'God' is Impossible

[arfa brane]

Lets all use logic to PROVE that logic itself is at fault, and therefore illogical.

Logic isn't illogical, but you can't use it to show that a system of logic is complete.

"This sentence is illogical", for instance.
"This sentence is false", "I am a liar", etc, are examples of logical statements that can't be proven true or false (are incompletable).

Why? because of the axioms--axiomatically a liar is someone who doesn't tell the truth, so how do you tell if they aren't lying?

It's because all the statements are self-referential, as well.

So to clarify, logic isn't useless, unless you want to prove an unprovable proposition, or complete an incompletable one, or use an illogical premiss. I was describing its use in the context of this thread, you see.

 

[wynn]

If you want us to accept that which we don't agree with, without discussion, examination and review then threads will be short... and pointless.
...
Arguing that one's attitude plays a part in a discussion is NOT a counter to an argument but a plea for leniency, or waiver, or acceptance. It might allow a discussion to sweep the perceived flaw under the carpet but it is no way a counter.
...
And as for attitude... as said, if the purpose of discussion is to accept things we disagree with, to roll over and not to raise criticisms as we find them then discussions here are neutered and rather pointless.

You are playing the victim, or you just want discussion for discussion's sake, without the desire to come to any new conclusion.

I have commented several times on the passivity and reactivity of atheists.

I am not expecting atheists to just accept things I say. But for me, discussing with atheists often becomes like trying to pull a couch potato off the couch. He doesn't like it, and I feel pushy.
So I'll probably back off soon.

 

[Sarkus]

You are playing the victim, or you just want discussion for discussion's sake, without the desire to come to any new conclusion.

Discussion should always be with a desire to come to a conclusion, else it is just talking. But when the issues being discussed are so weighty one should surely not expect conclusions (beyond agreeing to disagree) in any short period of time, and not without both sides ensuring that the conclusion is appropriate.
I do admit to not sometimes not intending to reach any conclusion but merely to point out perceived flaws in other peoples' arguments and/or conclusions. But there is always the willingness to be shown that it is my perceptions that are flawed and incorrect, and thus willingness to reach a new conclusion.
But if someone comes to each discussion with the intention of reaching a new conclusion then perhaps one is still at the start of their journey and each discussion genuinely brings something new, or perhaps they are just too easily led.

I have commented several times on the passivity and reactivity of atheists.

Can one be both passive AND reactive?

I am not expecting atheists to just accept things I say. But for me, discussing with atheists often becomes like trying to pull a couch potato off the couch. He doesn't like it, and I feel pushy.

I would have to say that even this analogy is flawed / inappropriate, as while it appears valid as an analogy for something difficult, it implies that the atheist (I'll ignore the generalisation) is merely not wanting to out of dislike. If
that is your perception then so be it.
A better analogy, perhaps, is that is like trying to milk a bull... you can try, but they won't like it, because they're just not built that way... and anything you do end up "milking" is probably not going to be quite what you wanted.

 

[SciWriter]

Have you read William James' "Will to believe"?

James has it that it's fine to find comfort in belief. Martin Gardner went this way, too.

 

[SciWriter]

Kalâm cosmological argument
(Analysis from Stenger)

Theists claim that if it can be shown that the universe had a beginning, this is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a Creator.

They cast this in terms of the Kalâm cosmological argument, which is drawn from Islamic theology. The argument is posed as a syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Now, still remember that the cause could very well be a natural one, or from a prior universe beginning anew, which are each fine, but our full disproof of the God Theity, even of a Deity, too, must, for completeness, show that there is not any cause at all for the beginning of the universe. Even if the universe is now cyclical, there is still this initial ‘beginning’ to discuss.

So, theists take the first premise to be self-evident, but, is it? No, not if we can show no cause is a valid way.

In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus.

Theists might retort that quantum events are still “caused,” just caused in a non-predetermined manner—what they call “probabilistic causality.” But, in effect, they are thereby admitting that the “cause” in the first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous—something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause, they destroy their own case for a predetermined creation.

We do have a completely successful theory of probabilistic causes—quantum mechanics. It does not predict when a given event will occur and, indeed, this shows that individual microscopic events are not predetermined.

The exception theory occurred in the interpretation of quantum mechanics given by David Bohm, Einstein, and Bell that assumed the existence of yet undetected sub-quantum forces; however it was not accepted because it requires superluminal connections that violate the principles of special relativity. More importantly, no evidence for sub-quantum forces has been found.

