Proving that God is Imaginary by Logic

[TagliatelliMonster]

You made an incredible claim but you failed to provide proof that God could not exist in the universe

That is not at all what I claimed.

Do you have any evidence of your claim?

I feel no need to defend claims that I didn't make.

The quote you are responding to made no mention about where god exists, if he exists. The quote wasn't about that at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course, there is an immaterial world.

Where and how do you know?

I say you don't know. You just believe and assert.
And that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Your belief, that there is a material world, is an immaterial belief.

That a material world exists is not a belief but about as objective a fact as it can get.

Furthermore, beliefs are not immaterial as they are a thing that a material brain does.

You can't see, hold, touch, taste, smell or otherwise give evidence for your belief. It has no place in science. It is philosophy and as such a belief system.

It's not a belief.
Please don't project your flaws on the rest of us.

Science is in practice a limited human behavior, which apparently with limitations work on some forms of experiences, but not all.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

I see no point in arguing about things that are obvious.
Science has a clear purpose and goal and I consider it a waste of time and energy arguing about, or pointing out, the obvious, like saying that "science doesn't make aesthetic judgements".

Nobody claims it does. So why mention it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is not a picture of love. It is a scanning of a brain.

It's kind of hard to take a picture of an abstract concept.
Nevertheless, we can still detect it. The concept of love is an emotion. Emotions are the results of brain activity. The picture shows the brain activity that results in the emotion we call "love".

So the point here, is that "love" as an emotion is very much detectable as it has material underpinnings, and thus detectable manifestation.

It requires that you believe in a certain version of philosophy to claim it is love.

No. It's just neurology.

It is called reductive physicalism and there is no evidence of proof of that

Except there is. Like in the picture.
Off course, with your head stuck in the sand, you might have missed it.

That is no different than God

It is very different from god.
Love is an abstract concept with detectable physical manifestation, like in the picture. Then there's also behavioural manifestation.

God is an abstract concept with no detectable manifestation whatsoever, indistinguishable from imagination.

There is neither proof or evidence that reality is physical/material or from God.

There is an extreme abundance of reality being physical / material.
There is zero evidence that gods even exist, let alone that they have something to do with anything.

They are different belief systems and they both have limits.

Science is not a belief system.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Science by definition is about the material world.

"Quantum Mechanics has taught us that we must change our way of thinking about “realism”, and that this cannot be synonymous of “materialism”."
D’Ariano, G. M. (2015). It from Qubit. In A. Aguirre, B. Foster, & Z. Merali (Es.) It From Bit or Bit From It: On Physics and Information (The Frontiers Collection)? (pp. 25-35). Springer.

“Materie nicht aus Materie aufgebaut ist”
Dürr, H-P. (2009). Warum es ums Ganze geht: Neues Denken für eine Welt im Umbruch. oekom verlag.

“The only reality is mind and observations”
Henry, R. C. (2005). The mental universe. Nature, 436(7047), 29-29.

“Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure”
Tegmark, M. (2008). The mathematical universe. Foundations of Physics, 38(2), 101-150.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The I am not a materialist. In fact, under that definition, I actually don't know of anybody who is.
I am a materialist in the sense that "matter / the physical is all that seems to or can be shown to exist".
...

You can't show that the meaning of this sentence - "I am a materialist in the sense that "matter / the physical is all that seems to or can be shown to exist"" exists according to its own meaning. That is the problem.
You are using a "non-materiel" rule to claim that only matter/the physical exists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So if I post a picture of a brain scan where the person is thinking of God that would be proof of God to you?

If god is a mere emotion that radiates from physical brains and thus only exists in physical brains - sure.

In fact, there actually are regions of the brain associated with religious experience and worship.
It also lights up when apple fanboys are shown apple symbols.

You didn't watch the video. I know that love is an emotion that happens in the brain. The supposed "logic" of the video was that if you can't see, hear, touch, taste, or smell something then it doesn't exist. I proved that "logic" wrong.

