Nobody can prove God exists, nobody can prove He doesn't

[Bodhimalik]

[quote="Coriolanus][Bodhimalik]You must have some idea of this God in mind, as well as at least one characteristic on the basis of which you conceptualize it as God. I mean, there's a reason you call this being that just is a God and not a devil, or a tree, or Jack White.[/quote]

You are quite right, except I never think of God as a being.

I firmly believe without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, that "God" is consciousness and everything that exists is a product of consciousness. Thus consciousness is the Creator. Without consciousness, nothing is known or "seen."

I once stepped on a nail barefooted. I went to the doctor. He injected novacain and started cleaning out the wound. I wouldn't look at what he was doing. Suddenly he said, "look at your big toe!"

I looked and there were very large beads of sweat on my big toe. I couldn't feel the pain, but my big toe certainly did. Does my big toe have a consciousness?

[Bodhimalik]

How about a God that just "is"? Why believe that anyone can read His mind or know His powers? There's no basis for that.

You must have some idea of this God in mind, as well as at least one characteristic on the basis of which you conceptualize it as God. I mean, there's a reason you call this being that just is a God and not a devil, or a tree, or Jack White.

You are quite right, except that I never think of God as a being. I firmly believe, withut a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is God. Or God is consciousness.

[Only_Humean]

So how can anyone argue about it, huh?

I think most of the arguments come when/because people start making policy based on the (non-/)existence in question.

You are quite right, except that I never think of God as a being. I firmly believe, withut a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is God. Or God is consciousness.

No more and no less? Then clearly God exists; you've just relabelled things. Now what?

[felix dakat]

Felix, I didn't think that level of logic was your style. I am disappoint.

But, for this back-handed acknowledgement, I would not have know that my logic had ever risen to to the level that you could be disappointed by it FJ. At the moment I am lost in contemplation of the characteristics of a hypothetical alternate universe. More later.

[Bodhimalik]

You are quite right, except that I never think of God as a being. I firmly believe, withut a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is God. Or God is consciousness.

No more and no less? Then clearly God exists; you've just relabelled things. Now what?

I don't understand what you are saying here. No more and no less what?

God exists for me. For others, I dunno. I have reiterated several times on this or other posts that reality is created by our beliefs. I'll tell you this and I know you won't understand or believe it, but anyway, I was an atheist when I finally "got" what beliefs = reality was. How it operates. God was my first conscious creation.

[Only_Humean]

You are quite right, except that I never think of God as a being. I firmly believe, withut a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is God. Or God is consciousness.

No more and no less? Then clearly God exists; you've just relabelled things. Now what?

I don't understand what you are saying here. No more and no less what?

Than consciousness. Whenever someone uses "consciousness" they could (by your definition) equally use the word "God"?

[xzc]

You are quite right, except I never think of God as a being.

I firmly believe without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, that "God" is consciousness and everything that exists is a product of consciousness. Thus consciousness is the Creator. Without consciousness, nothing is known or "seen."

You're saying God is some thing or other. You've characterized him. You have a concept and you think it has external reality, that it represents the way things are correctly. All I'm saying is if you have a concept, then it is possible to show that concept is inconsistent, and if you do this, you show it can have no external reality.

I could for instance claim that there is a ball somewhere in the universe that is both red and blue all over. You don't need to check every corner of the universe to prove my claim false. You can just show that the concept of a ball that is red and blue all over is impossible.

[Bodhimalik]

[quote="Bodhimalik]

Whenever someone uses "consciousness" they could (by your definition) equally use the word "God"?[/quote]

Yes, that's right.

[Bodhimalik]

You are quite right, except I never think of God as a being.

I firmly believe without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, that "God" is consciousness and everything that exists is a product of consciousness. Thus consciousness is the Creator. Without consciousness, nothing is known or "seen."

You're saying God is some thing or other. You've characterized him. You have a concept and you think it has external reality, that it represents the way things are correctly. All I'm saying is if you have a concept, then it is possible to show that concept is inconsistent, and if you do this, you show it can have no external reality.

I started this post with the fact that no one could prove God exists or doesn't exist. Why are you surprised when I prove to you by my post here that the concept holds water?

