I found a sort of god that I predict can't be "disproven" by atheist but it's not Jesus or Buddha etc

[ChieftheCef]

Personally I'm not really interested in disproving any god. What I'm looking for is convincing evidence that any god claim exists. I like the poem, but I need something a bit more substantial to sink my teeth into

Okay it bec omes a significant piece of text, no room on forums. I can try to summarize it and donk it down to a page or two

 

[Revoltingest]

Neither do I thanks for the obvious insult.

Insult?
I have no idea how you inferred that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do you say this exactly?

I like the quote.
It describes things that cannot be disproven.
Originally, it was used to describe a physics paper.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Personally I'm not really interested in disproving any god. What I'm looking for is convincing evidence that any god claim exists. I like the poem, but I need something a bit more substantial to sink my teeth into

Precisely. Its a bit like the fable of the emperors new clothes.

Not exactly what one 'sees' with such a fine garment made of nothing makes it so.

 

[shunyadragon]

I wrote them into a sort of poem

What is all encompasing, infinite and eternal?

Comes before anything and is after if tomorrow comes?

That which is within and without?

Which composes all things?

Who seems empty but is never exhausted?

Who is colourless, who has no form and looks like no creature?

Who permeates existence both as themselves and as the spark within you

Present in every space and outside it?

Inable to be comprehended by any man?

That which all religions are aiming at but missing?

Who are limited to and in and of themselves

That which is one thing, greatest of benefit?

That all things are and were made by?

To which we return to once dead?

That which guides all the badness into less distribution, dulls itself gradually, yet still fertilizes goodness?

That which is so unlimited it has all capabilities and stretches throughout and past every universe?

They the unique and indivisible?

That which excels in speed because of their girth?

They who exist independent of anything, who created all things?

Who does not even exist

Who composes consciousness and existence

They who are the final standard of what is right, making the most of itself, efficiency, practicality?

It is not that things are hard to distinguish without soliditiy

It is not because we want to be cool that we do not like labels

It is because the Ocean doing the wave, the reality doing the human

The Void from which we all emanate that unites us all

And it is limited not only to the self once, but to themselves again as the final standard

And together we stand by their universal decree

Their final standard

For when one hurts another, they feel the pain immediately,

As health, mental health, and reaction including happiness, and impact on the world

Which comes back to you

And throughout their life,

As impact on the world, including the self and everything else,

As impact on other people, further compounding impacts on the world which leads to the self

Regardless of who realizes it

Make the most of Nothing, be efficient, like we all do

True, but no belief in God or a 'Source' some call Gods can be disproven, The God of the Abrahamic religions cannot be disproven, and not the more nebulous beliefs of Gods in the East.

Atheists by and large do not entertain the fruitless attempts to disprove the existence of God and mostly base their view on whether there are reasons to believe.

Sounds something like the Baha'i view of God.

 

[Tomef]

I wrote them into a sort of poem

What is all encompasing, infinite and eternal?

Comes before anything and is after if tomorrow comes?

That which is within and without?

Which composes all things?

Who seems empty but is never exhausted?

Who is colourless, who has no form and looks like no creature?

Who permeates existence both as themselves and as the spark within you

Present in every space and outside it?

Inable to be comprehended by any man?

That which all religions are aiming at but missing?

Who are limited to and in and of themselves

That which is one thing, greatest of benefit?

That all things are and were made by?

To which we return to once dead?

That which guides all the badness into less distribution, dulls itself gradually, yet still fertilizes goodness?

That which is so unlimited it has all capabilities and stretches throughout and past every universe?

They the unique and indivisible?

That which excels in speed because of their girth?

They who exist independent of anything, who created all things?

Who does not even exist

Who composes consciousness and existence

They who are the final standard of what is right, making the most of itself, efficiency, practicality?

It is not that things are hard to distinguish without soliditiy

It is not because we want to be cool that we do not like labels

It is because the Ocean doing the wave, the reality doing the human

The Void from which we all emanate that unites us all

And it is limited not only to the self once, but to themselves again as the final standard

And together we stand by their universal decree

Their final standard

For when one hurts another, they feel the pain immediately,

As health, mental health, and reaction including happiness, and impact on the world

Which comes back to you

And throughout their life,

As impact on the world, including the self and everything else,

As impact on other people, further compounding impacts on the world which leads to the self

Regardless of who realizes it

Make the most of Nothing, be efficient, like we all do

I once found a god in my hair
who said he’s the only one there
but later I found
little gods by the pound
and they’ve set up a permanent lair.

