How about you prove it, or move along?
Approaches to the discovery of God?
- Thread starter kx000
- Start date
How about you prove it, or move along?
That's not how it works, chief. You make the claim, you provide the evidence.
‘God’ is claimed to be a SuperBeing—the first and only, as fundamental, with a system of mind by which He thought, planned, designed, implemented, and attends a universe and whatever else there is that He made out of Himself or from other material that He conjured up, for He can do anything.
What is wrong about this is that merely a statement, a declaration that claims the truth without a showing, which is unethical, as innocents or the unstudied may be taken in by it. That it is a deception is bad enough, but is it empty to begin with
As a idea of a negative, it can still be disproved, but only via self-contradiction.
The supposed Entity is not just more complex than an atom or a molecule, but the Being is even more complex and powerful than a human being, plus many more levels higher, ultimate levels even.
Composite complexities have parts, and these parts always have to be simpler and precede the assembled form; so, no complexity at all can be First and Fundamental, much less something very complex.
Many fell into this error because they thought that life required Life behind it, then made it into a simpleton conclusion by throwing the template into the river, suddenly no longer requiring LIFE behind the Life, and so forth.
Or they simply extended the old practice of a strict father figure up and onward, but that was a conception born in our world.
By continuing to believe or preach, believers wired and grooved their brains to act as if it were true, these brains ever producing ‘it is’ as the answer that really wasn’t, it only begging a larger question. Other than ‘it is’, they cannot produce much more discussion than to say that it feels like it is or latch on to Holy Books which by humans who also made outright proclamation and claims, laying a house of cards upon the original, negative notion by writing scriptures such as the Old Testament, only in which some ancient human history may have had some truth to it.
Either the tiny things that make up all that is in the universe came from a simple, eternal state or they are from ‘nothing’, and, if from nothing, that would not quite be a nothing, since it would have the capability/potential to form and emit the little things, and so this capability/potential would have to have been eternal, as well; so, there was no creation, either way, and thus no Creator.
Look to the future for higher evolved forms, but they won’t be ‘God’ either.
In addition, nothing extra-, beyond-, or supernatural has been seen in the universe, such as a planet stopping in its orbit, as only the natural is observed to happen; yet, ‘God’ is supposed to be everywhere, doing everything. We also know that ‘supposed-to-be’ has no basis to be used from in the first place of the so-called ‘known’ unknown, and so to still go on about it and its properties goes nowhere.
Now it is for believers to prove their 'God' notion.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
kx000
Not only do you think like a child, but a mighty stupid child. Everybody knows that god is a clown and Bozo was his son, disprove that, dumbass.
Grumpy
Do not mock me.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Speculation! He must be basic, if he exist. He exist as part of the natural plain.
Who said he was complex? Your aware of the power of an atom, stronger than a man. God would be more basic than the atom.
You have proved nothing except God can not be complex if he had come first, but that means nothing to his abilities.
You can not show him not to be there, that is my notion. And, that I believe, firmly.
This is the kind of 'thinking' that isn't, and what leads you astray. Declarations are just that, nothing more.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
All you must do is search nature.
Science already did this for us.
Crowd Chaser
Registered Member
this thread makes no sense.
Believers don't use sense, but, sometimes, resort to saying that the sense of their sensations from their nervous system shows something, but that is either of the non-apparent substrates beneath the felt states of being, or they just though about things too long, then thinking to feel them as real, such as we can scare ourselves into 'feeling' ghosts.
Jan Ardena
The old "You have to drink the Kool-Aide to see the pretty colors" horsepoo. I don't believe in any god because there is no rational reason to do so. I don't deny him/her/it or say I can't see him/her/it as you do because there is no rational reason to think any god exists to deny or see in the first place.
Grumpy
No. I'm saying you're not in any position to determine what is, or not, physical evidence of God.
If God exists, then the material is His effect. All you can do is study the material world, and believe or not in God.
Saying that you see no evidence of God, only goes to confirm your personal pov. It is otherwise misleading.
jan.
kx000
I am not able to restrain myself, your posts are so inane and uninformed. Posting "There is a god, prove me wrong" is mocking all of logic and rational discourse. I'll stop when you do the same. If you do not LIKE being mocked, stop posting in a fashion that lends itself to mockery.
You can not show him to be there, that is a fact. And Occam's Razor tells us not to propose entities for which we have no evidence. Therefore we should reject claims of his existence unless and until such evidence is found. The default position is no gods. It is the burden of those claiming there is one to show why we should accept his existence. You have completely failed to even make a coherent argument, just statements with no support.
Jan Ardena
If there is physical evidence of gods, any competent inquirer is in a position to find it. Those who ASSUME god's existence before they even look are the one's subject to confirmation bias and thus not so well positioned to be competent investigators.
If you mean that if he is real we would see his material effects on reality, yes. If by that you mean everything is an effect of his existence, that is an assumption on your part that you can not support with anything but opinion.
