What is our premise in proving God's existence or non-existence?

1. 59

   MarlonFuloposted 13 years ago

   What is our premise in proving God's existence or non-existence?

   replyreport
2. 60

   Merlin Fraserposted 13 years ago

   What are looking for ?
   
   Proof that there is a God ?  Or proof that there isn’t a God ?
   
   Both futile questions because scientifically there is no proof one way or the other,  that is why mankind has been arguing and yes fighting for thousands of years.
   
   For what it’s worth my own personal answer is  ‘No’ there is No God.  God exists only in the mind of the faithful or the brainwashed.
   
   In the history of mankind man has always sought answers to the unanswerable questions and in the absence of answers man invented God or to be more precise Gods because there were and still are many depending upon your upbringing and the predominant faith within your region.
   
   As to the one God theory, so beloved of the Christians, Jews and Muslims, he has been invented and reinvented many times over history possibly for the last time by King Hezekiah around 700 BC who banished all other Gods and idols and banned their worship by law.
   
   The current arguments running through many forums here on HubPages and elsewhere that the existence of God is proved because non believers cannot prove he does not exist is a futile argument but one that the so called devout will spout until the other person gives up arguing usually to protect their own sanity.  Proving absolutely nothing.
   
   If proof is what you seek all I can say is wait until you die.... then you will know for sure but in the meantime I wouldn’t worry about it.

   replyreport
3. 0

   AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago

   How about defining terms, first?  If you seriously wish a discussion that has any precision of thought we must all know what is meant by the key terms.
   
   What does exist mean? 
   
   Now don't be an idiot and run to the closest dictionary and look up exist=to be, as that means nothing.  How about a real, working definition of exist that is not ambiguous?  Here is a physics definiton for you: "for something to exist it must have mass and a location in the universe, or it must be observed to have a physically measurable effect on objects that have mass and a location".
   
   You use the word premise, which is correct, in that proof is the hallmark of a system of logic.  Unfortunately, our definition of existence cannot be proven by logic.  Things cannot be proven to exist.  Only ideas can be proven, and they can only be proven to be true or false.  We solve true/false propositional dichotomy by a system of logic.
   
   The correct question then is this: what premise does one propose as a starting point in order to prove God a logical necessity?
   
   There is only one possible premise, and it starts lke this: "It is possible that...."
   
   Now, as this is a logic system it follows that any idea can then be placed after the qualifying phrase It is possible: that invisible flying red dragons hover over my bed at night who have the properties of yada, yada, yadi OR we can use Alvin Plantinga as our authority and state It is possible a maximally great being is present in some world who has the properties of yada, yada, yadi.
   
   Both ideas are equally logical.  After all, they are only ideas.  No idea is more real than another. 
   
   We can even construct a logic that will show that invisible flying red dragons are logically real and that maximally great beings are also real - but the reality only concerns itself within the realm of the argument itself.  The argument does NOT convert to actuality.
   
   Think me up a ham and cheese sandwich on rye bread, will you?  I am sure it is a logical necessity of these rumblings in my stomach.
   
   The best we can ever do with logic is the tuatology that If God exists, God exists.  How much more proof than that could anyone want?

   replyreport
4. 0

   Chasukposted 13 years ago

   There isn't a single answer, especially since many of us mean different things when we use the word "God."
   
   The majority probably mean the God of the Abrahamic religions. Christians like to argue this question especially, and they are generally arguing it with someone who was raised in a culture in which atheism and agnosticism are rare.
   
   Theism was the default position for most of these Christians, even if they weren't active in their faith. That God (and Jesus) were real they believed long before they had analyzed the question.
   
   Therein lies your answer: when you've been complacent in your belief for a long time, you grow both cocky and insecure. Cockiness is almost always a mask for insecurity. So you become defensive, and try to defend that which is only really defensible by faith. Many atheists arrived at their atheism  as former Christians, and they arrived at it through logic, so they relish the battle.
   
   And that's why we argue about the existence or the nonexistence of God.

   replyreport
5. 66

   EnergyAdvisorposted 13 years ago

   no words, no feelings, no thinking patterns, none of that can answer this question. Only nothingness will come close. In order to become nothing you'll have to lose your human form.

   replyreport