The video was obviously hilariously simple minded. The title itself already shows that, because it's literally impossible to prove the non-existance of pretty much anything that doesn't make testable predictions, isn't self contradicting (like married bachelors) or which is unfalsifiable (like gods and all other supernatural nonsense).

You atheists always get logic wrong because you think logic means truth and it doesn't.

"atheists" ha?
So because one idiot makes a simple-minded clip with an atheistic point, therefor all atheists are simpletons who can't do logic.


Uhu.

Perhaps I should judge every christian based on the nonsense uttered by the likes of Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind or the Phelps. I bet you would object.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

God is an abstract concept with no detectable manifestation whatsoever, indistinguishable from imagination.

...

So imagination is not detectable according to you, yet you speak of it as real.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That definition is nothing but playing with words. You believe in the magic of words. If you say something, it is so, because you say so.

Wauw.

I'm flabbergasted how utterly dishonest you are being here and do it with such conviction and sincerity.
@ChristineM has never said anything of the sorts, nore hinted any such things.

This is all you, completely and totally strawmanning and misrepresenting her.

For shame....

Here is the definition of ChristineM - doesn't exist. It says so, so therefore it is so. You have to learn to understand this: To believe in a world independent of you, requires that you exist, so reality can't exist without you. Your very idea requires you to exist, so it amounts to an absurdity.

The only absurd thing here, is how you manage to misunderstand and misrepresent very basic simple things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wauw.

I'm flabbergasted how utterly dishonest you are being here and do it with such conviction and sincerity.
@ChristineM has never said anything of the sorts, nore hinted any such things.

This is all you, completely and totally strawmanning and misrepresenting her.

For shame....



The only absurd thing here, is how you manage to misunderstand and misrepresent very basic simple things.

Here is something by scientists:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
What science can't do:
Science doesn't make moral judgments
Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments
Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge (ChristineM uses useful and what matters)
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations(To debate the supernatural is not science)

You 2, use science in the end, where it doesn't apply and that includes materialism/physicalism, what is real and what exists. That is philosophy and not science.

That science matters and is useful is not science and doesn't tell us, what reality really is.
As for science as methodological naturalism, it start with the follow assumptions:
Reality is natural.
Reality is fair, i.e. no Matrix and what not.
Reality is knowable.

There are no evidence or proof possible for these 3 assumptions. That is why it is called methodological naturalism. You don't have to believe in God or religion. You just have to be honest and admit that it is a belief that reality is physical et all.

 

[Super Universe]

That is not at all what I claimed.



I feel no need to defend claims that I didn't make.

The quote you are responding to made no mention about where god exists, if he exists. The quote wasn't about that at all.

You have made more claims. Can you provide any evidence for these claims?

 

[Super Universe]

If god is a mere emotion that radiates from physical brains and thus only exists in physical brains - sure.

In fact, there actually are regions of the brain associated with religious experience and worship.
It also lights up when apple fanboys are shown apple symbols.



The video was obviously hilariously simple minded. The title itself already shows that, because it's literally impossible to prove the non-existance of pretty much anything that doesn't make testable predictions, isn't self contradicting (like married bachelors) or which is unfalsifiable (like gods and all other supernatural nonsense).



"atheists" ha?
So because one idiot makes a simple-minded clip with an atheistic point, therefor all atheists are simpletons who can't do logic.


Uhu.

Perhaps I should judge every christian based on the nonsense uttered by the likes of Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind or the Phelps. I bet you would object.

So you're saying a brain scan only proves that the brain reacts to information and is not proof of that thing existing? So when the person posted a brain scan of a brain thinking of love that does not prove love exists?

The video was simple minded? It was.

It's impossible to prove the non-existance of anything? That is a typical atheist argument and it is incorrect. If I say a box is empty all you have to do is look into the box. Atheists don't want to wait for the afterlife to find out the truth. You think you should have it all now. That's not the way the universe works.

