Question by omniscientatheist: proof that god don’t exist.?
Okey, i said this once before but not as a question for you all to answer.
i assume you all believe in physics? the first rule of physics would be that all physical actions needs a physical cause.. and thats how we explain nature and our universe.
also our brain and consciousness is physical.
thats why whenever a religious text such as the bible was written, no knowledge could have suddenly appeared in the writers brain, correct?
spirits, gods, souls and all those things can not exist in the world of physics.
yet you say these things somehow interact with us on a daily basis.
That would be a matter of science, and science disproves that.
Its obvious that all texts in the bible was written by people living at that time.
all brain research shows that all feelings, human emotions, memories etc are caused by physical actions and substances in the human brain.
so where does souls and spirits come in?
the god hypothesis is false. where is your proof? and why do you believe it?
sorry for expressing myself poorly, and to be honest i know very little about quantum physics and the like.
but the basic idea is that because spirits etc are not physical beings, they can not have any physical power and interact with the physical world.
therefor they would just be metaphorical and imaginary.
and any form of supernatural being is hypothetically impossible.
thats why you don’t have to be an agnostic.
there is no reason to fear for being wrong and the argument that says you cant say god does not exist because you dont know everything is debunked.
you only have to know basic logic to see that anything supernatural is made up.
Best answer:
Answer by Edko
dosent not dont
Add your own answer in the comments!
There is no rule of physics that says all physical actions need a physical cause.
Particle decay in particular is an uncaused physical action.
But I admire your effort, and I agree with your conclusion that God doesn’t exist.
wait what? im confused.
Your problem is that you view God as a physical entity bound by the laws of physics. The use of a pink elephant to “disprove God” is actually a very meaningful way to show how you view God – you view God as some type of physical being bound by the laws of nature….. But we have always seen God as a spiritual being who transcends the laws of nature. Until you realize this, you will never understand the concept of a supreme being.
Well your spelling and grammar aside you seem pretty intelligent. So keeping with physics what are those physical actions in the brain? Very small electrical charges. And what can’t energy do? Be destroyed. Now this is just theory. But it’s some explanation.
didn’t red too far and i apologize if this seems odd
but physics also only relates to our own universe…. as to say in another universe or another time, place the physics we know today may be different
Granted I’m an atheist, but I don’t see this proof you present as being a valid one. Here’s why:
First of all, “souls and spirits” are ultimtely irrelvant to the question, because it’s hypothetically possible to not have these things but still have a deity, and even vice versa. Science doesn’t “disprove” these notions either. Of course the burden of proof is on the believer to begin with, but you’re dealing with highly subjective ideas here that don’t lend themselves to controlled experiements.
True but you are only speaking in three dimensional physics. Just because we cannot “see” things doesn’t mean they do not exist on different dimensional planes. That is suggested by quantum physics.
You didn’t grasp it totally, but you’re on the right track.
Please tell me how science disproved spirits or souls or god? You seem to be the only one who got the memo.
While you’re at it — since you claim that physics explains nature and the universe how about explaining quantum entanglement. None of us got that memo either.
I’m not arguing for or against religion but let’s be realistic. Science doesn’t claim to know the unknown, why should you?
Dude…please don’t try to defend my side and do it so poorly.
“the first rule of physics would be that all physical actions needs a physical cause”
That is not true at all on a quantum level. Here is a discussion of it: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug98/903836982.Ph.r.html
i was raise to kno god exist and as long as i live i will continue to believe god exist
Each time a logical explaination for something that used to be the realm of religion, the response is always, okay yeah, this , but let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Ove rthe years we have thrown out more and more water abd still no baby. I’m convinced we will get to the bottom of the tub one day and find no baby.
“spirits, gods, souls and all those things can not exist in the world of physics.”
An assertion not backed up with either evidence or even anecdotal support. What we can say for certain is that within the confines of THIS universe, no purely supernatural phenomenon has been recorded under laboratory conditions. And if it were, it would not be a supernatural phenomena, but rather a heretofore undiscovered natural phenomena, requiring a new explanation.
Nothing more can be positively stated.
If I can prove the existence of the soul to you, then you must concede to the existence of God.
Granted, scientist have discovered a great many wonderful and beautiful things of the human person. I am always fascinated by their discoveries. However, in your love of science you forget that physics can go beyond itself (e.g. metaphysics and quantum physics). These sciences go beyond physical matter and properly study incorporeal things that are real and existent. So why limit yourself to one study of physics go further!
As far as the soul. One can see a live person and a dead person and discover a difference. The first is there is no motion or respiration as in the live person. Granted the nerves, sinews, muscles, chemical enzymes in these muscles create motion in a body. It is true that lungs and their involuntary reflex causes respiration, but it this what makes the body alive?!
If I were to ask you, “what is the principle of life in the human person?” What would you say? In your physics it would have to choose either the heart or the brain as the principle of life (for you deny the existence of the soul). So, let us go with this. If the heart were the principle of life in the human person, then you would be able to remove it from the body and it would still be alive since you would claim it the principle of human life. However, we have seen specimen jars of human hearts and they are as lifeless as the bodies they were removed from. So the heart is not the principle of human life. So, what could be? The soul?
Yet, what if you chose the brain? If the brain were the principle of life in a human person, then it should still be alive when removed from the head, shouldn’t it? Yet, once again we have seen specimen jars with brains and they are as lifeless as the bodies they were removed from. So, we see it cannot be the brain or heart that makes the body alive for they are not the principle source of animation. The brain and heart are accidental sources of animation; not the main source. So, what could be? Something unseen? The human soul.
I hope this has been helpful to you. May the Lord bless and keep you. May the light of His face shine upon you.
God’s and your beast of burden
Fr. john
I don’t remember hearing of any physics course that disproved God, souls or entities. Many scientists seem to live under the delusion of that which hasn’t been proved can’t exist. Imagine, if you possibly can, a scientist dying and leaving his or her body exclaims: “Eureka! I am proof of life after death!” and than dissipates as he or she always claimed they would because they lacked the faith and denied the existence of an afterlife.
There is nothing that can disprove God! You can throw all the science you want out there….you could evolve before my very eyes and that still wouldn’t prove there isn’t a God! It can’t be proven that there is no God, and it certainly can’t be proven that there is….neither side can be proven so just give it up
Do Buddhists believe in a creator god?
No, we do not. There are several logical reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern scientists, sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says:
“Gripped by fear men go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines.” *Dhammpada 188
Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of god in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a creator god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god’s words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god’s nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.
The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a creator god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin of the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of Atheists, free-thinkers and Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a creator god. Some claim that belief in god’s power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding.
But if there is no creator god how did the universe get here?
All religions have myths and stories which attempt to answer this question. In ancient times, when man simply did not know, such myths were adequate, but in the 20th century, in the age of physics, astronomy and geology, such myths have been superseded by scientific fact. Science has explained the origin of the universe without recourse to the god-idea.
.