NationStates Jolt Archive

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

(thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations?)

Note: Those just joining us please read the full thread as what I have written above is fleshed out and explained more. Thank You.

I....see.

I wonder what the religious types will make of this, besides calling you an unbeliever and a sinner and a heathen.

So I guess every abstract concept is out the window then. Goodbye to rights and freedoms.

So I guess every abstract concept is out the window then. Goodbye to rights and freedoms.

Those are concepts and ideas which have relation to material world (political theory). There is however no inherent freedom or any inherent rights. They are created by human civilization for human civilization.

This is the kind of reductionist thinking that keeps people from seeing the forest for the trees. High energy physics is proof enough that the ultimate component of matter is nothing.

What makes up the world is not matter, but the relationships established between material objects, which neither exist or not exist.

If this sounds like too much metaphysical gobbledygook, then tell me what a square is made out of?

So I guess every abstract concept is out the window then. Goodbye to rights and freedoms.
No, as abstractions are thoughts, and thoughts are the electrochemical reactions in the brain. They ultimately are tied to the physical.

Why go through all the effort to disprove God if He does not exist? Wouldn't there be no need to disprove God if the evidence was explicit? Like evolution?

You cannot form a proper hypothesis (God does not exist) unless it is testable. It is not testable, it cannot be proven, and will never be respected as fact.

No, as abstractions are thoughts, and thoughts are the electrochemical reactions in the brain. They ultimately are tied to the physical.

Wouldn't the concept of divinity, though, also be both an abstraction and a thought?

I tend to agree with Mr. Chesterton, as you've likely picked up in my other threads:

It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a skeptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction?"

He had "anything" italisized, but that doesn't carry over when quoting on the forums.

Why go through all the effort to disprove God if He does not exist? Wouldn't there be no need to disprove God if the evidence was explicit? Like evolution?

You cannot form a proper hypothesis (God does not exist) unless it is testable. It is not testable, it cannot be proven, and will never be respected as fact.

What I am disproving is not god (there is no such thing) but the idea of god. The idea of god exists (as electrical/chemical signals in the human brain) and I seek to prove it has no other presence then as an idea.

And I have not formed a hypothesis "god does not exist", I have formed the Hypothesis (perhaps Theory) that the sole material world can be proven and cannot be disproven. Thus all ideas which controdict it are false.

And it is testable; find something that is not material and you will have disproven it.

What I am disproving is not god (there is no such thing) but the idea of god. The idea of god exists (as electrical/chemical signals in the human brain) and I seek to prove it has no other presence then as an idea.

And I have not formed a hypothesis "god does not exist", I have formed the Hypothesis (perhaps Theory) that the sole material world can be proven and cannot be disproven. Thus all ideas which controdict it are false.

And it is testable; find something that is not material and you will have disproven it.
So then...you pretty much declare that nothing exists.

Because we all interpert things through chemical and electrical signals through our heads to how we perceive them. You perceive them one way and I perceive them into another. I might see the colour red, they may see the color brown.

And it is most certainly not a theory. You cannot test that "hypothesis", therefore it isn't even a hypothesis.

This is the kind of reductionist thinking that keeps people from seeing the forest for the trees. High energy physics is proof enough that the ultimate component of matter is nothing.

What makes up the world is not matter, but the relationships established between material objects, which neither exist or not exist.

If this sounds like too much metaphysical gobbledygook, then tell me what a square is made out of?

They are still working on identifying all forms of matter.

I believe there this issue was raised in the movie I Heart Huckabees, "if you look closely enough you can't tell where my nose ends and the rest of the universe begins" (or something to that effect).

then why do the best people seem to be those who discard the material of the world?

So then...you pretty much declare that nothing exists.

Because we all interpert things through chemical and electrical signals through our heads to how we perceive them. You perceive them one way and I perceive them into another. I might see the colour red, they may see the color brown.

And it is most certainly not a theory. You cannot test that "hypothesis", therefore it isn't even a hypothesis.

Preceptions can be measured and such Descatian skepticism, as I have meantioned before, has no viable alternative to the world you are doubting. All other possible worlds are to be dismissed unless proven to be material.

Baseless skepticism does not disprove the material.

Preceptions can be measured and such Descatian skepticism, as I have meantioned before, has no viable alternative to the world you are doubting. All other possible worlds are to be dismissed unless proven to be material.
So, by your own theory, your theory is disproven by your theory because it is not materialistic?

So, by your own theory, your theory is disproven by your theory because it is not materialistic?

No, my Theory exists as an idea/concept inside my head (as well as yours currently).

Wouldn't the concept of divinity, though, also be both an abstraction and a thought?
Yes, but what is your point? Not trying to Anselm it, are you?

No, my Theory exists as an idea/concept inside my head (as well as your currently).
But your "theory" (Unprovable, unexperimented) is an idea (which isn't a theory at all), and you "claim" (I like parenthesis) it is true, but not the idea of God?

Yes, but what is your point? Not trying to Anselm it, are you?

Meh, didn't really have one. This whole thread seems to be little more than an exercise in sophistry and I never really see the point in those.

But your "theory" (Unprovable, unexperimented) is an idea (which isn't a theory at all), and you "claim" (I like parenthesis) it is true, but not the idea of God?

It is testable, by science and sense perception. Show me something that is not material.

Preceptions can be measured and such Descatian skepticism, as I have meantioned before, has no viable alternative to the world you are doubting. All other possible worlds are to be dismissed unless proven to be material.

Baseless skepticism does not disprove the material.

Ah, so you dismiss criticisms of a purely material world because there is no "viable alternative".

But you dismiss all viable alternatives because they do not coincide with the purely material world.

But the concept of a purely material world has criticisms, which you dismiss because there is no "viable alternative".

The argument is circular.

Sorry, but science can never survive in the realm of philosophy. Be content curing cancer and explaining the progression of life.

It is testable, by science and sense perception. Show me something that is not material.
Your idea.

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

(thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations?)
Well religion will sitl excist in your universe, since it's a result of synaptic misfire.

Ah, so you dismiss criticisms of a purely material world because there is no "viable alternative".

But you dismiss all viable alternatives because they do not coincide with the purely material world.

But the concept of a purely material world has criticisms, which you dismiss because there is no "viable alternative".

The argument is circular.

Sorry, but science can never survive in the realm of philosophy. Be content curing cancer and explaining the progression of life.

My Theory, as I have said, can be proven yet not disproven (which is more then say, the idea of god).

What are the criticisms? List them please?

Your idea.

It is an electrical/chemical signal in the brain (which can be accounted for).

It is an electrical/chemical signal in the brain (which can be accounted for).
...The idea of God...

...The idea of God...

The idea of god exists only as an idea.

The idea of god exists only as an idea.
....So...

....So...

So what?

So what?
Thus we have come to my conclusion. So fucking what? You can't prove or disprove anything about God no matter how hard you try because YOU CAN'T! It is IMPOSSIBLE! Anything you say or do relating to God is nothing more than speculation and should be taken with a grain of salt and should never be referred to as "fact".

The end. Sadly, it lives on.

Thus we have come to my conclusion. So fucking what? You can't prove or disprove anything about God no matter how hard you try because YOU CAN'T! It is IMPOSSIBLE! Anything you say or do relating to God is nothing more than speculation and should be taken with a grain of salt and should never be referred to as "fact".

The end. Sadly, it lives on.

I have proved that god exists only as an idea, nothing more. There is no being of god, just a baseless idea. It is fact.

To restate:

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

I have proved that god exists only as an idea, nothing more. There is no being of god, just a baseless idea. It is fact.
So like...you have something against reading a paragraph or something?

Preceptions can be measured and such Descatian skepticism, as I have meantioned before, has no viable alternative to the world you are doubting. All other possible worlds are to be dismissed unless proven to be material.

Baseless skepticism does not disprove the material.
But then, isn't your very premise just "baseless skepticism". What do you base your assertion that "if something is not materialistic it does not exist" on?

Also, I have always believed that you just can't prove a negative.

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist.

Faulty logic. The fact that all elements of set A are also elements of set B does not automatically mean that all elements of set B are also elements of set A.

The fact that everything that is materialistic exists does not necessarily imply that everything that exists is materialistic. Your entire argument rests on the flawed assumption that it does.

To restate:

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.
God doesn't exist.
Thus we have come to my conclusion. So fucking what? You can't prove or disprove anything about God no matter how hard you try because YOU CAN'T! It is IMPOSSIBLE! Anything you say or do relating to God is nothing more than speculation and should be taken with a grain of salt and should never be referred to as "fact".

The end. Sadly, it lives on.
I have proved that god exists only as an idea, nothing more. There is no being of god, just a baseless idea. It is fact.

Uh-oh! Nothing!

...

The burden is on you to show me something that is not material.

Material=Existence

The burden is on you to show me something that is not material.

Material=Existence
My burden on you is to find a better argument and to pick up a 7th grade science book and learn the scientific method.

The burden is on you to show me something that is not material.

Material=Existence
No, the burden of proof is on you to prove Immaterial != existance.

My existence proves it. I am material and I exist! You can list nothing that is not material, because it does not exist.

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist.

This, if I'm not mistaken, is your "hypothesis". Now I ask you: what is your definition of "existence"?

Because if your definition of "existence" has anything to do with the materialistic, then the argument is circular and thus unprovable.

Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.).

The problem is that our methods for examining the material world RELY on the material world. If the material world as we know it *does* have errors with it, then of course the methods of testing will be flawed. It is using the conclusion as your premise. Circular.

One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

Doubt in the sole existence of the material world is based on a lack of faith in our perception/senses. Also circular, but just as rational as complete faith in the material world.

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

You just said it. The sole material world cannot be disproved BECAUSE the methods for testing it automatically discount anything non-material. Circular.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

Science cannot penetrate philosophy. Sorry again.

P.S. Looking over the preview for this post, I see that others have already made the point.

My existence proves it. I am material and I exist! You can list nothing that is not material, because it does not exist.
Know what? I'm going to just pretend your another voice in my head.

This, if I'm not mistaken, is your "hypothesis". Now I ask you: what is your definition of "existence"?

That which exists is material and that which is material exists.


[QUOTE=Passivocalia]
Because if your definition of "existence" has anything to do with the materialistic, then the argument is circular and thus unprovable.


I hold that it's circular nature proves it as it cannot be discounted.


The problem is that our methods for examining the material world RELY on the material world. If the material world as we know it *does* have errors with it, then of course the methods of testing will be flawed. It is using the conclusion as your premise. Circular.

One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

Exactly, thus it is proven.


Doubt in the sole existence of the material world is based on a lack of faith in our perception/senses. Also circular, but just as rational as complete faith in the material world.

One does not need faith to see or hear.


You just said it. The sole material world cannot be disproved BECAUSE the methods for testing it automatically discount anything non-material. Circular.


So it is circular. Discount it!

Know what? I'm going to just pretend your another voice in my head.

Go ahead, you know that is not true. That would be another baseless idea.

Go ahead, you know that is not true. That would be another baseless idea.
you still haven't proven that immaterial != existance.

you still haven't proven that immaterial != existance.

Yes I have, read what I have written.

I have proved that god exists only as an idea, nothing more. There is no being of god, just a baseless idea. It is fact.

I could say that the grass is blue and the sky is green and use the argument that colors are only ideas created by humans but that doesnt necessarily mean its true.

I could say that the grass is blue and the sky is green and use the argument that colors are only ideas created by humans but that doesnt necessarily mean its true.

Color exists as a material element. Color exists (what we precieve) and the idea of color exists. One can create an idea of color where the sky is red. But the sky is still blue, the idea is baseless.

What is color anyway. The refelection of light.

Yes I have, read what I have written.
No you haven't. What you wrote was that since material = existance therefore immaterial != existance. Your conclusion isn't based on any proof, but just an illogical extension of the first part of the theory.

I'm confused by what you mean by immaterial != existance. Please spell it out.

Color exists as a material element. Color exists (what we precieve) and the idea of color exists. One can create an idea of color where the sky is red. But the sky is still blue, the idea is baseless.

But lets say that I see the grass as blue and the sky as green? Does that not make it true then? Would it not be true for me since thats what I precieve? how would you know that all the people that see otherwise are in fact defective and I am the only one who os preceiving "colors" correctly?

I hold that it's circular nature proves it as it cannot be discounted.

No! Circular is a *bad* thing, you see. :)
It's like saying:

-----
The Bible is undeniably the word of God
because God says that the Bible is the word of God
in the Bible.
-----

Your materialism-only argument follows the same circular flaw.

Even if it escapes this "begging the question" fallacy, it only manages to prove that materialistic things do exist, which, as Please move along points out, says nothing on the supernatural.

But I'm still waiting for it to decircularize itself. Which is impossible. So I guess I'm not really waiting.

I'm confused by what you mean by immaterial != existance. Please spell it out.
!= "does not equal"

But lets say that I see the grass as blue and the sky as green? Does that not make it true then? Would it not be true for me since thats what I precieve? how would you know that all the people that see otherwise are in fact defective and I am the only one who os preceiving "colors" correctly?

That means you precieve things differently (i.e. your brain is different). As far as your concerned you are seeing colors correctly, however others disagree. In the end for you color still exists, you have just changed the preception (it would be the same for those who are blind or color blind), it is possible that everyone else is also color blind and have been lieing to you. It is also possible a tea cup is in orbit around Pluto this minute. More baseless skepticism.

i agree Amestria but i wouldnt try to disprove (for lack of a better word) god because a lot of people get thier comfort from believing in him/her/it/them and its really not a nice thought that all human life is just a seemingly endless sieries of chemichal reactions and electronic signals bcoz that can be used to justify ALOT of things.

Yet, it's also not nice to be part of a Fatalistic religion that preaches obedience to a being that has sparked many wars in His name. Therefore, we can only rely on ourselves, as humans, to make the best choice we can, at the time given, to further our understand of our world. I agree that everything is in itself materialistic. But what about ghosts? Are those just anomolies (sp?)?

If there are mispellings, do forgive me, it's 2:18 AM and I still have 3 pages to go for a paper due in oh, 6 hours.

Therefore, that might also mean I'm ramblin' 'bout nothing, since we're are all material, and I hate writing papers.

i agree Amestria but i wouldnt try to disprove (for lack of a better word) god because a lot of people get thier comfort from believing in him/her/it/them and its really not a nice thought that all human life is just a seemingly endless sieries of chemichal reactions and electronic signals bcoz that can be used to justify ALOT of things.
it's not about being a nice thought or not. It's about, while you believe God doesn't exist, as does Amestria, and you both are perfectly entitled to your belief, it simply can't be proven.