Energetic particles come into and out of existence without cause. They are beyond the edge of the world of cause, that world being the classical world. There is uncertainty. The ‘certain’ is dead.

Instead of predicting individual events, quantum mechanics is used to predict the statistical distribution of outcomes of ensembles of similar events. This it can do with high precision. For example, a quantum calculation will tell you how many nuclei in a large sample will have decayed after a given time. Or you can predict the intensity of light from a group of excited atoms, which is a measure of the total number of photons emitted.

But neither quantum mechanics nor any other existing theory—including Bohm’s—can say anything about the behavior of an individual nucleus or atom.

The photons emitted in atomic transitions come into existence spontaneously, as do the particles emitted in nuclear radiation. By so appearing, without predetermination, they contradict the first premise (1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.).

In the case of radioactivity, the decays are observed to follow an exponential decay “law.” However, this statistical law is exactly what you expect if the probability for decay in a given small time interval is the same for all time intervals of the same duration. In other words, the decay curve itself is evidence for each individual event occurring unpredictably and, by inference, without being predetermined.

Quantum mechanics and classical (Newtonian) mechanics are not as separate and distant from one another as is generally thought. Indeed, quantum mechanics changes smoothly into classical mechanics when the parameters of the system, such as masses, distances, and speeds approach the classical regime. When that happens, quantum probabilities collapse to either zero or 100 percent, which then gives us certainty at that level.

However, we have many examples where the probabilities are not zero or 100 percent. The quantum probability calculations agree precisely with the observations made on ensembles of similar events.

Note again, that, even if the Kalâm conclusion were sound, which it isn’t, and that the universe did had a cause, why could that cause itself not be natural? Still, without even this overkill, but just as it is, the Kalâm argument fails both empirically and theoretically without ever having to bring up its second premise about the universe even having a beginning.

Nevertheless, to really place the nail into the coffin of the Kalâm argument is provided by the fact that the second premise also fails (2. The universe began to exist.). The observations confirming the big bang do not rule out the possibility of a prior universe, for theoretical models have been published suggesting mechanisms by which our current universe appeared from a pre-existing one, for example, by a process called quantum tunneling or so-called “quantum fluctuations.” The equations of cosmology that describe the early universe apply equally for the other side of the time axis, so we have no reason to assume that the universe began with the big bang. Anyway, we have already seen that no miracle is evident in the big bang.

All is as it would be if there were no God.

In short, the data indicate that the universe did not come about by a purposeful creation. Based on our best current scientific knowledge, we must conclude, yet again, in yet another proof, one beyond any and all reasonable doubt that a God who is the highly intelligent and powerful supernatural creator of the physical universe does not exist. The quantum realm has saved the day, for quantum events happen without cause, even being random events at that.

Every time we try to measure what an atom does, we get a different answer. This then is the answer. It is causeless.

 

[SciWriter]

The Quantum Consciousness Movement:

This has about as much substance as the aether from which it is composed. Early in this century, quantum mechanics and Einstein’s relativity destroyed the notion of a holistic universe that had seemed within the realm of possibility in the century just past.
First, Einstein did away with the aether, shattering the doctrine that we all move about inside a universal, cosmic fluid whose excitations connect us simultaneously to one another and to the rest of the universe.

Second, Einstein and other physicists proved that matter and light were composed of particles, wiping away the notion of universal continuity.

 

[SciWriter]

The ‘Miracles’ of Cosmology

Here’s an event that appeared miraculous at the time:
In 585 BCE, on May 28 exactly, at a precise minute, the Medes and the Lydians were battling in Aisa Minor, but the battle ended from an event that caused both sides to flee in terror: an eclipse of the sun. Thales of Miletus, in the first known case of scientific prediction, had even used Babylonian records to predict the eclipse!
It was the power of science of today that postdicted the exact date of the event to May 28, 585 BCE, to the minute.

These were very interesting times, indeed, for around that time, Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem and then carried off the Judeans into exile in Babylonia, which is where they would pick up their creation myth! Amazingly, the Buddha is said to have attained enlightenment almost exactly at the same time. Confucius, a slight latecomer, would be born just a few decades later. What heady times.

Comets were scary, too, being seen as supernatural omens, but again, they have been since described in totally natural terms.

Of course, then came more unexpected occurrences, more recently: pulsars, supernovas, quasars, and gamma ray bursts. They eventually repeated and so we learned their nature in purely physical terms. Science explained them all!

At no time and at no place have we run across an event above any noise that did not repeat sometime or someplace and could not be accounted for in terms of established natural science.

