Proof of a Higher Power

[MisterMike]

Well, that's pretty arrogant to claim, considering that it's a lie.

A lie? I thought it was faith?

 

[kenpo tiger]

Well, that's pretty arrogant to claim, considering that it's a lie. I know plenty of people, myself included, who don't know existence to be God's creation.

As for providing a proof of God, or any other higher power (I'm surprised by how many posts here speak of the Christian God as the only proposed supernatural deity), I agree that it cannot be done, and any understanding of any God-concept is a matter of faith. However, I will dissent by refusing to say that, therefore, faith in the Lord is superior to proof and reason.

How do you know that existence is or isn't G-d's creation? Because you have faith that we came into being one way or the other -- two different types of faith, but faith in the unknowable nonetheless.

Do you get on airplanes to fly? Do you know - for sure - exactly how it works? Or that it won't fall spontaneously out of the sky? It's an act of faith because most of us do not understand the engineering or physics involved. We see proof in that there are hundreds of flights every day and people get off airplanes to go about their business. Very matter of fact, considering.

One suspends certain 'logic' in order to believe the unknowable. You choose how you interpret it - i.e., your religious beliefs in the case of believing in an omniscient, omnipotent being as the source of all life.

Jews believe that G-d exists in us all and does not have another (human) form. That's why there are no images of a deity in our synagogues. That's also why we believe that one doesn't have to pray in a synagogue for G-d to hear.

 

[bignick]

Do you get on airplanes to fly? Do you know - for sure - exactly how it works?

yep

 

[Mark Weiser]

Okay the question I have about airplanes is this

Which end does the gas go in and do you get a free oil change with every other fill up? lol

 

[bignick]

i'd like to explain my last comment...i wasn't trying to be smart-mouth...kenpo tiger asked what i'm assuming was supposed to be a rhetorical question...the problem is that it's not really a good one because we're dealing with things here that have little to no scientific proof and are hard to discuss without getting emotionally/personally involved because our beliefs are important to us. How an airplane flies is based on sound science and can be easily explained and proven. There are probably quite a few people on this board that know at least the basic theory behind it (Bernoulli's Principle)

I just chose to go about explaining myself in my usual smart-mouth way

 

[RandomPhantom700]

A lie? I thought it was faith?

The claim that everyone really knows that all existence is God's creation is the lie. Not everyone knows that; it's arguable that nobody knows, depending on what meaning you're applying to the word.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

How do you know that existence is or isn't G-d's creation?

I don't know that existence is or isn't God's creation, never said that I did.

Because you have faith that we came into being one way or the other -- two different types of faith, but faith in the unknowable nonetheless.

Thank you for your presumption about my beliefs. Consequently, how is saying "I don't know how we came about" an act of faith?

Do you get on airplanes to fly?

Nah, I get on them to swim.

Do you know - for sure - exactly how it works? Or that it won't fall spontaneously out of the sky?

Nope, that's what they have pilots and engineers for.

It's an act of faith because most of us do not understand the engineering or physics involved. We see proof in that there are hundreds of flights every day and people get off airplanes to go about their business. Very matter of fact, considering.

I don't think that such things are a matter of faith, and I'll tell you why. If I decided to do so, I could read up on aerodynamics, study the construct of the airplane, and, after quite some time and study, establish for a fact that an airplane that fits these specifications will be able to fly. Besides, it was, after all, a human who designed such things as airplanes, so the concepts are not beyond true knowledge. Such things are not a matter of faith because, should one desire to, one could study and understand objectively how an airplane works. The same cannot be said for the existence of God; all arguments for (and I'll tentatively say against) his truth or falsity are based on subjective desires for him to exist or not to. That's the difference between knowledge of airplanes and faith in God.

One suspends certain 'logic' in order to believe the unknowable. You choose how you interpret it - i.e., your religious beliefs in the case of believing in an omniscient, omnipotent being as the source of all life.

Am I to understand your argument to be that since everyone must make a leap of faith on the issue, then all leaps of faith are true/valid? Just want to make sure that I'm on the same page.

Jews believe that G-d exists in us all and does not have another (human) form. That's why there are no images of a deity in our synagogues. That's also why we believe that one doesn't have to pray in a synagogue for G-d to hear.

