No Proof is NO PROOF for Inexistence of God.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by logical7
 


50% proof??? wth? there is absolutely no proof! Just because someone create something from delusion does not mean, logical people have to prove the delusional persons delusion...


Its like me saying that there is a rock in my backyard that talks to me and sometimes mows my lawn but it only does it when it wants to. Can you prove me that does not exist? since you cannot, does that mean its a 50% proof that it does?

the rock in your backyard doesnt affect me, existence of God affects you.
Its like me saying that a big rock, asteroid is to hit us and you tell me to tell that to the rock in your backyard rather than investigating. This all is a difference in approach we both even start thinking from an already set conviction.
edit on 12-2-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


if it can be 'imagined' then its not God.

Only on page 1, but I want to chime in here, too.
Descartes said BECAUSE IT CAN BE IMAGINED that there is no way to describe God using images...is evidence for God.
At least, so far, that's how I understand it. Just was reading about Descartes and Pascal this week - stuff I'm sure I heard in college but was in NO WAY prepared to absorb and really contemplate the info....so, if anyone would like to discuss and further inform me, be my guest! Please!

Ontological argument
Check it out.
edit on 12-2-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

(He's the guy who said "Cogito, ergo sum." That seems to be where you're going with this, log7. Interesting thread!
s/f )
edit on 12-2-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





What certainty have I claimed?

this

God doesn't affect me either.



I see it. Don't agree with it, but that's
OK.

thats ok with me too.
edit on 12-2-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 





The fact that you exist is not evidence that you were created. I said "It's much better to create hypotheses using evidence and logic".

is it a fact that we exist? If yes, what hypothesis you make to explain how?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



Originally posted by logical7
the rock in your backyard doesnt affect me, existence of God affects you.


More claims you can't back up. Asking for proof in religious matters is a fool's game. Religion is all about belief WITHOUT proof. That's the definition of faith.

Your religion does not apply to me.
Unless you are willing to believe that Humagooblinuphagusism applies to you.
Does it? Do the effects of Islam apply to you as well?

If the chance of the existence of Humagooblinuphagus and God are equal, as YOU have agreed, then their existence either applies or doesn't apply equally to everyone.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   

ofcourse but why should i take a labour intensive trajectory. When, if i take god or no god approach and reach 'no god' i will be saved a lot of effort in checking the 1000 possibilites you suggest. I am lazy!


Well, see that's where we differ. None of those 1000 come from me. The question wouldn't even come up if it depended on me.

But, here we are. People by the bushel basket claim they have apprehension of one or more gods. Some of the stories are bizaare. For example, some of the stories feature legions of invisible beings who needn't respect physical limitations, all of whom are also like gods in that there is no indication of them except that they show up in these stories.

But here's the kicker - the person telling me the story tells me that (s)he can tell the difference among angels, some fallen and others upright, demons, jinn, fates, nymphs, faeries, leprechauns, genii, ghosts, titans, sphinxes, ... whatnot... and gods. (In fairness, some of the non-gods used to be gods, and some will be gods someday - let's put that complication aside).

So, if I'm going to avoid a labor intensive trajectory (and as I said, that's fine, all trajectories will lead to the same answer, if the method is rational), then I choose to begin with whether there are supernatural beings of any kind. Or, better yet, why don't I grant that there are, and ask the simpler question:

By what means would a mortal human being distinguish between a god and another supernatural being?

Some stories are worse than others in that regard, because some stories feature supernatural beings who lie, and so presumably the mortal human being's task is all the more difficult.

But if you wish to start at the beginning, then let's start here. From the premise that any supernatural being exists, on what basis can it be said that a god exists?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by logical7
 



Originally posted by logical7
the rock in your backyard doesnt affect me, existence of God affects you.


More claims you can't back up. Asking for proof in religious matters is a fool's game. Religion is all about belief WITHOUT proof. That's the definition of faith.

Your religion does not apply to me.
Unless you are willing to believe that Humagooblinuphagusism applies to you.
Does it? Do the effects of Islam apply to you as well?

If the chance of the existence of Humagooblinuphagus and God are equal, as YOU have agreed, then their existence either applies or doesn't apply equally to everyone.

i see what you mean very clearly. You are saying if i dont believe in Humagooblinuphagus, (from now on i'l respect it and call it H only) then H will come and bite me in my grave!!
The question then shifts to what the reality is, we just are here by chance or created, i hope you agree that there must be an absolute truth about it.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



Originally posted by logical7
The question then shifts to what the reality is, we just are here by chance or created, i hope you agree that there must be an absolute truth about it.


I agree that there is an absolute truth about it. I just don't know what it is and neither do you. Our best evidence indicates that we, like other animals and other life forms, came about from interactions of the elements in the universe. Our best evidence indicates that there was no one mind that "created" mankind. There's no evidence of that, whatsoever.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


existence of supernatual beings doesnt prove existence of God anyway. It may just increase the chances that God exists by making us humble that we dont know everything.
The claim of any supernatural being to be god can be examined much easily. If it has limitations then its not god.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by logical7
 



Originally posted by logical7
The question then shifts to what the reality is, we just are here by chance or created, i hope you agree that there must be an absolute truth about it.