But the rational mind, having examined the material world and found no evidence of the supernatural, does not then make it up out of whole cloth. It's called Parsimony, sometime Occam's Razor.
Actually, it only means that I have found no evidence of ANY supernatural phenomena, nor has any other rational, unbiased investigators. If you had not been introduced to the concept of god, and you found no evidence of any god's existence in reality, on what possible basis would you invent him/her/it?
Information evaporates ghosts. The monster under the bed disappears once you look. We have been programmed by our evolutionary experiences to see the tiger even when the tiger is not actually there. Those who reacted to both the illusion and the actuality of the tiger survived better than the skeptical ones who were sometimes in error(and it only takes once). We are programmed to see patterns even when we look at randomness, it's hardwired in the DNA responsible for constructing our brains. That is why we need tools like logic and the scientific method in science to maintain our objectivity, to eliminate our hardwired prejudice to see patterns that are not really there. God is one of these patterns.
Grumpy
I am not able to restrain myself, your posts are so inane and uninformed. Posting "There is a god, prove me wrong" is mocking all of logic and rational discourse. I'll stop when you do the same. If you do not LIKE being mocked, stop posting in a fashion that lends itself to mockery.
You can not show him to be there, that is a fact. And Occam's Razor tells us not to propose entities for which we have no evidence. Therefore we should reject claims of his existence unless and until such evidence is found. The default position is no gods. It is the burden of those claiming there is one to show why we should accept his existence. You have completely failed to even make a coherent argument, just statements with no support.
Jan Ardena
If there is physical evidence of gods, any competent inquirer is in a position to find it. Those who ASSUME god's existence before they even look are the one's subject to confirmation bias and thus not so well positioned to be competent investigators.
If you mean that if he is real we would see his material effects on reality, yes. If by that you mean everything is an effect of his existence, that is an assumption on your part that you can not support with anything but opinion.
But the rational mind, having examined the material world and found no evidence of the supernatural, does not then make it up out of whole cloth. It's called Parsimony, sometime Occam's Razor.
Actually, it only means that I have found no evidence of ANY supernatural phenomena, nor has any other rational, unbiased investigators. If you had not been introduced to the concept of god, and you found no evidence of any god's existence in reality, on what possible basis would you invent him/her/it?
Information evaporates ghosts. The monster under the bed disappears once you look. We have been programmed by our evolutionary experiences to see the tiger even when the tiger is not actually there. Those who reacted to both the illusion and the actuality of the tiger survived better than the skeptical ones who were sometimes in error(and it only takes once). We are programmed to see patterns even when we look at randomness, it's hardwired in the DNA responsible for constructing our brains. That is why we need tools like logic and the scientific method in science to maintain our objectivity, to eliminate our hardwired prejudice to see patterns that are not really there. God is one of these patterns.
Grumpy
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Your stance is that nothing supernatural has ever happened, therefore God does not exist, or it does not mater to us. Consider you had existed side by side with the nothing that pre existed the universe only to observe this nothing. The first happening of the universe would undoubtably appear to be supernatural! Balerion talks about planets stopping in their tracks to prove God. This would be recorded as a natural event. If God showed up in Cancun out of thin air, this would be a natural event. There is not supernatural, only what is, and will be.
Putting faith of the defined God to any mockery is shame to you.
Putting faith of the defined God to any mockery is shame to you.
kx000
My stance is that no supernatural claims CAN BE SHOWN to have occurred, including any gods. It doesn't matter to me, but many people worry about imaginary things, some of them need to be restrained so they won't hurt themselves.
No it isn't, it is striking a blow for rationality instead of accepting insanity. Faith in ridiculous beliefs should be shameful. You've got a brain, learn to use it.
Grumpy
My stance is that no supernatural claims CAN BE SHOWN to have occurred, including any gods. It doesn't matter to me, but many people worry about imaginary things, some of them need to be restrained so they won't hurt themselves.
No it isn't, it is striking a blow for rationality instead of accepting insanity. Faith in ridiculous beliefs should be shameful. You've got a brain, learn to use it.
Grumpy
kx000
Valued Senior Member
What exactly is supernatural? Anything to not have occurred in time? Have you even fully observed him not to be there? Why would God stop a planet in its tracks, do you think he's here to dick around?
We are the gods, imo. Imagine the world without us, those who take it forward. Are we all equal? Dear God NO. If I were to exist forever I would never rape. Another already has. How about you guys, how do you feel?
Some angels, some demons, huh?
What do you expect? For King Angel to appear out of fire from the outer reaches of the cosmos? Or do you want Heaven to touch down? How about some respect, or at least cut the insults. You are insane we have been down this road 100 times. God MAY exist, that is more than enough to back faith. The negative to you, sir.
"Believing in ridiculous things should be shameful."
God may exist, I am the wise, you will see one day. Shame to you for keeping your leader bare.