What if God was proven to have never existed?

[Simsim]

There is science on one side and on the other side there is philosophy, metaphysics and bullshit.

Have you ever smelt the odor of a measles-infected dinosaur's shit? I suppose it to be totally like what you posted here. Everyday you impress me with your primitive thinking.

Firstly: Philosophy is not separated from science and not all the philosophies are metaphysical. For instance the postmodernism philosophy is related to quantum mechanics.

Secondly: Even for metaphysics... a certain way of a reasonable scientific thinking may lead to put "God" as a probability not equal to zero (for me it is very improbable), because some physicists see that physics laws may be a reflection of an external reality ... Steven Hawking himself said that there may be a "god" who put the laws of nature, but he doesn't intervene to break them.
This point is in which physics ad metaphysics may intersect... but, for me, I had my reasons to dispel the idea of deity to that extent which allows me to describe my self as a strong atheist.
Metaphysical origins of the physics laws are not confined to deities or gods, there are other probabilities such as the thought of that we live in a "fake" world or we live in a "computer" manufactured by other creatures out of our Nature and physics .... They will then be "metaphysical" creatures, but not deities or gods in the popular senses. It is another probability which is not equal to zero, but I have some critiques against it.

I have several times challenged this god of yours to logon and debate me personally. So far no god. And I am certain you god can speak for itself so no excuses or explanations from you.

I don't believe in him. But at all events we should be open-minded to all thoughts even if they appear trivial to us. At least because this is the way to understand others and change them if possible.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Simsim - please refer to my avatar.

[Simsim]

My name isn't Nora, and that's not me in my avatar.

Me too .. that's not me in my avatar .... honestly

You know... this has got me thinking. Despite knowing Nora never existed, I can't prove that. I can prove that I'm not Nora, I can prove that my name is an anagram of hers, but I cannot prove that this account wasn't made by Nora and I stole the account and my name is just a coincidence. Maybe she does exist? Maybe she looks just like my avatar! Maybe I have her tied to my bed. Who knows?

I think there is something wrong about the idea of that we cannot prove something not to be existent, Nora.

For example, if someone asks me to prove there is no alive humans on Mercury I can do that, because (1) Humans have not have the technology to live on mercury (2) Mercury doesn't support the evolution of carbon-based intelligent life including humans.

But theoretically, according to the multiverses interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe takes every possible path, but we are concerned only with the path we can observe. This is the "existent path" for us.

For your case I know certainly there is no girl tied to your bed who is called Nora and who made this account and I can prove that this is completely wrong through dozens of logical evidences.

The problem for me is that I don't trust logic itself too much ... Neither brains nor their logic can be trusted to the possible maximum degree.

---

Simsim - please refer to my avatar.

Very Beautiful

Is it you in your avatar?

[pocaracas]

You know... this has got me thinking. Despite knowing Nora never existed, I can't prove that. I can prove that I'm not Nora, I can prove that my name is an anagram of hers, but I cannot prove that this account wasn't made by Nora and I stole the account and my name is just a coincidence. Maybe she does exist? Maybe she looks just like my avatar! Maybe I have her tied to my bed. Who knows?

I think there is something wrong about the idea of that we cannot prove something not to be existent, Nora.

For example, if someone asks me to prove there is no alive humans on Mercury I can do that, because (1) Humans have not have the technology to live on mercury (2) Mercury doesn't support the evolution of carbon-based intelligent life including humans.

But theoretically, according to the multiverses interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe takes every possible path, but we are concerned only with the path we can observe. This is the "existent path" for us.

For your case I know certainly there is no girl tied to your bed who is called Nora and who made this account and I can prove that this is completely wrong through dozens of logical evidences.

The problem for me is that I don't trust logic itself too much ... Neither brains nor their logic can be trusted to the possible maximum degree.

Please excuse my intrusion....

You are trying to disprove the existence of something within some confined space.
There are no humans in mercury.
Nora isn't in my bedroom.
etc..

But can you disprove the existence of an entity define as being non-corporeal, non-physical, which is everywhere at the same time, and created the Universe we inhabit?
Can you disprove that the flying spaghetti monster exists in the unbounded non-physical space of whatever it means to be "outside the Universe"?

