Proofs for existence of God

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by PluckyAli

Prove is strictly only for maths.Scientific theories can't be proven or disproven.We are interested in evidence not proofs.

Well said. A guy I've spoken with on another forum says something like "proof is the object of liquor and logic."

As for the evidences, it comes down to what we term evidence. We can get all mystical and talk of conciousness and knowledge and existence and how god is the source, but if you want anything with substance you have to look to science, in my opinion.

As far as I can percieve their is no evidence for Hashem, Thor, Krishna, or Odin that is not evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn that presides over all creation.

The Judeo-Christian god may well be hanging out in heaven watching me press these keys. For all I know he's debating with Santa over my partiality for beer.

[Nitai]

# you pre-assume the other person believe in sufi,muslims or muhammad.
* reincarnation doesn't depend on believe

# Reincarnation does not make sense since we have not seen any person who can remember his past
* If few of you did not have seen that doesn't mean that others did not have seen even those who don't believe in reincarnation.

# I can't read long posts,i don't like to.
* Well, then you don't seem to be a serious inquirer. Ian Stevenson's evidences for reincarnation are very good.

# How can God be everywhere at the same time?.
* For the religious person this is a question what atheists would ask. He is unlimited; that includes He is everywhere in His unlimited creation. If you don't accept that He is everywhere you are minimizing Him. But God cannot be minimized according to ones whims.

# If god is everywhere means god is in the weirdest part of the universe for e.g toilets etc.
* Yes, you are completely right. However, although He is the most abominable places He is not contaminated, nor affected by them. To give you a material example, it is just like with the torchlight illuminating a filthy place, still the light itself will not become dirty. Here on. There is everywhere in this material world a higher reality than material what we observe. In that higher reality lives God.

# You can't proof that God exists, but you also can't proof that He doesn't.
* The ultimate proof is your own experience of Him by your developed spiritual senses. You will never experience Him e.g. see, hear or-whatever with your material senses. To develop the spiritual eyes of your soul you you have to cultivate devotion to God. Therefore, it is said that to realize God and attain His association, the only way is through devotion to Him. This is the universal conclusion of all theistic scriptures.

# We are interested in evidence not proofs.
* To attain the ultimate goal of religion, God-realization first you have to fully understand the theoretical proofs of existence of God. When you will not doubt anymore, then with conviction you can begin the practice of awakening love of God by which the only way to get the strongest evidence - your own experience of God's existence.
* When you doubt the theoretically knowledge of God's existence you will also doubt any evidence of which I already gave some.

# if you want anything with substance you have to look to science, in my opinion.
* We already discussed science how it is limited only to analyzing the matter thus it is insufficient for God realization or even just explain what is consciousness, which is above all material consideration. Consciousness is the real substance e.g. in the body is the driving force, which when absent it is called death.

# As far as I can perceive their is no evidence for Hashem, Thor, Krishna, or Odin that is not evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn that presides over all creation.
* There is an interesting evidence of Krishna's presence here on this earth planet before 5000 years ago, The city of Dwaraka in the west-coast of India. There are archaeological evidences Krishna was there. The Mahabharata describes many of His activities.

[Nitai]

Once you're ready to ask the question, "does God exist?" here are a few observations to consider as you begin your search for an objective answer:

Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.
Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.
Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?
The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?
Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?
People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?
If your curiosity has been piqued and you desire to look into this matter further, we recommend that you consider the world's assortment of so-called Holy Books. If God does exist, has He revealed Himself? And if He has revealed Himself, surely He exists...

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Nitai

* To attain the ultimate goal of religion, God-realization first you have to fully understand the theoretical proofs of existence of God. When you will not doubt anymore, then with conviction you can begin the practice of awakening love of God by which the only way to get the strongest evidence - your own experience of God's existence.
* When you doubt the theoretically knowledge of God's existence you will also doubt any evidence of which I already gave some.

How can I differentiate this evidence from personal delusion?

Originally Posted by Nitai

Consciousness is the real substance e.g. in the body is the driving force, which when absent it is called death.

The absence of consciousness is unconsciousness, not death. Have you any reason to believe that consciousness is the body's driving force?

Originally Posted by Nitai

There are archaeological evidences Krishna was there. The Mahabharata describes many of His activities.

Feel free to elaborate...

[Nitai]

Hare Krishna,

Thank you for the interesting remarks. They are the proof that you are an intelligent seeker of the truth.

So, here are few comments that, I hope, will a bit clarify the doubts. Let see.

