• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

lets list disproofs, or proofs, of a god.

If we can't understand or even conceive something, why would should we believe it?
If something is inconceivable and absolutely doesn't fit in our heads, we wouldn't even be able to perceive it. That would be like describe colors to a blind man. And if God is infinite, he is infinitely incomprehensible and our comprehension is infinitely useless, in such a way the word 'God' wouldn't even exist.
It seems to me this discussion is leading to a place where the word 'God' is pointing to the absolutely incomprehensible and inconceivable.

Once we admit reason and logic are not appropriate to understand God, what remains to us is faith. And faith, friends, we can have in anything.
 
Psyduck said:
So you're implying that love is a symptom of delusion and insanity too? You can't justify love or rationally explain it. Do you really need rational motives in order to love your partner? Or do you feel the need to (dis)proof that your partner loves you? Is the binary answer (yes/no) to that question the essence of what love is about?
Click to expand...

Wait, love is a mystery? All "love" is, is a selfish narrative of another person. "I love this person because..." if love fails, it's because the person didn't meet your selfish expectations. The rest is fucking and babies spiced with tradition.

Anyway, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. You can just say it's 'highly unlikely a Man/Woman made from nothing to create everything'.
 
yougene said:
Good point. Can OP's thought experiment be framed in an insufficiently robust system? I believe any insufficiently robust system would be considered "trivial" but not sure. At the least ordinality is required for all major mystical ontologies due to being arranged as cumulative hierarchies.
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble figuring out whether we can frame things in terms of formal logic like this. The god-traits are empirical properties which act on empirical situations...I'm not sure how they'd map onto something looking like set theory, [augmented] predicate calculus, etc. BUT, I think that Godel's general point is about self-reference, that formally sound systems cannot describe themselves while remaining formally sound. That is, anthropomorphizing, they cannot be autonomous and perfect.

ebola
 
For something like the real numbers, one can relatively easily construct a set of axioms and then based on these axioms proceed to prove statements like: "For every positive real number x, there exists another positive number y, such that the square of y is x." (this says that every positive number has a real square root)

Its a lot harder to devise an axiomatic system where the existence of god can be investigated...

My understanding is that the main point of Gödel's incompleteness theorem is, that in sufficiently complex logical systems, there can exist statements that are true but still impossible to prove with finitely many deductive steps. The Goldbach conjecture of number theory is often suspected to be such a statement.
 
If god exists outside of our universe or outside of our perceptions, I consider it to be irrelevant; the universe can fundamentally be divided and understood -- hopefully will eventually be fully understood -- through science.
I don't have faith in science, so much as I consider it to be a robust system, yet if god were to appear before me, I'd have no choice but to rethink my perspective and to consider belief in that particular "god".
Unfortunately or fortunately, however you look at it, I've not experienced what Alasdair M has experienced and therefore believe that god is non-existent or, even so, meaningless to us.

Does 'god' come from our desire to understand the natural world around us, a desire and passion for a parent-figure's respect, specifically a father figure? What? I don't know whether I've ever considered religion to be important.

However, in the sacred texts, the idea of a 'God' is far too human: it made man in its own image, but created women from a rib?
This was written during a time when women lacked the freedom they do today and were considered to be property.
I mention this because the character of the god in the Bible and such has so many common traits with society and man at that time!
Placing even a few pages of a science (biology in particular) textbook into the bible would provide some very convincing arguments for theists and may have prevented such huge losses of life.

I've a question for any Judeo-Christian followers.
How can a perfect being require worship?

Morality is not only created by conscious thought, it also appears to lie in the subconscious as regards protecting our own lives so that we may continue to perpetuate the species; that our genes might be passed on.
We seem psychologically conditioned to find babies 'cute' and not-edible.
We don't all commit murder because it would result in the extinction of our species.

If God is nothing and everything, then it must be you and also not you, is that correct?
If it's meant to be vague and confusing, impossible to understand, then there really seems no real point in knowing it, for it cannot be known; understood; scientifically studied and repeated.

But over time, religion has been worked into such a political device that the 'Church' gets a massive say in what goes on in the world.
Why not get rid of traditional religion?
It's thousands of years old anyway and only causes suffering: consider those who're beheaded due to rape or infidelity, buried alive because of homosexuality, etc.

Just a few incoherent thoughts (it's late).
 
Kerrigan said:
I don't have faith in science, so much as I consider it to be a robust system, yet if god were to appear before me, I'd have no choice but to rethink my perspective and to consider belief in that particular "god".
Click to expand...

Even then, since as you say it's meant to be vague and confusing and therefore possesses no need of knowing it: this instance of God appearing before you could be explained as a delusion, a psychotic episode, and faith in science remains because it is immutable, contingent to experience, and empirical.

