What if the idea of God was proven?

[rover07]

Naaah, he/she/it is refusing to show up

Yeah, complete coward unless he's got his gang of angels with him.

Typical bully.

 

[gorski]

most enlightening, 'm8'

One wouldn't know unless and until one studied it - and systematically and carefully!!!

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/index.htm

For instance: "The Phenomenology of Mind

C: Free Concrete Mind

(DD) VIII. ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE
Absolute Knowledge (1)"

Φ 808. The other aspect, however, in which Spirit comes into being, History, is the process of becoming in terms of knowledge, a conscious self-mediating process – Spirit externalized and emptied into Time. But this form of abandonment is, similarly, the emptying of itself by itself; the negative is negative of itself. This way of becoming presents a slow procession and succession of spiritual shapes (Geistern), a gallery of pictures, each of which is endowed with the entire wealth of Spirit, and moves so slowly just for the reason that the self has to permeate and assimilate all this wealth of its substance. Since its accomplishment consists in Spirit knowing what it is, in fully comprehending its substance, this knowledge means its concentrating itself on itself (Insichgehen), a state in which Spirit leaves its external existence behind and gives its embodiment over to Recollection (Erinnerung). In thus concentrating itself on itself, Spirit is engulfed in the night of its own self-consciousness; its vanished existence is, however, conserved therein; and this superseded existence – the previous state, but born anew from the womb of knowledge – is the new stage of existence, a new world, and a new embodiment or mode of Spirit. Here it has to begin all over again at its immediacy,(12) as freshly as before, and thence rise once more to the measure of its stature, as if , for it, all that preceded were lost, and as if it had learned nothing from the experience of the spirits that preceded. But re-collection (Er-innerung) has conserved that experience. and is the inner being, and, in fact, the higher form of the substance. While, then, this phase of Spirit begins all over again its formative development, apparently starting solely from itself, yet at the same time it commences at a higher level. The realm of spirits developed in this way, and assuming definite shape in existence, constitutes a succession, where one detaches and sets loose the other, and each takes over from its predecessor the empire of the spiritual world. The goal of the process is the revelation of the depth of spiritual life, and this is the Absolute Notion. This revelation consequently means superseding its “depth”, is its “extension” or spatial embodiment, the negation of this inwardly self-centred (insichseiend) ego – a negativity which is its self-relinquishment, its externalization, or its substance: and this revelation is also its temporal embodiment, in that this externalization in its very nature relinquishes (externalizes) itself, and so exists at once in its spatial extension” as well as in its “depth” or the self. The goal, which is Absolute Knowledge or Spirit knowing itself as Spirit, finds its pathway in the recollection of spiritual forms (Geister) as they are in themselves and as they accomplish the organization of their spiritual kingdom. Their conservation, looked at from the side of their free existence appearing in the form of contingency, is History; looked at from the side of their intellectually comprehended organization, it is the Science of the ways in which knowledge appears.(13) Both together, or History (intellectually) comprehended (begriffen), form at once the recollection and the Golgotha of Absolute Spirit, the reality, the truth, the certainty of its throne, without which it were lifeless, solitary, and alone. Only

The chalice of this realm of spirits
Foams forth to God His own Infinitude(14)

Also, from "General Introduction to the Philosophy of History

Source: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Reason In History, a general introduction to the Philosophy of History, A Liberal Arts Press Book, The Bobbs-Werriell Company, Inc. 1953.
Parts III and IV only reproduced here;
Translated: by Robert S. Hartman.

III. The Idea of History and its Realization"

The question of how Reason is determined in itself and what its relation is to the world coincides with the question, What is the ultimate purpose of the world? This question implies that the purpose is to be actualized and realized. Two things, then, must be considered: first, the content of this ultimate purpose, the determination as such, and, secondly, its realization.

To begin with, we must note that world history goes on within the realm of Spirit. The term “world” includes both physical and psychical nature. Physical nature does play a part in world history, and from the very beginning we shall draw attention to the fundamental natural relations thus involved. But Spirit, and the course of its development, is the substance of history. We must not contemplate nature as a rational system in itself, in its own particular domain, but only in its relation to Spirit.

