Proving that God is Imaginary by Logic

[The Hammer]

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?

Step one: set aside "Logic"
Step two: BE quiet and still
Step 3: Find the Gods
Step 4: profit?

 

[Left Coast]

I would have to disagree. The God of classical theism is supposed to be both omnipotent and is supposed to care deeply about humans and what happens to us. So, in the case of that god, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence because based on how the god is described, we would expect to see unambiguous evidence of it interacting with the world.

While divine hiddenness is certainly problematic for the Abrahamics, even if we say that is a piece of evidence against such a conception of God, it doesn't allow us to conclude such a God definitely doesn't exist.

 

[ChristineM]

All you see on an MRI is the electronic signature of brain activity. A phenomena that exists in association with any and all human cognition. It neither proves nor disproves the "existence" of anything but itself. The cognition exists. Regardless of the externalized conceptualization associated with it.

Electronic signatures can be measured, specific parts of the brain react to specify stimuli, the mri shown by @Heyo in post #10 indicates the activation of the area involved with love.

 

[Rival]

I don't find reality limiting.

It depends on reality. So far, if your reality is only that which science can test, it is very, very limited and ironically, it cannot be proven that this makes up the whole of reality.

 

[ChristineM]

It depends on reality. So far, if your reality is only that which science can test, it is very, very limited and ironically, it cannot be proven that this makes up the whole of reality.

Yet the gaps continue to get smaller.

And not "your" reality but reality as in : the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Reality is real for everyone even if they deny certain parts. Or pad out those parts with idealistic and notional ideas

 

[Rival]

Yet the gaps continue to get smaller.

And not "your" reality but reality as in : the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Reality is real for everyone even if they deny certain parts. Or pad out those parts with idealistic and notional ideas

There are many gaps, but I'm not talking about those.

If reality is only what we percieve or can percieve, we are already limited. We already know our brains play a game of fill in the blanks. We already know our ego tricks us time and time again. I think it would be fair to say, we have no idea what reality is and likely never will.

 

[Quintessence]

Yet the gaps continue to get smaller.

And not "your" reality but reality as in : the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Reality is real for everyone even if they deny certain parts. Or pad out those parts with idealistic and notional ideas

Not a fan of the arts, huh?

Pardon, that's presumptuous. To get to the point, the sciences represent one way of knowing. It's a way that many enjoy - myself included - but I don't know anybody who limits themselves to it. On a day-to-day basis we don't ground our life experiences in methodological naturalism. There's far more art to it, more visceral emotionality to it, and these too are ways of knowing. Our life experiences can be contextualized in so many ways - arts and sciences both. Religion is far more akin to the arts. That, perhaps, is why I tend to get a little annoyed at posts like the OP who treat the gods as if they're supposed to be a science project. That really isn't the point, just like it's not the point of an art gallery to "scientifically represent" the subjects depicted.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

thought experiments?

if you enter a room and find a table
someone has been there
hard telling when

find a coin on the table......later on
someone has been there recently

find a coin spinning on edge
look over your shoulder

now go outside to a night time sky
and notice all that rotation

Now go outside on a dark Kansas afternoon, and notice that swirling funnel approaching with a noise like a freight train -- your analogy seems to suggest that some actual person has to be held accountable. Any idea who you'd care to blame?

 

[ChristineM]

There are many gaps, but I'm not talking about those.

If reality is only what we percieve or can percieve, we are already limited. We already know our brains play a game of fill in the blanks. We already know our ego tricks us time and time again. I think it would be fair to say, we have no idea what reality is and likely never will.

Reality is well defined and understood, what we perceive is irrelevant, reality is what exists whether we perceive it or not.

 

[ChristineM]

Not a fan of the arts, huh?

Pardon, that's presumptuous. To get to the point, the sciences represent one way of knowing. It's a way that many enjoy - myself included - but I don't know anybody who limits themselves to it. On a day-to-day basis we don't ground our life experiences in methodological naturalism. There's far more art to it, more visceral emotionality to it, and these too are ways of knowing. Our life experiences can be contextualized in so many ways - arts and sciences both. Religion is far more akin to the arts. That, perhaps, is why I tend to get a little annoyed at posts like the OP who treat the gods as if they're supposed to be a science project. That really isn't the point, just like it's not the point of an art gallery to "scientifically represent" the subjects depicted.

I am an artist.

Art is real

 

[Rival]

Reality is well defined and understood, what we perceive is irrelevant, reality is what exists whether we perceive it or not.