I reiterate: "God" is a concept you either believe exists in reality or you believe doesn't exist. But as far as proof of either, can't be done.

[felix dakat]

Bodhimalik--You're response is illogical. You seem to have misunderstood Coriolanus' argument entirely. You have not proved your claim as far as I'm concerned.

[Joe Schmoe]

To OP.

Here's some copy pasta from another thread. (with a few tweaks)

Proof is sufficient evidence to confirm the validity of something. To accept proof, is to say that you believe the proof confirms a statement. Therefore, proof is relative to what one considers sufficient. One person may be persuaded by an item of 'proof', another may not.

With that in mind, I say this. You can prove X. To say you can prove X, is to say that we provide sufficient proof for someone to believe that this is the truth...Once you believe that anything can be proven, you're open the possibility that everything could be proven.

To find sufficient proof is relative...Whether it is enough proof for you, is your place to decide, but I argue that one can prove X to another. All that is required is that the other person believes it.

[Bodhimalik]

Bodhimalik--You're response is illogical.

(Bodhimalik) This response puzzles me no end.

What is in this statement that is illogical? " I started this post with the fact that no one could prove God exists or doesn't exist. Why are you surprised when I prove to you by my post here that the concept holds water?"

If so, could you point it out to me?

Or this one, with the same entreaty? "I reiterate: "God" is a concept you either believe exists in reality or you believe doesn't exist. But as far as proof of either, can't be done."

(felix dakat)You seem to have misunderstood Coriolanus' argument entirely. You have not proved your claim as far as I'm concerned

(Bodhimalik) My claim is that no one can prove the existence or non-existence of God. It is not up to me to prove THAT claim. It is up to someone to prove that they can prove the existence or non-existence of God. THAT proof would prove my claim is false. Indirect proof - like we used in High School geometry. Direct proof will not work here.

How can I prove that no one can prove whether or not God exists while at the same time claiming that no one can? That would be nuts.

I looked Coriolanus' post over again, and it seems to me that he is saying "if one can show that if I (Bodhimalik), have a concept then it is possible to show that concept is inconsistent, and if this is shown, it proves my (Bodhimalik) concept can have no external reality."

I will admit that I have no idea at all of what he is trying to say.

Maybe like you say, I misunderstood his argument completely. It might help me to understand if you would tell me what he was trying to say. Give it a shot?

Or you could have meant Coriolanus' statement, "I could for instance claim that there is a ball somewhere in the universe that is both red and blue all over. You don't need to check every corner of the universe to prove my claim false. You can just show that the concept of a ball that is red and blue all over is impossible."

Coriolanus is looking for a proof that a ball cannot be red and blue at the same time. Proof that two things (red and blue paint) cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

You want me to prove that no one can prove that two objects (God, no God) cannot be proved to exist at all. You see any difference at all in my hypothesis vs. Coriolanus' hypothesis?

Mine doesn't even come close to being two objects occupying the same space at the same time. Not even in the same city, let alone ballpark.

[Bodhimalik]

Bodhimalik-- You have not proved your claim as far as I'm concerned.

I just thought of this upon awakening this morn. Maybe we can get this cleared up to both of our satisfactions.

There are innumerable claims by numerous people every day that can never be proved. For instance,

"most trees grow leaves."

"I had mumps when I was five years old."

"I once saw frogs lying on top of a frozen creek."

"Nobody can prove the existence or non-existence of God."

These things are just "seen." There is no logic involved, thus no place for any "proof" to grab ahold. These types of observations can only be disproved, never proved.

[felix dakat]

FJ

He said, "If you can give conditions blah blah blah, then you can prove it doesn't exist."
A -> B

Which is true.

Then you said, "If you can't give conditions blah blah blah, then you can prove it doesn't exist."
~A -> B

No, I said that if you cannot name the characteristics that does not prove that it is does not exist. There may be plenty of stuff out there that we cannot specify the characteristics of that exists none the less.

But your response doesn't follow from what he said at all. ~A -> B doesn't follow from A -> B.

You misunderstood my argument.

