Proof for the existence of an Almighty/Omnipotent being

nimnimak_11

Proof of GOD s existence ?
There isn t one for everybody, there is one only for believers..
GOD knows we can never know or prove His existence by our own limited knowledge without clues and a message telling us about the unseen and explaining His attributes.

GOD also knows we cannot prove that He does not exist either.

One can also know GOD exist by other means/senses. GOD still communicates with us. All one needs to do is search for GOD
Nevertheless,It is good to discuss GOD s existence for reflection purpose.
GOD bless.
Peace.

But there is a clear proof such that it is immune to doubt. This is a matter of pure reason. Just as one cannot doubt that 1+1=2, one cannot deny that God exists.

Cerberus

Reason, understanding and imagination, tell us what's possible or true with regards to existence. Anything that you can imagine or understand clearly and distinctly is either true of existence or possible of existence. Let's look at your camel example. Is it a case of clear and distinct imagination?

To answer this you'd have to give a full definition of camel and needle. If in your definition of camel and needle the truth is such that the camel can never fit through the eye of the needle (because the needle is too small), then you cannot imagine a camel going through the eye of a needle. I mean try to imagine it. Try to imagine fitting something very big through something much smaller than it. You cannot imagine it. You'd have to alter your definition of needle or camel such that the needle is more representative of a large building like structure (think of a giant needle) or that your camel is so small that it can't be viewed as a standard camel. In that scenario, an altered camel can pass through the eye of an altered needle. It is a hypothetical possibility and we can imagine it.

Try to imagine something that is meaningful, but can never exist. If you believe you can succeed in this, show me and I will show you that you are mistaken.

Just to be clear and keep it simple and concise, my criticism was to your claim that "If it can be imagined, then by definition it's not an impossibility." which is completly wrong specifically because imagination isn't bound by the rules that make things possible or not. Which is why you had to add stuff like "reason" and "understanding", implicitely recrifying your claim...And I don't disagree;

nimnimak_11

Just to be clear and keep it simple and concise, my criticism was to your claim that "If it can be imagined, then by definition it's not an impossibility." which is completly wrong specifically because imagination isn't bound by the rules that make things possible or not. Which is why you had to add stuff like "reason" and "understanding", implicitely recrifying your claim...And I don't disagree;

Our mind and imagination is entirely dependent on existence. Existence determines what things are possible or not. Since we are entirely dependent on existence we cannot think or imagine beyond or outside of existence. So imagination is bound by existence and it is existence that makes things possible or not. To prove this, try and think or imagine something that is meaningful and coherent that has never existed and can never exist.

Think about it, if it's hypothetically impossible (as in it can never exist and has never existed) how can your mind or imagination go beyond or outside of existence when there is nothing outside of existence and your imagination is entirely dependent on existence?

If you could imagine impossibilities (something or a state of affairs that has never existed and can never exist), then you should at least be able to give me one example.

good_logic

Peace nimnimak_11
Hello brother.
It is not that I disagree with you. It is just a fact that some people are allergic to GOD s existence.
Reason has different recipes according to the level of "arrogance" and "minds made up" of people.

So when you say, quote
"But there is a clear proof such that it is immune to doubt. This is a matter of pure reason. Just as one cannot doubt that 1+1=2, one cannot deny that God exists."

I say that maybe so,but a better "reason" to some people will be for GOD to show up in person
.Doubt in spite of pure reason exists in the mind of people more/ better than GOD exist.
Let us see what develops in this thread, it will be interesting .
Thank you for sharing your reasoning..
GOD bless you.
Peace.

reel

What does imagination have to do with a situation being possible or impossible ? How do the rules that determine whether something is possible or not relate to it being imaginable ? Specially since imagination isn't bound by those rules.....

A simple example, "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God "
You can imagine it, but it's not gonna happen.

