Proving that God is Imaginary by Logic

[ChristineM]

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 !

Even after the earth is gone the atoms of everyone and everything will continue, they may help to form a new star or new planet, who knows?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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're comparing an abstract concept, essentially an emotion that manifests from brain states and thus dependend on the existance of a brain that has the capacity of "love" and which has testable manifestation, with something that supposedly actually exists, which does not depend on humans existing and which has no testable manifestation.

So either this is a false analogy, or you have just confirmed that god only exists inside people's heads.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Here ya go again setting limits to suit your own mindset.

What does it matter what measuring standard is used so long as it is quoted in the result

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Start by learning the difference between evidence and proof.

 

[ChristineM]

Start by learning the difference between evidence and proof.

i have, it seems you want to change those definitions

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here ya go again setting limits to suit your own mindset.

What does it matter what measuring standard is used so long as it is quoted in the result

Do the same with "matters". Can you see it and so on. You use words in your mind to justify the ideas which are in your mind. You are a believer. You just don't admit it. You believe in an idea of useful and what matters. That is not material.

You are an idealist, who believe in the usefulness of the idea of the material world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

i have, it seems you want to change those definitions

So give the definitions.

 

[ChristineM]

Do the same with "matters". Can you see it and so on. You use words in your mind to justify the ideas which are in your mind. You are a believer. You just don't admit it. You believe in an idea of useful and what matters. That is not material.

You are an idealist, who believe in the usefulness of the idea of the material world.

Reality does not need your approval to be real, you can throw all the curve balls you want, it was here long before humanity and will remain real long after humanity is no more.

No, you cannot tell me what i am. Especially when you are talking nonsense, i am a realist, idealism is for dreamers

 

[ChristineM]

So give the definitions.

Google is your friend

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem ultimately is science can test the truth of everything, but itself

Science is not a truth claim. It's a method of inquiry.
And the merrit of such a methodology, is in its results.
I'ld say that the track record of scientify inquiry is pretty nice, and I know of no other method that produces better results.

Ergo, it has an obvious failing in regard to being considered the source of the _absolute_ truth.

How can it fail at something that it isn't even doing?
Whoever told you that science provides us with _absolute_ truth, was either wrong or lying.
Science provides us with tentative / provisional truths, instead. Because you can always learn more which potentially might force you to revise your models of explanation.

This is why explanatory models are called "theories" and not "absolute facts".

It's perhaps content to say that science provides a relative truth (within the limits of our understanding), but there is always a gap (and probably always will be). However, if the truths it provides are relative then we simply are chasing a thread like a cat here.

It's the best we can do.
Unless you have another method that does demonstrably provide better results.
But I'm guessin that you don't.

We must realize whatever we think we know it's all subject to change. If it were providing absolute truth then, of course, that wouldn't be possible.

Yes. It's called intellectual honesty.

That notwithstanding, materialistic observations are largely useless for proving the existence and non-existence of things.

No. Science is perfectly capable of proving the existence of things. Observing the things, would prove they exist.

Science (or any other method I know off) can't prove the non-existence of things. Because there's always that chance that you simply didn't look for it in the right place or in the right way.

We can state as fact that horses exist.
We can't state as fact that unicorns or bigfoots do NOT exist. Considering all we do know, it's reasonable to assume they don't. But we don't know.

See, the non-existent and the undetectable, look very much alike....

For example, you cannot detect thoughts

Yes you can....
It's how we can identify brain dead people.
It's also how we are able to build very crude "mind reading" devices. It can literally visualise thoughts. The technology is very much in its infancy. In fact it's so primitive we might even say it's not even born yet. But the base is there and the first succeses also.

So yes, we very much can detect thoughts and learning to "decipher" them by using neurological devices.

and you presume gravity is there but we actually see nothing but secondary manifestations.

No. Gravity is demonstrably there as the force that makes things with mass attract eachother and the bigger the mass, the stronger the attraction. So the low masses will fall towards the big masses.
Gravity is thus very much detectable.

We don't know exactly how it works. Relativity provides a pretty good framework, but we know it doesn't work at the quantum level.

But that doesn't change the fact that this force, whatever it is and however it works, demonstrably exists.

No one here would deny either would exist and herein lies some of the dilemmas. It's a minor step from that to being able to scientifically explain religion, but it sees the manifestation and has no means to measure the cause.

You should read up. Religion has quite good explanation from various angles, psychology in particular. Like a lot of animals (from humans to pidgeons) having a tendency towards type 2 cognition errors: the false positive. This is the basis of superstition.

There's loads of precedents also of people making stuff up and actually believing it while also getting others to believe it. We've seen it happen right under our nose multiple times. How rastafarianism began, how scientology began, how mormonism began, etc.

So there are perfectly reasonable explanations for the existance of religions. And curiously, if the explanatory models are accurate, then we would in fact expect MANY different religions and different gods. We would also expect these religions to be traceable to cultural identies.

Conversely, if the models are wrong and if there actually is a god at the source of religion, then I would not expect many vastly different religions and gods.

No.... instead, I'ld expect Columbus arriving in south america and encounter natives who didn't have to be explained who Jawhe, Jesus, Adam, Eve, Noah, Jacob, Isaak, Abraham, etc.... were/are.


