Do we really want to prove the existence of God?

this has been in my head for a while. I'm going to use christianity as the example for this, mainly because I don't know enough about other religions to make such judgements about them, but I'm sure this applies to more than just christianity. don't take this as an argument against your religion, it's more of a question.

most people would agree that faith is an integral part of christianity. without faith, it is nothing. but faith, by definition, is belief without reason - faith often (historically, at least) covers what science hasn't explained. but here's the thing - faith is no longer faith if it becomes knowledge. if we set out to prove the existence of god, all we're doing is lessening our faith and increasing our knowledge. in order to have complete faith in god, you need to acknowledge any paradoxes or contradictions and accept them as something that can't be explained.

there's a great example of this in the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, as many of you probably know:

[the book mentions the babel fish, and says it's so complex and useful that it's proof for god]

"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I
exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
nothing.'

"'But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It
could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore,
by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly
vanished in a puff of logic.

"`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove
that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.


anyway, here's my question for you: does proof deny faith? if so, should we bother arguing in favour of god, or accept that our beliefs are higher than reason, and just dismiss any arguments against a god?

For me speaking as a muslim, proof enhances faith.
The first words that were revealed to the illiterate prophet (Mohammed peace be upon him) directs him to seek knowledge. Here's a part of that surah (chapter)

Read: In the name of thy Lord Who created,
Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:
Read and your Lord is Most Bountiful,
He Who taught (the use of) the pen,
Taught man that which he knew not.

It is not a guessing game. I feel the presence of the university cleaners when I come in the next morning to find a place I had definitely left a mess the day before, spotless. I feel the presence of electricity when I switch the radio on and it cackles to life as is a poem a sign of a writer, and a painting a sign of an artist. Likewise, my faith grows when I contemplate and open my eyes to the beauty and perfection of creation around me.
Again in the Qur'an we're told to learn, contemplate and consider.

[2:269] He [Allah] grants wisdom to whom He pleases; and he to whom wisdom is granted indeed receives a benefit overflowing. But none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

[3:190-191] Verily in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day - there are indeed signs for men of understanding; Men who remember Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the creation of the heavens and the earth (with the thought) "Our Lord! Not for nothing have You created (all) this. Glory to You! Give us salvation from the suffering of the Fire."

These verses are a clear demonstration that 'science' and 'religion' were NOT meant to be fundamentally incompatible with each other by Allah. In fact, verses [3:190-191] strongly imply that "contemplating" the world around us is an integral part of faith.

[29:20] Say: Travel through the earth and see how Allah originated creation; so will Allah produce the second creation (of the Afterlife): for Allah has power over all things.

There are also references in the Qur'an describing the value (in the sight of Allah) of a knowledgeable person as opposed to an ignorant person. They are not equal:

[39:9] ...Say: Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that remember

[58:11] ...Allah will raise up to (suitable) ranks (and degrees) those of you who believe and who have been granted knowledge.

[41:53] Soon will We show them Our Signs in the (farthest) horizons, and within themselves, until it becomes manifest to them that it is the Truth...

Men of knowledge and scholars are regarded highly in Islam. How can you really have faith if you do not understand or know the extent of the perfection and precision of things in life? The more I study ( especially scientifically) the more I come to the conclusion that everything is perfectly compatible and relevant that it cannot be a mere accident or *mutation* that has shaped the beauty of life as we see and perceive it.
In that sense, knowledge only increases one's faith.
Another selection from a surah I love:

The Beneficent
Taught the Qur'an
Created Man
Taught him the mode of expression.
The sun and the moon are made punctual
The stars and the trees prostrate.
And the sky He hath uplifted; and He hath set the balance,
In order that ye may not transgress (due) balance.
So establish weight with justice and fall not short in the balance.
It is He Who has spread out the earth for (His) creatures:
Wherein are fruit and sheathed palm-trees,
Husked grain and scented herb.
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
He created man from dry clay like earthen vessels,
And the jinn did He create of smokeless fire
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Lord of the two Easts, and Lord of the two Wests!
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together:
Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress:
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Out of them come Pearls and Coral:
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
And His are the Ships sailing smoothly through the seas, lofty as mountains:
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
All that is on earth will perish:
But will abide (for ever) the Face of thy Lord,- full of Majesty, Bounty and Honour.
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?

