Proof there is a God

[Jan Ardena]

You don't know if you don't care?? Are you not capable of establishing whether care about something or not? Do you need someone to tell you?
Your answer is something I would expect from a chatbot.

We'll ask a stupid question.....

Sure, if we agree that God is that which gives us our conscience then, since we have conscience, God must exist.

Truth isn't dependent on whether we agree on something or not.
Is that how you became an agnostic atheist? By agreement?

But we don't agree on what God is, and any proof that does not necessitate the God that you claim exists is thus no proof at all but merely confirmation bias of your a priori assumption.

So why do you not agree that God isn't the Totality, if He did exist?

Jan.

 

[zgmc]

I dropped a screw and it landed perfectly point side down and stuck in the wood shop floor. If that ain't proof I don't know what is.

 

[Billy T]

Okay let's discuss what God is, at least from your perspective, and see how it is He could be interested in one universe, and disinterested in another? Jan

No. Lets not. I don't like to discuss what I am totally ignorant of, even God's existence, or not.

What fact about God do you know, including his existence or not, and how did that get established as a fact for you?

I suspect your "facts" are just your opinions / beliefs; probably instilled in you when you were too young to think rationally.
Be honest. Where do your beliefs come from?

BTW, I have another "Perhaps" that could answer you Question: God specalizes in creating universes and turns the administration of them, once created, over to his spitual associate, the Devil. That could explain why a "loving God" now has such and evil humanity doing all sorts of evil things to other people on Earth.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Everything that flows from your keyboard at present is a big cop out.

Jan.

Hi Jan

Have it your way.

I can tell you like to discuss God so go ahead.

However please forgive me for backing out because I have nothing to add.

If you want to waste your time discussing God, whatever you believe him to be, go ahead.
I have little time left on this planet and I choose to not waste it upsetting you because I am an athiest.

You find my anologies offensive possibly because they illustrate flaws in holding onto a notion of God derived from the speculations of humans in the absence of evidence.

I understand you can not prove there is a God and how frustrating that must be given you hold such a belief but no one ever expected that you or anyone could prove the existence of any God.

It remains up to God to prove his existence which for what ever reason he has chosen to avoid.

And in the absence we are left to speculate if he exists, cares or is anything like folk make him out to be based on what ever they consider relevant when describing a God.

Further please avoid letting things upset you as it makes you look foolish and I doubt that you are a fool.

I simply do not want to play anymore so have the last word and call me whatever you think an athiest should be called.

Alex

 

[DaveC426913]

I Would argue that we know what a teapot is.

You know what your idea of a teapot is. You don't know what my idea of a teapot is.

We can't even discuss it without describing it. Right? So, what colour is t?

And I'm showing you that we know such a phenomenon doesn't exist because we know what a teapot is.

Perfect.

So let's be crystal clear on what you have accomplished here:

"We" [sic] have established the minimum amount of knowledge required about an hypothesized teapot, to be able to conclude that it is unlikely to exist. "We" don't need to know its colour, from whence it came or how it got there. It could be tall, short, big as a house or small as a mouse - it doesn't matter. "We" have enough information to comfortably say it surely is not there - and require no more than that. The simple fact that there's no logical way for any teapot of any kind to get out near Mars (since teapots are, by all definitions, of Earth) is enough to dismiss it.

"We" [sic] have established the minimum amount of knowledge required about an hypothesized God, to be able to conclude that it is unlikely to exist. "We" need know no more about it than is required - "we" don't need to know its location, source of power, from whence it came or how it got there. It could be eternal, ephemeral, living in heaven or living in our souls - it doesn't matter. "We" have enough information to comfortably say it surely is not there - and require no more than that. The simple fact that there's no logical way for any God of any kind to operate in our natural world (since God is, by all definitions, supernatural - not of the natural world) is enough to dismiss it.

Either both are true or neither is true. I'm not offering an opinion on which it is; that is up to you.


Now. You may proceed to call me all the names you want.

 

[DaveC426913]

Daecon likes this.

: Bows deeply. Catches roses tossed from the crowd :

 

[exchemist]

Why do you limit yourself to the limitations of scientific theories.

Jan.

What a remarkably silly thing to say!

That scientific theories cannot be proved true is a limitation imposed by logic. And I am not limiting myself - unless you consider that by being logical I am limiting myself. The alternative implied by your remark is that I should abandon logic. If I do that, who will accept my "proof" of anything?

 

[Sarkus]

We'll ask a stupid question.....