All evidence points to humans having made up all religion, and we have actual very recent precedents of people doing exactly that. We have zero evidence of the opposite.

Does that mean or prove that god doesn't exist?
No.

But it DOES put god(s) in the same category of credibility as bigfoot and unicorns.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You think that picture is love? You've obviously never been in love.

If a person can't feel or experience love then they would never be able to accept the idea of God.

You said you can't see love.
He posted a picture of exactly that: being able to determine from a brain scan, that the subject is in love.

He didn't say anything about not being able to experience love.
He just showed you the picture of what a brain in love looks like.

Love is an emotion. Emotions happen in the brain.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By same logic also gravity is imaginary.

No.

Gravity: the force of attraction between bodies of mass, related to the mass. The bigger the mass, the stronger the attraction

I'm holding my keys. The description of gravity above predicts that they'll fall to earth instead of shooting into space.
I'm dropping my keys.

Lo and behold, they fell to earth.
I can do this a couple million more times and it will fall to earth every single time.

This measureable attraction is called gravity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Right, and that's limiting.

Only if there also is an immaterial world.

Theists like to claim there is. Nobody ever demonstrated there is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Reality does not need your approval to be real, you can throw all the curve balls you want, it was here long before humanity and will remain real long after humanity is no more.

No, you cannot tell me what i am. Especially when you are talking nonsense, i am a realist, idealism is for dreamers

Google is your friend

So Google it is. Materialism is "PHILOSOPHY - the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications."

You are doing bad philosophy and you don't even know it.

Google as for reality - "the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."

The problem is that this idea of yours, that reality is independent of humans, is not independent of you, because you believe in it. So there is a part of reality, which is not independent of you, but that is not possible, because reality is independent of you. That is how stupid your belief system is. You say something which is illogical and amounts to a contradiction. You say, that which is not you, is real, but that requires that you are real and can say it. That is the contradiction.

 

[Super Universe]

You're comparing an abstract concept, essentially an emotion that manifests from brain states and thus dependend on the existance of a brain that has the capacity of "love" and which has testable manifestation, with something that supposedly actually exists, which does not depend on humans existing and which has no testable manifestation.

So either this is a false analogy, or you have just confirmed that god only exists inside people's heads.

You made an incredible claim but you failed to provide proof that God could not exist in the universe. Do you have any evidence of your claim?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Only if there also is an immaterial world.

Theists like to claim there is. Nobody ever demonstrated there is.

Of course, there is an immaterial world. Your belief, that there is a material world, is an immaterial belief.
You can't see, hold, touch, taste, smell or otherwise give evidence for your belief. It has no place in science. It is philosophy and as such a belief system.
Science is in practice a limited human behavior, which apparently with limitations work on some forms of experiences, but not all.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You said you can't see love.
He posted a picture of exactly that: being able to determine from a brain scan, that the subject is in love.

He didn't say anything about not being able to experience love.
He just showed you the picture of what a brain in love looks like.

Love is an emotion. Emotions happen in the brain.

That is not a picture of love. It is a scanning of a brain. It requires that you believe in a certain version of philosophy to claim it is love. It is called reductive physicalism and there is no evidence of proof of that. That is no different than God. There is neither proof or evidence that reality is physical/material or from God. They are different belief systems and they both have limits.

 

[Super Universe]

You said you can't see love.
He posted a picture of exactly that: being able to determine from a brain scan, that the subject is in love.

He didn't say anything about not being able to experience love.
He just showed you the picture of what a brain in love looks like.

Love is an emotion. Emotions happen in the brain.

So if I post a picture of a brain scan where the person is thinking of God that would be proof of God to you?

You didn't watch the video. I know that love is an emotion that happens in the brain. The supposed "logic" of the video was that if you can't see, hear, touch, taste, or smell something then it doesn't exist. I proved that "logic" wrong.

You atheists always get logic wrong because you think logic means truth and it doesn't.

 

[ChristineM]

So Google it is. Materialism is "PHILOSOPHY - the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications."

You are doing bad philosophy and you don't even know it.

Google as for reality - "the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."

The problem is that this idea of yours, that reality is independent of humans, is not independent of you, because you believe in it. So there is a part of reality, which is not independent of you, but that is not possible, because reality is independent of you. That is how stupid your belief system is. You say something which is illogical and amounts to a contradiction. You say, that which is not you, is real, but that requires that you are real and can say it. That is the contradiction.

Philosophy is nothing to do with reality dont attempt to build straw houses.

Of course reality is indipendent of humanity, where do you get such silly ideas. Read the definition you quoted

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Philosophy is nothing to do with reality dont attempt to build straw houses.

Of course reality is indipendent of humanity, where do you get such silly ideas. Read the definition you quoted

That definition is nothing but playing with words. You believe in the magic of words. If you say something, it is so, because you say so.
Here is the definition of ChristineM - doesn't exist. It says so, so therefore it is so. You have to learn to understand this: To believe in a world independent of you, requires that you exist, so reality can't exist without you. Your very idea requires you to exist, so it amounts to an absurdity.

 

[PureX]

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

You still don't seem to grasp the irrelevance of this. EVERYTHING, including the idea of reality vs unreality itself is generated by electrical and chemical interactions in the brain that can be measured and monitored.

So what?

This has no bearing on the question of the 'reality of God'. Or on the 'reality' of anything else.