Proof of the existence of God

spidergoat,

This is why we need to develop a better comprehension of what is God.
Here you have assumed that God is separate to His energies, which may be understandable if you only align your idea of God with evangelical Christian types of concepts, about God.

Regarding your question, humans have the ability to develop their intelligence, plus, development is no subjected to one lifetime.

Firstly, I'm sure you'll agree that ignorance is a condition affects every living organism. Secondly, concepts of God easily predate the rise of the Christian missionaries.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sarkus,

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm glad we agree on something.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you don't think that was what I was saying then what you state is merely a strawman, claiming I cannot do something I have never done, and something you agree I have not done.
Me claiming that you can't hold your breath for an hour is about as relevant as your strawman.

No, any explanation one might give for the origin of our universe.
To me it is a matter of science, not God per se. If one wishes to assign that attribute to their concept, as most seem to, then their concept is not knowable.

One gains insight into what might stand and what might fall with regard argument in support of their concept. One might glean through their defence something hitherto not considered.
Consider it also a process of science: the withstanding of a claim against peer review. If one can not defend what they claim, maybe they will appreciate what is necessary of them before claiming to have a proof.

The onus is on the one making the claim to state their assumptions, their logic/argument, and then their conclusion.
Pachomius gave his concept. If he feels that his concept is insufficient for us to understand what it is he means then he needs to address that weakness in his so-called proof.
Remember, we are not taking about any atheist concept of God, if indeed they have one. We are talking about Pachomius' concept. He presented it, we discussed it, and we have rejected his proof in so far as he has presented anything so far that remotely resembles such. My concept is irrelevant to that process. Your and his requirement for it is a strawman, as explained many times now.

Shown to not be the case.

Pachomius has defined his concept, repeatedly. That is the concept we are working with. My concept, should I have one, is irrelevant. As previously explained.

You would note, if you read this thread with anything more than your blinkered glasses, that it was Pachomius stalling and delaying, and effectively resetting the discussion whenever he met a dead-end of his own making. We still wait. Your interruption is a mere sideshow to the main event, should Pachomius ever deign to return and actually progress his argument.

No, you have merely claimed. I see no reasoning other than "we don't know who came up with the original concept... Therefore it is a natural phenomena" etc.

Again, you have done no such thing. You have stated your opinion on the matter. There is nothing to suggest any accuracy behind that opinion.

Special pleading. But you already know that.
And such things are not falsifiable. Merely being unable to identify a further example does not make your case correct.

It does not make for great fun when you try to support that which you know is not possible, and in doing so display a blinkered view of matters to the point of obstinacy, such as requiring others to put forth a concept when their concept is not the matter in hand.

Of course it matters, it is a strawman. He has stated his concept, we have accepted it for the purposes of discussion, he fails to move forward.

There were two strands to this thread: the first questioning his concept as being meaningful, in the way that Bertrand Russell tried to counter Copleston's concept. Reaising that this was not helping Pachomius present his proof, the second strand adopted by a number of posters here (myself included) was an acceptance of his concept as he defined it. Pachomius has yet to move forward with this second strand.

What irrelevancies? The points raised spoke to the inability to prove his concept of God, either because he has yet to put forward such a proof, other than vague references to Copleston v Russell etc, or because his "facts and logic" were not.

He put forth his definition, his concept. We understand his concept. If he wishes to add to his concept that you, he, others believe God to have, do so.
If he does not think we understand then his action should be to explain his concept, not to ask us what ours is, especially when we have already answered that we don't have one.

No it's not. The analogy is simply not there.
It's more like replying, when someone claims that their car can go 300mph and as part of his proof he asks us what car we have, that either we don't have one, or that it is simply not relevant to his claim that his car can go 300mph.

There is no need to view the big picture: someone makes a claim of being able to prove the existence of their concept. They define their concept, we accept their concept, and then we await their proof of said concept. If there is a bigger picture that is of relevance then this needs to be brought in to the concept under discussion. I/we await Pachomius' doing so. To date any such introduction of additional picture is as absent as his claimed proof.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James R,

[quote]When it comes to God, surely a good starting

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

point is your "scriptures", what people think about those and what independent evidence is available that tends to back up their stories or refute them. [/quote]

It's not the story in and of itself that convinces one of God. It is it's essence in relation to your essence.
It works

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

the same way with any story. The only way we can connect to it's meaning is to understand it, and it is to what level of the story we can relate to our lives, that determine our understanding of it.

