Poll: what if proof of no God?

[PureX]

That God exists is self-evident. (God being the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.) What is missing is the content.

There is no disproving the mystery until you provide and prove the content. And once you've done that, you can't then disprove it.

 

[Eddi]

You cannot prove a negative. It is just as impossible to prove there is no god as to prove there are no unicorns.

It is a thought experiment.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That God exists is self-evident. (God being the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.) What is missing is the content.

There is no disproving the mystery until you provide and prove the content. And once you've done that, you can't then disprove it.

Perhaps the wording could be different - like swap existence for God?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nobody reasoned themselves into theism, and the true believers are unlikely to reason themselves out. When belief is based on faith, facts and reason usually have little impact.

Well, I have reasoned myself into being religious, but then I am not a theist, nor an atheist, yet I still have a positive concept of God, though not Abrahamic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A lot of people argue from incredulity, and don't understand either the mechanisms responsible for nature's awesomness, or how we know about them. They chalk it all up to divine magic



True, but much can be understood with the proper use of facts, reason and logic.

Evidence that nature is awesome.
I mean as it stands I can't replicate your claim using any of the 5 external senses, haven't found any instrument to measure that with or any natural science theory of awesomeness.

 

[PureX]

Perhaps the wording could be different - like swap existence for God?

What is self evident is the unresolved question of source and purpose.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps the wording could be different - like swap existence for God?

Well, yes. The problem is that the word existence has no objective referent just like God, so you really haven't solved anything.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What is self evident is the unresolved question of source and purpose.

But the last, as to purpose is rather up to what we make of life - unless dictated as to beliefs.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, yes. The problem is that the word existence has no objective referent just like God, so you really haven't solved anything.

Neither has anyone who uses the term 'God'. And at least existence is rather neutral.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In my view, when we have compelling proofs of anything, not only do we publicize, we give prizes like the Nobel for it.

In any case, that wouldn't have much different an outcome than letting it trickle out on its own. As we see from anti-vaxxers, all the proof in the world doesn't trump what people believe. It is a rare individual who can overcome his own beliefs, no matter how they've been disproven.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Neither has anyone who uses the term 'God'. And at least existence is rather neutral.

Well, not really. You can't observe with evidence that existence is anything, because there is no objective existence and thus no property of existence.
Debating with you, is not unlike debating with a dogmatic believer in God.
In both cases there is a concept, which can't be doubted. For you it is existence.

 

[PureX]

But the last, as to purpose is rather up to what we make of life - unless dictated as to beliefs.

Nevertheless, we seek an answer from outside ourselves that we cannot get. We call that resolution "God", but the label doesn't fill in the content for us. It just labels it.

The quest is real, and is self-evident. This can't be "disproved".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But the last, as to purpose is rather up to what we make of life - unless dictated as to beliefs.

Well, yes. But there really is no universal we for that.
And the usual debate centers around to in effect dogmatic styles. The universe is natural or the universe is supernatural, but for both they are not universal or objective in effect.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Nevertheless, we seek an answer from outside ourselves that we cannot get. We call that resolution "God", but the label doesn't fill in the content for us. It just labels it.

The quest is real, and is self-evident. This can't be "disproved".

Only for those who have to label anything as 'God', given that many of us prefer to defer.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, not really. You can't observe with evidence that existence is anything, because there is no objective existence and thus no property of existence.
Debating with you, is not unlike debating with a dogmatic believer in God.
In both cases there is a concept, which can't be doubted. For you it is existence.

Perhaps that is because I live in the real world and not some imaginary one. What is more neutral than existence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Only for those who have to label anything as 'God', given that many of us prefer to defer.

Yeah, you just use other labels, but threat them as facts in some cases.

 

[PureX]

Only for those who have to label anything as 'God', given that many of us prefer to defer.

The label doesn't matter. Even the made up content we attach to it doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is what we can do with the open possibilities the mystery presents us with.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps that is because I live in the real world and not some imaginary one.

There is no objective evidence for real. It is in the mind, just like God. So you just use another label that you treat as a fact. So you live in an imaginary one too.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There is no objective evidence for real. It is in the mind, just like God. So you just use another label that you treat as a fact. So you live in an imaginary one too.

The real world, as we know it physically, is the only basis as a starting point, otherwise we are doomed to speculation and fantasies - as many will do anyway. There is only one thing that I do know - that I exist - and if someone was not replying to my comments then I might think otherwise - but they do. Do what you like with words but that is the basis for our existence. We happen to inhabit an existence in human form that is made up of much smaller particles yet we know of the immensity of the universe too. Where else would we inhabit - other than in our imaginations?

 

[Mock Turtle]

The label doesn't matter. Even the made up content we attach to it doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is what we can do with the open possibilities the mystery presents us with.

I think the abundance of so many conflicting religions tells against this though - given such often controls their lives via intermediaries. I prefer to be free of such.