Prove(or provide overwhelming evidence) to me the existance, or non existance of God

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Vesayen


Find me the square root of negative 2, then I'll answer, LOL! Its the same thing.

the square root of negative two isnt a possible number

thus a being who can create the impossible isnt a possible being

[Vlad Antlerkov]

In the spirit of DinoDoc's post:

Prove to me that I exist.

[JohnIII]

Ninot, there are several answers to your question.

http://www.courses.rochester.edu/wie...111/omnip.html says

(D3) S is omnipotent =df S can do any action A such that it's logically possible that S do A

authoring a book whose sole author is Bertrand Russell is a possible action, but it's not logically possible that God do it. According to (D3), then, God doesn't have to be able to do it in order to be omnipotent.

...God's inability to do something logically impossible for him to do does not count against his omnipotence.

Also, http://clublet.com/c/c/why?GodParadox says

Paul Tillich's related observation was that if God is a being (an "it") then, by construction, there exists something that is not-God and therefore demonstrates that God is not omnipresent

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Gibsie
If God were real he'd be able to tell us what the square root of negative two is.

There is no square root of negative 2, it is not a real concept, it is something which can only be expressed because our system of numbers blows .

[JohnIII]

Originally posted by Boshko
you can't prove a negative, but in the adsence of credible proof for its existance atheism is the default position

I'd consider agnosticism to be the default position.

[Gibsie]

God wouldn't give up so easily. WWJD?

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Ninot


the square root of negative two isnt a possible number

thus a being who can create the impossible isnt a possible being

So by your logic, we dont exist, because our mathematical system allows for unreal concepts?

Did you just poof out of existance? No?

*resist the urge to makes a bablefish/god refence in the hithickers guide to the galaxy*

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Vesayen


There is no square root of negative 2, it is not a real concept, it is something which can only be expressed because our system of numbers blows .

you fail to explain how our system of numbers could be improved.
and, simmilarly, as no one will step up and say how to solve the square of -2 problem without high doubt, it is also true that no one will step up and explain the definate presence of an ominpotent power.

[Gibsie]

I wonder if God wonders if there is a higher being?

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Gibsie
I wonder if God wonders if there is a higher being?

if he were omnipotent, he should know

[JohnIII]

That's omniscient.

[Ninot]

if one were omnipotent, they would naturally have the power to be or become omniscient.

[JohnIII]

But perhaps not the desire.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by JohnIII
But perhaps not the desire.

touché

[Bosh]

I'd consider agnosticism to be the default position.

No, not really. If you have absolutely no proof that pink unicorns live in the center of mars in big shiny caves then it doesn't make much sense to be a fence-sitter about their existance which is what agnosticism entails (although the term is annoyingly imprecise), sure you don't KNOW that they don't exist but since there's absolutely no reason to think that they do then there's no reason not to treat them provisionally as if they don't exist until evidence comes into light, especially since treating every possibility that even remotely possible would be enough to drive you nuts

As for all the people that are getting all existential with questions like "prove to me that I exist" and whatnot that doesn't get you much of anywhere. There's no 100% proof for anything (unless you have a set of axioms to base things on). So the same sort of deal happens as with the pink unicorns, sure its POSSIBLE that everything we see is an illusion and the real world is just like in The Matrix but we have no evidence whatsoever that the world that our senses percieve is illusionary and plenty of evidence that indicates the opossite (just try walking into a door and seeing how illusory it is) so it makes more sense to treat the reality of what our senses percieve as true at least provionally especially since it makes it a lot easier it get out the door, and being outside doing things tends to be a lot more fun than sitting in your room pondering metaphysics.

I urge you all to read Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, its a hard read and his epistomology is a little shaky but as far as I can see the way he lays out empiricist metaphysics is great and will help correct a lot of confusion I'm seeing on this thread