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

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Vesayen



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*

did i say we dont exist?
noooo
did i use logic that might say that? maybe
but did i say it? nooooo

[JohnIII]

If you have absolutely no proof that pink unicorns live in the center of mars in big shiny caves

You conveniently left out 'have absolutely no proof that they don't'.

sure you don't KNOW that they don't exist but since there's absolutely no reason to think that they do

But there is reason to think a God exists. Millions of people find it so.

especially since treating every possibility that even remotely possible would be enough to drive you nuts

Not, and this is the important bit, if you accept that you don't know and move on.

[loinburger]

My hat's off to Hume. I like Dewey too, but he's got such a huge bug up his ass that it's difficult to read him. At least Hume has the common decency not to take himself seriously.

As for the original question, you're making an unreasonable request--there is no objective and perfect decision process for verifying or refuting any given metaphysical claim, so it is therefore unreasonable for you to ask for proof of a claim that cannot be proven or disproven. In other words, it is impossible to objectively prove or disprove the existence of god, therefore it isn't worth troubling oneself over (since metaphysics have absolutely no discernible bearing on our existence).

[alofatti]

This is a somewhat classical proof of the inexistence of an all-powerful being, which in this case we could call "god".
Let´s suppose that there exists an all-powerful being. Then, it is able to do absolutely everything, right? Well, then it is able to create stones.
Could it be able to create a stone that he couldn´t lift?
-If the answer is "yes", then there exists a stone that it can´t lift, therefore there are things it can´t do. In conclusion, he is not all-powerful.
-If the answer is "no", then he is not able to create that stone, therefore there are things it can´t do. In conclusion, he is not all-powerful.

Both ways conduct us to the inexistence of this all-powerful being.

Of course, I think of this more like a mathematical game rather than something more "serious". Some people would argue that it´s existence is bases in the idea of "fate" rather than "logic". I cannot say a thing in this aspect, just wanted to participate with this little game.

[JohnIII]

alofatti, had you read the thread you may have noted that this has already been brought up. Thank you.

[alofatti]

yes, the second paragraph but not the first. I thought it is, in a certain way, interesting.

[JohnIII]

The first paragraph has also been brought up, only with an uneatable pepper instead of an unliftable rock.

[alofatti]

Oh, my mistake. Yes, Ninot bring it here. Sorry!

[Ninot]

do the what now?

[Bosh]

You conveniently left out 'have absolutely no proof that they don't'.

You can't prove a negative.

But there is reason to think a God exists. Millions of people find it so.

Human psychology is a strange and wonderful thing, but that people believe X is, in and of itself, no proof whatsoever that X is true.

Not, and this is the important bit, if you accept that you don't know and move on.

Right, I don't know anything at all for sure and I do move all. However there are a great number of varying degrees of confidence in a proposition between absolute certainly and absolute denial, something that often gets lost in these kind of debates. For example I'm 99% percent sure that my hands are typing on my keyboard right now and 99% percent sure that I am not now wearing roller skates. Sure I don't know for sure about either of them but does it make sense to treat them both equally as things I don't know? Not at all, that would not only be horribly irrational but would make my life a good bit more difficult.

[Capt Dizle]

The question of the existence of God cannot be resolved by rational thought.

[alofatti]

alofatti: "Oh, my mistake. Yes, Ninot bring it here. Sorry!"
Ninot: "do the what now?"

No, don´t do anything! I was just confirming with JohnIII that you were the one who brought the subject of the uneatable pepper.

[Skanky Burns]

The theory of cause and effect.
The universe has a beginning.

Those two, taken together are probably the best proof we have that (a) God exists.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
The theory of cause and effect.
The universe has a beginning.

Those two, taken together are probably the best proof we have that (a) God exists.

Which leads to the question, "then what created God." Usually the response is "the theory of cause and effect doesn't apply to God," but then one needs to answer the question, "why does the theory of cause and effect necessarily apply to the origins of the universe yet not apply to God, wouldn't it be much simpler to assume that the theory of cause and effect doesn't apply to the origins of the universe rather than add a seemingly unnecessary and arbitrary layer to the problem of origins." Why have a divine first cause at all? Or, why stop at just one (or two or three etc.) layer(s) of divinity?

[Skanky Burns]

Its worth noting that the theory of cause and effect has not been proven yet, either.