GOD EXISTS

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:If you're not making the argument above, then yes it is.

The only way around it is to declare you believe in a "God" that is NOT supernatural. Which you appear reluctant to do. I bet I can guess why.

No, it isn't. Your argument required the chain of logic to conclude what you did. The possibility exists that God exists, because it is not proven that He does not.

now you're just changing the subject. Nobody was talking about having proven God didn't exist. We were talking about it NOT BEING POSSIBLE to prove he does or does not exist.

To be indemonstrable, there can exist no possible way to demonstrate that the statement is true.

Yep. Which there isn't.

We have agreed that God's absence or existence has not been proved.

Yep. So?

Your proof requiring fundamental law be broken if God exists is false because fundamental law can be a product of God's existence.

If they are a product of God's existence then God therefore supercedes them. He can't create them and be bound by them at the same time. So which is it? Is God bound by the laws of physics and you thus believe in a "God" that is entirely a natural entity... or is he the creator of the laws of physics and this not bound by them?

God's existence has not been disproven.

gcomeau wrote:Why do you keep saying that? Is it some kind of compulsion?

****** *


PeterZ, you have loads of Christian patience.

Perhaps one cannot prove that God Exists. I've assumed that as a given.

However, one can prove that God must Exist.

cthia wrote:Perhaps one cannot prove that God Exists. I've assumed that as a given.

However, one can prove that God must Exist.

So, you accept as a given that you can't prove god's existence.

However, you are convinced that god's existence is a necessary precondition for the universe existing, and that you can prove this.

Please elaborate on the difference between the two, because I sure can't see it.

The E

I believe cthia was commenting on my exchange and the assumptions made to address the fault in gcomeau's logic.

Gcomeau's use of the term is inconsistent with Huxley's reasons for coining the term. Asserting the truth of God is indemonstrable requires faith since that has not been proven. Cthia merely commented on why gcomeau's attempt failed.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:Perhaps one cannot prove that God Exists. I've assumed that as a given.

However, one can prove that God must Exist.

So, you accept as a given that you can't prove god's existence.

However, you are convinced that god's existence is a necessary precondition for the universe existing, and that you can prove this.

Please elaborate on the difference between the two, because I sure can't see it.

PeterZ wrote:The E

I believe cthia was commenting on my exchange and the assumptions made to address the fault in gcomeau's logic.

Gcomeau's use of the term is inconsistent with Huxley's reasons for coining the term. Asserting the truth of God is indemonstrable requires faith since that has not been proven. Cthia merely commented on why gcomeau's attempt failed.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:Perhaps one cannot prove that God Exists. I've assumed that as a given.

However, one can prove that God must Exist.

So, you accept as a given that you can't prove god's existence.

However, you are convinced that god's existence is a necessary precondition for the universe existing, and that you can prove this.

Please elaborate on the difference between the two, because I sure can't see it.

Not exactly.

I entertain it will be fruitful to prove that the negation cannot be true.

And commenting on your exchange.

cthia wrote:
However, one can prove that God must Exist.

Why must God exist?

Zakharra wrote:

cthia wrote:However, one can prove that God must Exist.

Why must God exist?

WIP: The negation of GOD EXISTS cannot be true, therefore GOD MUST EXIST.

Existence would be pointless without, lest we be mindless machines of meat.

Why must he not?...

Do you wish HE not?

cthia wrote:

Zakharra wrote:
However, one [i]can prove that God must Exist.[/i]

Why must God exist?

WIP: The negation of GOD EXISTS cannot be true, therefore GOD MUST EXIST.

Existence would be pointless without, lest we be mindless machines of meat.

Why must he not?...

Do you wish HE not?

That is a bullshit answer and doesn't follow ANY scientific logic, or even logic, at all. By your 'logic', unicorns MUST exist because no one has never proven they didn't exist. You can't prove they did or did not, so they must therefore exist... Yeah, right.

Give/show us scientific proof that God, god or any god must exist, not unproven belief with no basis in logical thought or process.

If God does not Exist
Then "What is the meaning of life" —>
:unanswerable :pointless :meaningless :null :void

Because perhaps (maybe) God simply does not enter into the focus and meaning of life. Life is a free standing known not requiring any God or Gods? We are here. We exist. Why can't that happen without God? It can happen without God because ... here we are. Life does not require that it makes "any sense". Respectfully. HB of CJ (old coot)

Graph: X-axis
Plot the data points of people on their death beds who are given one last chance to believe.

Legend:
+X = choose to believe
-X = choose not to believe
0(Origin) = never given a final chance

Remember the Crucifixion:
God's Quantum physics places you simultaneously on the left and the right of JESUS.

Shall you be the one that says, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"

Luke 23:42