Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Egg sack lee.
The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
Get over it people.
.
Doctrine is one aspect of religion.
IMO, the most important aspect of religion is practice. Practice, first and foremost. The whirling dance of the Sufi, the Zen Koan, the many paths of Yoga, contemplative prayer, chanting of scripture, etc... Contrary to this notion that religion is all about filling the mind with dogma, practice is designed to empty the self. These practices can short-circuit our habitual patterns of thought, and allow for the demolition of the biased mental constructs (ego-self) we have erected over the years. Practice can open up the heart, and make the self vulnerable, and receptive to esoteric truth.
It's interesting (to me anyway) that the oldest extant scrap of NT scripture is a tiny fragment with two readable words on it: Pilate and Veritas (Truth). Therefore, we know that this is from the Gospel of John, where Pilate asks Christ, "What is Truth?"
Jesus stand before him, and remains silent.
You are the only other person I've encountered who perceived the significance of Jesus's silence in the face of Pilot's question. I can hear the sound of the pin dropping in the that moment of silence all over again. I'm sure others have heard "the sound" the pin makes as well, for it's rocket science after all. But it is a "sound" that one must slow down long enough to "hear."
By the way, Jesus is the universal Principle of Identity, the Logos, the ground of the logic and the wisdom in our minds to which I am speaking.
Youre an idiot.
You cant make a rational argument for something based on premises that are not themselves proven.
Ask a fucking five year old to.explain it to one of you dopes.
And again, arguing against it does not make it so. For that to be true, you AGAIN have to beg the question.
Do you need to be taught why begging the question is an invalid way to attempt a logical proof of something?
You're in effect saying
Proof of god:
God exists, so knowledge has to come from god
Knowledge exists
Therefore god exists!
Only a complete jackass doesn't see what's wrong with that, logically. I.e. you two dorks.
Did you miss the part where I said I had the same understanding before I came to this forum? I'm a Christian. So is Rawlings.
Breezewood,
I just went on a 400 mile walk/pilgrimage/adventure in September. I came to the Pulgas Water Temple, where water from the Sierra is pumped into a reservoir for usage in the SF Bay Area. Upon the temple is inscribed a few lines of scripture from Isaiah; "I make waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, as drink for my people". I took that to heart for the next 300 miles of my walk. On a literal level, yes, it was important to find water. I had great appreciation for the water I found along the way. But, Isaiah is speaking on multiple levels. It was the living water, in a poetic sense (spiritual strength) that I needed also in order to walk 20 miles a day up and down hills with 30 lbs on my back.
Is the Christian God a physical being? I don't think you can say that's true for all Christians. I'm more of a pagan druid, but I have been educated in the Catholic faith, and they didn't teach Biblical literalism. Quite the opposite, except on a very few main points. To me, God is best described as a first principle of the universe, like the Tao, non-material, but the source of matter... and the further I go on describing God the further I get from accuracy.
I find it interesting when atheists insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible,seemingly just as often as fundamentalist believers.
Breezewood,
I just went on a 400 mile walk/pilgrimage/adventure in September. I came to the Pulgas Water Temple, where water from the Sierra is pumped into a reservoir for usage in the SF Bay Area. Upon the temple is inscribed a few lines of scripture from Isaiah; "I make waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, as drink for my people". I took that to heart for the next 300 miles of my walk. On a literal level, yes, it was important to find water. I had great appreciation for the water I found along the way. But, Isaiah is speaking on multiple levels. It was the living water, in a poetic sense (spiritual strength) that I needed also in order to walk 20 miles a day up and down hills with 30 lbs on my back.
Is the Christian God a physical being? I don't think you can say that's true for all Christians. I'm more of a pagan druid, but I have been educated in the Catholic faith, and they didn't teach Biblical literalism. Quite the opposite, except on a very few main points. To me, God is best described as a first principle of the universe, like the Tao, non-material, but the source of matter... and the further I go on describing God the further I get from accuracy.
I find it interesting when atheists insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible,seemingly just as often as fundamentalist believers.
Yes. God is the first principle, albeit, for the universe. He is the Principle of Identity.
He is the ground for all existence, and, of course, the universal principle of identity (the comprehensive expression of the rational and moral laws of thought) endowed by God to man, is grounded in Him, as He is the fullness of that principle. The fundamental laws of thought are reliable for this reason. The comprehensive expression/principle of the rational and moral laws of thought are stamped by God on our minds. This is His image and what sets us apart from all other creatures of the terrestrial order. It's His name, put on us as His property.
The voice we hear as our own in our minds when we faithfully apply the comprehensive principle of identity (the logic of God) to any given problem is in fact His voice speaking the wisdom thusly divulged.
