Logical proofs for God

elivsvonchiaing

We will never know if there is a god, will never know if there isn't a god. this is unknowable - more disturbingly -are we here - or are we brains in a jar given continuous sense input to really make us believe we live in 2005 - not 2120!.

I think - therefore I am!

tis a little jaded! nowadays?

omnicorp

yes, there is that theory that the Universe is a computer program, and we are software.
in that case, George Bush must be riddled with Viruses.

popinfresh

That's why I'm agnostic, THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW..

popinfresh

I don't think it is. When your answer to a given scientific question fundamentally boils down to "an omnipotent being about whom we have extremely limited knowledge caused this to happen", what point is there in investigating the mechanics of the phenomenon to any great degree? If you accept that God is the cause, and you also accept that we cannot know much (if anything) about God, then what's the point in trying to know about what you accept to be possibly unknowable?

I do think it is. What you are saying, is likable to "we know that if you drop a ball of a building it'll hit the ground, therefore there was no need to derive equations concerning gravity"

There's been quite a few experiments involving fruit flies where the emergence and changing dominance of certain genetical attributes have been observed. Which demonstrates the process. But since it's not the same as replicating the process of an ape-like being evolving into a human, that's not evidence. There's also the case of the speckled moths in the UK during the industrial revolution (as far as I recall, the case was there were two types of moths, white and black, and the white one was dominant. Come the industrial revolution and pollution, conditions favoured the black moth which increased in numbers as it had more natural camouflage) - again, it demonstrates the process of natural selection quite aptly. But since it doesn't correlate *exactly* to the theory of man's development, it's generally conveniently ignored by the creationists.

So what you are saying is that there is information that would lead us to beleive in evolution, however there is not the HARD evidence that is needed to prove it. That is what i was saying aswell.....

Testicles, to put it politely. Occam's Razor is a tool for deciding which of two proposed explanations are more likely, by stating that you should evaluate the relative probability of the requirements of each explanation in light of existing evidence, and choose that which requires fewest unsupported assumptions.

Same explanation, more technical vocabulary.

Your example doesn't apply, because :

a)you may know whereabouts the town you need to go is, and therefore hazard a guess based on the relative directions of the two roads (yes, pedantic, I know. But many an argument fell apart by trying to be too generic)
b)you cannot state that there is an equal lack of evidence for God existing or not existing. If you believe that God exists, then you believe that he made us in some way, refuses outright to show any evidence of himself (including any explanation of his mechanisms for creating us and the universe), and that the evidence uncovered by scientists is a test by this God. Who has never shown himself. Whereas if you don't believe there's a God, you're assuming that the lack of conclusive proof in favour of God's existence is due to the lack of God's existence. From a scientific perspective, Occam holds that believing in God is the less rational of the two choices.

Jesus, imagine that you don't have a GPS then :rolleyes:
"evidence uncovered by scientists is a test by this God"
What are you talking about? evidence uncovered by scientists? I presume you're implying evidence that leads us to reason that there is no god?? I've not seen any of this evidence. I have seen evidence that silences bible-bashing hill-billys's assuptions as to what god is. I.E people who disagree with evolution. But I have not seen evidence that would imply that a "god" cannot exist.

If i say to you that the universe is filled with invisible pink unicorns, but you can't ever touch them because they move in such a way as to always be behind you and are impervious to scientific detection or analysis. Occam's razor would suggest I'm talking out of my anal passage.

No, Occam's razor would not suggest anything because it would not apply. BTW, "invisible pink".... Ah nevermind. Occam's razor would not apply, common sense would..

Ok, fine, phrase the question in a more scientific way. You've still got no actual proof for any kind of God existing. And I'm disappointed to have to point out that your use of our existence as proof of God is anthropic reasoning, and therefore invalid in the context you're trying to use it. Just because we exist doesn't mean there's a design behind us existing.

