A proof or disproof for existence of God does not exist

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fisherman_carl said:
That is interesting. But, it is only a quantitative analysis of orangeness. It does not describe all that orangeness is. There is a qualitative aspect to it also. This is something that physical science can never detect. And, thus, if you look at the universe through science alone you miss quite a lot, only seeing the universe in terms of numbers and what can be measured. If I described you as 5’10", 180lb would that describe all that is you? Of course not. There is much more to you than what science can measure. And some would argue that the best things about you are what science can not even detect.
Click to expand...
I don’t see your definition of orangeness. If you don’t like my definition, why not give us yours?
 
STT said:
One of the God’s attributes is omnipotent. Do you think that we can understand it? We cannot. We then strive on a concept which we don’t understand and prove the existence of God as a creator. Does that logically sound to you?
Click to expand...
How do you know this is one of God’s attributes?
 
STT said:
What is God? The creator. How He could create thing? He is omnipotent. What is omnipotent? We don’t know. This is obviously a fallacy. How we can prove God as creator if we don’t know what omnipotence is? That is why I conclude that a person has to be omniscient in order to be able to prove that God exists. Human is not omniscient hence he cannot prove God’s existence.
Click to expand...
As you are not omniscient how can you prove you exist?!
 
STT said:
You need to be omniscient in order to prove God. Why? One of the attribute of God is omnipotent. Is that possible to have a being with a such a capacity? Only a omniscient can know this.

Do you agree with the previous statement? You will see how does Russell argument follow if you agree with it.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t agree with the previous statement. I don’t see why someone would need to be omniscient to know whether or not it is possible for something to be omnipotent.
 
tonyrey said:
As you are not omniscient how can you prove you exist?!
Click to expand...
He’s got an answer for that:
STT said:
I have no proof for the fact that I exist either. I only believe so. To me the only certainty that we have is that experience exist.
Click to expand...
Not even Descartes had standards for knowledge this stringent.

STT, if you really are “seeking the truth” then you need to admit that there is such a thing as truth to be found. 🤷
 
STT said:
What is God? The creator. How He could create thing? He is omnipotent. What is omnipotent? We don’t know. This is obviously a fallacy. How we can prove God as creator if we don’t know what omnipotence is? That is why I conclude that a person has to be omniscient in order to be able to prove that God exists. Human is not omniscient hence he cannot prove God’s existence.
Click to expand...
You got a great answer from Carl.

Nobody is arguing they know, or can know what God-ness is like.

That doesn’t have an effect on knowing there is a God.

We have to use our nature to learn though right?

So what does that mean?

To know there is a God, God has to work in our nature.

Now just find where that has occurred. - The evidence.
 
Human is not omniscient hence he cannot prove God’s existence.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

As you are not omniscient how can you prove you exist?!
He’s got an answer for that:I have no proof for the fact that I exist either. I only believe so. To me the only certainty that we have is that experience exist. Not even Descartes had standards for knowledge this stringent. STT, if you really are “seeking the truth” then you need to admit that there is such a thing as truth to be found.
Click to expand...

And finding presupposes a finder… Or does it find itself? :whistle:
 
tonyrey said:
As you are not omniscient how can you prove you exist?!
Click to expand...
You are correct. I cannot prove that I exist since I am not omniscient. The question is how people think that they could prove God knowing that they are not omniscient. Ironically most of proofs are based on our existence.
 
e_c said:
Not even Descartes had standards for knowledge this stringent.

STT, if you really are “seeking the truth” then you need to admit that there is such a thing as truth to be found. 🤷
Click to expand...
I highly hope so.
 
Perhaps consider the definition for ‘noun’?

To redefine physical ‘things’ doesn’t change the things as things.

If you don’t know that you are you (not an experience), learning that there is a God and that He loves You would be quite difficult.

I would guess there is someone in your life that is close to you.

Your love for them is not the same ‘thing’, and can’t be defined as the same as the physical ‘them’.

