God exists?

[Enadail]

So, even if you had irrefutable proof that God never existed, it doesnt change the reality that he does and did.

So even if you had irrefutable proof that God existed, that doesn't change the reality that he doesn't and never did.

Wait that doesn't even make sense. Because irrefutable proof is exactly that. Irrefutable. If its not true, then its not proof. However, as there is no evidence to suggest God exists, and plenty to show that even if he does exist, it doesn't matter... makes a lot more sense to assume he doesn't and go on your merry way.

[Enadail]

It is, but it is also approx 1.99 and approx 1.99999 and approx 1.9999, if you mean that by approx, that it is close to a line at 2.0, 1.9, 1.99, 1.999

I think it'll blow your mind to know that .999999999 repeating is actually equal to 1.

[Saint Clair Island]

Proving something does not make it reality.

Actually, that's exactly what proving something does. Proof is accepted as real. If a new proof is found that refutes an older one, the common view of reality is updated.

There is no objective reality. If there was, there would be no conflicting beliefs or religions.

How can reality be updated. The View is updated, but not the reality itself. Again, a proof doesnt change reality, it just changes the preception of that reality.

Yes, but perception is all we have. We can't know what reality is because we look at it through biased eyes -- our own.

So, even if you had irrefutable proof that God never existed, it doesnt change the reality that he does and did.

Nope. If God were objectively real, everyone would believe in him. Since they don't, he's as subjective as string theory.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

No. It also contains definitions. Those definitions may be arbitratry. Those definitions can be the source of the problems.

Case in point.

Most equations that use PI to derive an answer are WRONG, by definition. They may be close approximations, but they are wrong.
Of Course simple things like PI/PI can be correct, but there are far more things that are wrong. Because of the limitations of human intelligence.

Also, consider X/0. Infinity right? Bull crap, there is no such thing. It is a definition. It is not reality.

(X/0)*2 = (X/0)*4? Is Infinity equal to Infinity? Bull crap, it is just a definition. It is not reality.

You don't understand math at all, do you?

First of all, any mathematician, scientists, or engineer worth his salt never approximates pi UNTIL THE LAST POSSIBLE STEP. You always calculate in terms of Pi. Thus the final answer you get is as close an approximate as possible. It is not wrong. It is an approximation.

This stems from you inability to understand infinity it seems. Infinity is not a definition. It is a concept. Infinity is as real as 1.

OK, fine I understand infinity as a concept, but it is not concrete. You cant show me a number that is infinite. You can show me the symbol. You can hold up 2 fingers, you can count 1trillion grains of sand, but you cannot count 1 inifinite grains of sand.

Even words like Dozen, mole, trillion are concrete finite numbers.

[Buffett and Colbert]

So, even if you had irrefutable proof that God never existed, it doesnt change the reality that he does and did.

Do you know what irrefutable means?

[KiloMikeAlpha]

So, even if you had irrefutable proof that God never existed, it doesnt change the reality that he does and did.

Do you know what irrefutable means?

of course. it means that no one CAN refute it with current technology or knowledge.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

So, even if you had irrefutable proof that God never existed, it doesnt change the reality that he does and did.

So even if you had irrefutable proof that God existed, that doesn't change the reality that he doesn't and never did.

Wait that doesn't even make sense. Because irrefutable proof is exactly that. Irrefutable. If its not true, then its not proof. However, as there is no evidence to suggest God exists, and plenty to show that even if he does exist, it doesn't matter... makes a lot more sense to assume he doesn't and go on your merry way.

Ever hear of Pascal's wager?

[JLAEST]

I didn't have time to read all zillion replies to this, but, according to Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, etc.) God is outside of existence and therefore since he created reality, he is above it and does not exist--he is a state beyond existence.

Therefore God does not exist, because if the religious books are correct, he's beyond simple existence. And, ironically, the books have a pretty good way of hedging their bets--in fact, if he were to exist, it'd disprove them and cause them to implode, because that'd make idolatry literally true. (Idolatry generally being confusing something with no physical existence with a physical object--in this case, confusing God that would be beyond all of reality with a made-up one that would 'exist' and be a part of the very thing he created, which is not what the books advocate.)

