Does God Exist?

Quote:

FBM said: What am I, a former Buddhist or a former monk?

You tell us mate, we're just curious.
For example there are plenty of former Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons etc around who got out when they decided their religion was a crock.. Wink

0 Replies

@FBM,

Are you saying it is unlikely to be both a believer and a member of Mensa?
I know of others than myself.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

This one is really a bit stupid.You know god doesn't exits? ok, HOW?

I was wrong...god does exist...but only in the minds of the deluded.

As for how I know, I have seen emperical evidence that shows conclusively that not only doesnt god exist, he CANT exist.

But I'm still waiting for you to back up the ridiculous statements you made about ESP.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

Quote:
This one is really a bit stupid.You know god doesn't exits? ok, HOW?

I was wrong...god does exist...but only in the minds of the deluded.

As for how I know, I have seen emperical evidence that shows conclusively that not only doesnt god exist, he CANT exist.

But I'm still waiting for you to back up the ridiculous statements you made about ESP.

One of the major problems for you in all this, John, is shown in the fact that you use a sentence like, "As for how I know, I have seen emperical evidence that shows conclusively that not only doesnt god exist, he CANT exist."

First of all...you most assuredly have not seen empirical evidence that shows conclusively that (no gods exist)...nor have you seen empirical evidence that (gods) cannot exist.

You keep claiming that...and then claiming that you have shown the evidence...but you have not.

I suspect that is because you cannot.

There is no evidence...that gods CANNOT exist. And any "evidence" that gods do not exist is superficial and ambiguous in the extreme.

By the way...you ought really to stop using the singular "god" and calling that god a "he." It does irreparable damage to your argument from its outset.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Hey Frank...I just got through burning a Romeo and Julieta Reserve 1875

Let me see if I can qualify this for you.
As it pertains to the human construct of the god of the judeo christian belief, (who is refered to as "he") I have seen emperical evidence that he doesnt exsit and more importantly that he cannot exsist.
The emperical evidence was an experiment conducted utilizing an interferometer where Thomas Young's 2 slit experiment was performed. I have witnessed the experiment using both photons and electrons. The experiment would not work if there existed an omniscient being as described in all christain, jewish and muslim theology. And the experiment always works.
If an omniscient being existed Heisenbergs Uncertainty PRINCIPLE would be violated and matter would break down into sub- atomic particles and this universe would not exist in it's present form. If this entity exsisted as the universe was formed SAPs would never have formed to begin with and no matter would be present.
Ergo, the fact that you are here proves god is not.
Postulating that there may be a god out there who is not omniscient is moot.

2 Replies

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

Hey Frank...I just got through burning a Romeo and Julieta Reserve 1875

Sounds like a winner.

Quote:

Let me see if I can qualify this for you.
As it pertains to the human construct of the god of the judeo christian belief, (who is refered to as "he") I have seen emperical evidence that he doesnt exsit and more importantly that he cannot exsist.

I would be willing to bet big money that you haven't.

Explain away...but no short cuts...and no begging the question.

Quote:

The emperical evidence was an experiment conducted utilizing an interferometer where Thomas Young's 2 slit experiment was performed. I have witnessed the experiment using both photons and electrons. The experiment would not work if there existed an omniscient being as described in all christain, jewish and muslim theology. And the experiment always works.

That is begging the question.

You would have "prove" your assertion that the experiment would not work if there existed an omniscient being.

Quote:

If an omniscient being existed Heisenbergs Uncertainty PRINCIPLE would be violated and matter would break down into sub- atomic particles and this universe would not exist in it's present form. If this entity exsisted as the universe was formed SAPs would never have formed to begin with and no matter would be present.

Once again...you are simply asserting this.

You may be wrong.

If you are wrong...the entire of the thesis collapses.

Since you MAY BE wrong...the entire thesis collapses no matter what.

Quote:

Ergo, the fact that you are here proves god is not.