Let's see if I can spell out the flaw in Amestria's reasoning a little more clearly...

Amestria's argument:

1. All things that are materialistic exist.
2. Therefore, all things that exist are materialistic.

Using that same reasoning...

1. All English dictionaries are books.
2. Therefore, all books are English dictionaries.

Let's see if I can spell out the flaw in Amestria's reasoning a little more clearly...

Amestria's argument:

1. All things that are materialistic exist.
2. Therefore, all things that exist are materialistic.

Using that same reasoning...

1. All English dictionaries are books.
2. Therefore, all books are English dictionaries.

No, only the materialistic can be proven to exist and it cannot be disproven, that is what I am saying. Since the solely materialistic can be proven, it automaticaly disproves the idea of god, which cannot be proven (god is not material).

1. That which exists is solely materialistic.
(there is no number two)

To the original poster:

Your theory cannot be proved, disproved or tested.

So we're back to square one.

No, only the materialistic can be proven to exist and it cannot be disproven, that is what I am saying.

I remind you that the materialistic cannot be proven to exist.

Since the solely materialistic can be proven, it automaticaly disproves the idea of god, which cannot be proven (god is not material).

Pleasemovealong and Maulm remind you that a proven materialistic does not disprove the idea of God, considering that materialism makes no statement one way or another on the extra-material.

1. That which exists is solely materialistic.
(there is no number two)

By having no number two, you affirm that this is indeed a mere statement (i.e. opinion), not a theorum or any such. No premise, just conclusion.

And we're not even getting into ghosts, miracles, and other such anomalies. Even without them, the logic cannot stand.

No! Circular is a *bad* thing, you see. :)
It's like saying:

-----
The Bible is undeniably the word of God
because God says that the Bible is the word of God
in the Bible.
-----

Your materialism-only argument follows the same circular flaw.

Even if it escapes this "begging the question" fallacy, it only manages to prove that materialistic things do exist, which, as Please move along points out, says nothing on the supernatural.

But I'm still waiting for it to decircularize itself. Which is impossible. So I guess I'm not really waiting.

The supernatural is disproved by the universe being solely material. The sole material universe can be proven (look in the mirror), it cannot be disproven (try to deny that that is not you in the mirror). Since the supernatural cannot be proven (as opposed to the material world) it is to be dismissed.

Material= proven+cannot be disproven
Supernatural*= cannot be proven+cannot be disproven (by itself)

The Material is thus higher as it can be determined/judged. The Supernatural cannot be determined (no proof) period. The Supernatural is thus relativism. It is thus disproved when compaired to the material.

*instead of say god, imagene the tea cup orbiting Pluto which is presently invisible.

The supernatural is disproved by the universe being solely material.

Considering you can only perceive the material, how can you possibly know that the universe is solely material?

The sole material universe can be proven (look in the mirror), it cannot be disproven (try to deny that that is not you in the mirror).

What is my basis for saying it is me in the mirror? What if this is some virtual reality world, and my mind is only manipulated to think that I am looking in a mirror and seeing a reflection of myself? Believing what I perceive to actually be what it is takes a leap of faith in my personal senses. Denying that that is me in the mirror merely takes a denial of faith.

Since the supernatural cannot be proven (as opposed to the material world) it is to be dismissed.

If the unproven is to be dismissed, then there goes the material world as well. There goes anything beyond our scope of comprehension. There goes undiscovered diseases, cures, and all else.

And this is my final post, as we are repeating ourselves. Feel free to have the final word against me, but there are others around who are also... shall we say, lacking in faith.

It is, by definition, impossible to prove or disprove God. Science cannot quantify that which lies out of nature. By saying one is "proving" the existance or non-existence of god or God, one has automatically disqualified oneself from rational discourse.

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

(thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations?)According to latest theories aprox 95% of the universe is made up of dark matter/dark energy. That is, it's proven scientifically to exist but cannot (yet) in any way be measured. This sort of goes against your premise that all matter/energy can be measured. This invalidates your second last paragraph.

Maybe the universe is just a little more unfathomable than you think it is!

Also, most Christians would say that the existence of the Universe proves that there is a God. I am not saying that it does or it does not. It all depends on Interpretation. Which is what you are doing. It is a purely Procrustean interpretation. You are trying to make the universe fit into your interpretation. I do not think it is possible to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

Considering you can only perceive the material, how can you possibly know that the universe is solely material?

What else is there? Show me that which is not material (and there is no such thing as nothing except in two cases: 1.when one ceases to be a conscious being, as the "you" ceases to exist, but the matter goes on; 2.when an idea exists but has no other connection to reality, that is the idea is nothing byound an idea). Even if you believe in the supernatural you will always reside, and only reside, in the material world.


What is my basis for saying it is me in the mirror? What if this is some virtual reality world, and my mind is only manipulated to think that I am looking in a mirror and seeing a reflection of myself? Believing what I perceive to actually be what it is takes a leap of faith in my personal senses. Denying that that is me in the mirror merely takes a denial of faith.

That is Descartian skepticism ("What if some powerful demon is decieving me"). It does not take a leap of faith to see ones self in the mirror, it just takes a conscious being (I have a dog which cannot recognize itself in the mirror because the dog lacks human consciousness). It takes a leap of faith to deny it is you in the mirror, as you assume there are other realities. It does not take a leap of faith to exist (a rock exists and it has no faith, a rock just lacks consciousness and cannot precieve itself). The physical existence is not equal to the nonphysical


If the unproven is to be dismissed, then there goes the material world as well. There goes anything beyond our scope of comprehension. There goes undiscovered diseases, cures, and all else.

No, there goes all which is not material. An undiscovered disease still exists (it can be proven). Everything that is material can be proven (as I said). You are also confusing existence with preception (both are connected but not the same). That which is presently byound the scope of comprehension will one day be precieved (at one time one could not precieve how rain formed without the "gods", we now know the truth). The only thing that one can never precieve is non-existence (and I do not have to explain why, it is apparent).


And this is my final post, as we are repeating ourselves. Feel free to have the final word against me, but there are others around who are also... shall we say, lacking in faith.

I believe the reason we went in circles at times is that we have different ideas where the burden of proof lies. (also we have not been argueing in circles, it has been quite productive for me, which is why I have posting)

According to latest theories aprox 95% of the universe is made up of dark matter/dark energy. That is, it's proven scientifically to exist but cannot (yet) in any way be measured. This sort of goes against your premise that all matter/energy can be measured. This invalidates your second last paragraph.

Maybe the universe is just a little more unfathomable than you think it is!

I meantioned earlier that humanity is still discovering all forms of matter. The Dark matter/energy is being explored as we speak, opening up more of the universe to our understanding.

While we are on the subject there is a lot one cannot measure. Look outside at a tree. It is impossible to measure at that moment how many atoms the tree has. If one where to accire the instruments and money to properly measure it, there would be no garantee that the tree would have the same amount of atoms when you first looked at it. However the tree and atoms are not in dispute. Truth exists (the number of atoms in the tree), humans are just not fully able to precieve it (we do however know trees and atoms exist, so that is enough).

The supernatural is disproved by the universe being solely material. The sole material universe can be proven (look in the mirror), it cannot be disproven (try to deny that that is not you in the mirror). Since the supernatural cannot be proven (as opposed to the material world) it is to be dismissed.


Your theory only works if nothing can be said to trancend the universe.


What else is there? Show me that which is not material


He CANT you nit. He just said that. You cannot percieve what is not material hence of course he cannot show you it.


when an idea exists but has no other connection to reality, that is the idea is nothing byound an idea

Thats how your idea exists. With no conection to reality. Hence it exists no more than an idea and is thus (by your own arguements) valueless


It takes a leap of faith to deny it is you in the mirror, as you assume there are other realities. It does not take a leap of faith to exist


Read Issac Asimovs "reason" before you try reasoning out everything in this fashion.

Color exists as a material element. Color exists (what we precieve) and the idea of color exists. One can create an idea of color where the sky is red. But the sky is still blue, the idea is baseless.

Color is not an inherent property of anything. Color exists because of a light source and a way of detecting light, say eyes. At sunset, the sky can be seen to be red, just because of the way that the light of the sun passes through it.

For that matter, a blind person could tell you that the sky has no color and you could not prove otherwise. One's perceptions are personal and cannot be imposed on another in any meaningful way.

it's not about being a nice thought or not. It's about, while you believe God doesn't exist, as does Amestria, and you both are perfectly entitled to your belief, it simply can't be proven.

srry if i wasnt making myself clear, what i meant to say was that its making a lot of people happy and live better lives we (teh non believers) might as well let them (the believers) believe.

Let's see if I can spell out the flaw in Amestria's reasoning a little more clearly...

Amestria's argument:

1. All things that are materialistic exist.
2. Therefore, all things that exist are materialistic.

Using that same reasoning...

1. All English dictionaries are books.
2. Therefore, all books are English dictionaries.

im not even goin to begin to say how flawed that is

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist.
Oh, man.... Darn. I guess the ideas you are expressing don't exist. Does that mean I don't have to read the rest of it?

Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

(thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations?)
Yes, thoughts are chemical and electrical signals in the brain, but ideas, what you think, isn't. For instance, if you think of a great thing to do for dinner tonight, I am not going to hear about chemical electrical signals in the brain, I'm going to hear about something good to eat. But until we go out and make that meal happen, it remains an unreal thing that exists in our minds. The meal, the thing you thought of, does not exist in the material world. You cannot attribute it to the electrical and chemical signals, because then we would have to say that meal actually exists in your head. It doesn't. If we open your head up, you will not find that meal there.

I agree that one cannot doubt the material world, but one also cannot attribute the immaterial to the material as if they were one and the same.

No, as abstractions are thoughts, and thoughts are the electrochemical reactions in the brain. They ultimately are tied to the physical.
What does "tied to" mean? Sounds suspiciously like a metaphor, which is what is used to to describe the "unseen world" of the immaterial.

No, my Theory exists as an idea/concept inside my head (as well as yours currently).
There you go. Now you've identified the immaterial. So there is immaterial as well as material in the universe.

I have proved that god exists only as an idea, nothing more. There is no being of god, just a baseless idea. It is fact.
:eek: You attempted to disprove ideas, not god. And here I was defending the immaterial. The idea of god is not god, any more than the idea of a meal is a meal.

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

(thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations?)

1. For everything that exists, there is an abstraction, a pattern that it follows.
2. This abstraction is necessary and implicit. For example, a person can be abstracted down to his DNA (to name only one way).
3. For every abstraction, there is another abstraction that fundamentally describes it.
4. Parent abstractions subsume one or more child abstractions.
5. There is an ultimate abstraction from which all abstractions are derived.

So, not everything has to be material. Abstractions exist. If they did not, nothing would exist. And God is the ultimate abstraction from which all is derived.

My existence proves it. I am material and I exist! You can list nothing that is not material, because it does not exist.
Ideas are, by your own admission, immaterial things. Existence is not dependent on the material world (check a dictionary). If you have a great idea, it is a great idea. Ideas are unreal things, and they exist, they have being (i.e. we can apply the verb "is" to them). Existence does not equal reality. Reality is confined to the material world, existence is not.

Find something that is not material and you will have disproven it.

I don't know if anyone has already said this here but: energy isn't matter, nor is it material. One of the first things you learn in (advanced) physics.
And I don't agree with you. You say the material world exists, because we can prove it. But energy isn't matter, nor is it material yet still we can prove it and we know it exists. (Badly formulated and not the best example, I know, but you get the idea right?)
And like someone said before me: the idea of a meal isn't a meal and the idea of god isn't a god.
We don't know if god exists or not and we can't prove/disprove it either. Let's leave it at that. Threads like this only result in flaming.

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

(thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations?)

Hmm, a very consistent well-thought Religio-Philosophical view....

But, of course, it does not actually (in terms of hard-science) proove anything... Though, at least it sets our a declaration of your particular faith...

Science cannot prove , nor disprove God. You cannot test for God, because you cannot come up with a fasifiable hypothesis. What does that mean? It just means that God has no place in science. There is no variable labelled 'God' in an equation, there is no scientific hypothesis that can include God. God is simply irrelevant to science. Using scientic methods to test for an existence of God is therefore meaningless.

Science cannot prove , nor disprove God. You cannot test for God, because you cannot come up with a fasifiable hypothesis. What does that mean? It just means that God has no place in science. There is no variable labelled 'God' in an equation, there is no scientific hypothesis that can include God. God is simply irrelevant to science. Using scientic methods to test for an existence of God is therefore meaningless.

You might be able to get there using math and logic. Just a thought.

You might be able to get there using math and logic. Just a thought.

Very true. Go ahead and try to disprove God by using philosophy and logic. Just don't justify you personal belief that God does not exist by using pseudo-science.

Very true. Go ahead and try to disprove God by using philosophy and logic. Just don't justify you personal belief that God does not exist by using pseudo-science.

No, I prefer math.

One of the interesting things about math is that any form of math relies on a small set of postulates.

Postulates are things that cannot be proven. They are strictly defined, and adhered to by faith.

All math rests on postulates.

So, Kyott, should we discard math because it, like religion, rests on faith? On unproven beliefs?

One of the interesting things about math is that any form of math relies on a small set of postulates.

Postulates are things that cannot be proven. They are strictly defined, and adhered to by faith.

All math rests on postulates.

So, Kyott, should we discard math because it, like religion, rests on faith? On unproven beliefs?

No. Math is a powerful tool. However, there is no mathematical equation for God. God cannot be mathematically defined. Therefore you can prove nor disprove God by mathematical means.

Regarding the OP (which may, in fact, make this post way off topic by now - depending on how much topic drift there's been) -

Is it even possible to disprove an "idea"?
Of anything?

I think it's impossible to disprove the possibility of God - correct me if I'm wrong - but itsn't the only thing one can do is prove that something "is"? There's never proof that something is NOT.

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

(thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations?)

Although I only skimmed over most of this facinating thread, I do have 2 important thoughts to interject.