Those little buggers exist all right. The empirical evidence is my itchy scalp.

 

[Nakosis]

Proving that things don’t exist is in my job description. I do it every day.

What non-existent thing have you proven lately?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

What non-existent thing have you proven lately?

Let’s take a recent example from Andrew Wiles, instead. Fermat thought he had a proof, but it was too long to fit in the margin.

There do not exist positive integers x, y, z, n with n>2 such that x^n + y^n = z^n.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let’s take a recent example from Andrew Wiles, instead. Fermat thought he had a proof, but it was too long to fit in the margin.

There do not exist positive integers x, y, z, n with n>2 such that x^n + y^n = z^n.

Math Logic is the philosophy of number theory not proof of non-existent things. You seem to fail to understand the purpose of math.

The proofs of math are to develop the practical tools of math in science and everyday life. Math has no interest in non-existent "things"

Mathematical proof - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A mathematical proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement, showing that the stated assumptions logically guarantee the conclusion. The argument may use other previously established statements, such as theorems; but every proof can, in principle, be constructed using only certain basic or original assumptions known as axioms,[2][3][4] along with the accepted rules of inference. Proofs are examples of exhaustive deductive reasoning which establish logical certainty, to be distinguished from empirical arguments or non-exhaustive inductive reasoning which establish "reasonable expectation". Presenting many cases in which the statement holds is not enough for a proof, which must demonstrate that the statement is true in all possible cases. A proposition that has not been proved but is believed to be true is known as a conjecture, or a hypothesis if frequently used as an assumption for further mathematical work.

Proofs employ logic expressed in mathematical symbols, along with natural language which usually admits some ambiguity. In most mathematical literature, proofs are written in terms of rigorous informal logic. Purely formal proofs, written fully in symbolic language without the involvement of natural language, are considered in proof theory. The distinction between formal and informal proofs has led to much examination of current and historical mathematical practice, quasi-empiricism in mathematics, and so-called folk mathematics, oral traditions in the mainstream mathematical community or in other cultures. The philosophy of mathematics is concerned with the role of language and logic in proofs, and mathematics as a language.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah typical atheist trash. Resort to mind games so that I can be upity to anyone who present knowledge that's not so scientifically proven we have actually looked for why it may be true.

I did like you, guy with the futhark. You show yourself to be noticeably mature.

Careful insulting atheists to justify your agenda. It is about as meaningful as "hating math."

 

[ChieftheCef]

I like the quote.
It describes things that cannot be disproven.
Originally, it was used to describe a physics paper.

Put that way, it is kinda cool. Sorry if any bad blood was inferred by me.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Careful insulting atheists to justify your agenda. It is about as meaningful as "hating math."

Big words does mean you're probably right. Big probably.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Math Logic is the philosophy of number theory not proof of non-existent things. You seem to fail to understand the purpose of math.

Doing math is fun.

That’s the purpose of math.

Is something else required in your religion?

William Rowan Hamilton (Science YouTuber Collab) | A Capella Science​

 

[ChieftheCef]

True, but no belief in God or a 'Source' some call Gods can be disproven, The God of the Abrahamic religions cannot be disproven, and not the more nebulous beliefs of Gods in the East.

Actually, it can. It is so antinature it is bad for us and wishing this unnecessary gunking up of Nature causes even jehovah's own people to suffer. That's why it's so important to spend time disproving things, it can be done regardless of what it is. It just takes the right mind.

Atheists by and large do not entertain the fruitless attempts to disprove the existence of God and mostly base their view on whether there are reasons to believe.

Sounds something like the Baha'i view of God.

What do you mean?

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually, it can. It is so antinature it is bad for us and wishing this unnecessary gunking up of Nature causes even jehovah's own people to suffer. That's why it's so important to spend time disproving things, it can be done regardless of what it is. It just takes the right mind.

Logical proof requires assumptions, and in subjective beliefs such as the belief in Gods there is no supporting objective evidence that could support assumption of any such argument, therefore it is not a matter of proof, but belief in your own assumptions that a God or Gods exist. Most often an inherited belief over the generations.

Can you provide a logical proof that any sort of God or Gods exist?

You refer to Jehovah's people needs more clarification. Are you referring to believers in Jehovah Witness.

What do you mean?