After the creation of nature appears Man. He constitutes the antithesis to the natural world; he is the being that lifts itself up to the second world. We have in our universal consciousness two realms, the realm of Nature and the realm of Spirit. The realm of Spirit consists in what is produced by man. One may have all sorts of ideas about the Kingdom of God; but it is always a realm of Spirit to be realized and brought about in man.

The realm of Spirit is all-comprehensive; it includes everything that ever has interested or ever will interest man. Man is active in it; whatever he does, he is the creature within which the Spirit works. Hence it is of interest, in the course of history, to learn to know spiritual nature in its existence, that is, the point where Spirit and Nature unite, namely, human nature. In speaking of human nature we mean something permanent. The concept of human nature must fit all men and all ages, past and present. This universal concept may suffer infinite modifications; but actually the universal is one and the same essence in its most various modifications. Thinking reflection disregards the variations and adheres to the universal, which under all circumstances is active in the same manner and shows itself in the same interest. The universal type appears even in what seems to deviate – from it most strongly; in the most distorted figure we can still discern the human. ...

This kind of reflection abstracts from the content, the purpose of human activity. ... But the cultured human mind cannot help making distinctions between inclinations and desires as they manifest themselves in small circumstances and as they appear in the struggle of world-wide historical interests. Here appears an objective interest, which impresses us in two aspects, that of the universal aim and that of the individual who represents this aim. It is this which makes history so fascinating. These are the aims and individuals whose loss and decline we mourn. When we have before us the struggle of the Greeks against the Persians or Alexander’s mighty dominion, we know very well what interests us. We want to see the Greeks saved from barbarism, we want the Athenian state preserved, and we are interested in the ruler under whose leadership the Greeks subjugated Asia. If it were only a matter of human passion, we would not feel any loss in imagining that Alexander would have failed in his enterprise. We could very well content ourselves in seeing here mere play of passions, but we would not feel satisfied. We have here a substantial, an objective interest. ...

In contemplating world history we must thus consider its ultimate purpose. This ultimate purpose is what is willed in the world itself. We know of God that He is the most perfect; He can will only Himself and what is like Him. God and the nature of His will are one and the same; these we call, philosophically, the Idea. Hence, it is the Idea in general, in its manifestation as human spirit, which we have to contemplate. More precisely, it is the idea of human freedom. The purest form in which the Idea manifests itself is Thought itself. In this aspect the Idea is treated in Logic. Another form is that of physical Nature. The third form, finally, is that of Spirit in general.

Anyone with a bit of good will can learn a few things here, methinx... In this context that there are very different ideas of that which we call "God". For Hegel it equates with the Absolute [Idea/Spirit/Philosophy] etc. But what he means exactly by all that - one has to study and carefully. Not an easy subject to be "fan like" about... Cheering on or booing off is not exactly very fruitful.

Anyway, just to show that not all ideas of "God" are the same, fluffy, "ethereal", "disconnected", "other sided", 2p worth of everyday nonsense of "pretty [or horrifying] images" and imaginings.

There are other ones, much more serious and worldly-rooted ones, too! Much more demanding, also but hey...

We choose such "Philosophies" in relation to our characters!

 

[Jonti]

What is reality other than what we make it to be? Your reality is not the same as mine. Mine is not the same as the reality of anyone else. We create and re-create our realities constantly...

Up to a point this is true for the social and interpersonal world. But there is such a thing as reality. To ignore that fact is dangerous unscientific twaddle which plays into the hands of the "modern radicals" and xtian fundamentalists alike.



A little more respect for rocks and stuff is needed, I think.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

u cant prove the existence of Allah in that sense, not to the point of it not requiring faith, thats what the reward of paradise is for,

that doesnt mean there arent clear signs and proof tho, or that disbelievers arent going to hell.

 

[Jonti]

It's my sincere hope that in the future one will be able to sue preachers of hellfire and damnation for the mental distress they inflict. It's a form of emotional assault and abuse to teach and preach this kind of nonsense.

There is no reason to tolerate vile threats of this kind, especially when they are aimed at children (unless, of course, they can be shown to well founded on the balance of probabilities in a civil court).

 

[Badgers]

All war would stop
Nobody would lie

Atheists would shuffle nervously and stuff

 

[Spion]

One wouldn't know unless and until one studied it - and systematically and carefully!!!