Do you not feel discomfort when you post a fallacious argument? Do you not get like a pinch on your shoulder or something? Every time I post an argument I even have the slightest intuition might be fallacious, it really bugs me. Sometimes I post it anyway, but I try not to.

I would if it was fallacious. I don't see that it is.

[xzc]

No, I said that if you cannot name the characteristics that does not prove that it is does not exist. There may be plenty of stuff out there that we cannot specify the characteristics of that exists none the less.

The claim of the OP was partly that God cannot be disproven. I provided the conditions for the possibility of this proof, saying that if we had a meaningful concept of God, then we could analyze the concept for consistency. You responded to me, as FJ said, by denying the antecedent, saying that if we can't have a meaningful concept of God, then we can't disprove anything. And it's true, but it's also trivial. It amounts to saying that without a meaningful concept of God, you can't analyze a concept of God, nor make any conclusions about the existence of God. The problem is not only that it's trivial, but that it does not address my point. God can be disproved.

To reiterate FJ's summation. Assuming P then Q, where P is 'a meaningful concept for God', and Q is 'God can be disproved'. You made the comment that if not-P then not-Q, which is a fallacious way of responding, though it is true. Nonetheless, the most crucial part of my argument has still been ignored. Namely, if not-P, i.e., if you don't have a meaningful concept of God, then theistic religions are meaningless. This is to say, the Gods of all meaningful religions must be capable of some basic characterization, otherwise you're talking nonsense when you say God. If there is a religion such that its God can't be disproved, then that religion's concept of God is meaningless (cannot be analyzed for consistency), and that religion is meaningless, groundless.

[Flannel Jesus]

boy, that was ages ago. too lazy to look. that aside, Felix, whatever happened, I'm sure I'm right and you're wrong. at least that much we can all agree to.


just kidding brother. but no, your response was fallacious for the reasons specified. the wording on my part was a bit sloppy, but Corio got it.

[Bodhimalik]

God can be disproved. This is to say, the Gods of all meaningful religions must be capable of some basic characterization, otherwise you're talking nonsense when you say God. If there is a religion such that its God can't be disproved, then that religion's concept of God is meaningless (cannot be analyzed for consistency), and that religion is meaningless, groundless.

You kinda said something that makes sense here. When you talk of any RELIGION'S God, then THAT God can be disproved, Because it is created by the imagination of the creators of the religion.

But if you have a God that follows no religion, follows no rules, has nobody reading It's mind, doesn't let anyone in on who Its enemy is, or what It wants you to do, anyone can guess the characteristics of THAT God, but never thinks they KNOW Him, or anything about Him, then THAT God cannot be disproved. Such a God DOES exist. I have it on the highest authority. (joke)

Might as well try to disprove the existence of Existence, which has the same characteristics.

So proving that a religion's God doesn't exist kinda begs the question. It's a strawman's kinda problem.

[Arcturus Descending]

So how can anyone argue about it, huh?

It's easy.
Just explain that the other guy is SO terribly foolish and wrong.
There is no need to explain why he is wrong or even define the words you use.
The argument will automatically ensue.

James, I'm not so sure he was necessarily asking how to go about it but rather why bother? What's the point of it?
What has made you so cynical, James? Would you like to go out for coffee with me? I'll pay.

Most of us love a mystery and a challenge. i mean, just think about it. Something that cannot be proved or disproved becomes a veritable hunting ground for philosophers. It's about finding that missing link which connects the two. At this point perhaps, all we can surmise is that there is the possibility of one. And most philosopher, I believe, also realize that the journey, the excavation, is just as thrilling and satisfying as the find...almost.

[felix dakat]

No, I said that if you cannot name the characteristics that does not prove that it is does not exist. There may be plenty of stuff out there that we cannot specify the characteristics of that exists none the less.

The claim of the OP was partly that God cannot be disproven. I provided the conditions for the possibility of this proof, saying that if we had a meaningful concept of God, then we could analyze the concept for consistency. You responded to me, as FJ said, by denying the antecedent, saying that if we can't have a meaningful concept of God, then we can't disprove anything. And it's true, but it's also trivial. It amounts to saying that without a meaningful concept of God, you can't analyze a concept of God, nor make any conclusions about the existence of God. The problem is not only that it's trivial, but that it does not address my point. God can be disproved.

