Proof and evidence will always equal Science

[brewer]

You can argue for the existence of god but you can't argue god into existence.

Maybe not, but it give ontologists something to do.

Boru

Good for them. But they need to stop telling me why it's important.

[R00tKiT]

[brewer]

jesus fucking muhammad, reason has left the building, I'm out.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You can argue for the existence of god but you can't argue god into existence.

Who exactly is doing that? No one. That's who.

[brewer]

You can argue for the existence of god but you can't argue god into existence.

Who exactly is doing that? No one. That's who.

I disagree. There are plenty in the society where I live that argue a metaphysical god has direct/causal impact on the physical world. AFAIC this where most of the theist/atheist conflict arises. That and the entitled judgement of belief in a metaphysical god imposes.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Who exactly is doing that? No one. That's who.

I disagree. There are plenty in the society where I live that argue a metaphysical god has direct/causal impact on the physical world. AFAIC this where most of the theist/atheist conflict arises. That and the entitled judgement of belief in a metaphysical god imposes.

That is a different issue. I am replying to somethibg else. No one thinks a logical demonstration conjours god into existence.

[polymath257]

You can argue for the existence of god but you can't argue god into existence.

Who exactly is doing that? No one. That's who.

That is precisely what the Ontological Argument is trying to do.

[zwanzig]

I disagree. There are plenty in the society where I live that argue a metaphysical god has direct/causal impact on the physical world. AFAIC this where most of the theist/atheist conflict arises. That and the entitled judgement of belief in a metaphysical god imposes.

That is a different issue. I am replying to somethibg else. No one thinks a logical demonstration conjours god into existence.

You're right. No one thinks that. And no one said that.

[Ranjr]

Should a theist propose a god whom science does not rule out, I would listen.  That means, a god who didn't exist before the universe or create it.  One who doesn't know everything, will things to happen, or defy natural laws.  That god would at least have a chance to exist.

[brewer]

I disagree. There are plenty in the society where I live that argue a metaphysical god has direct/causal impact on the physical world. AFAIC this where most of the theist/atheist conflict arises. That and the entitled judgement of belief in a metaphysical god imposes.

That is a different issue. I am replying to somethibg else. No one thinks a logical demonstration conjours god into existence.

Do you mean no one on this forum, or just you? I think Klor is a conjurer, Winter also. Plenty of theists (christian) that I encounter IRL believe that metaphysical argument = existence.