1. by the rules of logic, if Material => Exists, then Not exists => Not material. This does not mean that Not material => Not exists, unless for the first statement you mean <=> (iff or 'if and only if'). in that case, Material <=> Exists means that Not Material <=> Not exists

You know, I should probably pull out my logic book to make sure I've got that right.... >_>

2. You asked for something immaterial that can be proven to exist, how about force? like a push or a pull. it it generated by physical (material) processes, and can act on material obects, but the force itself is not actually material.

Not that I'm actually arguing FOR the existance of god, but I do beilieve in the existance of that which is not material, or even tied to the material.

No. Math is a powerful tool. However, there is no mathematical equation for God. God cannot be mathematically defined. Therefore you can prove nor disprove God by mathematical means.

Well, it is indisputable that all math rests on postulates - ideas that we agree on and take on faith so that we can logically derive something.

And you say that we should not throw out math, because it is a powerful tool.

So, in your world, you say that we should not throw out a powerful tool, just because it rests on unproven postulates that are adhered to by faith.

Well, for many people of different religions, God is a powerful tool. And just because the idea of God rests on unproven postulates that are adhered to by faith, they are taking your reasoning that because it's a powerful tool, they're not throwing it out.

Regarding the OP (which may, in fact, make this post way off topic by now - depending on how much topic drift there's been) -

Is it even possible to disprove an "idea"?
Of anything?

I think it's impossible to disprove the possibility of God - correct me if I'm wrong - but itsn't the only thing one can do is prove that something "is"? There's never proof that something is NOT.

That's not quite true. You can prove that something is not, but only by examining in detail everything that dOES exist, and verifying that it is not in the set of things that do exists. One hell of a task!

You cannot, however, prover that something will never exists, because we don't know the future until it has become the present. So it could potentially exist in the future, and that cannot be disproved, because the future is unknown.

Ah, so you dismiss criticisms of a purely material world because there is no "viable alternative".
The "alternatives" are simply nonsense.

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

(thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations?)

I can think of two things that disprove this, off the top of my head:

1. Gravity. Gravity is not matter. Yet it definitely does exists.

2. Design: What's the difference between a house and a pile of materials needed to build a house? The fact that the materials have been put together according to a design. Now even if the architect died, the house would still be there. The design is still there, i.e. the house doesn't convert to a pileofmaterials once the electrochemical signals in the brain of the architect stop.

Theory disproven. Next?

I don't heave the time to read this whole forum but here is something for the person who started this. Consider this you say that you only belief in things you can see around you but then where did the things you can see come from. Also if you need visable proof look at anything and see how perfect it is. Nothing but intelligent design could mke this world. There visable proof. :mp5:

So, in your world, you say that we should not throw out a powerful tool, just because it rests on unproven postulates that are adhered to by faith.

Well, for many people of different religions, God is a powerful tool. And just because the idea of God rests on unproven postulates that are adhered to by faith, they are taking your reasoning that because it's a powerful tool, they're not throwing it out.

You misunderstand me. I'm merely responding to a lot of pseudo-scientific bullshit in this thread. Science and God do not mix. You cannot use God in science, and you cannot use science to either prove or disprove God.

That said: for many God is 'real', and can be a powerful tool. Religion has shown itself to be powerful, and has driven many cultural, social, and political processes.

I meantioned earlier that humanity is still discovering all forms of matter. The Dark matter/energy is being explored as we speak, opening up more of the universe to our understanding.

While we are on the subject there is a lot one cannot measure. Look outside at a tree. It is impossible to measure at that moment how many atoms the tree has. If one where to accire the instruments and money to properly measure it, there would be no garantee that the tree would have the same amount of atoms when you first looked at it. However the tree and atoms are not in dispute. Truth exists (the number of atoms in the tree), humans are just not fully able to precieve it (we do however know trees and atoms exist, so that is enough).I think you missed my point. What I was saying is that on our present level of understanding, we can speculate on a reality including matter and energy that although scientifically proven cannot in any way be measured or identified, we know this situation exists but cannot see it, this is an entirely different concept from measuring known factors (however difficult that may be).

The main point I wanted to emphasise is that, it's not necessary to put a foolish belief in the existence of a supernatural entity as the progenitor of everything, rather how a true understanding of the immensity and complexity of the universe is itself a more worthwhile spiritual quest than seeking to limit ourselves by false and supersticious beliefs.

The idea of the materialistic universe being everything is embarassingly ignorant. Truly, for one to simply believe in empirical evidence shows blind faith put upon one's own abilities, which at this moment I bring into question. The idea of destroying ideas is ironical and comical, not beneficial. Having faith in the senses differs in no way from having faith in an ideal, I feel as if the very basis of this thread is pointless honestly. Come back when you have something intelligent to say.
- David Rau
Resident Rabble Rouser, Tyslan

I haven't read much of this, I'll just say my bit.

However much you 'disprove' God's existence, he exists.

For a while it was believed physically impossible for bees and butterflies to fly, and yet they remained stubbornly airborne.

So it is with God.

I haven't read much of this, I'll just say my bit.

However much you 'disprove' God's existence, he exists.
Nice assertion.


For a while it was believed physically impossible for bees and butterflies to fly, and yet they remained stubbornly airborne.
Actually, that was never believed.


So it is with God.
No. That's just Mere Assertion.

The idea of the materialistic universe being everything is embarassingly ignorant.
No, it's not.


Truly, for one to simply believe in empirical evidence shows blind faith put upon one's own abilities, which at this moment I bring into question.
Your argument requires your abilities to be ok in order to get your argument off the ground. Can you say "stolen concept fallacy"?

I don't heave the time to read this whole forum but here is something for the person who started this. Consider this you say that you only belief in things you can see around you but then where did the things you can see come from.
Where did god come from?


Also if you need visable proof look at anything and see how perfect it is.
It's neither perfect nor designed.

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

(thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations?)

Just this: If God (or gods) exist, then he (they) exist, and no amount of "proof" or belief to the contrary will change this. Likewise, if there is no god or gods, no amount of "proof" or belief will conjure him (them) into existence. It's one of those, "if A is true B is false, and if B is true A is false" kind of things.

Just this: If God (or gods) exist, then he (they) exist, and no amount of "proof" or belief to the contrary will change this. Likewise, if there is no god or gods, no amount of "proof" or belief will conjure him (them) into existence. It's one of those, "if A is true B is false, and if B is true A is false" kind of things.If gods exist then they are part of the natural state of things, therefore at some point there could be a measure of scientific proof to validate the belief.

If the unified theory could posit the non existence of gods by scientific process, this could also become established fact.

Till then we have scientific rationalisation versus supersticious belief. I know which rationale that I identify with.

2. Design: What's the difference between a house and a pile of materials needed to build a house? The fact that the materials have been put together according to a design. Now even if the architect died, the house would still be there. The design is still there, i.e. the house doesn't convert to a pileofmaterials once the electrochemical signals in the brain of the architect stop.

Theory disproven. Next?

No you have simply proven that humans design and build houses.

You have also proven that houses are material things independent of material human thought (although connected).

1. If gods exist then they are part of the natural state of things, therefore at some point there could be a measure of scientific proof to validate the belief.


2. Till then we have scientific rationalisation versus supersticious belief. I know which rationale that I identify with.

1. Umm, no, I don't think so.

2. To me, the idea that the universe just sprang up by coincidence is the most irrational belief of all. I honestly can't, and probably never will, understand how it all could have possibly happened without some kind of intelligent force behind it. But that's just me. ;)

Much has been made of thoughts as being proof of the immaterial...

Thoughts are material products of a material brain. Form the idea of a whale. Now whales exist, thats not the issue, Yor idea of the whale exists as a thought (i.e. electrical/chemical signal) inside your head.

Also I would like to point out that it takes no "faith" to exist.


As for Forces such as gravity, that is food for thought. Perhaps gravity (and related forces) are derived from energy. Energy is material as it can be stored, measured and tested (let me think about that for a while).

Heres some links for whoever also ponder this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Kinetic_energy

1. Umm, no, I don't think so.

2. To me, the idea that the universe just sprang up by coincidence is the most irrational belief of all. I honestly can't, and probably never will, understand how it all could have possibly happened without some kind of intelligent force behind it. But that's just me. ;)

How about the Universe always existing?

Originally Posted by Nova Castlemilk
1. If gods exist then they are part of the natural state of things, therefore at some point there could be a measure of scientific proof to validate the belief.


2. Till then we have scientific rationalisation versus supersticious belief. I know which rationale that I identify with.


Originally Posted by Hoos Bandoland
1. Umm, no, I don't think so.
That's an interesting response, care to expand?

2. To me, the idea that the universe just sprang up by coincidence is the most irrational belief of all. I honestly can't, and probably never will, understand how it all could have possibly happened without some kind of intelligent force behind it. But that's just me.

Who says the universe sprang up by coincidence? Even if it did, why would you necessarily consider that to be irrational. You then make an extreme conclusion that there has to be "some kind of intelligent force behind it". I consider that leap of faith without any direct evidence to substantiate it, extremely irrational.

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.http://82.133.85.64/adclick.php?bannerid=359&zoneid=17&source=&dest=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jolt.co.uk%2Findex.php%3Farticleid%3D4379

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

(thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations?)

I see your there is no God and raise you a ..But God is everywhere he is the Sun the warms the planet, and gives us light. If it weren't for him we would not have electrons and chemicals in our brains, we would not have brains if God did not want to make us in his own image. Just because we cannot 'prove' religion doesn't mean its doesn't exist. In the Middle ages scientists could not prove the existance of electrons...Seeing isn't always believing.

Your last comment for want of a better descrption thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations? You remind me very much of someone I know..does GV4400 mean anything to you?
If yes :eek:
If not please ignore!

(snip)
In the Middle ages scientists could not prove the existance of electrons...Seeing isn't always believing.
(snip)
Reminds me of a quote from MIB.
"1500 years ago we knew the world was the center of the universe. 500 years ago we knew the earth was flat, 5 minutes ago you knew we were alone in the universe. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

Okay, Mr. Amestria...what about a Vacuum? Where's the "matter" in that! There is none, by definition. A vacuum is simply the absence of matter or anything else, yet it still exists.

I don't know how you can possibly use your logic to prove or disprove anything when so many things exist that are beyond our comprehension whether they be material or not.

That is the most inane thing i have heard of.

Lemme explain why....the Universe is materialistic true but.

G-d split the frigging universe to Materialistic and Spiritual!

And even if you don't listen to the bible, G-d is supposed to be a Omnipotent being...why should it listen to your laws of reality?

If you don't want to believe in G-d, because it is not materialistic, that is your business...but to say that is the ultimate proof against G-d, is just...dumb.

Also your a heathen.

Okay, Mr. Amestria...what about a Vacuum? Where's the "matter" in that! There is none, by definition. A vacuum is simply the absence of matter or anything else, yet it still exists.

I don't know how you can possibly use your logic to prove or disprove anything when so many things exist that are beyond our comprehension whether they be material or not.

Vacum is made up of Dark matter and subatomic particals.

That is the most inane thing i have heard of.

Lemme explain why....the Universe is materialistic true but.

G-d split the frigging universe to Materialistic and Spiritual!

And even if you don't listen to the bible, G-d is supposed to be a Omnipotent being...why should it listen to your laws of reality?

If you don't want to believe in G-d, because it is not materialistic, that is your business...but to say that is the ultimate proof against G-d, is just...dumb.

Also your a heathen.

There is no spiritual, no matter where you look or how, anywhere in the universe. The material universe can be tested and proven. The "spiritual world" cannot be tested, proven or disproven (by itself). However the "spiritual" stands in direct opposition to the material. The "spiritual" is thus shown to be a nothingness, nothing more than a material idea inside our material brains. By proving the material I disprove everything that stands in opposition to it.

Material World: Testable, Proven (positive)+
"Spiritual/Supernatural" World: Not testable, not proven (nothing)

When compaired which one is stronger?

And why do you spell god as g-d, is that supposed to be funny or are you trying to avoid "sin" by not taking "the lords name in vain"?

And yes I am a heathen (bows), thank you so much for noticing.

There is no spiritual, no matter where you look or how, anywhere in the universe. The material universe can be tested and proven. The "spiritual world" cannot be tested, proven or disproven (by itself). However the "spiritual" stands in direct opposition to the material. The "spiritual" is thus shown to be a nothingness, nothing more than a material idea inside our material brains. By proving the material I disprove everything that stands in opposition to it.

I'm sure the spiritual world thinks the same way as the material...that we are just a shell, and that the spiritual world, when our soul is released, and learned our life lessons, is the real world. They do not believe in a material world....just a world, that does not truly exist, until after death. :D

Material World: Testable, Proven (positive)+
"Spiritual/Supernatural" World: Not testable, not proven (zero/nothing)
What were the marks? And what was the exuse for the Spiritual not being tested? Was it sick?

When compaired which one is stronger?
Depends the excuse.

And why do you spell god as g-d, is that supposed to be funny or are you trying to avoid "sin" by not taking "the lords name in vain"?
Why...was it funny? And i do not have to worry about sin, as i do not worry about hell. This is a way of showing respect to G-d.

And yes I am a heathen (bows), thank you so much for noticing.

I am pretty observant...

There is no spiritual, no matter where you look or how, anywhere in the universe. The material universe can be tested and proven. The "spiritual world" cannot be tested, proven or disproven (by itself). However the "spiritual" stands in direct opposition to the material.
That is illogical. By "proving" the material exists, you demonstrate nothing about the immaterial.

The "spiritual" is thus shown to be a nothingness, nothing more than a material idea inside our material brains. By proving the material I disprove everything that stands in opposition to it.
If it is nothingness, how can it exist as an idea inside our material brains?

Material World: Testable, Proven (positive)+
"Spiritual/Supernatural" World: Not testable, not proven (nothing)
The opposite of positive is negative, not zero.

Things not proven are just that, not proven... they are not proven true, and not proven false.

When compaired which one is stronger?
Depends on what you mean by "strong", of course, but assuming you are talking about evidence of reality, I would say that proof is stronger than not-proof. But something disproven is also stronger than not proof.

I see your there is no God and raise you a ..But God is everywhere
Unsupported assertion.


Just because we cannot 'prove' religion doesn't mean its doesn't exist.
Argument from ignorance fallacy.


In the Middle ages scientists could not prove the existance of electrons
In the middle ages, no one had posited the existence of electrons. Ergo, false analogy.

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

(thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations?)

But what of the forms? Where is honor?