Plenty among law of attraction practitioners, Christians, Buddhists and Hindus are of the belief that all creations are done and our thoughts can’t cross that border. That means if you can imagine something then it already exists and hence, can be achieved in real life. No hard work neccessary. You can make all rules say goodbye. Goal of Quran, in my experience, is to help us build the connection with God for similar reason. We have to have faith in him. In law of attraction, they call this having faith in the universe. It is still an art. Quran is a better guide for that.

Edit If you want to test if you can get something just with imagination try this LOA test

https//youtu.be/AyTN39vT_7Y

amin

Plenty among law of attraction practitioners, Christians, Buddhists and Hindus are of the belief that all creations are done and our thoughts can’t cross that border. That means if you can imagine something then it already exists and hence, can be achieved in real life. No hard work neccessary. You can make all rules say goodbye. Goal of Quran, in my experience, is to help us build the connection with God for similar reason. We have to have faith in him. In law of attraction, they call this having faith in the universe. It is still an art. Quran is a better guide for that.

Edit If you want to test if you can get something just with imagination try this LOA test

https//youtu.be/AyTN39vT_7Y

May be true, but sometimes with such belief or imaginations, we end up facing the actual contradicting reality and truth that will make us more stressful. my experience I think the belief in God is to accept what it comes and move forward and that looks to be more truthful and peaceful.

Cerberus

Our mind and imagination is entirely dependent on existence. Existence determines what things are possible or not. Since we are entirely dependent on existence we cannot think or imagine beyond or outside of existence. So imagination is bound by existence and it is existence that makes things possible or not. To prove this, try and think or imagine something that is meaningful and coherent that has never existed and can never exist.

Think about it, if it's hypothetically impossible (as in it can never exist and has never existed) how can your mind or imagination go beyond or outside of existence when there is nothing outside of existence and your imagination is entirely dependent on existence?

If you could imagine impossibilities (something or a state of affairs that has never existed and can never exist), then you should at least be able to give me one example.

Again I'm very specific....Imagination is not bound the rules that make things possible or not. Sure you can look at existence as a pool for things to imagine and then pick multiple unrelated elements and bring them together randomly. (this is where creativity comes from)
Take a tree of babies for example. A tree with babies of different skin colors hanging confused
Or take existing things and ignore laws that they are subjected to, like a 4 legged chair with 3 legs broken and standing on 1 leg. Imagination doesn't care about how that happens....Imagination is only the ability to create mental images.

Plenty among law of attraction practitioners, Christians, Buddhists and Hindus are of the belief that all creations are done and our thoughts can’t cross that border. That means if you can imagine something then it already exists and hence, can be achieved in real life. No hard work neccessary. You can make all rules say goodbye. Goal of Quran, in my experience, is to help us build the connection with God for similar reason. We have to have faith in him. In law of attraction, they call this having faith in the universe. It is still an art. Quran is a better guide for that.

Edit If you want to test if you can get something just with imagination try this LOA test
https//youtu.be/AyTN39vT_7Y

Imagination does have effect on the unconscious mind.

Fadiva

Peace nimnimak.
in black = minimak, in purple = me

We cannot understand impossibilities (things that can never exist such as married bachelors)

I think so... more precisely something which directly "contradicts"( i think there is a more appropriate word) the other thing like two opposite colors to discribe one color; bleu/red it is bleu or red. (otherwise they are two color red and blue or a mix of them purple or violet). This also depends on the definitions and understandings we have for words.

That which is not an impossibility either necessarily exists (necessity) or at the very least can come into existence (possibility). Where necessity or possibility is not the case, impossibility (round square) or meaninglessness (sdfjksdfj) is necessarily the case and vice versa.

Can you reformulate to be more precise ?
For you is possibility related to ability of imagination ?

We understand human and unicorn. Given 1-2, either p) humans/unicorns exist (necessity) or q) humans/unicorns can come into existence (possibility). With humans we know that both p and q are true. With unicorns we don't know if p is true, but we know that q is true because unicorns are hypothetically possible as opposed to hypothetically impossibile.

