Religion Has Maciamo proved that God doesn't exist?

[Voyager]

By this logic, same applies to God, if you can't explain God's existence it doesn't exist. There is also a serious glitch here. We can physically prove world's existence but not God's existence. We can easily claim that Santa Claus with natural powers created Universe for purpose of making people happy. We are in no position to prove or disprove that claim. In this case let's stick to what we can measure.

The first question you have to ask yourself is : "am I Insane or not?" or "Am I someone reasonable or not? If your answer is Yes I am Insane the World is inexplainable completly , then you are right God existence is useless.
But since you say the world exist and is Reasonable then automaticaly God existence must logicaly be.

Then if you say I can't explain God it 's equivalent to say that the World is not logical or insane for me.

It 's like Maths. I give you an example, We suppose Math is obviously logical and Right and not Insane.
Then Let's take the real interval [0 1], this interval exist then there exist a smaller ones include in [0 1].
Here the existence of the infinitly small interval is necessary because if it doesn't exist then any interval bigger doesn't exist and finaly any Real interval can't exist, Math should be false.
This is obviously not the case then the Infinitly small interval must exist.

Curiously the infinitly small interval is the only interval smaler than itself. Very similar to God cause of itself in the proof of its existence.

 

[LeBrok]

The first question you have to ask yourself is : "am I Insane or not?" or "Am I someone reasonable or not? If your answer is Yes I am Insane the World is inexplainable completly , then you are right God existence is useless.
But since you say the world exist and is Reasonable then automaticaly God existence must logicaly be.

Actually I find such "logic" insane. Not only it doesn't make slightest sense, it also renders all the atheists insane. Is this some kind of elaborate insult of yours?
Do you mean you need a world to be created on purpose by a conscious person/god, in order to exist? You would need to prove that our world has a purpose to support your supposition.

 

[Voyager]

Do you mean you need a world to be created on purpose by a conscious person/god, in order to exist? You would need to prove that our world has a purpose to support your supposition.

In my proof of existence of God, no word of Creation, No word of Purpose.
I start with just 3 Words: One word for Logic, One for our Existence and One Word for God.
If our Existence is Logic then God Exist.
You need at Least these 3 Words to Start, You retrieve just one of these 3 words and the proof breaks down.
Retrieve Logic then it 's over, Retrieve our Existence then any proof is useless, retrieve God then No existence and No Logic either. It's very similar to the Trinity concept of the Christian.

I don't see any purpose in the proof. Purpose appears when you wonder why the world is so complex. In my proof I didn't mention if the World is complex or not. It exist that 's all. World could be a pure Chaos, Logicaly you still need God existence.
I don't mention Creation, Creation suppose a beginning , there is no beginning , no end with God as we have seen. God is logicaly cause of itself. It's like you are saying that there is a biggest number in Maths , this is not true. The biggest thing in Math is infinite but is it a number like 1 or 2. Note that the infinite is the only element bigger than itself, similar to God 's properties.
Conciousness is rather complex to define, I don't use this term either. I am not sure Logic implies conciousness. Logic is supposed to be independantly, even if you are concious or not. As I said, if there is no Logic, if our existence is not Logic or Reasonable or unexplainable, Game is Over.
Let me go back to the Logic Brick of the Proof. You can't deny that the World is Reasonable because in this case you are sure of Nothing and it's useless to understand it. You can garbage all the Humanity production, all the Humanity is a non-sense and collapse.

 

[LeBrok]

In my proof of existence of God, no word of Creation, No word of Purpose.
I start with just 3 Words: One word for Logic, One for our Existence and One Word for God.
If our Existence is Logic then God Exist.
You need at Least these 3 Words to Start, You retrieve just one of these 3 words and the proof breaks down.
Retrieve Logic then it 's over, Retrieve our Existence then any proof is useless, retrieve God then No existence and No Logic either. It's very similar to the Trinity concept of the Christian.

Not just trinity, but you also took the word concept from them. 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, .

I don't mention Creation, Creation suppose a beginning , there is no beginning , no end with God as we have seen. God is logicaly cause of itself. It's like you are saying that there is a biggest number in Maths , this is not true. The biggest thing in Math is infinite but is it a number like 1 or 2. Note that the infinite is the only element bigger than itself, similar to God 's properties.
Conciousness is rather complex to define, I don't use this term either. I am not sure Logic implies conciousness. Logic is supposed to be independantly, even if you are concious or not. As I said, if there is no Logic, if our existence is not Logic or Reasonable or unexplainable, Game is Over.

Are you saying that God and the World is one and both always existed?

Let me go back to the Logic Brick of the Proof. You can't deny that the World is Reasonable because in this case you are sure of Nothing and it's useless to understand it.

