(September 23, 2012 at 4:50 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(September 23, 2012 at 4:37 pm)Dranu Wrote: Agreed. But if you have proof that it cannot be false....

...being?

My first post in this thread

Darkstar Wrote:

Dranu Wrote:Unlike God, however, I cannot prove such a fairy-elephant is imossible to disprove either.

Right, because it is not also intangible and undetectable, unlike god.

I think you are missing the point. I said I cannot prove the fairy-elephant impossible to disprove. I can for God.

Darkstar Wrote:

Dranu Wrote:Good, so you agree with me that the OP's question is asking for something impossible right?
Now I will add there is certain proof God exists, but thats off-topic obviously.

Let's first settle the subject matter of this thread and perhaps we can get to the off-topic issue (though I think a new thread might be better). The OP's question is asking for something impossible right?

---

(September 23, 2012 at 7:14 pm)Ryantology Wrote: God cannot be shown to be possible. Only an idiot would believe in something on the basis that it can't be proven impossible.

If someone has proven something is not impossible, what does it make that thing? What is the logical entailment of the negation of 'impossible'?

Quote:Let's first settle the subject matter of this thread and perhaps we can get to the off-topic issue (though I think a new thread might be better). The OP's question is asking for something impossible right?

The OP is essentially saying that you cannot prove that something with properties that would make it unobservable does not exist, and that in the case of such a being, the burden of proof is on the person who claims that it does exist.

So, no, I don't think he's asking for the impossible. I think he's asking for you (the royal you, that is) to put up, or shut up.

So....

You made a positive claim that you had proof of existence.

Put up, or shut up.

---

(September 24, 2012 at 2:23 pm)Dranu Wrote: If someone has proven something is not impossible, what does it make that thing? What is the logical entailment of the negation of 'impossible'?

Not impossible == possible.

Now let's see your "proof".

(September 24, 2012 at 2:33 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Not impossible == possible.

Now let's see your "proof".

I refer the dreaming dark messenger of the old gods to my first post of the thread.

(September 24, 2012 at 3:07 pm)Dranu Wrote:

(September 24, 2012 at 2:33 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Not impossible == possible.

Now let's see your "proof".

I refer the dreaming dark messenger of the old gods to my first post of the thread.

I saw your "proof" that god is necessarily possible. While I do not beleive that you've adequetely shown that to be the case (*), I don't dispute that it's possible (nor do a great many here).

What I was asking for was your "proof" of your assertion that you have proof of actual existence.

I'd wager that 1) we've seen it before ad nauseum, and 2) it isn't convincing to the incredulous.


(*) Particularly with regards to issues related to your claim that non-contradiction implies neccessarily possibility. I do not displute that claim. My problem with it is that "god" is so ill-defined in your argument to render the possiblility of finding contradiction meaningless. However, as the claim of necessary possibility is not currently under dispute, I see no need to belabor the point until the claimed properties of the entitiy are established.

(September 23, 2012 at 3:01 pm)Dranu Wrote: You ask for the impossible OP, for God is necessarily possible.

How did you come to this conclusion? How can something infinitely greater than the universe need to exist to create the universe, and yet have no creator itself? God is said to be an infinity, he can explain anything because he is everything. And yet despite him being everything, of him we have found nothing... Saying that we 'know' a god would have to be present to create the universe is just god-of-the-gaps.

I was surprised not to be able to choose all that apply, so I went with the non-comittal "I don't care" which is also true. I would have also have chosen "I don't know" had I the option. I have no belief in gods but generally make no claims regarding shit about which I know nothing.

To the OP: it's a definition thing for me. You ask if there's 'a' god. The indefinite article's a generalism which triggers the 'I must be honest and say I can't prove there's no god of any kind...' response. If however you'd asked 'Is there an Abrahamic God?', my answer would be 'No'. The Abrahamic God has a specific set of definitions which are mutually contradictory (e.g. Jews, Xtians & Muslims define the same god with different attributes). That means the Abrahamic God, as defined, cannot exist as the definitions defy the laws of identity & non-contradiction.

So was the generality deliberate in order to trigger particular discussions (e.g. identify those who overstate claims) or was it just a slip of the keyboard?

(September 23, 2012 at 3:01 pm)Dranu Wrote: God (of the philosophers), by definition is the I AM or the infinite being. Infinite means to lack limits, therefore God cannot admit of contradiction, and therefore is necessarily possible.

Debating the existence of god is really for a different thread and not what I was looking for here. It would be impossible for god to be infinite and anything less means it's not a god.

As to the elephant, can you prove 100% there is no elephant in your house? You can show there is no elephant, but short of that, how could you prove it?

