God does not exist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-RJeqyh-vI"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-RJeqyh-vI

 

I like how you assume that there is no possible logical explanation for god. Obviously you've accounted for every persons own interpretation before making this broad sweeping statement, so there's no way it could be false.

Myself, I understand god as the sum total of all energy in the universe. I consider this logical in the same way that a limit in calculus is logical. I can easily see that energy exists, and that the universe seems to be made up of it, and this allows me to have the faith i have due to the experiences I've had without being completely without rationality. To me, god is that which encompasses everything. Obviously this isn't a concept that can be tested or uses in any way, but it is my belief.

 

Hmm I guess you proved it.

 

It is not an assumption and there is not. That is why there is faith. Personal experience is personal for a reason. It is subjective, not objective.

 

i only believe what i can prove. all the shit i went through i believe nothing.

 

Unless you can give 100% proof that God does or does not exist the discussion is purely conjecture.

 

You obviously have a reading impediment. The fact is that god does not exist until he can be proven to exist. After all, do we automatically assume that something exists because someone states it does when there is no proof, or do we call them insane and place them in asylums?

 

Can you prove that logic cannot agree with a person's faith or idea of god? Can you prove to me that my logic does not agree with my view of god? You must understand that faith, logic, and understanding are all things which each person does in their own way. You can't accurately say that logic cannot agree with faith without first observing every possible interpretation of the two.

You prove my point in your last statement. You're trying to say that logic(subjective) and faith(subjective) cannot agree, but in being subjective you must see that they are not constants. The two exist only in each person's interpretation, so for every person there can, and indeed must be a different interpretation. To say that there cannot be an agreement between the two shows how closed minded you are. You account only for your own perspective on the issue, and assume that it must be the correct one.

You do yourself a great disservice by closing your mind to any and all possibilities.

 

Wow, I feel like a genius at the moment. The entire premise of the thread is that man creates in his mind the idea that god exists. Of course man can imagine anything exists, but until he can provide proof that anyone and everyone in the world agrees with in discerning the existence of stated god, then god is merely in man's mind.

 

Your a real piece of work.

 

And you do yourself a great disservice in believing in that which cannot be proven to exist. By your very logic, you should believe in the existence of the invisible pink unicorn.

 

So because man can imagine god that proves that it doesn't exist? Wonderful.

You're demonstrating the greatest downfall to the scientific method. The fact that one cannot prove something does not prove that it isn't true. The absense of evidence is not the evidence of absence. People widely believe that if something is not proven by science then it must be untrue, but the fact of the matter is that science is not complete. We don't know everything.

There's a lot that's widely considered to be proven fact, but to think that everything else that's not proven, or that can't be put into simple enough experimental constraints to be proven analytically is false is just absurd.

 

So according to you, just because man can imagine something, it must exist? Fantasy novels written by man describing all types of strange creatures must exist, then. Of course, how stupid of me.

 

See, I didn't say that. That's a ridiculous extrapolation of the fact that I'm not agreeing with your conclusive statement on the existence of god. I believe that god exists, for my own reasons and in my own definition. Never did I say that because it is possible to imagine god it must be true. I did question your statement about imagining god proving that it doesn't exist, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm asserting the opposite condition. Indeed I'm not. A more accurate statement would be that a man can imagine things, and those things may exist. There really is no correlation between the two.

 

Faith. Yes. We've covered that already.

 

Indeed, faith is a thing. It can be imagined. It may exist. You could say that same about everything, including god. However, to say that because something is imagined, it must not exist doesn't apply to all situations, and thus is not an accurate statement.

 

It is indeed an accurate statement when someone states something does not exist when there is no proof of its existence.. It is a false statement when someone states something exists when there is no proof of its existence.

 

No, actually it's not. Things can be proven or disproven, but if there is no evidence from which to draw a conclusion, then a conclusion cannot be drawn. To say that something is proven because there is no evidence to even consider is obviously flawed, but while it may seem harder to understand, to say that something is disproven because there is no evidence to consider is equally flawed. To prove one thing is to disprove it's opposite. For both there must be conclusive evidence.

 

The default position is that something does not exist. Does an infant open its eyes and state something significant? No. Nothing exist for an infant until it is taught during the growth process. Man, in his first days, had no such thing as learning from anyone before him. Therefore, he looked at everything around him and created in his mind a god that made it all.

 

I can't agree with you on this. I honestly don't think that the general scientific community would agree with this. There is no default position. This isn't the law where a person must be innocent until proven guilty. There's no scientific convention that says that that which is not proven must be false.