<snip>

Sorry, I just don't buy this: "Oooh, it's all so-o-o-o-o-o complicated, you *really* have to study it, *really really really* study it* (accompanied by earnest looks and hand-wringing)

Balls. Why not just tell us what you think instead of C&Ping someone else's ramblings?

 

[gorski]

'Cause I wanna, innit!!!

 

[Barking_Mad]

We might get Anarchy of a religious form?

Christ founded neither a Church, nor a State; he handed over no laws, nor government, nor any form of external authority; but he tried to write the law of God in the hearts of men in order that they might govern themselves

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We might get Anarchy of a religious form?

Everyone would be standing up and declaring themselves the messiah.

A whole bunch of shepherds but no sheep.

 

[butchersapron]

Christ founded neither a Church, nor a State; he handed over no laws, nor government, nor any form of external authority; but he tried to write the law of God in the hearts of men in order that they might govern themselves

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, " ?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

A consicous creator who takes a care in human affairs? I'd have to get to know him really, sounds like an interesting kinda guy.

however you'dnto be able to because the moment that you proved there was a god then she'd be gettign law suits and ligitation which would tie her up in court for the rest of your natral days ....


act of god eh?

so that cost us as a nation 4 billion dollars...

So this murderer was hearing your voice...

so we were created in your image with free will but an life which was preordaned by you so merely in reality an illusion of free will where all possible determinations had already be calculated and therefore planned against...

so you basically fuck me over my shit life of not having a, b , c and d is becuase you failed to come up with a decent program of events for me....

sue sue sue....

 

[Barking_Mad]

Everyone would be standing up and declaring themselves the messiah.

A whole bunch of shepherds but no sheep.

Sounds good

"When among 100 men, one rules over 99, it is unjust, it is despotism; when 10 rule over 90, it is equally unjust, it is an oligarchy; but when 51 rule over 49 it is freedom, it is entirely just!

Could anything be funnier, in its manifest absurdity than such reasoning? And yet it is this very reasoning that serves as the basis for all the reformers of the political structure."

 

[Barking_Mad]

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, " ?

And the gates of hell will not overpower it.


I had to look that up

 

[Demosthenes]

Yeah, complete coward unless he's got his gang of angels with him.

Typical bully.

typical idiot.

 

[rover07]

Thanks

 

[kyser_soze]

1. It would fuck any pantheist religions, atheists and buddhists

2. It would fuck the monotheist religious institutions. They're all set up around the basic idea that God is unknowable by humans, that it is not of this universe or some other such stuff. Conclusive proof that God existed, that it was a material object in the universe would completely fuck organised religions

3. Everyone would be 'WOAH!' then 'Oh' when they realised that this pan-galactic entity couln't give, and never had given, a flying fuck about human desires, pain, wars and the rest of it, and it would be there, in the background like some annoying humming sound.

Personally I reckon sitting back and watching the war breaking out between religions over who gets the TV rights to the 2nd coming would be more interesting...

 

[Spion]

1. It would fuck any pantheist religions, atheists and buddhists

Naah, a consistent atheist would be the most willing convert, assuming the evidence was there. We would seek ways to work with it, then get it to throw lighting bolts at the false god worshippers and stuff

 

[kyser_soze]

That's true actually.

Still stand by my statement that it would fuck the Abrahamic faiths tho.

 

[phildwyer]

But there is such a thing as reality. To ignore that fact is dangerous unscientific twaddle

To ignore Jonti, on the other hand, is sensible scientific rationalism.

 

[Idaho]

This idea of God as a servant of human's needs and aspirations is so typically human (and to a great extend Christianity-inspired) that this type of comment was inevitable.

innit

Crazy desert religions. I think the world would have been better if Judaism, Christianity and Islam had remained isolated cults on the Arabian penninsula. If god is knows all and is all powerful, why does he want a bunch of people worpshipping him and following nonsensical rules?

The god concept is the lynch-pin of religion, and religion is a human construct to explain the world. The idea that religion, and therefore god, is beyond and above humanity is the final artifice in a self-supporting rationale.

 

[xes]

I dunno about god,but I think Jesus was just a personification of the sun. And the 12 deciples are the constilations.

