Stop bullshitting and go solve the equation, insane crank.

My point about ancient human societies being theistic is a general truth -- there were certainly individuals and perhaps ancient movements who sort of bucked this trend like Epicurus, but Roman society -- as ancient societies were generally -- were polytheistic except strange cults like Judaism who practiced monotheism. Jainism, btw, is not atheistic. Of course a diversity of thought exists though. Maybe we could find a few ancient societies constructed on atheism/a rejection of theism but those would be the exception.

The Charvaka were an Indian philosophical school which was strictly materialistic, atheistic, and antidogmatic.

So they insist on a strict materialism and reject of the divinity yet remain non-dogmatic :brow:

Stop bullshitting and go solve the equation, insane crank. — Lionino

I thought that you wanted me to help you find a new job?

I am quite good at networking but not that good. So, give me some more time to pull off the impossible.

By the way, does anybody want to hire him?

He's been looking for a new job for ages now but he keeps failing at the first interview.

Jainism, btw, is not atheistic — BitconnectCarlos

I would say they are atheistic but spiritual. Labels aside, this is how the World History Encyclopaedia puts it:

It is a nontheistic religion in that it does not advocate a belief in a creator god but in higher beings (devas), which are mortal, and in the concept of karma directing one's present life and future incarnations; the devas have no power over a person, however, and are not sought for guidance or assistance in freeing one's self from karmic bondage. In Jainism, it is up to each individual to attain salvation – defined as release from the cycle of rebirth and death (samsara) - by adhering to a strict spiritual and ethical code of behavior.

For the connection between Jainism and Buddhism, you may be interested in this article https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/History/World_History/Early_World_Civilizations_(Lumen)/06%3A_Early_Civilizations_in_the_Indian_Subcontinent/6.02%3A_Buddhism

Interesting. ChatGPT describes it as theistic yet agrees that Jainism does not believe in a creator god. Mesopotamian religion and other ancient polytheistic systems also didn't have creator gods -- there was the primordial realm out from all things came including the other minor gods (higher beings) who were still subject to karma/fate/cycle of rebirth/etc. Israelite religion was unique in that it broke from this conception but this conception is very ancient. It's the idea of a single creator god that is new, relatively speaking.

What makes you think gods comes from the outside? Are they not human creations, as fraught and manufactured as any ideology? — Tom Storm

If God isn’t other than us, then aren’t we already doomed, right? Why would we who create the world’s biggest problems along with false ideologies to build the factions that get to kill the unbelievers think we might make the world a better place, when today is always same as yesterday anyway? Some of us live a little longer today. More time maybe per life than 10,000 years ago. Otherwise just more time to find a faction to fight and kill and live and die for among the rubble.

The only hope, I see, is something else.

Doesn’t mean this world and each one of us isn’t worth saving. Just that we can’t do it alone. More like we won’t do it alone. We all think only some of us and some of the world is worth saving, and that shows none of us are capable of doing what it might take to save any of us, let alone all of us.

God is our last hope, and not if he or she is just one of us.

I guess I'm not as pessimistic as you seem to be. I don't think we are doomed, but who would know? I tend to think of 'last hopes' as wish fulfillment fantasies. In such situations, God becomes a kind of Marvel superhero who rescues us in the last 15 minutes of the story. These tropes - doom and saving - don't entirely resonate with me, but I understand their attractions, and of course, they've been a part of human storytelling for millennia.

I think you're right, I do presuppose a reason, and maybe that is just a bad habit. However if there is, in fact, an unknown reason, then we have a natural mystery that explains the phenomena we experience.

These tropes - doom and saving — Tom Storm

I’m not pessimistic. I just mean we will never end war, end murder, end lying, end hurting each other and ourselves. We will never build a utopia, never end poverty. There will always be self-absorbed people, there will always arise a tyrant, there will always be infidelity and betrayal.

But life on balance is good, and it’s worth trying to love and live, and teach and learn, and seek to be good, and be better.

Just being realistic. All of human history so far shows nothing changes.

What’s your trope, Tom?

, as mentioned, some (supposed) vague unknown isn't of particular concern here. By the way, are you sure you want to define your supposed deity/deities by these apologist arguments? There could be (unforeseen) implications.

As an aside, the modal logic comes up every now and then. ^{(e.g. 2021Jul7, 2021Jul5)} Possible worlds are, in short, self-consistent wholes. Necessities hold for all of them. Possibilities hold for (at least) one. Contingency and impossibility are derived from there, which rounds up the typical four subjunctive modalities. So, anyway, whatever necessity would be common to all possible worlds. Coffee doesn't figure in Euclidean space, R³, which is a self-consistent whole, hence coffee is not necessarily around. Well, it is a necessity to me, so this is offensive. ;) I'm not seeing "the Vedic Shiva, the Avestan Ahura Mazda, the Biblical Yahweh, and a few others", either.

