TED Conversations

Adel Bibi

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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!

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Dec 3 2012: "Prove" is subjective.

    What proof would you accept?

    Be careful of the word delusion. A couple centuries ago the concept of an automobile, telephone, or microwave oven would have been considered a delusion. Today, it may seem inconceivable that anyone will ever prove the existence of a supernatural deity Tomorrow, that deity might be sitting at your dining table, explaining to you all of your actual delusions.

    IMO, it is delusional to believe that our puny senses are adequate to understand the universe (or multiverse). There is certainly no particular reason to believe so.

    It is important to understand the limits of our knowledge.
    • Dec 3 2012: ""Prove" is subjective"

      That's quasi-philosophical nonsense. Some opinions are more rational than others and when you've disproven something you've come closer to figuring out how the universe actually works, no matter how many billions politicians and their spindoctors will spend to convince you otherwise.
      • Dec 4 2012: Not nonsense. Proof requires a level of evidence. Among different individuals, that level varies.

        Some people look around at the world and everything they see, touch and hear is evidence that god exists. For these people, the level of evidence required for proof is very low.

        For other people, an argument containing only words, with no empirical support is sufficient.

        For some people, no amount of evidence of any kind is sufficient.

        For most of us, a one-on-one conversation with god would convince us of her existence, but it would not provide empirical proof acceptable to others.

        Still others hear and read the many subjective experiences that indicate the existence of spiritual entities, and that is sufficient proof.

        My question was not intended as rhetorical.

        What proof would you accept?
        • thumb
          Dec 5 2012: "For most of us, a one-on-one conversation with god would convince us of her existence, but it would not provide empirical proof acceptable to others."

          True. But you are aware that many are having this "one-on-one conversation" with deity, but are reticent to talk about it for fear of derision, and having their sanity called into question?
        • thumb
          Dec 6 2012: Hi Wilbert, many Christians are walking around talking to what they imagine as god all the time. They may also claim god talks to them.

          Suggest you need more than that.

          Its a good question on what would be sufficient evidence to prove the existence of any gods or goddesses. If they are smart I'm sure they could work it out, far better than relying on the usual methods of revelation and authority humans rely on.

          If a quran appeared the size of the moon orbiting earth, that might be a start rather than a human going into a cave and coming out out with paper and ink or golden tablets no one sees and translation stones. Backed by religious mind state experience. So human. So mundane.
    • thumb
      Dec 3 2012: "Prove" is empirical, it demands evidence, so the challenge here is to provide empirical evidence for the claim that a god/supernatural deity exists. There is no mention in the question of the extent of restrictions to our ability to sense or understand anything beyond providing evidence….
      • thumb
        Dec 5 2012: "the challenge here is to provide empirical evidence for the claim that a god/supernatural deity exists."

        Are not your life and your mind sufficient "empirical evidence" to tip the scales in favor of a "god/supernatural deity"?

        Science is as perplexed about the source of both (mind and life), not unlike its perplexity around God, the mystery of which is only rivaled by Life and Mind.
        • thumb
          Dec 5 2012: to your question…..no….to your statement concerning science…….that is neither an argument or accurate…..

          so far, no one here or to my knowledge anywhere has presented any evidence to support the claim that a supernatural deity/god exists, if you claim it does….prove it
      • thumb
        Dec 5 2012: "no one here or to my knowledge anywhere has presented any evidence to support the claim that a supernatural deity/god exists, if you claim it does….prove it."

        You are my proof.
        • thumb
          Dec 5 2012: and yet your only evidence that I exist are the words posted here...
        • thumb
          Dec 6 2012: That is pretty weak proof.
      • thumb
        Dec 5 2012: "and yet your only evidence that I exist are the words posted here..."

        If it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me.
    • thumb
      Dec 4 2012: Barry, if I come across convincing proof, I will believe.

      Are you admitting currently there is no proof for any gods or goddesses?

      I tend to agree with Adel, that currently it is most likely all beliefs in a deity are misguided. The firmer and more specific the belief, the more delusion. Looser concepts such as deistic rather than theistic are less delusional., but still; unproven.

      Just simple reason indicates that all the contradictory t religious belief systems can not be all correct.

      So if there are gods, all those who have incorrect beliefs are delusional or at least mistaken.

      In fact chances are it is just as likely if beings such as gods existed we have not imagined anything close to their true nature.

      It is just as likely that there are a billion invisible gods sitting on my desktop as any other human created beliefs involving invisible intangible beings.
    • thumb
      Dec 4 2012: This is the problem we're all facing. We don't really know the boundaries of science. Science could allow us in the future to travel to other parallel universes. This idea is way more harder to perceive and accept than the idea of god.
      This is way I can't deny nor accept god, but for the soon future I won't. Just like how the Romans won't believe that a device such as a TV will ever exist.
    • Dec 4 2012: Be careful with the word delusion? With that philosophy we would have to accept all kinds of charlatanry and never be able to advance in knowledge.
      • Dec 5 2012: IMO, The word charlatanry is more accurate than delusional when describing beliefs that have no empirical evidence to support them.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.