To reiterate FJ's summation. Assuming P then Q, where P is 'a meaningful concept for God', and Q is 'God can be disproved'. You made the comment that if not-P then not-Q, which is a fallacious way of responding, though it is true. Nonetheless, the most crucial part of my argument has still been ignored. Namely, if not-P, i.e., if you don't have a meaningful concept of God, then theistic religions are meaningless. This is to say, the Gods of all meaningful religions must be capable of some basic characterization, otherwise you're talking nonsense when you say God. If there is a religion such that its God can't be disproved, then that religion's concept of God is meaningless (cannot be analyzed for consistency), and that religion is meaningless, groundless.

The characteristics, attributes or properties of God have been specified as in the orthodox Christian theology. These attributes have been defined in such a way that they do not result in inherent contradiction. The problem is, when the exercise is completed, it isn't clear if the God proffered is the God of faith. The God of traditional religion, the one many still worship, has been riddled with paradox since its inception. If you remove the wings from a butterfly, do you still have a butterfly? If you take away paradox from the God of faith, do you have the God of faith? The God of faith is not a product of logic, but of experience and faith in an ineffable ultimate reality. So, exercises in logic such as you may be irrelevant to the belief and practice of actual living religion.

[Typist]

The God of traditional religion, the one many still worship, has been riddled with paradox since its inception.

Wouldn't the general definition of God usually offered be illogical if it wasn't riddled with paradox?

We want God to fit within the dualistic system we know. We want him to be this, or be that. God is good, or God is a monster. God is all powerful, or he's not. God loves us, or he could give a shit. God has free will, or everything is already decided anyway. God exists, or he doesn't.

The whole point of definitions is to state that something is this, but not that. Definitions are designed to slice off one part of reality, and divide that part from the rest.

But, God is usually proposed to be above and outside the system, the creator of the system. As the source of everything, the fundamental essence of everything, wouldn't such a God contain all things, and thus be beyond all dualities and definitions?

The model for such a God could very well be....

Reality.

Doesn't nature contain all things? What dualistic polarity could we assign to nature, without immediately being confronted by it's opposite?

Reality exists. Seems simple enough.

Except that, oops, uh oh, the overwhelming vast majority of reality is actually nothing, non-existence.

Nature gives life to innocent beautiful babies, and that's good, right? Uh oh, but wait a minute, nature is also the ruthless bloody murderer who kills every single living thing without exception and leaves our rotting corpses for the vultures. Damn, that's rude!

So, is nature good or bad? The question is meaningless, as nature contains all things. The good and bad, the up and down, the left and right, the life and death, the somethings and the nothing. The equation "Nature = X" does not compute. Nature equals everything, thus the equation is meaningless.

Once we propose some agent that is above duality, a something which is not a something because it's not inside the system of things, definitions and logic systems are rendered useless.

Logic = Useless.

Then what? Two options come to mind.

1) Faith is available for those who insist on the experience of knowing, a very human need.

2) Or, we can abandon the attempt to translate God/Reality/Everything in to an abstract concept, a definition, a noun, a something, a knowing, a division.

If we choose Option 2, two more choices arise perhaps.

1) We can say screw it, oh for crying out loud, let's just forget the whole thing, what's on TV?

2) Or, if we aren't easily defeated by obstacles, and wish to continue the inquiry nonetheless, we can redirect the inquiry in to a direct experience of reality. This might be explained as...

Observation.

Not observation as a means to another end, conclusions.

Observation for itself.

[felix dakat]

Wouldn't the general definition of God usually offered be illogical if it wasn't riddled with paradox?

Not according to rationalistic theism.

We want God to fit within the dualistic system we know. We want him to be this, or be that. God is good, or God is a monster. God is all powerful, or he's not. God loves us, or he could give a shit. God has free will, or everything is already decided anyway. God exists, or he doesn't.

The whole point of definitions is to state that something is this, but not that. Definitions are designed to slice off one part of reality, and divide that part from the rest.

But, God is usually proposed to be above and outside the system, the creator of the system. As the source of everything, the fundamental essence of everything, wouldn't such a God contain all things, and thus be beyond all dualities and definitions?