I agree that there is an absolute truth about it. I just don't know what it is and neither do you. Our best evidence indicates that we, like other animals and other life forms, came about from interactions of the elements in the universe. Our best evidence indicates that there was no one mind that "created" mankind. There's no evidence of that, whatsoever.

there is no evidence leading to conclusive proof, just theory of evolution
We also have a theory of big bang, if you accept that then we have a beginning. If thats true then it must have a cause, and that cause is something that started the domino effect, in short who gave that "push"??



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


I'm certainly not going to argue with you about evolution. It's been scientifically proven.


Originally posted by logical7
... who gave that "push"??


Nature. Who said there was a "push"? Who said there had to be someone to "push"? Planets and stars change on their own timetable. No "push" necessary. This is the universe in which we live. It's a miracle enough without making up stories.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





I'm certainly not going to argue with you about evolution. It's been scientifically proven.

it hasnt been proven. Some evidence point in favour, some point against it, however lets not go there.

Nature. Who said there was a "push"?
Who said there had to be someone to
"push"? Planets and stars change on
their own timetable. No "push"
necessary. This is the universe in
which we live. It's a miracle enough without making up stories.

the universe began at some point. Its not a story. Who made it happen? The 1st cause that started it all? The cause which doesnt have a prior cause?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



Originally posted by logical7
Who made it happen? The 1st cause that started it all? The cause which doesnt have a prior cause?


I don't know... and neither do you. But I don't have to make up any stories about it. I'm comfortable with not knowing until we find out.
I understand that you are not.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


This is what non-religious people have been trying to say. We do not know! yet, religious like to claim they know, with no evidence to back it up with, while Science actually give an idea with evidence.

OP.

Its your choice to believe in tales passed down from generation (not saying everything they said is false) or believe in some things with evidence(science). People that understand science knows that it will change and we will adjust to that change.

Even if Science and in this cause Theory of Evolution has been somehow proven wrong in the future, it would not make religion the default of origin.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


i read the ontological arguement. Understood a bit, would need more reading to get it better.
Thanks for the link.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


Well of course OP, duuuh. Anyone who has taken logic or philosophy knows you can't prove a negative position.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
There is no proof that God exists. There is no proof that God does not exist. That's why it's called FAITH. It can't be proved or disproved. It falls outside of evidence or science. You either choose to have faith or you choose not to have faith.

Saying that God definitely exists is just as ignorant as saying that God definitely does not exist. Nobody can reasonably demonstrate that either way.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


I have my own proof that something more exists outside platos cave. But from my own experiance what you call god is very misunderstood/or simplified in many religions and therefore the practitioners do not get anything for their beliefs because the believe more in their view of god than the real thing behind the religion.

From my point of view it is more important what you are seen by your actions than what you believe. If you want a connection to the other side then strive for it. If you want to leave life and death and meaning a mystery then be an atheist. But please follow the golden rule. Not because god will punish you for not doing it. Follow it because it is the right thing todo.

Just because god exists does not mean the religions are true. In fact they are all a lie because they are simplified views of everything that exists including god. When the religion contains all information on all that is (including all humans views on what is) then it will be true. Until then it is only a view/simplification.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
There is no proof that God exists. There is no proof that God does not exist. That's why it's called FAITH. It can't be proved or disproved. It falls outside of evidence or science. You either choose to have faith or you choose not to have faith.

Saying that God definitely exists is just as ignorant as saying that God definitely does not exist. Nobody can reasonably demonstrate that either way.


However you only need one piece of evidence to know God exists, and you need omniscience and omnipresence to know God doesn't exist anywhere in the universe or in any dimension. One position needs just one piece of evidence, the other position requires absolute knowledge.

That's why one cannot prove a negative.

edit on 12-2-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by BlindBastards
Aside from fairytales in a book, where’s the indisputable evidence that God exists?

'Intelligent design'
however thats not the exact topic, so do you agree to be objectively rational and say "maybe" to that question(OP)?
Then we can talk further.


Oh please, the "intelligent design" argument, if one would go so far as to even call it an argument based on its shear imbecility, has no basis. Organisms have been evolving for hundreds of millions of years, that is why we're here. Every part of your body has a purpose, and that purpose is to aid your survival. There is no divine design. There are universal laws and ratios, such as the golden mean, which allow for the formation of fractals in nature and can be found in the structure of most things in nature, but to say that this is proof of god's existence is a HUGE stretch. It's there, but it has no relation to god.

Why can't our existence be enough? Why do we have to rationalize god's existence? Why can't people be comfortable with dying and perhaps becoming sweet nothingness?






top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join