God exists

[warpus]

I'm not sure why you can't figure out that I merely took what BirdJaguar said and flipped it around to something that resembles reality a lot more closely than what he said.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I'm not sure why you can't figure out that I merely took what BirdJaguar said and flipped it around to something that resembles reality a lot more closely than what he said.

O.K. just did

 

[warpus]

No problem.

In the end I understand that me and people like BirdJaguar come at this from completely different directions. And that's fine! But there's got to be some method to the madness.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

It is not possible to prove a negative, except for in very specialized cases. That's why our entire way of thinking here on Earth revolves around the fact that we put the onus of proof on the person making a positive statement - not on the person making a negative one.

What makes you say that?

 

[warpus]

Prove to me that invisible hamsters do not affect the way gravity works with their specially formulated gravity-affecting hamster organs that have been created for them by Father hamster - their leader.

AKA

Prove to me that God doesn't exist.

 

[Borachio]

How about if I drop my invisible hamster from a high building and see if it, invisibly, hits the ground, or not?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Prove to me that invisible hamsters do not affect the way gravity works with their specially formulated gravity-affecting hamster organs that have been created for them by Father hamster - their leader.

AKA

Prove to me that God doesn't exist.

These hamsters do not alter gravity becouse there is no need for that. Enough?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

How about if I drop my invisible hamster from a high building and see if it, invisibly, hits the ground, or not?

I thought thats what you do for living...

 

[warpus]

These hamsters do not alter gravity becouse there is no need for that. Enough?

Doesn't work - "There is no need for God" isnt' a good proof that God doesn't exist.

If it was that easy, "There is no need for Bigfoot", "There is no need for black holes", "There is no need for extrasolar planets", etc.

 

[Borachio]

"There's no need for me" doesn't convince me that I don't exist either.

Nor, I should add, my invisible hamster.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Doesn't work - "There is no need for God" isnt' a good proof that God doesn't exist.

If it was that easy, "There is no need for Bigfoot", "There is no need for black holes", "There is no need for extrasolar planets", etc.

Yeah but there is a need for some agent triggering the conception of universe. Some happen to call that God...

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

"There's no need for me" doesn't convince me that I don't exist either.

Nor, I should add, my invisible hamster.

Who says you arent needed? Keep droping the hamsters - its very inspiring...

 

[warpus]

Yeah but there is a need for some agent triggering the conception of universe. Some happen to call that God...

There isn't though. Nobody's ever put together a theory that postulates and proves such a thing.

I mean you might as well asy "Yeah but there is a need for some agent triggering the conception of the agent (that you were talking about). Some happen to call that God...

And then you're stuck in an infinite loop.

But let's not get away from what we were talking about - the impossibility of proving a negative. Do you see what I mean now, when I said that initially?

 

[Narz]

I got to laugh a bit. Seriously? Someone demands your acceptance?

In the Judeo-Christian view. Yes, God demands acceptance.

He's a "loving" God but if you don't believe you're gonna burn in hell forever with no out.

Any friend who said, "If you don't hang out with me & think of me all the time I will torture you, literally & forever" you'd correctly label as a total psycho to be avoided at all costs but somehow when God does it its supposed to be ok, a positive thing even, proving of his love.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

There isn't though. Nobody's ever put together a theory that postulates and proves such a thing.

I mean you might as well asy "Yeah but there is a need for some agent triggering the conception of the agent (that you were talking about). Some happen to call that God...

And then you're stuck in an infinite loop.

This isnt the case with God-agent though. You dont need agent to trigger God becouse that would disprove God existence since God here represents sum of infinite existence.
Its the same concept which is readily accepted by many except reversed. People think that becouse they are witnessing limits all around that the beginning and end of all is nothing which I think doesnt follow. Itsnt logic its an assumption. I can on the other hand say that at beginning and end of all is everything which I think makes somewhat more sense. Not to our minds used to think in certain limiting enviroment and being subject to outwardly limited realities for ages ofcourse but ultimately -- yes.

But let's not get away from what we were talking about - the impossibility of proving a negative. Do you see what I mean now, when I said that initially?

Yeah I see but you see the difference between God and its concept which has been worked out trough centuries of mankinds spiritual experience and ingrained into its cultural core and some random ad hoc made up stuff? When disaproving God you can work your way through the different conceptions made to define it. So I am not sure you can call it impossible.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

In the Judeo-Christian view. Yes, God demands acceptance.

He's a "loving" God but if you don't believe you're gonna burn in hell forever with no out.

Any friend who said, "If you don't hang out with me & think of me all the time I will torture you, literally & forever" you'd correctly label as a total psycho to be avoided at all costs but somehow when God does it its supposed to be ok, a positive thing even.

I am not aware of the whole of it since I have been brought up in godless state of communist Czechoslovakia, thank God, but I thought this concept has been overcome ages ago. I think what one has to understand is the barbaric nature of humans millenias ago and that some of these religious concepts may have had its justification at that time.
When it comes to "accept or burn in hell for ever" I dont think it has any support in the NT at all. I think its one of the biggest tricks played on human mind, ever.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Here is couple of quotes on the subject from Sri Aurobindo:

Either do not give the name of knowledge to your beliefs only and of error, ignorance or charlatanism to the beliefs of others, or do not rail at the dogmas of the sects and their intolerance.

Someone was laying it down that God must be this or that or He would not be God. But it seemed to me that I can only know what God is and I do not see how I can tell Him what He ought to be. For what is the standard by which we can judge Him? These judgments are the follies of our egoism.

There is no mortality. It is only the Immortal who can die; the mortal could neither be born nor perish. There is nothing finite. It is only the Infinite who can make for Himself limits; the finite can have no beginning nor end, for the very act of conceiving its beginning & end declares its infinity.

 

[warpus]

When disaproving God you can work your way through the different conceptions made to define it. So I am not sure you can call it impossible.

The Christian God would be impossible to prove the lack of existence of. How would you do it? I mean, let's see a hypothetical proof.

With the Greek Gods at least you could climb Mt. Olympus and check if they're there - but somebody could just say "Oh, they're hiding" or "Oh, they're invisible" or "Oh, they're Gods, they don't want you to see them", or whatever.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The Christian God would be impossible to prove the lack of existence of. How would you do it? I mean, let's see a hypothetical proof.

With the Greek Gods at least you could climb Mt. Olympus and check if they're there - but somebody could just say "Oh, they're hiding" or "Oh, they're invisible" or "Oh, they're Gods, they don't want you to see them", or whatever.

The story with the Greek gods is that they arent actually functioning from any earthly spot but from subtler vital plane which the popular narative symbolicaly identifies with the highest spot in the area.
I do not have an idea how to disprove Christian God as long as itsnt interwoven into some dogmatic conception.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, in most cases it's just impossible to prove an existential negative. It's mainly because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But I mean something a lot more specific and very defined would be possible, such as. "Prove that I do not have 6 fingers on my left hand". You count them and check how many there are - and there you go. This works because you're limiting your context to my left hand - something that can be studied very easily.

In the case of God(s) the difference is that he/she/it could be anywhere, not just on my left hand.

However, not even "Prove that God isn't on my left hand" would be possible, since God(s) tend to be given supernatural powers, and as such could easily become invisible or some such thing.

"Prove that a visible God isn't on my left hand" - now that's something you could easily prove. I think. If you narrow it down well enough, it becomes easier to prove. If you leave it vague, and don't define the domain and leave it as "well, anywhere in the universe, duh", it isn't possible to disprove. And most Gods are defined as such - vague, can be anywhere, aren't limited to my left hand, have supernatural powers, etc.