I Can Scientifically Prove God Exists.
72To start off we need to understand the terms, the meanings of the words.
The definitions:
Supreme- Greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant. 2. Greatest in importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement.
Being- 1.the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence). 2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night. 3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear. 4. something that exists: inanimate beings. 5. a living thing: strange,exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.
God- The best, the greatest form of life in existence, The Supreme Being.
Deity- 1.a god or goddess. 2.divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity. 3. the estate or rank of a god: The king attained deity after his death. 4. a person or thing revered as a god or goddess: a society in which money is the only deity.5. the Deity, God; Supreme Being.
Life Form- an entity or being that is living or alive.
Existence- is the world we are aware of through our senses, and that persists independently without them.
Science- (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Proof:
If there are more than one forms of life and they are not identical, then one must be the lesser. If there is a lowest form of life, then there must be a highest form of life.
The highest form of life (whatever that is) is the Supreme Being... humanity has come to call that form of life, God.
If there is in existence only one example of life, that being would be the Supreme Being. Therefore: The only way for there to not be a supreme being, is for there to not be any beings.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have been told I am promoting logical fallacies
If it is a simple logical fallacy, like a belief that the inability to scientifically prove something exists is proof that it doesn't, then someone should have no problem pointing out/explaining that fallacy.
My critics seem to believe stating it is a fallacy proves it is a fallacy. So far no one has been able to do so.
Proof of the fallacy I listed: DNA has existed since a time long before humanity existed. Recently humanity has discovered and proven the existence of DNA. That proof did not bring DNA into existence, DNA existed before it was proven to exist. Therefore things that cannot be scientifically proven to exist, do indeed exist.
Mobius Circlets
 | Amazon Price: $32.00 List Price: $75.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $43.78 List Price: $105.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $39.57 List Price: $90.00 |
What makes God...God?
What quality or characteristic makes the supreme life form supreme?
I don't know, and I don't care. That information has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of that supreme being. That information is not required to support the proof of the Supreme Beings existence.
In this hub I'm not deciding which description of God is better or more accurate.
I'm only stating God exists, and here is the proof.
There are greater and lesser forms of life. The inability to agree on what quality makes one greater and one lesser does not make the proof inaccurate or false.
Emile R wrote: "If your conclusion is that there is a highest form of life, therefore God exists; you'd have to point to which form of life is the highest. It would have to be agreed upon. I doubt you'd get an agreement from a believer. You would get agreement from some non believers, so the conclusion would still be; no real God exists."
Emile, that is Pure Fallacy.
The only way for there to not be a supreme being, is for there to not be any beings.
Your Fallacy is in the erroneous belief that a consensus of what qualities constitute a supreme being as supreme, brings that being into existence, and that without that consensus a supreme being cannot exist. The consensus does not create nor destroy a supreme being, therefore a consensus is irrelevant to the existence or non-existence of a supreme being. Believing or not believing a thing is the supreme being does not make it the supreme being. Being the supreme being makes it the supreme being.
I don't have to prove that a man has blond hair in a proof that the man is a man. I just have to provide proof that he has the correct chromosome. That information alone is enough to prove the man is a man. Saying that unless I also prove 'it' has blond hair, a beard, 435 freckles, two dogs, 7 inches of manhood, and the ability to reproduce and anything less than that means the chromosome proof isn't proof, is fallacy. That is what your asking for and that I won't provide.
My critics seem to believe that in order to prove God exists, I must first provide a list of God's attributes. Where in the pecking order of life forms every entity fits and why they are greater or lesser than the entity above and/or below them in that pecking order.
“I don't know what the pecking order is nor do I care."
The values that I hold as more dear/greater/better determine the placement listing in MY pecking order, as it will in everyone else's personal listing. Those lists will undoubtedly be different for every individual. None of which dis-proves the existence of a pecking order.
Belief does not bring something into existence. If believing something created it then the world would be flat, because the vast majority of humanity at one time believed it to be flat. Being round makes it round, even if no one believes it.
I do not believe mere humans have the ability or objectivity to create and catalog a pecking order of life forms. Which does nothing to dis-prove this proof. The only attribute that really has to be agreed upon is that God is the Supreme Being. The definition of Supreme Being has been supplied. So God is God even if no one believes that God is God. Being God makes God, God.
Which doesn't mean "God" is not a true life form, or a made up character of one's imagination and beliefs. No. Being God makes God, God. Being the best makes one the best, even if no one knows it or believes it.
Having an opinion does not make the opinion a fact. Being a fact makes it a fact.
Not knowing who God is does not destroy God. Not knowing who or what is the best does not mean there isn't one. Not knowing which thing is best does not mean a best does not exist.
DoubleScorpion wrote: There are no facts without proof. We wasn't there, so we follow our beliefs on who, what or how the universe was created. So the creation, either Big Bang or God created, is based in beliefs.
Mikel, “No. Facts are facts even if they haven't been proven by humanity. A Fact is a fact even if every person in existence denies the validity of that fact. Facts are facts even if humanity doesn't know the fact exists. Believing a fact incorrect does not make it incorrect. The act of being a fact makes it a fact.
The belief that scientific discoveries have somehow disproved the existence of God is incorrect. Science is not the path to proof that God does not exist.
Science is the discovery of how God did some of what God does.
Discovering that there was a Big Bang and that humanity evolved from a lower life form, does not dis-prove the possibility that God created that Big Bang. It hasn't been proven that it was one or the other. At humanities current level of understanding both Creation and Evolution are completely compatible ideas and both are possible.
