Proofs that God is imaginary
- Thread starter eastsidebagel
- Start date
Traitorfish...did?Prove it
Who says I'm trying to prove God exists? You're just doing it wrong.He proved my post wasn't serious. He did not prove god exists.
warpus
In pork I trust
And I ignored it because of absence of logic in that statement.
Meant to point out the absence of logic in yours.
It's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
That your proposed experiment did not test the base premise which you purported it to, and so is invalid, irrelevant and absurd?what's your point?
But I suppose that if your post was "not serious", it's not really important.
Not really. The entire idea is nothing more than an exercise in rhetoric. Until or unless god shows up in person there is no proof in either direction. Not even the smallest shred of a possibility of proof.
Which doesn't change that what you said isn't a proof that God is imaginary.
But the belief is that God did literally show up in person, as Jesus. So this also doesn't prove or disprove it.
Nope. But refuting my point does not prove that god is real.
And? That doesn't matter. I'm not trying to prove God - or any god - is real.
2000 years ago.
So this proof is in the pudding. And a lot of people who experienced the 'pudding' were convinced by it (evidence: lots of Christians).
No. Possibly a handful of people at the time were convinced. Or maybe someone lied. Everyone else was convinced second hand.
Well, definitely a few people at the time were convinced, but I'll concede that the rest was second-hand.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
I'm not sure about this. It is certainly possible to prove certain sub-classes (ed: or, certain definitions) of God do not exist by methods of contradiction.
The question, of course, is whether the traditional monotheist God (one which is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent for certain values of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnivenevolence) can be disproved in the same way. The problem of evil tries, and gets much farther than most believers give it credit for.
But even with that, all "proof" of God, or a god, is purely arbitrary until or unless a god does something measurable, verifiable, and publicly.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
See, but now you're asking if God is relevant, not if he exists. Those are very different questions.
See, but now you're asking if God is relevant, not if he exists. Those are very different questions.
I don't think I asked if he was relevant. I'm still on existence. In fact, a non existent god that vast numbers of people believe in is more relevant than an actual god that no one knows of and never takes notable actions. But the point is that until you have a verifiable action, you have no proof either way. And, in any case, using the Shakespearean system, most of what believers would consider to be proof can very easily have another explanation.