Kudos for them. What does this have to do with proof for God?

 

[Flatlander]

I believe KT was trying to say that though there can be no specific proof of a higher power at this point, that is irrelevant to those who have faith that there is one. It is their faith that is the mechanism of validity - a faith grounded in the understanding of the teachings, and in the personal experiences that they've had which relate to those teachings.

So you suppose it's fair to say that because there is no proof of something that it does not exist? Do you have proof that there is no proof? Do we define proof the same way?

Can you prove your existence to me? Should you need to in order to exist?

Has anyone yet tried to define "higher power" in this thread? If I were to define it as "higher than we, the human species", than would not all around us be evidence of that? There is and infinite universe all around us filled with countless items and phenomena to stretch our imaginations beyond where anyone has ever thought they could go. All of it began somewhere, somehow... sounds like something pretty powerful was involved.

Does love exist? Do you love your spouse? Your children? Your family? Why? Is it necessary to love in order to survive? What reason do we have for love? Does not the Bible say "God is love"? If so, is that good enough to prove God exists?

 

[donald]

Thank you RandomPhantom700. I haven't read all nine pages of this thread, so here's something that I hope nobody else has brought up. Saying that Christianity is the only way is the same type of religious arrogance and extremism that makes the Middle East what it is today...and what it was 2000 years ago, because it hasn't really changed much in that time. I'm basically a Christian, but I certainly don't think that all Muslims are going to Hell because they don't believe in Jesus. All religions are right and all of them are wrong. I believe that God is fair, if God is in fact a being and not a force. I believe that it you are a Baptist and a good one, that you will go to the same place as a good Catholic, a Good Muslim, a good Buddhist, whatever. If you believe in God, worship Him as you see best. If not, then believe in good and evil.

If you are a believing christian, and make a statement saying Jesus Christ is not the only way. You, by that staement alone disassociate yourself from Him. In the Gospel of John, The LORD JESUS, is qouted as saying, "I am the way the truth, and the life. No one can come to,The Father, except through me" . That statement alone disproves the, there are many roads to heaven teachings. As has already been said in some previous post. Believing that Jesus Christ is real, that The Bible is THE Truth is a matter of the heart.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

It is their faith that is the mechanism of validity - a faith grounded in the understanding of the teachings, and in the personal experiences that they've had which relate to those teachings.

These factors may explain well why they believe in a deity for themselves, but it by far does not validate that deity's existence for everyone else. To do that, I'm sorry, but proof is necessary.

So you suppose it's fair to say that because there is no proof of something that it does not exist? Do you have proof that there is no proof? Do we define proof the same way?

Nope. For all I know, God really is up there, allowing those who kiss his butt well enough into heaven while sending those who don't into Hell, all while proclaiming love for all. That's why I'm agnostic, for now.

Can you prove your existence to me? Should you need to in order to exist?

Well, the fact that we're having this conversation should prove that. Computers don't generate thought. And no, proof is not necessary for something to exist, but it is necessary to say, or to know, that something does, factually, exist.

 

[kenpo tiger]

i'd like to explain my last comment...i wasn't trying to be smart-mouth...kenpo tiger asked what i'm assuming was supposed to be a rhetorical question...the problem is that it's not really a good one because we're dealing with things here that have little to no scientific proof and are hard to discuss without getting emotionally/personally involved because our beliefs are important to us. How an airplane flies is based on sound science and can be easily explained and proven. There are probably quite a few people on this board that know at least the basic theory behind it (Bernoulli's Principle)

I just chose to go about explaining myself in my usual smart-mouth way

And I qualified my statement by saying most of us. Of course there are people who understand it. Just not all of us.

But you're right about scientific proof. I'm talking about taking it on faith when you CAN'T prove it scientifically due to ignorance - i.e., simply not knowing the science behind it.

A laugh at my expense is okay. As with any of us, wouldn't be the first, or last, time.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Kudos for them. What does this have to do with proof for God?

Nothing at all, and that's the point. We don't need proof of G-d's existence (and I spell it that way for my own reasons - don't think I didn't notice your added emphasis on the 'o' - I respect your position, you might return the favor) precisely because of what I said prior to that statement about G-d existing in us all and our belief that G-d exists without human form.