God is whatever God is in spite of all our diverse unproven opinions, most of which will probably be incorrect. An individual's opinion of what the pecking order should be, based on their subjective rating system, is not what determines the "true" pecking order. I do not believe humanity is capable of determining the "actual" pecking order. However the pinnacle of that actual pecking order is by definition the supreme being, commonly called God. That entity exists regardless of and unaffected by, all the beliefs/dis-beliefs and opinions of humanity.
 | Amazon Price: $15.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $0.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $13.99 List Price: $22.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $2.75 List Price: $2.78 |
 | Amazon Price: $0.00 |
This and only this is God
Since no one really agrees to a single definition of God. By that I mean everyone seems to believe thier version of God, "This and only this is God" is the true definition of that entity.
During my research of the various definitions of God. I found one main recurring theme common to them all. That recurring theme is the definition of God I used in this Hub. Since there is no way to prove or dis-prove each and every possible characteristic God may or may not have. I decided to proceed using the lowest possible common denominator in all the various definitions. Much like my example of using chromosomes to prove a man is a man.
Here are several definitions so you can decide for yourselves whether or not my description/definition of God is accurate.
The definitions of God:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. For the general polytheistic concept, see Deity. For God in the context of various religions, see an index of pages beginning in "God in". For other uses, see God (disambiguation).
God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.
God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.
God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent". These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides, Augustine of Hippo, and Al-Ghazali, respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God.
=====================================================
God
1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.(lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
=======================================================
Definition of GOD
1: the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler
=============================================================
Taoism
Tao, the subtle reality of the universe cannot be described, That which can be described in words is mearly a conception of the mind. Although names and descriptions have been applied to it, the subtle reality is beyond the description.
Tao Teh Ching - beginning of chapter 1
The subtle essense of the universe is elusive and evasive.
...
It is the subtle origin of the whole of creation and non-creation. It existed prior to the beginning of time as the deep and subtle reality of the universe. It brings all into being.
Tao Teh Ching - portions of chapter 21
Buddhism
"There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed.
"Since, O monks, there is an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, and unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed."
The Gospel of Buddha - Sermon at the bamboo grove at Rajagaha
Hinduism
Neither the multitude of gods nor great sages know of my origin, for I am the source of all the gods and great sages.
A mortal who knows me as the unborn, beginningless great lord of the worlds is freed from all delusion and all evils.
The Bhagavad-Gita - The tenth teaching, verses 2 & 3
Sihkism
There is One, only One Supreme Being, Truth Eternal, Creator of all seen & unseen, Fearless, Without hatred, Timeless Being, Non-Incarnated, Self created, Realized by the Grace of Guru (Perfect Master Only.)
Guru Granth Sahib Page 1
Sufism
You are the Absolute Existence which causes (our) transient (existences) to appear.
Masnavi - Book 1 - Creator and Creation
=========================================
God is the indescribable, uncreated, self existent, eternal all knowing source of all reality and being.
==========================================
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.
|
NEW 20 Compelling Evidences That God Exists - Boa, Kenn
Current Bid: $9.77
|
|
Proof that God Exists - Over 100 Books on DVDrom
Current Bid: $.99
|
|
God, Actually: Why God Probably Exists, Why Jesus Was P
Current Bid: $17.35
|
Disappointed?
Many have expressed a disappointment with this proof. Saying it doesn't prove anything at all. What they mean by that is it doesn't prove one group is right and another group is wrong about the nature of God. It doesn't provide support of what they believe to be the true nature of God. Thier adamant stance (In long debates on the forums*) is unless I prove everything that God has ever been attributed to be, the proof is meaningless.
*links included here:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/84698?page=3#post1819352
They say it doesn't force a consensus therefore it is useless. There is no power in the proof to make that group of people over there shut up about what they believe is true. That disappointment stems from them not getting what they were wanting, Power over other people.
They wanted this proof to give them the power of righteousness over another group of people. They wanted to be able to use the proof of God's existence to enforce their view of right and wrong. They were expecting it to make it so everyone would have to conform to an absolute standard of conduct and belief.
It is true, this proof does not do any of that, it merely proves the existence of God.
CommentsLoading...
If A=B and B=C then A=C and A,B and C are all the same thing they are all A and there is no B or C. If all is equal then all is God, all is one single entity.
My continued point is even if A=B=C there are still D-Z which are NOT equal to A. Since there are more than one entities in existence there must be a best. The Best by definition is God.
Your causation view is merely a new way of saying cause and effect or "happenstance" like the athiests are so fond of.
I don't know how many more times I can stand to say this or in how many more ways. A consensus does not create the entity. The Best is the best because it is the best. That you or I agree that it is the best matters not a bit. The simple fact that differences exist means that a best also must exist. God is defined as the best, the supreme. Therefore if any being at all exists, God exists.
Even if you are correct, how did the best create the next best, which is another criteria of being a God, at least a monotheistic one.
Your looking for proof that your idea of God (of what you believe God to be) is correct. This hub does not state "this, and only this, is God."
The characteristics that make God... God, from begining to end, including samples of God's DNA is the only way humanity will ever be "forced" to admit that the characteristics they deem (opinion) define God as God are mistaken. You have a set mental image of what God is to you as does everyone else. They may all be true depictions of God they may all be false. That proof lies somewhere else.
