Proving that God is Imaginary by Logic

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Because you don't give evidence for your belief that facts matter. You are aware, that the claim that facts matters is subjective and not part of the world, right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sheesh???

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

So subjectivity is caused by the objective but not a part of the world. How does that work?

 

[ChristineM]

Your bias is rendering your comments more and more absurd.

Biased? Why because you don't agree with the fact that emotion can be observed via mri? So sorry if that is beyond your capability to comprehend what is now a common medical practice

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Biased? Why because you don't agree with the fact that emotion can be observed via mri? So sorry if that is beyond your capability to comprehend what is now a common medical practice

And the world is objective and ideas are subjective and thus not a part of the world, because the world is objective. That is your bias. You subjectively have bias in favor of the objective.
Now again, that facts matter, is a bias and subjective.

 

[ChristineM]

Because you don't give evidence for your belief that facts matter. You are aware, that the claim that facts matters is subjective and not part of the world, right?

So you don't think facts matter?

Fact, the sun emits vast quantities of heat, fact earth benefits from some of that heat. You don't think it matters?

 

[ChristineM]

So subjectivity is caused by the objective but not a part of the world. How does that work?

Google is your friend

 

[ChristineM]

And the world is objective and ideas are subjective and thus not a part of the world, because the world is objective. That is your bias. You subjectively have bias in favor of the objective.
Now again, that facts matter, is a bias and subjective.

Word salad
Goodnight

 

[Nakosis]

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

Yes, for now you can reliably accept the fact of their existence.

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.

Sure, lots of ideas existed pre-science. Now we are able to test the reliability of claims made about those ideas. We could before, we just increased their reliability.

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

Great, make a claim, provide your evidence and lets test it.

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.

Great, here is your chance to disprove what all these scientists are claiming. The act of doing so would be, guess what... Science.

 

[Nakosis]

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

Sure to prove the reliability of a claim. Usually my own. When I make a claim on the forums, it gives everybody a chance to disprove it. Also part of my IRL job. Often, in both cases, I get proven wrong. Which is ok because then I get to make corrections.

For example, you are providing great examples of the problems with what people call science. Forces me to refine my understanding of science and what I say about science.

 

[Super Universe]

Yes, for now you can reliably accept the fact of their existence.



Sure, lots of ideas existed pre-science. Now we are able to test the reliability of claims made about those ideas. We could before, we just increased their reliability.



Great, make a claim, provide your evidence and lets test it.



Great, here is your chance to disprove what all these scientists are claiming. The act of doing so would be, guess what... Science.

I should make a claim so the scientists can test it? Here's my claim. All human experiences are not stored in the human brain. If that was true then when a person died the information of their life would cease to exist. The human brain is a biological receiver/transmitter. So, a signal is constantly being sent and received. My challenge to all scientists is to detect this signal. The problem is the signal is not EMR. It's an entirely different type of energy that probably won't be discovered in our lifetime.

Here is my chance to prove the scientists wrong? The math already proves them wrong but they won't accept it. When did that become science? When did the incorrect answer become accepted science?

 

[Nakosis]

I should make a claim so the scientists can test it? Here's my claim. All human experiences are not stored in the human brain. If that was true then when a person died the information of their life would cease to exist. The human brain is a biological receiver/transmitter. So, a signal is constantly being sent and received. My challenge to all scientists is to detect this signal. The problem is the signal is not EMR. It's an entirely different type of energy that probably won't be discovered in our lifetime.

Here is my chance to prove the scientists wrong? The math already proves them wrong but they won't accept it. When did that become science? When did the incorrect answer become accepted science?

I doubt they would argue with you about that. There exist lots and lots of ways people have available to them to record their experience. Art, music, film, writing. In fact, electronic media has become an extension of our memory. Also, I agree the brain constantly receives and transmits signals. We can detect these signals.

I assume your claim is that there exists a "spiritual" signal which is undetectable? If so, unfortunately, you've disqualified yourself. If something is undetectable it can't be tested right? Something non-detectable can't affect the universe so it's safe to ignore.

 

[Super Universe]

I doubt they would argue with you about that. There exist lots and lots of ways people have available to them to record their experience. Art, music, film, writing. In fact, electronic media has become an extension of our memory. Also, I agree the brain constantly receives and transmits signals. We can detect these signals.