Can you name some of them?

Nothing you have said determines whether or not God exists.
We know love exists. People make all kinds of claims, promises, and gestures, in the name of love, and never fulfil any thing. People kill, torture, maim, deceive, lie, cheat, do all kinds of unsavoury stuff to other people, in the name of love. Does it mean that love doesn't exist?

The subject matter of God, is more akin to the subject matter of love, than it is to science. You have to utilise not only your mind and brain, but your intimate self. It is personal. Trying to understand God purely through scientific means, is like trying to understand why you love your child, or spouse. There's nothing wrong with that approach, but you will never access

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

the essence of your quest, because you will be forced into separating yourself from the subject in order to arrive at an objective conclusion.

Are you implying that God isn't true, therefore belief in God is the result of poor evaluation of God, and a lack of critical thinking?

Why do you think belief in God is an untruthful activity? I can understand you're not satisfied with scriptures, or I can understand you not being satisfied with religion. But if you believed in God, then that belief was based on something to do with God. So why did you stop believing in God? What did God do?

[quote

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]Most people who believe in God don't believe because they were "reasoned" into it. On the other hand, many atheists have reasoned their way out of belief in God.[/quote

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]

For most it stands to reason, though not the kind of academic reasoning you're probably referring to. Using logical reasoning to determine the existence of God is a concocted system, a brilliant one, but concocted all the same. It is different from the basic kind of reasoning, of the average human being, which is born, and develops out of intelligence. A natural ability of human beings. One which is constantly activated in sorting out data on every level of conscious, and subconscious awareness.

I think they do themselves a disservice by showing that they don't want to find out whether or not God is there. They simply everything whether they understand it or not. It's totally blatant.
It appears that you have convinced yourselves that there is no reason to make that conclusion.

How is it possible to believe in what is written, without relating to what is written?
Do you think belief is something one can turn on or off at will?

jan.

 

I see Jason has given up. He initially proposed that G-d is absolute in the sense of an absolute mathematical truth. If this was intended as proof G-d exists, it falls short both symbolically and logically.

I know you like symbols (and also geometry), but I think this is a limit no righteous deity would long tolerate, because being equated with a symbol to worship in lieu of the real entity would be idolatry in the most extreme sense of the word. What was that first commandment again?

Consider yourself in temporary eternal damnation, Jason. I don't like absolutes, even if G-d seems to tolerate them in lieu of infinity in our finite minds.

που αποδείχθηκε

 

0Sarkus,

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/11198/yeah-right-expression

But I'll let it pass, seeing as you're so desperate for some kind of victory.

It is a general statement. No one can debunk God. Deal with it.

Our universe?
How do you know that God is unknowable?
Why do you regard something that brought the universe into being a matter of science only?

And trying to debunk their argument is the only way one can develop insight, or glean information?

Scientist have a good understanding of what it is they are looking for, because that is their field expertise. But in your case you claim to have not concept of subject. So the situation is entirely different.

He merely gave his concept, and its source, not that he was discussing his concept. I think that putting concepts on the table was part of his attempt to prove the existence of God, not to show that his, or any other concept was in and of itself, proof of God's existence.
Obviously I could be wrong, but that's how it seemed to me.

You haven't explained anything Sarkus, and you reiterating it doesn't make it any more true.

It must be because you've convinced yourself of it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If it can be shown that a human concept can, or has, transcended changing times, and circumstances, and remained intact, the same way the knowledge of God has, then my argument falls flat on its face. If such a phenomena cannot be shown to have occurred, it doesn't mean that I am right necessarily, it means that it is a stronger assumption/opinion, than the atheist notion that a person came up with the concept. That's all.

You didn't discuss his concept, you tried to bury it, and I doubt his concept was his proof.

That's not a decision for you to make. If he is going to prove the existence of God, then what's with the attitude when he asks you to provide your concept. You should be happy to oblige. Instead you whinge and moan. What are you afraid of?

If you accepted his concept, then you should at least allow him to complete his presentation before you cry about his method.

You've explained nothing, let's just get that straight. So you're
tactic of making it seem like I'm not paying attention to what you're saying is revealed. Of course you'll deny it (you're expert at denying), and of course you'll carry on because it's your way, man.

Again, he gave his concept. He didn't say that his concept was proof of God's existence (at least I didn't see him say that), he asked for you concept.

How do you know your concept is irrelevant to him proving the existence of God?

What do you mean ''this is the concept we're working with''?
Who laid down that rule?

jan.

