jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (91 posts)

Uh-oh! I can logically prove with one statement that God is real.

  1. paradigmsearch profile image87
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    If something can exist, then it does exist.

    1. mischeviousme profile image58
      mischeviousmeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It can only exist, if said existance is verifiable....

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I thought you only believed in subjective reality

        1. mischeviousme profile image58
          mischeviousmeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I didn't say I believed it was subjective, I said the way we judge information is subjective. The views are subjective, not the premise...

      2. paradigmsearch profile image87
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Gotta disagree. History has taught us that things exist that we weren't aware of. Existence can exist without another existence being aware of that existence.

        1. mischeviousme profile image58
          mischeviousmeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Without definition, there are no borders to identify.

          1. paradigmsearch profile image87
            paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            True. But just because we can't identify them doesn't mean they aren't there.

            1. mischeviousme profile image58
              mischeviousmeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              If it hasn't been seen to identify, then it is labelless and therefor does not exist.

    2. Paul Wingert profile image79
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      With the existence of physics and gravity, something can be created from nothing - no need for a creater (God).

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        How?

        I'd like to know the mechanics of how that would work.

        Please supply ONE single bit of evidence that something can be created out of nothing.Even a plausible theory will do.

        1. profile image0
          Emile Rposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Yeh. I'm waiting to hear the answer to this one.

          1. Paul Wingert profile image79
            Paul Wingertposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Read Stephen Hawken's Story of Everything. Plus the Big Bang was recreated in a lab. If you're not familiar with quantam physics, dark matter and nuclear fusion, I'm not going to waste my time explaining to any of you.

            1. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I am very familiar with quantum mechanics.

              Now lets hear your plausible theory.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                You are??? Odd, very few are "very familiar" with quantum field theory. Do you have a phd in physics or something?

                1. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  No. But i understand it enough to see that it doesnt provide any plausible theories on how the universe was created out of nothing.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Then, it would appear you have no understanding of it at all.

                  2. DoubleScorpion profile image84
                    DoubleScorpionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I wonder if the universe was created from nothing..How do we know it was created from nothing...Maybe all of the materials were here and it just formed to its current state...Even in the bible, God is described as forming from material already in existance.

            2. Crissylite profile image81
              Crissyliteposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              It's something. I always felt that quantam physics supported the existence of God and the spirit realm. Hmm...I still do.  It's so amazing.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Why do believers constantly fabricate their alleged knowledge of complex scientific theories that they clearly know nothing about and then tell us those theories support their ridiculous claims of gods and spirits?

                Dishonesty at it's fullest. It's so amazing. lol

              2. Crissylite profile image81
                Crissyliteposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I'm not being dishonest. Nor am I being rude, sir. I am educated. I didn't join Hubpages for this, & I'm not going to entertain you anymore.

        2. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Interesting comment! According to your comment you don't think something can be created out of nothing, yet here we are. But if you are correct and things don't just appear we (and by we I mean you) have a problem because faith expects you to believe that God has always been there or here. He has no parents, was not made and always will be here. He can create things from nothing and all he wants is our worship. Well, let me ask, how can someone not have a start or a finish when everything else does? That I find much more perplexing that trying to figure out how the big bang happened. You should as well. Some critical things would be a good start.

          1. Eric Newland profile image60
            Eric Newlandposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            To me the idea of something omnipotent having existed perpetually makes more sense than the idea that the universe itself is its own causeless effect. If the universe has always existed, perpetual big bangs and whatnot, it's a wonder that there's anything cohesive left. Matter and energy are preserved, but no reaction is 100% efficient. If the universe is an eternity old, then logically it seems that it should have reached complete and total entropy, well, an eternity ago.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Despite the fact there is hard evidence for the latter and none for the former?

              Curious thing you call "sense".

              1. Eric Newland profile image60
                Eric Newlandposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, I accept the hard evidence that the universe somehow exists, and that there is strong scientific evidence that somehow a Big Bang started a chain of events leading to where we are today.

                It's all about the "somehow." Speaking of science, everything we know says that everything in the universe is governed by cause and effect. And yet the universe itself has no cause? To me this creates a logical gap that seems to demand something that isn't governed by cause and effect to be the initial impetus.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Enter the world of quantum mechanics, where little has a cause.  Particles pop into and out of existence for no discernable reason.  Electrons move about a atom's nucleus with nothing causing that change of location. 

                  The macro world we live in and (somewhat) understand is cause and effect; the fundamentals of the universe that we are just now touching on are not.

                  1. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Just because there is no discernable cause doesnt mean there isnt one.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  To those who don't understand those theories, it would appear to be all about the "somehow" but to those who do understand, the "somehow" disappears.



                  Interestingly enough, many of our scientific theories are 'counter-intuitive' in that what we deem to be logical is not logical at all when it comes to understanding those theories, and yet, when we do understand them, they are perfectly logical.

