Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:05 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 223 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:52 am +0000
Posts: 92
While reading TUB I realized something: it is impossible to prove the existence of God.

Logic can in general be used for constructing proofs. However, you can only draw logical conclusions based on a set of assumptions. Logic cannot prove the truth of your assumptions.

A common assumption that many people take for granted is that "the scientific method can show what is real". However, such people don't usually realize that this assumption also limits the scope of what can be observed. In fact, it limits the reality to the phenomenon that are observable with the scientific method. Hence, "real" in the above assumption is only a small subset of the whole reality.

How do you apply the scientific method to e.g. love between two persons? You can measure their hearbeat, the changes in hormone levels etc. You might even be able to reliably recognize that a person is in love, using only the scientific method. But that does not really explain why someone falls in love or how it feels to be in love. For that, you need to be in love yourself.

Similarily, the scientific method cannot prove the existence of God, because you really cannot make experiments with God. You cannot compare a universe with God and without. You cannot observe humans living in a world with God and then compare them to ones living in a world without God. Hence, there is no way to measure the effect of God to the universe. Naturally you can compare people who accept their relationship with God to those who don't, but either both of them live in a world with God or in one without.

In fact, it we take TUB as stating the truth (that's again one assumption that cannot be proved), if God did not exist, there would be no universe and no one to do any measurements of it. Basically this means that the observer is necessarily non-neutral, as he would not exist without what he is trying to measure. The science refutes "the anthropomorhic principle", i.e. "the world is made for humans" by saying that "if it were any different, we would not be here". In spite of that principle having been used against the existence of God, it can equally be apllied to a universe with God. ("If God did not exist, we would not be here.") Thus, it does not help us at all in proving the existence or nonexistence of God.

There's yet another way to prove the existence of someone. To withdraw money from my bank account I need to prove who I am. For that purpose I can get an id card from the police. The police, as representing the government in this aspect, has a larger and generally accepted authority than I do. Hence, my existence can be proved by a statement thereto from a bigger authority.

Now, if we accept God as described in TUB, there is no bigger authority that would be able to give God "an ID card". In fact, the biggest available authority anywhere is God. God can prove the existence of anyone, but nobody can prove God's existence.

In fact, God proves our existence through having donated the Thought Adjuster - a piece of Himself - to us. We can either utilize that "celestical ID card" or discard it. If we discard it, we will lose our existence on the long run. If we use it, we can gain an existence that is much more real than the shadowy one that we have here.

The important goal is not to be able to prove God's existence, because that's a mission really impossible. Instead, the important goal is to let God prove our existence. That's something that no one can refute once God has done it. And He has already done it. Now it's only upto us to accept the fact.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:56 pm +0000
Posts: 79
Location: Texas
Hi pertti,
I found this at another site.Except for two sentences I can agree with this article. One sentence reads ,"Instead science must assume the presence of inmaterial "things" such as reason and logic to be able to make a case for anything."The word "things" cannot apply to logic and reason for they are inmaterial and not "things".Also futher down,"So if reason and logic are inmaterial "things "that we know exist ,even though we know science cannot possibly test them......."Again reason and logic are not "things" but his point is well made.
The site is- aristophrenium.com/duane/can-science-disprove-god/
I presented this article at a debate site a while back and the atheists there danced all around it.As you know ,as long as we can validate the existance of God within our minds then this is all that matters.No physical evidence is required to present to another.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:40 pm +0000
Posts: 2565
The Still Small Voice 8)

148:6.10 Job was altogether right when he challenged the doctrine that God afflicts children in order to punish their parents. Job was ever ready to admit that God is righteous, but he longed for some soul-satisfying revelation of the personal character of the Eternal. And that is our mission on earth. No more shall suffering mortals be denied the comfort of knowing the love of God and understanding the mercy of the Father in heaven. While the speech of God spoken from the whirlwind was a majestic concept for the day of its utterance, you have already learned that the Father does not thus reveal himself, but rather that he speaks within the human heart as a still, small voice, saying, ‘This is the way; walk therein.’ Do you not comprehend that God dwells within you, that he has become what you are that he may make you what he is!”


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:00 pm +0000
Posts: 697
Location: Savannah GA
Man proving the existance of God is more difficult than a bagel proving the existance of the baker... :wink:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:09 pm +0000
Posts: 54
Location: Allen, TX
The papers do state that proof of God is impossible through scientific experiment.

