• Ourora Aureis
    54


    I exist therefore I exist.

    checks out.
  • Corvus
    3.2k
    Can anyone prove a god, I enjoy debates and wish to see the arguments posed in favour of the existence of a god.CallMeDirac

    It depends on what the definition of God is.  If it were like me, my definition of God is, a word in English which spells GOD, and has many meanings and many types depending on what religion or concept it comes from. Hence it is quite straightforward to prove the existence of God under the definition.

    Whenever I type G O D, a word God appears on the screen GOD.  Here is a God. Here is another God.

    You are seeing two Gods on the screen.  An object can be said to exist when it is visible to the perceiver in space and time.  I am seeing the word God in the space where the monitor is located at this particular moment.

    Therefore it is conclusively true that God exists.

    If your definition of God is different from mine, you would have a different method of proof. Whatever the case, your mileage may vary.
  • night912
    27
    There are three possibilities concerning the belief in God: true, false, indeterminate. Religion believes it is true. Atheism believes that it is false. Agnosticism is indeterminate.


    Due to your ignorance, you're comparing apples, red delicious, and red apples and using their differences as a method of determining whether a fruit is an apple or not an apple.

    Atheism is defined as a positive claim. It is agnosticism that refuses to make a claim. While agnosticism makes perfect sense, atheism doesn't.


    What you said above, ⬆️ is wrong. You don't have to take my word for it, your words below says it all. ⬇️

    If we look at the JTB account for knowledge, then knowledge is defined as a particular kind of belief:
     


    With all that being said, because agnosticism specifically deals with knowledge, we must utilize the label properly, placing it in the appropriate category. This makes agnosticism a particular kind of atheism and theism.
  • night912
    27
    It depends on what the definition of God is.  If it were like me, my definition of God is, a word in English which spells GOD, and has many meanings and many types depending on what religion or concept it comes from. Hence it is quite straightforward to prove the existence of God under the definition.

    Whenever I type G O D, a word God appears on the screen GOD.  Here is a God. Here is another God.

    You are seeing two Gods on the screen.  An object can be said to exist when it is visible to the perceiver in space and time.  I am seeing the word God in the space where the monitor is located at this particular moment.

    Therefore it is conclusively true that God exists.

    If your definition of God is different from mine, you would have a different method of proof. Whatever the case, your mileage may vary.


    You didn't prove that the word exists. All you did was proved that the representation of the word exists.
  • LuckyR
    492
    I do agree that the numerous definitions of gods will "require" different proofs. Having said that, more importantly metaphysical entities (which the vast majority of god definitions are) defy purely physical proof.
  • Corvus
    3.2k
    You didn't prove that the word exists. All you did was proved that the representation of the word exists.night912

    Every time words are spoken, written or typed out, they are real as bricks. Bricks that make up the sentences, which are propositions, statements or claims in the real world. For instance, God is great, or Oh my God, you took my money, but didn't let me win the lottery jackpot. Don't worry, God will save you. etc etc. These are the real life examples of solid manifestation and materialization and utilization of the words.
  • Corvus
    3.2k
    Having said that, more importantly metaphysical entities (which the vast majority of god definitions are) defy purely physical proof.LuckyR

    Yeah, but having said that, isn't metaphysical entities a contradiction anyway? Metaphysical entities lack entities. Metaphysical entities with no entities are nothing. In Kant, it is Thing-in-Itself. They don't defy proofs. They don't have proofs.
  • LuckyR
    492
    Is Germany an entity? How about Apple corporation? How about the US dollar's value? Intersubjective entities are entities.
  • Corvus
    3.2k
    Is Germany an entity? How about Apple corporation? How about the US dollar's value? Intersubjective entities are entities.LuckyR

    They are not metaphysical entities, are they? They have clear definitions, location and boundaries of their HQs and their presence, clearly set duties and activities, aims of their existence, and set of the members within the corporations and nations as well as the traditions and cultures within the entities, which are readily identifiable in physical and abstract manner.
    God doesn't have any of those properties. God only exists in word.
  • LuckyR
    492
    God doesn't have any of those properties. God only exists in word.

    Yes, the dollar's value can be "readily identifiable" after the fact, just as believers of gods can agree upon dogmatic properties of their gods. That's neither my point nor THE point.

    Rather, the dollar only has value because the vast majority of humans consciously agree that it has value, that is, it has no intrinsic or objective value. Similarly, gods definitely exist as entities through agreed human belief that is, as intersubjective entities (like nations, corporations and economies), though not objective entities, as you noted.
  • Corvus
    3.2k
    Rather, the dollar only has value because the vast majority of humans consciously agree that it has value, that is, it has no intrinsic or objective value. Similarly, gods definitely exist as entities through agreed human belief that is, as intersubjective entities (like nations, corporations and economies), though not objective entities, as you noted.LuckyR

    You seem to be confusing between value and existence. Agreed human beliefs alone don't warrant or prove the existence of God.
156789Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.