TED Conversations

Adel Bibi

This conversation is closed.

Can anyone prove the existence of a supernatural deity?

I think that any philosophical ideal that isn't governed by the laws of physics will never be proven. Therefore, I guess all gods are just delusion. Whenever a person believes in god, that is because he found his parents doing so. Which means all our beliefs are nothing but a geographical accident!

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Dec 3 2012: to answer that question first you need to have an accepted definition of "supernatural" and "deity". and based on those definitions - you could logicaly argue about the existance/nonexistance of the deity.

    so if you define "deity":
    1) a being who is all-powerfull - you could argue with the paradox: can it create a problem so complex that it can't be solved by anyone (including her)? If can't create the problem = not all powerful. Can't solve the problem = not all powerful. therefore such a being can't exist
    for each "characteristic" you add to the "deity" it gets easyer to prove it can't exist as per the definition (is good = why it lets bad happen if is all powerful and can stop all the suffering)
    2) some started to define "god" as "that that is above human mind" - in this case it becomes impossible to find the characteristics, get a definition, etc. But to this you could argue that 1000 years ago thunder was "above" what the human mind could know - thought to be god/made by gods - and now we know better. etc.

    and so on

    so...1) first you need a definition.
    2) based on thet definition you can try to prove if it's possible to exist such a thing or not.
    3) so far all definitions of "god/deity" are inconsistent with human logic - therefore you can attack them logicaly. doesn't mean that "a god" can't exist - just that it can't exist as we tried to define it so far.
    • thumb
      Dec 3 2012: "If can't create the problem = not all powerful. Can't solve the problem = not all powerful. therefore such a being can't exist."

      First, God is not a "being." She's an existence. Furthermore, your definition and presumption of what omnipotence is--a complex problem that can be created, but can't be solved--fail as a definition, or a test of Omnipotence, since it assumes that such a question, beyond the human realm, is contemplative. It's not.

      God is the All-in-All. There's nothing else but Him, Her, It.

      In the absolute, where God has existed in the always, such a question can't be asked. Who besides God would ask it, and who besides God would know it, and who besides God would want to?

      Since the question that has been designed to test "omnipotence," or any other attribute of Godliness, is impossible to ask, it doesn't require an answer.
      • Dec 3 2012: 1) as per your definition god is not a "being" - therefore is not a deity (because a deity is a "being")
        2) also as per your definition (all in all) it does not have a personality - as per our understanding of "personality"

        Both of above are in contrast to ALL religious definitions of gods - as far as i know

        = therefor your attempt to define "god" is just to put the name of "God" on "univers/existence" - so through it to "detach" "god" of all the characteristics that are given to beings - an attempt to make him/it above all.

        which is just as correct as me putting the name of "butterfly" to a tomato and through this "proving" a "butterfly" is a vegetable :)
        • thumb
          Dec 3 2012: "Both of above are in contrast to ALL religious definitions of gods - as far as i know"

          And you have isolated the problem: There's much that you don't know.

          "so through it to "detach" "god" of all the characteristics that are given to beings - an attempt to make him/it above all."

          If you're to apply a definition of God to a question that you pose, wouldn't it behoove you to the get the question right, or the question becomes purely an exercise in ego assuagement.

          "which is just as correct as me putting the name of "butterfly" to a tomato and through this "proving" a "butterfly" is a vegetable."

          "What's in a name?'

          You can do as you choose, as often as you choose, as long as you choose, but if your questions don't take into account ultimate reality--and God as She truly is--then your questions are pure fools gold, and an ultimate act of futility.
    • thumb
      Dec 4 2012: Good idea to define the deity.

      I guess there are many different definitions, reflecting no actual evidence for one, or its nature.

      Just speculation.

      All powerful is problematic, just as connecting any concept to infinity.

      How do you know a deity is all powerful, not just the most powerful thing we have imagined. What does all powerful mean.

      I also love how some theists and deists essentially define something as all powerful and all knowing yet outside reality. Outside time and space, intangible, invisible. Virtually non existent, which brings us back to it being a meaningless speculative bunch of concepts.

      So many definitions, because no direct evidence at all.
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2012: "So many definitions, because no direct evidence at all."

        Your saying so doesn't make it so. There's "evidence" all around you--evidence abounds--but if you still dismiss it, the evidence may as well not exist.

        "How do you know a deity is all powerful, not just the most powerful thing we have imagined."

        God is One. If She's not One, then He's not Supreme. If She's not Supreme, then the term God has been misapplied. And if One, then Omnipotent. There must be at least more than one for power to be shared, but that notion of God would reduce God to a non-God status, and God wouldn't be God or Omnipotent.

        "I also love how some theists and deists essentially define something as all powerful and all knowing yet outside reality."

        Physical "reality" as we know it is subject to decay and deterioration--that is, "dust to dust." Were God to reside in the visible universe--the material universe--She would be subject to the limitations of that universe, and would be, upon its dissolution, as material and as vulnerable as the visible universe, and not eternal, and invincible.

