Thought experiment. What if it was one day proven 200% there’s no God?

[Sophia]

Ahh, and now you’re flogging your dead horse.

That horse is alive and well. Every day it feeds on some new evidence for the correct hypothesis about the subconscious.

The belief is the output state of a prior conscious choice, not the (name removed by moderator)ut state of a subsequent choice. Somehow, you keep missing this.

Somewhere, somewhen there must have been a conscious or subconscious choice to believe something that you did not believe before. There cannot be a choice without repudiating something that you used to believe and now you discarded for the sake of this new belief. If this process happened in the conscious, then you would have a successful experiment to show that you managed to believe something that you did not believe before. Of course until you study and understand neuroscience, you will never understand this.

Where is your evidence for your “rational soul”? Bring it on… we can hardly wait.

 

[Gorgias]

I fail to see what your grounds are to distinguish between God and dragons in this issue.

If dragons exist, then they are physical creatures of the physical universe. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that we can take empirical measurements that substantiate their existence.

God is neither a physical being, nor a creature of the universe. (Therefore, it is not reasonable to make the same presumptions about ‘proving’ His existence as it might be for a physical being that was created within this universe.)

Pretty significant grounds for a distinction, wouldn’t you say?

 

[Gorgias]

Where is your evidence for your “rational soul”? Bring it on… we can hardly wait.

Same silly question as often posed, so you’ll get the same response: what are the standards that you are requiring for ‘evidence’ of a non-physical thing?

 

[phil19034]

This is the Philosophy section, so I think it should be pointed out that philosophically it is IMPOSSIBLE to:

1. prove God doesn’t exist
2. to prove something 200%

So your thought experiment is not philosophically sound.

HOWEVER, I will answer a REWRITTEN thought experiment:

What would happen if one day if everyone (or almost everyone) became atheist? I think the world would become a very cold place.

God Bless.

 

[tifischer]

Then there would be a 200% chance you would not exist. Thanking God He is real and He blessed me to exist.

 

[Dan123]

If dragons exist, then they are physical creatures of the physical universe.

They may have a physical manifestation, just as Jesus was the human embodiment of God, that doesn’t mean it’s their entire nature.

 

[laylow]

God is not some item, like a dragon, to be “discovered” within the Universe.

God is the foundation of all reality .

This is the #1 confusion with many atheists (and even Christians, especially the "God of the Gaps’ intelligent designer types).

God by definition is not restricted in the spatio-temporal realm; rather, all of space and time is undergirded by a first principle – existence itself.

And so the methods we use to approach God’s existence are not scientific or empirical as such, and they cannot be by the very definition of God – not to mention the very definition of empirical science.

Dragons and God. Two very different, categorically different, realities.

Yes, if God is defined as the essence of everything, or as you state, the foundation of all reality, then the common attributes given to God by humans are incorrect and impossible. God is most times defined by humans as omni-benevolent. However, “good” and “bad” in this context can only be humanly perceived attributes of existence. Therefore, if God is everything, he must be both all-good, and all-bad, relative to human’s perception of these qualities. Any limits placed (which saying he is not bad is) would then change his definition to not being “the essence of everything” and then essentially opens the door for the dragon, or fliying spaghetti monster, or what have, to swoop in and claim to be the “almost everything but not quite everything (because he has been limited)” being that many are defining as God.

As I have stated before, if God is defined this way, one cannot pretend to place attributes on him, because he is all attributes. He is obviously not a “he” either but I will just continue to use that pronoun for simplicity.

 

[laylow]

OK, but that’s scientific knowledge, whose grounds are empirical measurement . You can apply your standard of “levels of certainty” based on the accuracy of the measurement and the ability to perceive the measurement.

However, you made a claim of a completely different stripe – you claimed that God’s existence cannot be proven. Are you talking about empirical measurements of His existence? That would seem to be a category error. So… how might one go about ‘proving’ His existence, and how would that then relate to your notion of accuracy of measurement?

Science was just an example. The same structure could be used, it would just have to be referred to theological, so replace knowledge with belief and there you go.

I don’t see proof of his existence as the core issue. I see proving the attributes given to him problematic in part to the reality that these claims are based on the empirical.

 

[Wesrock]

Yes, if God is defined as the essence of everything, or as you state, the foundation of all reality, then the common attributes given to God by humans are incorrect and impossible. God is most times defined by humans as omni-benevolent. However, “good” and “bad” in this context can only be humanly perceived attributes of existence. Therefore, if God is everything, he must be both all-good, and all-bad, relative to human’s perception of these qualities. Any limits placed (which saying he is not bad is) would then change his definition to not being “the essence of everything” and then essentially opens the door for the dragon, or fliying spaghetti monster, or what have, to swoop in and claim to be the “almost everything but not quite everything (because he has been limited)” being that many are defining as God.