All orderly occurrences, which are orderly when measured in the grand scheme of things, are all that could remain manifest after the fact of perceiving them: if you couldn't integrate a "why" to a certain happening, it would lose its context and become unreal to you in retrospect. Therefore God or something super-natural occurring, will seem superfluous the more you realize that only orderly things can manifest and maintain their cohesion forward in time. Of course, disorder, even if just perceived, is required to understand order. God imparts us with science by being the exception to it; the concept of God allows it to exist; so in that sense is created by God.
 
good stuff peoples, nice to see this convo with no arguments.!

i havent read anything in the bible asking or instructing others to, sit in a church and worship a "figure", but rather that this figure is us, and the church is you and i individually.

when i began to "learn" the rosary, or decided to try and learn i couldnt find any one particular way, besides the classic standards, and i also had to think that Mary wasnt saying Ave Maria with her rosary -- no... haha


a universal being, figure, entity, point-of-light, fluctuating paradigm manifold, is not in need of our praise...JC asks no where for people to start a religion, divide, slaughter each other in "his" name.
no... it just doesnt.


i feel i should try and paraphrase pascal - "if you believe in and acknowledge a God(s) or -spiritual belief system-, and they exist GREAT - if you go through life believing and acknowledging a god, and it turns out to not be real, what did you lose?!"

after spending my life, listening to other peoples comments, and experiences, and also only going on my interactions with "christians" - i finally started reading a Bible, and, yeah we dont like hearing how God is cruel...GASP, god kills babies, and does all sorts of things we dont think is "fair" indeed. what i have read, from the Bibles i have now read, is the best fucking reading ive done. and i dont mind saying fuck and bible or not capitalize bible or god...because, superstition, is actually bull shit.


i also never cared to have to hear others opinions much on this, well the bible that is.
we are stupid...lol. yeah - sheep we are, i mean, let me pitch out the death rock goth band, "christan death" - people see or hear that and, judge rather then think - and thats exactly what they were on about, i was never into them untill recently, and after connecting those dots, well, thats the way it is.

death to the assumptions made by a politically driven jesus factory inc.
you know?
if i hated fish, but was always told steak tasted like fish, well i may of never tried steak taking others word for it, or only their tastes buds interpretation.

i may of never been able to see the connection between the chakras and the lords prayer, for instance, if you are familiar Qablah practices, or the tree of life progression system, and the chakras as mentioned - then saying the lords prayer might take on a new meaning, breaking it apart into 9 steps...

the rosary is a massively "metaphysical", stella awaking-connecting practice for myself, i try and say 150 a day - thisis my Heroin, the rosary is my stargate.
____________________________________________
Bernadette Soubirous is list worthy i feel...
 
Last edited:
can god create individuals he couldn't control? what would be the point if he couldn't?

you either have omnipotence or free will, can't have both.
 
^
pouts I WANT BOTH -


i dont think God understands or values emotions - just as that thought might be hard to understand or value.

our emotions can not always be controlled; they stem from our melancholy and fears and so, as such are unpredictable and destructive, so unpredictable they are almost predictable.


i am going to mention Bernadette Soubirous, again.
after 30 years, she was removed from her coffin before being Canonize, and finally acknowledged as a Saint, by people that is .. haha!
a little snip from the link above.
The fact that Bernadette's body was perfectly preserved is not necessarily miraculous. It is well known that corpses decompose to varying degrees in certain kinds of soil and may gradually mummify. However, in the case of Bernadette this mummification is quite astounding. Her illnesses and the state of her body at the time of death, and the humidity in the vault in the chapel of Saint–Joseph (the habit was damp, the rosary rusty and the crucifix had turned green), would all seem to be conducive to the decay of the flesh.


... and also, we are so much more quick to point out "pure evil" and work of, or the presence, acknowledgment of an existence of "the devil" before God, Jesus or the trinity as it were.
;-)
whats up with that?!?
 
L2R said:
can god create individuals he couldn't control? what would be the point if he couldn't?

you either have omnipotence or free will, can't have both.
Click to expand...

Being able to freely restrict the directed will of your omnipotence, while being able to take it up again, should certainly be omnipotence. Maybe perfect a posteriori knowledge (omniscience), best of all possible worlds style, and free will are incompatible, but I do not see omnipotence incompatible with it.
 
^interesting addition to the omnipotence vs free will line of thought... if you see our wills as pieces of "god"'s will...
 
yeah i guess it's like letting go of the steering wheel of the car you're driving ;)
 
Disproof of gods existance: I've never seen the bloke, even on the internet.

Proof : Seems like a cool bloke to meet and would hope to get to know him one day, maybe be in his entourage.

I don't know if you can seriously come up with any points for or against god that can't be called moot by some commonly used argument from people on the other side of the fence.
 
L2R said:
yeah i guess it's like letting go of the steering wheel of the car you're driving ;)
Click to expand...

I would agree with that sentiment if the car is omnipotence and not will. But if considered 'will' you bring up the interesting Humean question of determinism (having to steer the level road to drive) & indeterminism (not controlling the car) as both excluding free will. (if in the case of omnipotence, the less-than-omni amount of potency may be "determined" by the initial omnipotence). This just makes a free will paradox in itself like the omnipotence paradox in itself. However this is as viewed as both being their own objects; if mixed as each-other's subject, I believe it's viable to allow one the other due to the other (will to power) but not, as it were otherwise, in & of themselves. (will to will, or power to power)
 
Nagelfar said:
I would agree with that sentiment if the car is omnipotence and not will.
Click to expand...

Actually that is how i meant it. Omnipotence drives the car, as long as the control are held, the car has no "will". With the removal of this force, the car can go "where it wants" within certain limitations.
 
Can something exist without being created? Depending on your answer this can proof or disproof the existence of god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top