Also..

[30.19]It is He Who brings out the living from the dead, and brings out the dead from the living, and Who gives life to the earth after it is dead: and thus shall ye be brought out (from the dead)
[30.20]Among His Signs in this, that He created you from dust; and then,- behold, ye are men scattered (far and wide)
[30.21]And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.
[30.22]And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the variations in your languages and your colours: verily in that are Signs for those who know.
[30.23]And among His Signs is the sleep that ye take by night and by day, and the quest that ye (make for livelihood) out of His Bounty: verily in that are signs for those who hearken.
[30.24]And among His Signs, He shows you the lightning, by way both of fear and of hope, and He sends down rain from the sky and with it gives life to the earth after it is dead: verily in that are Signs for those who are wise.
[30.25]And one of His signs is that the heaven and the earth subsist by His command, then when He calls you with a (single) call from out of the earth, lo! you come forth.
[30.26]To Him belongs every being that is in the heavens and on earth: all are devoutly obedient to Him
[30.27]And He it is Who originates the creation, then reproduces it, and it is easy to Him; and His are the most exalted attributes in the heavens and the earth, and He is the Mighty, the Wise.]


[30.48]It is Allah Who sends the Winds, and they raise the Clouds: then does He spread them in the sky as He wills, and break them into fragments, until thou seest rain-drops issue from the midst thereof: then when He has made them reach such of his servants as He wills behold, they do rejoice!-
[30.49]Even though, before they received (the rain) - just before this - they were dumb with despair!
[30.50]Then contemplate (O man!) the memorials of Allah's Mercy!- how He gives life to the earth after its death: verily the same will give life to the men who are dead: for He has power over all things.

We are teeny tiny beings on earth that live for a tiny amount of time then die.. yet we're SO arrogant xD
erm.. yes. That is what I wanted to say.

Well i reallly think there is noway to prove god exicts because if hes allmighty then he will somehow find a way to makes us not find out so really there is noway to prove him or not prove him

how can you say that if you have no proof.

Have you ever seen the ozone layer NO but thats defenly true even though people cant see it
its the same iwth god : this works both ways for beleiving in him or not believing in him

Originally Posted by Ninboy

You can stop looking, he is not real, made up for the masses.

Wow. Looks like we have found a captain of the debate team here

If you know for a fact that God isn't real, how about explaining Life, the Universe etc.?

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

Wow. Looks like we have found a captain of the debate team here

If you know for a fact that God isn't real, how about explaining Life, the Universe etc.?

ya I totally agree with you T-Nemesis! I mean Universe, life is so perfect made, it couldn't be an accident. Somebody or something has made us, and we call it "GOD"!! But the problem is that nobody has a proof that he or it really exist.

Originally Posted by Darmani`s Ghost

ya I totally agree with you T-Nemesis! I mean Universe, life is so perfect made, it couldn't be an accident. Somebody or something has made us, and we call it "GOD"!! But the problem is that nobody has a proof that he or it really exist.

I agree, things are too complicated to have just happened by accident, like so many athiests claim. About the evidence thing, the way I see it.

Evidence for God's existance:
The fact the universe exists at all.

Evidence against God's existance:
None.

I don't think most of you got the point of this, aside from anime queen.
this is not the thread to argue about whether or not god exists, which most of you seem to be doing; there's another thread for that already.

You can stop looking, he is not real, made up for the masses.

Whether or not god exists is actually completely irrelevant to this discussion. even if god doesn't exist (and I'm atheist, so I see it that way), many people obviously believe in him, and try to prove his existence. also, next time give some thought to what you write before polluting a thread with a conjecture.