Firstly, I find that posing the theory of a god in a scientific way helps people to get away from the whole conception of a man living in the clouds with a beard.
Secondly, I'M NOT TRYING TO PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS. I'm just pointing out that you cannot prove or pose a reasoning that god does not exist. I'm agnostic (TBH, are you even reading my posts)

Fysh

popinfresh wrote:

I do think it is. What you are saying, is likable to "we know that if you drop a ball of a building it'll hit the ground, therefore there was no need to derive equations concerning gravity"

No. It's not. Again, you seem to be interpreting my statements in the exact opposite fashion as to how they are intended, and it's not like I'm being careless with my phrasing. If there is no god, and the universe operates on a set of physical laws without someone behind the scenes who can manipulate or break the rules, then it is worth investigating these laws and formulating precise explanations as to their mechanisms. If, on the other hand, you're willing to accept that behind these laws is an omnipotent being about whom you know little or nothing, what's the point in trying to understand the mechanism if you accept you'll never know much about the cause?

popinfresh wrote:

So what you are saying is that there is information that would lead us to beleive in evolution, however there is not the HARD evidence that is needed to prove it. That is what i was saying aswell....

No, what I'm saying is that there have been experiments that demonstrate isolated examples of the mechanisms of evolution. The reason they're not accepted as being conclusive proof is because people seem to expect photos of an ape dipping behind a tree, zipping off the ape costume and strolling out as some sort of homo erectus, possibly whistling nonchalantly as he does so. As proof goes, I personally think it's quite convincing. Not accepting it is like not accepting the idea that the planets' orbits are a result of gravitational forces because "well, I can see how gravity works when I drop an apple on the floor, but I can't make an apple float around another apple in the way planets go round the sun, so that can't be it".

popinfresh wrote:

Jesus, imagine that you don't have a GPS then :rolleyes:
"evidence uncovered by scientists is a test by this God"
What are you talking about? evidence uncovered by scientists? I presume you're implying evidence that leads us to reason that there is no god?? I've not seen any of this evidence. I have seen evidence that silences bible-bashing hill-billys's assuptions as to what god is. I.E people who disagree with evolution. But I have not seen evidence that would imply that a "god" cannot exist.

sorry, not a particularly clear choice of words there. I was referring to the creationist hobby of claiming that dinosaur bones and other paleontological discoveries are in fact not proof that dinosaurs existed years ago, but just proof planted by God in order to test us. Didn't mean to imply conclusive evidence about whether God can exist or not.

popinfresh wrote:

No, Occam's razor would not suggest anything because it would not apply. BTW, "invisible pink".... Ah nevermind. Occam's razor would not apply, common sense would..

Ah, but it would apply. You can keep insisting it wouldn't apply, but you'll keep being wrong while doing so. And, yes, well done. I deliberately chose the unicorns to be pink and invisible to try and highlight the stupidity of the whole thing. But you seem to be deliberately avoiding that.

popinfresh wrote:

Firstly, I find that posing the theory of a god in a scientific way helps people to get away from the whole conception of a man living in the clouds with a beard.
Secondly, I'M NOT TRYING TO PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS. I'm just pointing out that you cannot prove or pose a reasoning that god does not exist. I'm agnostic (TBH, are you even reading my posts)

I'm fully aware that you're not arguing for god definitely existing, but you are arguing against my chain of reasoning for God not existing, so frankly you get the same counter-arguments anyone claiming God did exist would get.

Personally, I find that positing the entire question in a scientific light tends to make people inch closer to a realisation of how preposterous some aspects of what we accept as God are. In particular, the fact that we have no hard scientific evidence for his/her/its existence, and yet people demand proof that there is no god. As in, as a scientist and atheist, I am expected to disprove an idea which has yet to have any convincing evidence in its favour presented to the scientific community at large. I find that laughable.

