Evidence God Exists: Part II

[tavarish]

Why not? So a conceptual apple and a physical apple can't exist at the same time?

Sure they can, but that's a different conversation and not at all what I said.

Here's what I wrote:

[the] apple can't exist as a physical entity and a concept at the same time

Notice the bolded and underlined words.

The physical concept of the apple and your concept of an apple are different things. I'll repeat: They are NOT the same. They can exist simultaneously, but are not dependent on each other. You can have a concept of an apple without actually physically experiencing one, and likewise an apple can exist physically without a mind forming such a concept.

The apple cannot be physical and conceptual at the same time, as each of those have specific qualifiers, some of which contradict each other, for example, a concept can't be physical - among many others. An apple is NOT a concept. A concept of an apple is a concept.

This is a refutation that God exists literally and metaphorically. If God is indeed both an apple and not an apple, he is an illogical concept and holds no merit in methods of rational thinking. Not to mention NONE of that strengthens the argument that such a being actually exists.

If that were the case, then aren't you implying the moment a thought comes into our mind, the physical apple ceases to exist, or vice-versa?

Yes, my fruit goes missing as soon as I think about it.

No, but I change my mental concept of the apple to fit the physical reality. However, to me subjectively, the apple is representative of something completely not an apple.

You just acknowledged that mental concepts and physical reality are different things. What exactly are you trying to argue?

I see what you're saying. My concept of the universe as a metaphor for God does not a metaphor for God the universe make. However, then we get down to intent; can we look at the universe and give it a conscious intention of metaphor? My answer would be yes, yours would likely be no.

Metaphor for what? I'd also ask you to shoulder the burden of providing proof for the claim of conscious intention for the universe.

@EvF: God is actually quite simple, so I would contend your argument that He must be complex.

Yes, A being that willed the universe into existence is simple. Who cares if it raises way more questions than explanations?

What happened to 'question everything'?

1. It usually stops for theists once they conclude God did it.
2. I try to question everything, that's why I try not to come to unneccesary conclusions, such as the God of the Gaps or the Kalam Cosmological argument. Things, to have merit, need supporting evidence, not faith.