Evidence for God's existance:
The fact the universe exists at all.

Evidence against God's existance:
None.

I'm not sure why I'm continuing this, but just to set you straight, the universe's existence is not evidence for god, as it can be explained perfectly well with science. if you doubt that, make another thread, cause this is not the place to discuss this.

For me speaking as a muslim, proof enhances faith.
The first words that were revealed to the illiterate prophet (Mohammed peace be upon him) directs him to seek knowledge. Here's a part of that surah (chapter)

first off, thank you for your reply that you actually spent more than 5 seconds on.
second, everything you said here is very interesting, but first I'd like to know - do muslims have the same concept of faith as christians? because faith and reason, in the context of my original post, are basically mutually exclusive. perhaps islam holds reason as more important than faith alone?

with your quotes, I would agree that islam does push for knowledge and reason, but is faith as integral a part of islam as it is for christianity? "faith" is often given a very vague meaning, but generally, it is belief without reason. faith is not simply belief in a god.

A quote to summarize my thoughts on the matter:

Originally Posted by Douglas Adams

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."

Otherwise,

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

Evidence against God's existance:
None.

And there's no particular evidence against the Flying Spagetti Monster creating the universe. It just so happens that the only evidence we have for either is based on the assumption that certain things are unexplainable, hence the work of God, on the basis that they have yet to be explained. In a similar fashion the human eye was once treated as proof of God's existence for its perfection. Until, of course, we came to gain a better understanding of the human eye.

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

I don't think most of you got the point of this, aside from anime
I'm not sure why I'm continuing this, but just to set you straight, the universe's existence is not evidence for god, as it can be explained perfectly well with science. if you doubt that, make another thread, cause this is not the place to discuss this.

No, it can not be easily explained. There isn't a single credible scientist in the world who will say that it is perfectly easy to explain. All we have is theories, and incomplete theories at that. I don't know where you got the idea we know how the universe was created.

Personally I don't know whether it would be good to prove if God is real or not. Going by the Christian belief, if we knew God was real than people would 'behave' as to not go to Hell, but if that were the case than people's true actions could not be judged. But on that note, we would have no more wars, little violence etc. but it wouldn't matter even if there was because people would soon live again regardless. I'm getting a bit confused here, but my answer is; if God does exist, than I think it doesn't matter if we know or not. In the end everything will work out.

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

I agree, things are too complicated to have just happened by accident, like so many athiests claim. About the evidence thing, the way I see it.

Evidence for God's existance:
The fact the universe exists at all.

Evidence against God's existance:
None.

Oh my god, I'm getting dragged in again.....K, we have evolution to explain how things are so complicated and still work. Why is the Universe evidence that God exists? Explain the existence of God. Where did God come from? And if you say God has always been here, why is it so implausible to say the Universe has always been here? And if you say God made himself, why is it so implausible to say the Universe made itself?
Evidence against God: pain, suffering, disease, famine, hunger, war, death. Why do these things exist if god is all powerful, all seeing, and all loving?

I mean Universe, life is so perfect made, it couldn't be an accident.

Life is not perfect. People grow old and die. People are capable of being very imperfect, like psychopaths. Nature can be as cruel and ugly as it can be beautiful.


Anyway, back to the origonal question, if proof was found for God and he was explained scientifically, he'd lose all his mysticism overnight. People wouldn't care because people believe in God because he transcends our Universe and our Universe's rules.

To be polite to Mad Hatter I will do as he asked and make a new thread on the subject.

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

most people would agree that faith is an integral part of christianity. without faith, it is nothing. but faith, by definition, is belief without reason - faith often (historically, at least) covers what science hasn't explained. but here's the thing - faith is no longer faith if it becomes knowledge. if we set out to prove the existence of god, all we're doing is lessening our faith and increasing our knowledge. in order to have complete faith in god, you need to acknowledge any paradoxes or contradictions and accept them as something that can't be explained.

