The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[axon]

Right ... but the original point was that an atom isn't physical because no one can sense it.

So for your analogy of the tv ... everyone must be blind with no sense of touch for the tv to not be physical.

Right. But what if everyone was blind and I invented a robot (call him Geoff for the sake of argument) that can detect a muted TV, and could communicate this information to us blind folk. By Phils reckoning the TV still physically doesn't exist, because (going back to his atoms) atoms don't exist because you can't see them directly, you need some sense-heightening equipment (Geoff) to see them.
I wonder if Phil wears glasses, if he does then there's an awful lot of things that aren't physical.

 

[Jo/Joe]

But could you say, with absolute certainty (i.e. could you prove), that they were made by an antelope (or whatever) and not some guy with a set of cardboard cut out paws and a weird sense of humour?

With a team of forensic experts I could.

 

[laptop]

With a team of forensic experts I could.

...some guy with a set of cardboard cut out paws, some antelope DNA, a couple antelope hairs and a weird sense of humour?

 

[Jo/Joe]

I'd just get more forensic experts...they're ten a penny round my mway

 

[laptop]

I'd just get more forensic experts...they're ten a penny round my mway

But since I can't see, touch or hear them - and quite likely wouldn't want to taste them - how do I know they're real forensic experts?

 

[118118]

Philosophers grappling with scientific realism usually decide that electrons are real becuase they can spray them. The 'If I can spray them then they're real' argument. Geniuses

 

[bugsy7]

I will pause here to finish last night's pizza. I may be some time, so just chat among yourselves if you like.

That's about the fourth time you've "paused to finish last night's pizza". Eat the fucking thing in one go, FFS!

MsG

 

[Loki]

Is the holy lord here yet?

 

[nino_savatte]

Stop stalking me Nino. No-one wants you here, and there is no place for you on this thread. For a while you provided light relief and your presence was just about tolerable, but you have now outlived your usefulness here. I suggest that you mooch off to another corner of the boards, where you can sit and grumble to yourself without annoying others too much. Here you are merely a pest. As you say yourself, you're only hoping that, somehow, you will be able to prevent God's existence being proven, and it seems that you are willing to go to any lenghts to achieve your aim. I can tell you right now that you will certainly fail. This matter is too vital to allow your buffoonery to get in the way. I am sorry, but you must leave now. Goodbye.

Unlike you phil, I am not stalking you. If you start a thread with a provocative title like "Rational Proof of God's Existence" what do you expect? Here in this post you show us all how truly delusional you really are. This passage proves my point

As you say yourself, you're only hoping that, somehow, you will be able to prevent God's existence being proven, and it seems that you are willing to go to any lenghts to achieve your aim.

First, where did I say such a thing and second how can I prevent "God's existence being proven" when I know for a fact that 'God' is a concept invented in the mind of humans? In order to provide proof of something imaginary and conceptual you would have to reify. You understand what is meant by reification I presume. Even with reification, the concept remains in the imagination.

 

[angry bob]

Right. But what if everyone was blind and I invented a robot (call him Geoff for the sake of argument) that can detect a muted TV, and could communicate this information to us blind folk. By Phils reckoning the TV still physically doesn't exist, because (going back to his atoms) atoms don't exist because you can't see them directly, you need some sense-heightening equipment (Geoff) to see them.

All you would know for sure is that there was something out there that causes Geoff to tell you there's a tv.

I accept that atoms exist. But in what sense are things on the quantum level real anyway?

 

[Pickman's model]

Is the holy lord here yet?

not if s/he's any sense.

 

[Purdie]

so while we're waiting

 

[phildwyer]

Unlike you phil, I am not stalking you. If you start a thread with a provocative title like "Rational Proof of God's Existence" what do you expect? Here in this post you show us all how truly delusional you really are. This passage proves my point

First, where did I say such a thing and second how can I prevent "God's existence being proven" when I know for a fact that 'God' is a concept invented in the mind of humans? In order to provide proof of something imaginary and conceptual you would have to reify. You understand what is meant by reification I presume. Even with reification, the concept remains in the imagination.