It becomes difficult to see the point of a proof of God's existence when it is construed as a proof of an individual's existence. Does one use arguments to become acquainted with an individual? Either that individual exists or it doesn't, and experience alone can tell us which. The project of a proof of God's existence thus ironically comes to appear meaningless to contemporary philosophers of religion. — Theism and Atheism: Opposing Arguments In Philosophy (2019) by Joseph Koterski, Graham Oppy

I’m not pessimistic. I just mean we will never end war, end murder, end lying, end hurting each other and ourselves. We will never build a utopia, never end poverty. There will always be self-absorbed people, there will always arise a tyrant, there will always be infidelity and betrayal. — Fire Ologist

I wouldn't call this optimism. :wink: I don't think we can say 'never'. It's too definitive. But certainly it is unlikely. Who knows? The broader question is will we wipe ourselves out before we can get to some more beneficial way of being with each other? That's my trope.

I wouldn't call this optimism. :wink: — Tom Storm

Valid observation. I’m actually optimistic. Just not in our ability to truly care for one another on any kind of scale larger than the people we happen to like in our living rooms and backyards.

We care about those we naturally care about in a "visceral" way, but we can also learn to care for those we are not familiar with in an intellectual way.

we can — Janus

We certainly can. But too few of us do.

Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. 2000 year old quotes.

But too few of us do. — Fire Ologist

Yes, that is the problem. What if the ideology of modern consumerism has a lot to do with that? A change of paradigm might help.

I imagine there may be unknown factors in play that we may later come to know about. Will there always be more unknown factors to discover? It seems plausible to think that there will be, and in any case how could we ever know if we have discovered all the factors in play or not? Is there any reason to believe that nature should be 100% intelligible to us?

Israelite religion was unique in that it broke from this conception but this conception is very ancient. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, Zoroastrianism is just as old if not older and has its own monotheistic creator God.

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

Sure we can - it’s possible. It’s called a religious sect, or maybe a Church. Some ideas are stupid, and others ring true. Same for ideas of God. Same for all ideas.

It’s like you are looking for someone else to tell you where God is, before you will even look for God in the first place.

Even those who see God can’t tell you where God is, for you. Your own eyes alone see God. I can only tell you where God is, for me.

For instance, I can tell, God is in your life. I see it in your posts (some of them).

I wonder if there is some way of avoiding the dichotomy of traditional religious God vs the universe as pointless accident theory.

TBH, I think the universe simply coming into being pointlessly is the height of absurdity and would render reality fundamentally unintelligible. The only way a scientific cosmology could avoid that would be to accept a tenseless theory of time along with some sort of eternal universe.

I like Paul Davies idea that the only things that can possibly exist are things that explain themselves, some sort of self-contained intelligibility, so that the universe and the reason for its existence must be co-emerging or co-creating somehow. A constructivist metaphysics I lean towards would consider this viable.

I wonder if there is some way of avoiding the dichotomy of traditional religious God vs the universe as pointless accident theory. — Bodhy

Yes. My favourite, when it comes to explaining the universe is, 'I don't know'. Even if one takes the god hypothesis seriously, the problem with it is that god has no explanatory power. We have no why or how or who - it's just a claim, bereft of detail.

I think the universe simply coming into being pointlessly is the height of absurdity and would render reality fundamentally unintelligible. — Bodhy

If this leads you to gods then you're surely making a textbook fallacy - an argument from incredulity? As an aside, what makes you think reality is intelligible? Might it not be that humans merely construct a view (which we dub reality) based on contingent factors like perception, culture and linguist practices. Some ideas in this constructivist melange are more useful for certain purposes than others.

The only way a scientific cosmology could avoid that would be to accept a tenseless theory of time along with some sort of eternal universe. — Bodhy

I see no reason to rule out that the universe, or some part of it is eternal. I think some physicists (like Sean Carroll) have entertained this possibility. Can we demonstrate that it isn't?

This is why I prefer, 'I don't know.' And most likely neither does anyone else, even those qualified to make better guesses than anyone here.

I wonder if there is some way of avoiding the dichotomy of traditional religious God vs the universe as pointless accident theory.

I think the universe simply coming into being pointlessly is the height of absurdity and would render reality fundamentally unintelligible. — Bodhy

Once you've gotten past the silly, creaky "why is there something rather than nothing" question, the universe can't be an "accident." It's inevitable. As for pointless, why does the universe owe you intelligibility or a point. That's your job as a conscious entity - tacking on intelligibility, meaning, purpose, and point.

