Doubt it, otherwise we'd all be living in fear, as what is (not asked to 'live in fear' but rather to possess knowledge or 'fear of God'). I look at it all as more of a test to see who takes care of the business when the boss ain't looking, hence the importance of 'faith' which by definition couldn't exist with proof. But that's tired reasoning at this point to a skeptic so I'll give it a shot.

Just imagine. The vastness of the universe. Trillions of light years of rock, void, and various gases. With radar we can see Alpha Centauri, over 25 trillion miles away. In fact we can detect systems even further, such as MACS0647-JD, being over 13 billion light years away. And still, no signs of intelligent life. But let's look a bit closer at our own solar system. Eight (or nine if you're old school) heavenly bodies perfectly suspended by just enough gravity to stay in sync without either drifting too close to the sun or too far away into the void of space. Something to marvel at in it's own respect. But let's look even closer, on our planet. Intelligent life, with no rival or anything that even comes close. Plants have been here since the beginning, with reptiles not being far behind. Only mammals possess some inkling or resemblance of intelligence, but is exponentially dwarfed with our modern marvels and society (such as they can bring or be at times). Why don't we have other species, mammals even with societies that remotely resemble ours? Not detectable billions of light years away, nor right here at home. If this isn't at least a starting point for the case of intelligent design, I frankly don't know what is!

I believe in an "ether". A culmination of consciousness adding and subtracting as individuals become aware or die (respectively). I call it "IT" and we talk! I think people put their own name on it to ease their minds that something more HAS to exsist to explain the unexplainable or just to give peace. Jesus, Muhamad, Buddha, God, all are the same to me... IT.

It is always good to argue against yourself, you would be, if not already are, a good debater.

The lack of intelligent life is only proof of our own inadequecy which discounts the latter half

I like the title of this thread - clear, concise, goes straight to the point.

The lack of intelligent life is only proof of our own inadequecy which discounts the latter half — CallMeDirac

Sorry, I don't listen to inadequate responses.

I didnt see the answer tab and thought you were being an arse.

alternate idea:

What are your arguments for or against the existence of one or more etherial beings.

I do not believe the universe is a purposeless accidental event.
I tend to think (if there is a divine) it acts through the processes of nature.
The divine in my mind is the tendency of nature to self organize and the increasing creativity, complexity and experiential aspect of life over time and evolution.
I do not believe in heaven or hell or even think that there is any God that concerns itself much with human morality or even human survival.
Creativity, novelty and experience are the divine drives.

How about logos or universal law?

LET God = the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life.

IF you exist the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life exists.

You exist.

THEREFORE God exists.

that entails there are more than a billion gods...

that entails there are more than a billion gods... — The Opposite

Only one. You are only one, and what is most important to you is singular. Don't worry about everyone else, unless humanity is the most important thing in which case it is still one god. Everyone else may give importance to trivia... Indeed, if you look around there are worshippers of money, power, beauty, tradition, science, sex... too bad for them, and not worth further consideration.

LET God = the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life.

IF you exist the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life exists.

You exist.

THEREFORE God exists. — unenlightened

Let god exist. Therefore god exists.

Sure, good proofs always work by the conclusion being contained in the premises. What did you expect?

Let god be something for which there can be no evidence, totally beyond experience.

Therefore there can be no proof that God exists.

Choose your gods choose your proofs.

What did you expect? — unenlightened

Less transparency. Support from facts other than just stating the conclusion in the premis. Support form things independent from the idea of god that still support the existence of god.

I can build a counter argument, and see what you say abou it. This is how it goes:

God does not exist. Therefore god does not exist.

The is above is structured the same way as your proof. The premise contains the conclusion.

How come your proof is not congruent with my proof? They are both logically sound, and they both satisfy the criteria you set for a proof. Yet one is complete opposite of the other.

Your proof is not superior to mine, and mine is not superior to yours.

What to do make of this? I think what i make is that both are unsound as proofs. The logic is right, but the premise can't be accepted readily, since it is NOT proven at the state when they are a part of the premise.

I do not need to be convinced of the fatuity of all such existence arguments. If you can find a valid proof of the existence of any damn thing that does not include its conclusions in its premises, then you either won't have noticed that it is so contained, or you won't have noticed it's invalidity. However, my argument at least has the merit of bearing some relation to something that believers might claim - that their god is the most important thing in their life.

