# Proof That God Exists: An Open Debate For The Existence of God **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2016, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578 "2016-08-31T16:30:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/281 "2016-09-09T13:49:48Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Before the thread shuts down, does anybody have any useful advice for a self taught person or [autodidact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidacticism)? My advice is to remember that you’re reading books written by people who know more about the subject than you and that people have been arguing about for a long time. It’s unlikely that reading as a hobby is going to lead you to a completely unique idea that no one has ever had before. If you come up with one simple argument that is completely new and solves something that has been a problem for centuries, it’s probably badly flawed, and you should look into it more before showing it off and trying to convert the heathens or show that relativity is bunk. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/282 "2016-09-09T14:21:08Z")
Question. What does God need with a starship? ---
**Author:** ![Duke\_of\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Duke\_of\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke_of_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/283 "2016-09-09T14:37:03Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Question. > What does God need with a starship? So He can cross the road faster than a chicken? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/284 "2016-09-09T15:28:26Z")
Let’s try something here … “The definition of God is beyond human comprehension, I’ll explain after I get back from weeding around my grandmother’s grave.” ---
**Author:** ![TreacherousCretin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/treacherouscretin/32/476_2.png) [@TreacherousCretin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TreacherousCretin)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/285 "2016-09-09T17:57:57Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Before the thread shuts down, does anybody have any useful advice for a self taught person or [autodidact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidacticism)? Don’t believe everything you think. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/286 "2016-09-09T19:08:32Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > **Pantastic** ’s original phrase was “grandmothered away” but your variant nicely parallels “grandfathered in” so I like it, too. I think we can declare the English language newly enriched, and I propose the following formal definition: > > **grandmothered away** : VP. (also, _grandmothered out_.) Sudden disappearance of a participant from a discussion group after facing insurmountable obstacles to supporting his or her argument; the condition of such absence. > > Example of usage: He tried to prove that evolution was impossible and that the earth was only 6000 years old, but as there were numerous scientists including some evolutionary biologists in the discussion group, he was quickly grandmothered away. > > It warms my heart to be witness to history; to see the evolution of the English language before my very eyes. Just to note that people using this strategy often have several dozen grandmothers. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/287 "2016-09-09T19:22:57Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > So that we will be praying to “Pink”? Well, two of us will. The third will be praying to “Stink”. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/288 "2016-09-09T19:43:50Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Just to note that people using this strategy often have several dozen grandmothers. In Discworld, one of the benefits of being in the city guards of Ankh Morpork is that you are guaranteed the day off for two Grandmother’s funerals per year. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/289 "2016-09-09T22:33:10Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Before the thread shuts down, does anybody have any useful advice for a self taught person or [autodidact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidacticism)? > [@Trinopus](#): > > Try to generalize. Self-taught people tend to focus tightly on one area of knowledge, and the best thing they can do to improve themselves is to spread their knowledge out some. No one can be knowledgeable about everything, but there is wisdom in knowing something about more things. > > Study a little psychology, and art, and history, and biology; go to different museums; read books about subjects you’re weakest on. Let me tack something on to this. Used textbooks are dirt cheap, at least when they are more than a couple of editions old. An introductory text will provide a wide _and professional_ treatment of its subject matter. Don’t be afraid to skim them, especially if you are reading for pleasure. You can always circle back to an earlier part of the book. Someone unfamiliar with the subject matter can stumble on tendentious and dubious presentations. So widely accepted textbooks are a good place to start. If free is more to your liking, this is another good resource: [MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials](http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm) > **[Search | MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials](https://ocw.mit.edu/search/?f=Online%20Textbook&s=department_course_numbers.sort_coursenum)** > > MIT OpenCourseWare is a web based publication of virtually all MIT course content. OCW is open and available to the world and is a permanent MIT activity [http://www.collegeopentextbooks.org/textbook-listings/textbooks-by-subject/philosophy](http://www.collegeopentextbooks.org/textbook-listings/textbooks-by-subject/philosophy) ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2016, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/290 "2016-09-10T03:44:00Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Question. > What does God need with a starship? Because it’s got sweet flames painted on the sides and make Him go faster. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2016, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/291 "2016-09-10T06:10:56Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Before the thread shuts down, does anybody have any useful advice for a self taught person or [autodidact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidacticism)? No matter how many degrees we have and how long we’ve gone to school we are still self-taught with respect to most of our knowledge and most of our lives. Really good textbooks are one way, but are often a bit boring, especially these days, since textbook publishers have all sorts of limits on length and requirements for content. I know this because my wife wrote one and hated doing it. Much better I think is to choose a subject and then to read five or six books about it from different angles. Seeing the differences will let you know what is accepted and what is controversial. One of the best assignments I had in junior high was to read a biography and autobiography of the same person and compare them. I did J. Paul Getty and boy were they different. ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2016, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/292 "2016-09-11T17:47:40Z")
Late to the party here, but anyway… it’s my contention, that it is impossible to prove the existence of any modern idea of God, by the actual definition of God. Unless you define God as being SUBJECT to the rules, observations, and imagination of humankind, those tools cannot be used to prove anything about said God. It is impossible to prove something SUPERNATURAL, using only NATURAL laws, because by definition, natural laws (i.e. physics) do not apply to that which we call supernatural. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/293 "2016-09-11T19:17:16Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > It is impossible to prove something SUPERNATURAL, using only NATURAL laws, because by definition, natural laws (i.e. physics) do not apply to that which we call supernatural. If a person claims that their gods have any effect on our natural world then they can be subjected to the scientific method. If not…well I don’t see how their gods have any meaning at all and can be easily dismissed as irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2016, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/294 "2016-09-11T20:23:23Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > If a person claims that their gods have any effect on our natural world then they can be subjected to the scientific method. > If not…well I don’t see how their gods have any meaning at all and can be easily dismissed as irrelevant. No, you are using logic incorrectly there. You are saying that if a SUPERNATURAL force effects a NATURAL one, that that means that the SUPERNATURAL force isn’t supernatural after all. Or, that only NATURAL forces can affect other natural forces. That might appeal to your sense of “fair play,” but there is no support in logic or in physics for it. You have to simply DECLARE that everything is subject to the laws of physics, as an article of faith. The same as those who declare that supernatural forces exist, do. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2016, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/295 "2016-09-11T21:45:09Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > No, you are using logic incorrectly there. You are saying that if a SUPERNATURAL force effects a NATURAL one, that that means that the SUPERNATURAL force isn’t supernatural after all. Or, that only NATURAL forces can affect other natural forces. > > That might appeal to your sense of “fair play,” but there is no support in logic or in physics for it. You have to simply DECLARE that everything is subject to the laws of physics, as an article of faith. The same as those who declare that supernatural forces exist, do. I think you may have a good point here. Sure, physics and science can explain a lot, but they don’t explain everything. Dreams are still a mystery. So are simultaneous feelings between two close relatives—parents and children, or twins for example. Supernatural forces should not be discounted because they are hard to prove in the natural world; that’s what makes them supernatural after all. They are all kinds of things that exist in the world of imagination that are not manifest in the physical world, but they can affect us just as much as if they did. Einstein believed that imagination is more important than knowledge. The Eureka effect is just such a burst of imaginative power that can help solve complex patterns, precisely because it does not follow the scientific method (except in the proof department). When Archimedes figured out that different materials have different densities, thereby allowing him to prove whether an item was real good or not, he was sitting in a bathtub, thereby displacing water when he got out. He must have resembled a madman as he ran naked through the streets of Syracuse, shouting “Eureka!” but the serendipitous discovery of density was brilliant all the same. It is important not to discount any aspect of human learning if it helps us arrive at truth. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2016, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/296 "2016-09-11T21:47:22Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > It is impossible to prove something SUPERNATURAL, using only NATURAL laws, because by definition, natural laws (i.e. physics) do not apply to that which we call supernatural. “By definition?” Whose definition would that be, exactly? And how would that even work? A camera operates entirely under principles of natural laws. Some people claim to have captured images of ghosts on film. If natural laws don’t interact with the supernatural at all, how does a chemical emulsion on a piece of film capture the image of the ghost? We know that sound is just the motion of air molecules impacting on a membrane in our ear. We know the rules that govern how air molecules become agitated. How, then, do we hear the moaning of a ghost, if the natural laws that govern the generation and reception of sound waves do not apply to this supernatural entity? > [@](#): > > No, you are using logic incorrectly there. You are saying that if a SUPERNATURAL force effects a NATURAL one, that that means that the SUPERNATURAL force isn’t supernatural after all. Or, that only NATURAL forces can affect other natural forces. Not quite. If you say you can pray real hard, and cure cancer, we might not be able to measure how your prayer interacts with cancer, but we _can_ measure how much cancer there is before you pray over it, and how much there is after. If the cancer gets bigger, that’s pretty good evidence that your prayer didn’t do anything. > [@](#): > > That might appeal to your sense of “fair play,” but there is no support in logic or in physics for it. You have to simply DECLARE that everything is subject to the laws of physics, as an article of faith. The same as those who declare that supernatural forces exist, do. Well, everything is subject to the laws of physics, because that’s what physics means: it’s the laws the govern… everything. If Wiccan-style sympathetic magic was real, and could be demonstrated to work, then the rules under which they work would be incorporated into the general field of physics. When science encounters new data, it adapts and expands to incorporate that data into itself. If I can poke a pin into a doll _here_, and make a guy over _there_ feel a pain in his neck, and I can do it every time, that’s science. Even if the best theory we have about how it works is “stab doll” -\> ??? -\> “pain in neck,” if is repeatable, it can be studied. Hell, our understanding of gravity isn’t much better than, “Drop something” -\> ??? -\> “It falls.” But stuff does it _reliably_. The problem with most claims that are relegated to the supernatural is, they’re not reliable. I drop my coffee mug, it falls on the ground, every time. Someone else claims they can tell what card I’m looking at by reading my mind, it turns out they’ve got a hit chance that’s not any better than random chance. That’s why gravity is science, and telepathy is science fiction. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2016, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/297 "2016-09-11T23:09:51Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > No, you are using logic incorrectly there. You are saying that if a SUPERNATURAL force effects a NATURAL one, that that means that the SUPERNATURAL force isn’t supernatural after all. Or, that only NATURAL forces can affect other natural forces. > > That might appeal to your sense of “fair play,” but there is no support in logic or in physics for it. You have to simply DECLARE that everything is subject to the laws of physics, as an article of faith. The same as those who declare that supernatural forces exist, do. No, I’m absolutely correct. If someone says that their gods cause effects within the real world then those effects are either detectable or not. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2016, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/298 "2016-09-11T23:20:27Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > I think you may have a good point here. Sure, physics and science can explain a lot, but they don’t explain everything. Dreams are still a mystery. There is nothing supernatural about dreams. They can be detected and perfectly reasonable natural explanations put forwards for them even if the exact mechanism is not yet fully understood. > [@](#): > > So are simultaneous feelings between two close relatives—parents and children, or twins for example. cite? > [@](#): > > Supernatural forces should not be discounted because they are hard to prove in the natural world; You first need to show that there is any evidence of phenomena that requires a supernatural explanation. I’ve yet to hear of a single good example. You also have to exhaust all natural explanations as well before doing so as a matter of best practice. > [@](#): > > They are all kinds of things that exist in the world of imagination that are not manifest in the physical world, but they can affect us just as much as if they did. really? If you mean we think deeply about stuff and can imagine stuff and it affects our actions…well of course, if you mean something different then you should state that more clearly. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2016, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/299 "2016-09-11T23:26:24Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > No, you are using logic incorrectly there. You are saying that if a SUPERNATURAL force effects a NATURAL one, that that means that the SUPERNATURAL force isn’t supernatural after all. Or, that only NATURAL forces can affect other natural forces. > > That might appeal to your sense of “fair play,” but there is no support in logic or in physics for it. You have to simply DECLARE that everything is subject to the laws of physics, as an article of faith. The same as those who declare that supernatural forces exist, do. No, you’ve invented an overly narrow conception of what the “natural world” is and then applied circular logic to it. The natural world is everything that we can observe directly and directly, and everything that we can infer or hypothesize from natural laws and from abstract mathematics, right out to the limits of the observable universe and multiverses beyond, right down to the beginning of the Big Bang and the interiors of black holes. The things that cannot fit into a consistent framework of reality no matter how hypothetical – that have not a shred of either empirical evidence or even the wildest mathematical hypothesis to support them – those things don’t have any meaningful reality. They are, by definition, baseless fantasies, and fantasies serve only as morality tales or emotional crutches, or desperate and uninformed attempts to explain the world without any actual knowledge. > [@Biffster](#): > > I think you may have a good point here. Sure, physics and science can explain a lot, but they don’t explain everything. Dreams are still a mystery. So are simultaneous feelings between two close relatives—parents and children, or twins for example. Supernatural forces should not be discounted because they are hard to prove in the natural world; that’s what makes them supernatural after all. He has no point. Dreams are only a “mystery” in that the precise way they are formed isn’t well understood, but no one doubts that they are distinctly non-mystical neurological processes. “Simultaneous feelings” turn out to be either illusions, coincidence, or unconscious sensitivity to cues. You’re trying to say that science can’t explain everything and the proof is that supernatural stuff exists. QED. Guess which part of that last claim is wrong? > [@Biffster](#): > > They are all kinds of things that exist in the world of imagination that are not manifest in the physical world, but they can affect us just as much as if they did. Such as? You seem to be confusing physics with the psychology of belief. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2016, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578/300 "2016-09-11T23:27:45Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > “By definition?” Whose definition would that be, exactly? > > And how would that even work? A camera operates entirely under principles of natural laws. Some people claim to have captured images of ghosts on film. If natural laws don’t interact with the supernatural at all, how does a chemical emulsion on a piece of film capture the image of the ghost? We know that sound is just the motion of air molecules impacting on a membrane in our ear. We know the rules that govern how air molecules become agitated. How, then, do we hear the moaning of a ghost, if the natural laws that govern the generation and reception of sound waves do not apply to this supernatural entity? > > Not quite. If you say you can pray real hard, and cure cancer, we might not be able to measure how your prayer interacts with cancer, but we _can_ measure how much cancer there is before you pray over it, and how much there is after. If the cancer gets bigger, that’s pretty good evidence that your prayer didn’t do anything. > > Well, everything is subject to the laws of physics, because that’s what physics means: it’s the laws the govern… everything. If Wiccan-style sympathetic magic was real, and could be demonstrated to work, then the rules under which they work would be incorporated into the general field of physics. When science encounters new data, it adapts and expands to incorporate that data into itself. If I can poke a pin into a doll _here_, and make a guy over _there_ feel a pain in his neck, and I can do it every time, that’s science. Even if the best theory we have about how it works is “stab doll” -\> ??? -\> “pain in neck,” if is repeatable, it can be studied. > > Hell, our understanding of gravity isn’t much better than, “Drop something” -\> ??? -\> “It falls.” But stuff does it _reliably_. The problem with most claims that are relegated to the supernatural is, they’re not reliable. I drop my coffee mug, it falls on the ground, every time. Someone else claims they can tell what card I’m looking at by reading my mind, it turns out they’ve got a hit chance that’s not any better than random chance. That’s why gravity is science, and telepathy is science fiction. ??? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-god-exists-an-open-debate-for-the-existence-of-god/764578.md?page=16)