I didn't ask a question, Jan. I simply said that God (if one exists) might care as much about us as care about the molecules we exhale.
Yet you claim not to know if you care about them. A truly pathetic response from you, Jan, where you seem willing to say almost anything to avoid facing the issue addressed.

Truth isn't dependent on whether we agree on something or not.

To reply with a strawman of my own, to counter yours: nor is truth dependent on whether you believe something or not.

But recall your comment: "God given conscience goes some way to proving God exists, but first we have to agree on what God is" - rather suggests that to you the truth of God's existence (or do you feel you can prove untrue things actually exist?) is dependent upon an agreement.
Remember how I keep asking you to be consistent in what you say? Well, I don't mean for you to be consistent only in your inconsistency.

So yes, we could agree that God is the one that gives us conscience, and in reaching that agreement we can prove, by dint of us having conscience, that God exists. QED. Right?

Is that how you became an agnostic atheist? By agreement?

Agreement between my senses, experience, and my thinking, yes.

So why do you not agree that God isn't the Totality, if He did exist?

Did you intend the double-negative?

To answer either way I would need you to explain what you mean by "Totality".

 

[Jan Ardena]

However please forgive me for backing out because I have nothing to add.

If you want to waste your time discussing God, whatever you believe him to be, go ahead.
I have little time left on this planet and I choose to not waste it upsetting you because I am an athiest.

You were never IN in the first place. You simply preferred to waste the little time you have left throwing tomatoes (fig) at those who believe in God.

I wish you could come up with something that ccomes close (at least) to upsetting me, because it may mean that it contains some kind of substance. As it stands you just come across as somebody with nothing to say on the subject at hand.

You find my anologies offensive possibly because they illustrate flaws in holding onto a notion of God derived from the speculations of humans in the absence of evidence.

I think you would like me to find them offensive, but as I said earlier, they lack substance. The only emotion response I can muster is amusement. Sorry to disappoint.

You have yet to disclose what you regard evidence of God to be. Or to put it another way, how would you know (if there were what you accept as evidence) that it was God. Do you think you can respond
to that, or are going to give yet another backing out speech?

It remains up to God to prove his existence which for what ever reason he has chosen to avoid.

How do you know it isn't your own choice to live a life without rememberence of God, due to your own will, and God's mercy?
Try and give that one a bit of a think b4 you reply.

Further please avoid letting things upset you as it makes you look foolish and I doubt that you are a fool.

You don't give up, do you?

I simply do not want to play anymore so have the last word and call me whatever you think an athiest should be called.

Okay, you modern atheist, you.

Jan,

 

[Jan Ardena]

You know what your idea of a teapot is. You don't know what my idea of a teapot is.

We can't even discuss it without describing it. Right? So, what colou

Dave Dave Dave! I apologise. Let me give you the common usage of the term, IOW the dictionary.com definition.

teapot:

A container with a lid, a spout, and a handle on which tea is made, and from which it is poured.

I'm sure you'll agree with me that the colour of a teapot has nothing to do with it's functionality. Yes?
Good.

"We" [sic] have established the minimum amount of knowledge required about an hypothesized teapot, to be able to conclude that it is unlikely to exist.

We know teapots exist, it's just stupid to waste time thinking they orbit Jupiter. Given what we know.

"We" don't need to know its colour, from whence it came or how it got there. It could be tall, short, big as a house or small as a mouse - it doesn't matter. "We" have enough information to comfortably say it surely is not there - and require no more than that.

But we do need to know what a teapot is.
You do agree with that, don't you Dave?
In the same way, we do need to know what God is, to determine whether He/It exists or not. I don't know how much clearer I can be Dave.

The simple fact that there's no logical way for any teapot of any kind to get out near Mars (since teapots are, by all definitions, of Earth) is enough to dismiss it.

In the same way, Dave, we must know what the definition of God is. Is that any clearer Dave?

"We" [sic] have established the minimum amount of knowledge required about an hypothesized God, to be able to conclude that it is unlikely to exist.

What knowledge is that, Dave?

The simple fact that there's no logical way for any God of any kind to operate in our natural world (since God is, by all definitions, supernatural - not of the natural world) is enough to dismiss it.

Facts? Present them please.

Either both are true or neither is true. I'm not offering an opinion on which it is; that is up to you.


Now. You may proceed to call me all the names you want.

Everything you said this far is your opinion, Dave. Unless you come up with these facts that will basically prove the none existence of God.

Good luck.
Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What a remarkably silly thing to say!

That scientific theories cannot be proved true is a limitation imposed by logic. And I am not limiting myself - unless you consider that by being logical I am limiting myself. The alternative implied by your remark is that I should abandon logic. If I do that, who will accept my "proof" of anything?