It may be that the non-existence of god is the most important thing in your life, in which case you would have to disagree with my definition of what god is. But then nothing you might say will be on the same topic as what any religious person is talking about. and that is a problem I might have too, because while a believer might agree that god is the most important thing in their life, the would not accept that god is whatever you or I think is the most important thing, but rather, they would claim to know better. But I am a democrat, and must allow every worshipper an equal vote.

I have my keys in my pocket. If you were present here, I could get them out and show you, If you doubted they were my keys, I could show how they open my front door, and if you doubted that, I could introduce you to the neighbours, etc. This is not called 'proof' in philosophy, but demonstration and evidence. It is what one might wish for, but it is unavailable. My keys exist in my pocket, but there can be no cunning arrangement of words that obliges this to be the case, or convinces the skeptic that it is the case.

If you can find a valid proof of the existence of any damn thing that does not include its conclusions in its premises — unenlightened

All humans like bananas.
Paul is a human.
Therefore Paul likes bananas.

Here, each premise (either one of them) does not contain the conclusion.
Together, with the combining force of reason, form a conclusion.

Let god exists
Therefore god exists

Is an argumen in which the premise contains the conclusion.

In my argument above neither of the two separate premise hold the conclusion.

This is a noteworthy difference.

--------------------

If you insist in saying that my argument also contained the conclusion in the premises, you are not taking into consideration that they only do that via a process of logic. Without logic neither contains the conclusion.

If you say "let god exist, therefore god exists", the premise does not need logic or anything else to state the conclusion.

This is a noteworthy difference.

You said find a proof for the existence of something, and I gave a proof not complying with that.

All healthy Humans have a nose.
Alfred is a healthy human.
Therefore Alfred's nose exists.

There.

Neither of the premises contain the conclusion,yet the two together, after manipulatin or understanding by applying logic, prove the existence of something.

Neither of the premises contain the conclusion — god must be atheist

All unicorns have a single horn.
Nico is a unicorn.
Therefore Nico's unicorn horn exists.

Happy days! I'm sure i can come up with one for god on the same basis.

All unenlightened philosophers have Gods.
Unenlightened is an unenlightened philosopher.
There unenlightened's god exists.

If only I'd known how easy proofs were.

Your second premise is wrong. Nico is only a unicorn if he or she exists. But flying spaghetty monsters don't exist, and there are no unicorn fossils either. It is not enough to be logically correct; for the conclusion to be true, the logic has to be right, and all the premises must be true.

You failed to have all your premises to be true.

If only you knew how easy proofs are.

All unenlightened philosophers have Gods.
Unenlightened is an unenlightened philosopher.
There unenlightened's god exists. — unenlightened

Obiously you are hugely unenlightened. :-)

But don't let my destroying your arguments deter you.

All unenlightened philosophers have gods -- not a true, not a false statement. It requires further proof. All unenlgihtened philosophers believe in gods is also not a necessarily true statement. But your first premise involves the claim that a god or more gods exist. Therefore your premise contains your conclusion. Therefore your proof is not a proof.

If only you knew how easy proofs are.

But don't let my destroying your arguments deter you. — god must be atheist

Deter me from what? You destroy my arguments like I was making them for real, rather than parodying your arguments. You seem not to have noticed in your urgency to win, that we do not even disagree.

5.3k
LET God = the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life.

IF you exist the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life exists.

You exist.

THEREFORE God exists. — unenlightened

You seem not to have noticed in your urgency to win, that we do not even disagree. — unenlightened

I am sorry. So the first quote in this post, where I quoted you, was made in jest, as a parody? How would I know that? Because I certainly disagree with the conlcusion of the first quote. I assert that that argument is not valid. So... you wrote it as a parody?

I am sorry. So the first quote in this post, where I quoted you, was made in jest, as a parody? How would I know that? Because I certainly disagree with the conlcusion of the first quote. I assert that that argument is not valid. So... you wrote it as a parody? — god must be atheist

Good grief! That is a really terrible way to do philosophy. I will not engage with you further.

5.3k
LET God = the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life.

IF you exist the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life exists.

You exist.

THEREFORE God exists. — unenlightened

You destroy my arguments like I was making them for real, rather than parodying your arguments. — unenlightened

You seem not to have noticed in your urgency to win, that we do not even disagree. — unenlightened

I am sorry. So the first quote in this post, where I quoted you, was made in jest, as a parody? How would I know that? Because I certainly disagree with the conlcusion of the first quote. I assert that that argument is not valid. So... you wrote it as a parody? — god must be atheist

Good grief! That is a really terrible way to do philosophy. I will not engage with you further. — unenlightened

Hehe. Do you even bother to read, remember, or consider anything you, yourself write?