All atheists are simpletons who can't do logic? You think logic is a reasonable conclusion based upon facts but many facts have to fit in with a theory. When a physicist does an equation that results in an infinity result, is that infinity an incorrect answer, or, is it proof of God?

 

[Nakosis]

No, this no can't be measured using science yet it is real, because I have shown something which can't be measured. Let me show you something which can't be measured. This sentence - "only that, which can be measured by science, is real" - can't be measured by science, because it doesn't apply to any scientific measurement standards.
That is the limit of science. That science is real, is not real, because you can't measure that. Science is a limited belief system, that works on a limited part of the world.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

I didn't say anything about science. Science is a method to falsify truth claims. No reason to expect anything more than that from it.

Humans make judgements, science can only aid in that judgement. Ultimately the judgement is up to us.

Your sentence is a physical manifestation. Science would try to falsify the claim. IOW show the existence of something which can't be measure. If you could do that, then that would be science.

What's real, make a statement about something that is real and the science would be in trying to falsify it.
What's not real, make a statement about what is not real and again you can use science to try and falsify that statement.

What science measures is the ability of a statement to support its claims.

I can measure your sentence by its number of letters. I can measure it by its ability to convey information. I'd have to say your statement is, well I'd have to say it was false because in within the context of a misunderstanding of science.

My statement, which you can test, is that something which has a measurable effect on something else is real. Something which has no measurable effect on anything can't be determined to be real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you're saying a brain scan only proves that the brain reacts to information and is not proof of that thing existing? So when the person posted a brain scan of a brain thinking of love that does not prove love exists?

The video was simple minded? It was.

It's impossible to prove the non-existance of anything? That is a typical atheist argument and it is incorrect. If I say a box is empty all you have to do is look into the box. Atheists don't want to wait for the afterlife to find out the truth. You think you should have it all now. That's not the way the universe works.

All atheists are simpletons who can't do logic? You think logic is a reasonable conclusion based upon facts but many facts have to fit in with a theory. When a physicist does an equation that results in an infinity result, is that infinity an incorrect answer, or, is it proof of God?

Well, there is no proof of God. How? Well, proof is a human concept. And God is beyond, because God is not limited by humans and how we think and that includes. So whether there is a God not has nothing to do with how we believe. You either believe in God or you do something else. But that is not proof of anything other than how you believe.

Peace and I do hope there is a God. But for that I have faith and not proof.
Regards
Mikkel

 

[Nakosis]

I didn't leave out feel, the video left out feel. You blame me but the video logic was that since you can't see, hear, touch, taste, or smell God that He doesn't exist. I used the exact same logic to explain that you can't see, hear, touch, taste, or smell love either.

Didn't watch the video, because of what other post said about it. So if you left it out because of it, ok.

Now you've decided to add another sense, that's fine, but some people say they can feel God.

Ok, not disagreeing.

Feelings exist as a physical process? No, they don't. If that was true then ascended beings and angels would not have feelings. I could explain it to you, how it really works, but I won't because it would be a waste of my time. You don't want truth, you want truth according to you.

What ascended beings and angels? You are using what's in question to support what is in question. Yes, belief in ascended beings and angels can physically affect you, but that only proves that a belief can physically affect you.

You're stuck inside a box trying to figure out what's outside the box using only what you can sense from the box.

That's why we need science. To test the truth of what people are claiming is outside the box.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn't say anything about science. Science is a method to falsify truth claims. No reason to expect anything more than that from it.

Humans make judgements, science can only aid in that judgement. Ultimately the judgement is up to us.

Your sentence is a physical manifestation. Science would try to falsify the claim. IOW show the existence of something which can't be measure. If you could do that, then that would be science.

What's real, make a statement about something that is real and the science would be in trying to falsify it.
What's not real, make a statement about what is not real and again you can use science to try and falsify that statement.

What science measures is the ability of a statement to support its claims.

I can measure your sentence by its number of letters. I can measure it by its ability to convey information. I'd have to say your statement is, well I'd have to say it was false because in within the context of a misunderstanding of science.

