningfully attack Gödel's subtleties in higher-order modal logic.

Can anyone prove a god, — CallMeDirac

Whatever is real does not require faith and only a god can "prove a god".

Whatever is real does not require faith — 180 Proof

Numbers are not "real". They are abstractions. Their use ultimately requires faith in Peano's axioms. So, you can't do math without faith. In all practical terms, you can't do science or technology without at least some math.

Hence, you can't live as a human without faith. Can you live as an animal without faith? No, because animals also use if only very basic arithmetic for their survival.

only a god can "prove a god". — 180 Proof

Gödel has proved the existence of a Godlike entity from higher-order modal logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

Gödel wasn't a god.

In fact, proving the existence of something is much easier than proving the impossibility that it would exist. In the first case, you only need to locate a suitable entity, just like Gödel did. In the second case, you need to inspect all possible candidates and demonstrate that they are unsuitable. Hence, you need to be an omniscient being in order to prove that an omniscient entity does not exist. Hence, only God can prove atheism.

So, the correct statement is:

Only a god can disprove the existence of God.

That would obviously lead to an interesting contradiction.

Not god necessarily. Here's what a currently limited AI thinks (ChatGPT) — Tom Storm

I think “God” is a vague enough term that it fits pretty much all of these examples with the exception of the last. As for the last, well, all of our understanding of simulations is they are created by a simulator(s), but if one is attached to the idea that with infinite amount of time something like this will randomly happen, sure.

Numbers are not "real". They are abstractions. Their use ultimately requires faith in Peano's axioms. So, you can't do math without faith. — Tarskian

:roll:

By "faith" I mean worship of supernatural mysteries e.g. "a god" (re: OP), not mere (un/warranted) trust in a usage or practice. Context matters.

Gödel has proved the existence [of] a Godlike entity from higher-order modal logic.

"Godlike" (e.g. Spinoza's metaphysical Deus, sive natura) is not equivalent to any supernatural god (e.g. "God of Abraham") so this "proof" is theologically irrelevant. More specifically, his argument consists of some undecidable (i.e. disputable) formal axioms and, even if valid, it is not sound; therefore, nothing nonformal, or concrete, is "proven". Same failing as Anselm's ontological arguments – "Gödel's proof" is, at best, a "higher-order modal" tautology. Again, sir, context matters.

proving the existence of something is much easier than proving the impossibility that it would exist

Besides this equivocation (re: existence is not a predicate, etc) ... you find it more difficult "proving the impossibility" that "something" which (e.g.) both is itself and is not itself simultaneously "exists" – or, more simply, that (e.g.) "Godzilla exists" – than "proving a god" (not merely a tautologous "godlike entity") "exists"? :eyes:

There are a few arguments for God. Here's a layman's breakdown to read. https://18forty.org/articles/3-arguments-for-gods-existence/

If you want to go more in depth, pick one of the arguments and ask why it works/doesn't work. In general, none of the arguments for God have been proven as true, but thinking about them can give you a better idea of why.

:up: Piggy-backing on your suggestion, Philo, here's one of my old posts listing dozens of "god proofs" ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/653775

@CallMeDirac

By "faith" I mean worship of supernatural mysteries e.g. "a god" (re: OP), not mere (un/warranted) trust in a usage or practice. Context matters. — 180 Proof

Yes, so what's the difference?

"Godlike" (e.g. Spinoza's metaphysical Deus, sive natura) is not equivalent to any supernatural god (e.g. "God of Abraham") so this "proof" is theologically irrelevant. — 180 Proof

You did not prove this.

More specifically, his argument consists of some undecidable (i.e. disputable) formal axioms — 180 Proof

Axioms are not undecidable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem

In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is proved to be impossible to construct an algorithm that always leads to a correct yes-or-no answer.

The standard truth status of axioms is not characterized as undecidable.

even if valid, it is not sound — 180 Proof

This argument can be made about every mathematical theorem, simply by rejecting the axioms on which the theorem rests.

nothing nonformal, or concrete, is "proven". — 180 Proof

Proof only exists in mathematics, which is never about the physical universe. Therefore, it is impossible to prove anything "concrete". That is not how proof works.