So actually, when you say logic proves God does not exist, you're actually saying Logic is proving the correctness of the biblical assertions that God does not exist.

The only part you'd really have an argument about would be whether that also implied he was a beyond-existence being behind the curtains, so to speak, or if there was nothing behind the curtains.

That's why these debates make me crack up. Yeah, prove God exists, and you break your own bible and religion, since he's not supposed to exist. At least, in the Abrahamic faiths.

Disprove him, and you're just backing up what the Abrahamic faiths say--he doesn't exist. Of course you aren't really commenting on the main issue when you do that--I.E., is there a God beyond existence or is there not?

But I expect to probably not be able to check on this in a timely fashion and get yelled down by confused people, so. That's my two cents on the matter.

The irony here, of course, is that I don't believe in the God beyond existence myself, but reading of him in the books has led me to sort of seek out discussions like this and -try- to explain how they are... sort of missing the point.

Depends on the definition of non-existence. God does not exist as material, and what I and others always defended was his non-material existence (or, if you want to call it like that, believing in God beyond existence).

[Buffett and Colbert]

So, even if you had irrefutable proof that God never existed, it doesnt change the reality that he does and did.

Do you know what irrefutable means?

of course. it means that no one CAN refute it with current technology or knowledge.

Incorrect. It means no one, no thing can possibly disprove it, or refute it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls= ... oq=&aqi=g1

[Buffett and Colbert]

So, even if you had irrefutable proof that God never existed, it doesnt change the reality that he does and did.

So even if you had irrefutable proof that God existed, that doesn't change the reality that he doesn't and never did.

Wait that doesn't even make sense. Because irrefutable proof is exactly that. Irrefutable. If its not true, then its not proof. However, as there is no evidence to suggest God exists, and plenty to show that even if he does exist, it doesn't matter... makes a lot more sense to assume he doesn't and go on your merry way.

Ever hear of Pascal's wager?

Which is absolute nonsense?

[Enadail]

OK, fine I understand infinity as a concept, but it is not concrete. You cant show me a number that is infinite. You can show me the symbol. You can hold up 2 fingers, you can count 1trillion grains of sand, but you cannot count 1 inifinite grains of sand.

Even words like Dozen, mole, trillion are concrete finite numbers.

Which of course shows you don't understand the concept. It is concrete. I can shown you an infinite number. We would just both die before you saw it. The symbol is so people don't die while trying to discuss the concept. A concrete concept is not a finite number. In fact, you're using the concept of finite to disprove infinity, when finite means nothing without infinity.

Nope. If God were objectively real, everyone would believe in him. Since they don't, he's as subjective as string theory.

No. We have evidence to support string theory.

[Allbeama]

So, even if you had irrefutable proof that God never existed, it doesnt change the reality that he does and did.

Do you know what irrefutable means?

I doubt that he does. I also doubt he understands the words reality, objective, subjective, and proof.

[Rutini]

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
KiloMikeAlpha wrote:
So, even if you had irrefutable proof that God never existed, it doesnt change the reality that he does and did.

Do you know what irrefutable means?

of course. it means that no one CAN refute it with current technology or knowledge.

If you are so sure of the existence of god, is because you have a proof, right?

[Mathematica Numerica]

No. It also contains definitions. Those definitions may be arbitratry. Those definitions can be the source of the problems.

Case in point.

Most equations that use PI to derive an answer are WRONG, by definition. They may be close approximations, but they are wrong.
Of Course simple things like PI/PI can be correct, but there are far more things that are wrong. Because of the limitations of human intelligence.

Also, consider X/0. Infinity right? Bull crap, there is no such thing. It is a definition. It is not reality.

(X/0)*2 = (X/0)*4? Is Infinity equal to Infinity? Bull crap, it is just a definition. It is not reality.

You don't understand math at all, do you?

First of all, any mathematician, scientists, or engineer worth his salt never approximates pi UNTIL THE LAST POSSIBLE STEP. You always calculate in terms of Pi. Thus the final answer you get is as close an approximate as possible. It is not wrong. It is an approximation.

This stems from you inability to understand infinity it seems. Infinity is not a definition. It is a concept. Infinity is as real as 1.