As I have stated before, if God is defined this way, one cannot pretend to place attributes on him, because he is all attributes. He is obviously not a “he” either but I will just continue to use that pronoun for simplicity.

But God is not defined as “the essence of everything.” God is the foundation of all reality in that He is the origin of it. He is not a being in the universe but the source of the universe. He is more real than anything else that exists, insofar as His reality is necessary and ours is not. Consider how the dog in front of you is more real than a dog you imagine in your mind, and even that doesn’t capture the point. God is said to be Subsistent Being, pure actuality, that His essence is existence itself. Things are good insofar as they are actual, and suffer evils insofar as their is privation from what they should be. Evil is not a thing in itself, as darkness is not a good thing in itself. If good is light, then evils are privations in where the light shines. God is the supreme good not because “He’s a perfectly upstanding moral guy,” but because He is pure light without shadow or blemish, because He is actus purus. As a triangle is said to be good insofar as it actualizes triangularity, and bad insofar as it does not actualize triangularity (an absence of being), God as pure actuality is the perfectly good. Insofar as the effect must be in a cause, and goodness is that which is actual, only actuality has being, and so must be in the cause. Badness is the privation of being, absence. It’s not a positive thing which must be in the cause. As a light source isn’t the source of shadow and darkness, the effect of the light it casts comes from the light being in the source. If light is shone more dimly in some areas, it’s not because darkness is in the light source itself. The only positive thing present in the effect is additional light.

EDIT: Kind of had to rush this one.

 

[laylow]

But God is not defined as “the essence of everything.” God is the foundation of all reality in that He is the origin of it. He is not a being in the universe but the source of the universe. He is more real than anything else that exists, insofar as His reality is necessary and ours is not. Consider how the dog in front of you is more real than a dog you imagine in your mind, and even that doesn’t capture the point. God is said to be Subsistent Being, pure actuality, that His essence is existence itself. Things are good insofar as they are actual, and suffer evils insofar as their is privation from what they should be. Evil is not a thing in itself, as darkness is not a good thing in itself. If good is light, then evils are privations in where the light shines. God is the supreme good not because “He’s a perfectly upstanding moral guy,” but because He is pure light without shadow or blemish, because He is actus purus . As a triangle is said to be good insofar as it actualizes triangularity, and bad insofar as it does not actualize triangularity (an absence of being), God as pure actuality is the perfectly good. Insofar as the effect must be in a cause, and goodness is that which is actual, only actuality has being, and so must be in the cause. Badness is the privation of being, absence. It’s not a positive thing which must be in the cause. As a light source isn’t the source of shadow and darkness, the effect of the light it casts comes from the light being in the source. If light is shone more dimly in some areas, it’s not because darkness is in the light source itself. The only positive thing present in the effect is additional light.

If he is limited, he is no longer God. If humans attempt to define him, he will inevitably be limited by their knowledge or lack thereof.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

But God is not defined as “the essence of everything.” God is the foundation of all reality in that He is the origin of it. He is not a being in the universe but the source of the universe. He is more real than anything else that exists, insofar as His reality is necessary and ours is not. Consider how the dog in front of you is more real than a dog you imagine in your mind, and even that doesn’t capture the point. God is said to be Subsistent Being, pure actuality, that His essence is existence itself. Things are good insofar as they are actual, and suffer evils insofar as their is privation from what they should be. Evil is not a thing in itself, as darkness is not a good thing in itself. If good is light, then evils are privations in where the light shines. God is the supreme good not because “He’s a perfectly upstanding moral guy,” but because He is pure light without shadow or blemish, because He is actus purus . As a triangle is said to be good insofar as it actualizes triangularity, and bad insofar as it does not actualize triangularity (an absence of being), God as pure actuality is the perfectly good. Insofar as the effect must be in a cause, and goodness is that which is actual, only actuality has being, and so must be in the cause. Badness is the privation of being, absence. It’s not a positive thing which must be in the cause. As a light source isn’t the source of shadow and darkness, the effect of the light it casts comes from the light being in the source. If light is shone more dimly in some areas, it’s not because darkness is in the light source itself. The only positive thing present in the effect is additional light.

If he is limited, he is no longer God. If humans attempt to define him, he will inevitably be limited by their knowledge or lack thereof.

Very few Christian theologians hold that God can do the logically impossible, such as create a square circle (or create a rock soooo heavy even He can’t lift it). What makes Him divine is that He is the cause of all things that have been, are, and could be possible. He is the only being who exists by His own intrinsic necessity. He is the Prime Mover. He is what makes reality intelligible. I’m not really bothered (nor are other Christian theologians) by your accusations of limiting God.