I have looked at god that way. But that is not what Coriolanus is proposing.

The model for such a God could very well be....

Reality.

Doesn't nature contain all things? What dualistic polarity could we assign to nature, without immediately being confronted by it's opposite?

Reality exists. Seems simple enough.

Reality must encompass everything real. If god is that which no greater than can be conceived, God cannot be less than reality. But what are the characteristics of reality? Are they free of inherent contradiction? Those are Coriolanus' questions.

Except that, oops, uh oh, the overwhelming vast majority of reality is actually nothing, non-existence.

How do you know? The vast majority might be green cheese. What makes you think we've seen the vast majority?

Nature gives life to innocent beautiful babies, and that's good, right? Uh oh, but wait a minute, nature is also the ruthless bloody murderer who kills every single living thing without exception and leaves our rotting corpses for the vultures. Damn, that's rude!

So, is nature good or bad? The question is meaningless, as nature contains all things. The good and bad, the up and down, the left and right, the life and death, the somethings and the nothing. The equation "Nature = X" does not compute. Nature equals everything, thus the equation is meaningless.

Once we propose some agent that is above duality, a something which is not a something because it's not inside the system of things, definitions and logic systems are rendered useless.

Maybe it's your proposal that's useless.

Logic = Useless.

According to your logic.

Then what? Two options come to mind.

1) Faith is available for those who insist on the experience of knowing, a very human need.

tI would seem you are making faith a claim to know the unknown.

2) Or, we can abandon the attempt to translate God/Reality/Everything in to an abstract concept, a definition, a noun, a something, a knowing, a division.

If we choose Option 2, two more choices arise perhaps.

How do we do that? A "just say no to reality" campaign?

1) We can say screw it, oh for crying out loud, let's just forget the whole thing, what's on TV?

My TV isn't even hooked up, so, not me.

2) Or, if we aren't easily defeated by obstacles, and wish to continue the inquiry nonetheless, we can redirect the inquiry in to a direct experience of reality. This might be explained as...

Observation.

Not observation as a means to another end, conclusions.

Observation for itself.

Pure objectless sensation? Who will feed us?

[Selah7+]

If you can give necessary and sufficient conditions for Godhood, then you can strictly speaking prove God can't and doesn't exist. In other words, if you can manage to show that you can't call something a God if it's not, let's say, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc., then provided you show these conditions are inconsistent, you show the concept of God is impossible. It's what Leibniz thought was wrong with the ontological proof, and why his efforts for a proof for God were directed toward showing God was possible.

This "God" that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. is the imagined God that cultural conditioning has hypnotized into a truth. It is a myth disguised as a truth. How about a God that just "is"? Why believe that anyone can read His mind or know His powers? There's no basis for that.

God already IS. You can know God and what He thinks. It is written for us in the Holy Scriptures. The Bible is 'the mind of Christ'. What is comes down to is either you believe what God says or you don't.

No one knows MY powers. How can anyone claim to know God's? Hubris, that's how.

You can know God if you want to.

The God that you call "Inconsistent" is the God of the Bible. That's an imagined God, and since humans make mistakes, of course He will be inadequate. But just try to think what the real God is like. Does He need humans to describe Him? And can they, really?

God is not imagined and the inadequacy is ALL yours, sir. Humans make mistakes because we are fallen and not perfect as God is perfect. You are right though, it is very difficult to explain God, He is so ... over our heads? Yes, He is infinite and we are finite. We cannot fully understand Him, but we can know Him and trust Him at His Word. How do you describe God? WONDERFUL, COUNSELOR, ALMIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, THE PRINCE OF PEACE!

The Bible God was made for humans so that they could comprehend Him is some way. Or so I think. I mean, that's why they made Him. The Bible God.

God made man to worship Him. We are the creation of His good pleasure, but we have turned away and gone our own way. You said it, the Bible was written to us as a gift from God so that man can know Him and have a relationship with Him. Jesus Christ is God, and He is the God of the Bible.

[Bodhimalik]

[quote="Selah7+]

God already IS. You can know God and what He thinks. It is written for us in the Holy Scriptures. The Bible is 'the mind of Christ'. What is comes down to is either you believe what God says or you don't.