Interesting article. You offered PROOF that God exists, but your rationale is merely speculation from your own belief system. There is NO empirical proof that God exists, as no man has ever seen this entity, and undoubtedly never will, (at least in this material world of ours).
As you state: merely believing something to be true does not make it so.
While i certainly believe there MUST be a higher power because of the complexities of life in the material world, this is just my logical conclusion based on the limited mentality we have as humans.
To speculate and hypothesize is also the right of every individual. But that is all that it is: speculation and hypothesis.
Nice job in promoting provocative thoughts.
Again...The empirical proof is this:
1 We exist.
2 Other beings exist.
3 Supreme is defined as the best.(highest example of)
4 God is defined as the highest example of life.(the Supreme Being)
5 Therefore so long as there is a being in existence, a Supreme example must also exist. God is the name of that supreme example.
This IS empirical proof. It may not be the kind of proof you wanted, but it is empirical evidence.
The proof you list as refuting my empirical evidence is "No man has ever seen this entity" therefore your conclusion is only 'seeing' this entity is empirical evidence. (to you only physical evidence is evidence) That is Fallacy.
Kudos, Mikel
Interesting hub!
I would have to say that, in my opinion, this would be a logical proof of the existence of a Supreme Being, rather than a scientific one. Other than that, excellent work!
Logic IS science.
log·ic?[loj-ik] noun
1.the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
Believing in a creator myself, I would be happy to see proof of one. (Although I also believe uncertainty is an essential component of life so maybe I wouldn't. . .)
This to me constitutes a logical statement that we are not all the same and if you apply a hierarchical classification, one being could be considered superior to all the others.
Where it breaks down for me is how does being at the top of the heap convey godhood to one?
Does being the 'best' entity mean you made all the rest? No.
Being the oldest only means there was a time when you were alone, and that you may have had a part to play in all that came after, or maybe not. . .
Being the youngest just means you have more ahead of you than others, but also means you have the least experience
Being the strongest doesn't necessarily make you strong enough to be god
Being the kindest, gentless, most intelligent, most wise. . . none of these necessarily (logically) leads to god.
I believe in a creator. I don't know that I believe that the creator is also the supreme being.
It is certainly possible for a creation to surpass its creator.
Children do it to their parents all the time.
Just thoughts.
cheers
Anton,
What you are doing is what most people do. Claiming that since in your opinion in order for God to be God, God must have this specific trait, not have this other trait.
That is not what the definition of the Supreme Being is. I have proven that a Supreme Being exists, as I have said repeatedly I have never attempted to prove "this and only this is God".
But that's what people want, proof that what they have conceived God to be is what God 'MUST' be in order for God to be God.
If a created entity has surpassed 'God', then that entity became 'God' when it became the Supreme Being. There is no proof to support or deny this claim however and is why this is not included in the Hub.
***As for our children, we don't 'create' them. We procreate/reproduce it is a subtle distinction but not the same thing. Something from Nothing is Creation, the rest is merely Evolution.
Essentially, then, you are defining god as the top of a hierarchy of life-forms. If you are creating or limiting the definition, of course you can assert its existence. I'm not sure of the gain here.
It is fairly straightforward to do this with any construct. You have defined Supreme Being as that which is the greatest amongst all entities, on the premise that there is always a best and always a least. (I'm not convinced that if a single entity is all there is that 'best' can be assigned to it with any meaning, as it would also be the 'worst')
So we have a definition of a hierarchy and an assertion that all entities can be placed on the same scale of measure (best to worst) in an objective manner. I'm not sure that is the case, but accepted for the moment.
If you are adding no further definition to this supreme being then the logical statement does nothing to demonstrate that this Supreme being would meet any definition of god other than the one you use to make your proof: the one on top.
"I have proven that a Supreme Being exists"
Except this isn't the title of your hub. Your title says 'God'. You then go on to define 'God' as a supreme being: "The Greatest"
I could accomplish the same by asserting I can prove god, and then define god as anything that I know objectively to exist.
Respectfully I do not agree. I think you have stated that you believe all life can be placed on a value hierarchy from 'best to least'. What makes any life on earth better or worse than any life anywere else? Who decides? A value heirarchy is a subjective construct.
The only preconception I have of a creator is that Existence (your definition) is the result of a purposed intent. Clearly this is a personal bias. I wouldn't for a second declare this proven, even though I believe it. I do not know the nature of this creator and I believe that certain knowledge of same is impossible for humans to gain.
In this I believe you and I would agree, that we both accept there is a creator or god or supreme being; something higher on the hierarchy than human.
In order to determine whether we agree on anything else requires the definition of god to be a bit more refined then simply Supreme Being.
From the Oxford English Dictionary
"…(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being…"
"(god in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity"
In addition to the 'supreme' quality, there is also the notion that this supreme being has and exerts some control or authority. Without that, what is the purpose of the label 'god'?
And as for children, the act of reproduction is only one of a long line of choices we and the world make to shape a child.
Something new from something existing is also creation, (the only creation we have ever witnessed, actually) but I get what you're saying.
cheers
I don't have to prove that a man has blonde hair in a proof that the man is a man. I just have to provide proof that he has the correct chromosome(spelling?). That information alone is enough to prove the man is a man.
Saying that unless I also prove 'it' has blonde hair, a beard, 435 freckles, two dogs, 7 inches of manhood, and the ability to reproduce and anything less than that means the chromosome proof isn't proof, is fallacy. That is what your asking for and what I won't provide.