 

[Sophia]

Same silly question as often posed, so you’ll get the same response: what are the standards that you are requiring for ‘evidence’ of a non-physical thing?

Ah, the usual attempt to wiggle out. The attempt never fails, but the result never succeeds either.

That soul is supposed to be part of you. You are a physical being with some immaterial aspects. Just like the “mind”, which is the immaterial activity of the brain can be discovered by its interaction with the physical reality. The only “things” which cannot be detected physically are the ones which have no interface to the physical. Some examples are anything outside the light cone, the ones which are inside the Schwarzshield radius, and anything in the past.

So my hypothesis about the subconscious (also NOT a material object!) is very well established via the interface with the physical reality. You hypothesis about the “soul” cannot be established. As they say: “asserted without evidence, rejected without evidence”. That pretty much sums up everything about you.

 

[Wesrock]

Gorgias:

Same silly question as often posed, so you’ll get the same response: what are the standards that you are requiring for ‘evidence’ of a non-physical thing?

Ah, the usual attempt to wiggle out. The attempt never fails, but the result never succeeds either.

That soul is supposed to be part of you. You are a physical being with some immaterial aspects. Just like the “mind”, which is the immaterial activity of the brain can be discovered by its interaction with the physical reality. The only “things” which cannot be detected physically are the ones which have no interface to the physical. Some examples are anything outside the light cone, the ones which are inside the Schwarzshield radius, and anything in the past.

So my hypothesis about the subconscious (also NOT a material object!) is very well established via the interface with the physical reality. You hypothesis about the “soul” cannot be established. As they say: “asserted without evidence, rejected without evidence”. That pretty much sums up everything about you.

It needs a separate topic, and I’m not sure I’d want to delve into it right now with other threads going on, but the immateriality operations of the mind can be established logically based on our experience. That it can’t be quantifiably measured doesn’t mean we can’t deduce that it must be so, unless we wish to deny the mind altogether along denying such things as thinking, reason, logic, self, consciousness, etc…

 

[laylow]

Very few Christian theologians hold that God can do the logically impossible

He doesn’t do, he just IS.

He is the Prime Mover. He is what makes reality intelligible. I’m not really bothered (nor are other Christian theologians) by your accusations of limiting God.

That is a human (limited) perception. The Prime Mover cannot be trumped. Limitation opens the door for the possibility of being trumped.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

He is the Prime Mover. He is what makes reality intelligible. I’m not really bothered (nor are other Christian theologians) by your accusations of limiting God.

Limitation opens the door for the possibility of being trumped.

No, not if you follow what the arguments show. There can be no “trumping.”

Not being able to do the logically impossible isn’t a limitation. Anything that is possible is within God’s realm. Saying the logically impossible is possible is just gibberish nonsense.

 

[laylow]

No, not if you follow what the arguments show. There can be no “trumping.”

Well, if I propose a God with no limitations as the Prime Mover, then that is the Ace over the King.

 

[laylow]

Not being able to do the logically impossible isn’t a limitation.

Interesting. When an atheist asks for logic the answer given is that logic doesn’t apply to the supernatural, the metaphysical.

But when it comes to the Christian’s definition of God, all of the sudden logic comes right back into play. So in reality, it’s not logic at all that is the question, it’s more like WHOSE logic will be dismissed and whose will not. That is what exposes the human construct “ness” about it.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Not being able to do the logically impossible isn’t a limitation.

When an atheist asks for logic the answer given is that logic doesn’t apply to the supernatural, the metaphysical.

Have I done that? God’s existence, omnipotence, supreme goodness, omniscience, Intellect can all be presented through logical, rational arguments. There have been numerous works throughout the millennia devoted to such things. That’s a very unkind generalization and is certainly not the position of the Church on the matter.

 

[joeybaggz]

To those who do not hold the same theological (or non theological) position as the OP.

WHY ARE YOU EVEN BOTHERING WITH THIS THREAD? If the OP is a committed atheist as claimed, there is no possibility of any constructive dialogue. It is like discussing the possibility of square circles or a flat earth with true believes of those positions.

Don’t you have better things to do with your time.

 

[laylow]

Have I done that? God’s existence, omnipotence, supreme goodness, omniscience, Intellect can all be presented through logical, rational arguments

Well claiming these attributes leaves a huge challenge with the problem of evil, there cannot be a logical resolution if you hold to those attributes.

That’s a very unkind generalization and is certainly not the position of the Church on the matter.

Hmmm, maybe so, but it is only based on experience with discussing topics with Christians, so I guess it merely exposes the amount of work the church has on its hands to teach its followers what its true teachings are.