# How can I differentiate this evidence from personal delusion?
* If my guess is right by this question you refer to my statement of personal experience of God as an ultimate evidence of God's existence.
* First of all delusion refers to a material condition in which you think you are the best enjoyer of this material world and you want to enjoy more and more. That is delusion.
* But experience of God is completely a different story.
* The first experience of God is through chanting Hare Krishna what doesn't give pleasure to the senses but it gives inner peace and thus inner happiness as well. It is amazing that by chanting Hare Krishna one doesn't become tired, but by chanting any other material name, after chanting it three times you will feel tired. That is the proof. When you chant with proper understanding you can go on chanting Hare Krishna day and night and you will never feel tired. Moreover, in gradual attaining of higher levels of consciousness one can experience more and more happiness. The happiness of the soul. Simultaneously, the knowledge of the Vedas becomes very clear as the sound vibration of Hare Krishna purifies the intelligence and one becomes eager to practice spiritual life. All this is not attainable without chanting of Hare Krishna. To check this out you have to begin yourself to chant Hare Krishna. You will not lose anything by making the experiment. The ultimate fruit of chanting Hare Krishna is pure love of God at which stage Krishna will reveal Himself to you. Yes, at that time one can see Krishna exactly as He is described in the scriptures and the overwhelming ecstatic emotions of love of God become very, very intense. Bliss.

# The absence of consciousness is unconsciousness, not death. Have you any reason to believe that consciousness is the body's driving force?
* Ok, here is the best definition of unconsciousness from wikipedia.
Unconsciousness is the absence of consciousness. Unconsciousness normally only occurs during sleep, and even then dreaming may involve partial or full consciousness of dream events. Unconsciousness may also occur from a concussion, during an epileptic seizure, as a result of intoxication, or due to some other medical condition (such as a neurological dysfunction), and during general anaesthesia.
* The first statement is a western understanding of unconsciousness. I will give you the Vedic understanding.
* When there is life there is also consciousness.
* Consciousness is the symptom of the soul
* When the soul is in the body there is consciousness.
* as the above definition of unconsciousness explains, unconsciousness occurs when the body is alive.
* So, that there is unconsciousness there must be first consciousness just like when you see somebody sleeping you can understand that the person can be also awake.
* Now, what I was referring to when I said absence of consciousness is when the soul is not anymore in the body - there will be no more any symptoms of consciousness within the body. This everybody knows to be the death of the body.
* So, the natural conclusion is that the soul with its symptom of consciousness - that pervades the whole body - is the living driving force for the dull material body.

# There are archaeological evidences that Krishna was present on this earth planet.
* There are already nice elaborations on this so please go to the link
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclo...archeology.htm

[bananabrain]

proof????

BAAAAH.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[believer142]

Our perception of the truth for anything is relative. Thus, there is no proof for the existence of god. However, there is substantial evidence to support the existence of such an entity. I presume that DNA is plenty considering that everything on earth exhibiting the passing of information requires an intelligent designer. I presume that the beginning of the universe has a cause since everything has a cause. And the cause cannot be materialitic because it would have to be attributed to an infinite amount of causes which results in a domino effect that never ends. Aristotles' view was that each cause has to have an ultimate cause called the prime mover-God. Evolution also seems as if it is a plan by a superior being.

I personally dont understand atheistic views when its so obvious that there is a god. Perhaps atheists are indifferent to all belief systems because they dont want to have a moral premise for all there actions. Maybe they have a lifestlyle that they wouldnt want to hinder with the belief in God.

[Bandit]

thanks believer142!

i was blessed by that sincere post
i can relate to what you are saying
& welcome aboard.

[Nitai]

Hare Krishna

I would like to give just a small suggestion for clarifying the word 'proof'. It seems that there are different understandings of this term.

So, some use the word 'proof' only in the sense that only material tangible things can proof something. Their conclusion is therefor, that there are no proofs for existence of God.

However, when we use the word 'proof' in broader sense that can imply also spiritual logic, reasoning and ultimately religious experience then we can certainly see that there are plenty proofs for existence of God.

There is also one interesting eastern proof for existence of God what in the west is not considered and that is the archaeological proof. When God decides to do something nobody can stop Him and thus He comes time to time to live with us in this material planet like e.g. in the past Krishna, Rama and Lord Caitanya (just before 500 years ago). So, interestingly there are archaeological evidences that They were actually in this planet. Moreover, there are plenty of Historical descriptions about Their lives.

[Nitai]

Hare Krishna

Here is some more nectar,


1. Since everything comes from something and nothing comes from nothing, there must necessarily be an origin or a source for all that exists.
2. Since so many persons exist within reality the source must possess personality. Otherwise how could it produce personality?
3. That Original Supreme Person is emanating us from Himself for the purpose of enjoying loving relationships with each and every one of us. Therefore the purpose of our existence is to love Him. Only this will satisfy us.
4. Out of His infinite kindness upon that Supreme Person has giving us a system by which we can revive our forgotten love for Him, which is currently lying dormant within our hearts. That system is known as bhakti yoga or devotional service.
5. Krishna either personally appears or sends His representative, the spiritual master, to us to teach us how to revive the dormant love of God within our hearts.
6. That process of revival is centered around the chanting of the Holy Names of God:

Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare

and eating the remnants of vegetarian foostuffs that have been offered to Lord Krishna with love and devotion.

[presser_kun]

This thread hasn't had any posts for about three weeks. Since this is of vital interest to me, I'll say a few things.

I've said in another thread/area that the domain of God is protected by faith in a way that does not make sense to me.

What follows is a lengthy thought experiment. Please bear with me, as it will take what may seem to be a rambling course before returning to the issue of proofs for the existence of God.

* * *

Imagine all knowledge as a large house, a mansion, if you will, with a multitude of rooms. Each room contains a particular knowledge set or topic, for instance, Biology, Physics, Religion, God (which is separate from relgion though often the subject of it).

Each room is subdivided into multitudes of cubicles. Physics, for example, is divided into Atomic Structure, Basic Principles, Quantum Mechanics, etc. Each of these can be subdivided, of course, and my analogy breaks down eventually. Neither is it terribly accurate, but I hope it will serve a simple purpose here.

What part does Reason play in this house, in these rooms?

Reason, or Logic, is in its own room, of course, but it also says something about all the other rooms, and about the house itself. It says that the way you think about the knowledge in each room matters. Look at it the wrong way, and you can't be sure that the knowledge is true.

Here, "true" means "squares with reality." The idea of gravity, for instance squares with our experiencee that rocks fall down.

Gravity is just an idea, though. Don't forget that. Someday someone may find a better way to explain rocks falling down, a way that may supercede or supplant the idea of gravity.

Should that happen, would that mean that the idea (notice I'm not saying law or principle) of gravity would be disproven? Considered wrong? False?

I think not. The reasonable way to look at this is that something more accurate has come along, something that more accurately squares with reality.

What is going on here? The idea of Gravity is being studied, tested, measured, perhaps experimented with/on. Reason says that this is the way we gain knowledge: by observing and experimenting and testing.

Reason says this is the best way to know that knowledge is true. To know that knowledge can be depended on.

Reason says that all knowledge, every bit of it, should be studied in this way.

Will Reason itself be supplanted as the best way to verify knowledge? Who knows? Right now it's the best theory/idea we have -- the best the human race has come up with.

It has a powerful track record. It's largely responsible for the computer you're using to read these words. And the car you drive, if you drive one. And the shoes you wear.

* * *

What happens when Reason comes to the room of God?

Faith stands in the doorway and says, you can't come in. The things in this room cannot be considered by you.

Why, Reason says?

Because it's not appropriate, Faith answers. You, Reason, just don't apply to the knowlege in this room. In fact, you can't be applied to the idea of God.

Reason says, Do you have a reason for saying that?

It seems to me that Faith's only answer is, I don't have to have a reason. I'm Faith, and what I say goes, at least in this room.

Is that right? Does Faith say something else?

I don't understand why it's okay to say that Reason cannot come into God's room. I don't understand why it's okay to say that it's not appropriate for Faith to have a reason for saying that.

Help me with my thinking here.

* * *

Many say, You cannot prove God's existence. It's something you "just have to believe."

Why? Why is it not appropriate to subject the idea of God to Reason?

For me, the answer cannot be Because Faith says so.

When Reason does look at the knowledge in God's room, it sees logical inconsistencies, lack of experimentation, no squaring with reality going on.

And, again, Faith says, Of course. That's because it's not appropriate for you to be in this room, Reason.

* * *

What's my point?

That the "Reason has no place here" argument is not valid.

If you agree, and you subject the idea of God to Reason, you quickly see that there is most likely not a supreme being.

* * *

Final thought.

I could be wrong. Have been many times before.

Show me the flaws in this thinking, and realize that, when you do, you're using Reason to do it.