 

It confuses the issue. This isn't a matter of competing concepts, but rather the logical analysis of one concept.

 

Nice evasion. Your premise is that God is a universal concept which can be found across all cultures. The existence of cultures that have no such concept falsifies it.

According to Everett, the Pirahã have no concept of a supreme spirit or god,[8] and they lost interest in Jesus when they discovered that Everett had never seen him. They require evidence based on personal experience for every claim made.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_people

Which makes me think your premise is the result of ignorance of other cultures, and perhaps a kind of religious whitewashing of history. Religious people have often destroyed native cultural beliefs and artifacts of those cultures.

 

Who said it was a matter of competing concepts (whatever that is)?

Where did he say that his concept was his proof of God's existence?

How does you giving your concept of God going to confuse the issue of proving the existence of God?

Why are you so scared to give an honest concept of the character, nature, and personality of God?

jan.

 

spidergoat,

Of course you have to say that. Don't you?

Okay.

And Everett is to be believed. Right?

The Piraha's believe in spirits, that can transform into other beings. That's about as atheist as Buddha acknowledging God as the Supreme Source.

Try a little harder next time.

I've no idea what you're talking about, and am skeptical of your dogmatic evaluation of what constitutes theistic religion.

jan.

 

Oh, dear me, you thought I was being serious. How precious!

And you can't boil an egg by staring at it. Deal with it.

The one in which we inhabit.

I don't for sure. I am agnostic on that matter as well. But given my penchant for science, and science suggests that the universe is closed, I find it rational to conclude (at present) that God is unknowable - to know something requires some means of communication. And I have seen / read / heard nothing that suggests there has been any.

I am not aware of anything else that can provide genuine knowledge of something that is currently unknown.

I treat the argument in the manner it is presented. If someone opens a thoughtful and relaxed discussion it will be treated as such. If someone brazenly claims to be able to prove the existence of God, it will be treated accordingly.

No it's not. If a scientist wishes to prove something to me, they can present their case, their argument, support it with evidence and logic. I don't need to have a concept up front.
If someone tries to prove to a layman that electrons exist, the layman might have no concept. But all the scientist needs to do is provide a definition / concept of an electron that the other accepts for purposes of the proof, and they aim toward proof of that concept.
In this case the concept has been presented by Pachomius. He is akin to your science expert. But so far there has been nothing else presented by him.
We still await it.

You can not prove something without an understanding of the concept that you are wishing to prove.
He claimed he could prove existence of God. He presented his concept that he wished to prove existed.
Obviously you are wrong.

To anyone else what I have provided in the past is a clear explanation. The examples I have given are clear in their explanation of why requesting my concept of God is irrelevant to his proof.
I'm sorry that you are either incapable of understanding the explanation, or simply too obstinate to accept it, but you will get nothing further from me on it other than to repeat to you that such a request from him, from you, is irrelevant to HIS proof of HIS concept of God.

I wouldn't claim as true anything that I am not convinced of. Do you???

No it doesn't mean that at all. It merely means that the concept of God was formed prior to written record - i.e. in the c.100,000 years or more since homo sapiens evolved until the origin of writing.
Nothing further can be read into it unless you wish to be accused of bias?

His concept wasn't his proof. A concept is not in and of itself a proof. He provided his concept and didn't/hasn't followed up with any proof.
We await such.
Why do you continue to struggle with this?

Because it is irrelevant to his proof. He should accept that and move on. But he doesn't.

My concept is irrelevant to his method. My concept, if I even had one, has no bearing on HIS concept, nor HIS proof. He had his concept and supposed proof whether I entered the discussion or not. It is simply not relevant.

To anyone who can read and understand what is written, I have. I have provided examples that illustrate the explanation. You seem simply not to want to understand - through ignorance or obstinacy.

I don't deny making it seem like you're not paying attention, because you're not, and I am only highlighting it.

And you can't boil eggs by staring at them.
Where have I said that his concept was his proof? Where has anyone said that, or even suggested it? It is just another strawman on your part.
He has yet to provide any proof.
We await it.

Because he claims that all you need to do is "think on facts and logic" - neither of which are dependent upon my concept, should I even have one.

Pachomius did. He laid down his concept, wanted agreement of it, claiming proof through "thinking on facts and logic". He got agreement... eventually (for purposes of discussion).
We await his proof of the existence of that concept.

Why are you simply going round the houses, Jan? Your criticisms all seem invalid, and all you're doing is side-tracking from the purpose of the thread.