        Instead, It creates out of sight, bringing forth that which we see from that which we don't see, the temporal from the eternal, the physical from the non-physical, life from Life and mind from Mind.

        "Virtually non existent."

        Were that the case, you'd be non-existent. For you to exist, God must exist, Life must exist, as well as Mind. This isn't "speculative," unless, of course, you believe the essence of you to be "speculative," your mind and your life.

        "no direct evidence at all."

        I reiterate: You're the "evidence."
        • thumb
          Dec 5 2012: What there is is our perception of reality.

          What there is is our beliefs about life the universe etc.

          There is no reason for there to be one god or goddess unless you arbitrarily create some definition and constraints.

          We could say gods instead of God. There might be 12 distinct entities that created the known universe. Or a million.

          Its just self serving sophistry to define something outside the physical universe.

          What does that even mean.

          Then you define it as being able to create the physical universe. How convenient.

          I exist therefore god is just a statement without suppOrt.

          You are basically saying god is necessary for the universe and everything.

          It is an argument from ignorance.

          Can't you see that its like saying we were created as modern humans, before we figured out evolution, that god sends plagues before we understood germs etc.

          we perceive Life and the universe but don't know how they come about therefore god. Poor logic and reasoning filled with false premises and fallacies.

          If my existence is the best evidence you have for god, well you must have pretty low standards for proof. Its a weak case. A mystery answered with an unverifiable mystery.
      • thumb
        Dec 5 2012: "Suggest intent is not relevant star formation, or an electron being attracted to a proton."

        Intent is everything, in the formation of a star, or a whole universe:

        "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so."

        Without "intent" creation would have failed, and the "it was so," wouldn't have been the benediction upon it. And it would have taken real "magic" to bring forth anything (manifest anything) in our world--on the personal level or the collective level.
        • thumb
          Dec 7 2012: Is your view of god managing every aspect of what I consider naturasl forces and processes.

          How do you know there are gods

          That they made the universe

          What made them

          Why is the bible a valid reference for supernatural claims.

          Do you know what the authors meant by firmament and lights.

          Do you think they knew our sun is a star etc. Poetic, but ignorant.

          I guess I don't agree with your starting premise of god, creation etc.

          I don't agree with your assumption of some transcendent realm etc.

          Speculation. Circular self serving speculative argument.

          You don't know if we are just an unconscious dream of some powerful thing.

          Its all backwards. A mythology created to explain what they saw. God sending plagues. God causing floods.
      • thumb
        Dec 7 2012: "Is your view of god managing every aspect of what I consider naturasl forces and processes."

        God is One. Directly or indirectly, God is behind all causes and effects, but not all causes and effects are rooted in reality. Some are illusions.

        "How do you know there are gods."

        Because we fit the general description of "gods": invincible, all-knowing, and don't die.

        "How do you know there are gods ...That they made the universe"

        Because we're still doing so: We are creation machines, creating universes and realities with every thought, with every desire, with ever imagining.

        "Why is the bible a valid reference for supernatural claims."

        Because of the validity of its instructions, which many are proving in their personal experiences, from day to day.

        "Do you know what the authors meant by firmament and lights."

        Yes, as well as the whole text dealing with creation (the Creation Story), not only Chapter One, but Two, as well. It's not what you think it is, but this is not the proper forum for a full exegesis of what the text is saying and what it means.

        "Do you think they knew our sun is a star etc."

        The author knew more than your scientists are willing to admit, despite their supposed superior methods, and their focus on empiricism.

        "I guess I don't agree with your starting premise of god, creation etc."

        You can start at any point in the narrative, but it still won't obviate the obvious: At some point, we have to acknowledge A Beginning--"In the Beginning God."

        Actually, it's inescapable, and science will always founder under its own weight, unless it factors in a deity, and that dreaded "intelligent design."

        "I don't agree with your assumption of some transcendent realm etc."

        It's not my "assumption." Our whole world exists as a "transcendental realm," and that ream has added immeasurably to our life and our lifestyle. What can be more "transcendental" than math, and how it has transformed our current society--indeed our world?
      • thumb
        Dec 7 2012: "You don't know if we are just an unconscious dream of some powerful thing."

        Who's speculating now?

        "Its all backwards. A mythology created to explain what they saw. God sending plagues. God causing floods."

        And we still have "plagues," and we still have "floods." And guess what, Gods are still behind them--still "causing" them.
      • thumb
        Dec 7 2012: "If my existence is the best evidence you have for god, well you must have pretty low standards for proof. Its a weak case. A mystery answered with an unverifiable mystery."

        As I've stated before: You have a very low estimate of yourself, and your place in the scheme of things. That can't be helped.

        But know this: As long as your precious science is no closer to resolving the "mystery" of life, the mind, and the origin of the universe, my resolution stands on equal ground.

        I'll take my experience any day to their wild speculations.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.