The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

[Marius Dejess]

There is endless debate over God existing or not.

But there is no talk at all about how to concur on what it is or how to prove or disprove that something at all exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

I think I can and do so prove for myself that God exists, and you can also if you will concur with me on how to prove that something at all exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

Here is step #1 in proving or disproving that something at all, be it the nose in our face or God existing in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind:

#1 Parties engaged in proving or disproving something to exist must first work to concur on the concept of the thing, anything at all be it the nose in our face or God, otherwise it is an insane exchange of thoughts because parties will be talking past each other's head, and that is not communication at all or getting connected at all.​

What do you guys here say?

When you accept my step #1, then I will or you guys here can propose step #2 for us all to work on to concur on it.

 

[Mai72]

There are roughly 4200 religions in the world today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

So , please tell me why your religion is correct and everyone else is wrong?

 

[MongGrel]

Convincing a group of people to believe in a thing is not proof that it exists.

 

[TheELF]

How can someone concur on the concept of something that does not exist?
And by exists I mean in the physical world where we could interact with it?
A nose you can touch you can see you can examine,the only thing you can do "to" GOD is think about.
It's impossible to prove something if it is impossible to get any proof...

 

[Marius Dejess]

I am not into religions but into the existence of God.

Now, even with religions we have to agree on what is a religion, in order to know which one is the true one, or at least which ones are the most acceptable ones, on the basis of our agreed on concept of what is a religion.

However, I am into the existence of God, not the existence of religions.

Tell me, if you and others like myself we are talking about the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, don't you think it is necessary that we first concur on what is a unicorn, considering that the word unicorn is in the dictionary?

Otherwise, don't you see at all that we are talking nonsense because each has no concept of what at all is an unicorn, much less an invisible pink unicorn.

There are roughly 4200 religions in the world today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

So , please tell me why your religion is correct and everyone else is wrong?

 

[Marius Dejess]

Even with something that you don't believe to exist in any milieu whatsoever, you still do have to harbor a concept of it; otherwise that something you don't believe to exist can be facing you and you still will not realize at all that it is the thing you deny to exist: because you have no concept of what it is.

 

[TheELF]

Even if you believe (although then you wouldn't need any proof) the only concept you could have would be based on hear say that is thousands of years old.
Even the written down stuff between the apostels themselves have big differences from one to the other.
You could believe in a totally wrong concept and it could be facing you and you would not realize at all that it is the thing you believe to exist.

 

[swamplizard]

Good Morning,

I am not into any religion and only attend church if one of the grandchildren have a function going on. Here is all I need to know:

1. I am.
2. God is.
3. Infinity is.

I don't need to prove it, but if one wishes to explore with an open mind, then use the above on a daily basis without defining any of it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Even with something that you don't believe to exist in any milieu whatsoever, you still do have to harbor a concept of it; otherwise that something you don't believe to exist can be facing you and you still will not realize at all that it is the thing you deny to exist: because you have no concept of what it is.

Do you believe that the blerf exists? What is your concept of the blerf?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There is endless debate over God existing or not.

But there is no talk at all about how to concur on what it is or how to prove or disprove that something at all exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

I think I can and do so prove for myself that God exists, and you can also if you will concur with me on how to prove that something at all exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

Here is step #1 in proving or disproving that something at all, be it the nose in our face or God existing in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind:

#1 Parties engaged in proving or disproving something to exist must first work to concur on the concept of the thing, anything at all be it the nose in our face or God, otherwise it is an insane exchange of thoughts because parties will be talking past each other's head, and that is not communication at all or getting connected at all.​

What do you guys here say?

When you accept my step #1, then I will or you guys here can propose step #2 for us all to work on to concur on it.

I do not accept your step 1. If you harbor a concept which you believe to be instantiated in reality, then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate such existence if you wish to convince another person of that concept's reality. Otherwise I don't need to waste my time with your concept.

In other words, I do not need to "concur" with your concept. Whatever you tell me your concept is, that is your concept. Concepts are cheap and easy. Showing that the concept corresponds to reality is your burden.

All of this talk of concepts and you haven't even submitted yours, I notice.

Why is that?

 

[WelshBloke]

OP I think that you have this the wrong way around.