Being the best by definition makes that entity the supreme being, the supreme being is a definition of the concept God. This is proven, the rest(omnipotence, creator of all, etc.) may or may not be true and we can't prove it either way... that in no way makes the proof less of a proof.
So I have to ask, if it turns out that there is no life off earth (and there is no compelling or conclusive evidence of such which would be necessary in a logical, scientific proof such as this), which of the living organisms present would be god?
cheers
Oh that's easy.
The one that is the greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant. the Greatest in importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement. The best, the greatest form of life in existence, The Supreme Being.
That one... would be God. :)
The fact that there is order and science is proof that something created order making it possible. This is the concept of intelligent design and the idea that chaos does not exist in the final product of anything. The real argument is if God is possible and is their really any penalty for the unbeliever to consider the notion instead of being opposed to an idea they feel defies their reason. How many theories are facts and how many facts should be only theories? If something is real and you can not see it do you still claim that it is impossible. I have heard these arguments on all sides of what is possible or not and ask myself why can I not entertain the idea of possibility? It is not a question of evolution verses creation but to what extent does one influence the other? I believe both our right but the context of what, will never be discovered until we explore the possibilities of both ideas. The smarter we think we our the less we learn that we know. How does one believe in quantum physics and claim that God is not a possibility is absurd to me. I see no penalty for believing in God because it really costs me nothing once I remove humanity and their agendas from my life and their desire to control my soul.
I think I finally see where Mikel is coming from and it looks like all are falling into the semantic trap, in their opposing viewpoints, and including me, that we were dealing with the Christian definition of Supreme Being which this belief system equates with their definition of God which is equated with Creationism.
Break those equalities and Michel makes all of the sense in the world. The word "Supreme" takes on its simple meaning. Supreme is derived from the Latin word "Supra" (above) which begat the Latin word "Supremus". Its various meaningm, all of which probably apply here are:
1. of highest status or power a supreme tribunal
2. (usually prenominal) of highest quality, importance, etc. supreme endeavour
3. greatest in degree; extreme supreme folly
4. (prenominal) final or last, esp being last in one's life or progress; ultimate the supreme judgment
Since we are talking about human 'beings' here, after survival of the fittest is all said and done, the one left in control would be the "Supreme Being", assuming of course, it is humans who win. Nothing in that rational has anything to do with how we were created which is a whole different subject altogether.
I do have to disagree with Michel though on his assertion that "Science IS Logic", it simply isn't; each has its own, independent definitions. All of the examples that were given apply to logic, not science. Science, according to Wikipedia, and most other references is: "(from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."
Logic, on the other hand, is: "(from the Greek ?????? logik?)[1] is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning". You can use logic in the pursuit of science, but rarely do you use science in the pursuit of logic.
"Rarely do you use science in the pursuit of logic"
Science is the systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge.
Logic is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference.
Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
Science is the systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
Are we not now "Testing Logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true" ?
Are we not now weighing and measuring the logical conclusions that I have put forth.
Are we not scientifically step by step eliminating erroneuos conclusions and subjective inputs?
Then we are using science and scientific measure in the pursuit of Logic. (Oddly enough we actually do it all the time.)
According to Wiki:
Science- (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.
According to Dictionary . com:
log·ic?[loj-ik] noun
1.the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
According to Merriam-Webster:
Definition of LOGIC
1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic (3): a branch of semiotics; especially: syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
So Logic IS a Science Transposing them saying Science is Logic is incorrect, Science IS Logical however would be correct.
@SanXuary, my apologies, but your statement "The fact that there is order and science is proof that something created order making it possible." just doesn't fly. It has now been well established that in the end, the universe, in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, will dissolve into chaos/randomness; order will be entirely lost.
On the face of it, science is independent of the idea of God, it would exist with or without intelligent design simply because it is a concept. If there were no humans, there would be no science, yet there still could be intlligent design, some might argue even more intelligent.
Order, on the other hand, is a state of nature and is dependent on how things started. However, the fact that it exists, does not prove or disprove the existance of God or, even if God exists, the nature of God.
There in extremely little doubt now about the efficacy of the Big Bang Theory; that things got started from some infintesimal packet of something about 14.7 billion years ago (yes, they are down to decimals now). You are always left, of course, with the question - "What created that little packet of something"? My answer is God, I don't have a better one at the moment. Of course, this is not in anyway the Christian God, because once created, Nature, as they say, took its course.
If you want to say that Intelligent Design was used in the creation of that little packet of something, go right ahead; I won't disagreee with you because I can't offer an alternative. I can, however, offer an alternative for everything thing that followed, and it didn't need the hand of God to do it.
Mikel, upon reflection and reading your answer, I think I actually go along with "Logic Is Science" as being correct after all; the missing 'a' is sort of implied. I initially read that phrase in an exclusive manner, thinking you menat there is no Science other than Logic, which, of course, is not really a logical conclusion on my part, is it. At least it got me to look up the definitions.
Mikel, back to your hub. To follow your logic, doesn't God have to be human? Since we are not actually aware of any power greater than us, we are only guessing at it, would the Supreme Being be that person who is the most highest of all persons, given the assumption that the human race is the highest life form among all known life forms?
Even taking your "we exist" point and supposed something existed at some point in time that was superior to us, so superior that it created us. At this moment in time, we have no knowledge if that entity, whatever it is or was, is alive or dead, since we have no direct knowledge that its state of being. The only thing we have direct knowledge of is our own existance; everything else is man's interpretation of the tea leaves.
God 'Has To Be' the Supreme Being, whatever entity that is. If humanity is the pinnacle of existence then a human would be God.
We Have no proof that Humanity is even the pinnacle of existence on our tiny little planet let alone in all of creation, so my answer is No God does NOT 'have to be' Human.
Being unaware of a fact, in no way destroys the existence of that fact. Not knowing who or what is best in no way changes that entity that is actually best. Not knowing that 1+1=2 does not make 1+1 not equal 2.
Not knowing if there is any other life anywhere else does not change that life (that may or may not exist). Our direct knowledge (and our opinions for that matter) only affect us. It does not in any way affect the existence of God or any other forms of life that might exist somewhere else.
You are correct about everything we cannot prove, those things are best guesses and will remain best guesses until we find proof one way or the other.
So we now have proof God (in whatever form) does in fact exist. Where we go from here, is up to us.
You our assuming that such theories are facts such as the big bang theory. You are claiming that chaos or the third law of thermodynamics has no order and that one can not establish order to the fact that things will eventually break down. We claim to know what Dinosaurs look like and still no one has seen what they looked like. The word Dragon has been around and a part of every culture on Earth but the word Dinosaur was created in the 1800's. I am not disputing a theory but arguing that we are a long ways from determining so called facts. Currently science is discovering things smaller then atoms and properties they never knew existed. There is even an on going argument that something may even travel faster then light. If that is discovered so much for your facts on nothing exceeding the speed of light. I am not disputing science because a theory is only that, but apparently the idea of a God requires a great deal of attention. If God is greater then science then how can one prove that he does exist? I have lots of answers to that but free will and a open mind is required by the individual to find out for their self. I am not challenging anyone but once again what is my penalty in believing in the possibility of both science and God?
I have explored some very intriguing things on DNA. One area is that DNA is more then just chemicals and actually holds a form of unexplainable energy. One claim states that you could sit in a chair and that this energy can be detected long after you leave it. Some researchers believe that one day that they may be able to track your DNA in determining where you have been. Even odder is a theory that life simply travels as energy until it finds an environment it can exist in and something occurs that brings it into a physical realm. Perhaps when you die it returns to this form the so called idea of inter-dimensions. Just as unique is the idea that DNA is unique to each creature but has a vast number of variables and possibilities. For example we can inbreed or out breed a horse and change its size and characteristics. Essentially not knowing what DNA belongs to what creature means we have no idea what creature is the same or different. Perhaps Noah did not need to many animals because one buffalo may be all the buffalo's you need and time creates all the others. What you think is extinct might not be extinct at all and in fact is always changing. This is why I do not beat up the Evolution and Creation argument. My guess is that no one has it right and no one knows Gods plan or how he works as pointed out in the story of Job. Personally, I think we can never know vast arguments that explain everything because no one could possibly do so with one brain it is simply to much. This is why we should entertain an open mind to greater possibilities. Do not let man decide your beliefs and instead entertain your own mind because there is no penalty for seeking wisdom.
Mikel G . . . great hub and great responses. No adolescents scrambling for points around here! The grown ups are talking.
I got one for you. When Einstein developed his theory of relativity, he came up with a lot of math equations that we use on a regular, practical basis in research and practice of quantum mechanics. We all know e=mc2. I would have to look it up . . . there is an equation for how much energy it takes to accelerate matter to the speed of light. It takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate matter to the speed of light (not near the speed of light). How did all of this light I see get accelerated? I am so impressed by my own intelligence, aren't you?
@SanXuary Nicely Stated, I agree let's leave the possibilities open until we have proof they aren't possibilities.
@WD Curry 111 I have two Hubs about this, Paradoxal Mathematics and Look Out Einstein. You should check them out. Forum links included. Being impressed... I know I'm not all that smart, I have to keep looking up all the big words.... :)
@SanXuary I find the entire quantum level fascinating. The particle-wave duality especially. The nature of nature...Wow.
I didn't mean . . . aren't you impressed with your own intelligence . . . I thought you might be impressed with mine. I was joking. I hardly fit in with you and your readers. I was impressed with ya'll's (Florida for you guys) intelligence.
I was a graphic artist for some freakishly smart research engineers here on the Space Coast, so, if I don't say too much, I can hang. I enjoyed every comment and just had to chide in. I will read your hubs, since you have given it some thought. Thanks for the quality article and discussion.
I didn't mean anything by my comment either. It was one of my many lame attempts at humor.
But it is true.... I do have to keep looking up the 'Big Words'.... :(
It's all good, brother. You get the drift. We'll talk more. Meanwhile, this Chesapeake thing has me thinking about blue crabs and I think they get fatter down here. I might pack up the kids and set some lines out. You'll be calling out for God if one gets a hold of your finger . . . proof or not.
@WD, in answer to your speed of light question, there are two types of elementary particals of which all things are made. If the partical is a fermion, then matter is the result; its distinguishing characteristics are that no two fermions can occupy the same space at the same time and they have mass.
If the partical is a Boson, the result is a "force carrier"; its distinguishing characteristics are that more than one Boson may occupy the same space at the same time and they are massless. Light is made up of photons, which are Bosons.
Because photons are massless, they aren't limited by Einstein's limiting equations.
Particle-Wave duality states they are both at the same time. Explain that one. ;)
I like this hub. It remains me of a scripture in The Book of Abraham. chapter 3 ver 19, And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.
