Proving that God is Imaginary by Logic

[Nakosis]

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.

No, it was shown to me by someone else. They said this was God. At the time, I had no reason to doubt them.

 

[ChristineM]

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

You misrepresent numbers, they are defined ideas that represent reality.

Say there are two elephants. Two in any other language still means the particular quantity of elephants is deux or zwie or dwa.

Using your idea that science is based on imaginary concepts, such a concept is language. The language used to describe reality so you can understand what other people observe and measure

 

[Super Universe]

Nope. It is one visual example that love is possible to be evidenced.
But love is a bad comparison for god anyhow. Love is not a thing. Love is something we do. It's a quirk of the English language that we can substantivise a verb so it becomes just an argument of linguistics.

But there are other things that exist but aren't real, like shapes and numbers (ideals), laws and borders (constructs), literary figures like Harry Potter (fantasies) and dreams (illusions). God (depending on your definition) is most likely an illusion.

If you want proof of God I could show you a field of wildflowers, or a young kitten playing with a ball of yarn, or an infant crying because her older sister has to go to school and she won't have anyone to play with during the day. But, of course, to you, none of that is proof of God.

When you try to give a logical textbook definition of love it just ruins it. Athiests can't accurately describe something they are incapable of feeling.

God is most likely an illusion? The angels have a joke that they find absolutely hilarious, it goes like this. A human walks into a bar and asks "What is the meaning of the universe?"

I know you don't get it.

 

[Rival]

You misrepresent numbers, they are defined ideas that represent reality.

Yes, but they are not reality.

Say there are two elephants. Two in any other language still means the particular quantity of elephants is deux or zwie or dwa.

Yes, but this is two of, not '2'.

Using your idea that science is based on imaginary concepts, such a concept is language. The language used to describe reality so you can understand what other people observe and measure

Yes, this is exactly my point. Most of human society is based on concepts that exist only within our mind; numbers; language; society; art; morals; culture etc.

But this still is removed from my original contention.

Science can only test empirically. It ignores the things that it has already deemed 'unreal' a priori. Things such as ghosts, spirits, souls, the afterlife, etc. Some people, many people in fact, believe they have solid reasons for accepting the existence of these things. Yet science in its materialist limitations just dismisses them outright. Saying 'I can't prove it exists using my materialistic science therefore it doesn't' is a very limited view. The problem is we are so used to it, we think it is the only way to decide what's real. To millions of people, it's not. It's the way to test what's materially real, but that doesn't encompass the whole of reality.

 

[ChristineM]

If you want proof of God I could show you a field of wildflowers, or a young kitten playing with a ball of yarn, or an infant crying because her older sister has to go to school and she won't have anyone to play with during the day. But, of course, to you, none of that is proof of God.

When you try to give a logical textbook definition of love it just ruins it. Athiests can't accurately describe something they are incapable of feeling.

God is most likely an illusion? The angels have a joke that they find absolutely hilarious, it goes like this. A human walks into a bar and asks "What is the meaning of the universe?"

I know you don't get it.

you have just filled lots of gaps with god because you don't know

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, but they are not reality.

So, no is language

Yes, but this is two of, not '2'.

There are 2 elephants.. two of or 2, still one + 1

Yes, this is exactly my point. Most of human society is based on concepts that exist only within our mind; numbers; language; society; art; morals; culture etc.

Earth, air, water, calcium, gravity

Science can only test empirically. It ignores the things that it has already deemed 'unreal' a priori. Things such as ghosts, spirits, souls, the afterlife, etc. Some people, many people in fact, believe they have solid reasons for accepting the existence of these things. Yet science in its materialists limitations just dismisses them outright. Saying 'I can't prove it exists using my materialistic science therefor it doesn't' is a very limited view. The problem is we are so used to it, we think it is the only way to decide what's real. To millions of people, it's not. It's the way to test what's materially real, but that doesn't encompass the whole.

Science dows not work with belief, but with evidence.

 

[Heyo]

If you want proof of God

I don't want proof of god. I'm not an atheist (OK, I am an atheist but only as a consequence.) I am an Agnostic.
I don't know what a god is - and neither do you. Almost nobody who believes in god has the same definition of god as you have - each of you have the illusion of knowledge but without consent, Harry Potter is more real than god.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Athiests can't accurately describe something they are incapable of feeling.

An interesting argument. What is it you are suggesting that atheists are incapable of feeling? Love? The "Presence of God?"

And what if I riposted with my own assertion that "theists can't accurately describe something they are incapable of thinking?"

You may answer in the same vein, if you like?

 

[Super Universe]

I don't want proof of god. I'm not an atheist (OK, I am an atheist but only as a consequence.) I am an Agnostic.
I don't know what a god is - and neither do you. Almost nobody who believes in god has the same definition of god as you have - each of you have the illusion of knowledge but without consent, Harry Potter is more real than god.