 

I often bring up concepts for the sake of argument, but why do both parties in a discussion need to start with their own independent concepts? I've said over and over that Pachomious' concept is a fine starting point.

His concept is identical to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is an attempt at proof of God.

Are you serious? What concept?

Because honestly I don't think there is one. All the concepts come from theists. What's so hard about defending one's concept?

They have no faith in things they can't see, and they don't believe in a Supreme Being.

But you have now revealed the source of your faulty argument. You think the concept of God is universal because you have chosen to ignore the true subtlety and detail of each particular culture. To you, any superstition that involves mythical beings is the same as yours. This is demonstrably incorrect as well as fairly obvious to anyone with a modest amount of education.

 

No, not honestly; you can only dishonestly think that...and the more you deny Him you only underscore the Truth of His Word against you. There is no avoiding It/Him...Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare (including your mind i.e. you are not alone 'in there') before the eyes of Him to Whom we must give account.

 

Naw, I don't think so. Sorry, but I've always been immune to theistic threats and brainwashing.

 

Sarkus,

Or is it you that thinks I'm being serious?

So to inhabit something is to claim ownership of it?
Did you get pearl of wisdom from the same cereal box you got
your comprehension of what a concept is?

I'm glad that you accept that God cannot be debunked. Jolly good standard.

How convenient?

Why do you?

Let me correct; you you have denied anything and everything you've seen / read /or heard that suggests athere has been any..

Really?

What is ''brazen'' about it? If someone thinks they can prove the existence of God, why shouldn't they try?

It has to be objective, meaning that it can be observed by anyone. So if you say robot dancing teapots are circling the moon, then you can prove it by simply showing them.
It's different with God. He is defined as the source of everything, so saying here is a rock with God's d.n.a on it, isn't going to cut the mustard. You have to look for the evidence within the context of the claim.

So? What does his concept have to do with presenting proof of God's existence?

No he's not. He didn't get a chance to prevent his proof, because he was attacked before he could get to that stage.

Huh!!!

Maybe, but not in relation to my points.

It's not your call to make.
Especially as you lip-serviced your acceptance of his concept, as though you were really ever going to comply.

You're ''sorry'' is about as convincing as ''I accepted Pacho's concept

That's nothing new .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm wondering why you threw ''further'' in there, as it isn't necessary.

Even if you have to convince yourself, regardless of whether or not you know. Like; you do not have a concept of God. You know that God is unknowable....

Oh! You're still claiming God is a concept? Meaning God was made up by a human being. So once again how do you know this?

Why? Because if God doesn't exist, it stands to reason that man made it up? It would be good if you could give a good reason why you think God does not exist, but you can't. So for you it has to be a brute (in atheist mode), and a God of your choosing (agnostic mode). Either way, you are the epitome of bias.

He wasn't allowed to.
In order for someone to present their proof, they have to be given the time, space, and be obliged to the point where they have no excuses. You simply railroaded his attempt.

You're the one who is struggling.
You're the one who comes across as fearful to comply.
You're the one who denies having a concept of God.
You're the one who uses a split personality in the form of pretending to be an agnostic, when in reality (based on what you write) you are a strong atheist.

jan.

 

You claim that you are agnostic. Okay?
You could easily have accepted the idea as God as the creator and maintainer of the universe, for the purpose of discussion, especially as you claim to agnostic. But you couldn't. Because you're a strong atheist probably. It certainly sounds that way.

The purpose of the thread is suggested in the title, but it doesn't necessarily mean we must find proof of God, we can also discuss what such proof would entail. And we could discuss ways of how to go about finding proof of God, or we can discuss why God is not provable, or the possibility of His non existence (thereby showing that proof is not going to be forth coming).

Regardless, nothing can be discussed with any real integrity until we come to a mutual understanding of what is God. So I don't know what thread you think this is, but I'm definitely not sidetracking it.

jan.

 

You really go to the trouble of trying to explain an idiom, along with a link, if you realised I was being facetious? Methinks not.

What's your issue here? Why do you read "ours" as if I'm expressing ownership rather than merely association?
When I refer to "your country" I do not refer to the country that you own, merely the one you are associated with. Thus it is when someone uses "our country", "our planet", "our universe".
So stop being so damned pathetic.

It is also not possible to debunk Russell's celestial teapot either. But you already know that.

Not very.

If you just read a bit further you'd find out.

Yes, the same way that I deny that Middle Earth exists, or the celestial teapot.