                  Years ago, I struggled with one of the postulates of relativity trying to understand why the speed of light was a constant and why a space ship that traveled near the speed of light still measured the light at that speed, it was entirely illogical considering how we view our world and how we measure velocities and speeds with moving vehicles.

                  After much thought and lots of reading, I finally understood it and it all made perfect sense.

            2. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Eric wrote "If the universe has always existed, perpetual big bangs and whatnot, it's a wonder that there's anything cohesive left. Matter and energy are preserved, but no reaction is 100% efficient. If the universe is an eternity old, then logically it seems that it should have reached complete and total entropy, well, an eternity ago."

              Why would you think the universe would burn out? Everything here gets reused over and over. Our energy goes into the ground and creates compost and in turn creates pants which animals eat and something else eats the animals and so on and so on. This is just how the universe behaves, a star dies, it's energy moves on to create another star.

              Nothing lives forever, ever. Why would you assign that to a god? It's like everything in the universe has a lifecycle except God that we only think exists. Man has created this God to explain the universe that doesn't follow any of the rules that the universe follows.

              I can't be alone in this thinking. It's common sense.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Of course God doesn't follow the laws of our universe; He is not of this universe and there is no reason to think that He is subject to our laws.

                Mankind made up God, yes, but did not make Him subject to our rules.  He can do anything and nothing in our universe can do that.  Everything BUT God is subject to the same rules, whether we know and understand them or not; God is not.

                If God created our universe He had to exist prior to that and thus cannot be a part of our universe.  Common sense.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Wow you have a lot of knowledge as to why God does not fit in this universe and how we created him or her. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you that God is the only thing that doesn't behave within the laws of the universe, created everything as we know it, has always been here and always will be. But, I believe in Santa, he knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake. Santa never ages and once a year he gives presents to every good boy and girl. And he does this on Gods birthday. Wait, how can God have a birthday? He was never born. I'll take Santa's word for it and keep getting my presents.

                  We live in a world where everything has a beginning and and ending, our lives, the earth, the sun, the stars, galaxies the universe. Everything without exception. Why would you except that the one thing (God) that we have no proof of it's existence breaks all the known universes rules? Humans invented God in order to explain our existence and to keep people in line (just like Santa), but in doing so we gave him powers that are beyond our universe.

                  Is this easier for you to swallow than trying to understand why we are here?

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I grew up in a pretty fundamentalist church so understand what many of the claims are for God.

                    The rest is merely common sense: if God made the universe He cannot have originated in it and thus would not necessarily have to follow the rules here.  Sure, God may have made the universe with rules that He has to follow (although the fundies tell us He has no rules to follow and can do anything He wants to) but there is no reason to think that He did so, either.

                    No, everything does not have a beginning and end if you exclude the big bang.  Energy never ends (dies out) for instance - light will travel forever if it hits nothing to stop it.  There is no indication that an atom of Hydrogen will suddenly disintegrate unto nothing without a sun to act on it.  Gravity won't suddenly disappear one day.  All these things may change somehow, but none disappear into nothingness.

      2. paradigmsearch profile image87
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        This thread has to do with the existence of God. It does not have to do with what kind of God or what He may have been or not been up to.

      3. Eric Newland profile image60
        Eric Newlandposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Where did physics and gravity come from? Why do they exist?

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I have no idea,and wont pretend i do

        2. paradigmsearch profile image87
          paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Now that, imho, is a breakthrough statement.

          Why, indeed, does existence exist?

    3. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Unicorns can exist.

      1. paradigmsearch profile image87
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        That does seem genetically possible. Therefore, somewhere on some planet, there they are.

  2. Eric Newland profile image60
    Eric Newlandposted 5 years ago

    I submit internet pornography as proof of your statement.

    Well, I mean, I don't literally submit actual internet pornography. The mods might frown on that.

  3. paradigmsearch profile image87
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    I really do want to see my op refuted. If it can't be refuted, then Hubpages might see it's first real, live online conversion.

  4. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    If something cannot exist, then it doesn't exist.

    1. paradigmsearch profile image87
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      History has taught us that there are always things greater (and lesser) in virtually every aspect and degree.

  5. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Greater and lessor may be a subjective evaluation. But by golly it sure is fun.

  6. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    I am not totally convinced that anything even exists at all.

    1. mischeviousme profile image58
      mischeviousmeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That's the ticket... everything you see is filtered through the brain, then conditioning takes over and attaches the proper meanings. Therefor, it is an illusion of interpretation.

    2. paradigmsearch profile image87
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You think, therefore you exist.

  7. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    God is God.

  8. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Only does because it doesn't.

  9. paradigmsearch profile image87
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    This was a good first run. However, the statement:

    "If something can exist, then it does exist.",

    has still not yet been refuted.

    Keeping in mind everything posted so far, let's try again.

    When I posted the op I considered the possibility of refutation to be around 1%. After this first run, I now think the possibility of refutation is greater than 1%. So we are on the right track.

    1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
      Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That statement does not follow logically. It is not true. By the logic in your statement, I can be a fighter pilot, therefore I am one.

      I'm not one though am I?