All right, I'm thinking of a horse. Where is that horse right now? In between my neurons? Hmmmm.

Okay, Mr. Amestria...what about a Vacuum? Where's the "matter" in that! There is none, by definition.
Ummmm....no. A vacuum is simply the absence of an atmospheric pressure, not of matter.


I don't know how you can possibly use your logic to prove or disprove anything when so many things exist that are beyond our comprehension whether they be material or not.
That doesn't matter. What you're doing is insulting the human intellect.

Sorry kid, but love and hate are not material things. You can argue they are chemical signals, but that's bull. Sorry, emotions and idea's are not concrete and therefore above your vision of a completely "material" world. You cannot dispove God or religion or feelings or human nature much as I cannot prove any of them.

Ummmm....no. A vacuum is simply the absence of an atmospheric pressure, not of matter.

That doesn't matter. What you're doing is insulting the human intellect.
You are insulting human intellect as well...

Argument from ignorance fallacy.

Simply one person's opinion.

You are insulting human intellect as well...
And how am I doing that?


Simply one person's opinion.
No--it's fact.

No--it's fact.
Again, thank you for posting your opinion.

Sorry kid, but love and hate are not material things. You can argue they are chemical signals, but that's bull.
No, it's correct.


Sorry, emotions and idea's are not concrete and therefore above your vision of a completely "material" world.
No, they rely on the material stratum called "the brain" for their "existence".

Again, thank you for posting your opinion.
No, it was fact.

I notice that you didn't show how I was insulting the human intellect.

No, they rely on the material stratum called "the brain" for their "existence".
Do you realise that since they are unreal, that is irrelevant?

No, it was fact.
Ok, on what do you base that it is a fact? Other than your opinion of course.

Do you realise that since they are unreal,
They aren't unreal.

Ok, on what do you base that it is a fact?
On the fact that the person used the argument from ignorance fallacy, as I stated.

No, it was fact.

I notice that you didn't show how I was insulting the human intellect.
By saying that the poster who had an opinion other than yours was under an ignorant fallacy.

They aren't unreal.
So things you imagine are real? I can imagine love.

By saying that the poster who had an opinion other than yours was under an ignorant fallacy.
*sigh*

You don't know what the argument from ignorance fallacy is, do you?

So things you imagine are real?
Strawman (and quite honestly, that is your position).

The thoughts are real, and you are claiming that the thoughts are not real. If you meant the content can be unreal, then you should have said so.

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

(thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations?)

What about freewill? What evidence is there for freewill other than personal experience?

What about freewill? What evidence is there for freewill other than personal experience?
Free-will is a concept relating to actions. What exactly are you asking?

Strawman (and quite honestly, that is your position).

The thoughts are real, and you are claiming that the thoughts are not real. If you meant the content can be unreal, then you should have said so.
LOL, pot.. kettle..

You said, No, they rely on the material stratum called "the brain" for their "existence". They do indeed. That does not preclude them from having an unreal existence. The immaterial has nothing to do with the material.

Of course, if you equate reality with existence, you've already lost that battle.

Sorry kid, but love and hate are not material things. You can argue they are chemical signals, but that's bull. Sorry, emotions and idea's are not concrete and therefore above your vision of a completely "material" world. You cannot dispove God or religion or feelings or human nature much as I cannot prove any of them.

When you take a human being and cut out or electracute a section of their brain, it changes the way they think/behave. There was a man once who was working on a rail road. There was a accedent involving, as so many do, explosives. A spike shot up through his head and clean out the other side. He survived and lived (I belive) another seven years. During that time his friends/family said he was a completely different person, his habits were different, his character, est. If emotions and ideas were "not concrete", how could the material world effect them in such a manner?

I don't know how you define "human nature", so I can't get into that. However I can assure you that emotions are material; people who are depressed go to the doctor for mood elevating drugs (for example).

LOL, pot.. kettle..

You said, No, they rely on the material stratum called "the brain" for their "existence". They do indeed. That does not preclude them from having an unreal existence. The immaterial has nothing to do with the material.

Of course, if you equate reality with existence, you've already lost that battle.

That is dualism, first developed by Descartes. That there are physical and thinking substances that are completely seperate yet some how connected.

It is best summed up by the old English proverb;

What is Mind? No matter.
What is Matter? Never mind.

Tell me, if thoughts did not arise from the material, where do they come from?

That is dualism, first developed by Descartes. That there are physical and thinking substances that are completely seperate yet some how connected.
No, it's not! I am proclaiming them immaterial, not "physical and thinking substances."

It is best summed up by the old English proverb;

What is Mind? No matter.
What is Matter? Never mind.

Tell me, if thoughts did not arise from the material, where do they come from?
Thoughts do arise from the material, but what we think is not the material.

LOL, pot.. kettle..
Quite the contrary.


You said, No, they rely on the material stratum called "the brain" for their "existence". They do indeed. That does not preclude them from having an unreal existence.
It does.

Main Entry: un·re·al
Pronunciation: -'rE(-&)l, -'ri(-&)l
Function: adjective
: lacking in reality, substance, or genuineness : ARTIFICIAL, ILLUSORY; also : INCREDIBLE, FANTASTIC

The thoughts are real, and they aren't artificial. The content thereof may be unreal, but the thoughts qua thoughts are real.

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: un·re·al
Pronunciation: -'rE(-&)l, -'ri(-&)l
Function: adjective
: lacking in reality, substance, or genuineness : ARTIFICIAL, ILLUSORY; also : INCREDIBLE, FANTASTIC
The thoughts are real, and they aren't artificial. The content thereof may be unreal, but the thoughts qua thoughts are real.
D'uh! Now trying saying something that acutally contradicts what I said.

My personal favorite method of disproving God comes from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams-may he rest in peace.

In this great satirical sci-fi series exists a small fish(I forget the name) that you put into your ear. There the fish lives a semi-parasitic existence. It feeds on excess brainwaves coming from outside of your body. It then excretes a simplified version of those brainwaves that your brain understands. This allows you to speak to anyone, even if they don't speak the same language as you.

Many people view this fish as proof of the non-existance of God because something so useful couldn't have naturally evolved. Here's the logic:

God: I refuse to prove I exist because proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.

Man: Ah yes, but this fish proves you do exist, so, therefore, you don't.

God: Oh bother.*and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic*

What about freewill? What evidence is there for freewill other than personal experience?

Total and complete free will does not exist. You do not choose whether you shall come into existence. You do not choose your parants, your country, or your place of birth. You do not choose whether you are born with or without AIDS. And so on and so on. You are forced into an existence not of your chooseing, and as an infant you are completely helpless. You are at the mercy of others and decisions (baptism for instance) may have been decided without your consent. Eventually you grow up and have a limited freedom of action (you cannot fly but you can vote or kill yourself).

Unless of course everything is determined ahead of time(there is increaseing belief amoung scientists that what happens happens and could not be changed), but in such a case it really does not matter. Lets hope we have some freedom and go with it.

As for Forces such as gravity, that is food for thought. Perhaps gravity (and related forces) are derived from energy. Energy is material as it can be stored, measured and tested (let me think about that for a while).

Forces and energy are related, but are not the same thing. Energy related to mass (and matter) by E=MC^2... Force by F=Ma... but while energy can be stored in the physical, and forces require/transfer energy, the forces themselves are NOT energy; a force cannot be 'stored'. It is thus a non physical thing, but we can observe it by its interaction with the material universe we CAN percieve.

My personal favorite method of disproving God comes from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams-may he rest in peace.

In this great satirical sci-fi series exists a small fish(I forget the name) that you put into your ear. There the fish lives a semi-parasitic existence. It feeds on excess brainwaves coming from outside of your body. It then excretes a simplified version of those brainwaves that your brain understands. This allows you to speak to anyone, even if they don't speak the same language as you.

Many people view this fish as proof of the non-existance of God because something so useful couldn't have naturally evolved. Here's the logic:

God: I refuse to prove I exist because proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.

Man: Ah yes, but this fish proves you do exist, so, therefore, you don't.

God: Oh bother.*and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic*

My personal favorite method of disproving God comes from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams-may he rest in peace.

In this great satirical sci-fi series exists a small fish(I forget the name) that you put into your ear. There the fish lives a semi-parasitic existence. It feeds on excess brainwaves coming from outside of your body. It then excretes a simplified version of those brainwaves that your brain understands. This allows you to speak to anyone, even if they don't speak the same language as you.

Many people view this fish as proof of the non-existance of God because something so useful couldn't have naturally evolved. Here's the logic:

God: I refuse to prove I exist because proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.

Man: Ah yes, but this fish proves you do exist, so, therefore, you don't.

God: Oh bother.*and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic*


Ah... the good old Babble fish! Good to see another Adams fan! ^_^

Well, let me ask, are electrons particles or are they a form of wave energy? Both ideas can be proven and both can be disproven. The problem is, it is clear that electrons exist. You cannot disprove the existence of God anymore than you can disprove the existence of electrons as a particle or a wave. Rather, the existence or non-existence of God depends on the conditions under which you attempt to observe him/her/it.

D'uh! Now trying saying something that acutally contradicts what I said.
It does. Try understanding what you said!

i agree everything is materialistic or it doesn't matter. like the things that matter are eating, and napping...i suppose that is somewhat abstract. it isn't tangable. but that is about as far as i go.

friskies are my number two priority after naps. they are tangable.

Forces and energy are related, but are not the same thing. Energy related to mass (and matter) by E=MC^2... Force by F=Ma... but while energy can be stored in the physical, and forces require/transfer energy, the forces themselves are NOT energy; a force cannot be 'stored'. It is thus a non physical thing, but we can observe it by its interaction with the material universe we CAN percieve. (bold mine)

It is dualistic for something of a nonphysical nature to have a physical effect. Dualism makes no sense. Something must be physical about Forces (more food for thought).

Forces could be the interactions of other matter and the universe.

So things you imagine are real? I can imagine love.

A thought exists as a thought, whether that thought has any relationship with reality is another matter.

Forces could be the interactions of other matter and the universe.

if i can't feel it, taste it, touch it, see it, or it has no affect on me then it is not real. it may be real to you but not to me.

one reality is another's nightmare--or dream.

i will quote a famous cat--garfield: MEOW.

i think that explains everything.

if i can't feel it, taste it, touch it, see it, or it has no affect on me then it is not real. it may be real to you but not to me.

one reality is another's nightmare--or dream.

i will quote a famous cat--garfield: MEOW.

i think that explains everything.

Jump off a cliff and the force of gravity will do the rest.

We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia.


Perception is reality, believe whatever you want. It is true to you but not to someone else. Like someone else posted, to me the sky is green. Show me that it isn't. You can give me all the scientific evidence you want to show me that the sky is blue, but in the end I'll still be seeing green.

Reality is different things to different people, I think arguing this is kind of pointless.

If your "proof" is so good, why are you talking to us instead of some physicist?

Also, circular logic is a fallacy, and doesn't prove anything. Any scientist or mathematician could tell you this. Your argument is circular, amounting to "Everything exists, exists because it is material, and it is material because it exists." Therefore, it contains no actual proof, whatsoever.

How can we know if immaterial things exist if we cannot percieve them? If we were all blind, how would we know that light existed? How would we know that smells existed if we had no sense of smell?

Just because we can't percieve something doesn't make it non-existant. That's a silly and arrogant way to think.

Also, again, force is not material. It is neither energy nor matter, but does have an effect and can be measured. And your assertion that because something cannot be proven, it doesn't exist, is also a logical fallacy.

Go talk to a college professor or something. Preferably in physics, though philosophy might work, too.

We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia.


Perception is reality, believe whatever you want. It is true to you but not to someone else. Like someone else posted, to me the sky is green. Show me that it isn't. You can give me all the scientific evidence you want to show me that the sky is blue, but in the end I'll still be seeing green.

Reality is different things to different people, I think arguing this is kind of pointless.

Preception is not truth (in 1984 the Eastasia is an ally and then an enemy, the same with Eurasia; the truth is there for all to see but simply ignored by double think).

Truth is not the issue here, perception is. In your OP, you wrote "I hold that...." Your perception.


The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural).

The sole material world cannot be disproved. Hypothetically, I agree. Why does it auotmatically discount anything non material? Cannot both exist? Proving one does not disprove the other.

If your "proof" is so good, why are you talking to us instead of some physicist?

Also, circular logic is a fallacy, and doesn't prove anything. Any scientist or mathematician could tell you this. Your argument is circular, amounting to "Everything exists, exists because it is material, and it is material because it exists." Therefore, it contains no actual proof, whatsoever.

That is a misunderstanding.


How can we know if immaterial things exist if we cannot percieve them? If we were all blind, how would we know that light existed? How would we know that smells existed if we had no sense of smell?

If we all had no sense of smell we could precieve that other animals had a sense of smell through science and sense preception (we just would never understand it personally). As for how would we know light existed if we were all blind, that is meaningless as if all humans were blind we would never have gotten to the point were we are discussing these questions.


Just because we can't percieve something doesn't make it non-existant. That's a silly and arrogant way to think.

That is not what I have said, please read the full thread, sigh.


Also, again, force is not material. It is neither energy nor matter, but does have an effect and can be measured. And your assertion that because something cannot be proven, it doesn't exist, is also a logical fallacy.

I have already said that the immaterial can not be tested or disproved by itself. However since the immaterial stands in opposition to the material it can be disproved by proving the material. I have not said because something cannot be proven it does not exist (I'm well aware of the fallacy).

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

(thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations?)

You're certainly entitled to your faulty opinion. You say your proof against anything immaterial is that there is material. might I just say, DUH. What is to say that "God" isn't just electrical signals or something like that that have influenced the world. Or that "God" is anthropomorphic, in that due to our belief in a God, there is a God. The human mind is unbelievably powerful, there is absolutely NO evidence that states that we are incapable of changing the world through our will, by creating a higher will. In fact the way that humans influence the minds of others proves that our minds can do more than we give them credit for. So how is the fact that there is a material universe contrary to the fact that there is one that is not so apparent?

Truth is not the issue here, perception is. In your OP, you wrote "I hold that...." Your perception.


The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural).

The sole material world cannot be disproved. Hypothetically, I agree. Why does it auotmatically discount anything non material? Cannot both exist? Proving one does not disprove the other.

The supernatural is ghosts, inherent purpose, the raiseing of the dead, sin, life after death. All are opposed to the material world we exist in because they are events which do not happen.