This is found in The Pearl of Great Price, A scripture used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I know your hub is not pointing toward any particular belief concerning the nature or make-up of God. Nor are you promoting any one faith above another so I take full responsibility for any flak on my comment.
Since Bosons can exist in the same space at the same time, they can exhibit both particle and wave characteristics simultaneously. Light, photons, behaves exactly this way; acting like waves when passing through a small slit; acting like particles when bent by gravity.
My point was light has mass, and travels at C. Einstein said that wasn't possible. The math says that isn't possible. So we are hedging on that hard truth by saying light isn't exactly particles with mass it's both, at the same time.... That way we don't have to deal with the fact that if they are always both, then particles with mass are traveling at C. (but that's in my other hub- Paradoxal Mathematics-)
All you have proved is the tautology that something you define as supreme is supreme.
The most "supreme" being we know of is mankind. No gods.
@ Pcunix
Nice tautology. The supreme being 'you' know of is humanity. Others of us believe differently, most of humanity believes that we are not the supreme example of life.
('Most' Supreme is also redundant)
But that's "belief", not proof.
And yes, it is redundant, though deliberately so to leave open the possibility that some other creature is "better" (whatever criteria decides that).
There are no gods. If you want to believe otherwise, fine. As long as you don't abuse others because of that silliness, I have no problem. I WILL laugh at your more foolish claims, and shake my head at the daily contradictions you experience but ignore, but other than that, go, be happy.
Pcunix, you say there are no gods. I'd love to see your proof. Thanks for your permission to believe differently than you.
God does exist... the scientific proof is in this Hub. The non scientific proof, the feelings, the 'knowing' that God interacts with us... the intuitive and emotional 'proof'... what you label as foolishness is a much deeper and more profound proof. Those interactions and experiences are what you ignore or dismiss as silliness. Provide your proof and believers everywhere will be forced to believe what you believe. Until then... Don't abuse others, go, be happy and accept your belief is only true to you.
My proof is at my hub titled "Arguing with the religious - why do I bother?" (I don't like to put links in other people's hubs). It won't convince you, because your emotional needs will override logic.
You have no proof here. You only have belief. You think that's profound, I think rather the opposite. Again, if you aren't using your religion to justify abuse of others, I have no complaints.
@ PC
I read your hub and left the following as a comment:
Compliments on a well written and very well thought out hub. I admire your intelligence, accept your right to believe as you do and even agree that Theists are right handed and Atheists are lefties (I truly believe that is one of the best descriptions of the reality of the two opposing belief systems that I have heard, with Yin and Yang coming in at a close second).
'Why you bother' is admirable, no one should feel alone when they are not.
So, now to the why I disagree. You are already familiar with what I believe so I'll concentrate on the logial flaws I find in the reasoning of your Hub.
1. Limits humanity has do not necessarily translate as limits to another form of life. By that I mean logic gates are a requirement for us (because of the way we are), that does not prove something we don't know of or understand can't accomplish the same thing for a different kind of life form in a completely different way. (airplanes and hot air balloons both accomplish 'flying' in completely different ways)
2. We cannot self-create, this does not prove that another type of life form shares our limits. I believe (without an ability to back up my belief with proof) that God is God because God is the one and only entity in existence that can and did self-create (transmuted/transformed from nothing). The reason I believe that is because it seems rational to me to think at some point in time there was absolutely nothing in existence. The nature of light (partical-wave duality) seems to reinforce this rational to me. Partical-wave duality, having the ability to go back and forth between the two states of existence (mass, no mass) or being both something with mass and without mass at the same time as current theories hold, shows me things we thought of as impossible are plainly possible.
3. God is credited with creating light first. It is rational/reasonable to think God's first creation beyond self-creation would be something most like (very similar to) God, at least to me.
4. God therefore becomes (again to my reasoning) a being that is both existent and Non-existent at the same time, like the duality of light. This ability/characteristic trait I believe is unique to God and makes God a supernatural being (not a being to be confused with a Merlin type magician, but a being that has a unique ability, an ability beyond all limits of existence, and all other beings in existence). This ability means God can and does self-create/self un-create and back again at will, again like the Particle-wave duality.
5. There is nothing smaller than nothing, therefore your belief that 'something' smaller than the totality that God is must have existed first is both true and false because 'nothing' (a component to the physical make-up of God) did both exist and not exist prior to God. God's physicality does not have to be anything like what we are or what we can understand, so pointing out our physical limits does not prove those limits 'must' also apply to another form of existence (God). My belief is that God's physicality is best described/understood by comparing it to the physicality of light.
6. The fact that lefties(Atheists) cannot believe in anything but the Non-existent side of the duality, and righties(Theists) cannot believe in anything but the existent side of the duality leads me to the thought that some of us(me) are ambdextrous and can see and understand both sides of the duality that is (to me) the true nature of the being I call God. Light is a particle-wave duality, God is a nothing/everything duality.(existent/non-existent duality).
Since the nothing side technically is non-existent, the everything side is what God is even though God is also made up of, and cannot exist without, the nothing side of the duality. God depends on nothing. God needs nothing. Even though nothing does not exist.
This is some of my understanding of God (the logical thinking side) and why my thoughts reinforce my emotional/inuitive belief in the existence of, God.
I see a lot of 'smoke and mirrors'. It seems we make the 'god' debate more complicated than it has to be. I'm kind of in the middle so I guess I'm Agnostic, but I rather defend Atheism over theism. Maybe because of how silly society acts with our current man made religions. Regardless of my opening statement. I'm glad to see you talk about god from a Deist view.(not literally but that's the style I picked up from the read.)Nicely done article. The leg work I saw in it made me tired just thinking about writing something of this quality. (if I even could!)