Where is the God who plays a sufficiently active role to produce miraculous events in the cosmos? She has not even been glimpsed anywhere or any place.

So it is that observations in cosmology look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God.

 

[SciWriter]

The Failures of Biblical Revelation
(Stenger)

The Bible's record of prophecy is a miserable failure, for example:
Ezekiel 29,30:

The land of Egypt will be laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar, and all its people killed and rivers dried up. It will remain uninhabited for forty years.

Um, this did not happen.

If the Bible is the product of human beings rather than a Divine Author, we can easily explain its historical, scientific and moral inaccuracies. It’s too bad that it didn’t have an explicit prophecy of somethings like man’s landing on the moon. Just one thing like this would have really been something awesome, but, again, the facts will never fail in the disproof of God the Theity.

Instead, biblical prophecy is either vague, wrong, coincidence, a matter of ordinary prediction, or it can be more-simply explained as written after the fact.

Science and religion do have one thing in common: they are about the same reality, but religion is massively disconfirmed here, the disproofs going on here ever more and more. There is even a massive amount of evidence that prayer doesn't work, disconfirming the hypothesis that there is a God who answers prayer.

All in all, the universe is ever as we would expect it to be if there were no God.

Getting back to the Bible, “our conscience determines how we read what we regard as a sacred text…

“In all these cases, believers clearly read the Bible to find support for moral principles that they have already developed from some other source. Only a few lunatics nowadays take seriously the Bible's support for genocide or slavery.

“I hope I have make clear that while I wish people were less gullible, less willing to believe in the most preposterous supernatural notions, I still have high regard for the basic decency of most human beings. Many people are good. But they are not good because of religion. They are good despite religion.”

The Bible is indeed a mixed bag, containing some wisdom, common to humanity at that time, and much cruelty and ignorance, also typical of people at that time. The Bible is not uniquely wise. For laws that govern civil society, we might prefer Solomon to Moses. Humankind’s holy books are what one would expect if they were products of human culture.”

 

[SciWriter]

Finally, for today, anyway…

The Laws of the Universe
(Stenger)

The origin and the operation of the universe do not require any violations of laws of physics. Many Theists who may have happily come this far along in the disproofs that have been shown, necessarily conceding all the points…

…but then say, “Fine, but where did the laws of physics come from?”

(This is a fair question, and I am a fair person, not one who would have suppressed the question here. We will leave no stone unturned and no tern unstoned.)

There were perhaps no laws before there were laws and so one might think that the laws had to come from outside of the universe; however, they came from within.

The laws of physics were not handed down from above, like the Ten Commandments. Neither are they rules somehow built into the structure of the universe. They are ingredients of the models that physicists invent to describe observations.

Rather than being restrictions on the behavior of matter, the laws of physics are restrictions on the behavior of physicists. If the models of physics are to describe observations based on an objective reality, then those models cannot depend on the point of view of the observer.

This suggests a principle of point-of-view invariance that is equivalent to the principle of covariance (or cosmological principle, or Copernican principle) when applied to space-time.

The principle must be true for all points of views. And, so, for example, no objective law can depend on a special moment in time or position in space that may be singled out by some preferred observer.

That, of course, has been tried, but has ever failed. Here is a religious example: A law was made (made up) that all objects move toward us. Now, that is not objective, but that was precisely what a whole lot of people on Earth once thought—that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the natural motion of the bodies was ever toward Earth: the sun, the other planets… everything!

The Copernican revolution showed this was wrong and so that was the first step in the gradual realization of scientists that their laws must not depend on frame of reference.

As Noether proved in 1915, this actually leads to the principles of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum conservation and essentially all of classical mechanics. These laws automatically appear in any model that does not single out a special moment in time, position in space, and direction in space.

Later it was realized that Einstein’s special theory of relativity follows if we do not single out any special direction in four-dimensional space-time. These are called symmetries, such as when a spinning sphere doesn’t single out a particular direction in space.

These four space-time symmetries described above are just the natural symmetries of a universe with no matter, that is, a void of ‘nothing’.

The laws are just what they should be if the universe appeared from an initial state in which there was no matter—from ‘nothing’. What place, then for God?

Other laws of physics, such as conservation of electric charge and the various force laws, arise from the generalizations of space-time symmetries to the abstract spaces physicists use in their mathematical models. These are called gauge invariance—the principle of point-of-view invariance.

So, when generalized to the abstract space of functions such as the quantum state vector, point-of-view invariance is identified with gauge invariance—and is indeed of a much better wording of the concept.