* The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
* In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
* The sun is the "Light of the World."
* The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
* The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
* The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.
* The sun "walks on water."
* The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
* The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
* The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
* The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.

 

[gorski]

From EB Online

The existence of God:

Basic themes and problems in the philosophy of religion > The problem of God, the Absolute, or the supreme value > The existence of God

The so-called proofs of God's existence are of two kinds: independent logical exercises or particular conclusions set within an overall metaphysics. Either way, the discourse of these independent proofs or metaphysical schemes is best viewed as speech designed to evoke a disclosure. A particular argument recommends, as a way of speaking about what the disclosure discloses, a particular brand of discourse offering an interpretation of the world and man and one that develops from a specific key idea grounded in the disclosure. The existence of an Absolute or a supreme value has never been concluded as a result of an isolated logical exercise but has always arisen in the context of a total metaphysics. Thus, a quasi-mathematical structure, for Spinoza; a dialectic method, for Hegel; and evolutionary considerations, for the modern French philosopher Henri Bergson, determined the discourse that these three philosophers used in order to evoke that situation to which God or Nature, the Absolute Spirit, or the life force became for them respectively key concepts of interpretation. Bradley similarly reached a belief in an Absolute Spirit by reflecting on the logical problems of relatedness.

The following are some traditional arguments for the existence of God restyled along the lines suggested above:

The ontological argument of Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033–1109) takes a phrase “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” and uses it as a technique for disclosure, directing one without limit to an ever-increasing perspective, in the hope that at some point the light will dawn, whereupon the phrase “necessary being” will be used to develop talk of the God.

The cosmological argument uses as a technique for disclosure such questions as “Why is this thus?” or “Why is there anything at all?” In receiving replies to these questions in causal terms, the cosmological argument builds up an ever-increasing causal spread until a disclosure occurs, whereupon the phrase “first cause” specifies what is disclosed and advocates certain ways of talking.

The argument from design takes a story with acknowledged disclosure possibilities—e.g., the interrelated parts of a watch—and uses this as a catalyst to evoke a disclosure around some ever-broadening purpose patterns of the universe, in relation to which one can speak of God in terms, for example, of eternal purpose.

What is, in different ways, implied by these arguments is that the word God is unique in its logic, that it works in discourse as no other word exactly works. Thus, one cannot say “God exists” but rather “God necessarily exists.” This is sometimes expressed by remarking that the existence of God is not the existence of a physical object or even the existence of a person, though what can be said about persons is less misleading in speaking about God than in speaking about the logic of things. This point is sometimes made, albeit misleadingly by saying that God does not exist, but this is only a picturesque way of saying that he does not exist in the way that a table exists.

Basic themes and problems in the philosophy of religion > The problem of God, the Absolute, or the supreme value > The nature of God

These reflections are of wider applicability in relation to the nature and attributes of God. Such attributes are spoken of in terms of personal models, such as wisdom, goodness, power, love, mercy, righteousness, and so on. These models, however, will always need qualification by words such as infinite, perfect, and all. What is quite clear is that grammar itself is no clue to the logic of phrases such as “infinitely wise.” Although that phrase is similar in grammar to one such as “exceedingly wise”—a phrase that is entirely descriptive in its logic—it is logically quite different, because “infinitely wise” has both descriptive and what has been called performative force. In other words, it not only describes some matters of fact—some specimens of wisdom—because of the word wise, which works descriptively as a model, but it also generates something—the word infinite acting as an operator, continually directing persons to expand their understanding until a moment of vision emerges. Alternatively, the point that God is not a being has sometimes been made by saying that God is the ground of Being—“the ground of” functioning as a qualifier, operating as the model of beings, or things. The emphasis of such qualifiers is twofold. First, they remind one of the inadequacy of all language used to speak of God—language authorized by particular models that, arising in a moment of vision or disclosure, naturally originate speech about what the disclosure discloses. Secondly, qualifiers constantly point one back through developed discourse to that moment of vision in which the discourse originated and in which alone one knows what the discourse is speaking about. The logic of models and qualifiers is a way of combining the intelligibility and mystery that any philosophy of religion must preserve.