I don't know what a god is? I know a whole lot more than you think I do.

A modern educated man went to visit a tribe in New Guinea. After a few days when he knew them better he got out an inflatable beach ball that looked like a globe. He inflated it and explained to the tribe where they were on the earth and he explained to them that the earth turns which makes it look like the sun and stars are moving when it's actually our planet that is spinning. The tribe was quiet and listened.

The man tried to explain how the season's change but because New Guinea is close to the equator the tribe never noticed that the sun actually moves overhead slightly different at times then it goes back. When the educated man was finished he handed the beach ball to the tribe and they tossed it on the ground and began kicking it around like a soccer ball.

The man gave the tribe information that was thousands of years beyond them and they didn't accept it. They thought they were smarter than the educated man because he didn't know what plants were medicine or how to hunt monkeys with a small bow and arrow.

Which one are you, the tribe or the modern man?

 

[Super Universe]

An interesting argument. What is it you are suggesting that atheists are incapable of feeling? Love? The "Presence of God?"

And what if I riposted with my own assertion that "theists can't accurately describe something they are incapable of thinking?"

You may answer in the same vein, if you like?

Science thinks that about 1% of the worlds population are psychopaths and 1% sociopaths. What I am suggesting is that this is incorrect by a very large amount.

I am also suggesting that even if a person cares slightly for their own spouse (because they don't want to be alone) and they care somewhat for their children (but not really) that's not enough to make them not a psychopath. Humanity is extremely selfish. All of you, atheists and religious people.

You just compare yourself to the worst of humanity to feel that you're a good person when you're not. To be a good person you have to go out and do things for others, strangers, without getting anything in return.

Theists can't describe something they are incapable of thinking? No one can.

 

[Heyo]

I don't know what a god is? I know a whole lot more than you think I do.

[long fairy tale]

Which one are you, the tribe or the modern man?

I'm the one calling you out for trying to deflect.
Knowledge, real knowledge, is transferable. Scientific knowledge is something every (or at least a vast majority of) scientist in that field accepts.
There is no knowledge about god that has a similar track record.
Do we agree?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

I agree, that's why I said that I didn't believe the video was a "proof" but merely a "good video."

 

[sun rise]

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.

An illustrative example is not meant to be 100% applicable to everyone.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You can't see love, you can't hear it, you can't touch it, taste it, or smell it, therefore it doesn't exist for atheists. So, therefore, all atheists are psychopaths.

Logic.

You can't see hate, you can't hear it, you can't touch it, taste it, or smell it, therefore it doesn't exist for atheists. So, therefore, all atheists are loved- up peaceniks.

Logic.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Science thinks that about 1% of the worlds population are psychopaths and 1% sociopaths. What I am suggesting is that this is incorrect by a very large amount.

I am also suggesting that even if a person cares slightly for their own spouse (because they don't want to be alone) and they care somewhat for their children (but not really) that's not enough to make them not a psychopath. Humanity is extremely selfish. All of you, atheists and religious people.

You just compare yourself to the worst of humanity to feel that you're a good person when you're not. To be a good person you have to go out and do things for others, strangers, without getting anything in return.

Theists can't describe something they are incapable of thinking? No one can.

First of all, let me ask, to your "all of you, atheists and religious people," do you consider yourself neither? Are you not of this realm? Are you something other, something special?

And second, I'd like to point out that humanity simply is what it is. If one thinks it was created, or one accepts evolution, is not the point -- the point is, here we are, this is us. And the best thing to do about that is to try and find out something about us.

I assure you that from what you wrote in the quote above, you know very little about human nature (that may be because you don't think you're among us, as I questioned earlier). But there has been some very, very good thinking on the topic. I might suggest starting with "Le Bon David" David Hume's book, "On Human Nature." A good followup to that would be "On Human Nature" by the very estimable Edward O. Wilson. To give something of a religious tie-in, I also suggest that you consider Professor Jacob Needleman's "Why Can't We Be Good," along with my own friend, Dr. Robert Buckman's, "Can We Be Good Without God."

I am very familar with all of those, by the way (the Wilson is beside my bed right now, and I read some every night before sleeping).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, it was shown to me by someone else. They said this was God. At the time, I had no reason to doubt them.

And now?

And did you never think that "I have no reason to doubt" is only one half of thinking, the other half being, "do I have any reason to be certain?"

 

[February-Saturday]

I'm the one calling you out for trying to deflect.
Knowledge, real knowledge, is transferable. Scientific knowledge is something every (or at least a vast majority of) scientist in that field accepts.
There is no knowledge about god that has a similar track record.
Do we agree?