An absurd comment, John. A manufactured, and not even remotely convincing, "proof."

You have got to come up with much, much better than that.

This kind of thing is the kind of "reasoning and logic" theists use when they are "proving" a GOD has to exist.

Divorce yourself from it. It is going nowhere.

Quote:

Postulating that there may be a god out there who is not omniscient is moot.

Why? Because it would destroy your thesis?

C'mon. You can do better.

You can, for instance, simply acknowledge that you do not know if gods exist or not.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

It.s not called the Uncertainty Principle for nothing.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Try to understand the history of this thread in which logic has never prevailed.

Does it, ever?

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Try to understand the history of this thread in which logic has never prevailed.

Yes, maybe you should try and make more sense... Smile

0 Replies

@neologist,

Sorry Neo...your assumption is incorrect. Heisenberg stated that the original german was badly translatedand it should have been "The Undeterminate Principle." But by that time it was established in scientific lititure and being that most scientists know what is ment by uncertainty, it was left as is.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You would have "prove" your assertion that the experiment would not work if there existed an omniscient being.

The proof is that if there is ANY mechanism that has ANY information or knowlegde as to the position/velocity or time/energy of the SAP when conducting the experiment YOU WILL NOT GET AN INTERFERENCE PATTERN. If there is no possibility of knowing anything of the SAP then an interference pattern is displayed.
If an omniscient being exited there would NEVER be an interference pattern.
This experiment is routinely done in college physics courses all over the world.

2 Replies

@giujohn,

Your problem is in your assertion of omniscience, assigning it as a necessity. The True God, whose name literally means "He who causes to Become" can be subject to no necessity, for whatever his purpose, he provides what is necessary.

3 Replies

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

Quote:
You would have "prove" your assertion that the experiment would not work if there existed an omniscient being.

The proof is that if there is ANY mechanism that has ANY information or knowlegde as to the position/velocity or time/energy of the SAP when conducting the experiment YOU WILL NOT GET AN INTERFERENCE PATTERN. If there is no possibility of knowing anything of the SAP then an interference pattern is displayed.
If an omniscient being exited there would NEVER be an interference pattern.
This experiment is routinely done in college physics courses all over the world.

You seem to feel very comfortable simply stating as fact anything you want to be fact...and not providing actual proof, John.

Allow me to use your tactic: There can be a GOD even though experiments puny humans devise appear to show that a GOD cannot exist. Humans are simply not up to the task of providing that kind of experiment. Ergo...there is no proof in what you have offered...and we, in the absence of any other evidence, have to conclude that the existence of gods...is POSSIBLE.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Such is the futility of attempting to prove a negative.

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Your problem is in your assertion of omniscience, assigning it as a necessity. The True God, whose name literally means "He who causes to Become" can be subject to no necessity, for whatever his purpose, he provides what is necessary.

Thank you, Neo. I already called that to John's attention, but it seems to be something that he discards as being unworthy.

It does throw a monkey wrench into his thesis, I will acknowledge, so perhaps that is why things are playing out this way.

You theists often do things this way. I am delighted you can see it for what it is when done by an atheist.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Such is the futility of attempting to prove a negative.

Some can be proved...in the sense that anything can be proved.

This one can't!

1 Reply

What is it like to be a witch?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You seem to feel very comfortable simply stating as fact anything you want to be fact...and not providing actual proof, John.

So if I understand you, in order to prove gravity to you I would have to actually drop somthing heavy on your head?

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

Such is the futility of attempting to prove a negative.

Not being able to prove a negative is a fallacy. Its done all the time.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Your problem is in your assertion of omniscience, assigning it as a necessity. The True God, whose name literally means "He who causes to Become" can be subject to no necessity, for whatever his purpose, he provides what is necessary.

In a certain sense, the uncertainty principle, aka quantic hazard, aka Fortuna, is God. God is what we can't (yet... or perhaps never) explain.

1 Reply

Does God Exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know