Thus, most of the familiar laws of physics appear naturally.

Others can arise by spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Quantum mechanics is then just the mathematics of gauge transformations with no additional assumptions needed to obtain its rules, including the superposition and uncertainty principles.

So, where did the laws of physics come from? They came from ‘nothing’. They follow from the ‘void’ out of which the universe spontaneously arose uncaused. These laws look exactly as they should if they were not handed down from anywhere!

Back at the Planck time of the big bang, the universe had no distinguishable place, direction, or time: it had no structure; thus, the conservation laws apply.

To review, the conservation of electric charge, isospin, and other quantities follow from global gauge invariance. The forces in the standard model of elementary particles are fields introduced to preserve local gauge invariance. Gravity can also be viewed as such a field. Thus, practically all of fundamental physics as we know it follows directly from the single principle of point-of-view invariance.

Noether’s Theorem

In 1915, mathematician Emmy Noether proved that the generators of continuous space-time transformations are conserved when those transformations leave the system unchanged. These generators were identified with energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum. The implications can be summarized as follows:

• In any space-time model possessing time translation invariance, energy must be conserved.

• In any space-time model possessing space-translation invariance, linear momentum must be conserved.

• In any space-time model possessing space-rotation invariance, angular momentum must be conserved.

So, again, when physicists formulate mathematical models they must do so in such a way that those models are independent of the point of view of the observer. That is, they must be point-of-view invariant. Otherwise they cannot expect the models to describe an objective reality.

Noether showed that any model that does not depend on a specific moment in time, position in space, and direction in space will automatically conserve energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum. Classical mechanics is thus derived from point-of- view invariance.

When the directional invariance is extended to space-time, Lorentz invariance and special relativity follow.

Gauge invariance is another name for the invariance under transformations of the coordinate system in the abstract space of mathematical functions such as the quantum mechanical state vector.

Quantum mechanics itself can be seen as the mathematics of gauge transformations in which the generators of transformations correspond to various physical observables. By a generalization of Noether’s theorem, global gauge invariance leads to conservation of electric charge and the electric and magnetic fields are introduced to preserve local gauge invariance.

Gauge principles also lead to the standard model of particle and fields, with the weak and strong forces also introduced in order to preserve local gauge invariance.

The broken gauge symmetry of the electroweak force can be viewed as an attempt to describe events from a special point-of-view—that of current “low energy” experiments. The underlying theory, applicable at high energies such as those in the early universe, remains gauge symmetric.

What place, then, for a God creating laws?

 

[universaldistress]

I've been through this. It's like claimimg that music exists, then showing someone how you can listen to music.
I know it's entirely prosaic; most people know about music--they have proof of existence--at an early age, and don't need to be told about music when they can understand spoken language.

If you were born deaf, you could rightly claim that there is no proof music exists.
You could be shown all kinds of musical instrument, lots of sheet music, and watch people playing instruments, reading the sheet music, dancing to music, etc. But you never hear it so, does it exist?

The ear operates by converting vibrations into signals to the brain, where they are converted into what we perceive as sound. Deaf people do perceive/hear music via vibrations. The nerves in their bodies convert sound into signals to their brain. The other nerves in the body are just less senstive to sound and send the signals to a different area of the brain. Doesn't mean that they do not sense music, 'cause they do. But this is all academical.

But that isn't what you're saying, you're saying "there is no proof", and there are definitions of God, lots of them.

Do not tell me what I am saying. I am the one who explains my stance to you. I said 'proven' definition. all you are doing is trying to use altering definitions of words to somehow prove that believing in something unproven/illogical is ok. YOU are not going to convince me lol.

You are placing the subject in the set of things with no proof of existence, at least. Like the subject of music for someone completely deaf.

BS analogy. But even if your analogy holds, which it doesn't, as I have previously pointed out to you here and before, it is still only an analogy. An analogy is not proof of anything, it just seeks to illustrate something. But it is what you wish to illustrate which is at fault. And it is this point you are ducking by offering an analogy as some kind of point winner.

Logic is not at fault. Your application of it is.

I see you are still ducking most of my questions.

 

[arfa brane]

An analogy is not proof of anything, it just seeks to illustrate something. But it is what you wish to illustrate which is at fault. And it is this point you are ducking by offering an analogy as some kind of point winner.

Logic is not at fault. Your application of it is.

Who said anything about logic being "at fault". I said it's useless in the context of your claim that God is impossible.
I see you've formed a belief that I'm ducking your "point". Way to go.