Don't know about God, but a quick look at our world, of the cruelty of sticking qualia into a being whose actions are ruled by determinism, of shoving Atman into a sea of Prakrati, definitely demonstrates the existence of Yaldaboath.

:cool:

Maybe this topic is the best place to ask my question:
What was the traditional belief and actually your idea of ​​God? (that is, the belief that every person has had under the influence of the environment in which he was raised, before he encountered any wise thoughts about God)
Has this belief changed now?
- If the answer is yes, how did this new belief evolve and under what ideas were the experiences? I mean, what happened that you came to the conclusion that this belief must be changed? And how did you transform it? And what is your belief now?
- If the answer is no, why do you think that the traditional belief (in the sense of what you have accepted in the past) does not need to be transformed?

These guys named Peter, Mark, Luke, Matthew, John - they saw a guy hung to death on a cross, definitely dead, and buried, and then saw his body was missing from the tomb, and then saw him walking around talking. This was after seeing a whole bunch of crazy things like walking on water. So those guys have “proof” I guess.

That does us absolutely no good here.

But, can you prove the existence of say, your own body, or Donald Trump (his skin color makes me wonder if he is a mannequin), but can you prove the existence of mannequins?

“Proof for the existence of….”
…has always been a misplaced exercise.

We prove how existing things relate. Proofs sit in between existing things. We have to take the existing things for granted before we can start to prove the reasonable relations their existence entails.

Like you prove in a right triangle that the squares of the two shorter sides equal the square of the longest side. Give me the two short side lengths, and I will tell you the length of the long side, and I can prove it to you over and over again. But you can’t prove there is a single triangle out in the world, or prove there is a long side, or prove the existence of anything. (Descartes thinks he proved he alone existed. Maybe. But that doesn’t prove to me that Descartes existed.)

I put it as, we prove things about the essence of things. We don’t prove existence.

Like if you assume God exists, you might prove he can’t be mortal (but then Jesus’ death throws a wrinkle into that picture), or that God must be capable of doing anything (so why would we suffer)…….bottomless pit without any revelation or experience. No real proof available.

You would be better off trying to pray for the answer. Then you might have your own experience if God chose to drop by. Then you would have objects to “prove”.

Experience first. Then proof about what you experience.

We should ask, how do I get experience with God?

What would happen if someone proved that Jesus was God - wouldn’t that mean we better immediately make sure we are doing everything the Bible says? If Jesus was “proven” with absolute scientific certainty - like proof the Big Bang was the first event of this universe, and it was caused by a person with power to cause such things. All of a sudden scientists, news media, everyone “we have absolute, scientific proof, God exists and created this vast universe!” And further absolute proof that Jesus was this God who decided to become a human being so that he could tell human beings about who he was, and what we can do with our lives to live forever. Proof. Imagine this as proven.

Now what? Do I immediately give all possessions away to charity and focus on living a simple life of service and making sure everyone knows this “good news”.

Do we really even want proof? It would mean something in our lives.

Can you prove it is exhilarating to parachute jump for the first time? Prove it. Prove the feeling of exhilaration.

Or instead, I can just go up in a plane and jump with parachute for the first time.

Can you prove God exists? No. But maybe you can experience God and see for yourself.

Keep asking for sure. Don’t mean to discourage the place where the question comes from if it is an honest question.

As soon as you find God it will be in the last place on earth that you would expect, that will be your proof.

And that proof will only be for you, and it will be precariously held onto by faith.

When you expect God to be a powerful giant, he comes as a beggar, in need of your assistance. If you think God must be love and joy, He will be terrifying power. If you think God is completely other than you and incomprehensible, you will find God in yourself, intimately a part of your very life.

God is not what anyone can sum up, or prove.

There’s another thread on here trying to see if anyone can demonstrate the existence of an “object”. With questions like that in the mix, we aren’t going to prove any god exists.

If you can find a valid proof of the existence of any damn thing that does not include its conclusions in its premises, then you either won't have noticed that it is so contained, or you won't have noticed it's invalidity. — unenlightened

Exactly. There is no proof of existence. Only proofs about existing things that we lodge into the premises of our argumentative proofs.

I think @unenlightened is taking the only remotely promising approach, and that is to stipulate a God-idea and then check the world (in a broad sense of 'check') for a corresponding reality.