Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
No, it doesn't work that way. The existence of something in itself does not prove anything, except, perhaps, the existence of itself.�
In order for the existence of something observable to become proof of the existence of something unobservable, it is necessary to propose a theory that would explain the existence of a set of observable phenomena by something unobservable. And this theory cannot be any set of words; the very nature of thinking puts forward a number of requirements related to the distinction between phenomena.
This theory should not be tautological. If we simply put an equal sign between god and nature, say “if there is nature, then there is god”, such a statement is irrefutable, of course, but also meaningless. That is, within the framework of our theory, some boundary must be marked between god and nature, if we do not want tautology. That is, the theory must introduce a new concept that is distinguishable from others, and increase its meaning.
At the same time, this theory must make the observed logically inevitable from the unobservable. If your theory implies any universe, including our own, your theory does not explain anything, does not have empirical content.
Finally, your theory should be better than others. “Better” is a nontrivial parameter and you can look at it differently, but if you look at it differently than I do, then the theory will prove its claims for you, but not for me.
No, not proof. One can propose a theory (and it is proposed, and even more than one) that explains the existence of all this without the participation of the divine factor. It is impossible to prove the existence of God, just as it is impossible to prove that he does not exist on the basis of some indirect signs, that is, at least until He personally reveals his essence and proves everything to us, which is rather unlikely. All the phenomena that we observe can be both the result of Divine creation and the result of the natural evolution of the physical system. Whether there is a God or not is not a matter of scientific debate, it is a matter of faith. For example, I know a physicist who believes in God, who, in response to the question: how can he simultaneously be a scientist-physicist, that is, like a materialist, and believe in God, answered quite wittily that in his opinion the act of birth and destruction is the essence of Divine creation, and everything that happens between these two acts can be described by a physicist. And, indeed, physics does not explain how and why particles arise from the physical vacuum and why they are destroyed, science only takes this property into account. However, it is possible that in time this point will also be clarified without using the idea of God and the act of Divine creation.
It all depends on what you call God.
If you call god nature, planets, matter, cosmos, the universe, then yes, it is a proof, although then the question is tautological.
No.No, no and no. It doesn't even smell. All this is explained scientifically, and without any mysticism.�
Proof is logic based on facts, including Occam's Razor:)
Yes, there is no doubt that this is proof of the existence of God. You need to know and understand. that GOD is the common, unified Mind of all dead people and civilizations. And the Mind is the Spiritual Light. And inside this Light, our universe revolves. It revolves like a reasonable thought and fantasy of God.
Do you understand the difference between proof and evidence?) All of these are evidences of Creation, but proof is a kind of rational process of linking the meanings taken from the testimonies. Everyone sees the same thing, but someone comes to the proof of the necessity of God, and someone, on the contrary, to the proof of the necessity of His absence. So it's all about the concepts you use and the state of consciousness.
The question is not how this world came into being, but the origin of the laws that this world obeys.Science studies these patterns, but the level of its development does not bring us any closer to absolute knowledge – what is the cause of these patterns.So far, the only explanation can only be a certain preliminary idea that determines the existing order of things. By the way, it is quite possible that this idea will suddenly not become different and all the physical laws known to us will change.
no this is not proof of the existence of God�
you consider yourself a reasonable person then why is the creator so stupid creating a huge number of lifeless planets for what – what is the point and how can you imagine god himself -if he created us in his own image-then he looks like a man / Jesus/ how could he make an infinite universe out of a copy of a man and what did he create it from ничего
let god be a wizard but he must be somewhere – it's somewhere in the sky but in the sky we only see the cosmos without god unless he is on one of the planets that he himself created then where was he when he created everything when there were no planets yet�
and where is heaven and hell – in our dreams-after all, everyone hopes to go to heaven and not to hell but which of us is sinless�
and also how did god himself arise who created or gave birth to him-another god or goddess�
religion and god arose out of people's fear of the unknown and for the hope of immortality and the servants of religions to support the existing government because all religions call to be humble and obedient that it is necessary for those in power to exercise their power man is so arranged that he cannot live without hope for the best-if not in this life, then in the�
as much as we would like to but life is given only once and after death there is no other life�
and yet God is one-so religions report then who-Jesus Buddha Allah, etc.
and I also apologize for the lack of punctuation marks-I'm just too lazy to poke my fingers once again because of some comma there
No. Beauty should not be called krasta because it is borrowed from the God who created it. It is, fortunately, able to exist quite autonomously. This applies to absolutely everything that exists ON ITS OWN.
Our surprisingly beautiful Galaxy, planets , and the entire universe speak very vividly about the existence of the Creator. The multitude of stars that we can see in the night sky makes us tremble, delight, we experience delight.�
The Scripture says, ” Lift up your eyes and see. Who created all this? The one who brings out the host of stars by count and calls all of them by name. Because of the abundance of his might and the great power, they are all in their proper places… Isaiah 40: 26.
His creations awe people and encourage them to glorify the Creator. The beautiful colors chosen for each creation remind us daily of God's deep love for us.
,His invisible qualities – eternal power and divine essence-are clearly visible from the creation of the world, because they are recognized through what is created, so that there is no justification for them… Rom 1: 20.
This is not a proof, this term is closer to science. But it is more likely and logical that the work of consciousness and the processes associated with it, which are still unknown to science, as a result of which all this appeared in such a harmonious and perfect form. It is by no means an accident so beloved by science, which covers up all the inconvenient moments that prevent the non-local scientific fraternity from puffing out the cheeks of omniscience and wearing their banners.
A proof is an argument built according to certain rules that establishes the truth of something. Matter in this sense is not a proof. Moreover, such abstract concepts as time and space are not proofs.
God (if you believe what is written about him) exists outside of time, space, and matter. It is omnipresent and simultaneously present everywhere, permeating everything that is subject to our study. Moreover, he is present not only everywhere, but always, apparently simultaneously in all times, which is why he is omniscient, and neither the past nor the future is hidden from him.
By the way, I don't know, but could he have taken it at his own will, and, for example, not be in a certain specific place? Interesting question, by the way… Surely this was (should have been) before the creation of the world: he was not in a place that did not yet exist.
So the universe is not proof of God. Otherwise, it would be possible to extrapolate that the fish is proof of the fisherman (whom no one has ever seen); any black square is proof of Malevich, etc.�
And it does not need proof, either if it exists, or even more so if it does not exist.
Why do you need proof that there is a God? If our life depends only on one God, who does what he wants(because he is the one king of the cosmos on whom we all depend), then this is the greatest evil that can be. We simply don't have the right to live, because the pot slaves have no rights, we are nothing. Rational justification for the existence of God is impossible in proportion to the impossibility of refutation.