Not to bud in, but no. I'm a perennialist. I think psychology and anthropology are beginning to show the common core of all religions, and I usually find myself agreeing with the fundamentals of what pretty much every other mystic and esotericist is talking about. I think there's a great deal of agreement about God in educated circles; it's just mostly stayed out of the exoteric arguments of the masses.

Usually, it's a form of Pantheism, Panentheism, or apophatic theology (which are compatible concepts, if not the same core concept in different dressings, and aren't even technically theistic) who approach God through incredibly similar mystical trances, although the precise methods of achieving these trances differ from culture to culture. I could quote specific figures like Robert K. C. Foreman or Huston Cummings Smith to support this idea purely academically rather than anecdotally, too. I would also probably point to archetypal and transcendental psychologies.

There are quite a few elements of God that are found to be just as near-universal as our understanding of black holes, and even among scientists like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking who studied black holes they made references to God from this same perspective; so it's even common among scientists. I recently heard Richard Dawkins speculate that this image of God is probably what most scientists are professing a belief in, while talking about cultural Christianity and Hinduism.

So it appears to me that there is a lot of consensus.

 

[Super Universe]

I'm the one calling you out for trying to deflect.
Knowledge, real knowledge, is transferable. Scientific knowledge is something every (or at least a vast majority of) scientist in that field accepts.
There is no knowledge about god that has a similar track record.
Do we agree?

Stories teach but you have to be able to understand them to learn from them. Nobody can teach you anything if you think you already know everything.

There is no knowledge about God that is majority accepted by the religions? That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Also, many accepted scientific beliefs are going to be found to be incorrect in the next 50 years.

Are there any atheists who aren't selfish psychopathic cry babies? The typical atheist: Me Nog. Me smart (as drool pours out of his mouth). Me want universe my way.

 

[Left Coast]

I agree, that's why I said that I didn't believe the video was a "proof" but merely a "good video."

But in the video, he dogmatically declares that God does not exist, and anyone who believes he does is "delusional." That's the entire point of the video.

 

[Super Universe]

First of all, let me ask, to your "all of you, atheists and religious people," do you consider yourself neither? Are you not of this realm? Are you something other, something special?

And second, I'd like to point out that humanity simply is what it is. If one thinks it was created, or one accepts evolution, is not the point -- the point is, here we are, this is us. And the best thing to do about that is to try and find out something about us.

I assure you that from what you wrote in the quote above, you know very little about human nature (that may be because you don't think you're among us, as I questioned earlier). But there has been some very, very good thinking on the topic. I might suggest starting with "Le Bon David" David Hume's book, "On Human Nature." A good followup to that would be "On Human Nature" by the very estimable Edward O. Wilson. To give something of a religious tie-in, I also suggest that you consider Professor Jacob Needleman's "Why Can't We Be Good," along with my own friend, Dr. Robert Buckman's, "Can We Be Good Without God."

I am very familar with all of those, by the way (the Wilson is beside my bed right now, and I read some every night before sleeping).

Do I consider myself neither and atheist or a religious person? I am neither.

Am I not of this realm? Temporarily. Can't wait to leave.

Am I something other? Yes.

Am I something special? No.

Humanity simply is what it is? That's what serial killers say.

Humanity was created and it evolved, both.

The best thing to do is find out something about humanity? No, that is not the best thing. I already know enough about humanity. The best thing is to get as far away from you as possible because you're really, really, really bad.

You assure me that I know very little about human nature? During the Serbian civil war many people were starving. A US Navy helicopter landed and offloaded food packages. The people ran and fought for those simple packages. A child happened to sneak in and grab one, just one mind you, and she turned to run away but a man grabbed the package from her and pulled it away and left with it. The child turned around to get another one but they were all gone. The US Navy door gunner was about to leave the aircraft and tackle the man and return it to the little girl but the helicopter had to leave immediately.

The CEO of St. Judes Childrens Hospital used to earn $400,000 a year. That's a lot of money. Then Rich Eisen, a host on the NFL Network, started promoting St. Jude's Charity and suddenly the amount of money coming in was double so St. Jude's doubled the income of the CEO from $400k a year to $800k a year. He didn't cure cancer or do anything, there was just more money coming in so they gave some of it to the super rich healthy guy instead of sending all of it to the kids with cancer.

The area directors of the Red Cross earn from $300,000 a year to over $500,000 while most of the workers are volunteers.

Jeff Bezo's is the world's richest man, worth somewhere between $50 billion and maybe $75 billion. He might become the worlds first trillionaire. During the Covid thing some of his workers took time off work. Jeff Bezo's started an online fund where people could donate money to them. He felt the rest of us should donate money to help his workers, but not him.

I know people too well. If you want to hear more stories just let me know. I have hundreds of them.