Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Could we ever really prove the existence of God for all? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Could we ever really prove the existence of God for all?

    Is it really possible to prove the existence of God for all? Say we did find out that God existed, how would we be able to prove the existence of God to atheists: they would still find problems in the situation (i.e. the problem of evil, scientific evidence for the Big Bang theory). Even if God "appeared to" all of us in dreams, some would still find problems accepting the validity of these revelations. On the opposing side, if we found out that God did not exist, how would we ever be able to disprove God's existence to believers. They believe in God as a result of faith, which essentially means that they believe in the existence of God not as a result of factual evidence but rather a 'sixth sense' (some might even argue they believe in the existence of God despite factual evidence disproving his existence) so would any further scientific evidence really change their views?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think you ever could prove the existence of God to everyone.

    I feel like Ludwig Wittgenstein's Language Games concept kind of addresses this. Basically, people who prescribe to and discuss religion and those who prescribe to and discuss atheism will never truly understand each other because they use different terminologies and have different ideas of what "prove" actually means.

    For example, for an atheist "prove" would most likely refer to a scientific method i.e empirical evidence. However, as you said, a lot of religious people don't need "proof" due to an a priori or "sixth sense" belief in God, so they therefore don't require empirical evidence.

    I think the only way evidence for the existence of God could either be proven or disproved is if we standardise terminology pertaining to God's existence or non-existence so that it could become possible to reach a consensus.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Even if we did prove it that wouldn't be reason enough for me to pray to an idiot murderer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by issy.roberts)
    Could we ever really prove the existence of God for all?

    Is it really possible to prove the existence of God for all? Say we did find out that God existed, how would we be able to prove the existence of God to atheists: they would still find problems in the situation (i.e. the problem of evil, scientific evidence for the Big Bang theory). Even if God "appeared to" all of us in dreams, some would still find problems accepting the validity of these revelations. On the opposing side, if we found out that God did not exist, how would we ever be able to disprove God's existence to believers. They believe in God as a result of faith, which essentially means that they believe in the existence of God not as a result of factual evidence but rather a 'sixth sense' (some might even argue they believe in the existence of God despite factual evidence disproving his existence) so would any further scientific evidence really change their views?
    What a croc, I am always amazed at the stupidity of the theist mind. We are not atheist because we wish to deny evidence, but because the evidence is not forthcoming, if the evidence for god was compelling we would have to accept that god existed. Of course the evidence for god is not compelling it is missing, so we deny god exists. You must understand that the default view has to be god does not exist.

    There is no factual evidence that disproves god, there is plenty that disproves the various religious beliefs, believing in god is not the same as believing in religion.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    You could try and prove God's existence as even if the proof was 100% undoubtable, there would still be people who wouldn't believe in it.

    But philosophically, trying to prove the agreed definition of God is borderline impossible due to so many conflicting attributes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    You could try and prove God's existence as even if the proof was 100% undoubtable, there would still be people who wouldn't believe in it.

    But philosophically, trying to prove the agreed definition of God is borderline impossible due to so many conflicting attributes.
    Which means there is no definitive god. Philosophy has to assert it's definition of god even before it starts to use presumptions on the nature of god. So philosophically god is reduced to faith.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    Which means there is no definitive god. Philosophy has to assert it's definition of god even before it starts to use presumptions on the nature of god. So philosophically god is reduced to faith.
    You could account for a God if people agreed to only have certain attributes which wouldn't conflict with each other, but yes that would mean changing the opinion of several billion people on the planet which isn't going to happen realistically.

    I do agree it's a matter of faith but people will continue to try and prove existence until the end of time tbh
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    From zero axioms, no.

    If you are willing to accept a few things as given, then Godel has a proof of God that is deductively sound under first order logic. If you question the axioms on the other hand then it obviously doesn't hold.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B...ological_proof
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    What a croc, I am always amazed at the stupidity of the theist mind. We are not atheist because we wish to deny evidence, but because the evidence is not forthcoming, if the evidence for god was compelling we would have to accept that god existed. Of course the evidence for god is not compelling it is missing, so we deny god exists. You must understand that the default view has to be god does not exist.

    There is no factual evidence that disproves god, there is plenty that disproves the various religious beliefs, believing in god is not the same as believing in religion.

    I don't really know why you have assumed that I am a theist- I'm actually atheist (not that I see why this should affect this discussion at all) and it is also incredibly rude to say that you are always surprised by the "stupidity of the theist mind". I think it's a pity that you cannot discuss religion calmly and that you make so many assumptions based on people's beliefs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    Which means there is no definitive god. Philosophy has to assert it's definition of god even before it starts to use presumptions on the nature of god. So philosophically god is reduced to faith.
    That is so true, for so many people (as Richard Dawkins said) the definition of God is so vague and unclear (for example an "energy", a "power above us all") that one can neither disprove not prove his existence as we do not even agree on what God actually is.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.