But all you're doing here is expressing *faith.* You say that you "know for a fact" that God does not exist. *How* do you know this? Have you thought the matter through, examining the various arguments pro and contra? Of course you haven't. You don't have to bother with that stuff, do you: you just "know" that there is no God. This is what I mean when I say that atheism is the "default position" of the Western bourgeoisie. Those who have never thought about the question properly will find that they just "know" God does not exist. That is what society *tells* them, subconsciously, to believe. An interesting question, to which we will return, is *why* society does this. How did atheism become what it undoubtedly is today: the opium of the people?

Anyway, Nino, if you really and sincerely want to participate in this thread, I will give you a chance. I am not one to turn away the lost sheep who seeks to return to the fold. But it probably isn't the most constructive method of taking part just to announce that you "know" in advance what the answer is. Perhaps you'd like to begin by informing us whether you agree with my proof so far, and if not, which are the points on which you think I have made errors. If you do this with goodwill, I guarantee that I will respond in kind. You may well discover that your *faith* that God does not exist is constructed on very shakey foundations.

 

[robotsimon]

This is what I mean when I say that atheism is the "default position" of the Western bourgeoisie. Those who have never thought about the question properly will find that they just "know" God does not exist. That is what society *tells* them, subconsciously, to believe. An interesting question, to which we will return, is *why* society does this. How did atheism become what it undoubtedly is today: the opium of the people?

You are quite simply wrong here.
Using Britain as an example - a country which is often supposed to be one of the most secular societies in Europe - the 2001 census revealed that 76.8% of the population consider themselves to belong to a religion. Of those 76.8%, 71.6% stated that they were Christian. The question concerning religion was completely voluntary and gave people the option, if they chose to answer it, that they were of no religion. Over 92% of respondants answered this question.
Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293

I understand that believing in god and belonging to a religion may be considered to be separate things but is it not a reasonable assumption that people who state they belong to a religion believe in god?

 

[Crispy]

your *faith* that God does not exist is constructed on very shakey foundations.

Probably. My house is built on sand. Yours seems to be built on quicksand

 

[Loki]

not if s/he's any sense.

*is very annoyed*

 

[phildwyer]

You are quite simply wrong here.
Using Britain as an example - a country which is often supposed to be one of the most secular societies in Europe - the 2001 census revealed that 76.8% of the population consider themselves to belong to a religion. Of those 76.8%, 71.6% stated that they were Christian. The question concerning religion was completely voluntary and gave people the option, if they chose to answer it, that they were of no religion. Over 92% of respondants answered this question.
Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293

I understand that believing in god and belonging to a religion may be considered to be separate things but is it not a reasonable assumption that people who state they belong to a religion believe in god?

I said the "Western *bourgeoisie.*" The workers, being less thoroughly indoctrinated and having less investment in our atheist society, have always believed in God.

 

[robotsimon]

I said the "Western *bourgeoisie.*" The workers, being less thoroughly indoctrinated and having less investment in our atheist society, have always believed in God.

I have not seen the figures from the 2001 census which support this argument. Have you?

 

[slaar]

I said the "Western *bourgeoisie.*" The workers, being less thoroughly indoctrinated and having less investment in our atheist society, have always believed in God.

You think Britain has a working class greater than 75% of the population?

Ha.

 

[Santino]

But all you're doing here is expressing *faith.* You say that you "know for a fact" that God does not exist. *How* do you know this? Have you thought the matter through, examining the various arguments pro and contra? Of course you haven't.

I have done this. I have thought long and hard about it. I have read a lot of the history of philosophy and religion. I have come to the conclusion that not only is there no God, but that the very concept of God is illogical and impossible. My atheism - and I consider myself as atheist as it is possible to be - is not a default position, nor in any way an item of faith. I can't speak for anyone else.

 

[Santino]

I said the "Western *bourgeoisie.*" The workers, being less thoroughly indoctrinated and having less investment in our atheist society, have always believed in God.

Surely this belief is as uncritical as the atheism which you claim to be indoctrinated into the bourgeois?

 

[phildwyer]

Surely this belief is as uncritical as the atheism which you claim to be indoctrinated into the bourgeois?