Moses parting the Red Sea for instance. It is a supernatural event, a miracle. What is a miracle? It is a suspension of the Theories of Science and Nature by a spiritual or divine being/thing. That is where the conflict is.

Why must we have yet another pathetic thread on trying to disprove God. Go about your sinful lifes :p and talk about something....more....original

sad :(

Amestria,

I have only skimmed this thread so if you have answered my concern on a previous page just point me in the right direction.

Now, it seems to me that you haven't set out to disprove the possibility of a god at all. Let's look at your assumptions:

1) The world is only that which is material.

2) The supernatural, a god included, cannot be material.

So what? There is no argument at all, you have simply assumed god away. You haven't presented any evidence, just convenient assumptions. Your argument concludes it's premise. It's cleary circular, as Callisdrun has already mentioned. Now what you can do is demonstrate how god cannot possibly be material. Then you might be on to something.

Also, you haven't done anything that's innovative, you merely have just demonstrated what I would consider the safest view possible on the subject. And that is given what we understand to be rational, then the most reasonable position to take is that there is no god though we cannot be certain that there isn't.



Edit: Ignore my post. I do not like to delete messages so I will leave mine standing.

After reviewing more of the post I have found that a number of other posters have already demonstrated numerous ways in which your argument is logically flawed.

I suggest you go back to the drawingboard.

That is a misunderstanding.



If we all had no sense of smell we could precieve that other animals had a sense of smell through science and sense preception (we just would never understand it personally). As for how would we know light existed if we were all blind, that is meaningless as if all humans were blind we would never have gotten to the point were we are discussing these questions.

I have already said that the immaterial can not be tested or disproved by itself. However since the immaterial stands in opposition to the material it can be disproved by proving the material. I have not said because something cannot be proven it does not exist (I'm well aware of the fallacy).

How does proving the material exists disprove the immaterial? That makes no sense. Proving that something exists does not inherently make the existance of something else impossible.

And I did read the whole thread. Nothing you have said stands on anything more substantial than "We can't percieve it, therefore, it does not exist."

And whether or not we would have gotten to the point of discussing these questions is not what I asked you. To a blind animal, does light exist?

The only thing your statement proves is that the material exists.

I'm done, you've been arguing the same fallacies for a dozen pages, but I think a chat with people who spend their whole lives studying physics would quickly dissuade you from this idiocy.

How does proving the material exists disprove the immaterial? That makes no sense. Proving that something exists does not inherently make the existance of something else impossible.


If that "something" else stands in opposition to what is proven it's existence is impossible. For example the idea of the virgin birth, that is impossible according to all scientific and biological knowledge. Thus the two (the supernatural and the material) stand in opposition. The one that can not be proven is to be dismissed.


And I did read the whole thread. Nothing you have said stands on anything more substantial than "We can't percieve it, therefore, it does not exist."


No, No, No, if we can't precieve something now that does not mean it does not exist. If however something stands in opposition to that which is established and it cannot be proven/tested it is to be dismissed as nothing. There are lots of things we cannot precieve, the number of atoms in the ocean for instance. But the ocean exists and atoms also exist (as I have said before, preception and truth are connected but different).


And whether or not we would have gotten to the point of discussing these questions is not what I asked you. To a blind animal, does light exist?


Light does exist, we are not blind and we can precieve it. The light would still exist if you were to go blind 10 minutes from now. The universe would still exist if we all died next monday.


The only thing your statement proves is that the material exists.


The immaterial stands in opposition to the material.

Amestria,

I have only skimmed this thread so if you have answered my concern on a previous page just point me in the right direction.

Now, it seems to me that you haven't set out to disprove the possibility of a god at all. Let's look at your assumptions:

Yes, god is more an after-thought, but you get more attention in this forum if you bring god into it. Plus the idea of god is the best example of the immaterial.


1) The world is only that which is material.

2) The supernatural, a god included, cannot be material.


3) The supernatural cannot stand in opposition to the material.


So what? There is no argument at all, you have simply assumed god away. You haven't presented any evidence, just convenient assumptions.


The Universe is the evidence, it is testable.


Your argument concludes it's premise. It's cleary circular, as Callisdrun has already mentioned.

It is not circular, just appears so, and I'm trying to fix that. The problem is in how I presented my arguement (the origional statement was written in a flawed manner).


Now what you can do is demonstrate how god cannot possibly be material. Then you might be on to something.

Also, you haven't done anything that's innovative, you merely have just demonstrated what I would consider the safest view possible on the subject. And that is given what we understand to be rational, then the most reasonable position to take is that there is no god though we cannot be certain that there isn't.

That is an Ancient Greek Epicurean view, that the gods may exist, but they have no effect on anything what so ever. I say take it to the logical conclusion (and in any case it does disprove the idea of a meaningful god, a god which has anything to do with anything)

It is not circular, just appears so, and I'm trying to fix that. The problem is in how I presented my arguement (the origional statement was written in a flawed manner).

Fair enough. I think we are all well aware of the limitations of written communication. I will wait for you to restate your argument.

That is an Ancient Greek Epicurean view, that the gods may exist, but they have no effect on anything what so ever. I say take it to the logical conclusion (and in any case it does disprove the idea of a meaningful god, a god which has anything to do with anything)

Well I'm not in the business of defending religion, so I don't really mind that "the safest view" I suggested doesn't do much for religion.

In your attempt to degenerate the Universe into the quantifiable and material, you have backed yourself into a corner. You argue that everything intangible (such as thought, memory or desire) are the products of chemical reactions in the brain or human perception. The problem with this statement is (as really any freshman in high school could tell you) not all concepts are limited to the realm of humanity. For example:

(1) “Creation/Generation” Throughout the ages, many philosophers have attempted to argue that notions such as “space” and “time” are nothing but fallacies created by human perception. This idea can be disproved not only through Faith, but also through rudimentary reasoning skills. You argue that everything is material and bound by universal laws of physics. Well, what is the one trait that everything in the Universe has in common? The fact that at some point, everything was created. Consider the implications of that. The Universe was not simply just always there; at some point, there was a genesis that caused it to occur (don’t believe me? Consult a carbon-dating graph or, better yet, any physicist with a community college degree). Whether or not a being such as God caused it is more complex and is best left to a different thread. However, you have to acknowledge that something beyond the realm of the material created the Universe. Why? You could say that it was a massive explosion brought on by chemicals floating around in space, but that raises more questions than answers; if the Universe and all of its physical properties had not yet been created, then where did the chemicals that caused the explosion come from? And exactly where were these chemicals if the idea of “matter occupying space” had not yet been created?

(2)“Possibility" I flip a coin, it lands on heads. For the few seconds that it was in the air, however, the coin had the potential to land on tails. The coin’s capacity to land on either heads or tails had nothing to do with human perception. Thus, the idea that “nothing immaterial exists” is inherently incorrect. This principle can also be extended to God. If God is, as you say, nothing more than an idea perceived by the human psyche, and everything in the Universe is material, then everything – including the idea of “God” – must be bound by physical laws. Therefore, the possibility that there is a God must exist. Basic common sense dictates that even if one has no Faith, then one must consider that there is at least a fifty/fifty chance that there is a God, just as there is a fifty/fifty chance that next time I flip the coin it will land on tails.

As you have made clear, you are not necessarily trying to disprove that there is a God, but rather trying to disprove the idea of God. Likewise, I have not tried to prove that there is a God (there is a God, by the way), but rather to prove the idea of God. In fact, it is – as I and most of the other contributors to this thread have demonstrated – physically binding that the idea of God must be possible.



... Going to a Catholic high school gives me such great ammo for these little online spats :D

Your idea hinges on this statement:

since the immaterial stands in opposition to the material it can be disproved by proving the material.

The problem is that all of the immaterial does not stand in opposition to the material.

You give examples of miracles that contradict what we know about nature and science, and then seek to apply that contradiction to the whole of the immaterial. I would suggest that not all of the immaterial stands in direct contradiction to what we know of the material.

(bold mine)

It is dualistic for something of a nonphysical nature to have a physical effect. Dualism makes no sense. Something must be physical about Forces (more food for thought).

Forces could be the interactions of other matter and the universe.

I don't understand what you mean by "dualism" and that it makes no sense. In a universe where there is both the material and non-material, the immaterial is not in opposition to the material, as you keep claiming, but in concert with it. Like the particle/wave duality of electrons and photons. Energy, while it can be stored in the physical, is not actually physical itself.

I suppose, looking over some of what I've said, the 'immaterial' things, such as forces and energy that I've been discussing, while not material, are based upon relationships between physical entities and their properties.

A relationship... while it doesn't exists without the objects it is, erm, relating, or perhaps you might even claim that a relationship doesn't exists without a physical brain to hold a mind to concieve of it, is not a material 'thing'. Besides, 'laws' of physics, while being a 'human creation', a human thought, existed long before humans discovered them and put them into equations, and will continue to exist long after the last human is gone from the universe.

So as far as I'm concerned, you're backed into a corner. Your claim is that the material universe excludes the immaterial. I dissagree, and you haven't given any arguments as to why you think this is true.

Those are concepts and ideas which have relation to material world (political theory). There is however no inherent freedom or any inherent rights. They are created by human civilization for human civilization.

Wrong.

The RESTRICTIONS placed on inherent rights and freedoms are creations of humankind.

I think what Straxos said is right - the immaterial and material are not in opposition to one another. The exact opposite is true - the material cannot exist without the immaterial, and the immaterial cannot exist without the material. Our consciousness is what measures the passing of time, calculates the distance between material objects, and ascertains the form which material takes on.
I anticipate that the argument against this is that our consciousness is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions in our brains. But these chemicals themselves could not exist unless there was some sort of consciousness that could lend to them the attributes of time and space and form.
As far as whether God exists, I think that he probably does but he is a complete bastard. Just kidding.

I don't understand what you mean by "dualism" and that it makes no sense. In a universe where there is both the material and non-material, the immaterial is not in opposition to the material, as you keep claiming, but in concert with it. Like the particle/wave duality of electrons and photons. Energy, while it can be stored in the physical, is not actually physical itself.

I suppose, looking over some of what I've said, the 'immaterial' things, such as forces and energy that I've been discussing, while not material, are based upon relationships between physical entities and their properties.

A relationship... while it doesn't exists without the objects it is, erm, relating, or perhaps you might even claim that a relationship doesn't exists without a physical brain to hold a mind to concieve of it, is not a material 'thing'. Besides, 'laws' of physics, while being a 'human creation', a human thought, existed long before humans discovered them and put them into equations, and will continue to exist long after the last human is gone from the universe.

So as far as I'm concerned, you're backed into a corner. Your claim is that the material universe excludes the immaterial. I dissagree, and you haven't given any arguments as to why you think this is true.
Thank you. *polite applause*

Unsupported assertion.

Just because we cannot 'prove' religion doesn't mean its doesn't exist.
Argument from ignorance fallacy.

In the middle ages, no one had posited the existence of electrons. Ergo, false analogy.

*sigh*

You don't know what the argument from ignorance fallacy is, do you?
I must admit that I did not know what the argument from ignorance term meant. Had to look it up.

Argument from Ignorance
(argumentum ad ignorantiam)

Definition:

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

Looking at this definition, I believe you used the term incorrectly. Mekonia's statement was correct under the above definition of argument from ignorance. However the original posters whole premise seems to fit perfectly as an argument from ignorance.

I must admit that I did not know what the argument from ignorance term meant.
Thank you for that admission.



Looking at this definition, I believe you used the term incorrectly. Mekonia's statement was correct under the above definition of argument from ignorance.
No, Mekonia is arguing from ignorance, in that we should give consideration to and assume true an idea that has no evidence for it whatsoever, but hasn't been "shown false".

Just because we cannot 'prove' religion doesn't mean its doesn't exist.
No, Mekonia is arguing from ignorance, in that we should give consideration to and assume true an idea that has no evidence for it whatsoever, but hasn't been "shown false".
No, Mekonia's claim results in that nothing can be determined from the premise. In other words, we cannot make an assumption that religion does not exist.

The claim that religion cannot logically be dismissed is not a claim that it must be considered to be true.

Mekonia did not make an "argument from ignorance". But you came close to doing so.

here is something that is relevant to this from exitmundi.nl under "Rip!" and was just on discovery science (yes I do have a life :mad: )


quote off http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm

"The story goes something like this. 13,7 Billion years ago, all matter and energy and time blew into existence, with the surrealistic explosion we call the ‘Big Bang’. Ever since, the Universe expands and cools, much like a ball of fire escaping after a huge explosion. The debris - that’s the stars, the galaxies, the planets and us - flies off in all directions. Everything in the Universe gets further and further apart from each other since the dawn of time.

But in recent years, scientists discovered there is something weird going on, too. Galaxies at the edges of the Universe don’t seem to slow down as you might expect. Instead, they speed up. Some bizarre and totally unknown force seems to be pulling on them from the outside, the calculations show. The expansion of the Universe accelerates. And so-called ‘Phantom Energy’ is what causes the pull.

It is hard to imagine how extraordinarily super intense this Phantom Force really is. It compares to nothing we know of in nature. To give you an idea: try to add up all the forces you can think of. Take every atom in the Universe, turn it into an atomic bomb and collect the power of all the explosions. Next, take every star that ever burnt in the Universe, plus every star that will ever burn, and tap all the energy it will ever give off. Now, add up all this energy. What you have now is slightly less than three percent of Phantom Energy, a mere fraction of the biggest beast we know in nature."

now this is outside the universe! (well as we know it anyway and thus could be older) so what could It be? one (the best in my mind) answer could be God/s own sheer power is slowly tearing up the universe which in turn is proof of God :eek: so what else could be out there? know one has even a slight idea other than its big and 3x stronger than everything…..ever!

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

(thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations?)

Note: Those just joining us please read the full thread as what I have written above is fleshed out and explained more. Thank You.


I am sure you heard this before, but what created that of witch created us.

