Industrial-Sized Deals TextBTS15 Shop Women's Handbags Learn more nav_sap_plcc_6M_fly_beacon Disturbed Fire TV Stick Grocery Find the Best Purina Pro Plan for Your Pet Shop Popular Services tmnt tmnt tmnt  Amazon Echo Starting at $99 Kindle Voyage Metal Gear Solid 5 Shop Now Deal of the Day
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Prove the Existence of God(s)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 451-475 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2012 11:12:34 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 10, 2012 11:17:28 PM PDT
Re Rothery, 5-10 6:37 PM: "You'll ascribe the origin of the universe to _anything_ as long as it's _not_ God." Correct, and it is important to understand why. Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence, of any sort whatever, that any sort of god exists. (Furthermore, it is provable that there CANNOT be such evidence [1].) Secondly, adding a "goddidit" as a hypothesis is completely useless: it does not enable predictions of any sort whatever [2].

Quoting Irish Lace: "scientists do not seek to prove anything? They seek only to falsify"
This is almost always true, because most scientific theories are universal statements, which can be falsified but cannot be proved. So scientists don't trouble themselves trying to do something which is impossible in principle to do. There is an important exception: the theory of evolution consists only of two existential statements, which are provable by demonstration -- and since both of these have in fact been demonstrated, the theory of evolution is provably correct.

1. Search for "saundersg" in other Customer Discussions, and find the proof on the last page of the entries shown, in the forum "Belief in the Christian god is absurd".
2. Ibid.

Posted on May 10, 2012 11:32:11 PM PDT
libloon2 says:
Nineteen pages of comments/posts to Prove the Existence of god/gods.
Why hasn't anyone done it already?

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 12:31:49 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 11, 2012 12:32:15 AM PDT
B. Josephson says:
Because people have known for centuries if not millenia that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God/gods.

Best Wishes,
Shaamba Kaabmwaat

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 3:23:42 AM PDT
Rothery says:
Too bad you really are all alike, prejudiced and predisposed to judging. Not only have I never been to any "pulpit" nor uttered 'Praise the Lord' but I'm probably more well-read in philosophy and science and history and ethics, etc. than you'll ever know. You assume that if someone believes in God they are religious or anti-science. Good luck with that.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 3:34:14 AM PDT
brunumb says:
Whatever. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 4:08:36 AM PDT
zoltán says:
Rothery says: "Too bad you really are all alike, prejudiced and predisposed to judging."

Irony meter strained to the point of breaking.

Rothery says: "Not only have I never been to any "pulpit" nor uttered 'Praise the Lord' but I'm probably more well-read in philosophy and science and history and ethics, etc. than you'll ever know."

"Not only that but my humility and modesty are two of the qualities that help make me perfect!"

Rothery says: "You assume that if someone believes in God they are religious..."

I hope that was meant to be as funny as it is!

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 4:14:45 AM PDT
zoltán says:
Rothery says: "Wholly unoriginal? Perhaps. But also quite unheard of and avoided in forums like these because it raises too many doubts for the 'convinced' like yourself."

I've probably only seen the argument offered scores of times "in forums like these". It wasn't any more convincing or doubt raising the first time than it was the last. You flatter yourself without warrant.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 5:33:57 AM PDT
Re Rothery, 5-11 3:23 AM: "You assume that if someone believes in God they are religious or anti-science." No -- they are simply ignorant.

Posted on May 11, 2012 5:51:07 AM PDT
zoltán says:
More provocative arguments guaranteed to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of hardened atheists everywhere:

1) Have you seen the wind?

2) NASA scientists discovered a missing day.

3) Have you seen your own brain?

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 7:49:35 AM PDT
Rothery says:
"Because people have known for centuries if not millenia that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God/gods."

Apparently there are quite a few here that _have_ the proof. Haven't you noticed? lol

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 11:06:26 AM PDT
Re Rothery, above: I haven't seen any such. Have you examples?

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 11:27:17 AM PDT
Rothery: Apparently there are quite a few here that _have_ the proof. Haven't you noticed? lol

Rachel: There are quite a few who claim to have proof. When pressed, they are unable to produce it. Imagine that.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 3:41:25 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 3:49:08 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
You still did not answer my main question. Nor did you even refute the logical necessity for variable "x", though you assert that you have by simply stating "Given variable "x"" is not a valid premise with no argument attached whatsoever. You seem to be conflating "X" or "not X" with "God" or "not God", which are two completely separate arguments. I am sorry for your lack of understanding, but you are on your own in figuring it out this time.

You say "Sorry, but you have failed to establish the existence of "God"". I never tried to establish the existence of God, so you are spitting into the wind.

