You're predictable! Dear mother of gods... whatever...

:fire:

My on views on the matter in question form:

1. Does it matter whether God exists/not? Buddha (Noble Silence, The Unanswered Questions). Gautama was the quintessential pragmatist.

2. Can we prove God's existence/nonexistence? OP (Before we get our knickers in a twist trying to do something, let,'s first check if that something is doable. We don't wanna waste time & resources trying to do the impossible). A Mathematician's perspective.

You're predictable! — Hillary

:snicker:

Ah, why is there something rather than nothing?
Because of God.
Awesome reason indeed!
— SpaceDweller

Yes, agree. — Jackson

Your "proof" depends on the assumption that, in the absence of a god, nothingness should be expected. Can either of you defend that assumption?

"proof" — Relativist

:snicker:

My philosophy professor gave us the terms theist, one who believes in God(s), atheist, one who doesn't believe in God(s), and a "super atheist", one for which the idea of God(s) doesn't exist. I don't know if proving God is deductive or not. If a God were all knowing and all powerful and had no wish to be discovered than they never will be.

Proofs of God are deductive because one has to start already believing God exists. — Jackson

So, if one begins an argument by assuming what is to be proved, this implies that argument is "deductive"? A new and pathetic low on TPF. :roll:

Hegel brought this to my attention — Jackson

My God, man! What else did Hegel divulge to you?

1. Does it matter whether God exists/not? — Agent Smith

Yes.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/565719
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/438252

2. Can we prove God's existence/nonexistence?

Yes.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/394496
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/668836
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/653775

if one begins an argument by assuming what is to be proved, this implies that argument is "deductive"? — jgill

I think meant it the other way around, sort of.

Purely deductive arguments are non-ampliative.
So, if a purely deductive argument is put forth to prove that G's exists, then it's begging the question.

@Jackson, feel free to correct me if I misread.

(edit: forgot to quote jgill)

:ok:

I was looking at God's relevance from a moral perspective, not without good reason: A favorite question of atheists (to theists): Are you good only because God exists? The objective of the query is to expose the theist's conceptualization of God as Judge Dredd (a cop cum judge). This, to my reckoning, immiserizes God to the point of being somebody we fear instead of love.

In addition, God's existence, in my humble opinion, doesn't vitiate the value or authority of science. God did it (theism) doesn't contradict how he did it (science).

As for disproof of God, I'm familiar with your argument from predicates (omni-powers vis-à-vis the problem of evil).

Gracias señor! G'day.

My overall point is that nature CAN be explained without g/G and morality CAN be justified without g/G from which it"s reasonable to imply that g/G is not (a/the) "necessary being" (pace Anselm) and, therefore, does not exist (re: theism). Thus, contrary to reals, g/G requires "faith". :fire:

My overall point is that nature CAN be explained without g/G and morality CAN be justified without g/G from which it"s reasonable to imply that g/G is not (a/the) "necessary being" (pace Anselm) and, therefore, does not exist (re: theism). Thus, contrary to reals, g/G requires "faith". :fire: — 180 Proof

I've been mulling over this: What if faith (religion) $\to$ reason (science) isn't the correct order in which things happened. It could've been reason (science) $\to$ faith (religion). A hint: rationality is a suicidal meme (applying itself to itself it self-destructs). Ancient folks must've realized that and hence they chose faith over reason because, at the end of the day, it's faith all the way down. Something like that...

Your "proof" depends on the assumption that, in the absence of a god, nothingness should be expected. — Relativist

Why is nothingness expected?

My overall point is that nature CAN be explained without g/G — 180 Proof

Which is overally irrational. Explain me where virtual particles in pre-inflationary substrate 4D space come from? Yòu can't say its eternal because both 3D space as TD time emerge on it. So what is the reason for its existence?

morality CAN be justified without g/G — 180 Proof

Subjective morality, yes. Objective morality, no.