Language about God thus develops as a multiple discourse, having various strands of which each is authorized by a particular model and of which each must, somewhere along the line, be modified by the presence of the others. Thus, theological understanding is a complex interweaving of different strands, and not least is the task of the philosopher of religion to produce the most comprehensive, coherent, consistent, and simple discourse he can. When problems arise that seem to be problems about the nature of God—for example, the conflict between different attributes—these are most profitably translated into problems of language. They then become problems of how to create discourse of the kind that in the end produces the best understanding of a cosmic disclosure with a single individuation, in which all the pertinent discourse originates and about which all the different strands endeavour to speak.

Basic themes and problems in the philosophy of religion > The problem of God, the Absolute, or the supreme value > The knowledge of God

Natural theology is the name given to the kind of discourse about God and the world that originates in natural moments of vision without reference to God's revelation of himself in an incarnation, and in this sense “natural theology” is distinguished from “revealed theology.” Among some philosophers—e.g., Locke—the distinction is one between general and special revelation. In natural theology are generally included the “proofs” of the existence of God, discussions about the immortality of the soul, and discussions about God's providential control of the world, which provides for man a state of moral probation.

Some have viewed religious experience as affording direct evidence for the existence of God. In any discussion of religious experience, however, it is important at the outset to distinguish religious experience in general—a sense of awe or reverence, or a sense of the numinous—from mystical experience. The language of mystics is notoriously confusing to those not accustomed to the mystical idiom, and a leading question is how far mystical experience can establish the kind of objective reference it claims. Words such as immediate, direct, and intuitive refer rather to the way in which the experience occurs as a disclosure rather than justifying one in taking as guaranteed the interpretation that this disclosure appears to bring with it. If one already has an interpretative scheme, then mystical experience may provide an instance of such a scheme, but this has been rightly described as supporting belief in God “on the way back” rather than “on the way out.” The concept of revelation is used by Christians to describe the way in which God's activity is uniquely disclosed in Christ, and faith relates to the human attitude and response that matches revelation subjectively. Revelation is sometimes contrasted with discovery, the former being said to relate to a passive subject, the latter to an active subject, but the distinction is largely one of emphasis. Philosophers of religion are now inclined to view revelation in terms of activity that waits to be interpreted rather than as a revelation of propositions. Revelation thus relates to events rather than to doctrine. According to this view, doctrine could never have the ultimacy and finality that necessarily belongs to the givenness of God in his incarnation or incarnations.

Basic themes and problems in the philosophy of religion > Special problems > Freedom

Among the classical problems in the philosophy of religion are those of free will, self-identity, immortality, evil, and suffering. The freedom of the will is a claim for the uniqueness of the subject, known in occasions of activity in which the subject “comes alive” and realizes his subjectivity as that which cannot be reduced to the behaviour patterns and facts—i.e., the objects—of the natural and social sciences. Such freedom is realized in responding to a situation that has equally come alive objectively to inspire a person and call forth such response. Some claim the predictable character of human behaviour rules out man's freedom; others state that the extent to which human behaviour is unpredictable argues for freedom. This controversy, however, does not in any way solve the problem of freedom; it only makes evident what kind of problem the problem of freedom is, viz., how far human nature is capable of being analyzed into behavioral terms without any residue.

And let's try this - they say you will be able to see this even if you don't have the full membership [and I do]:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108545/philosophy-of-religion

 

[gorski]

Ooopsss, I think it must be embedded in my blog/site etc. - maybe not like this?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I really loved the debate between Aldebaran and Spion, because I was just going to ask a question on this topic. I thought Aldebarans counter argument in post to 37 was logically and scientifically blistering.

No, you show a fundamental misunderstanding about what believing God exists entails and also a fundamental misunderstanding in what science is actually about.
There is for those who do not believe in God no other proof in science than what their belief in it dictates them to accept. Tomorrow someone else can overrule all of the currenly held opinions and conclusions. There is no end to it. That is what science is about, and it is fascinating how some people make that into their religion.

Every new discovery underscores the reality that the human mind although able to be curious and to research, is limited, imperfect and insecure about its understanding. That shall never change unless you want to state that science itself shall be completed and hence halted, having reached absolute knowledge and understanding of everything for eternity.
The moment you can point me to a human who reached that point, you have a point to make.