And as for who's reading whose posts... How many more times would you like me to try and explain that you can't just dismiss Occam's Razor as a tool of reasoning? You haven't listened so far, but cutting and pasting isn't exactly hard....

popinfresh

If there is no god, and the universe operates on a set of physical laws without someone behind the scenes who can manipulate or break the rules,

I don't like the use of the word "break". I find the use of the word in that context to be the same that us picking an object off a table is "breaking" the laws of physics. Of couse you will undoubtably completely miss the logic behind the comparison (as per usual) and and perhaps reply posing the same example with more tecnical vocabulary and tell me how you think it means the exact opposite :rolleyes:

No, what I'm saying is that there have been experiments that demonstrate isolated examples of the mechanisms of evolution. The reason they're not accepted as being conclusive proof is because people seem to expect photos of an ape dipping behind a tree, zipping off the ape costume and strolling out as some sort of homo erectus, possibly whistling nonchalantly as he does so.

Yes. There's evidence of evolution, but no Hard evidence that evolution is how we got here. wtf, ur just repeating what i said with suped up vocabulary.

sorry, not a particularly clear choice of words there. I was referring to the creationist hobby of claiming that dinosaur bones and other paleontological discoveries are in fact not proof that dinosaurs existed years ago, but just proof planted by God in order to test us. Didn't mean to imply conclusive evidence about whether God can exist or not.

All that implys is that those particular creastionists are idiots.

Ah, but it would apply. You can keep insisting it wouldn't apply, but you'll keep being wrong while doing so. And, yes, well done. I deliberately chose the unicorns to be pink and invisible to try and highlight the stupidity of the whole thing. But you seem to be deliberately avoiding that.

No, I'm not deliberately avoiding anything, I'm trying to get a point across but you can't see (or are not reading) the point i'm trying to make.

Ok, as opposed to going around in circles restating why I think that occam's razor is not usable in this particular debate, I will ask you a simple question:
Do you think that Occam's razor can be used incorrectly or out of context, or applied to situations where it does not apply?" It's a simple question, you don't even need to relate your answer to the argument at hand. (first thing that comes to mind is George Bush's reasoning to justify invading Iraq)

as a scientist and atheist, I am expected to disprove an idea which has yet to have any convincing evidence in its favour presented to the scientific community at large. I find that laughable.

The idea CANNOT BE disproven, it's really that simple.. And similarily the idea the god does not exist CANNOT be proven (as of yet at least). You are more than entitled to beleive what makes you happier, if you want to be simple minded about it.

Fysh

popinfresh wrote:

I don't like the use of the word "break". I find the use of the word in that context to be the same that us picking an object off a table is "breaking" the laws of physics. Of couse you will undoubtably completely miss the logic behind the comparison (as per usual) and and perhaps reply posing the same example with more tecnical vocabulary and tell me how you think it means the exact opposite :rolleyes:

If there is a God, then a complete model of the physics of the universe may be able to incorporate and account for His/Her/Its actions, so that what might be called miracles now become as ordinary as picking a cup up off a table.

We don't know enough now to do so. Therefore, my statement stands. (As with my entire stance on the topic, it's open to revision upon fresh evidence, but so far I'm staying put).

popinfresh wrote:

No, I'm not deliberately avoiding anything, I'm trying to get a point across but you can't see (or are not reading) the point i'm trying to make.

Ok, as opposed to going around in circles restating why I think that occam's razor is not usable in this particular debate, I will ask you a simple question:
Do you think that Occam's razor can be used incorrectly or out of context, or applied to situations where it does not apply?" It's a simple question, you don't even need to relate your answer to the argument at hand. (first thing that comes to mind is George Bush's reasoning to justify invading Iraq)

Yes, of course it can. That's the simple answer.

The answer that gets a bit of thought put into it is : Yes, it can. But conclusions drawn in such a way are null. What is of prime importance in such a case is the grounds on which you decide what makes up an incorrect or contextually invalid use of Occam. I maintain that the issue of God's existence is not such a case. If you can present a case for why it is not so, I'll happily listen and try to understand.

popinfresh wrote:

The idea CANNOT BE disproven, it's really that simple.. And similarily the idea the god does not exist CANNOT be proven (as of yet at least). You are more than entitled to beleive what makes you happier, if you want to be simple minded about it.