[NoraBrimstone]

My name isn't Nora, and that's not me in my avatar.

Me too .. that's not me in my avatar .... honestly

You know... this has got me thinking. Despite knowing Nora never existed, I can't prove that. I can prove that I'm not Nora, I can prove that my name is an anagram of hers, but I cannot prove that this account wasn't made by Nora and I stole the account and my name is just a coincidence. Maybe she does exist? Maybe she looks just like my avatar! Maybe I have her tied to my bed. Who knows?

I think there is something wrong about the idea of that we cannot prove something not to be existent, Nora.

For example, if someone asks me to prove there is no alive humans on Mercury I can do that, because (1) Humans have not have the technology to live on mercury (2) Mercury doesn't support the evolution of carbon-based intelligent life including humans.

But theoretically, according to the multiverses interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe takes every possible path, but we are concerned only with the path we can observe. This is the "existent path" for us.

For your case I know certainly there is no girl tied to your bed who is called Nora and who made this account and I can prove that this is completely wrong through dozens of logical evidences.

The problem for me is that I don't trust logic itself too much ... Neither brains nor their logic can be trusted to the possible maximum degree.

---

Simsim - please refer to my avatar.

Very Beautiful :D

Is it you in your avatar? :) :)

You can't prove there aren't millions of humans on Mercury who were taken there centuries ago by aliens who had the technology to terraform certain areas of Mercury so that humans could live safely in a place not unlike Center Parcs.

You can't prove Nora (or Jenna) isn't tied to my bed right now as I'm writing this. You can use logic to say she probably isn't, just as we can use logic to say there probably isn't a god, but you can't prove it. Even if you came to my house right now and looked, I could have untied her in the time between now and your arrival.

[smax]

The only existence that matters is the one that is clearly and undeniably evident.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

This should be another thread:
What if Nora was proven to have never existed?

Oh my Nora ! hock:

You know... this has got me thinking. Despite knowing Nora never existed, I can't prove that. I can prove that I'm not Nora, I can prove that my name is an anagram of hers, but I cannot prove that this account wasn't made by Nora and I stole the account and my name is just a coincidence. Maybe she does exist? Maybe she looks just like my avatar! Maybe I have her tied to my bed. Who knows?

Let her loose, Aron.

[Simsim]

But can you disprove the existence of an entity define as being non-corporeal, non-physical, which is everywhere at the same time, and created the Universe we inhabit?
Can you disprove that the flying spaghetti monster exists in the unbounded non-physical space of whatever it means to be "outside the Universe"?

I read many objections against the God existence but I think all of them can be confuted ( I myself spent years debating them when I was a believer )
But we can easily prove the holy books imputed to him to be wrong and just human inventions. Thus the God idea will have no application and his existence will be equal to his non-existence.
If your assumptions or theories can't be testable or proven right or wrong they primarily will have no value.
For religious people, as I think, it is better to confute their religions not the existence of God. Debate what they impute to the creator not their creator himself. After it will be obvious to them that their religions are human inventions and can't be credited to an infallible being they, themselves, will take the next step and look at their god as just an assumption not as an absolute reality.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

There is science on one side and on the other side there is philosophy, metaphysics and bullshit.

Have you ever smelt the odor of a measles-infected dinosaur's shit? I suppose it to be totally like what you posted here. Everyday you impress me with your primitive thinking.

Dinosaur coprolites do not smell. Beyond that it is essentially impossible they carried a human disease.

Firstly: Philosophy is not separated from science and not all the philosophies are metaphysical. For instance the postmodernism philosophy is related to quantum mechanics.

A while back there was philosophy and natural philosophy. A couple centuries ago the latter split from the former because it was producing correct knowledge about the universe. The former is still producing nothing but bullshit.

Philosophers like Popper are ignorant of science by definition. Philosophers only fool themselves and their drones into thinking they understand science. Ask a scientist.