Logic can take us so far. Look at the recent verbal diarrhea that came out of a previous thread regarding the logical validity of the KCA, which for all intents and purposes does prove God's existence.

I am implying that you use your intelligence more than your smarts.

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Jan I am very happy I did not offend you and that the only feeling you experienced was amusement.

I hardly rate my simple words as a speech but I thank you for elevating my words to such a high level.

And you are correct yet again I have nothing to say.

I feel you need some victories in arguement for reasons I do not need to know.
So I conceed defeat in the hope it gives you confidence in yourself and your inteligence that I suspect you think I ridiculed.

Now I will stand aside and let you use your keen intelect to argue with others and hopefully they will grant you a much needed victory also.

I wish you all the best, sincerely I do, I must say to be able to argue the way you do in support of the unsupportable (in my view) has gained my respect. The way you avoid the issue is masterful, the way you draw folk in is a pleasure to witness.

I would like to see you engage in the debate section as I am sure you could argue the for case or the against case for any topic presented to you.
Alex

 

[Sarkus]

Logic can take us so far. Look at the recent verbal diarrhea that came out of a previous thread regarding the logical validity of the KCA, which for all intents and purposes does prove God's existence.

So you believe.
To those that find it a convincing argument, it convinces. As is true of any argument that convinces. But please don't mistake that for being a proof, since it is not possible to prove the veracity of the premises upon which the argument relies. As was explained in that thread.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So you believe.
To those that find it a convincing argument, it convinces. As is true of any argument that convinces. But please don't mistake that for being a proof, since it is not possible to prove the veracity of the premises upon which the argument relies. As was explained in that thread.

We'll at this point it is convincing v not convincing. That is what we have the power to discern. From that pov it is more convincing than not.

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

But we do need to know what a teapot is.

We only need to know that it is from Earth, and therefore cannot be orbiting in space. That's all we need to know about it.
It could be a photo of a teapot, or a sketch. We don't care. That it is in a place it cannot be is enough.

Facts? Present them please.

You are again attempting to shift the burden. If you have a description of a God that you insist exists, the burden is on you to show that.

Are you going to ask me to produce facts about a unicorn's horn before we can decide they surely don't exist?

Everything you said this far is your opinion, Dave.

It is a logical argument. Your claim that we must know something in detail before we can dismiss it has been granted as false by your own argument re: the teapot.

Unless you come up with these facts that will basically prove the none existence of God.

That is not my goal. I am not here to argue against the existence of God. I am simply showing the logical in the argument "you can't dismiss something unless you first describe it in detail" is fallacious.

 

[exchemist]

Logic can take us so far. Look at the recent verbal diarrhea that came out of a previous thread regarding the logical validity of the KCA, which for all intents and purposes does prove God's existence.

I am implying that you use your intelligence more than your smarts.

Jan.

Sorry, what are "smarts", please, in English?

 

[Jan Ardena]

No. Lets not. I don't like to discuss what I am totally ignorant of, even God's existence, or not.

What fact about God do you know, including his existence or not, and how did that get established as a fact for you?

Why bother with facts at this stage of our conversation? Why not let's somehow get a picture of what God is supposed to be, regardless of whether we believe in Him/It or not.

Rather than pretend that all scriptures believe in a different God, or that monotheism evolved out of polytheism, why don't put all the pieces of information together, and form a picture of God. Then we can put away these silly diversion tactics, and decide whether it is possible for such a being to exist.
That seems the intelligent way to go about it. That way atheism or theism needn'tb e an issue.

You may well find that even if it becomes obvious that it is possible for such a being to exist, we don't have to accept, or believe in, Him/It. At our own peril of course.

For God to be God, He/It has to be the totality, or put another way, the ultimate reality. Anything less cannot be God. This cannot require scientific facts to totally ascertain, as it falls outside of its functionality.

If you still require science to totally verify that, then you are revealed as purposely diverting.

Do you accept this, so far?
If not, why not?

Jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sorry, what are "smarts", please, in English?

Being a smart person.
Clever, quick, witty...

Jan

 

[exchemist]

Being a smart person.
Clever, quick, witty...

Jan

Ah, thanks. So then, what you meant was that I use my intelligence more than my wit, is that right? I take that as rather a compliment, so thanks, but I'm still mystified as to what relevance my personal qualities have to the subject at hand.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am implying that you use your intelligence more than your smarts.

Fully agree!

'Smarts' is a sour grapes** term to describe people who lack intelligence.

** i.e. "who needs that anyway..."


By contrast, you are implying that you rely on wit as opposed to intelligence.