Numbers are not "real". They are abstractions. Their use ultimately requires faith in Peano's axioms. So, you can't do math without faith. In all practical terms, you can't do science or technology without at least some math. — Tarskian

Is this an example of faith? We know numbers work and can demonstrate their efficacy on demand. No one can do this with gods. I wonder if this is an equivocation on the word faith? In mathematics, "faith" in axioms is more about agreement on foundational principles rather than belief without evidence. Faith in gods is the excuse people give for believing in something when they don't have a good reason. One can't demonstrate the existence of gods. But we have good reasons to believe in the existence of math. Whatever the nature of numbers - which may well be convenient fictions for talking about collections of objects or properties of objects, rather than having an independent existence.

:up: :up:

Yes, so what's the difference? — Tarskian

:roll:

Proof only exists in mathematics ...

So, confirming you do not even know what you are talking about, Gödel only proves a mathematical expression and not, as you've claimed, "that god exists".

So, confirming you do not even know what yoi are talking about, Gödel only proves a mathematical expression and not, as you've claimed, "that god exists". — 180 Proof

Every proof does only that. In that case, why ask for "proof", if proof can never be satisfactory?

Is this an example of faith? — Tom Storm

Accepting a truth without evidence is faith. Therefore, an axiom represents faith. If you are not willing to do that, then why do it in mathematics?

No one has asked for a "mathematical proof" – only you have offered one that amounts to nothing more than a "higher-order modal" tautology.

Accepting a truth without evidence ... — Tarskian

... is a stipulation, or working assumption.

Accepting a truth without evidence is faith. — Tarskian

That doesn't address my points. Equivocation. Have another look.

No one has asked for a "mathematical proof" — 180 Proof

There is no other "proof" than mathematical proof. The OP asks "Can anyone prove a god?"
Well, Gödel gave mathematical proof. And now suddenly, no one asked for it!

only you have offered one that amounts to nothing more than a "higher-order modal" tautology. — 180 Proof

Gödel's proof is no more tautological than any other mathematical proof.

In mathematics, "faith" in axioms is more about agreement on foundational principles rather than belief without evidence. — Tom Storm

Faith in axioms still requires belief without evidence. Religious people also agree on the foundational principles of their faith. What's the difference?

You ignore context and equivocate "exist", "faith", "proof" .... no wonder you're talking nonsense.

You ignoring context and equivocate "exist", "faith", "proof" .... no wonder you're talking nonsense. — 180 Proof

As soon as you switch to personal attacks, it means that you feel that you are losing the debate.

Faith in axioms still requires belief without evidence. Religious people also agree on the foundational principles of their faith. What's the difference? — Tarskian

The difference is it misses a key factor. Demonstration of effectiveness. We have good reasons to accept math and the axioms because we can demonstrate their effectiveness. Anyone can do this at any time.

We can't do the same with any gods. We can't even agree on which gods or why gods or how gods. As an axiom, god is like an empty vase in which believers arrange the flowers.

:up: :up:

Observations of your poor reasoning and discursive failures are not "personal attacks". Grow up, kid.

The difference is it misses a key factor. Demonstration of effectiveness. We have good reasons to accept math and the axioms because we can demonstrate their effectiveness. Anyone can do this at any time. — Tom Storm

Look at the size of the mathematical corpus:

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2014/08/computational-knowledge-and-the-future-of-pure-mathematics/

So how big is the historical corpus of mathematics? There’ve probably been about 3 million mathematical papers published altogether—or about 100 million pages, growing at a rate of about 2 million pages per year. And in all of these papers, perhaps 5 million distinct theorems have been formally stated.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of these 5 million theorems are useless and irrelevant. In what way would they be effective?

We can't even agree on which gods or why gods or how gods. — Tom Storm

There are alternative religions, just like there are alternative foundations for math. Two billion people agree on Christianity. Two billion on Islam. A similarly large number on Buddhism. There are obscure religions with a small number of followers, just like there are obscure math theories.

Furthermore, religion can be very effective. It can successfully prevent governments from overruling the laws of nature. It can also be effective at motivating individuals and stimulate their survival instinct. It can motivate individuals to maintain faith in life and in the future and keep reproducing from generation to generation. The birth rate for atheists may be crashing and burning, but religious communities keep going strong.