I am sure you heard this before, but what created that of witch created us.

who says a force powerful enough to make everything has to live by time or anything else in our universe

look at this quote by exitmundi.nl

"First, you’ll find tiny chunks of matter that are called molecules. Then, if you take the molecules apart, you’ll find the atoms the molecules are made of. And then, if you take apart the atoms, you’ll see it’s made of a nucleus, surrounded by a cloud of electrons. And what if you take apart that nucleus? You’ll be in for a big surprise. For inside an atom’s nucleus, reality as we know it actually ceases to exist

In fact, ‘particles’ like quarks, electrons and photons are so incredibly and utterly different from everything we know of, our language lacks the words to describe them. Particles can be in two places at the same time, and behave both like a wave and a tiny chunk of matter, depending on what you do with them. Particles can pop in and out of existence from nowhere. And ‘grabbing’ them is impossible: it is simply not possible to both know where a particle is and how fast it moves about"

EDIT: here is something else why is are universe so well designed to support life? (if gravity was weaker we wouldn't have planets and if it was stronger stars would burn up too quick ect ect)

The thoughts are real, and they aren't artificial. The content thereof may be unreal, but the thoughts qua thoughts are real.
Okay, riddle me this... If the content is unreal, and in your opinion therefore does not exist, then how can it be content? If it doesn't exist, there is no content there.

Okay, riddle me this... If the content is unreal, and in your opinion therefore does not exist, then how can it be content?
*sigh*

THE CONTENT HAS NO PHYSICAL EXTENSION AND IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE/FULL OF FALLACIOUS PROPOSITIONS! ARE YOU SO UTTERLY DENSE THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT! THAT'S WHAT "CONTENT IS UNREAL" IS!

who says a force powerful enough to make everything has to live by time or anything else in our universe
Where else is there?


EDIT: here is something else why is are universe so well designed to support life? (if gravity was weaker we wouldn't have planets and if it was stronger stars would burn up too quick ect ect)
Life adapated and arose according to the conditions in the universe. The universe was not "created" for life. You've correlated without causation.

No, Mekonia's claim results in that nothing can be determined from the premise. In other words, we cannot make an assumption that religion does not exist.
No, Mekonia's claim is that "we must assume it to be true"

No, Mekonia's claim is that "we must assume it to be true"
Not in that particular post, it isn't.

Of course, when you re-word it, it can mean anything.


EDIT: Post #108, if anyone's interested.

Not in that particular post, it isn't.
Yes, in that particular post, it is.

*sigh*

THE CONTENT HAS NO PHYSICAL EXTENSION AND IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE/FULL OF FALLACIOUS PROPOSITIONS! ARE YOU SO UTTERLY DENSE THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT! THAT'S WHAT "CONTENT IS UNREAL" IS!
My opinion (the content of my prior post) is immaterial. You sure do get exasperated about something that doesn't exist.

My opinion (the content of my prior post) is immaterial.
I agree; it's not germane, since you've got exactly squat.


You sure do get exasperated about something that doesn't exist.
No, I get exasperated about people like you who don't understand their own damned position, nor the positions of others when they are clearly spelled out!

Firstly,

Current science says that matter is a form of energy and not the other way around. This of course would mean that current science admits there is something that is not matter. Thus, saying that only material things exist, is by current science not true.

Secondly,

Even if the material and immaterial worlds would be opposites, proving that one exists would not automatically mean that the other doesn't. For example, you can have positive and negative currents (being positive or negative is of course simply a matter perception). These two are by definition opposites. If these two ever meet, they both cease to exist (assuming they are opposite but otherwise identical) but they did both exist before that happened. Same can be observed with waves in an ocean or anywhere that can wave, with matter and anti-matter, and with numbers(1 & -1). When two opposites meet, the result is zero. Thus it is quite clear that proving that something exists doesn't not prove that it's opposite cannot exist. It doesn't mean that the opposite must exist either.

And to be exact the opposite of matter is anti-matter, not immaterial (or "non-material", which by the way does not equal "supernatural").

Thirdly,

Your theory would quite clearly indicate that there is no such thing as free will. If all our thoughts and emotions came from chemical reactions and electrons moving around in our brains, then, at least at some point, someone could measure all the qualities of these and define what kind of thoughts & actions certain situations cause and calculate situations in the future, and thus determine exactly what this person would do in the future. If you follow this train of thought you will arrive to the conclusion that since all that is physical follows the laws of physics, then if all our thoughts come from things that can be measured, then at some point someone could simply calculate what will be the future of mankind by "reading everybody's mind" and adding it all up into a huge simulation (assuming that they could also predict events in the nature such as disasters, but at that point it wouldn't probably be much of a challenge). I cannot prove that we have a free will but my perceptions let me assume that we do.

And lastly,

One of the main points of believing in God is just that, belief. If God was a proven fact then believing in Him would no longer be a question of having faith, but rather a choice between accepting the fact or not. If God exists (and I choose to believe He does) and He has made the world (be it through direct creation or by making the big bang happen) as is described in the bible, then it would be His will that people must choose wheter they believe in Him or not, without evidence. Thus trying to prove or disprove Him makes very little sense.

And by the way, about the vacuum discussion:

vacuum:
1.
1. Absence of matter.
2. A space empty of matter.
3. A space relatively empty of matter.
4. A space in which the pressure is significantly lower than atmospheric pressure.
2. A state of emptiness; a void.
3. A state of being sealed off from external or environmental influences; isolation.
4. pl. vac·uums A vacuum cleaner.

Perfect vacuum is something that contains nothing. If someone managed to create a perfect vacuum, say, in a room, would the space in that room cease to exist because it was nothing, neither material nor immaterial (nor energy)? As in, would there be no room between the walls of the room?

No, Mekonia's claim results in that nothing can be determined from the premise. In other words, we cannot make an assumption that religion does not exist.

No, Mekonia's claim is that "we must assume it to be true"
Just because we cannot 'prove' religion doesn't mean its doesn't exist.
Mekonia did not say "we must assume it to be true", He/she said you can not dismiss religion just because you can't prove it. Which is the opposite of argument from ignorance.

However, saying religion is false because it can't be proven is arguing from ignorance.

Mekonia did not say "we must assume it to be true",
Sure did.

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.
You cannot disprove the "soul" world, so your argument is baseless. :eek:

Mekonia did not say "we must assume it to be true",

Sure did.

Reading comprehension is not your friend.

Let me help you out.

Just because we cannot 'prove' religion...

That's obvious, "Although we cannot prove 'religion'(well I guess god should fit in there)"

doesn't mean

"it does not follow that"

its doesn't exist

also obvious, "it does not exist."

Let's put that all together:

"Although we cannot prove 'religion'(god) it does not follow that it does not exist."

Just because we cannot affirmatively prove something, we do not have affirmative proof that it does not exist.

OK so let's look at the definition of arguement from ignorance [1],

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false.

Focus on the second sentence. While it is false to agrue that because something hasn't been demonstrated to be false that it is true, it is equally incorrect that something is false which isn't demonstrated to be true.

It's in plain language, I can't simplify it for you.

Mekonia was spot on, you are arguing from ignorance.










[1] http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm
Already posted by another forum member but I lost track of the post.

My attempt at a disproving of God. (I didn't read the whole thread, but from what I've read this proof--good or bad--hasn't been brought forward here yet, so I apologize if it has.)

Premise 1: If God exists, IT is a necessary being.
Premise 2: God is supernatural (i.e. both transendent and immenent in degree but not absolutely either)
Premise 3: There is no necessity in the universe for a supernatural being.
Premise 4: (Sub-conclsion from 1, 2, 3) God contains a contradiction in its very essence.
Premise 5: Anything with a contradiction in its essence cannot possibly exist.
---------------------------
Ergo: God cannot exist. (From 4+5)

Premise 1 is based on a fact that all religions accept. There must be some function for their God that no other factor can account for.
Premise 2 is based on information from my Philosophy of Religion class. A God must be both transcendent and immenent, but in degree and not absolute. If it is absolutely transcendent then it can have no effect whatsoever on anything. But God is all-powerful and so can affect everything, so it cannot be completely transcendent. God cannot be completely immenent because then it would be a material thing and in no ways supernatural, and by definition not a God.
Premise 3 is based on the fact that all things in the universe can be accounted for in quantum-physics. Energy has a necessary being (all things are composed of it, all forces act because of it) that is completely immenent, and in no ways transendent. So Aquinas' Efficient Cause is proven to not require a supernatural Primary Cause. There is no other requirement of a God that cannot be accounted for naturally.
Premise 4 is pretty self-explanatory. Since God must be supernatural, and necessary, and no supernatural thing is necessary there is a blatant contradiction in its being.
Premise 5 is based on the fact that a contradiction in being cannot exist. Someone cannot both be alive and dead (literally dead and not just metaphorically dead such as brain-dead). Someone who's father's semen never inseminated the mother's egg cannot be born.

From all of that it is impossible for God to exist.

God is supernatural (i.e. both transendent and immenent in degree but not absolutely either)

Doesn't that premise right there remove the possibility of god from the realm of rationality?

Anything with a contradiction in its essence cannot possibly exist.

What's that someone posted earlier about quantum particals being beyond human description? You know, phasing in and out of existance. Being at differant places at the same time. Behaving as energy(waves) and matter at the same time?

My attempt at a disproving of God. (I didn't read the whole thread, but from what I've read this proof--good or bad--hasn't been brought forward here yet, so I apologize if it has.)

Premise 1: If God exists, IT is a necessary being. Not correct. God doesn't need to exist, he/she simple does.
Premise 2: God is supernatural (i.e. both transendent and immenent in degree but not absolutely either)
Premise 3: There is no necessity in the universe for a supernatural being. Necessity has nothing to do with it. God simply is. There is no necessity in the universe for humans...
Premise 4: (Sub-conclsion from 1, 2, 3) God contains a contradiction in its very essence.
Premise 5: Anything with a contradiction in its essence cannot possibly exist. Nope. God transcends human reason. He/she can't be proven or disproven.
---------------------------
Ergo: God cannot exist. (From 4+5)

From all of that it is impossible for God to exist.
Bolded text added by me.

We may only conceed the possibility that something exists if some evidence or reason supports its existance.
There is neither reason nor evidence for God's existance.
Therefore god does not exist.

QED.

You can apply exactly the same reasoning to other foolish concepts like fairies, or Zeus, or unicorns, etc, etc.

Doesn't that premise right there remove the possibility of god from the realm of rationality?
Nope, all Gods are both. For instance, Allah is the most transcendent God, but even IT is in some regards immenent since it wrote the Koran and created the universe. All religions accept this premise, that their God is both dimensionally removed from the physical universe, but also having effects upon it.

What's that someone posted earlier about quantum particals being beyond human description? You know, phasing in and out of existance. Being at differant places at the same time. Behaving as energy(waves) and matter at the same time?
I don't get the objection, since all matter is energy. Also, energy can't phase out of actual existence given the Law of Conservation, to my knowledge, but I'd love to hear more about this.

On a side note, all science who's basis is in the lack of the human mind to comprehend something is pseudo-science; and should rightly be dismissed as rubbish.

Not correct. God doesn't need to exist, he/she simple does.
Then you reject Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Deism, and every major religion that I can think of.
Necessity has nothing to do with it. God simply is. There is no necessity in the universe for humans...
Faulty analogy since nobody holds that human's existence is necessary. In fact, most arguments for the existence of God start with the human's contingent existence. And from that they arrive at a necessary existence who they--wrongly--call God.
Nope. God transcends human reason. He/she can't be proven or disproven
Based on?

As has been said before on this thread:

We can never prove for certain that something doesn't, never has and never will exist. To say that God doesn't exist since there is no reason nor evidence supporting Him simply isn't logical. There's plenty of evidence if you read the Bible and choose to believe in it. You don't have to, and you may believe that God doesn't exist if you want to. But please don't try to prove that you're right with flawed logics. Neither side can never "win" this argument.

Please read my previous post for more elaboration on the subject...

If you think that that is what I'm doing you need to reread my proof. I'm saying that God's very essence is a contradiction and that nothing can exist that would have a contradiction in its essence, so God cannot exist.

If the logic is flawed explain why, but this is a valid deductive argument, so you'll have to attack a premise or two to take down the argument. Which, I assume, is possible; so have at it. But to say that you cannot disprove God because you cannot disprove God is question-begging.

And about proving a negative, its very hard but possible, I can prove that Al Roker is not on my television screen right now.

Nope, all Gods are both. For instance, Allah is the most transcendent God, but even IT is in some regards immenent since it wrote the Koran and created the universe. All religions accept this premise, that their God is both dimensionally removed from the physical universe, but also having effects upon it.

You missed the point (I don't care about transcendent v. imminent). By admitting that god is a being outside the bounds of nature, either in another dimension or in a form we cannot observe, whatever, then such a god is removed from the realm of rationality.

We cannot rationally discuss a supernatural being.

I don't get the objection, since all matter is energy. Also, energy can't phase out of actual existence given the Law of Conservation, to my knowledge, but I'd love to hear more about this.

On a side note, all science who's basis is in the lack of the human mind to comprehend something is pseudo-science; and should rightly be dismissed as rubbish.

The objection is that we have evidence of the existance of quantum particles which are contradictory in their essense and behavior, it overrules your fifth premise.

Also, it isn't pseudo-science. I'm no physist so I'm probably not the best person to explain this but from my understanding these particles are difficult to describe given the current state of science but not impossible to understand.

My existence proves it. I am material and I exist! You can list nothing that is not material, because it does not exist.
no you do not exist, you are in fact just an idea in my head, that idea allows for you to believe you are real and materialistic. ;)

I'm saying that God's very essence is a contradiction and that nothing can exist that would have a contradiction in its essence, so God cannot exist.

1: For me, God is necessary because we or the universe would not exist without him.

2: A main point in faith is that it is a matter of choice. Therefore, God has probably made sure he cannot be proven. If God was proven to exist with 100% certainity, then only an idiot would not believe in Him. That would no longer be faith. Thus, no evidence supporting the existence of God can probably ever be found. This does not prove/disprove God's existence.

My two cents:
Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.
To borrow an analogy, think of a house. By studying a house, dissecting it to determine how it was constructed, admiring its beauty, or by simply living in it one would learn nothing about its builder. Maybe one could assume that there was a builder, but by all his examinations of the structure he could not prove it. The builder is not a part of the house, he is outside of the house. The house is the material universe. We cannot by observations and tests find out how it all got here, but we know it is here and thats a start.

From there we can use reason to either arrive at the conclusion that there is a God or there is not. Each person has to reason out his own view. Either you think the house was crafted by a carpenter or you think something to the effect that all the pieces for the house fell from the sky and somehow randomly formed a perfectly suitable abode (Please correct me if I'm wrong). To my mind it makes sense that something that works is generally designed to work. A house is by far more effective as living area than a pile of wood would be.