So what humans are different/smarter? So what? Just because we are the smartest animal doesn't mean a god exists.
Science has explained what a freak accident it was that we got as smart as we did....
and they said if all humans disappeared from earth tomorrow it is highly unlikely another animal would some day become as smart as we are. I can't remember all the details but they did say what a fluke it was that at some point we became more intelligent than any other animal ever.
So I do understand that no other animal will probably ever get as smart as we are. So what? What does that prove?
Just because you are the fastest person in a race or the smartest person on a test doesn't mean you go to heaven and other animals don't.
Spiritual foundation? I think humans are the worse animal on this planet. We are worse than cockroaches and rats. We are overpopulating and destroying this planet. If anything we are god big mistake. Get rid of humans and this planet turns back into the garden of Eden.
Dear GT and MD:
1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
can NEVER be proven or disproven.
So this is impossible.
The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
NOR
neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
All this prancing around and you're a couple of fucking Jehovah's witnesses.
.
there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.
BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through. GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it. I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument. At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above. Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason. In any event, you don't have to take my word on it. Just think it through. Anyone can see that it's true. It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.
In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why. It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon. It's objectively and universally true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind. It's an axiom. The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought. That's just the way it is.
MD: It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof - It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon ...
but the Christian God is stated as a physical being, so there is a criteria for Christians as yourself to provide the scientific proof for that Deities being, that you have not established.
for centuries ... how much time is time enough ?
that's the point, there is a Logical proof for a God that proves it is not the Christian deity, logically and as QW and others point out logic alone is not a proof for anything only an insinuation.
Actually, Hollie has thought it through. Hollie has thought it through enough to point out your dishonest attempts proving your gods with bad analogies, false comparisons and utterly silly justifications for your alleged “logical” pwoofs..
there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.
BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through. GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it. I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument. At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above. Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason. In any event, you don't have to take my word on it. Just think it through. Anyone can see that it's true. It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.
In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why. It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon. It's objectively and universally true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind. It's an axiom. The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought. That's just the way it is.
Among my favorite absurdities of yours are the laughable demonstrations of circular reasoning.
Among the moments of comedy gold that are classic Rawling’isms” is:
“it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”
Classic! We’re to accept that any argument contrary to what M. Pompous Rawling rattles on with regarding his gods is actually an argument in support of his gods.
I’ve noticed that M. Pompous Rawling is befuddled regarding his own inability to even proffer a consistent argument. He will alternately and carelessly waffles back and forth, stumbling over his confusion regarding a “logic” argument vs. a “philosophical” argument. He generally retreats to the “philosophical” weasel when his alleged logical arguments are pointed out as being amateurish and self-refuting.
This is why religious fundamentalists such as Rawling tend to run screaming from actual discussion regarding the hard science and evidence they are unable to provide for their claims to magical gods and supernatural realms and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.
Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.
The standards of rationality, evidence and fact are the only benchmark by which we discriminate those beliefs that hold validity towards acceptance from those that do not. When we abandon these standards, when we consider them unimportant, then we will be at the mercy of any nonsensical claim that happens to come our way. We will have no standards by which to distinguish that which maintains an analog of consistency from that which does not. The result is we succumb to being at the mercy of one quasi-intellectual fad after another. This is quite common nowadays. You see people going from one cult of Eastern mysticism to a cult of psychology to later trying one of the larger organized religions and back and forth, careening off of one intellectual dead end to another. This is the logical consequence when reason is abandoned. There is no longer a grounding-point or a means of discriminating between fact and self-serving / viciously circular claims such as: "it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”
.
The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
Get over it people.
.
Gargantuan text? Is that supposed to compensate for your inability to actually compose a coherent argument.Actually, Hollie has thought it through. Hollie has thought it through enough to point out your dishonest attempts proving your gods with bad analogies, false comparisons and utterly silly justifications for your alleged “logical” pwoofs..
there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.
BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through. GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it. I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument. At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above. Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason. In any event, you don't have to take my word on it. Just think it through. Anyone can see that it's true. It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.
In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why. It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon. It's objectively and universally true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind. It's an axiom. The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought. That's just the way it is.
Among my favorite absurdities of yours are the laughable demonstrations of circular reasoning.
Among the moments of comedy gold that are classic Rawling’isms” is:
“it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”
Classic! We’re to accept that any argument contrary to what M. Pompous Rawling rattles on with regarding his gods is actually an argument in support of his gods.
I’ve noticed that M. Pompous Rawling is befuddled regarding his own inability to even proffer a consistent argument. He will alternately and carelessly waffles back and forth, stumbling over his confusion regarding a “logic” argument vs. a “philosophical” argument. He generally retreats to the “philosophical” weasel when his alleged logical arguments are pointed out as being amateurish and self-refuting.