Yes. We can imagine thing like unicorn and its potetially possible. We can reason with possibilities and impossibilities, something which is not impossible can be possible, ok. But if we are talking about probabilities, thinks are different. I think that a lot of people reason with probabilities and take into consideration the environement they live in, more precisely the knowledge about it (named laws of nature). And what contradicts it, is rejected by some people.

Like human and unicorn, we understand omnipotence (almightiness). Therefore either p*) something omnipotent exists (necessity) or q*) something omnipotent can come into existence (possibility)

Yes but keep in mind that our understanding is limited, and some people understand more than other people. We have an idea of "omnipotence" (maybe a more clear idea for some believers)but I think we don't know how it is extended (I mean all the extent of this power).

Nothing can become omnipotent from a non-omnipotent state. This is because omnipotence logically requires reach and access to all things. This requires true omnipresence (to be all-present). Since nothing can become truly omnipresent without being truly omnipresent in the first place, nothing can become omnipotent from a non-omnipotent state. Also, that which is truly omnipresent cannot magically shift from being non-omnipotent to being omnipotent. That would be a case of something coming from nothing (which is absurd)

So, you mean that "something" which is omnipotent is uncreated. Ok.
I've never understood the question who created God ? This question has not have to be for me.

Given the fact that we cannot understand impossibilities, and given the fact that we understand omnipotence, then either p* or q* or both must be true. 5 shows that q* is logically impossible, therefore; p*) something omnipotent exists (necessity). In other words, neither impossibile, meaningless or possible; therefore necessary.

You can change omnipotence to true Perfection (God/Allah) and you will still get the same result.

I think you have to clarify some parts, like what I have change in red. I quite understood what you said, but it I think it would be useful to clarify so that it can be clear to most of the the people here.

And in important thing ( I think) the definitions of words we have in mind or can understand, can have an effect on the result of our reasonning

reel

May be true, but sometimes with such belief or imaginations, we end up facing the actual contradicting reality and truth that will make us more stressful. my experience I think the belief in God is to accept what it comes and move forward and that looks to be more truthful and peaceful.

What you are saying is called being present in the moment. They say it is a neccessary part. You are supposed to let God know what you want and then go about doing your thing. You have to let yourself know that God has your back and thus, there is nothing to worry about. I must still say that I don't agree that imagination is very important. Some people have disorder which prevents them from visualizing. I think it is enough to just pray for the wish to be fulfilled.

good_logic

Imagine that each one of us imagines different things or even imagines that imagination is different things.
How do we limit this subject to agree? We can talk about it for as long as we can imagine!
https//www.teachthought.com/learning/8-types-of-imagination/

For me to be coherent we need to define what type of imagination we are talking about.
May be this is where we can read posts but take "imagination" in it as our own interpretation/type, hence loose the context.
It can be confusing. Easily if you see what I mean.
just a thought. Like this two different types of definitions, quote

1-“Imagination is the ability to form mental images, phonological passages, analogies, or narratives of something that is not perceived through our senses. Imagination is a manifestation of our memory and enables us to scrutinize our past and construct hypothetical future scenarios that do not yet but could exist.
or
2- Imagination is not always a conscious process.
“Recent research has shown that the brain periodically shifts phase locking during a person’s consciousness10, where neural networks activate and these brief periods may be enough to allow the dominant left hemisphere give way to the right hemisphere, enabling a person to see the environment, problem or issue from a new perspective.”
Or does it really matter what imagination, ?
GOD bless.
Peace.

nimnimak_11

Again I'm very specific....Imagination is not bound the rules that make things possible or not. Sure you can look at existence as a pool for things to imagine and then pick multiple unrelated elements and bring them together randomly. (this is where creativity comes from)
Take a tree of babies for example. A tree with babies of different skin colors hanging confused
Or take existing things and ignore laws that they are subjected to, like a 4 legged chair with 3 legs broken and standing on 1 leg. Imagination doesn't care about how that happens....Imagination is only the ability to create mental images.

Imagination does have effect on the unconscious mind.