Do not tell me what I am saying.

Ok. But what you're saying is: "there is no proof, therefore it's impossible". That's what you're saying. I'm saying that's what you are saying, because that's what you keep saying.


As to analogy. Let's try again.
Suppose someone is completely blind, and has never seen anything, ever. They claim that sunsets are impossible. What do you tell them?

 

[universaldistress]

Logic isn't illogical, but you can't use it to show that a system of logic is complete.

"This sentence is illogical", for instance.
"This sentence is false", "I am a liar", etc, are examples of logical statements that can't be proven true or false (are incompletable).

This is just word play. What are you trying to prove? That one can play with words? Or are you trying to prove that your 'illogical' god (you take) is something you can explain to me using logic.

Why? because of the axioms--axiomatically a liar is someone who doesn't tell the truth, so how do you tell if they aren't lying?

It's because all the statements are self-referential, as well.

Off topic and of no real regard to the existence of god debate. Playing with words doesn't help your cause. Playing with analogies PROVES nothing.

So to clarify, logic isn't useless, unless you want to prove an unprovable proposition, or complete an incompletable one,

Are you suggesting that god's existence is unprovable? You are NOW assuming without proof. You say god is unprovable but claim to have proof. So which is it?

or use an illogical premiss.

You are saying that your god is illogical but are still trying to use logic to prove your point. Why bother? Your whole post is using logic as its basis to prove that your point has meaning. You are being hypocritical. You are saying that you can use logic to create a stance that nobody is allowed to use logic to break down. Your stance is BS.

I was describing its use in the context of this thread, you see.

Who cares what context you use. Your context is BS. Sci's context/point of question talks about the impossibility of god full stop. That god can't exist because it can't come first etc. etc.

You still didn't address my point.

You are still using logic to try and prove and support your point that I am not allowed to use logic to question your point.

The subject of god is 'ILLOGICAL' according to Arfa. Then he tries to justify his take using . . . you guessed it . . . LOGIC.

How will he respond to my post ? Yes. you guessed it . . .using LOGIC.

Arfa, your position is untenable. BIG LOL.

So everyone. Logic is something one can use when one wants to. And it is something one can ignore if someone uses it against one's illogical belief. But one can use logic to support one's illogical belief.

Does that make sense?

I think it is all clear now?

Lets all use logic to PROVE that logic itself is at fault, and therefore illogical.

Biggest fudge I have EVER heard LOL.

Logic IS useless you say? So why do YOU use it to assert god???


If god is illogical Arfa Brane, then why do you seek to explain it using logic?

This is contradictory and hypocritical. Please EXPLAIN?

You can dress it up how you like Arfa but you are ASSUMING again to support your stance. You are assuming it isn't possible (in the future) to prove god exists (I have already covered this). I am not assuming either way.

You are assuming that god is illogical. But you can't support this idea because you have no proof to support this point.

Why are you allowed to use logic to support your illogical stance, but no one else is allowed to use logic to question that stance?

Don't you get the fact that logic is the most important thing in any theist's belief. All religions are built on logic. All beliefs are built using logic. (of course the application of said logic is flawed). Your belief is something you are choosing to support using logic. You are making BIG assumptions (which you can't prove or support logically) to support this illogical belief. You even admit it is illogical but still insist it makes sense to you, with zero proof.

You assume god can't be proven. But you say that you do indeed have proof.

You sound very confused and mixed up. And you think that by attempting to translate this mixed up confusion onto others that somehow they will get something from that. I think you need to go and see a shrink. Or at least stop trying to make it up as you go along.

If your stance is illogical (believe me it is) then stop trying to justify it using logic. You are trying to clip the wings of a process which built the world. You patently have no respect for the system you attempt to use.

 

[arfa brane]

You assume god can't be proven. But you say that you do indeed have proof.

FFS. Get it right.
I've said that I HAVE PROOF. I've said that YOU can have the SAME PROOF.
I've said that you can be SHOWN it, like I was.

And I've said you cannot prove anything about 'it', using logic, using words, or using anything other than direct experience. That is what I've said.

Stop believing that logic is some kind of end-game. It ISN'T what you seem to think it is, it DOESN'T have some kind of universal power to "prove" anything you like.

THAT is BS, and if you can't or don't want to try understanding that, then the confusion is all your problem. Good luck with that, and I hope the headaches aren't too severe.

 

[universaldistress]

FFS. Get it right.
I've said that I HAVE PROOF. I've said that YOU can have the SAME PROOF.
I've said that you can be SHOWN it, like I was.