I say again : Testicles.

From a scientific perspective : any new idea or explanation of phenomena should have as accurate a model as possible of the process behind the phenomena, as well as experimental data and a straightforward explanation of how such experimental data can be replicated and therefore verified.

So. We look at the idea of the existence of God. Have we any evidence of phenomena that can be replicated whose causes cannot be explained by any scientific theory, with experimental data that can be examined and verified by repetition? We do not. Certainly there are things we don't understand. But, given the choice in creating a super-entity with convenient qualities (for example, conservation of energy dictates that nothing can create itself - however, God apparently is not subject to such rules) or just persevering with the study of our universe using the scientific method to derive theories which model them without assuming some unknowable external influence as being a factor, I know which one I'll pick.

popinfresh

The answer that gets a bit of thought put into it is : Yes, it can. But conclusions drawn in such a way are null. What is of prime importance in such a case is the grounds on which you decide what makes up an incorrect or contextually invalid use of Occam. I maintain that the issue of God's existence is not such a case. If you can present a case for why it is not so, I'll happily listen and try to understand

OK then, I shall explain why I think that occam's razor does not apply in this case (again), however in order to prevent several rounds of confused reply posts (by both of us), this time I shall do so in light of the definition you gave for occam's razor theory

Occam's Razor is a tool for deciding which of two proposed explanations are more likely, by stating that you should evaluate the relative probability of the requirements of each explanation in light of existing evidence, and choose that which requires fewest unsupported assumptions.

Right the two possible explanations in this case are:
theory 1 (creationist theory)
"As for physical and chain reactions that led to the existance of the unniverse as we understand it to be, they were altered or added to by what we would consider to be a conscious mind, in such a way that humans exist today"
vs.
theory 2 (atheist theory)
"As for physical and chain reactions that led to the existance of the unniverse as we understand it to be, they were not altered or added to by what we would consider to be a conscious mind"

probability of the requirements of each explanation in light of existing evidence:

theory1:
People find that when they pray to "god", they feel that their prayers are answered. However this could be simply explained by examining psychology of the brain therefore this point is negligable.
There is recorded events whereby a man called jesus christ came to the earth and performed "miricles" whereby he carried out acts that could not have been possible for a human to carry out. He claimed that it was god that was enabling him to do this. However, these miricles have not been seen or recorded by any person currently alive. Also there was no scientific explanation for the "miricles" also it has to be taken into consideration that the people who recording these "miricles" could have been writing fiction as opposed to fact. Therefore, this point is negligable.
There are recorded "prophesies" in the bible whereby a men claiming to be contacted by god foretold events, and these events proceeded to take place. However, there are few if any examples of texts where these prophesies were written, that can be dated back to before the prophesy took place, and it must also be taken into account that the writing of the forementioned "prophesies" may have been widely known and hence dictating the coming about of the relative prophesy concerned. Therefore this point is negligable.

Total probability, based on scientific evidence we have seen so far for theory1
0 + 0 + 0 = 0

theory2:
It has been suggested that god made man. On the other hand scientific proof suggests that man, and all other species of life on the earth came to be by a process called evolution. However, this point does not address the question at hand as to whether or not there is a god, it only addresses the question of "By what process did man come to be", therefore it is negligable.
It has been suggested that some of the implied concepts of a "god" would be illogical based on the fact that he seems irrational. I.e. We are told that "god" loves humanity but he allows war, famine and disease to take place. However this illogicality only addresses assumptions that certain people have
towards what a god would be. It does not address the question as to whether or not there is a god, therefore this point is negligable.
It has been suggested that the existance of a "god" would break physical laws, such as "energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another" The idea of a god seems to suggest that god created himself, which goes against this law. Suggests that the concept is an irrational one. However, the nature of the the existance of such a being need not exist within our universe. And hence, not be subject to these laws. Also this pont does not address the question at hand therefore this point is negligable.