"You can know God and what He thinks? You can't know the mind of a lowly human, but knowing what God thinks is a walk in the park?

You don't see anything wrong with anyone knowing the mind of a being that can make the heavens and the billions of species of plants and animals, yet they cannot know the mind of any individual? That's too hard?

Reading God's mind is easy. It's those damnable human's minds that are so hard to read. That doesn't sound odd to you?

You think you could go from never hearing of ANY God as a child, and suddenly have the insight that the one true God is the Christian God? And He wrote a book about Himself?

And you have this epiphany without anyone telling you anything at all about the Christian God? That doesn't sound the least bit odd to you?

[Bodhimalik]

God already IS. You can know God and what He thinks. It is written for us in the Holy Scriptures. The Bible is 'the mind of Christ'. What is comes down to is either you believe what God says or you don't.

"You can know God and what He thinks? You can't know the mind of a lowly human, but knowing what God thinks is a walk in the park?

You don't see anything wrong with anyone knowing the mind of a being that can make the heavens and the billions of species of plants and animals, yet they cannot know the mind of any individual? That's too hard?

Reading God's mind is easy. It's those damnable human's minds that are so hard to read. That doesn't sound odd to you?

You think you could go from never hearing of ANY God as a child, and suddenly have the insight that the one true God is the Christian God? And He wrote a book about Himself?

And you have this epiphany without anyone telling you anything at all about the Christian God? That doesn't sound the least bit odd to you?

I once talked to a Jehovah's Witness about God, but I told him before we started that he couldn't quote anything from the Bible. I wanted to know what he thought, not what he read. He couldn't do it. Every time he wanted to prove something to me, he picked up his Bible to read me his "proof." The only God he knew was the one he read about, or his minister told him about.

He had NO thoughts about God. Never thought of Him at all. Just thought about the Bible.

In my search for God, I used to visit churches. I noticed very early on that God was never mentioned. Oh, He was mentioned in the hymns, and in prayers, but never outside of that. Jesus was mentioned a lot. But God? Never.

I woke up this morn and realized that you might think I was an atheist and don't have God in my life. That is just not true. I don't have any religion's God in my life, that's all. That probably didn't come through in my posts.

So I am not arguing against God. I am arguing against any religion's God. Big, big difference. The way I see it, my God made your God.

Mostly what interests me in my replies to you is to try to get you to THINK. Your thoughts about your God is of not much interest to me. Your changing your mind will still keep the world going on the way it is. But beginning to think instead of following the party line blindly, THAT has a chance of making the world a little better place to be. And I'm all for that.

[Bodhimalik]

God made man to worship Him.

Three things. Try to imagine God sitting around with no one to worship Him and he thinks, "Man, I should have beings worshipping me. I mean, look how great I am and there's nobody to know that. I think I'll make some beings to bow down to me." Right?

And two, Do you know why I painted a picture of slaves sweating in a rock quarry? You don't? But you do know why God made His "paintings? That make any sense at all?

You don't know why any other human or animal or plant does what they do, but you do know why God does what He does? He's such a simple-minded being that His motives are transparent? Is that what you're saying?

And three, the only way you know that God made humans to worship Him was due to someone telling you that - either with the written word or orally. You did not stop and THINK. You simply accepted what someone told you - without giving you any explanation as to how they came by that info.

The frst time you read that in the Bible, you should have stopped and thought, "Wait a minute. Now how could anybody know why God made anything?"

And can I trust that person not to be making that up in order to raise himself above others by being God's confident?"

You said it, the Bible was written to us as a gift from God so that man can know Him and have a relationship with Him. Jesus Christ is God, and He is the God of the Bible.

No, I didn't say that the Bible was written as a gift from God. What I said was, humans made the Bible as a gift for other humans.

Here's what I think happened. People got to talking and arguing about an invisible God that nobody could see or hear, and this was too nebulous for them, and the only being they really understood was humans, so they took human attributes and placed them upon "God." NOW, God was something they could comprehend. NOW they felt they had ahold of something. NOW they coud be comfortable discussing God.