You ‘are’ (a real thing), and that is good.
 
ffg said:
Perhaps consider the definition for ‘noun’?

To redefine physical ‘things’ doesn’t change the things as things.

If you don’t know that you are you (not an experience), learning that there is a God and that He loves You would be quite difficult.

I would guess there is someone in your life that is close to you.

Your love for them is not the same ‘thing’, and can’t be defined as the same as the physical ‘them’.

You ‘are’ (a real thing), and that is good.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your words. I believe in reality. I just cannot prove it since I am not omniscient.
 
Reality doesn’t have to be proven, but it’s nice when shared to enlighten. It’s been said much that conclusions made by humans don’t change what is true.

If we are not God, our belief will surely be in realities we can’t understand because of our ‘not God’ status.

That would be a natural course for a creation - to not know everything.

If God then chooses to make himself known to creation, that doesn’t mean he chooses to reveal every mystery.

There are things that can be revealed and unexplained.

Mysteries, known ‘things’ with unknown details.

Not uncommon - a fire occurs and burns down gatlinburg, a known thing. How and why it started? Most people will never know or effort to know, some people will try and learn, but might never get to full truth, a mystery related to a known thing.

You can know God ‘is’ without knowing ‘like’ God.

Other angle -

Perhaps spend a little time and consider that you are proving that God ‘is’, by the act of reasoning (thinking).
 
ffg said:
Reality doesn’t have to be proven, but it’s nice when shared to enlighten. It’s been said much that conclusions made by humans don’t change what is true.

If we are not God, our belief will surely be in realities we can’t understand because of our ‘not God’ status.

That would be a natural course for a creation - to not know everything.

If God then chooses to make himself known to creation, that doesn’t mean he chooses to reveal every mystery.

There are things that can be revealed and unexplained.

Mysteries, known ‘things’ with unknown details.

Not uncommon - a fire occurs and burns down gatlinburg, a known thing. How and why it started? Most people will never know or effort to know, some people will try and learn, but might never get to full truth, a mystery related to a known thing.

You can know God ‘is’ without knowing ‘like’ God.

Other angle -

Perhaps spend a little time and consider that you are proving that God ‘is’, by the act of reasoning (thinking).
Click to expand...
How that could be true (bold part)?
 
well…think about it.

Nobody can do your thinking for you.

Build argument(s) for and against the statement.

Let me know what you think after the weekend.

You might see ‘how it could be true’, if you follow through.

Have a good weekend.
 
STT said:
You are correct. I cannot prove that I exist since I am not omniscient. The question is how people think that they could prove God knowing that they are not omniscient. Ironically most of proofs are based on our existence.
Click to expand...
It isn’t ironical but logical! As far as we know we are the only beings who are aware the universe exists and can destroy virtually all life on this planet. Such knowledge and power are overwhelming evidence that we transcend material objects and are created in the image of our Creator. If there are other rational beings they too owe their existence to the same Creator. There is no other adequate explanation…
 
STT said:
Thanks for your words. I believe in reality. I just cannot prove it since I am not omniscient.
Click to expand...
If you live and behave as if there is reality there is no need to prove it nor to be omniscient. You don’t have to know everything to know something!
 
tonyrey said:
If you live and behave as if there is reality there is no need to prove it nor to be omniscient. You don’t have to know everything to know something!
Click to expand...
To “know” something is not the same as “to have a proof or disproof of.” Since the thread is about the existence of proofs, what we “know” without proof is irrelevant.
 
tonyrey said:
It isn’t ironical but logical! As far as we know we are the only beings who are aware the universe exists and can destroy virtually all life on this planet. Such knowledge and power are overwhelming evidence that we transcend material objects and are created in the image of our Creator. If there are other rational beings they too owe their existence to the same Creator. There is no other adequate explanation…
Click to expand...
If this is intended to be a proof of God’s existence, it fails dramatically (to begin with, it is an argument from ignorance.) If it is not meant to be a proof, it’s barely relevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top