Total probability, based on scientific evidence we have seen so far for theory2
0 + 0 + 0 = 0

Therefore the probability of theory-1 is 0, and theory-2 is 0.

By using occam's razor theory:
</me whips out a calculator>
clickity clickity
</me finished calculations>

The probability of god existing is "NaN"

The probability of god not existing is "NaN"
Btw, don't get bogged down on the points I made above, all I'm pointing out is that they don't address the question at hand. If you used occam's theory to suggest that evolution happened you would be sucsessful. Not in this case though.

It's the same as if you tried to adress the question of whether or not reality extends beyond our universe, we don't have the scientific knoledge to address the question

Please say that you can see some sense in the point i'm making.

Fysh

Ok, now I have a much clearer perspective on where you're coming from. We can't really address it in a definitive way if you're prepared to accept that anything outside our universe (as well as the rules out there) might be utterly beyond anything we imagine.

Personally, I see no evidence for this being the case as of yet. So my opinion is, at present it's not proven. Future evidence may change that case - but to claim that something exists, you must present evidence of this. I appreciate why you might hold a different view, given your post above, but I look at things a little differently.

DadaKopf

Occam's Razor is a tool for deciding which of two proposed explanations are more likely, by stating that you should evaluate the relative probability of the requirements of each explanation in light of existing evidence, and choose that which requires fewest unsupported assumptions.

Wait a minute. (I haven't read the whole thread), but this seems like the 'argument from design' to me. But in a much simpler way, I agree with popinfresh. Occam's razor doesn't, can't prove the existence or inexistence of God, I don't think, because it's a logical proof, but not necessarily based on evidence. There's also the fact that the simplest explanations are often, if not nearly always, wrong.

Argument 1: the human eye is a highly complex biological system that evolved over millennia in the following set of stages (1, 2, 3 ... X).

Argument 2: the human eye is so complex, only a designer could have designed something so perfect therefore God exists.

Argument 2 is a much simpler argument, which has been dented by evidence, sure, but there goes the logical coherence of Occam's razor, no?

SkepticOne

DadaKopf wrote:

Argument 1: the human eye is a highly complex biological system that evolved over millennia in the following set of stages (1, 2, 3 ... X).

Argument 2: the human eye is so complex, only a designer could have designed something so perfect therefore God exists.

Argument 2 is a much simpler argument, which has been dented by evidence, sure, but there goes the logical coherence of Occam's razor, no?

In some ways argument 1 works better with the original version of Occam's razor - do not multiply entities beyond necessity. The second argument introduces the unnecesary (according to evolution) entity of God.

Brenner

St. Anselm's Ontological Argument: (best I've heard)...

If I can imagine there is... "something thanwhich nothing greater can be conceved"... even if I deny that such a thing exists, my denial of it affirms that it does exist because if it does exist in my mind even a a simple notion of "something thanwhich nothing greater can be conceved" to be denied, it couldn't possibly be contained in my head and what ever I conceive I can always add something to it... (BTW: never felt that this contributed to the idea of a deity - more like a logical proof for the existance of an infinite unity)
its not a personality anyway, to our minds it would be more like a property.

there is a great theory that says everything (matter, people, personalities, ideas, dreams etc.) are all made of the same substance, a substance that is so complex that it has an infinite amount of attributes - a nice neat "one and everything" paradox solution.
Unity (one substance) + Infinity (limitless attributes)

Brenner

Always thought that that kind of argument was to close to human perpective, a narrow point of view about what the "maker" is...

if there is a designer, why design? why make things better than they were before? the construction of something is complex to the human mind, many things are incredibly complex to the human mind when it tries to understand and grapple with the details of soemthing, but the simplicity with which other systems operate are equally amazing to us, if there would be some kind of designer it would surely be more interested in the generation of the ultimate balance between complexity and simplicity.

complexity alone can imply lack of design.

Tobias Greeshman

DadaKopf wrote:

Argument 1: the human eye is a highly complex biological system that evolved over millennia in the following set of stages (1, 2, 3 ... X).