You say "Cham, have you ever considered using this "proof" on some OTHER premise besides your preferred magical creature? Try it for Quatzicoatl." I already explained why a named God was not logically equivalent to the logical construct of a generic theistic variable "x", but once again, I cannot help you with your willful misunderstanding and complete ignorance of my argument.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 4:00:10 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
You say "As a purely logical construct one does not use words like "theistic" and "atheistic."" Of course you can. Together they form a closed set in terms of what is logically behind variable "x", to which the empirical evidence of the entire universe attests.

You have named this creator either "variable X" or "God". No, this patently false. I presented variable "x" as the unknown variable behind the creation/instantiation of the universe (or, alternatively, behind the overriding of its laws to avoid heat death if the universe is assumed to have no beginning). I then described "God" (defined generically as a theistic variable "x") or "no God" (an atheistic variable "x") as the ONLY two mutually exclusive options to explain variable "x". All of my arguments are for perfect uncertainty, not for God or against God -- which, ironically, is supposed to be your position as a pure atheist who doesn't reject God! Your complete misunderstanding of my oft-repeated premises is quite telling.

The rest of your post says nothing.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 4:10:10 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
You say "IF WE DO NOT KNOW anything about variable "x" then withholding belief in "x" as an existential being or thing is perfectly rational."

Yes, I agree in an academic sense, since this is EXACTLY my academic position. It is most definitely perfectly rational, but that is all that it is: rational. Practically speaking, we must both agree to disagree that withholding without rejecting belief in God is possible, since I believe it is not based on my personal experience and the logic of existentialism and you believe that it is based on your personal experience and your logic. I really don't care to argue this latter point anymore with you, since I will take my consistent subjective experience over alleged violations of it any day. That is why my proof specifically excluded this issue by stating "For those who do take a position on what is variable "x"".

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 4:12:58 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
I have other responsibilities and I can't always come back to this on a regular basis. I was not ignoring anyone. However, the repetition of arguments is dampening my interest -- that I admit.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 4:17:19 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
Yes, that is all that I have been saying as well. You can describe the dilemma in two ways: 1) as terrifying perfect uncertainty or 2) as perfect freedom of choice made possible by perfect uncertainty. I prefer to see it as the latter, but I describe it logically as the former.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 4:24:23 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
Because the question was never about proving the existence of God. It is about proving that the acceptance or rejection of God is a completely arbitrary choice based on the available objective evidence or lack thereof, which tends to offend both zealous theists and zealous atheists (in the "anti-theist" sense). Because it is an objectively arbitrary choice, that makes it a truly personal choice.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 4:25:46 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
Now is your chance for some fun with me, Rachel.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 4:28:49 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
Wow, I think you had better reread my arguments if you think I was taking a creationist or deistic position.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 4:32:46 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
More ad hominem pillow talk, Irish. Ok, I will let this one slide - at least it was with a female this time. When you can answer my question and counter the logic of my proof, then you can earn the right to call it bogus logic. So far you have not.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 4:35:21 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
Oh, Irish, and you were doing so well, convincing everyone that you don't reject God, but merely "withhold belief".

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 4:36:51 PM PDT
Chameleon: Nor did you even refute the logical necessity for variable "x"...

Rachel: You have not provided a proof for the necessity for "variable 'x'," which is just a reworded statement for the First Cause argument. There are a number of physical phenomena which require no cause as we know it. The nature of causation as the believer keeps using it actually is a backward statement of logic. Causation implies existence. You are assuming that existence implies causation. This is a fundamental error.

C: I never tried to establish the existence of God, so you are spitting into the wind.

R: Actually, your reworking of causation implies the existence of God (or some kind of unnamed creator), so you are being deliberately disingenuous. Your entire premise assumes a cause. You keep stating the dichotomy between the "theistic" version of "variable 'x'" and the "non-theistic" version of "variable 'x'." This is a false dichotomy and simplistic self-congratulatory nonsense. As I said, the beginning of the universe (or this iteration of it) may not need a cause. If a cause is required, there is no reason to assume a supernatural creator. I urge you to drop the confrontational attitude if you are seriously interested in a discussion about this topic.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 4:40:31 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
Forgive the pun, Rothery, but "Amen" to that post. We don't know, and those who assert either a theistic or atheistic position as the only rationally or definitively "correct" one are just zealots, plain and simple.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1419 14 hours ago
Is Homosexuality a 'Good Thing' III? 9750 2 minutes ago
Another 10,000 Quotes... 4719 5 minutes ago
keep one change one started 10 October 2014 2204 11 minutes ago
Ten Commandments or The Bible - which is Predominant? 58 17 minutes ago
Objectivity 83 36 minutes ago
Today in Muslim History 2312 37 minutes ago
Freedom from Religion Foundation are wrong 24 1 hour ago
Atheist dogma 8785 1 hour ago
Adam and Eve were God's first born. 705 2 hours ago
All religion is based on myth. 5181 3 hours ago
Science II 6246 4 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  221
Total posts:  9878
Initial post:  Dec 28, 2011
Latest post:  May 26, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions