You cannot Prove God's existence.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. God can literally talk to us.

2. God cannot literally talk to us.

Which is the simpler answer?

In the first answer, there would have to be a god being to talk to us. God being + talking to us. In the second answer, there would not be a god being. I think the second on is simpler then the first one.

If he exists 1, if he doesn't 2

God existed forever and is for some reason all powerful and decided for some reason to create the Universe.

The Universe came into existence without such ridiculous paradoxons.

Which is the simpler answer?

Also, don't you see why that is ridiculous. You apply it when it comes to talking to God, but not when it comes to God itself...it is just mindbogglingly idiotic.

Originally posted by Alliance
Side note: Occam's razor is wrong. Period.

Anyone who uses it against religion does nothing but make a fool of themselves imo.

The problem with proving the existence of god is that it depends on your defintion. One of the defintions of what God is that he is infinite and therefore cannot be fully comprehended. If you cannot fully comprehend something it stands to reason you will never find a 100 proof for its existence.

What is with appealing to empty conclusions on this thread?

"God just doesn't exist."

"Occam's razor is just wrong."

Seriously, no room for nothing. So fallible.

Originally posted by Seraphim XIII
What is with appealing to empty conclusions on this thread?

"God just doesn't exist."

"Occam's razor is just wrong."

Seriously, no room for nothing. So fallible.

At any rate I agree with your opinion. You cant prove or disprove God exists.

Once again. Disproving he exists is completely irrelevant. There is no need.

Originally posted by Seraphim XIII
Drop the bullshit, XYZ. Stop dismissing a theory as solid proof for proving that God is inexistent.

I guarantee no one will be able to prove whether god exists or doesn't exist. You keep on forgetting that god's existence and religion itself is a theory; Just as Science is a theory. Not everything in Science is correct or true and it sure as hell doesn't hold water seeing as it balances itself on theory.

Proving that God does not exist will be impossible. Trust me. Proving that he exists will be Impossible. Trust me.

It's an unknown, and for those who say "GOD DOES NOT EXIST, 100%!" and for those who say "GOD EXISTS 100% AND HE'S RETURNING"...

You both sound bloody ridiculous, to be honest.

Leave it alone. You're not finding out until you die so get over it. Good lord ...

The fact that God is made up is evidence enough, he doesn't exist. Unicorns are made up, are you going to say they may exist? Well, yes, it's possible, but the thread starter is saying he has faith it existing. That really annoys me, becaue he says he has faith, and since we can't disprove his faith, he can't be wrong. But, nor can he be right, and since he's not right, he is in no position to say God exists. He's not right. We can say God doesn't exist with the evidence that his existence can't be proven. Remember innocent until proven guilty? It's the same in Science. God is false, until proven true.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Once again. Disproving he exists is completely irrelevant. There is no need.

While I understand where you are coming from, there is a fundamental issue I have with ignoring certain gods. Yes, we can't disprove god but we can show overwhelming evidence to doubt that god. When someone commits a violent act and claims that it was the word of god, we have to address that issue. I wouldn't say that attempting to disprove god is "irrelevant" In certain situations we have to address the issue of god.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Occam's razor
"When you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

If you don't like that one, how about this one?

Carl Sagan
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

So if someone claims that they talk to god, that would be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.

Occam's razor was origianally "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem." You're version is the modern one.

What we notice is different between the two is that the modern interpretation has a qualification "same predictions."

Therefore you cannot use that modern precept against god at all, becuase predicting there is a god and that there isn't is not the same prediction at all.

Originally posted by Alfheim
The problem with proving the existence of god is that it depends on your defintion. One of the defintions of what God is that he is infinite and therefore cannot be [B] fully comprehended. If you cannot fully comprehend something it stands to reason you will never find a 100 proof for its existence. [/B]

We're not looking for 100% proof, nothing has it. We're looking for shreads of proof.

Religions need to prove that something is impossible without the divine.

None has.Too bad modern religions departed from the ancient ones and invented these totalitarian gods that override natrue instead of being a part of it.

Originally posted by Alliance

We're not looking for 100% proof, nothing has it.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Alliance

Too bad modern religions departed from the ancient ones and invented these totalitarian gods that override natrue instead of being a part of it.

Well I would have thougt if God was infinte God would be part of nature. Therefore nature and God are one.

That assumes that god is infinate.

Just another arbitrary assumption.

Originally posted by lord xyz
God is false, until proven true.

Not to most of the world.

Originally posted by lord xyz

You start by making no assumptions. You need to prove something before you can disprove it.

Logic much?

Originally posted by Alliance
You start by making no assumptions. You need to prove something before you can disprove it.

Logic much?

Originally posted by JacopeX
But there is a logic that goes along with that. You cant prove god nor could you disapprove god.

But, though you can't disprove God at the current moment, it doesn't mean that it is likely that such a thing as God exists. It also doesn't mean that the bullshit that is done in the name of such a God has to be accepted. That we can't be sure is one thing, now to base our lives on it and harm others because of it is totally different. We can't disprove your God, but as long as you can't prove them the only answer you deserve when bringing "him" into a discussion is "Piss off!"

Its nice that the entire ReligionForum has finnaly be condensed to one thread.

Originally posted by JacopeX
Not if you give me proof of him being false along with the bible. You must prove it to say something like that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Its nice that the entire ReligionForum has finnaly be condensed to one thread.

😂

Originally posted by Alliance
That assumes that god is infinate.

Just another arbitrary assumption.

Well if he wasn't infinte he would not be God. I thought one of the defintions of God was that he was all powerful you cannot be all-powerful if you are finite can you?