Argument 2: the human eye is so complex, only a designer could have designed something so perfect therefore God exists.

Argument 2 is a much simpler argument, which has been dented by evidence, sure, but there goes the logical coherence of Occam's razor, no?

In some respects I have to agree to a certain aspect here, but however complex and brilliant to human eye is biologically, it surely does not have a scratch on the human brain that is so unbelievably complex and brilliant, that we can not duplicate it, even segments of it. A learning organism unlike any other. Surely there had to be a spiritual/mystical higher power at play here, to create something so complex.

I would regard myself as being somewhat of an agnostic and tend to be very cinicle in regards to accepting divine spiritual creations, I would choose science over religion, but in this instant I find it very hard to choose science whole-heartedly over religion.

If science cant understand our own anatomy fully, then I believe logically proving god is beyond impossible, a fickle dream, with which one should awaken from, sooner rather than later.

omnicorp

a little knowledge leads away from him
a lot towards.

If you think you know a lot about science and Astronomy etc. and have proved God wrong, then all you have to do is search deeper and yuou will be proved wrong.

Dades

omnicorp wrote:

a little knowledge leads away from him
a lot towards.

If you think you know a lot about science and Astronomy etc. and have proved God wrong, then all you have to do is search deeper and yuou will be proved wrong.

Let's just get something straight. Nobody is going to prove anything.

Not you, not anyone, not now - not ever.

transperson

Let's just get something straight. Nobody is going to prove anything.
not you, not anyone, not now - not ever

yey

sense at last

prove??? prove what??? god??? dont be ridiculous

Bazz

If anybody has read A Brief History of Space and Time by Dr. Stephen Hawking they will know that our interpretation of the universe and our beliefs change every few decades in accordance to our acquisition of information and knowledge. That book, published in 1988, has been deemed archaic by Stephen Hawing himself, citing the simple fact that he now knows more. So there is no definite answer to anything.

birdiewhistler

okay, someone can spend a thousand lifetimes trying to prove that does or does not exists, and still not find the answer.That is why religion is a "belief" not any kind of fact. So doesnt it seem pointless to debate a subject that is only based on "belief" and in the end there will never be a conclusive answer?
This is just my personal opinion here, because after years of debating I have finally realized that its pointless. That everybody needs to base their beliefs on what they truly believe. Not on ignorance or social exceptance. And if you do this there is absolutly no reason to debate religion either way.

Dades

birdiewhistler wrote:

And if you do this there is absolutly no reason to debate religion either way.

Except maybe to discuss what you believe and why you do.

Just because no-one can ever be proven correct, doesn't mean you have to shut the door on discussion. When a religious fanatic blows up a bus do you not wonder about their motivation?

*Thread...gasping...for life...*

solo1

First of all, apologies for my flippant tone during what is my annual poo all over eboards. Ignore the following at will.

Disagreeing with syllogistic logic is probably a bad idea.

Cows are nice; jam is nice: therefore, cows are jam.

Dr. Thomas AF Kelly is the dean of philosophy at NUI Maynooth.

Oooh. Check out the brain on the dean.

An argument that refutes his has not to date been found.

I doubt that. I'd say it's closer to the truth to say that an argument which he accepts as refuting his theory has yet to be found. It's a common enough thing when you go to the bother of cooking up a theory and some young git tears it all apart. Well, what would you do? Clearly there's something wrong with the young git's assumptions, or his reasoning. There couldn't be anything wrong with my theory. I'm the dean, godammit! HEAR ME ROAR!! RAOOAUAUAUUAAUARGH!!! I eat small children and poo nails!!!! I'M THE MOTHER******* DEAN!!!!

Sorry. I'm OK now.

It strikes me that the potentiality/reality schtick doesn't really hold water. Because you could use a similar argument about whether the chicken or the egg came first. Assuming that a chicken is an actual chicken, and an egg is a potential chicken ... well, you know the rest. Fill in the blanks. Do I win a prize?