If you believe in something and want to debate it it's up to you to bring the thing to the table for everyone to examine.

It's not for us to look at an empty table and state that there's nothing there.

 

[SMOGZINN]

#1 Parties engaged in proving or disproving something to exist must first work to concur on the concept of the thing, anything at all be it the nose in our face or God, otherwise it is an insane exchange of thoughts because parties will be talking past each other's head, and that is not communication at all or getting connected at all.

Yes. We must first agree on the definitions of the things we are talking about. To talk about the existence of a god we must first come to an agreement on what would constitute a god if one should exist.

 

[nakedfrog]

I am not into religions but into the existence of God.

Now, even with religions we have to agree on what is a religion, in order to know which one is the true one, or at least which ones are the most acceptable ones, on the basis of our agreed on concept of what is a religion.

However, I am into the existence of God, not the existence of religions.

Tell me, if you and others like myself we are talking about the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, don't you think it is necessary that we first concur on what is a unicorn, considering that the word unicorn is in the dictionary?

Otherwise, don't you see at all that we are talking nonsense because each has no concept of what at all is an unicorn, much less an invisible pink unicorn.

This would probably be all well and good if there were one singular deity concept in play. When "God" means so many different things to different people, how can you hope to achieve concurrence?

 

[SMOGZINN]

This would probably be all well and good if there were one singular deity concept in play. When "God" means so many different things to different people, how can you hope to achieve concurrence?

You start with one and work your way down the list? I suggest we start with Thor, that god is a douche.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

God doesn't give a shit whether or not atheists can or cannot prove His existence.

For the faithful there is no need to prove something they already know.

 

[sandorski]

God doesn't give a shit whether or not atheists can or cannot prove His existence.

For the faithful there is no need to prove something they already know.

How do they "Know" it?

 

[HeXen]

If "God" wanted us to know it exists, then it would have given us the proof, over and over in a repeatable and measurable fashion. So either God doesn't give a crap, doesn't even know we exist because we are a side effect or doesn't exist at all. I'm sure many could agree with that much.

What I can observe is the the only thing in reality that wants me to belief in God is other people. What I also observe is that much of the evil in this world has been done by religious people or to say people that believe in something greater than themselves. They hate, they accuse, they kill...so obvious to me, religion is not what's going to take humanity to the next level of advanced civilization.

 

[sandorski]

If "God" wanted us to know it exists, then it would have given us the proof, over and over in a repeatable and measurable fashion. So either God doesn't give a crap, doesn't even know we exist because we are a side effect or doesn't exist at all. I'm sure many could agree with that much.

What I can observe is the the only thing in reality that wants me to belief in God is other people. What I also observe is that much of the evil in this world has been done by religious people or to say people that believe in something greater than themselves. They hate, they accuse, they kill...so obvious to me, religion is not what's going to take humanity to the next level of advanced civilization.

Well said.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

God doesn't give a shit...

Who?

For the faithful there is no need to prove something they already know.

You do not know what you claim to know, any more than the man who claims he is the reincarnation of Napoleon "knows" that he is the man himself. Sorry. Words have a common meaning, and your belief does not amount to knowledge until you have justified it.

 

[WelshBloke]

God doesn't give a shit whether or not atheists can or cannot prove His existence.

For the faithful there is no need to prove something they already know.

Excellent, now can you have a word with all the religious nutters about getting worked up about people disagreeing with their religion then?

 

[JD50]

God doesn't give a shit whether or not atheists can or cannot prove His existence.

For the faithful there is no need to prove something they already know.

How do you know this? Have you spoken with god? Where does this god exist?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Anybody laying odds on the OP returning to the thread?

 

[WelshBloke]

Anybody laying odds on the OP returning to the thread?

Was it some weird sort of Internet missionary work or something?
His posts didn't read like your average troll.

 

[Retro Rob]

The OP likely wanted to laugh at all the atheists who would inevitably froth at the mouth over something they don't believe exists.

From my viewpoint, its like watching them argue over the existence of Dracula.

 

[sandorski]

The OP likely wanted to laugh at all the atheists who would inevitably froth at the mouth over something they don't believe exists.

From my viewpoint, its like watching them argue over the existence of Dracula.

Awesome.