Final note: You cannot discount faith, because we all have faith in something. For instance, we have faith in the science that explains this world, and we have faith that our reason is not inherently faulty. How would we know if it were?

1: For me, God is necessary because we or the universe would not exist without him.

Talk about circular... god is necessary because god is necessary?

2: A main point in faith is that it is a matter of choice. Therefore, God has probably made sure he cannot be proven. If God was proven to exist with 100% certainity, then only an idiot would not believe in Him. That would no longer be faith. Thus, no evidence supporting the existence of God can probably ever be found. This does not prove/disprove God's existence.
It might not disprove god's existance but it provides a reason for rejecting his existance.

For instance, we have faith in the science that explains this world
This is rubbish, science is not based on faith but on evidence and the scientific method which is entirely objective.

Either you think the house was crafted by a carpenter or you think something to the effect that all the pieces for the house fell from the sky and somehow randomly formed a perfectly suitable abode (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

False Analogy. You have seen a house crafted by a carpenter [well, to make it a less picturesque analogy, it was more likely by a bunch of hairy builders]. When you have observed an almighty and infinitely powerful God creating a universe, it will be reasonable of you to suppose that is how universes are formed, but until then your frame of reference is empty; it's just a reasonable to say a particular flock of geese created the universe.

It's much like encountering an aircraft carrier near the house and surmising that because a carpenter builds houses he must be able to build other things too, therefore he must have built the entire aircraft carrier.

I....see.

I wonder what the religious types will make of this, besides calling you an unbeliever and a sinner and a heathen.

How come you athehist think of us as steriotypes we do science aswell you idiots we understand the world just as much as you do(which isint much).

How come you athehist think of us as steriotypes we do science aswell you idiots we understand the world just as much as you do(which isint much).

A valid point, but you may want to clean up your grammar and iron out any generalisations in there.

No you have simply proven that humans design and build houses.

You have also proven that houses are material things independent of material human thought (although connected).

No. The design exists independent of the designer. But at the same time it is not material. The materials of the house are 'material things independent of material human thought'. The design of the house is an immaterial thing independent of material human thought.

Reading comprehension is not your friend.
Yes, it is. Melkonia was wrong, as I showed.

Yes, it is. Melkonia was wrong, as I showed.

Just curious. It appears that you're an atheist, which is fine.

What is your obsession with converting people to atheism?

I'm not obsessed with converting people to my religion or personal philosophy.

What is your obsession with converting people to atheism?
What's your obsession regarding telling the lie that atheists want to convert people?

What's your obsession regarding telling the lie that atheists want to convert people?

You seem to be rather vehement about the idea of proving that God doesn't exist, and that people who believe are idiots.

Do you believe in the mathematical postulates of assertion, equality, and negation? Or do you only believe in what can be proven?

Science can explain the universe with a reasonable assurance of accuracy back until its creation. No credible theories exist about what or how the universe was created that rely on a purely scientific outlook.

Religion generally wills the universe into existance deus ex machina - but does a poor job explaining the creation of the God itself.

Because this is one of the core reasons of both paradigms (religious and scientific) - to find out how this all came to be - and neither adequately answers the question then one should not discount the other completely.

A man who knows something knows that he knows nothing at all.

My two cents:
Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.
To borrow an analogy, think of a house. By studying a house, dissecting it to determine how it was constructed, admiring its beauty, or by simply living in it one would learn nothing about its builder. Maybe one could assume that there was a builder, but by all his examinations of the structure he could not prove it. The builder is not a part of the house, he is outside of the house. The house is the material universe. We cannot by observations and tests find out how it all got here, but we know it is here and thats a start.

From there we can use reason to either arrive at the conclusion that there is a God or there is not. Each person has to reason out his own view. Either you think the house was crafted by a carpenter or you think something to the effect that all the pieces for the house fell from the sky and somehow randomly formed a perfectly suitable abode (Please correct me if I'm wrong). To my mind it makes sense that something that works is generally designed to work. A house is by far more effective as living area than a pile of wood would be.

Final note: You cannot discount faith, because we all have faith in something. For instance, we have faith in the science that explains this world, and we have faith that our reason is not inherently faulty. How would we know if it were?
This analogy does not work. It is reasonable to say that the house was designed because it works. But works in this context implies something much more specific: It works exactly in the way that you have much earlier learned that houses should work. If you just threw the building materials up in the air and let them fall down they would not work in exactly that way. But they would "work" in some way. Maybe they'd be a home for hedgehogs, or a source of materials for wasps. Whatever. In some sense it would work, and if you had not learned before you came upon it exactly how houses work you would look at it and say "a perfectly functional house". And in that case it would be perfectly reasonable to say that a working house came about by a bunch of building materials being thrown up in the air.

This is how the whole world is. We are born into the world without previously knowing how a world is supposed to work. We learn how the world works by looking at the world we live in. So however this world came about, that is how a working world came about, and the randomly formed hedgehog home is as good an analogy as the carefully crafted human abode.

Pangloss made a rather funny version of your argument: "Note how well our noses are formed to wear glasses. Thus we wear glasses."

This whole thread isn't getting anywhere anymore. I think that enough of us have given enough proof of the immaterial which exists both independently of and yet in conjunction with the material, such as Energy, Forces or Designs. While they may be created by, transferred through, or stored in/as things in the material universe, they themselves are most certainly not material. thus this concept of the 'Solely Material Universe" has been disproved.

whether or not God actually exists is something of a moot point. The concept of god does exist, and people will likely always believe. Like one person so acurately said, the concept of God required Faith, the leap of faith that goes beyond certainty. If God was proved 100%, no faith would be required, everyone would believe, and religion would lose all mysticism.

So one could say that God can never be proved or disproved. If there is a God, he cannot be disproved, because truth cannot be disproved. God, however, would never let himself be proved, to keep that vital element of faith present. If there is no God, it cannot be proved, because a falsehood cannot be proved. Likewise, it cannot be disproved, as you can't disproved a negative, for reasons I've mentioned previously (the future is unknown, we can never know everything)

Voila. An exercise in futility.

This whole thread isn't getting anywhere anymore. I think that enough of us have given enough proof of the immaterial which exists both independently of and yet in conjunction with the material, such as Energy, Forces or Designs. While they may be created by, transferred through, or stored in/as things in the material universe, they themselves are most certainly not material. thus this concept of the 'Solely Material Universe" has been disproved.


Now this is getting interesting. Are you saying that if I throw a stone into the air then, since the movement of the stone can be described useing the abstraction 'energy', it is somehow not physical any more? Because all the 'immaterial' things that you mentioned are like that, they are one way of describeing interactions of physical objects, and all of these abstract tools can be described with relatively simple rules.

Now this is getting interesting. Are you saying that if I throw a stone into the air then, since the movement of the stone can be described useing the abstraction 'energy', it is somehow not physical any more? Because all the 'immaterial' things that you mentioned are like that, they are one way of describeing interactions of physical objects, and all of these abstract tools can be described with relatively simple rules.
Physical is not the same as material. Material is to matter what physical is to physics.

Now this is getting interesting. Are you saying that if I throw a stone into the air then, since the movement of the stone can be described useing the abstraction 'energy', it is somehow not physical any more? Because all the 'immaterial' things that you mentioned are like that, they are one way of describeing interactions of physical objects, and all of these abstract tools can be described with relatively simple rules.
The objects are physical, but what about the force of gravity? yet, both you and the earth are physical, yet there is nothing physical holding you to the earth. but I don't see any of us flying off into space. Thus, there's gotta be SOMETHING, while not physical, that's doing it. Likewise with your rock, where in the rock is the potential energy stored at the peak of its flight? what makes it continue upwards after it has left your hand? Surely nothing physical or material!

Yes, it is. Melkonia was wrong, as I showed.

Link me to the post where you demonstrated that Melkonia's argument must be interpreted in the strange way you suggest. Also, find another, more credible, source that defines argument from ignorance that also demonstrates that the converse suggested in the first definition is not true.

Until then the entire force of your argument is as limp as a wet noodle.

Adults don't settle for "No it's not" and a heap of bravado.

The objects are physical, but what about the force of gravity? yet, both you and the earth are physical, yet there is nothing physical holding you to the earth. but I don't see any of us flying off into space. Thus, there's gotta be SOMETHING, while not physical, that's doing it. Likewise with your rock, where in the rock is the potential energy stored at the peak of its flight? what makes it continue upwards after it has left your hand? Surely nothing physical or material!
What do you mean 'what'? It is in the nature of matter that the trajectory of any two freely falling objects curve towards each other. It is conventient to use some abstraction to describe this, but you have many different choices of abstractions (energy, forces, curved space, potential, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian ... ) so none of them is necessary. The only necessary thing in the physical description of matter (and thus of the world) is some sort of regularities. No abstractions are necessary (just convenient). So they don't exist other than in the minds of people working out the theories.

What do you mean 'what'? It is in the nature of matter that the trajectory of any two freely falling objects curve towards each other. It is conventient to use some abstraction to describe this, but you have many different choices of abstractions (energy, forces, curved space, potential, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian ... ) so none of them is necessary. The only necessary thing in the physical description of matter (and thus of the world) is some sort of regularities. No abstractions are necessary (just convenient). So they don't exist other than in the minds of people working out the theories.

So what you're trying to say is that forces like gravity are atributable to the properties of matter, and thus the material universe? Alright... I grant that for some forces, like gavity, and energy. And I suppose that the object thrown keeps moving because of momentum, a property of mass/matter.

I think a lot of this is a matter of perspective... But what about time? Isn't time more than just the entropy of matter? or something like that?

So what you're trying to say is that forces like gravity are atributable to the properties of matter, and thus the material universe? Alright... I grant that for some forces, like gavity, and energy. And I suppose that the object thrown keeps moving because of momentum, a property of mass/matter.

I think a lot of this is a matter of perspective... But what about time? Isn't time more than just the entropy of matter? or something like that?
Yeps. But as long as a shift of perspective is all that it takes, the materialist view is not disproved.

Time is the fourth dimension. It has just about the same nature as place. Again about the relation between physical objects and events.

Time is the fourth dimension. It has just about the same nature as place. Again about the relation between physical objects and events.

place can be considered relatively, as dstance vectors between chunks of matter or whatever, but Time, while it is a demension , and it does affect matter, is not material or a mere property of the material. You haven't got me convinced on this one yet, my friend. :rolleyes:

The objects are physical, but what about the force of gravity? yet, both you and the earth are physical, yet there is nothing physical holding you to the earth. but I don't see any of us flying off into space. Thus, there's gotta be SOMETHING, while not physical, that's doing it. Likewise with your rock, where in the rock is the potential energy stored at the peak of its flight? what makes it continue upwards after it has left your hand? Surely nothing physical or material!
They are physical, though not material, in the sense that physics defines the relationships between them, in the form of demonstratable mathematical equation: E=mc2, F=ma.

They are physical, though not material, in the sense that physics defines the relationships between them, in the form of demonstratable mathematical equation: E=mc2, F=ma.

Exactly. That's what I've been meaning to prove all along; that there is no such thing as a "solely material universe", that there has to be 'things' that aren't material in existance. :)

place can be considered relatively, as dstance vectors between chunks of matter or whatever, but Time, while it is a demension , and it does affect matter, is not material or a mere property of the material. You haven't got me convinced on this one yet, my friend. :rolleyes:
Time can be considered relatively in exactly the same way. The fourth coordinate in the same vector the first three coordinates of which is the distance and direction in the room.


I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You are trying to convince me that there are things that are not part of the physical world, but that cause things in the physical world (or in other words that materialism is disproven).

Ok, maybe I am arguing something. But only that materialism is not disproven, not that it is the only possible idea.

They are physical, though not material, in the sense that physics defines the relationships between them, in the form of demonstratable mathematical equation: E=mc2, F=ma.
Physical==material.

Those equations are convenient expressions of some laws, but the laws themselves are properties of matter, and thus are not outside of the physical world.

Time can be considered relatively in exactly the same way. The fourth coordinate in the same vector the first three coordinates of which is the distance and direction in the room.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You are trying to convince me that there are things that are not part of the physical world, but that cause things in the physical world (or in other words that materialism is disproven).

Ok, maybe I am arguing something. But only that materialism is not disproven, not that it is the only possible idea.

Actually, what I'm trying to show is what I believe, that there are things that are not material, independent of their material source, but are able to affect the material.

I don't think that the various properties of matter and their interactions, even with the good old E = MC^2, can account for everything. Like, how someone was talking about a vacuum, that is, a space without any matter in it. It may be defined by material/matter (if there's some there, you must be at the border of the vacuum), but it isn't material itself (by its very definition!). Thus we still have space, 'enclosed' by matter, but not actually anything material occupying it. Thus, something non-material (the quintessential, if you will).

Likewise with time, I believe. Even in a vaccum, time is passing, even if this vacuum was stationary in the grand scheme of things. Independent of matter/the material, yet affecting it.

Actually, what I'm trying to show is what I believe, that there are things that are not material, independent of their material source, but are able to affect the material.

I don't think that the various properties of matter and their interactions, even with the good old E = MC^2, can account for everything. Like, how someone was talking about a vacuum, that is, a space without any matter in it. It may be defined by material/matter (if there's some there, you must be at the border of the vacuum), but it isn't material itself (by its very definition!). Thus we still have space, 'enclosed' by matter, but not actually anything material occupying it. Thus, something non-material (the quintessential, if you will).

Likewise with time, I believe. Even in a vaccum, time is passing, even if this vacuum was stationary in the grand scheme of things. Independent of matter/the material, yet affecting it.
Now you are talking quantum theory. That means on such a scale that an atom is large. And on that scale there is no difference between matter and 'vacuum'. If you scale up an atom so much that the subatomic particles in it are as big as an apple seed, then the circumference of that atom will be many miles. With the quantum way of seeing things matter is everywere, including in vacuum.

None of which as really anything to do with the OP's premise that since you can't prove the immaterial, it doesn't exist.