A tree of babies is not an impossibility though. All it takes to have a tree of babies is for matter to behave in a certain way. And you can have a tree of babies.

Also a chair can stand on one leg under certain conditions. Gravity being altered, or it being glued in an appropriate way.

You haven't given an example of something that is clearly impossible like a round square. And my whole point is that we cannot imagine or understand impossibilities.

nimnimak_11

Can you reformulate to be more precise ?
For you is possibility related to ability of imagination ?

You can't imagine absurd things like round square. A round square has never existed and will never exist. Anything that you can imagine, either exists, or can exist. To prove this to yourself, try to think of something that has meaning and is not absurd but can never exist.

Yes but keep in mind that our understanding is limited, and some people understand more than other people. We have an idea of "omnipotence" (maybe a more clear idea for some believers)but I think we don't know how it is extended (I mean all the extent of this power).

All that matters is that it is something that we understand.

I think you have to clarify some parts, like what I have change in red. I quite understood what you said, but it I think it would be useful to clarify so that it can be clear to most of the the people here.

We understand God so God is not an impossibility. So it has to be that either God exists (necessarily true of existence) or God can come into existence (possibly/potentially true of existence). God cannot come into existence. The only thing that this leaves us with is that God exists. So God is not an impossibility, and God is not a possibility, and God is not meaningless. Therefore God necessarily exists.

Fadiva

Peace,

Have you ever discussed it with an atheist ? The ones to be conviced are atheists who reject the existence of God
Once one convinced another question is what is the relation with the scriptures ?, as some see them as human made. I remember an agnostic asking why not several gods ? and the answer of a muslim was something like that " if there were several gods they will fight". He/She failed.

I have ever seen the questions of unbelievers in forums, and most of the believers who tried to answer failed, in some questions and finally gave up. They were accused of their silence (maybe as cowardice).
The lack of knowledge from some believers comforted unbelievers in their beliefs (I think). The problem is the fact that some open a topic in order to convince atheists but don't know well the scripture (Bible or Quran,etc...) they believe in.
And one of the worst behaviour is to cut a verse to make him say what they want in order to convince, how can they believe that they will succed ? (some "muslims" did that ( and non muslims but that this is not the point here) and were labelled as liars).

Maybe I 'm talking to much... ;D

imrankhawaja

PROOF = Evidence?

Most of the times in debates between believers and athiests/agnostics, the upper hand appears in the favor of non-believers due to some reasons which are given below.

1 Believers make a claim hence burden of proof rest on the one who claim.

2 upon asking the evidence whatever they come with refuted by athiest with the same logic.

Example (a) PROOF is universe it must b created by a creator?

And athiest usually take two moves on it..

Move 1 = if universe need a creator then who created the creator?

Reply = becoz creator is un-created none created him/her/it.

move 2 = if creator dnt required a creator then same thing goes for universe?

They move to more steps like if one BEING can exist without any cause/start why cant another being of similar specification come into being? Where it will end?

Its because the way how believers do debate most of the times give athiests to have upper hand in the debates.

After that they try to bring scriptures in it as a PROOF and thats make very easy for athiest to again debunk it with reasons.

And also they play cleverly they said we are not claiming that God dnt exist we simply dnt know he exist or not?

Although when any evidence given to them by believers its very easy for them to show it not as an evidence. For more information you can visit (athiest experience) on youtube.

NOTE human being knows he did not create himself or universe, since the early civilisation philosphers try to figuring it out and the image of God evolved through time from many Gods to one God. And even in one God concept the faith of one is different than other. These things make the debate more in favour of atheists.

imrankhawaja

Although no evidence can prove/disprove God thats a wrong approach to inquiring something perhaps cross questioning helps it a bit.

Believers can have a logical point if debate reversed on the same logic.

Who created human?
Athiest will reply universe created human?

Then you can ask who/what created that creator(universe)?

Athiest will say I DNT know? We are waiting for the darwin of cosmology lol.

The ending result is no one KNOWs who created their creators of creators?

Both of them.