I would greatly disagree with your definition. Faith isn't belief without reason, it is belief without absolute proof or absolute reason. The Catholic Church specifically denounces faith without reason. (This is based on the Thomistic philosphy that underpins Catholic thought, which finds faith and reason to be in perfect harmony.)

I would also disagree with your narrow definition of the scope of faith. Faith can be perceived on two levels.

At the first, it is most merely belief-- accepting as true the doctrines, of say, Christianity. I was just reading C.S. Lewis talk about Faith in Mere Christianity, so you'll find what I'm saying now corresponds closely to what he was saying. He mentions how perplexed he originally was that Christians view Faith as one of the Theological Virtues, because he didn't understand how whether or not a man accepts a statement doesn't seem to be a moral or immoral actions, thinking that a man accepts a statement not because either he wants to or not, but because the evidence seems good or bad to him. I have to admit, the basic idea of this thought occured to me too-- and likely this is something like what you were pondering.

But what he realizes is that what he formely thought, that the human mind is completely ruled by reason, isn't true.

"For example, my reason is perfectly convinced by good evidence that anaesthetics do not smother me and that properly trained surgeons do not start operating until I am unconscious. But that does not alter the fact that when they have me down on the table and clap their horrible mask over my face, a mere childish panic begins inside me. I start thinking I am going to choke, and I am afraid they will start cutting me up before I am properly under. In other words, I lose my faith in anaesthetics. It is not reason that is taking away my faith: on the contrary, my faith is based on reason. It is my imagination and emotions. The battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotions and imagination on the other."

He goes on to list two more examples, a man who knows that a pretty girl is a liar and shouldn't be trusted, but his mind loses faith in that knowledge and thinks, "maybe she'll be different this time," and once again makes a fool of himself. "His senses and emotions have destroyed his faith in what he really knows to be true." Then one of a boy learning to swim, who knows people can swim, as he has seen it, and that people won't necessarily just sink in water. The question is whether he will be able to go on believing this when the instructor takes away his hand and leaves him unsupported, or whether or not he will stop believing and go down in some horrible fright. And then he says:

"No just the same thing happens about Christianity. I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of evidence is against it. That is not the point at which Faith comes in. But supposing a man's reason once decides that the weight of the evidence is for it. I can tell that man what is going to happen to him in the next few weeks. There will come a moment when there is bad news, or he is in trouble, or is living among a lot o other people who do not believe it, and all at once his emotions will rise up and carry out a sort of blitz on his belief. Or else there will come a moment where he wants a woman, or wants to tell a lie, or feels very pleased with himself, or sees a chance of making a little money in some way that is not perfectly fair: some moment, in fact, at which it would be very convienent if Christianity were not true. And once again his wishes and desires will carry out a blitz. I am not talking of moments at which any real new reaons against Christianity turn up. Those have to be faced and that is a different matter. I am talking about moments where a mere mood rises up against it."

"Now Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an athiest I had moods in which Christianity looked terrribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self i going to come anyway. This is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods "where they get off," you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with the beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train in the habit of Faith.

-- Mere Christianity, Bk. III, Christian Behavior, 11. Faith, C.S. Lewis

Sorry for the extensive quotes, but C.S. Lewis says things far more eloquently than I do. There is a false idea is contemporary thought that faith and reason are polar opposites, when they're really properly thought of as complementary. Is faith higher than reason? In a certain sense, perhaps, but both should lead to the other. Arguing in favor of God, then, seems to be an eminently... well... reasonable thing to do.

People often base their belief on the misguided conception that the Universe is perfect. Since when was nature perfect? If nature was perfect, suns wouldn't explode, blackholes wouldn't form, living things wouldn't die (at least not of natural causes), and life would... be... well, perfect. They still argue that things are too perfect, too persise to be by mistake.