What you said: "Yeah typical atheist trash. Resort to mind games so that I can be upity to anyone who present knowledge that's not so scientifically proven we have actually looked for why it may be true."

Trashing atheism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Put that way, it is kinda cool. Sorry if any bad blood was inferred by me.

I'm an insensitive jerk, even when I'm being civil.
So your reaction is understandable.

 

[ChieftheCef]

I'm an insensitive jerk, even when I'm being civil.
So your reaction is understandable.

I have been but I am trying not to be. The internet is especially infuriating because you can't see their exact actions with each word. I'd not be like this in person. Honestly I love the internet for learning, but everything else sucks somehow.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Logical proof requires assumptions, and in subjective beliefs such as the belief in Gods there is no supporting objective evidence that could support assumption of any such argument, therefore it is not a matter of proof, but belief in your own assumptions that a God or Gods exist. Most often an inherited belief over the generations.

Can you provide a logical proof that any sort of God or Gods exist?

You refer to Jehovah's people needs more clarification. Are you referring to believers in Jehovah Witness.

What you said: "Yeah typical atheist trash. Resort to mind games so that I can be upity to anyone who present knowledge that's not so scientifically proven we have actually looked for why it may be true."

Trashing atheism.

I'll give you the arguement: religions posit that what amounts to nothing, exists. and science found evidence of it, hence the quote nothing and then everything.

How Was Space Created From Nothing | Science-Atlas.com

Our Universe, Created From Nothing . THERE WAS A TIME, perhaps 10 to 20 billion years ago, when the universe as we know it did not exist. At that "time,"...

science-atlas.com

SOrry if I'm mad. You work so hard at something to find out what it is and it's a baby.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Logical proof requires assumptions, and in subjective beliefs such as the belief in Gods there is no supporting objective evidence that could support assumption of any such argument, therefore it is not a matter of proof, but belief in your own assumptions that a God or Gods exist. Most often an inherited belief over the generations.

Can you provide a logical proof that any sort of God or Gods exist?

You refer to Jehovah's people needs more clarification. Are you referring to believers in Jehovah Witness.

Monotheists mostly, but it spread in time to the Dharmic aswell. I don't know about Natives of the Americas, whatever you might call each group. I hope not, it poisons the soul to be against nature.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'll give you the argument: religions posit that what amounts to nothing, exists. and science found evidence of it, hence the quote nothing and then everything.

This a problem of equating the philosophical/theological absolute nothing which religion posits and the scientific Quantum nothingness described as:
How the Physics of Nothing Underlies Everything | Quanta Magazine

How the Physics of Nothing Underlies Everything | Quanta Magazine

The key to understanding the origin and fate of the universe may be a more complete understanding of the vacuum.

www.quantamagazine.org

Quantum Nothingness​

Nothing started to seem like something in the 20th century, as physicists came to view reality as a collection of fields: objects that fill space with a value at each point (the electric field, for instance, tells you how much force an electron will feel in different places). In classical physics, a field’s value can be zero everywhere so that it has no influence and contains no energy. “Classically, the vacuum is boring,” said Daniel Harlow, a theoretical physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Nothing is happening.”

Abstractions navigates promising ideas in science and mathematics. Journey with us and join the conversation.

---

See all Abstractions blog​

But physicists learned that the universe’s fields are quantum, not classical, which means they are inherently uncertain. You’ll never catch a quantum field with exactly zero energy. Harlow likens a quantum field to an array of pendulums — one at each point in space — whose angles represent the field’s values. Each pendulum hangs nearly straight down but jitters back and forth.

Left alone, a quantum field will stay in its minimum-energy configuration, known as its “true vacuum” or “ground state.” (Elementary particles are ripples in these fields.) “When we talk about the vacuum of a system, we have in mind in some loose way the preferred state of the system,” said Garcia Garcia.

Most of the quantum fields that fill our universe have one, and only one, preferred state, in which they’ll remain for eternity. Most, but not all.

How Was Space Created From Nothing | Science-Atlas.com

Our Universe, Created From Nothing . THERE WAS A TIME, perhaps 10 to 20 billion years ago, when the universe as we know it did not exist. At that "time,"...

science-atlas.com

SOrry if I'm mad. You work so hard at something to find out what it is and it's a baby.

The above better explains the difference between the scientific and religious different views of nothing.

Not comfortable with your reference, because it does not give a clear definition of Quantum Nothing different from the Theist absolute nothing,

Also it brings in the discussion of chance or design without explanation.