There is infinitely much more needed to reach a point where a human mind could get notion of what humans commonly call "God".

salaam.

unfortunately Aldebaran gets deflected from this line of argument into trying to prove the existence of God. Line of argument which is logically and, even more importantly I would suppose to him/her RELIGIOUSLY unattainable. If Aldebaran had gone on to reiterate his point like this, wouldn't it have been more difficult to counter Spion?

What materialism, logic, and science could prove 300 years ago, is a million years away from what those things can prove to day. Many of the scientific beliefs that are held today, in 300 years time could well be held in the disdain. They will be looked at as almost pseudo-religious viewpoints so lacking in evidence, that is given by the new insight 300 years of scientific development could give. The scientific view of today is a belief system, which will quite scientifically logically COULD be redundant at sometime in the future.


Atheists aren't God deniers? How can you deny the existence of God?

I thought atheism was based upon materialism, logic, and science? And as far as I understand logic it is impossible, logically and scientifically, to prove a negative isn't it ? Isn't it impossible to prove that something doesn't exist?

What atheists can say...............? What atheists can say, is that "there isn't sufficient, if any, proof to prove the existence of God", yes? Something Christians are ironically believe in too "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

Where does that take us? I don't know. But if I am right about the logic, then it seems only right for atheists not to deny that belief which we hold dear.

 

[Demosthenes]

I dunno about god,but I think Jesus was just a personification of the sun. And the 12 deciples are the constilations.

* The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
* In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
* The sun is the "Light of the World."
* The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
* The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
* The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.
* The sun "walks on water."
* The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
* The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
* The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
* The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.

No shit sherlock

Except, I think it's only in english that 'son' sounds like 'sun'

 

[Aldebaran]

unfortunately Aldebaran gets deflected from this line of argument into trying to prove the existence of God.

I don't try to "prove the existance of God". I don't get deflected from my argument either.

Line of argument which is logically and, even more importantly I would suppose to him/her RELIGIOUSLY unattainable. If Aldebaran had gone on to reiterate his point like this, wouldn't it have been more difficult to counter Spion?

I don't approach this from a religious point of view. I simply state that Spion has a defective idea about what believing in God's existance entails and an illogical subjective belief and trust in what science teaches about what humans see as reality.

Nothing from what I say is for me "religiously unattainable". In fact, nothing I ever approached or shall approach is or can.

(Spion, apologies for not answering your posts. I shall come back to this later)

salaam.

 

[MikeMcc]

All it would prove is the existence of a more powerful being than ourselves. It wouldn't conclusively prove a god / creator. The religious groups could just say that it is another being produced by their version of God the creator.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I don't try to "prove the existance of God". I don't get deflected from my argument either.



I don't approach this from a religious point of view. I simply state that Spion has a defective idea about what believing in God's existance entails and an illogical subjective belief and trust in what science teaches about what humans see as reality.

Nothing from what I say is for me "religiously unattainable". In fact, nothing I ever approached or shall approach is or can.

(Spion, apologies for not answering your posts. I shall come back to this later)

salaam.

well I accept if you tell me so, that is not what you believe, but from my perception of your writing, you do get deflected. perhaps that's my fault. Perhaps I project too much of my logic on to your post 37.

what you didn't seem to continue from post 37 was the line of argument, "it is irrelevant whether God exists or not, it is illogical to argue something doesn't exist because 1. What constitutes evidence is constantly being transformed. 2(and therefore). You cannot prove a negative.

is that the line of argument you intend to continue?

 

[Aldebaran]

mmm... no.
I didn't say it is irrelevant wether God exists or not.
I said that the argument mlade for God's non-existance is flawed because it entirely rests on and within the human's perspective of human reality.

Of course you can project this argument back onto my conclusion that God exists when I say that gets entirely underscored by scientific reasearch and its findings.
The difference is that I do not rely on science to believe in God while those who do not believe stronly adhere to and rely on the argument "science can't prove it, hence God doesn't exist".

There is a point to make though about it being irrelevant to seek proof wether God yes or no exists since God shall always be beyond human comprehension.
Belief (no matter which type of) inevitably needs to accept to cross the edge outlined by human reason and logic into the mystery of what we can't explore and/or know.

salaam.