Nature is as flawed as that argument.

Nature didn't just pop up one day, and make a perfect world. Nature on Earth alone has taken billions of years to get where we are now in the evolutionary line, through trial and error, trial and error. We can't see the trial and error because it takes a very long time, its still there. Why do you think dinosaurs died and mammals stayed around? Because nature hadn't planned for a comet, and dinosaurs weren't designed to survive such a catastrophe, so they died and mammals (along with other creatures like birds and fish and lizards, etc.) lived because they were able. Trial and error. That's how evolution works. If you look at the ecosystem now, you'll see that every living thing has a specific niche. One is tempted to say this is too perfect to not be the product of some sort of God. Every animal has its own niche in the ecosystem because when two animals shared a niche, one died off and the other one stayed around because of the competition. Trial and error. Animals seem so well adapted to their enviroment because of trial and error. Evolution is just trial and error, taking a heck of a lot of time. Neandertals were not our anscestors. They were equal in the evolutionary line to Cro Magnons, but the Cro Magnons were more capable of killing them through planned attacks, so the Neandertals died off (because of other causes as well). Trial and error! We quickly evolved the wolf species into different species of domesticated dogs. This was just evolution sped up. It was trial and error!

The point here is that there is and was error. Imperfectness.

We just don't see it because humans have existed for such a puny amount of time. I learned that if the Earth's life time up to now was 24 hours, the human species would have appeared in the last ten seconds. Life itself appeared much, much earlier, but had all that time to get to what it is now through evolution, through mistakes and successes.

And about the Universe itself being perfect...

The Universe could be anything. Up could be down, left could be right, black could be white, but we would still believe the Universe perfect because it's all we have and all we know.

And I love Douglas Adam's quote because its so right. :-P

Originally Posted by Miniblin

People often base their belief on the misguided conception that the Universe is perfect. Since when was nature perfect? If nature was perfect, suns wouldn't explode, blackholes wouldn't form, living things wouldn't die (at least not of natural causes), and life would... be... well, perfect. They still argue that things are too perfect, too persise to be by mistake.

That's extremely wrong. I see by your logic you are saying anything destructive is bad. What you apparently don't realise is that without destruction there could be no construction. If stars didn't explode than the materials contained within them would simply lie dormant and go to waste. If organisms didn't die and become consumed by other organisms, the energy would simply sit there; and a result other organisms would have no energy to survive. Just because we perceive death to be a bad thing, simply based on the fact that we don't want to die, it doesn't mean it's a bad thing. In a 'perfect world' of your's where nothing dies, well it simply isn't possible; as nothing would be able to live. Sorry if that didn't make sense

Why do you think dinosaurs died and mammals stayed around?

Contrary to popular belief, dinosaurs didn't die out. They evolved to become modern day birds. Nature always finds a way.

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

Contrary to popular belief, dinosaurs didn't die out. They evolved to become modern day birds. Nature always finds a way.

Reptiles did evolve into birds, though not dinosaurs. Bird-lizards existed before the meteor hit Earth, with feathers on their tails and arms, and those bird-lizards and small lizards stayed around, but the big ol' dinosaurs died.

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

That's extremely wrong. I see by your logic you are saying anything destructive is bad. What you apparently don't realise is that without destruction there could be no construction. If stars didn't explode than the materials contained within them would simply lie dormant and go to waste. If organisms didn't die and become consumed by other organisms, the energy would simply sit there; and a result other organisms would have no energy to survive. Just because we perceive death to be a bad thing, simply based on the fact that we don't want to die, it doesn't mean it's a bad thing. In a 'perfect world' of your's where nothing dies, well it simply isn't possible; as nothing would be able to live. Sorry if that didn't make sense

I knew someone was going to say that after I posted. My retort here would be that in a perfect universe, the laws of nature would be different and allow for things to never die out and still exist. If that makes sense, which it probably doesn't, but it's the best argument I could come up with.