Secondly: Even for metaphysics... a certain way of a reasonable scientific thinking may lead to put "God" as a probability not equal to zero (for me it is very improbable), because some physicists see that physics laws may be a reflection of an external reality ... Steven Hawking himself said that there may be a "god" who put the laws of nature, but he doesn't intervene to break them.

And you do not understand probability. Probabilities can only be established after observing a large number of examples of the event. How many gods have you observed? What kind of probability distribution did you establish? Did you publish your studies?

What Hawking says about cosmology interests us. What he says outside his field is his business. However Hawking has been lecturing on the specific theme that there is no evidence of a god and no need for a god. You should pay attention to what he does say instead of making things up.

This point is in which physics ad metaphysics may intersect...

It either does or does not. May and may not are not opposites merely different hypotheticals. Does and does not are opposites.

Answer: does NOT

but, for me, I had my reasons to dispel the idea of deity to that extent which allows me to describe my self as a strong atheist.
Metaphysical origins of the physics laws are not confined to deities or gods,

Unless you have demonstrated such an origin by repeatable experiment you are just pissing up a rope.

there are other probabilities such as the thought of that we live in a "fake" world or we live in a "computer" manufactured by other creatures out of our Nature and physics .... They will then be "metaphysical" creatures, but not deities or gods in the popular senses. It is another probability which is not equal to zero, but I have some critiques against it.

That does not differ from randomly stringing words together, aka gibberish.

I have several times challenged this god of yours to logon and debate me personally. So far no god. And I am certain you god can speak for itself so no excuses or explanations from you.

I don't believe in him. But at all events we should be open-minded to all thoughts even if they appear trivial to us. At least because this is the way to understand others and change them if possible.

No logon no god QED

[Simsim]

You can't prove there aren't millions of humans on Mercury who were taken there centuries ago by aliens who had the technology to terraform certain areas of Mercury so that humans could live safely in a place not unlike Center Parcs.

You can't prove Nora (or Jenna) isn't tied to my bed right now as I'm writing this. You can use logic to say she probably isn't, just as we can use logic to say there probably isn't a god, but you can't prove it. Even if you came to my house right now and looked, I could have untied her in the time between now and your arrival.

I need to develop my argument:

Theoretically I can prove that no humans on Mercury through more developed technology, i.e if I have the efficient tools which can scan the surface of mercury and even its inside I will be able to prove there are no humans there.

If I put a secret permanent spy camera in your bedroom I will be able to prove there is no one tied to your bed.

Of course there are cases when we can't prove that something exists or doesn't, but I am just against generalization. So, logically: proving that something doesn't exist or an event didn't happen is not impossible at all cases.

And you do not understand probability. Probabilities can only be established after observing a large number of examples of the event. How many gods have you observed? What kind of probability distribution did you establish? Did you publish your studies?

There is no thing wrong about what I said. I understand probability but I don't understand you

but it's ok ... it doesn't matter (a flower for u)

Unless you have demonstrated such an origin by repeatable experiment you are just pissing up a rope.

You are right ...and this is why I am an atheist, but again it is better to have imaginations and be open-minded to strange ideas.
Look .... for deep religious people the non-existence of God is a strange idea located in the impossibilities.

there are other probabilities such as the thought of that we live in a "fake" world or we live in a "computer" manufactured by other creatures out of our Nature and physics .... They will then be "metaphysical" creatures, but not deities or gods in the popular senses. It is another probability which is not equal to zero, but I have some critiques against it.

That does not differ from randomly stringing words together, aka gibberish.

dljdfl, ldjodiju..... dlfjdlofjf??!! dljdlkjd dlkjdfojd dfljdoioiueo .,cv.cnv't
Maybe

OK, seriously, If you can develop a very advanced artificial intelligence... If you can simulate the human consciousness in an advanced computer ... If you can make a virtual reality in which "intelligent beings" "live" ... If you can do that, what will prevent you from thinking that we live in a virtual reality made by other creatures?

In the virtual reality which you make you can make any set of laws which intelligent beings there will discover (you will choose their physics even if you are not restricted tho this physics), so your existence will be "metaphysical" with respect to them.

This is what I meant.

No logon no god QED

I don't know if you are serious or not, but it seems a fair demand.

Regards, Nony-Mouse