Thanks Cranfordjs for the comment and the explanation that you supplied to help me understand your comment.
Two things. Firstly, this is more or less the ontological argument which has been argued over for centuries but with which most people use now as a little trick to confuse people in showing they can prove god's existence. It is fairly common knowledge that this argument is infact a clever play on words rather than an actual viable argument.
Secondly, to shoot a hole through your proof, I will point out that it is YOU who ha stated there is a supreme being. Just because all people are not the same in quality does not mean that there is an entity of perfect quality - that is an assumption and therefore your argument no longer becomes a scientific proof because you made that assumption. So without there necessarily having to be a supreme being, we are back to the beginning problem of whether god exists or not.
To clarify, I will use your way of arguing.
1. Imagine in your head the perfect unicorn.
2. To be perfect, that unicorn must exist, because if it didn't, it would not be perfect.
3. Therefore, the unicorn exists.
I hope that shows you in simple terms the problem with your argument.
The only thing you have shot a hole through is your own foot.
Supreme and Perfect aren't the same thing. (That's why they have different meanings in the dictionaries).
If a single being exists, a supreme example must also exist.That is not the same thing as saying Imagine a perfect being...
I hope this shows in simple terms that your problem is you need to buy and read a dictionary. ;)
Thanks for your comment!
I didn't say they were the same and you have ignored the point that it is you who has decided the supreme being must be a god. Why shouldn't it be a man? Why should we assume that it is a god, just because there has to be a top of a hierarchy doesn't mean that top has to be a god.
To continue using the unicorn, you could have the supreme unicorn which would mean it was the greatest in power/authority unless of course it doesn't exist in the first place which is the point of the argument that has been 'assumed'.
If you read through the comments and indeed the Hub itself, leaving behind your assumptions, you might discover that what you are saying here has been stated by me and several others quite a few times. But just to make sure you see it this time I'll repeat it one more time.
God is the title of~ the Supreme Being~ whatever being that ends up as. Your assumption that the Christian Religions definition of God is what defines God (This and only this is God) as God is your assumption~ not mine.
I have stated repeatedly, whatever being turns out to be the supreme being is the being that turns out to be God. If a human is the supreme example of lifeforms, then a human would indeed be God. There is no proof to that assumption however and that is why the Hub does not state 'the greatest human is God'. Nor does it state the greatest pink unicorn is God.
The definition of God (or as you state a god) is not whatever preconceived notion you deem it to be, it is the definition listed at the very begining of the Hub.
Of the two of us... Only you are making assumptions.
"1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed"
Notice how, the words perfect and supernatural both come into those definitions. God does not just equal a supreme being. That is one of the things he would be, but there are other things as well in order for him to be made a god. Therefore, if the Supreme Being was a man, it would not make him a God.
Also, I apologise for my last post, I had edited it and written a lot more than that but for some reason it deleted and so you only got the beginning of my explanation which is annoying.
To clarify, I believe in God, I also am well acquainted with the ontological argument, and I would support your title, and what you have written, but I would not agree with you actually genuinely believing this argument can prove God. It doesn't. It is a play on words, a relatively clever one. But remember, all those words have MAN MADE DEFINITIONS, which is what the argument runs on.
I would however, support your reasons for believing in God, which you put in one of your other hubs. Faith is the key, everybody knows that, and personal experience in life can often add to one's own opinions and beliefs. I don't think you can seriously use this argument, which clearly doesn't work - and if you really disagree with that, then I will post the opinions of the religious philosophers of the last 400 years who have annihilated the ontological argument as they will word it much better than me.
It is a well written and present hub and explanation of a fun argument though. I look forward to you presenting a convincing Cosmological proof for the existence of God.
...And again...
The definition you are listing in your comment as 'THE' definition of God (this and only this is God) is the 'Christian' definition of what God is.
I am not proving the Christian definition of God as valid. I am not supporting the Christian Faiths, churches or points of view. In fact I believe the Christian Faiths are childish and outdated belief systems that even middle school children have trouble not seeing the flaws in.
Since even the hundreds of diverse 'Christian' organizations cannot agree on what constitutes God as God, or what good and evil actually is... Using your/thier very narrow perspective and definition of the supreme being would result in one of two ways:
1. God is unprovable
~or~
2. The Christian definition is flawed.
I believe the latter is true. The Christian definition of God is flawed, it does not define God it defines what they want God to be.
The defintion of God used in this Hub is more acurate, more realistic, and much more widely accepted. I am not proving Christianity. I am proving (have proved) the existence of God.
If you cannot understand from the many many many times I have said this proof is not a proof of the Abrahamic/Christian Definition of God then I do not know how else I can possibly get you to understand.
I'll say it one more time. The Christian definition of God is flawed. The Christians are mistaken. I am not proving them correct in thier flawed assumptions of the true nature of God nor attempting to prove thier (flawed) definition of God as accurate, becuase it is not accurate. The definition of God listed in this Hub is the actual/true definition of God, and the scientific proof supplied in this hub proves the existence of that entity.
