kuvasz! Have you been around all this time?
god
We might extend the question to be: Can one prove that there cannot be a proof for the non-existence of God?
JLN, Whether the question is asked with a single or double negative about the existence of god, it's still 'no.' c.i.
god
I think it would be just for Falwell and ROBERTSON to find themselves at the BOTTOM ring of Hell, embedded in ice, symbolizing their distance from the warmth of the love of God. They USED the notion of God for the sake of money and power.
god
Roger, you remind me of the guy who tried to seduce my very intellectual wife (two Ph.D.s) by telling her that he loved her mind, that her mind made his mind hard.
JL
That is the least compelling or sexy line I think I've ever heard. Very funny.
nah, up to their waist in $hit, but, as the old joke goes, "on coffeee break."
at the risk of being redundant and repeating myself;
one cannot prove/disprove or even argue a nominal definition,
as of yet i have never encountered an operational definition of "god" ergo anyone in such a pursuit/proof is egngaging in the worst of tautological oratories.
god
What's more, Dyslexia, he's wasting his time!
for the universe defined by our senses, it distills down in time and space to the use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, viz., where in an enclosed system, heat flow (energy) moves in a direction of a decreasing temperature gradient.
so energy moves to fill a void.
and for God to be represented in the physical Universe, and the former to have presence in the universe, an energy flow must be perceived to occur from an infinite source to finite universe. but if the universe is finite, any plenishment from an outside, inifinite source is a priori impossible. therefore, there is no outside factor working upon it. if no outside source is working upon the universe, ie., God, then God is not in the universe.
I recognize the nauseous nature of this tautology, however, it is tempered with the crumb of doubt represented by the ideas behind "Flatland" and the possibilities that there is more to heaven and earth than we, mere 4 dimensional beings can imagine.
however, until the Cubbies win the World Series, I doubt there is a God.
Tis hard to prove anything
to anyone,
unless your listener is WILLING.
It's so true, Kuvasz, a universe not properly filled with the presence of God, is no universe at all.......no matter how one defines God. It's the filling up of energy that matters, and it's a shame Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell will never understand this simple fact. But in a way, it's right and just that they should not, it's their punishment for being such profoundly stupid cowards in a world so full of potential gratification.
And Blatham, as we both know, your legs would win a prize in anyone's contest.........no debate from me.
babs, I think there are lots of folks who may be willing, yet remain unconvinced. To PROVE a thing or condition, one must establish preponderantly more supportive than condraindicative evidence. As more and more of the supportive evidence withstands challenge and remains congruent both with the observed phenomona and the assumed nature of the thing or condition at question, and contraindications are found to be inapplicable, the statistical probability of the correctness of that assumed nature increases.
Schroedinger's cat proves nothing. There may or may not be a cat, the cat may or may not be alive if there is in fact a cat, and if there is a live cat it may or may not choose to participate. Way too many "IF"s. Occam's Razor proves nothing either, but, by reducing the "IF"s to only those not at odds with the observed phenomona it grants one a more focused view of the assumed thing or condition. Statistically and logically, an assumption regarding the nature of a thing or condition not at odds with the observed phenomona tends to correctness.
"Faith" is not proof, and to insist that one must "Have Faith" in order to "Accept The Truth" relieves the entire argument of logical legitimacy. No observed phenomona of which I am aware comprise
affirmation or negation of the matter. I remain unconvinced, one way or another. That I would participate in a discussion of this nature might well be seen as indication of my willing search for conviction and as well of my having not yet achieved conviction. I have my hopes, and I have my suspicions, but so far, that's all I have in this matter.
timber
The "answer" to this question is "no" if you accept A.J Ayer's logical positivist position. However since "proof" and "existence" tend to presuppose an objective reality, which we all do for pragmatic everyday purposes, such an "answer" is less than satisfying to those of us who question the nature of reality. As Kuvasz points out for example, multidimensionality is a concept which can expand our viewpoint such that even the concept of "separate existences" can be questioned.
So the utility of the question clearly lies in its transcendence and not in its answer.
BTW It is interesting to speculate why this thread (and similar) has so many reponses. It would be ironic (would it not ?) if some future superior mutation of homo sapiens relegated such discussions to the same camp as "how many angels can dance on the point of a needle". Just a thought !
Fresco - I think discussions of this type are EXACTLY like the "how many angels on the head of a pin" discussions, even here and now, because they are purely exercises in thought - since nothing can be proved, nor disproved, about god - unless we all witness as econd coming or something, and even then....
This is why I popped the angel poem in here.
However, as exercises in debate and reasoning they are, in my viw, lots of fun.
'Til the Cubs win the Series . . . geeze, Boss, that is a helluva tough standard . . . so, basically, yer sayin' God has been dead since 1912?
Sometimes it's just fun, filling, if you will, to meet together with fellow atheists, agnostics and believers (in God) to push the ideas around some more. What else have we to do? But I agree with you Fresco, it is like counting sheep or something in one way.
About questioning objectivity......I agree about questioning the ability of any of us to be truely objective (though some of us are more object than others) but...
about an objective reality......that's another case of angels and pins I think.
kuvasz
Quote:however, until the Cubbies win the World Series, I doubt there is a God.
I doubt that even God could perform that miracle