Infact its a never ending debate science vs religion
One observe things on evidence..
One believed on things by faith...

And The REAL creating force alone knows about it all still people claim they knows about God.
Perhaps they only know about what image they created about their traditional god/s.

nimnimak_11

Peace,

Have you ever discussed it with an atheist ? The ones to be conviced are atheists who reject the existence of God
Once one convinced another question is what is the relation with the scriptures ?, as some see them as human made. I remember an agnostic asking why not several gods ? and the answer of a muslim was something like that " if there were several gods they will fight". He/She failed.

I have ever seen the questions of unbelievers in forums, and most of the believers who tried to answer failed, in some questions and finally gave up. They were accused of their silence (maybe as cowardice).
The lack of knowledge from some believers comforted unbelievers in their beliefs (I think). The problem is the fact that some open a topic in order to convince atheists but don't know well the scripture (Bible or Quran,etc...) they believe in.
And one of the worst behaviour is to cut a verse to make him say what they want in order to convince, how can they believe that they will succed ? (some "muslims" did that ( and non muslims but that this is not the point here) and were labelled as liars).

Maybe I 'm talking to much... ;D

I have discussed it with atheists. One said that we can imagine impossibilities, another said that the concept of omniscience is not a coherent concept. That it is an absurd concept.

good_logic

Who has coined the term"Science v Religion"?. They seem two different aspects that existed since way down the line but coexisted together without conflict.
Religion is religion and Science is something different.
One may say there is a conflict between religions or Science philosophies/theories, but saying there is a conflict between Science and religion is like saying religion and Science are imcompatible and if you do one you cannot do the other?

Yet ,at the start of "uncorrupt" religion, the idea and instruction in each of the religions was to seek knowledge. i.e to study the Science of things.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all started with "positive" instructions to investigate all things to improve life.

This seems about right, quote
Conflict thesis
The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history, was popularized in the 19th century by John William Draper's and Andrew Dickson White's accounts. It was in the 19th century that relationship between science and religion became an actual formal topic of discourse,
While before this no one had pitted science against religion or vice versa, though occasional complex interactions had been expressed before the 19th century. Most contemporary historians of science now reject the conflict thesis in its original form and no longer support it. Instead, it has been superseded by subsequent historical research which has resulted in a more nuanced understanding Historian of science, Gary Ferngren, has stated "Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule."

Most historians today have moved away from a conflict model, which is based mainly on two historical episodes (Galileo and Darwin), toward compatibility theses (either the integration thesis or non-overlapping magisteria) or toward a "complexity" model, because religious figures were on both sides of each dispute and there was no overall aim by any party involved to discredit religion.

Anyway who can be bold enough to move on from where we are in "Science v religion"?
Besides ,if men s interpretations of religion created contradictions with Science ,never should that mean that a true "religion" from the creator of Science and the physical laws and the fine tuning of mathematics and...is contradictory to Science(Proven /evidenced Science)?

To me, this is important to try and resolve ,especially this generation with its tech and Science/Maths knowledge. Why should we hold on to 19th century controversial ideas?
GOD bless.
Peace.

Jafar

PARTY A

One party, let's named it party A, jumped into a conclusion without providing enough proof and coherent thought process that can be experienced by another party.

And most of the time A is also confused and does not fully understand it's own conclusion. What A actually seeking is a confirmation from others of the conclusion, which A does not fully understand as well. Total confusion.

PARTY B

Another party let's named it party B, demanded proof where the proof is actually something which he/she cannot experience, at least at the moment using their physical senses.
And party B jumped too fast into a conclusion too. No proof means do not exist.

PARTY C

Another party let's named it party C, demanded proof where the proof is actually something which he/she cannot experience, at least at the moment using their physical senses.
Because they can't perceive it they do not hastily say that something does exist or do not exist, they're open minded enough to seek out the evidence of it.

A small example, just because we cannot perceive electromagnetic waves. it doesn't mean that electromagnetic waves do not exist. And the belief of whether electromagnetic wave exist or not is actually irrelevant.