I don't get you. There is logical god and reasonable world but with no purpose? Why do you need logical god then? We could have a random god as well, who just does stuff for no reason.

You can garbage all the Humanity production, all the Humanity is a non-sense and collapse.

Nope, we just shrink in numbers and go live in caves, like HGs did mare few thousand years ago. Unless you will take word humanity away from them? 7 billion or 1,000 people on Earth is just the size of species, but the species still exists.

 

[Voyager]

Not just trinity, but you also took the word concept from them. 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, .

I agree , we can find every parts of my proof in the Christian Philosophy. St John said at the very begining was the "Logos". I do the same. I suspect Like Frederic Lenoir in his very interesting book " Comment Jesus est devenu Dieu" that the 1st christian were in contact with philosophical works etither Greek or something else in Alexandria Library since destroyed (See Philon d'Alexandrie)

Are you saying that God and the World is one and both always existed?

"Always" refers to Time. I don't mention Time. They are Timeless. The only link between God and our World is Creation or God cause our World to exist.

I don't get you. There is logical god and reasonable world but with no purpose? Why do you need logical god then? We could have a random god as well, who just does stuff for no reason.

We need our World to be logical otherwise it's point less to understand it. It's our first and only hypothesis. Logos must be First. God is not a person with a purpose . God in my proof is just an entity but this entity must exist otherwise our existence is not reasonable or Logicable also this entity has the property to be cause of itself unlike us.

 

[LeBrok]

I agree , we can find every parts of my proof in the Christian Philosophy. St John said at the very begining was the "Logos". I do the same. I suspect Like Frederic Lenoir in his very interesting book " Comment Jesus est devenu Dieu" that the 1st christian were in contact with philosophical works etither Greek or something else in Alexandria Library since destroyed (See Philon d'Alexandrie)

Though I believe you are more agnostic than Christian in your beliefs, right?

"Always" refers to Time. I don't mention Time. They are Timeless. The only link between God and our World is Creation or God cause our World to exist.

Than world has a beginning. If you assume world had a beginning then why not god.

We need our World to be logical otherwise it's point less to understand it. It's our first and only hypothesis. Logos must be First.

Ok, are you saying that world is for us to understand? In this case you are implying that our existence have a purpose, right? Were we planned by god, or just happened that we popped up on this world coincidently?

The consequences are very contrasting:
1. If God created us on purpose, it also means that world has a purpose - it was created for people to exist in. It would also mean that God has at least one purpose, to create world, then create people.
2. If we are here coincidently, like a side effect of physics, then we are not here to understand anything, world included. In this case why would God care if it made a logical world or not?

God is not a person with a purpose

Yes, but is he doing things on purpose. What is in your mind a purpose of the world?

God in my proof is just an entity but this entity must exist otherwise our existence is not reasonable or Logicable

Are you saying we exist on purpose?
What is a logical existence of a mouse or cyanobacteria?

 

[Voyager]

Though I believe you are more agnostic than Christian in your beliefs, right?

I just said that world is Reasonable meaning that we can understand it. I am a theist not agnostic. Agnostic means that we can't decide the God existence problem , it 's the opposite, The Logic decide for us that the existence of a Creator is logicaly True.

Than world has a beginning. If you assume world had a beginning then why not god.

Beginning not in Time, Beginning of causal chain. for example a beginning of a demonstration is not beginning of Time.

Ok, are you saying that world is for us to understand? In this case you are implying that our existence have a purpose, right? Were we planned by god, or just happened that we popped up on this world coincidently?

I still don't see where you are seeing any Goal or Purpose? My very first assumption is:" in our World, any effect has at least one cause". Who has a goal here? There is no Who, no Goal in this very first assumption. But since you agree with this very first assumption, then an entity like God must logicaly exist as a logical consequence of the 1st assumption. No purpose from end to end.
If you like, our World implies God as God implies our World. Where is the purpose of Who, of What, since each is a consequence of the other?

Sorry but, There is definitly no purpose of any God at this stage of the Logos, no Time either.

 

[LeBrok]

I just said that world is Reasonable meaning that we can understand it.

It only proofs logic and reason of humans and existence of measurable universe, but not existence of god.

I am a theist not agnostic. Agnostic means that we can't decide the God existence problem , it 's the opposite, The Logic decide for us that the existence of a Creator is logicaly True.

Interesting that even the most logical man ever, Albert Einstein, didn't come up with this supposition.

Beginning not in Time, Beginning of causal chain. for example a beginning of a demonstration is not beginning of Time.

Too convoluted to be of any use in understanding.