Yes.

"Brazen" describes not the task but the manner in which one goes about it.

So provide it, and show that the evidence is actually what you claim it to be evidence of rather than what others might think it evidence of, be it wind, merely someone's claim, or something else as trivial.

He has a concept of God, and it was that concept he was claiming to be able to prove exists. Whether or not YOU or others consider his concept of God to be accurate is another matter, but that is what Pachomius was trying to do.
So HIS concept has everything to do with HIS proof.

He was, because he asked for agreement on his concept, which others did not agree with.
But after many pages, with the discussion still going on, he sought agreement again and was given it (for purposes of discussion). He has yet to move on with the actual proof.

Nice rebuttal. Thanks.

I am referring to my explanation of the irrelevancy of you and Pachomius requesting other peoples' concepts of God. So it is in relation to your points.

It's not a call but a matter of logic: HIS concept and HIS proof have nothing whatsoever to do with my own concept (or lack thereof) of God, any more than the type of car I have has anything to do with the speed of someone else's.
And of course it is lip-service - it is acceptance for purposes of discussion. Hypothetical acceptance. Call it what you will.

You clearly have no actual comprehension of what it means to accept something for purposes of discussion, do you.

I realise that: your inability to comprehend what people write has been ever-present.

If God is unknowable, as I consider God to be, then what of God can I know to be able to form a concept? I don't consider "unknowable" to be a meaningful concept.

I am merely providing the more rational alternative to your "God is a natural phenomenon" rubbish.

I'm as bias as the lack of evidence for God suggests I should be while following Occam's razor. The question is why should I believe in the existence of something I see, hear, feel no evidence for?

Don't be so ludicrously pathetic! Noone has to be obliged to any point whatsoever before posting what they claim. If he wanted to he would have done. Otherwise he is just looking for excuses not to. And you are supporting him in his endeavour in that regard. Pathetic.

With what am I struggling?

To comply with an irrelevancy? I believe I have said often enough that I have no concept of God... so where exactly am I being fearful to comply?

I am happy to use whatever concept others wish to discuss.

Given your evidenced lack of comprehension skills, it does not surprise me that you come to such a conclusion.

 

Jan, you've mentioned that God is similar to love however most everyone does accept the concept of love and everyone doesn't accept the concept of God.

So it's not the same.

Your implication is also that God is just something that is innate in human beings rather than learned. It's not however. Before your parents (or society) exposed you to this idea you had no innate concept of God.

Additionally, when most (or many) people speak of once believing in God and no longer doing so it's not that they once "saw" God and now are just less certain.

In most or many cases it's just that they grew up. I grew up in a religious household. I don't consider that I've ever been religious (or believed in God). However as a child I had to go to Sunday school and at a certain young age I read all the Bible stories just like anyone else.

I "believed" them at a certain young age just like I "believed" everything from Aladdin and his magic carpet to the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

You wouldn't now argue that there must have been something to those beliefs just because I once held them. My brain wasn't fully developed and anything an adult told me was seen to be true just because I wasn't old enough to be discerning.

Regarding early man, you seem to be trying to distinguish between ignorance and the belief in spirits that later turned to gods.

That's all due to ignorance.

I would say the biggest problem with your particular argument is that God isn't as universal as you are arguing since you are having to argue...meaning, if it was truly a universal, innate concept there would be no one available to argue with you.

 

Again you show you haven't been arsed to read this thread before bounding in and throwing around irrelevancies:
Post #338: "As has been answered already, not just by spidergoat recently but by others (myself included, if I recall), while we have no concept of our own, we are happy to work with the one you put forth."
Post #349: "Yes, we do, as we have already said we do [accept it] for the purposes of this discussion. Why do you keep repeating it and not actually move on with your argument?"
To post just a couple of examples from my own previous posts.

Furthermore being an agnostic merely means that either one thinks God is unknowable, or is at least unknown by the individual. There is no requirement as an agnostic to accept every concept of God that people care to mention.

So stop with drivel, Jan.

I look forward to you actually adding something in that direction, then, 'cos your defence of Pachomius that has taken up your time so far is a waste of everyone's time.

So you think, at least. I consider it sidetracking to argue about Pachomius' request for others' concepts of God before he can provide his proof.

And the point stands that Pachomius posted (repeatedly) HIS concept of God as a precursor to providing HIS proof of such by "thinking on facts and logic". We have accepted his concept for purposes of discussion (as evidenced above) and we await his proof.