Nobody can prove God exists, nobody can prove He doesn't

[James S Saint]

Here's what I think happened. People got to talking and arguing about an invisible God that nobody could see or hear, and this was too nebulous for them, and the only being they really understood was humans, so they took human attributes and placed them upon "God." NOW, God was something they could comprehend. NOW they felt they had a hold of something. NOW they could be comfortable discussing God.

Close, but not quite.

Someone realized that things happened for a reason. But that reason was too nebulous for average people to understand.
The people assigned the anthropomorphic qualities, not the teacher.

[Selah7+]

God made man to worship Him.

Three things. Try to imagine God sitting around with no one to worship Him and he thinks, "Man, I should have beings worshipping me. I mean, look how great I am and there's nobody to know that. I think I'll make some beings to bow down to me." Right?

And two, Do you know why I painted a picture of slaves sweating in a rock quarry? You don't? But you do know why God made His "paintings? That make any sense at all?

You don't know why any other human or animal or plant does what they do, but you do know why God does what He does? He's such a simple-minded being that His motives are transparent? Is that what you're saying?

And three, the only way you know that God made humans to worship Him was due to someone telling you that - either with the written word or orally. You did not stop and THINK. You simply accepted what someone told you - without giving you any explanation as to how they came by that info.

The frst time you read that in the Bible, you should have stopped and thought, "Wait a minute. Now how could anybody know why God made anything?"

And can I trust that person not to be making that up in order to raise himself above others by being God's confident?"

You said it, the Bible was written to us as a gift from God so that man can know Him and have a relationship with Him. Jesus Christ is God, and He is the God of the Bible.

No, I didn't say that the Bible was written as a gift from God. What I said was, humans made the Bible as a gift for other humans.

Here's what I think happened. People got to talking and arguing about an invisible God that nobody could see or hear, and this was too nebulous for them, and the only being they really understood was humans, so they took human attributes and placed them upon "God." NOW, God was something they could comprehend. NOW they felt they had ahold of something. NOW they coud be comfortable discussing God.

[quote=Selah7+]You sir, are absolutely clueless. You do not know what you are talking about. I have decided to no longer respond to your blasphemous rants. You can be as angry as you want and come up with whatever "ideas" you have on your own. You have no depth of soul if you can only understand what you can see. You can understand and know God, but you don't want to...so OK. I will no longer 'cast my pearl' for you. You sir, are a fool.[/quote]

[Bodhimalik]

Here's what I think happened. People got to talking and arguing about an invisible God that nobody could see or hear, and this was too nebulous for them, and the only being they really understood was humans, so they took human attributes and placed them upon "God." NOW, God was something they could comprehend. NOW they felt they had a hold of something. NOW they could be comfortable discussing God.

Close, but not quite.

Someone realized that things happened for a reason. But that reason was too nebulous for average people to understand.
The people assigned the anthropomorphic qualities, not the teacher.

[Bodhimalik]

You sir, are absolutely clueless. You do not know what you are talking about. I have decided to no longer respond to your blasphemous rants. You can be as angry as you want and come up with whatever "ideas" you have on your own. You have no depth of soul if you can only understand what you can see. You can understand and know God, but you don't want to...so OK. I will no longer 'cast my pearl' for you. You sir, are a fool.

It is not my fault if I cannot accept your beliefs. I don't know why you would think it would be.

I also don't understand why you want to stop our discourse.

You have a view of existence that I don't have. I have a view of existence that you don't have. If we keep them secret from each other, who loses?

I don't see how you can call my writings "blasphemous rants." I am not blaspheming anyone.

I am merely pointing out that much of what religious people say about God is in error, and can be corrected with a little thought if they would but think about what they are saying instead of just repeating what others have told them.

I am sure that if they would create God in a more realistic way, they would benefit by not having so many doubts about their beliefs.

I am not angry. Someone else said I was too, but I am at a loss as to why you two saw me in that manner.

I asked my wife if she had any idea as to why anyone would see me as angry when I am discussing something serious. She said I sounded as if I would brook no argument. I can see that is probably true.

I don't see how I can change that. I realize I am a bit lacking in empathy, and probably that causes me to write and speak as I do. I don't know how anyone can see that as my being angry, but evidently they do.

Thankfully, I can't come through the ether and hurt anyone, so there's that.

The part about my having no depth of soul if I can only understand what I can see, that kinda blows my mind. Understanding only what I see is the cornerstone of my philosophy of life.