In most cases, yes. I am opposed to taking *anything* on faith, whether it be religion or atheism. I accept your word that you have looked into the question of God's existence deeply, but if you'll read back on this thread, you'll find it replete with Ninoesque assertions that investigation into this matter is simply not necessary. People who shout their atheism from the rooftops and, in the next breath, announce that they have never read the Bible--no, that they *would* never read it, that reading it is a silly thing to do--deserve only contempt.

 

[nino_savatte]

But all you're doing here is expressing *faith.* You say that you "know for a fact" that God does not exist. *How* do you know this? Have you thought the matter through, examining the various arguments pro and contra? Of course you haven't. You don't have to bother with that stuff, do you: you just "know" that there is no God. This is what I mean when I say that atheism is the "default position" of the Western bourgeoisie. Those who have never thought about the question properly will find that they just "know" God does not exist. That is what society *tells* them, subconsciously, to believe. An interesting question, to which we will return, is *why* society does this. How did atheism become what it undoubtedly is today: the opium of the people?

Anyway, Nino, if you really and sincerely want to participate in this thread, I will give you a chance. I am not one to turn away the lost sheep who seeks to return to the fold. But it probably isn't the most constructive method of taking part just to announce that you "know" in advance what the answer is. Perhaps you'd like to begin by informing us whether you agree with my proof so far, and if not, which are the points on which you think I have made errors. If you do this with goodwill, I guarantee that I will respond in kind. You may well discover that your *faith* that God does not exist is constructed on very shakey foundations.

How am I expressing "faith" when I have no faith in what is an imaginary construct? If there is a "God" then it stands to reason there is a Father Xmas.

You have not provided any "proof"...any "proof" you have "provided" is in your imagination. Indeed many others have pointed this out to you but you are incapable of understanding this. Instead you resort to invective and abuse. This is not a discussion, this thread is about you and your ego.

 

[slaar]

Quick show of hands: who is convinced by phil's proof so far? Only those who are need say so, I'll assume the default position is a firm no based on the average post in response.

 

[nino_savatte]

Quick show of hands: who is convinced by phil's proof so far? Only those who are need say so, I'll assume the default position is a firm no based on the average post in response.

Not me. He's had well over 56 pages to come up with something credible and he has failed to come up with the goods.

I've just had an idea: perhaps I should start a thread entitled "The rational proof of the existence of Father Xmas/Kris Kringle/Santa Claus".

 

[Santino]

In most cases, yes. I am opposed to taking *anything* on faith, whether it be religion or atheism. I accept your word that you have looked into the question of God's existence deeply, but if you'll read back on this thread, you'll find it replete with Ninoesque assertions that investigation into this matter is simply not necessary. People who shout their atheism from the rooftops and, in the next breath, announce that they have never read the Bible--no, that they *would* never read it, that reading it is a silly thing to do--deserve only contempt.

I've never read the Bible, and I only would as I would any other book of myths. Ditto all other religous works, whether ancient or modern.

The only reason why people find it necessary to think deeply about the (in)existence of God is that human society is so saturated with various forms of religion that to actively be an atheist requires a conscious effort.

 

[slaar]

Not me. He's had well over 56 pages to come up with something credible and he has failed to come up with the goods.

I've just had an idea: perhaps I should start a thread entitled "The rational proof of the existence of Father Xmas/Kris Kringle/Santa Claus".

Perhaps "The rational proof of the existence of the flying spaghetti monster"?

Incidentally, anyone know the longest ever thread, because this one must get close at some stage, I guess we're not even half way through the "proof" yet.

 

[Fruitloop]

I've read the bible in some detail, and also the Torah. Both are works of substantial literary merit, but I wouldn't set much store by the factual or historical content.

 

[Fruitloop]

I've just had an idea: perhaps I should start a thread entitled "The rational proof of the existence of Father Xmas/Kris Kringle/Santa Claus".

I think you should do it - a mastery of subtle illogic is a beautiful thing to behold.

As Umberto Eco says, how can the Marquis de Carabas not exist when Puss-in-Boots says he's in the Marquis's service?

 

[Santino]

I wonder what Phil thinks off all the people throughout history who have believed in God(s) and yet have not acquired their belief through his proof.