I still don't see where you are seeing any Goal or Purpose? My very first assumption is:" in our World, any effect has at least one cause". Who has a goal here? There is no Who, no Goal in this very first assumption.

What about God? You are assuming it didn't have a goal and yet it created the physical world of trillion galaxies and life in it. Perhaps from boredom?
Obviously by "Who" we refer to conscious and logical entity. "Conscious" meaning entity realising its own existence and powers (attributes).

Here are the consequences of existence of logical and conscious God:

If this conscious and logical being, does something, there have to be a reason behind such action. Logical being doesn't do random things, right? Logical being would rather do nothing, no action, than do random and senseless action and things. The reason could be sense of esthetics behind decision to create a beautiful universe. Could be boredom and need of some action. Could be a need for other conscious being like people who will admire and serve him. Or whatever the reason and logic is, denotes purpose for the Universe. The consequence goes like this. God->purpose (thought)->action (word)->universe, otherwise God-> no purpose (though)->no action (word)->no universe

But if you take away a reason and purpose from the world existence, it pretty much negates existence of God and creation of Universe. Unless the Universe always existed together with God. But in this case God didn't need to exist for the Universe to be. In this case, no reason or purpose needed for world's existence either. And this is pretty much how I see it.

 

[Voyager]

It only proofs logic and reason of humans and existence of measurable universe, but not existence of god.

Interesting that even the most logical man ever, Albert Einstein, didn't come up with this supposition.

I am not sure Einstein was agnostic, he said he was not an atheist. he said also that "God doesn't play dice" against Quantum Mechanics of Niels Bohr. Then he was convinced of a God existence.
Niels Bohr answered Einstein, "Stop telling God what to do":innocent:

 

[gyms]

What gives the lie to Dawkins’ claim that Einstein was an atheist is Einstein’s repeated references to “a superior spirit”, ”a superior mind”, "a spirit vastly superior to men”, ”a veneration for this force” etc. etc. This is not atheism. It is clear Einstein believed that there is something beyond the natural, physical world – a supernatural creative intelligence. Further confirmation that Einstein believed in a transcendent God comes from his conversations with his friends. David Ben-Gurion, the former Prime Minister of Israel, records Einstein saying “There must be something behind the energy.”[17] And the distinguished physicist Max Born commented, “He did not think religious belief a sign of stupidity, not unbelief a sign of intelligence.”[18] Therefore on Dawkins’ own definition, Einstein is not an atheist. On one point however Dawkins is correct: Einstein did not believe in a personal God, who answers prayers and interferes in the universe. But he did believe in an intelligent mind or spirit, which created the universe with its immutable laws.

http://www.bethinking.org/god/did-einstein-believe-in-god


Einstein actually said is:

“I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.”[20]
​

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”[21]
​

"There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views."[22]

​

 

[LeBrok]

I am not sure Einstein was agnostic, he said he was not an atheist. he said also that "God doesn't play dice" against Quantum Mechanics of Niels Bohr. Then he was convinced of a God existence.
Niels Bohr answered Einstein, "Stop telling God what to do":innocent:

I meant that if your "proof" was so logical as you claim, people like Einstein and Bohr would have discovered it, and given us the definition and maybe an equation.

 

[Voyager]

I meant that if your "proof" was so logical as you claim, people like Einstein and Bohr would have discovered it, and given us the definition and maybe an equation.

It's not my proof at all. A very similar proof was given by Artistote 4th cent. BC (the unmoved mover)and St Thomas d'Aquin. So it 's known long time ago. I suspect that the 1st Christians knew such rationale with the Library of Alexandria completly destroyed few centuries after.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

 

[Dinarid]

This proves nothing to me. I believe that we cannot properly understand God; we cannot explain everything with our known rules of the universe.

 

[Voyager]

This proves nothing to me. I believe that we cannot properly understand God; we cannot explain everything with our known rules of the universe.

The proof works if you believe, at least, that we are able to understand the world. If you believe it's not possible to understand God for example, It's similar to say that we cannot understand all the Universe since God is part of All the Universe then it's obviously useless for you to find any logic in the Universe. You are only sure of Nothing. The God existence is not logically necessary for people in such case. It's may be necessary on socially, polically, emotionally grounds but not rationally thinking. To believe that we cannot understand All the Universe may lead to unrational and morally insane behaviours as we can see in some religion since All could not be explained then All, including the unacceptable, could be justified on any kind of grounds.

 

[Korbyn]

Ancient cultures usually worshiped the Sun or nature. So to me, that means they saw nature and the universe as God.

 

[Sile]

Is it not about time that national Governments force that religions of today ensure gender equality within each religion. Clearly the anti-female religions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the main ones that need to be fixed.