Now you are talking quantum theory. That means on such a scale that an atom is large. And on that scale there is no difference between matter and 'vacuum'. If you scale up an atom so much that the subatomic particles in it are as big as an apple seed, then the circumference of that atom will be many miles. With the quantum way of seeing things matter is everywere, including in vacuum.
0_o' um... I dunno where you're pulling out quantum theory on me all of a sudden, because I sure didn't bring anything like that up. But even on a microscopic scale (not as small as even molecular scale), there is such a thing as vacuum, and it is defined as a space without matter in it. If something is defines by the absense of material substance, then it is immaterial itself.

Thus even something known to exist, or at least potentially exist if you want to get really technical, within the concept of the 'solely material universe', it becomes an oxymoron.

0_o' um... I dunno where you're pulling out quantum theory on me all of a sudden, because I sure didn't bring anything like that up. But even on a microscopic scale (not as small as even molecular scale), there is such a thing as vacuum, and it is defined as a space without matter in it. If something is defines by the absense of material substance, then it is immaterial itself.

Thus even something known to exist, or at least potentially exist if you want to get really technical, within the concept of the 'solely material universe', it becomes an oxymoron.
Yes, you pulled out quantum field theory when you started talking about vacuum energy and particles popping in and out of "existence". I'll be quite happy if we stay away from that in the future.

If we are talking about classical vacuum, then no, there is no matter in vacuum, but vacuum doesn't matter since it does not exist anywere. What is sometimes referred to as vacuum is just gas with very low pressure. And if there was a place without matter in it, then that'd just mean that there was nothing in that point, it wouldn't prove anything.

EDIT: Sorry about my mixup about the quantum stuff. The was the "someone" who "was talking about a vacuum" who brought it up before. I thought you were trying to make it hard for me by bringing in that stuff again. As I said I am glad to leave it out.

Yes, you pulled out quantum field theory when you started talking about vacuum energy and particles popping in and out of "existence". I'll be quite happy if we stay away from that in the future.

If we are talking about classical vacuum, then no, there is no matter in vacuum, but vacuum doesn't matter since it does not exist anywere. What is sometimes referred to as vacuum is just gas with very low pressure. And if there was a place without matter in it, then that'd just mean that there was nothing in that point, it wouldn't prove anything.
You're putting words into my mouth. I never once mentioned vacuum energy nor spontanious creation of particles or whatever. I meant 'classic' vacuum from the start. and yes, while its true that, on a scale that takes into account individual molecules in a given volume of whatever size, there isn't any such thing, at least not in nature. However, in the void between galaxies, the density of such would be so low that, over a scale that humans could comprehend, it would indeed be a true vacuum. Also, while science has not yet devised a vacuum pump eficient enough to artificially create a perfect vacuum, there is no reason at all to believe that it won't be done in the future. So the so called 'solely material universe' does indeed incorporate the concept of vacuum, which is by its very nature something immaterial, intangible.

You're putting words into my mouth. I never once mentioned vacuum energy nor spontanious creation of particles or whatever. I meant 'classic' vacuum from the start. and yes, while its true that, on a scale that takes into account individual molecules in a given volume of whatever size, there isn't any such thing, at least not in nature. However, in the void between galaxies, the density of such would be so low that, over a scale that humans could comprehend, it would indeed be a true vacuum. Also, while science has not yet devised a vacuum pump eficient enough to artificially create a perfect vacuum, there is no reason at all to believe that it won't be done in the future. So the so called 'solely material universe' does indeed incorporate the concept of vacuum, which is by its very nature something immaterial, intangible.
Again two answers:
1) If you call that vacuum, then vacuum is a form of matter. Vacuum==low density gas==matter.

2)Even if we are talking about real vacuum that is not a problem. Vacuum is defined as absense of matter. Putting a name on absense does not turn it into an object that exists. Otherwise I'll just define tachuum as absense of anything that you say exists and thus proove that there exists more than exists. No proof.

Again two answers:
1) If you call that vacuum, then vacuum is a form of matter. Vacuum==low density gas==matter.

2)Even if we are talking about real vacuum that is not a problem. Vacuum is defined as absense of matter. Putting a name on absense does not turn it into an object that exists. Otherwise I'll just define tachuum as absense of anything that you say exists and thus proove that there exists more than exists. No proof.

I never specified 'object' anywhere... but that doesn't stop a vacuum from existing. Just as a shadow is an 'absence of light', and it exists. If you go far enough out into space, where you might be able to pick out a volume of thousands of cubic meters between the nearest specs of matter, in that volume between them, you would have a true vacuum!

The challenge given at the beginning of the thread was to prove that there is something (anything) that is non-material in the universe, thus disproving his 'solely material universe' concept. If there is such a universe, a volume in where there was no matter would be a vacuum, and a vacuum is non-material by definition. Thus, a 'solely material universe' is disproved by self-contradiction, because of vacuum, because there exists more space, more volume in the universe then there is volume of matter in the universe.

I never specified 'object' anywhere... but that doesn't stop a vacuum from existing. Just as a shadow is an 'absence of light', and it exists. If you go far enough out into space, where you might be able to pick out a volume of thousands of cubic meters between the nearest specs of matter, in that volume between them, you would have a true vacuum!

The challenge given at the beginning of the thread was to prove that there is something (anything) that is non-material in the universe, thus disproving his 'solely material universe' concept. If there is such a universe, a volume in where there was no matter would be a vacuum, and a vacuum is non-material by definition. Thus, a 'solely material universe' is disproved by self-contradiction, because of vacuum, because there exists more space, more volume in the universe then there is volume of matter in the universe.
And tachuum is nonexistent by definition. Thus there exists something that doesn't exist. Vacuum, just like tachuum, shadows and whatever other negative concepts you care to mention, is nothing.

And by the way, what do you mean by not specifying object? Are you simply saying that there exist at least one idea that is not represented by any one particular object? In that case I agree and you succeeded already with time or energy or whatever was the first you mentioned.

But that is not relevant. You claimed to have disproved materialism, that is to have disproved "Every object that have a causal relation to a physical object is physical." And I am not trying to prove that this is true, but that it is not disprovable, just like gods or supernatural stuff is not disprovable. Basically it is the opposite of belief in supernatural stuff.

You claimed to have disproved materialism, that is to have disproved "Every object that have a causal relation to a physical object is physical." And I am not trying to prove that this is true, but that it is not disprovable, just like gods or supernatural stuff is not disprovable. Basically it is the opposite of belief in supernatural stuff.
Again, you're putting words into my mouth.

What I was trying to disprove was "Everything is directly related to the material"... I'm not sure if I'm communicating it right at all, but basically, the concept that not everything (forces, occurnences, ect...) can only be explained by looking only at material objects and their properties.

Again, you're putting words into my mouth.

What I was trying to disprove was "Everything is directly related to the material"... I'm not sure if I'm communicating it right at all, but basically, the concept that not everything (forces, occurnences, ect...) can only be explained by looking only at material objects and their properties.
You can always interpret everything in many different ways. I am saying that you can interpret forces, energy and that kind of stuff as related to matter. But what are you saying? I started out by asking that, but I don't seem to have understood.

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain). This is not based on "faith" as the material world is all around us (and can be examined/tested, est.). One can doubt the sole existence of the material world, but such doubt is baseless as all alternatives require the fore mentioned leap of faith (ultimately there are no alternatives).

The sole material world cannot be disproved, and it automatically discounts anything non-material (the supernatural). Thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

(thoughts, counter-ideas, condemnations?)

Note: Those just joining us please read the full thread as what I have written above is fleshed out and explained more. Thank You.

I once had a chemistry teacher who supplied an intresting concept. This concept is rather simple but explict. The idea was that it is impossible for humans to imagine anything greater then themselves and therefore it is impossible to imagine God or for that matter anything other then themsevles. Therefore it is impossible for God not to exist because we cannot imagine something bigger then oursevles. Sense this is impossible then the faith of God is instilled or rather shown to us by the hands of God and other people around us. The human mind can be trianed to believe anything but nothing great then itself.

You can always interpret everything in many different ways. I am saying that you can interpret forces, energy and that kind of stuff as related to matter. But what are you saying? I started out by asking that, but I don't seem to have understood.
^_^' you know, I'm not quite so sure myself, anymore. You, and others, have made some good arguments that have made me reconsider a lot of what I had first been thinking. So far, pretty much everything 'non-material' I hve brought up can be related back to matter or its properties and interactions... Even, yes, forces, evergy and vacuum... Although I still hold that a true vacuum is a non-material entity... :rolleyes:

At any rate, the only one I really have left is Time, because time marches on independent of matter. Then again, without matter... would time exist? No matter, nothing changes, nothing to 'measure' the passage of time by.

Sorta like the old 'If a tree falls in a forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"... If there's no matter, no way to measure time, nothing for time to operate on... does it exist? 0_o'

I am going to bed now. I must go to work in four hours, and I'm tired as hell.

Materialism is one out of many possible philosfies, even if it is not modern right now. This will not be changed by some online debate were the participants don't even understand each others. If you want to finish the discussion, TG me, and please start out by defining your terms.

^_^' you know, I'm not quite so sure myself, anymore. You, and others, have made some good arguments that have made me reconsider a lot of what I had first been thinking. So far, pretty much everything 'non-material' I hve brought up can be related back to matter or its properties and interactions... Even, yes, forces, evergy and vacuum... Although I still hold that a true vacuum is a non-material entity... :rolleyes:

At any rate, the only one I really have left is Time, because time marches on independent of matter. Then again, without matter... would time exist? No matter, nothing changes, nothing to 'measure' the passage of time by.

Sorta like the old 'If a tree falls in a forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"... If there's no matter, no way to measure time, nothing for time to operate on... does it exist? 0_o'

and it wouldn't matter because you would exist you might be over thinking the situation just a bit for example where did the matter come from did it just exist no and time is only relative if you don't live by the calander then it does not effect you

^_^' you know, I'm not quite so sure myself, anymore. You, and others, have made some good arguments that have made me reconsider a lot of what I had first been thinking. So far, pretty much everything 'non-material' I hve brought up can be related back to matter or its properties and interactions... Even, yes, forces, evergy and vacuum... Although I still hold that a true vacuum is a non-material entity... :rolleyes:

At any rate, the only one I really have left is Time, because time marches on independent of matter. Then again, without matter... would time exist? No matter, nothing changes, nothing to 'measure' the passage of time by.

Sorta like the old 'If a tree falls in a forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"... If there's no matter, no way to measure time, nothing for time to operate on... does it exist? 0_o'
Nice. If time is a problem, then space is also though. They are both a matter of distance and direction between events. Time is mainly a way of percieving things, but it is not necessarily anything outside of humanity.

What would be the point of disproving the idea of God anyway?

You can tell from the title, and from everything written, this whole thread has one purpose: to start an argument, or piss someone off. Nothing else. :gundge: Its all just monkey caca! What is really really gonna be SOLVED in this? It can't be proven either way, which is why its a faith, If God did nothing, people would lose hope, if he did too much, we wouldn't do anything for ourselves, if done just right, you don't even really know he's there. You have the freedom to choose God, or not choose God. I'm not judging anyone, its not my job. From the start of the thread you can tell that nothing positive's comin out and its just to start some trash talk :sniper: or some way to mock other people's faith's or piss them off, :headbang: mostly its modeled just to piss people off it seems. :gundge: Just curious though, what nations does everyone have???

^_^' you know, I'm not quite so sure myself, anymore. You, and others, have made some good arguments that have made me reconsider a lot of what I had first been thinking. So far, pretty much everything 'non-material' I hve brought up can be related back to matter or its properties and interactions... Even, yes, forces, evergy and vacuum... Although I still hold that a true vacuum is a non-material entity... :rolleyes:

At any rate, the only one I really have left is Time, because time marches on independent of matter. Then again, without matter... would time exist? No matter, nothing changes, nothing to 'measure' the passage of time by.

Sorta like the old 'If a tree falls in a forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"... If there's no matter, no way to measure time, nothing for time to operate on... does it exist? 0_o'
You started out well, though, with "...you might even claim that a relationship doesn't exist without a physical brain to hold a mind to concieve of it, is not a material 'thing'."

And this quote: "Besides, 'laws' of physics, while being a 'human creation', a human thought, existed long before humans discovered them and put them into equations, and will continue to exist long after the last human is gone from the universe."

The trick is to see, as I think you see, that the only dualism is one of perspective: on one hand the subjective perspective of the individual conscious mind, being the human who 'creates' (identifies) concepts, and on the other hand the objective reality in which the interaction of matter 'obeys' the 'laws' defined in those concepts. Both perspectives are operating at the same time when a conscious mind is active.

The execution of the 'phyiscal laws' in the physical world is real, the relationships and interactions do occur; but the concept of the law is not physical. That is what is 'the immaterial'. The immaterial is only possible from the perspective of the conscious mind.

Those who want to equate reality with the physical world are correct to say that the immaterial does not exist. It is not material, it is not real. Even by metaphysical definitions, it is "unreal", a "mental entity". But if you consider that the contents of the mind are 'things', and that there are only two states of being for things --being and non-being, existence and non-existence --then that is to say that there are things that do not exist. It would seem they are supporting the very idea they are trying to debunk.

You seem to be rather vehement about the idea of proving that God doesn't exist,
No, I don't.


and that people who believe are idiots.
They are wrt that belief.


Do you believe in the mathematical postulates of assertion, equality, and negation? Or do you only believe in what can be proven?
Mathematical postulates aren't postulated to be physically extant--they are mental constructs.

See how easy it is to cut your argument off at the knees?

I once had a chemistry teacher who supplied an intresting concept. This concept is rather simple but explict. The idea was that it is impossible for humans to imagine anything greater then themselves and therefore it is impossible to imagine God or for that matter anything other then themsevles. Therefore it is impossible for God not to exist because we cannot imagine something bigger then oursevles. Sense this is impossible then the faith of God is instilled or rather shown to us by the hands of God and other people around us. The human mind can be trianed to believe anything but nothing great then itself.
This is pure Cartesian nonsense. It is a variant on his "perfection" argument, and has been soundly refuted.

BAAWA, I personally, am still waiting on how you can get "we must assume it to be true" from "Just because we cannot 'prove' religion doesn't mean its doesn't exist." from Mekonia's post #108

You have been asked several times to point out where or how Mekonia was wrong.

BAAWA, I personally, am still waiting on how you can get "we must assume it to be true" from "Just because we cannot 'prove' religion doesn't mean its doesn't exist." from Mekonia's post #108
Why are you waiting? It's been shown.

Why are you waiting? It's been shown.
No it hasn't.. you miss quoted him.