Proving that God is Imaginary by Logic

[Koldo]

Wha... You lost me. Can you start from the beginning?

Check the chain of posts that led us here. Why did you mention love?

 

[Koldo]

That proves nothing, however, as the same phenomena would be observable for the idea of God, or the idea of space aliens, or of any other "real" or 'imagined" conceptualization. If you are using an MRI to prove the "reality of love", then you have also just proved the reality of God, unicorns, and fairies. Because they all will have a similar electroencephalic signature.

As a thought or emotion?
Sure, but I am quite certain that is not suffucient to the vast majority of theists.

 

[ChristineM]

That proves nothing, however, as the same phenomena would be observable for the idea of God, or the idea of space aliens, or of any other "real" or 'imagined" conceptualization. If you are using an MRI to prove the "reality of love", then you have also just proved the reality of God, unicorns, and fairies. Because they all will have a similar electroencephalic signature.

It proves that love is generated by electrical and chemical systems in the brain which CAN be monitored.

Yes the god spot has-been identified,

Note the different areas of the brain that are active

And just like love, its an emotion that can be measured. Real in the mind, if not in reality

 

[ChristineM]

Discarding the false binary of "real" and "not real" to instead focus on experience and how humans experience things within the limitations they bear. "Real" and "not real" are overly-simplistic categories, as binaries tend to be. It's not a binary I find useful. I also don't wager folks really care what I do or don't find useful, so I'm going to leave this there.

Real does not need humanity to be real,many things were real long before humans existed

 

[Quintessence]

Real does not need humanity to be real,many things were real long before humans existed

Not sure what this has to do with what I said? Or are you telling this for yourself? I didn't say anything about "real" (again, a binary I don't subscribe to) being contingent upon humans.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It proves that love is generated by electrical and chemical systems in the brain which CAN be monitored.

Yes the god spot has-been identified,

Note the different areas of the brain that are active

View attachment 41206

And just like love, its an emotion that can be measured. Real in the mind, if not in reality

No, science proves nothing. If you accept the un-provable assumptions, then within the methodology of science there is evidence.
Science proves nothing and it doesn't prove that reality is material. That is philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Real does not need humanity to be real,many things were real long before humans existed

Please see, touch, hear, smell and taste real. You can't! Real is no different than God. It is an idea.

 

[Koldo]

Please see, touch, hear, smell and taste real. You can't! Real is no different than God. It is an idea.

So you agree with the atheists in general.... ok...

 

[ChristineM]

Not sure what this has to do with what I said? Or are you telling this for yourself? I didn't say anything about "real" (again, a binary I don't subscribe to) being contingent upon humans.

You made a statement in post 52

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.​

I replied to that in post 56

What is more useful than real?​

You replied in post 103 in an attempt to move the goalposts. Thats what it has to do with real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you agree with the atheists in general.... ok...

No, I do believe in God. I just don't believe it is possible to give proof or evidence for God. I am an agnostic and I believe in God.

 

[ChristineM]

No, science proves nothing. If you accept the un-provable assumptions, then within the methodology of science there is evidence.
Science proves nothing and it doesn't prove that reality is material. That is philosophy.

But photographs do

 

[ChristineM]

Please see, touch, hear, smell and taste real. You can't! Real is no different than God. It is an idea.

Real is a lot more than an idea, unless of course you want to change the definition

 

[`mud]

" touch, hear, smell and taste " can't describe the loss of a lost spouse,
or child. No touching there, but the love goes on and on doesn't it ?
Until one eventually passes on into the elusive afterdeath !
What's the OP ?

 

[Koldo]

No, I do believe in God. I just don't believe it is possible to give proof or evidence for God. I am an agnostic and I believe in God.

You have said that real is no different than God. It is an idea. You have agreed with atheists when you said that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But photographs do

Photographs doesn't prove anything. They are evidence if you believe in science. There is no proof of science or that reality is material.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Real is a lot more than an idea, unless of course you want to change the definition

Start by seeing, hearing, touching, smelling and tasting it. Then tell us its dimensions, weight, what it is made of and in what international scientific measurement standard it is measured in.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have said that real is no different than God. It is an idea. You have agreed with atheists when you said that.

No, because some atheist don't believe that real is an idea. I don't agree with them. I agree with them that God is an idea. But to me that the material reality is also an idea. That is where I disagree with some atheists.

 

[`mud]

Millions of years from now, the Earth will broil,
and all of us here and everyone that're dead,
will be there then, and go on and go on and,
you know...dust to dust...to the Earth forever ?
I wouldn't know what Moses was really thinking !

But...is it a one hell of a good idea !

 

[ChristineM]

Photographs doesn't prove anything. They are evidence if you believe in science. There is no proof of science or that reality is material.

A photograph (unedited) is proof of what was photographed, in this case the magnetic resonance image of human brain activity.

Try thumping a brick wall, then tell me if it's real or not. I am not interested in philosophical slight of hand, i am interested in what can be observed and measured

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Cute.

What's the difference between something that is "beyond logic" and something that doesn't exist?
And if you think there is a difference, then why do you think that or how do you know?