Proving that God is Imaginary by Logic

[ChristineM]

Here is a definition of God. God is the source of reality. Now that doesn't mean that it is correct, with evidence or proven. That is the same with your definition. It simply states how some words are used. Just like the definition I gave of God. So you have not shown that the definition you use is correct, with evidence or proof. You have just dogmatically claimed that that is how reality is, because you use the word "reality" in this manner. But the word "reality" and its definition is not reality as such. If that was the case then words would be magical and you wouldn't, exist because ChristineM means non-existence.

In effect you have made a believer argument. A lot of people believe in the reality I believe in, therefore reality exists so. Now compare with this. A lot of people believe in the God, I believe in, therefore God exists so.
That is the quality of your argument. You in effect treat words like being magical.
If the definition of a words is so, then it is so, because that is the definition and that makes it so.

Now there is more. You have proven and given evidence to the fact and reality, that my writing is irrelevant nonsense. Now either that is a part of reality or irrelevant nonsense is real, yet not a part of reality.
So ChristineM, how is irrelevant nonsense real? You treat it as real? So how do you know, that it is irrelevant nonsense? What is your evidence?
Well, I will answer for you. It is based on, how you think. That there is irrelevant nonsense wouldn't be the case without humans and yet you treat it as being a part of reality, because you only speak of reality and it is independent of humans, yet irrelevant nonsense is not independent of humans.
That is the problem with your worldview. You treat parts of it as real, yet it is not real according to how you claim, that reality is.
Irrelevant nonsense is not real, yet you treat it as real.

Which god is that definition for and which person? Everyone who believes in a particular god has their own definition. As for source of reality... Your evidence please

Reality existed long before humans, it is not a human concept. What the word reality is is the english speaking humans attempt to describe something that has existed at least since this universe began.

 

[Nakosis]

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

Faith in what? You have no means to test whether what you believe about God is true. I can have faith that God eats human souls and craps out whatever remains. Since there is no way of testing the truth of that statement, it's as good as anyone else's claim about God.

You can imagine whatever God you what and believe that God exists. No way of knowing whether what you imagined is correct or not. Faith equals wishful thinking. Unfortunately, reality doesn't care about our wishful thinking.

It would be nice if it did. Then I'd have faith that I'm a darn good looking guy.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Love doesn't do anything itself? Correct but the supposed logical evidence video claimed that because you can't see, hear, touch, taste, or smell something then there is no proof of it's existence. So, using that same "logic" then love does not exist.

The problem is you atheists constantly try to use logic outside of it's bounds. Logic just classifies an argument or deems that argument valid or invalid. Logic has NOTHING to do with truth.

Some of the writers of the books of the bible received revelation but if you explain to a primitive tribal person how the space shuttle works they will undoubtedly get a lot of it wrong. When the bible talks about God being love, what it means is that the purpose of the universe is so God can experience love. Not His love for us but our love for one another. God does not experience any other emotion.

God also does not interfere. All religious people will disagree with that but it's the truth. God has never interfered with free will nor has He ever sent a flood or wrestled with a human or sent a plague or killed babies or spoken through a burning bush.

Angels do interfere and although they never say they are God they will allow a human to believe they are God so they can get the human to do something extraordinary (like Moses freeing his people).

I was reading up until you said "you atheists" then I stopped. I figure you generalize all atheists as if we all have some sort of issue with a particular god. No god/deity being exists. Abrahamic isn't special.

The "observation" that love doesn't do anything means that the OP is saying god is like a person he exists because you can't sense him with the five senses. Love is the exact same way. You cannot feel (touch), see, hear, smell, or taste god. So, love, isn't a good example to counteract the OP's statement.

If god wasn't referred to as a person or being that should have five senses for it to exist, then you can compare it to love. But many other atheists tend to make god a being of some sort so the comparison doesn't match.

If going by the OP, maybe a mythological god may compare because they are both considered beings not feelings and emotions like love.

But please don't put atheists together. That's like saying all christians experience god the same way nonetheless define him the same. It's totally false. I have no christian background; so, the observation of deit(ies) beliefs is pretty much based on my days here on RF nothing more.

 

[ChristineM]

Try throwing the word "real" against a brick wall and then tell us, how real the word "real" is. You are doing first person subjectivity. You believe in a word "real", which is not real according to your own test.
Try again.

The word is not the thing, it is the english word to describe the thing.

Sorry you have difficulty comprehending that and have to invent woo to make it sound more real to you

So you don't like the word reality, so how about virkelighed? Is that better

 

[1213]

No.