Nope. Infinity is not a real number. We use it as a boundary, "It approaches this", and supports the Real Number OPERATOR RULES. No, it does not equal infinity, because it is UNDEFINED no matter what. 0*x=0, x=inf, same thing.

[Enadail]

So even if you had irrefutable proof that God existed, that doesn't change the reality that he doesn't and never did.

Wait that doesn't even make sense. Because irrefutable proof is exactly that. Irrefutable. If its not true, then its not proof. However, as there is no evidence to suggest God exists, and plenty to show that even if he does exist, it doesn't matter... makes a lot more sense to assume he doesn't and go on your merry way.

Ever hear of Pascal's wager?

Which is absolute nonsense?

In fact, Pascal's Wager is thoroughly debunked. Its among the worst arguments you can make to support theism.

[Saint Clair Island]

So, even if you had irrefutable proof that God never existed, it doesnt change the reality that he does and did.

Do you know what irrefutable means?

of course. it means that no one CAN refute it with current technology or knowledge.

Not quite. It means no one can refute it period. Even in a trillion years when technology is so far advanced that we can travel faster than light, reverse entropy at will, and live forever, no one will be able to refute the proof.

That's why no one tries to claim that they have irrefutable proof; since new evidence could always reverse it.

An irrefutable proof would be the final word on the existence or nonexistence of God. Such a proof, however, is almost as mythical.

[Enadail]

Nope. Infinity is not a real number. We use it as a boundary, "It approaches this", and supports the Real Number OPERATOR RULES. No, it does not equal infinity, because it is UNDEFINED no matter what. 0*x=0, x=inf, same thing.

I never said it it was a real number. I said it was a concept.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
KiloMikeAlpha wrote:
So, even if you had irrefutable proof that God never existed, it doesnt change the reality that he does and did.

Do you know what irrefutable means?

of course. it means that no one CAN refute it with current technology or knowledge.

If you are so sure of the existence of god, is because you have a proof, right?

Not at all, I have faith. And I have knowledge. Faith is the belief in things which are true, but not seen.

[Mathematica Numerica]

No! It's just a bet on the complex conjugate of infinity.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Do you know what irrefutable means?

of course. it means that no one CAN refute it with current technology or knowledge.

Not quite. It means no one can refute it period. Even in a trillion years when technology is so far advanced that we can travel faster than light, reverse entropy at will, and live forever, no one will be able to refute the proof.

That's why no one tries to claim that they have irrefutable proof; since new evidence could always reverse it.

An irrefutable proof would be the final word on the existence or nonexistence of God. Such a proof, however, is almost as mythical.

Fine, I'll buy that definition.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

So my point is that there are many things in math that are approximations, theories, concepts, etc. If you use these things as proof, you must be open to the possibility that your proof is wrong.

[Saint Clair Island]

Nope. If God were objectively real, everyone would believe in him. Since they don't, he's as subjective as string theory.

No. We have evidence to support string theory.

It looks nice on paper, but the evidence is purely mathematical -- there's no empirical observation of a string or anything similar.

Likewise, the existence of a God might be logically defensible, although I doubt it given that some quite intelligent people have resorted to the oft-disproved teleological argument half the time, but even so there's no evidence to prove it. 'Til then, the default position says God doesn't exist.

[Saint Clair Island]

Not at all, I have faith. And I have knowledge. Faith is the belief in things which are true, but not seen.

How do you know something is true if you can't see it?

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Not at all, I have faith. And I have knowledge. Faith is the belief in things which are true, but not seen.

How do you know something is true if you can't see it?

Faith, by definition.

[Enadail]

Nope. If God were objectively real, everyone would believe in him. Since they don't, he's as subjective as string theory.

No. We have evidence to support string theory.

It looks nice on paper, but the evidence is purely mathematical -- there's no empirical observation of a string or anything similar.

Likewise, the existence of a God might be logically defensible, although I doubt it given that some quite intelligent people have resorted to the oft-disproved teleological argument half the time, but even so there's no evidence to prove it. 'Til then, the default position says God doesn't exist.

Oh, I know... although I tried to go through the math for string theory, and my head hurt