"Who asks you anything, lill troll?" :rofl:

If a God were all knowing and all powerful and had no wish to be discovered than they never will be. — TiredThinker

If God exists and does not want to be discovered, then there is nothing to talk about.

Like the rest of nature, 'human nature' – especially during persistent, elemental eras of raw survival – takes paths of least resistance / effort (i.e. caloric expenditure) as frequently as possible; making shit up (i.e. woo-of-the-gaps) is so much easier than working things out and thinking them through (i.e. trial & error heuristics) that, like early human development, the habit of make-believing (faith) takes hold long before evidence-based thinking for oneself (reason) is learned and practiced.

A new and pathetic low on TPF — jgill

You will be ignored from now on.

My God, man! What else did Hegel divulge to you? — jgill

Some of us actually read philosophy. Not you, eh.

Purely deductive arguments are non-ampliative.
So, if a purely deductive argument is put forth to prove that G's exists, then it's begging the question.

@Jackson, feel free to correct me if I misread. — jorndoe

No, you did not misread.

Go waste someone else's time.

I was looking at God's relevance from a moral perspective, not without good reason: A favorite question of atheists (to theists): Are you good only because God exists? — Agent Smith

This is not my question nor topic of thread. But discussion of your interests is fine.

This is not my question nor topic of thread. But discussion of your interests is fine. — Jackson

A thousand apologies.

Whatever! :rofl:

A thousand apologies. — Agent Smith

It is fine to discuss your interests. I was only referring to proofs of God failing to prove anything.

Like the rest of nature, 'human nature' – especially during persistent, elemental eras of raw survival – takes paths of least resistance / effort (i.e. caloric expenditure) as frequently as possible; making shit up (i.e. woo-of-the-gaps) is so much easier than working things out and thinking them through (i.e. trial & error heuristics) that, like early human development, the habit of make-believing (faith) takes hold long before evidence-based thinking for oneself (reason) is learned and practiced. — 180 Proof

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

The homo sapiens paradox: We've defined ourselves as wise man and yet that seems to apply to only a small section of the population of humans. Too, people who're inclined towards intellectual activites are derogatorily labeled nerds, geeks, so on. This is rather curious, oui?

It is fine to discuss your interests. I was only referring to proofs of God failing to prove anything. — Jackson

:ok:

The term ‘god’ exists. How it is used and what exactly it may or may not be referring to would, by itself, show if any kind of proof was possible.

Most often people just say ‘it is obvious, look at the flowers and the sky’ or some such reference to the wonderment of nature. It does not appear there can be any proof of some ‘deity’/‘being’ but we can at least request a more precise definition of the term that tries to steer away from ambiguity.

This can obviously be a problem because if someone asked you to define yourself it would not really be all that easy as you may not know where to start. If the question is refined better then we might get further … for instances asking for a definition of yourself in respect to your occupation, family, or hobbies.

In a rather simplistic manner a great number of people encapsulate ‘god’ as ‘life’ in general. So think of your question as asking them ‘to prove life’ … that is often why the response is incredulity at such a silly question.

The term ‘god’ exists. How it is used and what exactly it may or may not be referring to would, by itself, show if any kind of proof was possible. — I like sushi

What kind of proof? You really think they can show up in the material, assuming that's your proof? Of course they can't! What's all that demand of proof? Dear mother of gods...

In a rather simplistic manner a great number of people encapsulate ‘god’ as ‘life’ in general — I like sushi

And why is that simplistic? Life is exactly the reason why gods let life evolve. Life lives exactly the same life as the gods. All temporary, eternally repeating life is a heavenly reflection. Life lives to please the gods, who forgot how to do that.

Can there be a proof of gods? It depends, of course, what conts as proof. They can't litterally show up or control our life. If they showed up in the flesh, it would go against the laws of nature they created themselves. But we can look at more subtle means for interactions, compatible with the laws of nature. Think about quantum mechanics. From which astral projections, mental phenomena, or even physical phenomena could follow. And how many physical phenomena aren't observed!?