Lack of definition is not the issue in terms of proof/disproof.
By definition, Gods are supernatural and, therefore, beyond scientific investigation or explanation. Science is an epistemology that claims human knowledge exists only in the reality-based empirical world.
2007-05-21 02:58:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The will of God stands or falls depending on your desire to make it stand or fall. If you want a universal definition of God, say that he is the good. But if you wish to prove or disprove this, that is absurd. Why? Because if you wished to make a system of mathematics for example, you would not attack and criticize the very symbols you are trying to propose. You do not say that 1 might be 1 but might also be 2, or it might not exist in the first place. The word God is a marker that is used to describe some sort of unknown quality, to which the theory of God (i.e. God is good) helps to break it down for you to understand it. The point here is understanding, not proving. The proof comes in the realization of knowledge, which at that point the definition of God becomes secondary to the experience taking place.
2007-05-21 10:00:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by Julian 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
No. God can be said to be a supreme creator being, the love we feel for each other, what enforces nature's laws, and/or invisible miracle worker. Some people will claim that God's existance is easily proven, other will say that God exists in a way that can't be proven.
So there is no one overall definition of God, but you can still argue over specific intrepretations.
2007-05-21 09:58:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by Matthew 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes! Book 112 ( comprising of only 4 small verses )of Quran has your answer.
The defination of 4 verses is a Touchstone through which we can prove or disprove any God.
If you read it you will find a Miraculas Touchstone which can identify True and False God.
2007-05-21 10:12:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by aslam09221 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
You are so right. Christians sometimes make some philosophical arguments for the existence of "God", but their argument is only valid if they define God said "a supernatural creator who created the universe but otherwise we know nothing about its properties". If people agree with the argument because they think of "God" this way, then the Christian thinks they've provided solid evidence of the God of the Bible, which they haven't.
2007-05-21 09:55:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jim L 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
God is different on different levels. Example: for our solar system Sun is God, for the Sun it is another star, then the center of the galaxy, then the center of other galaxies, then the universe, then the Ruler of many universes and so on.... God is a chain of commands. So it all depends on "where do you find your God" and then you attach definition to your finding and say "here is God"
2007-05-21 09:54:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by alexandredz 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
The God described in the Bible can be easily disproved.
After that, which should take about 15 seconds, did you have some other God in mind? Zeus? Odin? EL?
If you are referring to some generic concept of God, then that is your own fabrication and there is no need to disprove it because it is likely based on the Biblical God.
2007-05-21 09:55:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋
As Jesus taught, God, the Father, is "Our Father who art in Heaven".
Holy writ also tells us, right at the beginning, that "God made man in His own image; in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them".
Also, in Genesis, it states that Man was created in the image and 'LIKENESS' of God.
So, in other words, except for an immortal Perfect body, we look exactly like Him, because He really is Our Father in Heaven.
...a personal, real God, for all those who make Him so in their lives.
2007-05-21 10:00:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by dr c 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
With all of your intelligence, you can ask God this question yourself, at the resurrection. Let's hope you'll be able to grasp the answer.
2007-05-21 09:56:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Actually, we'd really only need a few testable characteristics to have a fairly solid idea on where the data was leading us.
However, we are never going to get such testable attributes because I think we all know what the data would show.
2007-05-21 09:55:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by Samurai Jack 6
·
0⤊
3⤋