I assume your claim is that there exists a "spiritual" signal which is undetectable? If so, unfortunately, you've disqualified yourself. If something is undetectable it can't be tested right? Something non-detectable can't affect the universe so it's safe to ignore.

Signals from space have been hitting the earth for billions of years. So for billions of years they were undetectable. Humans were not able to detect them until, I don't know, 1950 or so. So you're logic is that those signals did not exist until we were able to detect them?

And the signal is detectable by the brain.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I think this is a good video. Of course it is not a rigorous logical proof, but it is a good, commonsense video overall. I have no doubt that many religious people will not like it, but probably not be able to offer a sound refutation. Thoughts?

The maker of the video claims that the answers to his questions about the senses all have to be "No" or you are a delusional person.

Hardly logical IMHO.

 

[Jimmy]

When God questions himself the answer he gives is his son. When the son questions himself the answer he gives is God. It's a twofold phenomenon and existence manifest.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Just because you dont see God doesnt mean he isnt there, it means he wants to believe in him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The inability to perceive something doesn't mean it's not there, it's just you're unable to figure it out.

Yes. Just like bigfoot and unicorns.

Many religions don't have the idea that God is part of the creation but rather exists outside it or through it to some extent. (Like mine, lol.) Your simple argument might work versus more conventional religions where the divine is anthropomorphized.

My "simple" argument is merely pointing out that there is no reason to believe it, just like there is no reason to believe in bigfoot or unicorns or other magical beings.

My "simple" argument isn't talking about specific types of evidence or specific types of entities being claimed. Wheter you wish to define them internal or external to the universe or what have you. The point remains: there is as much reason to believe it as there are reasons to believe in leprechauns or unicorns. None.

In mine, the "differences" are fake, as in the differences between the creation, created, and creator. From that perspective, you're just riding around in a vehicle and reality is just a fancy video game. You're part of the Brahman (the life force/god) experiencing itself through the Atman. (soul) There is no real difference between the two conceptually in Advaita, but it is convenient to understand that the apparent separation in this context is only a delusion. So, of course, if we're working logically how do you disprove that? It's the type of thing that isn't able to be answered outside of the context of one's own awareness.

But, you sort of lost the point of my conversation on manifestations versus truth. To simplify, just because you see something doesn't mean that's what it is. If you analyze the properties of something physically first you see its dimensions and form, keep measuring you find molecules, and then atoms, and then sub-atomic particles, and then things get even smaller most likely... But, what will eventually happen is you'll figure out that they're made of nothing. It'll happen, just give it time. Both religion and science will probably end up at the same destination, given enough time.

This seems to me to be nothing but preaching.
Once again: my point is not about how you define things. My point is only that there is no justified reasons to believe any of these claims.

And no, that doesn't mean the claims are false. Just like nog having evidence of bigfoot or unicorns, doesn't mean that they don't exist either. It just means that there is no reason to believe they are real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you don't think facts matter?

Fact, the sun emits vast quantities of heat, fact earth benefits from some of that heat. You don't think it matters?

You really don't get. I believe that facts matter. I have no proof, evidence or science for that. It is subjective and wouldn't be there without humans in general. You can't see hear, touch, taste, smell or taste it. It is not physical, you can't measure and there is no scientific theory for.
Indeed if there were no humans, there would be no facts, they wouldn't matter and there would be no science, objective, physical and all that.
Yet that I believe that fact matters. That is a part of the world despite being subjective, non-physical/material and not science.

Could you for once read this - all of the page?
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Regards
Mikkel

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Science is not a belief system, but a method of inquiry.

And nobody is saying that if something can't be measure or otherwise detected, that that means that it isn't real.

Instead, people are saying that such things can't be shown to be real.
Not being able to show something real, doesn't mean it's not real.
It just means there's no reason to believe it is real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Google is your friend

I have worked for over 20 years in education. You are failed and haven't passed. Google is not a correct answer. It requires more than that. In the end it requires that you and I can use active critical thinking and check the sources. So no! Google is not the answer. If as you claim, that the world is objective yet there are parts of the world, which are subjective and you know in the general sense how the world works, it is upon you to explain it.
So how is it that the world is objective and imagination as a part of it is subjective. It follows that all parts of the world is objective, yet a part is subjective. That is a contradiction, because something can't be objective and subjective at the same time and in the same sense. It is false and it follows that you are wrong. You claim something of the world which can't be so, because it is illogical and a contradiction.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Word salad
Goodnight

Could you start making a reason argument?