It seems to me that this intelligence which is manifested in nature must be pre-existing and has been expressed through evolution reasons unknown. — kindred

So... you believe nature manifesrs intelligence? If so, please provide your justification for believing that.

There are bigger mysteries too. Something cannot come from nothing which implies that something has always existed ad infinitum in one form or another and whether this something through the aeons of time could produce a God is highly plausible. — kindred

It's trivially true that "something cannot come from nothing", but that does not entail an infinite past.

It's logically impossible for nature to "produce a God" if "God"= a creator.

Abiogenesis which still largely confounds scientists has no logical explanation and certainly giving rise to complex organisms means we have barely scratched the surface when it comes to explanation. — kindred

We may never figure out how life began. That doesn't justify believing it was not natural abiogenesis.

If God wanted to prove to anyone that he exists he could easily do that but he doesn’t and in this way he remains mysterious to his beings who are free to doubt, deny or affirm his existence. — kindred

This implies that IF there is a God, he probably doesn't give a shit whether we believe in him.

existence itself [is] perhaps a manifestation of his being — kindred

That's logically possible. So is solipsism. Possibility (alone) does not justify belief.

Abiogenesis which still largely confounds scientists — kindred

Have you looked at the scientific discussion of abiogenesis? It's just one more of the questions for which there are hypotheses but no accepted theory. Other examples - a theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics, dark matter and energy, and the manifestation of experience from neurological processes. Do you think those questions "confound" scientists? If so, well, that's just how science works.

If included in the definition of God is a thing transcending the mundane; and if proof is a thing of the mundane, then you're not going to reach any certainty regarding God by proving it.

Good point. I always thought proving the existence of God was a waste of time because atheists will always deny it and believers will always give God's existence as granted.

Some of us affirm the "god exists" in the heads of it's believers and nowhere else.

True, I agree. It's interesting to imagine that those people ("believers") believe that "God exists" is also a fact in our minds since they can't accept that God exists in some minds but not in others.

Some of us affirm the "god exists" in the heads of it's believers and nowhere else. — 180 Proof

There is nowhere else to "affirm". Where outside of the heads of its believers is anything affirmed?

Where outside of the heads of its believers is anything affirmed? — ENOAH

Again, (as I asked yesterday) is that even doable or possible at all?

No. I don't think it's possible to affirm anything outside of the minds affirming. Does that mean there is no other access to "X"? In other words is "X" only real if a human mind can affirm it? Or, if "X" is real, must it only be accessible as real to the human mind? I hypothesize that the "flaw" in proving God is not necessarily to be focused on God, but rather on the proving, and the idea that our flaws in proving "X" somehow seal the fate of "X".

I hypothesize that the "flaw" in proving God is not necessarily to be focused on God, but rather on the proving, and the idea that our flaws in proving "X" somehow seal the fate of "X". — ENOAH

I agree. Good points and argumentation, ENOAH. :up:

Is theism 'either true or not true'? If yes, then this can be soundly demonstrated. However, if no, then theism is noncognitive (i.e. figurative, analogical, mythopoetic).

NB: I'm using 'theism' in this context to mean 'sine qua non properties attributed to g/G' such as
(1) an/the ultimate mystery
(2) that created the whole of existence
(3) and uniquely intervenes in (re: "providence") – causes changes to (re: "miracles") – the observable universe (i.e. nature).

has no logical explanation — kindred

What is a "logical" explanation? You seem to be making a categorical distinction: how does an explanation differ from a logical explanation? - Assuming that by "explanation" we mean something that makes sense as opposed to something that does not or cannot make sense.

No offense but how can "theism be true? As in ultimately/absolutely, independently of humans. We made it up. I like your definition, I agree with the point you're making, Im just also taking a step back and saying, we can't grasp its truth by thinking about it. I'm not in a position to doubt whatever it is that is [more] real than us. So I don't. If that's just agnostic, so be it. But I'm also saying I'm not in a position to grasp its reality with my little language box. In my readings etc. that there is such a Truth not accessible to us through our minds seems inevitably to come up. I see the inescapable paradox. I think we all do but we yammer on; its what we are. Anyway, that's what draws me (and presumably many) to whatever it is that is [more] real than us. But I recognize that I can't access that with my mind. My mind inevitably makes stuff up (like theism); albeit functional and valuable in our own world. They necessarily can't surpass the gap from their constructedness to whatever that reality is.

That's why I initially said, and still think, you cannot access "God" by any method of proof.

Well, if theism is not true or noncognitive, then "God" conceived of this way is factually disproven (i.e. demonstrably not the case, nonexistent).

If that's the result in logic, I accept. Now how to answer the residual unresolved question? How then is [only so called for a point of mutual focus] God to be conceived of, absolutely? I.e., where we are not left with any risk of elimination by a simple sweep of logic.

What is a "logical" explanation? You seem to be making a categorical distinction: how does an explanation differ from a logical explanation? - Assuming that by "explanation" we mean something that makes sense as opposed to something that does not or cannot make sense. — tim wood

You’re right of course the word logical was not necessary unless invoking a non-logical explanation such as god did it or other supernatural explanation.

How then is [only so called for a point of mutual focus] God to be conceived of, absolutely? — ENOAH

Spinoza's Deus, sive natura is conceptually coherent enough for me (& Einstein).