This is why religious fundamentalists such as Rawling tend to run screaming from actual discussion regarding the hard science and evidence they are unable to provide for their claims to magical gods and supernatural realms and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.
Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.
The standards of rationality, evidence and fact are the only benchmark by which we discriminate those beliefs that hold validity towards acceptance from those that do not. When we abandon these standards, when we consider them unimportant, then we will be at the mercy of any nonsensical claim that happens to come our way. We will have no standards by which to distinguish that which maintains an analog of consistency from that which does not. The result is we succumb to being at the mercy of one quasi-intellectual fad after another. This is quite common nowadays. You see people going from one cult of Eastern mysticism to a cult of psychology to later trying one of the larger organized religions and back and forth, careening off of one intellectual dead end to another. This is the logical consequence when reason is abandoned. There is no longer a grounding-point or a means of discriminating between fact and self-serving / viciously circular claims such as: "it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”
Hollie! THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT IS AN AXIOM OF HUMAN COGNITION, JUST LIKE 2 + 2 = 4; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT A SCIENTIC PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU KEEP THINKING I'M SAYING. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE. I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS! IF I'M NOT SAYING THAT, AND I'M NOT, THEN EVERYTHING IN YOUR POST IN THE ABOVE IS WRONG.
LOGICAL PROOFS ≠ SCIENTIFIC PROOFS!
AND SCIENCE IS CONTINGENT ON PHILOSOPHY, ONLY MORONS DON'T KNOW THAT; INDEED, EVERYTHING IN YOUR POST IS PHILOSOPHY. IT'S BAD PHILOSOPHY, STUPID PHILOSPHY, THE PHILOSOPHY OF A RAVING LUNATIC, BUT PHILOSOPHY JUST THE SAME.
ONLY MORONS FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT CONCEPTUALIZATIONS (MATHEMATICAL, GEOMETRIC, LINGUISTIC . . . ) ARE NOT DERIVED FROM SCIENCE, BUT ARE DERIVED FROM THE CONTENTS OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS, THAT THEY NECESSARILY PRECEDE SCIENCE, THAT WE CANNOT DO SCIENCE WITHOUT THESE RATIONAL AXIOMS AND THE POSTULATES AND THEOREMS THEREOF, THAT PHILOSOPHY IS THE MEDIUM BY WHICH WE DEFINE AND DELINEATE THE METAPHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF EXISTENTS, WHICH NECESSARILY PRECEDE THE DEFINITION AND DELINEATION OF THEIR MATERIAL PROPERITES,THAT PHILOSOPHY IS THE MEDIUM BY WHICH WE DEFINE THE PARAMETERS OF JUSTIFIABLE KNOWLEDGE IN BOTH RATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC TERMS, THAT SCIENCE ITSELF IS NECESSARILY PREMISED ONE PHILOSPHICAL APRIORITY OR ANOTHER IN TERMS OF ONTOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS.
THE NATURE OF SCIENCE IS METHDOLOGY, NOT AGENCY; AGENCY NECESARILY PRECEDES METHDOLOGY.
IF MORONS LIKE YOU WERE THE UNIVERSAL NORM, WE’D STILL BE LIVING IN CAVES.
FURTHER NOT ONLY DO I UNDERSTAND THE NATUE OF PHILOSOHY AND SCIENCE, THE NATURAL ORDER OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, BUT I KNOW INFINITELY MORE THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOWN ABOUT THE PERTINENT FORMAL, PHYSICAL, BIOLOGICAL, ASTRONOMICAL AND COSMOLOGICAL SCIENCES.
SHUT. UP.
Behold: the dangers of religious fundamentalism... Of the Jehovah's Witness brand..
The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
Get over it people.
.
Behold: another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system. You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are. SHUT. UP.
.
The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
Get over it people.
.
Behold: another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system. You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are. SHUT. UP.
Does that come with a jingle?All this prancing around and you're a couple of fucking Jehovah's witnesses.
False. I'm not a JW in any way, shape for form, and neither is Justin. JW's reject the divinity of Christ and the Triune God. Stop being silly. Our beliefs are biblically orthodox, though, at this point, they are only marginally related to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. .
Right. It's best we abandon logical connections and rational approaches to examination of natural processes. In fact, we need to abandon a great many conventions of reason and rationality to accept magic, supernaturalism and spirit realms..
The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
Get over it people.
.
Behold: another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system. You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are. SHUT. UP.
He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
"Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth. I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted. That person is useless. He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others. Read post 2020.