And I've said you cannot prove anything about 'it', using logic, using words, or using anything other than direct experience. That is what I've said.

Stop believing that logic is some kind of end-game. It ISN'T what you seem to think it is, it DOESN'T have some kind of universal power to "prove" anything you like.

THAT is BS, and if you can't or don't want to try understanding that, then the confusion is all your problem. Good luck with that, and I hope the headaches aren't too severe.

So if it IS possible to prove god's existence then the proof is logical. If god can be proven then a process of logic has been applied in the proving. The process you explain of having god come into your life is a logical projection. The analysis of the proof that you have made has been subject to your own internal logic. Hence it was proved to you.

You say god is illogical but you now say that it was proved to you in a logical fashion. If it wasn't proved to you in a logical fashion you would not have believed it.

When something is proven it is proven with logic. The brain's digestion of said info and consequent belief is forged using logic.

You believe in your god because it was proved to you using a system of logic.

Proof is the end game. It is found through the application of logic.

I have no headaches. You are the one who seems to be mentally ill.

 

[arfa brane]

You say god is illogical but you now say that it was proved to you in a logical fashion. If it wasn't proved to you in a logical fashion you would not have believed it.

Sure, a physical proof is logical by implication. But you don't need to have intellectual proof, a discussion, to believe you can see a sunset, do you?
The subject of "Proof of God's existence" as an intellectual discourse is the illogical part. You however, don't really seem to understand what logic actually is, so you think you can keep finding apparent contradictions. Being shown how to listen to something 'properly' corresponds to a logical physical process; what the person experiences after being shown is not necessarily something you can even describe in words.

Describe a sunset, or a painting by Van Gogh, to someone who has been blind from birth. Do you think they will believe you?

Proof is NOT the end game; proof is only the beginning of yet another game.
There are proofs which logically only require experience, like say, eating an orange, and do not "require" logical explanations, arguments, discussions, or even thought.

See if you can not-think of a proof, or even start to think that not-thinking can prove anything to you personally. No? Didn't think so . . .

 

[Dywyddyr]

Proof is NOT the end game; proof is only the beginning of yet another game.
There are proofs which logically only require experience, like say, eating an orange, and do not "require" logical explanations, arguments, discussions, or even thought.

You're not trying to pass off a subjective personal experience as proof are you?

 

[SciWriter]

Sure, a physical proof is logical by implication. But you don't need to have intellectual proof, a discussion, to believe you can see a sunset, do you?

Events that happen repeatedly are true, such as sunsets. 'God' hasn't happened.

 

[universaldistress]

You're not trying to pass off a subjective personal experience as proof are you?

He tries a lot more than that. He seeks to rewrite all the rules how and when he sees fit.

 

[universaldistress]

Sure, a physical proof is logical by implication. But you don't need to have intellectual proof, a discussion, to believe you can see a sunset, do you?
The subject of "Proof of God's existence" as an intellectual discourse is the illogical part. You however, don't really seem to understand what logic actually is, so you think you can keep finding apparent contradictions. Being shown how to listen to something 'properly' corresponds to a logical physical process; what the person experiences after being shown is not necessarily something you can even describe in words.

Describe a sunset, or a painting by Van Gogh, to someone who has been blind from birth. Do you think they will believe you?

Proof is NOT the end game; proof is only the beginning of yet another game.
There are proofs which logically only require experience, like say, eating an orange, and do not "require" logical explanations, arguments, discussions, or even thought.

See if you can not-think of a proof, or even start to think that not-thinking can prove anything to you personally. No? Didn't think so . . .

You are the one who doesn't understand logic. You are unable to apply it.

Your contradictions stand for all to see. You have proved nothing, in any way.

You still seek to prove your stance is valid. But you haven't.

Of course they believe a sunset. They feel the sun on their face. Blind people have their own internal vision. They can see circles and shapes. They do see objects with their imaginations. They learn the world around them through touch and people describing things to them.

How does this prove your point in anyway shape or form. using philosophical vagueries is not a way to prove anything.

You believe in your god because it is logical to you. You can't squirm out of this one.

You are a total fucking hypocrite.

 

[arfa brane]

You're not trying to pass off a subjective personal experience as proof are you?

I don't have to pass it very far if it pertains to "myself" in that case, do I?

You're not trying to pass off non-subjective impersonal experience as proof, surely? If you see something with your eyes, what kind of proof is it? To whom does it mean anything, and do they think "aha! proof"? What about the blind guy next to them?