Please do not say, You just have to have Faith without Reason.

* * *

If you've read this far, I thank you.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Wow, cant believe I missed this thread the first time round, glad someone dragged it up again.

Presser Kun, you have a good point there, there really is no reason why we should not apply the process of reason to the concept of God.

Originally Posted by believer142

Perhaps atheists are indifferent to all belief systems because they dont want to have a moral premise for all there actions. Maybe they have a lifestlyle that they wouldnt want to hinder with the belief in God.

What a medieval point of view. If you dont believe in God you must be a bad person. Ever considered that it is possible to be a good person simply for the sake of being a good person, and not out of fear of being judged?

Originally Posted by Nitai

Since everything comes from something and nothing comes from nothing, there must necessarily be an origin or a source for all that exists.

What makes you think everything comes from something and nothing comes from nothing?

Originally Posted by Nitai

interestingly there are archaeological evidences that They were actually in this planet. Moreover, there are plenty of Historical descriptions about Their lives.

David Koresh was a real person, no doubt about it, but very few people accept that he was the messiah.

Originally Posted by Jaiket

As far as I can percieve their is no evidence for Hashem, Thor, Krishna, or Odin that is not evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn that presides over all creation

An argument I have used many times myself. I cannot prove that God does not exist, and you cannot prove that (as Jaiket puts it) Invisible Pink Unicorn that presides over all creation exists. In fact, you cannot prove that I am not God! (I'm not, incidentally, please dont worship me.)

Over the centuries there have been many claims at prophethood, messiahood, buddhahood and divinity but we immediately disregard most, why do we cling to some? I for one cannot answer this question, but I am guilty of this myself.

It is this inescapable conflict between stark, scientific reality and our collective, innate spirituality which leads me personally to the conclusion that one of them must be in error. If my own sense of spirituality is in error then there is nothing I can do about it (except perhaps seek psychiatric help) because as most of us here have agreed, this cannot be disproven. Therefore the only possible conclusion which does not include me being insane is that it is the apparent reality around me which is flawed. And the only solution is to seek the truth about reality which some of call, "enlightenment".

[presser_kun]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

...the only possible conclusion which does not include me being insane is that it is the apparent reality around me which is flawed. And the only solution is to seek the truth about reality which some of call, "enlightenment".

I agree with part of what you say.

If science (logic, reason) conflicts with religion (faith, spirituality) about the nature of reality, then one is wrong. Both can't be right.

...the only possible conclusion which does not include me being insane...

I think you mean here that if religion is right, then science must be wrong. And if science is wrong, either a whole lot of "stuff" we understand about the universe is wrong, or you're insane.

Right?

I mean, it wouldn't be reality that's flawed, it would be our scientific understanding that's flawed. Just a point of distinction because I'm that anal-retentive.

...the only solution is to seek the truth about reality which some of call, "enlightenment".

Two ways to seek the truth about reality are scientific inquiry and spiritual enlightenment. I'm pursuing both.

My original comments probably made me seem to be an atheist, but that's not true. I actually want to believe in God.

And that is an entirely different question: Why do I want to believe?

Ah, the endless circle....

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Originally Posted by presser_kun

I mean, it wouldn't be reality that's flawed, it would be our scientific understanding that's flawed.

But science is simply an analysis of the external stimuli to which we are exposed.

For example:

You see a wall in front of you, you reach out and touch the wall, you shout and hear an echo off the wall, you lean close to the wall and can smell brick dust which you can also taste when you lick it. You have now experimented with all five senses and have collected all the evidence possible, any scientist will certainly tell you that there is indeed a wall in front of you.

But...

Your sight, touch, hearing, smell and taste are all an illusion. There is no real sensation in your eyes, ears, nose, tongue or skin. What you are experiencing is actually electrical impulses in your brain.

We all know that it is possible to hallucinate. Drugs and psychoses aside we all experience things in our dreams which seem very real at the time but we later realise were only the product of our own minds.

So how can you be so sure that what you see now, which seems so real, is not just a product of your own mind?

So in response to your question, is it reality that is flawed or is it our understanding of reality that is flawed, I say that there is no difference between the two. Perception is reality.

[presser_kun]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

So in response to your question, is it reality that is flawed or is it our understanding of reality that is flawed, I say that there is no difference between the two. Perception is reality.

You have me there, and your words bring to mind an old joke:

Descartes was sitting in a coffee shop when a waitress approached him and asked if he'd like a refill. "I think not," he said, and promptly vanished.

peace,

press