Gravity: the force of attraction between bodies of mass, related to the mass. The bigger the mass, the stronger the attraction
...
This measureable attraction is called gravity.

Yes, but you can’t see gravity, you can’t hear it, you can’t touch it, you can’t smell it, you can’t taste it, so it must be not true. Unless we can accept that things can be real, even if we can’t see, hear, smell, touch…

I think the same is with God, He can be known by His influence.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

 

[1213]

...but it can be tested.

Interesting thing is that in a way also God can be tested:

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which god is that definition for and which person? Everyone who believes in a particular god has their own definition. As for source of reality... Your evidence please

Reality existed long before humans, it is not a human concept. What the word reality is is the english speaking humans attempt to describe something that has existed at least since this universe began.

So "reality" is not a concept you defined using words and you haven't described reality using words and concepts like time or existence. Existence is a concept and not a thing. You can point to a thing, but you can't point to existence. Existence is nothing more than an idea, just like God.

You are really not that good as meta-cognition, because you functionally seem unable to understand when you are thinking and unable to catch that.
When you speak of reality, you speak of a human concept. If you speak of a reality without humans, you can't speak of it, because you are a human. So for reality not to be a human concept would mean, that you couldn't speak of it, yet you can.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Like the science. Which scientific theory is that?

 

[Nakosis]

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.

We are not using science to prove what is true. We are using science to prove what is not true. Science rest on repeatability and it's ability to falsify a claim.

You've built up a strawman and called it science. I've made a statement if you what to discuss what I said fine. If you want to talk about science, that's fine too. I guess I'm ok with clearing up the misunderstanding apparently many folks seem to have about science.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Yet reality existed long before life, no philosophical ideas required.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Faith in what? You have no means to test whether what you believe about God is true. I can have faith that God eats human souls and craps out whatever remains. Since there is no way of testing the truth of that statement, it's as good as anyone else's claim about God.

You can imagine whatever God you what and believe that God exists. No way of knowing whether what you imagined is correct or not. Faith equals wishful thinking. Unfortunately, reality doesn't care about our wishful thinking.

It would be nice if it did. Then I'd have faith that I'm a darn good looking guy.

Well, it does, because we are in reality and able to use wishful thinking, so that is a part of how reality works. That is as real as gravity is real.
So you claimed something which is not true of reality. Further you use "care" on reality. Reality is without emotion, It doesn't care nor does it care, yet humans as a part of reality care. Unless we of course are not a part of reality. So you are in effect a dualist, reality doesn't care, yet humans care and that is both a part of reality or the unreal is real.
Your turn.

 

[ChristineM]

So "reality" is not a concept you defined using words and you haven't described reality using words and concepts like time or existence. Existence is a concept and not a thing. You can point to a thing, but you can't point to existence. Existence is nothing more than an idea, just like God.

You are really not that good as meta-cognition, because you functionally seem unable to understand when you are thinking and unable to catch that.
When you speak of reality, you speak of a human concept. If you speak of a reality without humans, you can't speak of it, because you are a human. So for reality not to be a human concept would mean, that you couldn't speak of it, yet you can.

I didnt didnt define anything. I quoted the definition that does not suite your ideas, that is not my problem

When i speak of reality i speak of reality as defined. The earth is real, it existed before humans... Why do you have such difficulty comprehending such a basic concept

 

[ChristineM]

Like the science. Which scientific theory is that?

The one that is evidenced in your post

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We are not using science to prove what is true. We are using science to prove what is not true. Science rest on repeatability and it's ability to falsify a claim.

You've built up a strawman and called it science. I've made a statement if you what to discuss what I said fine. If you want to talk about science, that's fine too. I guess I'm ok with clearing up the misunderstanding apparently many folks seem to have about science.

What science is, is not even agreed upon. You use falsification and other use positivism. Yet other use pragmatism and others claim that science have nothing to do with true and not true and is a form of culture.
So you are the High Priest of Science. Well, there are no such thing. You have a belief in what science is. That is not the only one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yet reality existed long before life, no philosophical ideas required.

So you have solved epistemological and ontological solipsism. Please explain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didnt didnt define anything. I quoted the definition that does not suite your ideas, that is not my problem

When i speak of reality i speak of reality as defined. The earth is real, it existed before humans... Why do you have such difficulty comprehending such a basic concept

So you have solved epistemological and ontological solipsism. Please explain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The one that is evidenced in your post

Please give the scientific theory of useful and what matters.

 

[ChristineM]

So you have solved epistemological and ontological solipsism. Please explain.

We are talking of reality, not of you games

 

[ChristineM]

So you have solved epistemological and ontological solipsism. Please explain.

See above