Then a group of people invented a device which can sense electromagnetic waves, some people start to believe that it exist, based on the reading from the device, they finally have an 'experience' to see the reading from the device. Some people do not believe, but believing or not is irrelevant.

Those who believe started to think about the application for electromagnetic waves, voila, Radio communication was born. A real life use-case which benefits humanity as a whole, all people uses electromagnetic waves to communicate now using a handheld device invented by the believer.

But yet some people still do not believe the existence of electromagnetic waves as they cannot perceive it using physical senses, but they actively uses the handheld device for communication. They believe that electromagnetic waves do not exist, but they're using a radio device for communication. Little did they know that the radio device is communicating to other radio device using electromagnetic waves. Yet the unbeliever reap the benefit of works from the believer. The believer never enforced the unbeliever that electromagnetic waves exist either nor it's a pre-requisite to purchase the radio device.

And that's why believing or not believing is actually does not matter.

Another example is how the flat-earther actively using GPS to show their position on the map, although they don't believe that the earth is round. rotfl Little did they know that GPS is impossible to deploy when the earth is flat. But nonetheless nobody forbid them to use GPS or believing that the earth is round is a pre-requisite to use GPS. GPS will work the same way both to those who believe or do not believe that the earth is round.

PARTY D

Another party, let's named it D took a different approach.
Party D. do not tell the conclusion and nor they ask anyone to believe or not believe with the conclusion.

Instead they focus on "THE WAY" for everyone to reach the conclusion themselves.

Instead of plunging into the debate whether electromagnetic waves exist or do not exist, they teach everyone the way to build a radio device themselves, not only how to build a radio device, they also teach how to build an inbuilt radio device, they're teaching the way how our body can also perceive electromagnetic waves.
What is the conclusion after experiencing the waves, they left it to other to conclude it themselves.

IMHO, The approach by D is slightly better than C, and the approach by D and C is much much better than A or B.

Peace

imrankhawaja

Also we can catagorise the Parties of believers.

Party A = environmental believers

The one who adopted the concept from environment and tradition in which they born.
99 % people go with the flow of tradition by inheritage.

Party B = conceptual believers

1 % reject the tradition or the image what tradition made about the belief.
They have their own image drived from the concept from their own mind.

Party C = advance believers

These advance believers are very few perhaps who are open to find the new ideas and they are continuosly struggling to find the truth by resetting all tradition and concepts.

Party D = NEXT STAGE OF advance believers

Finally they come to conclusion that its not possible for a creation to understand the creator.
The day creation understand the creator results in turning them to equal of creator.
The mystery can b observed upon looking in to cosmos.. How mysteriously the creation exist what human can only observe by his limited senses..

The observeable universe is from where the light yet reach to earth so outside the observable its never ever possible to find a edge in multi trillions years as the expanding also continue.

Creation only manage to understand few other creations how that works and still reverse the understanding many times upon new discoveries.

The one who can understand creator is creator itself/himself.

For a creation like human it appears totally impossible to grasp the full image of just cosmos hence grasping the image of creator with evidence is a wrong approach.

Questions are lot but answers are not known example why at first place things exist instead of non-exist?

good_logic

It is interesting to play a game of purpose/why...things exist?

For example if we make a list of things we make, we can easily find a purpose for them,like;
Cars- To take us somewhere. etc...Rarely we make something that has no use?
So for sur we can say about these things that they exist for a purpose.

Then we move on to things that we did not make like;
Plants, Animals, insects...etc. These also seem to have a purpose for either us ,the environment, life, earth,...
Now we come to our existence
Who created us? For what purpose?
Is this a problem?
Well it depends on many factors, but logically there must be a good reason why we exist.It has to be.
The fact that we struggle to find the purpose is because of our exception form the materials, animals, plants...etc.
We are meant to investigate, take the journey, work hard....etc to find the main purpose along with the source/origin of where all this came from?!!
GOD bless.
Peace.