Yes, the problem is that we don't know what does and doesn't exist. We already know how limited materialism is. Numbers don't exist. '2' can't be scientifically tested. There's no such thing as a '2'; you can't go out and bring one to the lab. It's a concept and you can have 2 of something, but that's not 2. The concept of numbers and of pure mathematics is completely conceptual.

Is it real? Of course it's real.

 

[Quintessence]

Eh, quite frankly, the whole concept of "real" is a contrived, human construct. I did away with it a very long time ago and replaced it with something more useful.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Trying to use logic to prove something that's beyond, and the creator of, logic.

Cute.

I would be forced to paraphrase that, to say: "Trying to use logic to prove something that's assumed to beyond logic, and the creator of logic, is by definition absurd."

Of course, the reason to make the assumption isn't obvious. And logic is actually the creation of human thought -- a creation that really ought to be assumed, for those who believe in a creator deity, to be within scope of the creation itself.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, the problem is that we don't know what does and doesn't exist. We already know how limited materialism is. Numbers don't exist. '2' can't be scientifically tested. There's no such thing as a '2'; you can't go out and bring one to the lab. It's a concept and you can have 2 of something, but that's not 2. The concept of numbers and of pure mathematics is completely conceptual.

Is it real? Of course it's real.

What exists can be measured.

2 is not real, its in imaginary concept.

Pure mathematicians are real, pure mathematics is a conceptual exercise.

 

[Super Universe]

Love doesn't do anything in and of itself. It's an experience or feeling someone has and through that experience, the "person" does the action not love itself.

In the christian case (not sure about Jew and Muslim) Love "does" something. That's the difference. Can you feel love whisper in your ear (as I hear some christians tell me he does)? Does love have messengers? Children? A he? If love is beyond and above, what characteristics do you give it so that it is love and not say being happy experience that involves no person(s) in order to achieve it or vis versa?

Probably 99% christians I've spoke to during the years call god love. What is the definition of the word that would match the actions and edicts of abrahamic scripture while still maintaining it exists despite having no sensory traits outside of culture to culture and person to person interpretation of such?

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).

 

[ChristineM]

Eh, quite frankly, the whole concept of "real" is a contrived, human construct. I did away with it a very long time ago and replaced it with something more useful.

What is more useful than real?

 

[Rival]

I would be forced to paraphrase that, to say: "Trying to use logic to prove something that's assumed to beyond logic, and the creator of logic, is by definition absurd."

Of course, the reason to make the assumption isn't obvious. And logic is actually the creation of human thought -- a creation that really ought to be assumed, for those who believe in a creator deity, to be within scope of the creation itself.

Yes, logic is within the scope of creation, not the Creator. The Creator creates logic.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

From my earlier experiences...

Can you see God? - yes
Can you hear God? - yes
Can you touch/feel God? - yes
Can you taste God? - yes

IMO the conscious self exists in a virtual reality created by our brains. All of these things are a process of the brain. Normally these "physical" experiences occur from external stimuli. However, the brain is capable of recreating these internal experiences without external stimuli.

We know this/do this to some degree via our imagination. Normally though we are aware of consciously causing this process of imagination. However, I believe these experiences can also occur without conscious control/awareness. The subconscious can autonomously take over control of these experiences to where it is difficult if not impossible to consciously know whether the experience is externally or internally caused.

Conscious faith/belief allows the subconscious mind a lot more free reign to create these internal kinds of experience.

But look and see what you actually SAID -- in your own words -- which I highlight in red. Those red words suggest that you didn't experience anything, but rather invented it for yourself.

 

[Rival]

2 is not real, its in imaginary concept.

But without it, would we have science? No. So science itself is based on imaginary concepts. This is the irony.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, logic is within the scope of creation, not the Creator. The Creator creates logic.

I cannot find that this explains anything at all. It seems pretty much perfectly meaningless to me.

 

[Super Universe]

Science by definition is about the material world.



Yes.



The person who has never experienced a headache can look at an EEG etc and read a definition but not really know what a headache is. Whack that person on the skull with a book and that person will exclaim "Oh THAT's wha a headache truly is".



Talk is cheap. There's a few that walk the talk.

Science by definition is about the material world? That is about to change. And there is evidence for things that exist in other realities, the scientists just haven't accepted it yet.

You can whack a person on the head with a book and that person will experience a headache? What if the person does not feel pain at all? What if a person is blind, how do you describe the color orange to them? What if all atheists are psychopaths incapable of feeling love so they can't understand how there could be a loving being who created it all?

All "humans" are not the same.