Proving that God is Imaginary by Logic

[mikkel_the_dane]

Since reality is without emotion it can't care right? Reality doesn't have the capacity to care.

So I care and thus I am not a part of reality, right? So how do you communicate with me, since I am not a part of reality?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are no High Priests of Science. Unfortunately, people do create a mythos about science. It's a pretty simple concept. Make a claim, provide evidence to support your claim. Let anyone do their best to disprove it. When they can't, you can gloat, at least temporarily until someone does disprove it.

Sure, people can make claims about anything, even science. In my experience, this is what works best. Science is a tool like a hammer. People can try different tools and call it a hammer. They can take a marshmallow and call it a hammer. This is the hammer I would use to test the reliability of a statement.

So you only use science to test the reliability of a statement? Is that it?

 

[Super Universe]

I would say you are wrong since science doesn't prove the existence of things. Science tries to disprove things. Provide a God. Make a claim about this God. Science will try to disapprove the claim. Since you can't produce God, science can't test any of the claims you make about God. Until you produce a God nothing you claim about God can be tested. However, since none of your claims can be tested, nobody has any reason to listen to them.

Ok science works like this, I'll make a claim and provide evidence to support the claim. Everyone else in the world gets to try to disprove my claim, using my evidence and whatever other evidence they can bring to bear. If everyone continues to fail to disprove my claim that only increases its reliability. It doesn't actually prove it since there is always the possibility of it being disproven by somebody. I suppose we are not proving the statement itself, we are proving the reliability of the statement. The likelihood of the statement to remain true.

Science doesn't prove the existence of things? Do galaxies exist? Black holes? Neutrons? What about the Higgs field? What about E=MC2?

I should make a claim about God and have science prove or disprove it? The idea of God precedes science by at least 10,000 years.

Until I produce God nothing I claim about God can be tested? Wrong. Your stuck in a box, the rest of us are not.

Science works like this, scientists agree to force the idea of the big bang onto the people even though the math says it doesn't work. Einstein says that black holes are possible but that the universe doesn't really make things like that, then we find black holes. Uh oh! Why wouldn't the universe create things like that even though the math said it did? Because the scientists are putting their own desires into the theories regardless of what the math says.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, I know reality in itself is a brick wall and that is all reality is. Oh grief!!!
It is a stupid argument because:
A) It involves a human and thus not just reality in itself and it is not the only version of useful and what matters or indeed real.
B) The idea that reality is explained by a simple single example is beyond me.

A) word salad

B) You can have millions/billions of examples, it would make no difference,

 

[ChristineM]

So I can scroll back and find that you use useful and what matters. Now, don't use claim it. Give evidence, proof and use science.
That facts matter is not different than claiming God exists. If it was that simple then God exists, because the words say so. So facts doesn't matter, because the words say so. You have to give evidence, proof and use science.

What is your problem. You can scroll back and find your post, that my dear is fact, get used to it

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A) word salad

B) You can have millions/billions of examples, it would make no difference,

Now throw the word "real" at the wall and tell me what you experience.

There is what real really is.
You have seen a lake, right. Now imagine a lake. It is not a real lake, but it is real that you can imagine a lake. Thus imagination is real. Now imagine there are 2 ducks in the lake. The one is a real duck and the other is unreal, since it is a real decoy duck.
The problem with real is that it is relative, subjective and it has not objective referent. You do know what an objective referent is, right?

 

[PureX]

You don't seem to grasp the basic understanding that the brain is an elecro chemical device that produces signals that can be measured.

So what? The IDEAS produced can't be measured. They exist, and yet do not exist. And that's ALL of them, not just some of them. The results transcend the physics that generate them. "Existence", itself, is a metaphysical, ideological, conceptual cognitive phenomenon. Like "God", or "beauty", or "love", or "justice", or "infinity", or "equality", or ... the list goes on.

Try hitting a brick wall and see how real it is.

I still don't see why you think this comment is even relevant to this discussion. Some objects I can pass through, some I cannot. So what? Is a brick wall more "real" than fog?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is your problem. You can scroll back and find your post, that my dear is fact, get used to it

Facts matter. Now give evidence, proof and science for that.