My statement, which you can test, is that something which has a measurable effect on something else is real. Something which has no measurable effect on anything can't be determined to be real.

This sentence is not real, because you can't see, feel as per touch, hear, smell or tastes its meaning and it has no physical reference, because it has no applicable physical scientific measurement standard to measure its meaning, yet it is real in another sense, because you do understand it, yet it is not real as per science.
So please state the physical properties of the meaning of these 2 sentences in only scientific terms!!!

You can't. How do I know that? Because "Your sentence is a physical manifestation" is meaningless, because the meaning of that sentence is not physical. It is philosophy. Your philosophical claim is that everything can be reduced to a physical manifestation. The problem is that "everything can be reduced to a physical manifestation" can't be reduced to a physical manifestation. There is no physical and scientific theory of everything.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

I can't do e.g. morality using science and it has no physical manifestation, unless you have a strict physical and scientific theory of morality. But you don't.

 

[Super Universe]

Well, there is no proof of God. How? Well, proof is a human concept. And God is beyond, because God is not limited by humans and how we think and that includes. So whether there is a God not has nothing to do with how we believe. You either believe in God or you do something else. But that is not proof of anything other than how you believe.

Peace and I do hope there is a God. But for that I have faith and not proof.
Regards
Mikkel

So, a human, you, used human concepts to tell me that you can't prove something that is beyond human conceptualization? You guys always confuse yourselves. We can understand God. We just need to start thinking way, way, way outside the box.

Whether there is a God or not has nothing to do with how we believe? So you're saying atheists and theists believe the same things?

 

[Quintessence]

Then why make a statement to cannot justify?

A person says they're not interested in argumentative conversations and you leap to the conclusion that they can't justify themselves? There's a keen difference between can't and won't. Conversations don't work when people have different expectations of the purpose of the engagement. And I got sick of internet "debates" a long time ago for a reason. Sharing thoughts and understanding each other is more important than "winning" some dumb argument on the internet. So if you want to know why I share things that I can justify (but won't to argumentative people) that's why - understanding and learning is more important to me and argumentativeness isn't about either of those things.

 

[Super Universe]

Didn't watch the video, because of what other post said about it. So if you left it out because of it, ok.



Ok, not disagreeing.



What ascended beings and angels? You are using what's in question to support what is in question. Yes, belief in ascended beings and angels can physically affect you, but that only proves that a belief can physically affect you.



That's why we need science. To test the truth of what people are claiming is outside the box.

What ascended beings and angels? The ones who are watching you now and recording everything you think, do, say. They are even making a record of every hair on your head.

We need science to test and find the truth? What if I told you that eventually science was going to prove the existence of God?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

That's why we need science. To test the truth of what people are claiming is outside the box.

There is no truth about what is outside the box. Solipsism as epistemological solipsism is the only so far rational yet limited method we have. That connects to methodological naturalism and is how science rests on these 3 unprovable beliefs.
Reality is natural.
Reality is fair, i.e. no the Matrix and what not.
Reality is knowable.

That science makes sense, has nothing to do with the truth of what reality really is. That is unknowable. Truth, as you use it, is for philosophers and other humans, who don't understand the limits of human knowledge.
Look up Agrippa's trilemma. There is a reason there is no scientific theory of truth. Science is a belief system, which appears to work.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, a human, you, used human concepts to tell me that you can't prove something that is beyond human conceptualization? You guys always confuse yourselves. We can understand God. We just need to start thinking way, way, way outside the box.

Whether there is a God or not has nothing to do with how we believe? So you're saying atheists and theists believe the same things?

Yes, with variation.
Reality is X. We just can't agree on what X is.
Reality is fair. God doesn't cheat and you are not a Boltzmann Brain.
Reality is knowable and truth matters.

All of us, who do this including atheists, who do it and religious people who do it general believe they have figure it out. I don't and hence I believe in the Wrong One. I am a strong skeptic after all. Yet I believe in God.