You essentially just summed up why your argument doesn't work. If you are saying my definition of God (and it was the definition from the dictionary, nothing to do with Christianity) is not the correct one and not the definition you are talking about then I can completely agree that my definition may not necessarily be the right one. The reason for that is because it is a man made definition, a couple of words to which we have assigned a meaning, and so by extension, although your definition is right in your mind, it does not mean it is THE definition, and even if it was, it is still a man made definition and man made definitions, like man made gods or man made anything else are fallible and so cannot provide the corner stone of a PROOF of something. It's that kind of thinking which has some people still believing that the world was created in seven days.
So I will say it again for you. Just as you believe my dictionary definition isn't correct (and you have every right to do so because it is a definition which a person has come up with), so your definition cannot be considered as an absolute truth. They are both valid definitions which are back by a lot of people, but that does not mean, for a second, that those definitions are correct or true.
In the same way 500 years ago the definition of the world would have involved the word flat (and a lot less people would have questioned that than question our definitions of God) so we cannot use our definitions of a word like God to create a truth.
My proof that you can fall off the edge of the earth:
1. The world is flat.
2. By definition, because it is flat, it must have an end.
3. If it is both flat, and has an end, if I reached that end, I would fall of it.
I hope you see my point.
I do understand your point. I also understand that you are not correct.
Saying that because humanity named water water and defined it by describing the properties that 'water' demonstrates does not in any way make water NOT water. Water is whatever it is despite the various opinions and names that humanity ascribes to it. The definition simply allows humanity to understand common ideas.
My definition of God describes what God is, not what God did or does.
The Christian definition makes an action that an entity might (or might not) have taken the defining characteristic of the entity. That is a flawed definition. God being the supreme being would remain the supreme being in spite of doing or not doing any particular thing. Proving that God is not the originator and ruler of the universe proves only that God did not do that thing, it does not prove God isn't God nor that God did/does not exist. Therefore the defining characteristic is not the actions God has undertaken it is the 'being' supreme. The best is the best because it is the best, not because it is the best and also has accomplished a certain action.
I'm getting very tired of listening and responding to you all saying the same thing over and over again. You are restating the same things that everyone else that has left comments has also already said repeatedly. So unless further comments are something original, they will not be posted nor responded to.
I hope you see my point.
***
1. If the world was flat you cannot assume that you could fall off of it. In order for you to be able to fall off it there would have to be a gravity force pulling you down/away from the flat Earth. A force greater than the gravity of the flat earth.
3.It is concievable that a flat earth's gravity would simply allow you to 'turn the corner' and remain firmly on the flat Earth. Turn it again and be upside from your starting point but still be firmly 'on' the flat planets surface. Being able to fall off it would mean that you could 'fall off it' from any point of it's surface.
2.Using the words 'by definition' does not make your following statement true. Being flat does not mean 'it' cannot be infinite. Being flat by definition means it is flat and nothing more. Having an end means it must have an end.
The assumptoins in your latest example are the same systemic problem you have with assumptions and your reasoning and debating suffers because of it.
Thanks for playing though!!
Im not sure you proved God exists. well perhaps to youself and as you say it doest really matter what one thinks on that I do agree. your probably smarter then me anyway. to me its semantics and I personally dont feel words can do the idea of "whatever" justice, the whole notion is so far out. I dont fancy even using the word God much. you made it a fascinating exercise I will give you that and I think all you guys should get together and have a few beers. anyway Im voting thumbs up for what its worth.
Thanks for the comment gconeyhiden. (the comment that follows is your comment on 'that other guys' hub) I felt it was appropriate to post that here as well.
gconeyhiden Level 1 Commenter
hi, well i read quite a bit of his hub then was compelled to read yours. I basically commented it was an interesting exercise in semantics and that he didnt prove God exists to me but perhaps to himself, and as he said it doesnt matter what people think. i also commented i dont really fancy even the word God. you made fine point that all religions are of course products of the human mind..possibly affected by drugs of all things. nice hub. thumbs up you true unbeliever.
Strange that what you have posted here and what you said you posted here aren't really the same at all??
My Esoteric Level 6 Commenter 7 months ago
I suspect noone who believes in monotheism believes in your "proof"; God, in the monotheistic view "cause" all that there is and is not "just" supreme. Nothing in your proof has anything to do with causation.
Your basic premise of no two unlike things can ever be equal doesn't pass the logic test either. For starters, if two unlike things cannot be identical, then why is there the logical argument that if A=B and B=C, then A must equal C. By your reasoning, this logical construct could never have been developed because A would never equal B, so why bother.
It also fails by your own definitions, as many of your commentors have pointed out. While many things may be superior to other things, superiority is a PURELY SUBJECTIVE measurement that has as many interpretations as there are rational and irrational people on earth; consequently, in your usage of it, it has no meaning what so ever.
If you want to talk in terms of "superior" strength, now you have an OBJECTIVE measure so long as all agree that "superior" actually means stronger. Even in your specific examples, such as Lion vs cat, "superior" has no meaning unless you define objective measures ALL agree on. If my definition of "superiority" revolves around cuddliness; the cat is "superior" to a lion, hands down.
My proof of God's existance is much simpler and one monotheist don't buy either because it equates man and God being in the same plane, as yours does. To me, God is simply the apex of the chain of causations as you view them backwards. My parents caused me, their parents caused them, so on and so forth until you get to the first proto-human in that chain. Then you go backward from there until you are at the formation of the earth, then before that, the solar system. At the end of this chain is what began it all, the First Cause, which, for completeness' sake, one says caused itself. What the monotheist don't agree with in this arrangement is that all things and ideas that are must be related to the First Cause - God.