The only way a scientific cosmology could avoid that would be to accept a tenseless theory of time along with some sort of eternal universe. — Bodhy

By "tenseless" do you mean that there would be no direction to time? What does that have to do with intelligibility or purpose? As for an eternal universe, what's wrong with that? What else could it be? I think time is likely just another one of those things we tack on.

I like Paul Davies idea that the only things that can possibly exist are things that explain themselves, some sort of self-contained intelligibility, so that the universe and the reason for its existence must be co-emerging or co-creating somehow. — Bodhy

I think the universe explains itself by evolving consciousness to gussy itself all up with intelligibility and meaning.

My favourite, when it comes to explaining the universe is, 'I don't know'. — Tom Storm

I'm a fan of "Who cares."

I'm a fan of "Who cares." — T Clark

Yes, I sometimes pick that one too.

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

Can anyone prove the existence of their self? (I mean Descartes thought he did, but he only proved his self to his self. He didn’t prove Descartes existed to any of us.)

Can anyone prove the existence of the philosophy forum?

I don’t think existence is subject to proof. All of the philosophers who assert existence as a conclusion at the end of an argument are wrong, or they are really talking about what the essence of some existing thing is, rather than the existence of that thing.

Proofs are about what a thing is and what it is not, not whether a thing is or whether it is not.

The only proof for God’s existence (or the existence of any particular object) would come from one individual’s experience and would only serve as “proof” to that particular individual about the existence of some particular thing.

We don’t prove existence. We assert “if X exists…” and then make proofs concerning attributes about X. But X might not exist and can never be made into a proof.

Afaik,"God" is an empty name that "exists" only in the heads of religious believers (i.e. superstitious, magical thinkers).

"God" is an empty name that "exists" only in the heads — 180 Proof

Right. That’s your experience. You talk about essential features such as “name” and “empty” in reference to a “God” and the assert it exists in heads. That’s a common experience (or lack thereof).

My point is that if God is sitting anywhere, in a head occupying an empty placeholder space or on a throne in heaven, the existence of this God itself cannot be proven. We are only able to use proofs to prove WHAT a God is (such as an empty name), but you can’t prove the existence of this thing, be it a God or an emptiness in a head.

Proof is for drawing connections/relations between things that we otherwise assume or assert exist. Proof doesn’t come to a conclusion showing that one of these assumptions must exist absent its relation to anything.

I can prove if 2 is added with 2 you get 4. I can’t prove 2 exists. Or addition. Or 4.

"Existence of God" (false predication) =/= "God exists" (re: matter of fact). You equivocate those phrases and thereby confuse the issue, FO. Btw, "proof" pertains only to logic and mathematics, not to matters of fact which, however, can be shown to be the case or not to be the case. "God exists" can be shown not to be the case.

"Existence of God" (false predication) =/= "God exists" (re: matter of fact). — 180 Proof

We are actually agreeing here. The OP asks if anyone can “prove a god”.

”proof" pertains only to logic and mathematics, not to matters of fact, — 180 Proof

That’s my point. I took the OP to be asking for someone to argue (provide words) whose conclusion is “therefore God exists.” (More words).

Very little can be "proven" in the way mathematical theorems are proven: through deduction based only on axioms that are intuitively true. So neither the existence nor nonexistence of gods can be proven.

Questions that could instead be asked:
-Can you rationally justify your belief in god(s)?
-Can you show it to be more like than not that god(s) exist?
-Can you show that god(s) are the best explanation (among available options) for the uncontroversial facts of the world?

The converse questions to atheists (like me) are equally fair:
-Can you rationally justify your belief that gods don't exist?
-Can you show it to be more like than not that gods don't exist?
-Can you show that an absence of gods best explain the uncontroversial facts of the world?
(The questions could be reworded to apply to those who reserve judgement).

@Relativist

If God wanted to prove to anyone that he exists he could easily do that but he doesn’t and in this way he remains mysterious to his beings who are free to doubt, deny or affirm his existence.

Proof though is in the pudding, that is existence itself perhaps a manifestation of his being without taking the credit that it was him who created the world yet something inferred from believers who see the manifestation of a great intelligence at work vis-a-vis nature.

If evolution is blind and purposeless apart from the perpetuation of the organism through many generations than we could see that it’s not mere blind chance, there’s definitely an intelligence in action here not just by looking at the end product of what evolution is able to turn out. Abiogenesis which still largely confounds scientists has no logical explanation and certainly giving rise to complex organisms means we have barely scratched the surface when it comes to explanation.

It seems to me that this intelligence which is manifested in nature must be pre-existing and has been expressed through evolution reasons unknown.

There are bigger mysteries too. Something cannot come from nothing which implies that something has always existed ad infinitum in one form or another and whether this something through the aeons of time could produce a God is highly plausible.