No. Fair enough. Round two.

People who believe in god (and those who don't) have to fall into one of two camps

1. You believe that something can come from nothing.
2. You do not believe that something can come from nothing.

If you are in camp 2, the probability is* that you believe god created everything. But then you are faced with the uncomfortable thought of where god came from, and no matter how far back you go, eventually you are drawn back to camp 1. And once you are in camp 1, you don't need a god at all, because you just admitted yourself that you believe the whole shebang could have come from nothing. QED.

*this is the one weak spot in my theory. Please provide some counter-examples.

Dades

solo1 wrote:

People who believe in god (and those who don't) have to fall into one of two camps

1. You believe that something can come from nothing.
2. You do not believe that something can come from nothing.

The whole concept that everything must have an origin is a human one.

If we believe that we actually exist, then in our human way of thinking we have no alternative but to accept that once upon a time - something came from nothing. Which is, as we all [think we] know, impossible.

Therefore let's make up a creator.

ps I like your cows and jam theory.

Tar.Aldarion

people eat cows people eat jam, people = cowjam^n
so god exists. disprove it if you can. n is always greater than 2.

solo1

so god exists. disprove it if you can. n is always greater than 2.

This kind of thing is why I'm an atheist.

Eoghan-psych

Slow coach wrote:

Oh, well that's definitely it, then!

I, for one, don't believe it's in any way logical to conclude that there isn't a God, and I'm not the only one.

That approach doesn't hold water until such time as this "god" is demonstrated to actually exist.

Replace "god" with "easter bunny" and you'll see what I mean.

Tar.Aldarion

maybe ....easter...bunny...on to something.ah no wait there is a logical way! nuts!

"This kind of thing is why I'm an atheist."
what kind of thing?there is no such proof! people trying to prove a God makes you not believe in one,so how bout vise-versa.there are lame proofs(facts) on both sides.

transperson

the true reality cannot be described in words so arguementation cannot achieve certainty.

the Christian conception of God is warped by centuries of bull**** Church politics and dodgy Theology. it is rubbish and should not be argued for.

Atheists are reactioning to this erronous conception of god. they are usually in my personal experience just as sure and dogmatic as the Believers.

both parties are miscomprehending . they will never reach a solution.

the true reality is best described by westren Kantian/Schopeanhaurian philosophy and eastren Vedic/Buddhist philosophy[they are essentially the same]

in this outlook there is room for science and *divine*

the phenomenal is what can be percieved. science only deals with the phenomenal. *divine* is not phenomenal.
science cannot have anything to do with the *divine*.
the respective investigations [divine Vs scientific] should keep to themselves.

philosophy in particular metaphysics is a medium between science and Divine investigation.

the metaphysics of Schopenhuar say that all is one, the will#
the metaphysics of the Vedas say that all is one, Brahman

Brahman and the Will are what Christians have misconprehended as God.
a true definition of this God is of course impossible none the less i will attempt to define it.

God is one,
God is all,
God is Creation,
God is light
God is energy
energy is matter
matter is us

God is not an entity
God is not fluffy

life is good now lets go for a pint

#Schopeanhaur's Will is not negative as commonly assumed, merely its manifestation to us which we can experience as suffering.

Dades

transperson wrote:

God is one,
God is all...
God is not fluffy

Hold on now...

If God is everything, and the Easter Bunny and the white bits on Santa's suit are fluffy...
Does that not make god a little bit fluffy?

Le Rack

Iv a theory god is evil, i am atheist, but have given this theory much thought. god is ment to be all loving and good but We (humans) are suposed to have been made in gods image and considering how many hatefull "evil" humans there is out there does it not make sense that god be evil too. And aside from that, even if there is a god, and we are made in his image, he gave us all the choice to decide whether or not we would do good or evil, so therefore god must also have evil in him!

solo1

Well in reality, we made god in our image. To claim the reverse is genius, because it is both irrefutable, and it answers two problems at once.