That's not to say that I don't question the existence of G-d from time to time. There are things which occur that, to my way of thinking, should not if there is a beneficent being who created us and watches over us. But that's another argument, possibly that G-d DOESN'T exist...

 

[Flatlander]

From the first post in the thread:

And so I ask: If you beleive in a God, or like being, why? And what proof have you seen or learned of its/His existence? What makes you beleive?

subsequently,

These factors may explain well why they believe in a deity for themselves, but it by far does not validate that deity's existence for everyone else. To do that, I'm sorry, but proof is necessary.

which, unfortunately, is not pertinent to the question. The question of how one of faith in a higher power can logically transmit the knowledge of the existence of that power to you, the skeptic, is for another thread.

Well, the fact that we're having this conversation should prove that. Computers don't generate thought. And no, proof is not necessary for something to exist, but it is necessary to say, or to know, that something does, factually, exist.

This does not account for the possiblity that I am insane, and I am conversing with myself, or imagining the entire conversation. Or from another point of view, presupposing that you exist does not prove that you do, as per the fallacy of Decartes' "cogito ergo sum".

 

[RandomPhantom700]

which, unfortunately, is not pertinent to the question. The question of how one of faith in a higher power can logically transmit the knowledge of the existence of that power to you, the skeptic, is for another thread.

Really? Well, forgive me, I thought the question of "And what proof have you seen or learned of its/His existence?" would involve logical transmission. Unless "God's real because I said so" is sufficient proof for everyone.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Really? Well, forgive me, I thought the question of "And what proof have you seen or learned of its/His existence?" would involve logical transmission. Unless "God's real because I said so" is sufficient proof for everyone.

I hardly think that's the case. The CONCEPT of G-d is real to many. Whether there is a living, breathing entity is another thing entirely.

So, do you agree that the concept of a g-d is real? It does not imply your personal belief in the concept, just that it exists.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

(and I spell it that way for my own reasons - don't think I didn't notice your added emphasis on the 'o' - I respect your position, you might return the favor)

So what is the big deal with fully spelling out God? I've always been curious about this insistence.

 

[bignick]

i don't know, but perhaps it has something to do with taking His namein vain...

 

[kenpo tiger]

So what is the big deal with fully spelling out God? I've always been curious about this insistence.

It is a superstition held by many that one doesn't spell The Name so that it cannot be erased or eradicated in any way. Similarly, there are many abbreviations for the name of G-d in the Torah which are not read as written, simply said as Adonai, because one is not supposed to address G-d by certain names or in certain ways. The name is never said out loud. That isn't superstition -- it's the way it has been passed down. Mark, any input?

I am not a religious person, I believe in and practice my religion in a secular manner. However, for other, more personal, reasons which have absolutely no bearing on this discussion, that's why I abbreviate.

 

[Flatlander]

The fact that there are many different religeous variations and definitions of God suggests to me that one's definition of God and proof of such must be a very personal and subjective thing. I can tell you what proof I have of the existence of a higher power, but that doesn't necessarily mean that others must accept that proof.

For example, let's take KT's previous story regarding her prayer for her daughter, and her daughter's subsequent healing. This was sufficient to give KT evidence of the existence of a higher power. But the skeptic may say "how can you be certain that there was intervention by a higher power?" Why must there be transmittable certainty? If the conditions were sufficient evidence for her, and her relationship with that power is subjective in nature, what necessitates the transmittability of proof?

There are different types of proof. It would be silly for me to say "It is true that the Earth is flat because I said so", as anyone could go off and prove differently to me. But would it be fair to say "I love my wife because I said so"? Could anyone prove me wrong? The proof would be in the analysis of my behaviour toward her.

Is everyone here aware that particle physics is showing that all material phenomena tends to exist because we observe it as we do? That particles manifest in different ways depending upon how we observe them? In this context, how does your definition of evidence with respect to the proof of a higher power change?

It's all relative to your frame of reference, to your opinions and experiences. It depends upon how you have chosen to observe your reality.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I see your point. All I was saying is that it's not possible to prove God, flat out. It's not necessary to believe in him, obviously. But proof does require transmittability to others, and something such as belief in God, which is so subjective, can't be so transmitted.