---

(September 24, 2012 at 12:52 pm)Tiberius Wrote: "I don't know" is the only logical answer, given our human fallibility.

I don't understand why "maybe" and "maybe not" are separate options though.

A direction of tendency or favor for those that so desire. There is a difference between the two.

---

(September 23, 2012 at 4:50 pm)Darkstar Wrote: A better example would be Russel's teapot.

Thanks for that input. Though I have spent time on different forums and done significant reading of same, I had not seen that referenced before. Basically it is the same premise as the 'Pink Unicorn' (which I would still prefer when dealing with the truly deluded, but for the more interested, I will have to this in mind.).

---

(September 24, 2012 at 1:02 pm)frankiej Wrote: I find that "I do not care" works for me.

An absolutely acceptable answer, but it does beg the question of one's participation in an atheist forum.

---

(September 24, 2012 at 12:52 pm)Tiberius Wrote: "I don't know" is the only logical answer, given our human fallibility.

I disagree.

---

(September 24, 2012 at 1:10 pm)Darkstar Wrote: I technically can't know 100%, but it's more like 99.9%.

It seems to me that something as powerful and awesome as a true god (not the tyrant from the babble book or any other) would be easy to spot. I did not. It does not exist.

(September 24, 2012 at 1:10 pm)Darkstar Wrote: If scientists can dismiss the mass of an electron as zero, I can dismiss the probability of god's existence as zero.

On one hand they say mass and energy are interchangeable then they start playing with their formulas.

---

(September 23, 2012 at 4:37 pm)Dranu Wrote: Now I will add there is certain proof God exists, but thats off-topic obviously.

If you could prove there was a god, then this thread would become moot along with this main focus of this forum. However, there is no proof for a god that does not include a violation of logic. Generally it treats an assumption or two as a fact.

Open a thread and I will gladly participate.

---

(September 24, 2012 at 5:04 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: So was the generality deliberate in order to trigger particular discussions (e.g. identify those who overstate claims) or was it just a slip of the keyboard?

The god I am referring to is the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient creator of everything from universes to strings. The head god, god number one. Obviously, anything less is irrelevant.

Quote:You all killed the Father. You all ate his flesh. So who is the new Father? Who is God Number One? Who should they obey?

Catholicism?

I don't think one can easily deny God exists and feel certain about it. I think it's impossible. However the same is not true of a magical pink unicorn creating the universe. I think even if one cannot prove that to be impossible, one can honestly feel certain there is no such thing.

There is several reasons why I feel this is the case. Knowledge of God is similar to me to that of (objective) morality. People can disbelieve in (objective) morality, but they can never be sure it's a delusion. There is something in them telling them it's not a delusion.

The same is true of greatness. We can be all confused about it, we can even think it has no basis, and is a delusion, but we can never feel certain it is a delusion.

Ultimate Great being existing. Ultimate Greatness as the foundation of our own perceptions of greatness, be they twisted from him or very much in line with him, the ultimate moral being being the foundation of our morality be they as clear or clouded they maybe, twisted or in line with him....Perfection truly existing in an objective sense...though we may twisted in our perception of perfection....

No, a human can deny such a thing, can say I don't know, but he will never feel certain of it not existing.

It will always bug him...why? Because deep down inside is a hidden knowledge.

For some that knowledge is so out there, it's impossible for them to doubt. For others, it's buried deep within, so it's impossible for them to believe, but yet they cannot feel certain it doesn't exist.

And if his glory displays eternalness, one can perhaps doubt eternal glory existing, eternal beauty existing, eternal majesty existing, and our souls being created through that eternal glory constantly, emitting existence to us...but it can never be sure such a being doesn't exist. It can never be sure it's own glory and beauty is separate from eternal beauty and glory.

It can be confused, it can feel like "how can I know such a being exists"...but it can never be sure that it doesn't exist.

And that is why, really, that no one feels certain that God doesn't exist.

Maybe I wasn't clear but you've not answered my question.

(September 25, 2012 at 12:08 am)IATIA Wrote:

(September 24, 2012 at 5:04 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: So was the generality deliberate in order to trigger particular discussions (e.g. identify those who overstate claims) or was it just a slip of the keyboard?

The god I am referring to is the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient creator of everything from universes to strings. The head god, god number one. Obviously, anything less is irrelevant.

Yeah but which one? Yahweh? Allah? Auðumbla? A god of your own devising? A number of gods fit your definition so it still isn't specific enough. If you're being deliberately general, use of the definite article ('the' god) is inappropriate as you don't define specifically which god you mean.

To the definition you've provided, omnipotence, omnipresence, & omniscience are internally contradictory propositions therefore any god claiming any of the 3 cannot exist.