1:2:4The existence of God can never be proved by scientific experiment or by the pure reason of logical deduction. God can be realized only in the realms of human experience; nevertheless, the true concept of the reality of God is reasonable to logic, plausible to philosophy, essential to religion, and indispensable to any hope of personality survival.

1:2.5 Those who know God have experienced the fact of his presence; such God-knowing mortals hold in their personal experience the only positive proof of the existence of the living God which one human being can offer to another. The existence of God is utterly beyond all possibility of demonstration except for the contact between the God-consciousness of the human mind and the God-presence of the Thought Adjuster that indwells the mortal intellect and is bestowed upon man as the free gift of the Universal Father.

This brings up the topic of Stephen Hawking stating God does not exist because Science does not need him to exist. Did anyone see the Discovery Channel series with him stating his reasons for God not existing?

His points were lame and the panel discussion did not call him out on his points, and that was disappointing. His main point was that something can come from nothing. He used quantam physics to prove this "fact".

_________________
Intelligence is the capacity to receive, decode and transmit information efficiently. Stupidity is the blockage of this process at any point. - Robert Anton Wilson


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:09 am +0000
Posts: 722
Location: Jacksonville, FL
We really don't need to prove the existence of God. Let God reveal himself through us. His will be done.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2441
There is one way.

You may discover god in your soul and in others and this transformation from your recongition of god in man, should be attractive enough to make people seek after what you have found.

When man and God enter into partnership, who knows what they can accomplish,
"what the creature desires, and god will's, is" U.B

Your love for you're another human being in co-ordination with god can move mountains :). (figuratively speaking).

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:52 am +0000
Posts: 92
It seems I am preaching to the choir! But I expected as much.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
The UB tells us that Truth can only be known through personal experience (God-consciousness) and not through formal logic, philosophy, or science. The foundation of the scientific method is the requirement that experimental results must be replicable by any independent observer in order for it to count as scientific evidence in favour of a formal theory (not as absolute proof). Science inherently cannot prove anything. It can only make some formal theory more likely to be correct than other (opposing) theories.

Any scientifically plausible theory of the existence of God, must first define a concept of God which makes sense. Then, an experiment must be designed that provides strong evidence in favour of the theory or concept, and which can be tried and verified by everyone.. Such a (scientific) model may be presented in The Urantia Book.. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:52 am +0000
Posts: 92
Bart - a very good summary!

Bart wrote:
The foundation of the scientific method is the requirement that experimental results must be replicable by any independent observer in order for it to count as scientific evidence in favour of a formal theory (not as absolute proof).


In fact, not just any observer but any competent observer! After all, you would not expect a physicist to be able to observe e.g. sociological phenomena, because he is not trained to do that. What makes TUB more amazing is that it can actually be verified by any observer, who is willing to test it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Exactly! :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
pertti wrote:

In fact, not just any observer but any competent observer! After all, you would not expect a physicist to be able to observe e.g. sociological phenomena, because he is not trained to do that. What makes TUB more amazing is that it can actually be verified by any observer, who is willing to test it.


But not within a mortal lifetime. There's no way to verify the particulars of the ascension career, for example, while still a mortal.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
ubizmo wrote:
pertti wrote:

In fact, not just any observer but any competent observer! After all, you would not expect a physicist to be able to observe e.g. sociological phenomena, because he is not trained to do that. What makes TUB more amazing is that it can actually be verified by any observer, who is willing to test it.


But not within a mortal lifetime. There's no way to verify the particulars of the ascension career, for example, while still a mortal.
Correct.. But there still might be a way to (just) verify the existence of God in this lifetime..:)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:47 pm +0000
Posts: 265
The fish trying to prove the existence of the ocean


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
Bart wrote:
Correct.. But there still might be a way to (just) verify the existence of God in this lifetime..:)


I take it that you're referring to some form of direct experiential verification, some kind of religious experience. I'm not sure whether that sort of thing counts as verification or a sense of being relieved of the need to seek verification. I have the idea--not well-formed--that verification is the sort of thing that is inherently public. But people who have had powerful religious experiences seem to experience a change in worldview such that matters of verification lose significance.

Not having had such an experience, I can't say for sure. Also, I don't see how it's possible to know that it's possible for anyone to have that kind of experience.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 223 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group