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.
I just need an intellect which was created in the image of God to… know God, since that is what it was created for, to know him. We just need God to give us the ability to know him in order to know him. We don’t need to be God himself.
Don’t you think that if God wanted us to know him he would give us that ability to know him to a certain degree? We don’t need to be omniscient ourselves because God already is so. He can do the work required for us. Besides there can only be one omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being possible. It is logically impossible for there to be two.
 
I don’t believe that any proof or disproof for existence of God exists. Why? There are arguments for these: (1) A person needs to be omniscient in order to prove that God exists since that is only God who is capable of understanding His essence. Hence a proof for existence of God does not exist and (2) A person has to be fool in order to disprove the existence of God as Bertrand Russell stated “If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.”
Well- the proofs and disproofs both ‘exist’ (you can find them in books). But whether they are effective or valid is a matter of one’s perspective.
 
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.
If you can prove something then you know it. A logical proof is just one way of arriving at knowledge. Can you know something without being able to prove it? Yes. If you were accused of a crime and all the evidence pointed to you as the perpetrator, but you knew you did not do it, for example.

Similarly one can be a witness to all kinds of experiences in life, experiences with loved ones, and with God. This also another kind of knowledge through experience.
 
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…
On the contrary it is the most adequate and fertile explanation whereas a**-**theism explains precisely nothing! As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing…
 
If you can prove something then you know it. A logical proof is just one way of arriving at knowledge. Can you know something without being able to prove it? Yes. If you were accused of a crime and all the evidence pointed to you as the perpetrator, but you knew you did not do it, for example.
A set is not identical to it’s superset. Therefore, claiming that we can “know” God exists is insufficient to answer the question of whether or not a proof or disproof exists, because the set of things we know is a strict superset of the things we have rigorous proofs of. If anyone is still confused, I suggest drawing Venn diagrams.
 
On the contrary it is the most adequate and fertile explanation whereas a**-**theism explains precisely nothing! As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing…
I agree that theism it is fertile, since it has explained so many things, such as how Poseidon causes earthquakes, how Chamiabac and Chamiaholom cause human bodies to decompose, and how the earth is 6000 years old. The issue is that theism is not well defined enough to constitute an adequate explanation, and we have no rigorous proof that an explanation must exist in the first place. Sure, you can quote old philosophers who assert the principle of sufficient reason, but simply appealing to their authority is not proof.
 
This is related to the question the OP asked. The OP thinks we have to be omniscient in order to prove God. Of course if we were omniscient we would not need to prove God because we would already know. A proof is only meant to give us knowledge. Otherwise it is useless if we already know everything then we don’t need proofs. Proofs are for creatures with limited knowledge. What the OP is talking about is direct observation by seeing all. Of course we can not do that because we are limited. However, we can use proofs to prove a slice of God. It may not be enough to prove all of God, but it is enough to refute the atheists. And the rest that we can not prove can be taken on faith in what God has revealed about himself to us.
 
I agree that theism it is fertile, since it has explained so many things, such as how Poseidon causes earthquakes, how Chamiabac and Chamiaholom cause human bodies to decompose, and how the earth is 6000 years old. The issue is that theism is not well defined enough to constitute an adequate explanation, and we have no rigorous proof that an explanation must exist in the first place. Sure, you can quote old philosophers who assert the principle of sufficient reason, but simply appealing to their authority is not proof.
Actually, your explanation is no explanation at all that any theist would accept. Classic theism and indeed the theism of Catholics rejected long ago the many gods hypothesis. It is philosophically bankrupt. The Judeo Christians have only ever believed in one all powerful God who created everything from nothing. Not many limited gods who control limited things. The other religions did not have this understanding of one God who created everything from nothing. Thus, the Judeo Christian religion stands unique.
 
Actually, your explanation is no explanation at all that any theist would accept. Classic theism and indeed the theism of Catholics rejected long ago the many gods hypothesis. It is philosophically bankrupt. The Judeo Christians have only ever believed in one God who created everything from nothing. The other religions did not have this understanding. Thus, the Judeo Christian religion stands unique.
You must realize that you’re making your own job harder. This thread is about proof or disproof for the existence of God. If you’re going to claim that the Judeo Christian God is the only philosophically defensible God, then your task has narrowed from “Provide a proof that any God exists” to “Provide a proof that the Judeo Christian God exists.”

It also makes the naysayer’s job easier. For example, I could invoke reasoning from Zoroastrianism (an equally old monotheism that believes its God created everything from nothing) against the proof you provide.
 
Well- the proofs and disproofs both ‘exist’ (you can find them in books). But whether they are effective or valid is a matter of one’s perspective.
The proof of God shouldn’t depend on perspective. It should be view independent.
 
The proof of God shouldn’t depend on perspective. It should be view independent.
Every proof is a human made invention. Every proof depends on the perspective of the human who invented it, because humans are never free from perspective.
 
Every proof is a human made invention. Every proof depends on the perspective of the human who invented it, because humans are never free from perspective.
That is the problem. That is why that I insist that only a omniscient person can prove God. You need to know what omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient are.
 
That is the problem. That is why that I insist that only a omniscient person can prove God. You need to know what omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient are.
Insist all you want. This does make you correct. Repeating the claims without additional evidence makes it appear the your position is incorrect.
 
On the contrary it is the most adequate and fertile explanation whereas a**-**
Your version of theism is idiosyncratic!
The issue is that theism is not well defined enough to constitute an adequate explanation, and we have no rigorous proof that an explanation must exist in the first place.
If there is no explanation there is no rational basis for explanations! Everything is unreasonable.
Sure, you can quote old philosophers who assert the principle of sufficient reason, but simply appealing to their authority is not proof.
If you reject the principle of sufficient reason there is no reason to believe anything whatsoever. Scepticism is self-destructive… and self-contradictory…
 
I don’t know. I don’t believe that we can prove God. Ask those who provide proof the existence of omnipotence God.
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.
I highly hope so.
That is the problem. That is why that I insist that only a omniscient person can prove God. You need to know what omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient are.
Behold, the problem.

It is one of the will, not of the intellect. You will need to conquer it on your own.
 
If you reject the principle of sufficient reason there is no reason to believe anything whatsoever…
That is too extreme. Some things have reasonable causes and explanations, other things don’t.
 
If there is no explanation there is no rational basis for explanations! Everything is unreasonable.
There does not seem to me to be any immediate contradiction in thinking that a framework in which explanations exist could arise without explanation. You’ll need to offer more than a simple assertion, especially if your goal is a formal proof.
If you reject the principle of sufficient reason there is no reason to believe anything whatsoever. Scepticism is self-destructive… and self-contradictory…
This is false. The negation of the PSR is not “nothing has an explanation” it is “some things don’t have explanations.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top