I think you might have been referring to your belief (? ) that since I cannot see God, I don't believe He exists. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

When I say, "I see something, " I mean not with my eyes, but with Mind.

Like, I can "see" my thoughts. I can "see" that I am hungry. I can "see" God.

I am not an atheist, I am just not religious.

When you "cast your pearls," you are casting a religious God. That is meaningless to me. The God I worship is really "closer than my breath."

He is so close that I cannot separate myself from Him any more than a cell in my big toe can separate itself from me and claim to be what it is not.

I won't change, but are we cool?

[ZenKitty]

Solid logic, Corio.Felix, I didn't think that level of logic was your style. I am disappoint.

He said, "If you can give conditions blah blah blah, then you can prove it doesn't exist."
A -> B
Then you said, "If you can't give conditions blah blah blah, then you can prove it doesn't exist."
~A -> B
But your response doesn't follow from what he said at all. ~A -> B doesn't follow from A -> B.

Do you not feel discomfort when you post a fallacious argument? Do you not get like a pinch on your shoulder or something? Every time I post an argument I even have the slightest intuition might be fallacious, it really bugs me. Sometimes I post it anyway, but I try not to.

The only problem is that B does follow from both of them, both A and ~A. We can affirm that God does not exist, which is B, and it is consistent with both A and ~A. Looks like Felix was pointing out that we get the same necessary condition with different sufficient conditions.

[James S Saint]

Solid logic, Corio.Felix, I didn't think that level of logic was your style. I am disappoint.

He said, "If you can give conditions blah blah blah, then you can prove it doesn't exist."
A -> B
Then you said, "If you can't give conditions blah blah blah, then you can prove it doesn't exist."
~A -> B
But your response doesn't follow from what he said at all. ~A -> B doesn't follow from A -> B.

Do you not feel discomfort when you post a fallacious argument? Do you not get like a pinch on your shoulder or something? Every time I post an argument I even have the slightest intuition might be fallacious, it really bugs me. Sometimes I post it anyway, but I try not to.

The only problem is that B does follow from both of them, both A and ~A. We can affirm that God does not exist, which is B, and it is consistent with both A and ~A. Looks like Felix was pointing out that we get the same necessary condition with different sufficient conditions.

No.
FJ explained that A = "can give" and ~A = "can't give"
The issue is what can be provided for a proof, not what is there.
Felix explained that FJ misunderstood his statement and meant A->B and ~A != ~B... the absence of evidence is not evidence of the absence.

[ZenKitty]

No.
FJ explained that A = "can give" and ~A = "can't give"
The issue is what can be provided for a proof, not what is there.
Felix explained that FJ misunderstood his statement and meant A->B and ~A != ~B... the lack of evidence is not evidence of the lack.

Right, and none of that changes that they both have the same consequent. Are you really going to say that "A-->B" and "~A-->B" have different consequents?

[James S Saint]

No.
FJ explained that A = "can give" and ~A = "can't give"
The issue is what can be provided for a proof, not what is there.
Felix explained that FJ misunderstood his statement and meant A->B and ~A != ~B... the lack of evidence is not evidence of the lack.

Right, and none of that changes that they both have the same consequent. Are you really going to say that "A-->B" and "~A-->B" have different consequents?

I take it that you didn't understand the explanation and thus are now talking non-sense.

[ZenKitty]

I take it that you didn't understand the explanation and thus are now talking non-sense.

You take it incorrectly. You just appear to not understand that they both have the same consequent, and this is usually where blah blah blah is important.

[Typist]

Here's the correct answer...

[James S Saint]

Here's the correct answer...

In the 5th line, you forgot to divide by zero.
... just say'n...

[jabs]

You can prove/disprove God existance, if you can answer the question "and did God create the emotions?"

[Bodhimalik]

You can prove/disprove God existance, if you can answer the question "and did God create the emotions?"

I don't get why this would "prove/disprove" the existence of God. Why not substitute "trees" instead of "emotions"?

[Bodhimalik]

You can prove/disprove God existance, if you can answer the question "and did God create the emotions?"

Ah. I think I see another meaning in your post. You are saying that it is as difficult to prove/disprove the existence of God as it is to answer the question, "did God create emotions?" Yes?

[Mutcer]

When the people who strongly profess that God exists waver, stammer and act in a very evasive, hostile or defensive manner when asked questions about their god, it strongly suggests they actually don't believe their god is real.

[jabs]

What would God do so that we had evidence of his existence?

[The Watcher]

Yes, you can in fact prove that God Exists, there is plenty of evidence... However

When you prove "God" exists, you will also simultaneously prove it isn't really a God, just a metaphysical entity pretending to be one.

[jabs]

Yes, you can in fact prove that God Exists, there is plenty of evidence... However

When you prove "God" exists, you will also simultaneously prove it isn't really a God, just a metaphysical entity pretending to be one.

Hello Watcher, I am completely new to all of this, would you mind telling me what a "metaphysical" entity means?

[Mutcer]

Yes, you can in fact prove that God Exists, there is plenty of evidence... However

When you prove "God" exists, you will also simultaneously prove it isn't really a God, just a metaphysical entity pretending to be one.

Depending on what you use the term "God" in lieu of, there may be no problem with proving God exists.

Perhaps the first thing that needs to be done is to provide a universally accepted definition of "God" - and then provide whatever evidence you have either for or against its existence.

[The Watcher]

Yes, you can in fact prove that God Exists, there is plenty of evidence... However

When you prove "God" exists, you will also simultaneously prove it isn't really a God, just a metaphysical entity pretending to be one.

Hello Watcher, I am completely new to all of this, would you mind telling me what a "metaphysical" entity means?

It might be easier to simply refer you to a few of the threads where we discuss this in great detail over many pages:

* http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=162557
* have to look for the others later, you could just click my name and read my posts though, that might also help.

Explaining the metaphysical is something done through debate due to how it has to be explained and reasoned for it to be understood. I could give you a blank definition sure, but it would not do your curiosity justice. Read the posts .

[Dan~]

Yes, you can in fact prove that God Exists, there is plenty of evidence... However

When you prove "God" exists, you will also simultaneously prove it isn't really a God, just a metaphysical entity pretending to be one.

The wisest beings never refer to them as Gods, or as power oriented, ego oriented, authority oriented individuals.
Higher existence transcends individuality.

"god" differenciations only exist when someone looks with a perspective towards "higher" and "lower" beings, then appoints the highest due to its qualities. But what good is infinite power if you are foolish with it? Or cruel with it? Power means little. Many qualities are higher than power, even of creative power.

Making a reality is not as hard as you'd think.
The physical realm is nothing to be proud of, and its makers are hardly gods.

'God' is ape talk for some insane alpha male figure.
It's a poisonous human emination.

[Noblerust]

Insane alpha male figure? I guess that's why god always seemed to model some tyrant figure like Stalin or whoever. He loves you! Venerate him! He'll punish you horribly but forgive you! I guess the idea of god gives insane alpha male figures a role model to look up too when nobody else will do.

Although, unlike real life insane tyrant types, the supernatural god doesn't seem to make himself very obvious. At least there are photographs of Stalin.

[jabs]

Yes, you can in fact prove that God Exists, there is plenty of evidence... However

When you prove "God" exists, you will also simultaneously prove it isn't really a God, just a metaphysical entity pretending to be one.

Hello Watcher, I am completely new to all of this, would you mind telling me what a "metaphysical" entity means?

It might be easier to simply refer you to a few of the threads where we discuss this in great detail over many pages:

* http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=162557
* have to look for the others later, you could just click my name and read my posts though, that might also help.

Explaining the metaphysical is something done through debate due to how it has to be explained and reasoned for it to be understood. I could give you a blank definition sure, but it would not do your curiosity justice. Read the posts .

Fine, thanks for the link, I will have a read.

[jabs]

Yes, you can in fact prove that God Exists, there is plenty of evidence... However

When you prove "God" exists, you will also simultaneously prove it isn't really a God, just a metaphysical entity pretending to be one.

The wisest beings never refer to them as Gods, or as power oriented, ego oriented, authority oriented individuals.
Higher existence transcends individuality.

"god" differenciations only exist when someone looks with a perspective towards "higher" and "lower" beings, then appoints the highest due to its qualities. But what good is infinite power if you are foolish with it? Or cruel with it? Power means little. Many qualities are higher than power, even of creative power.

Making a reality is not as hard as you'd think.
The physical realm is nothing to be proud of, and its makers are hardly gods.

'God' is ape talk for some insane alpha male figure.
It's a poisonous human emination.

Isn't God supposed to be in all of us?

[jabs]

...

As I looked at the photo here, there is still this attempt in me to match those eyes, and match the mouths, so there is a sense of movement, until it understands there are two pairs of each.