 

[ChristineM]

Now throw the word "real" at the wall and tell me what you experience.

There is what real really is.
You have seen a lake, right. Now imagine a lake. It is not a real lake, but it is real that you can imagine a lake. Thus imagination is real. Now imagine there are 2 ducks in the lake. The one is a real duck and the other is unreal, since it is a real decoy duck.
The problem with real is that it is relative, subjective and it has not objective referent. You do know what an objective referent is, right?

your magic word here is imagine.

Real is objective, the brick wall is objective, the world is objective, your imagination is not required

 

[ChristineM]

Facts matter. Now give evidence, proof and science for that.

No

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

your magic word here is imagine.

Real is objective, the brick wall is objective, the world is objective, your imagination is not required

But it is a part of the world, so a part of the world is not objective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No

So you are a believer. Welcome to the rest of humanity.

 

[ChristineM]

So what? The IDEAS produced can't be measured. They exist, and yet do not exist. And that's ALL of them, not just some of them. The results transcend the physics that generate them. "Existence", itself, is a metaphysical, ideological, conceptual cognitive phenomenon. Like "God", or "beauty", or "love", or "justice", or "infinity", or "equality", or ... the list goes on.
I still don't see why you think this comment is even relevant to this discussion. Some objects I can pass through, some I cannot. So what? Is a brick wall more "real" than fog?

They can be observed as reaction in your brain.

The brick wall was a simple idea of a real object, i am surprised you didn't understand that

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They can be observed as reaction in your brain.

The brick wall was a simple idea of a real object, i am surprised you didn't understand that

So ideas are subjective and the world is objective. Then where are ideas?

 

[ChristineM]

But it is a part of the world, so a part of the world is not objective.

What are you rabbiting about.

Of course parts of the world, brick wall for example are objective. Imagination is subjective

 

[PureX]

They can be observed as reaction in your brain.

The brick wall was a simple idea of a real object, i am surprised you didn't understand that

Your bias is rendering your comments more and more absurd.

 

[ChristineM]

So you are a believer. Welcome to the rest of humanity.

What? Because i wont play your silly games? How do you work that out?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When you are talking about gods then the name matters. Names only matter when there are many different beings, when there is only one God then the name doesn't matter. If the one creator's real name is Jeremiah or Matthew, which one is better?

I'm not sure where this flows with my comment?

Love is a thought and not a being so I cannot compare love to a being? Have you ever seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled George Washington? Oh, you haven't? Then he never existed. Logic. See how it gets you into trouble?

Not sure how the two statements compare. Love is an emotion. A being/deity (person?) is not.

George washington?

I shouldn't put all atheists together? You put yourself into their category when you try to use logic as if it leads to truth when it doesn't.

Not sure I follow. Turning it around doesn't solve the situation. I'm just an atheist because I do not believe any deity exist: Eastern, Abrahamic, Pagan, so have you. I wasn't raised around christian thought. Never understood christian deities (and no other for that matter). Just on RF.

So..... unless you're bringing up an argument, I have no clue what you're referring to?

This is how atheists use logic: two guys are arguing about which car is better a '69 Camaro or a '64 Mustang.

The atheist using logic comes in and says "The Camaro is red."

The guys reply "That doesn't help." So then the atheist says "The Mustang is yellow."

Again the guys say that doesn't help so the atheist says "the Camaro has four wheels."

The two guys are silent so the atheist says "The Mustang has a gas tank." And this goes on and on and on and on.

I tried to follow this and couldn't. I'm not sure if all atheists use logic though. Most I came across just have issues with the christian god. I haven't met any who talk about Pagan and Hindu gods is the same manner that they do abrahamic (and even so, they are all different). So, it's kinda hard to comment when not all atheists think the same neither their counterpart.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What are you rabbiting about.

Of course parts of the world, brick wall for example are objective. Imagination is subjective

So all of the world is objective, yet imagination is subjective and a part of the world. That is a contradiction. Something can both be objective and subjective in the same sense. You are wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

So ideas are subjective and the world is objective. Then where are ideas?

Sheesh???

Already mentioned, they are the result of electrochemical processes in the brain