      1. paradigmsearch profile image87
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Who said you can be a fighter pilot?

        Also, we are talking about existence, not type of existence.

        1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
          Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Your logic still does not follow. A planet made of marshmallow can exist but that doesn't mean it does.

          1. paradigmsearch profile image87
            paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            And why do you believe that a planet made of marshmallow can exist?

            Here is a clarification: Just because one can conceive of something does not mean that particular something can exist.

            1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
              Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I dont. I said it CAN exist.



              And you have just debunked your opening statement.

              1. paradigmsearch profile image87
                paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Here's the op: "If something can exist, then it does exist."

                1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
                  Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Who says your god can exist? Isnt that a human conception?

                  Let go back a bit with a reworded statement.

                  IF a planet made of marshmallow can exist, then it does exist.

                  We know that a planet made of marshmallow can exist, therefore, according to your logic, it does.

                  So where is it?

                  Chances of refuting your argument now stand at 100%.

                  1. paradigmsearch profile image87
                    paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    You keep trying to substitute a specific item ("planet made of marshmallow") into a concept ("something"). It turns the discussion from the concept to the nuances of the specific object.

                    However, I understand what you are saying. So much so, that you have given me some new insights. In fact, it may be breakthrough time again. Maybe if we tried substituting other items...

                    HP really should pay us for this. All of us are exceptionally good today. big_smile

    2. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "If something can exist, then it does exist."
      I can have seven toes on each foot, but I don't, so my seven toed foot does not exist.
      I can have 3 eyes, but I don't, so my 3 eyed face does not exist.
      I could be richer than Bill Gates right now, but I'm not, so having more money than Bill Gates at this particular moment in time does not exist.

      Sorry your wrong. All these things could exist, but don't.

  10. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    You are on track. Personally I prefer 'off the reservation'. However have tracks near by here and can hear the trains which I like.

  11. paradigmsearch profile image87
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    And how does existence exist?

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Seems like things would make more sense if nothing existed.

      But things do seem to exist.weird

      1. paradigmsearch profile image87
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I agree. Our current reality makes very little sense to me at all. That's why I keep coming back to the theory that we are all a bunch of lab rats. And that the superior entity that we call "God" may not exactly have our best interests at heart. Thus, if my op is true, and there is indeed a "God".... Then what does one do? It may not be entirely hopeless, but it could be kind of bleak...

  12. paradigmsearch profile image87
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    But neither question refutes nor supports the op. But can either provide a path to do so?

    My head hurts.

  13. Eric Newland profile image60
    Eric Newlandposted 5 years ago

    Consider the irrational number. An infinite sequence of digits with no pattern. That means that every possible combination of numbers must exist within it at some point.

    Thus everything that exists, or has existed, or will exist, or could exist, exists somewhere in the digits of pi in decimal form.

    1. paradigmsearch profile image87
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      This does indeed lend more support to the validity of the op.

  14. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago
    1. paradigmsearch profile image87
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Yep. The concept of infinity is one of the basic foundations supporting the op. Disprove infinity, and that would successfully refute the op.

  15. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Play the part. It can be quite fun if you are only somewhat serious.

    1. paradigmsearch profile image87
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I like that. smile

      1. paradigmsearch profile image87
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        In fact, I really like that.

  16. Eric Newland profile image60
    Eric Newlandposted 5 years ago

    The OP does sound a bit like a rewording of Des Cartes' arguments in Meditations on First Philosophy.

    I think a reasonable paraphrase is, "Because I can conceive of the possibility of absolute perfection it must exist."

    1. paradigmsearch profile image87
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No. It is my own original, brilliant thought. However, if I did reinvent the wheel here, then so be it.



      Alas, I disagree. I am of the firm belief that just because I can conceive of something, does not mean that that something must exist.

      Also, if I do conclude that there is a God. It most definitely does not mean that I think he is a perfect God.

      1. pisean282311 profile image53
        pisean282311posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        @para if something can exist...it applies to varied things....aliens can exist , god can exist , ghost can exist, life not based on carbon model can exist etc etc....but if it can exist , doesnot mean it exist....your point is valid...just because we are not aware about existence of x,y,z it doesnot mean that x,y,z doesnot exist...but at same time since we are not aware of x,y,z ,it also doesnot mean that x,y,z does actually exist...

      2. profile image0
        kimberlyslyricsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        big_smile

  17. Druid Dude profile image59
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    Statement: If something can go wrong, it will. Murphy's law. If something can go right, it also probably will. Murphy's law in reverse. To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, to every possibility that there is no God, there is an equal and opposite possibility that God does exist. Consider the possibility that the universe is a living organism of a very high order, and that life and consciousness are integral characteristics of the internal physiology of this super organism, which, in and of itself is consciousness beyond anything imaginable. Well, I'm imagining it.smile Are you?

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think youre onto something

      1. Druid Dude profile image59
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Einsteinian physics

  18. prettydarkhorse profile image64
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    sensation versus reality, the duality of the subject to the object

 
working