Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I

[pe7erpark3r]

@Indrid-Cold said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

@petrapark3r It's often said in parascientific books that there's always a divide between what we perceive and the true nature of the world, whether because of the delay in our senses picking up the data, our inability to perceive certain light and audio spectrums, etc.

Hehe, the parascientists should stop copying Kant then, saying things as if they were grown in their own backyard :yum:

I've been thinking a lot recently about belief.

I suppose I should talk a bit about real belief then. Because the real God couldn't care less about our philosophical discourses (even though I think he might chuckle over our jokes). For the God of the philosophers ain't quite Him and belief ain't quite what we think when we hear the word...

Faith, as it has always been and as you can see especially clearly in the old testament, is not being convinced of certain ideas. Instead it is trust. Trust in the very fact, that this God will act, in your life, today, and tomorrow. The israelites believed in a God who acted in history, even created history, not in some fancy shmancy theology.

You will not recognize this God in one teaching or another. You will recognize Him through His actions in your life. And once you have seen how He acts, you will realize that He has always been there, always working tirelessly to guide you closer to Him, to open doors for you, so you could see Him. You will understand that He is the most tender Father, the one who created you in His Heart, in the place that will one day be Your Heaven, if you dare so as to take His Hand.

And you shall recognize His voice.

And ...in my roundabout way, I've started to equate this with the thinking of Carlos Castaneda. I'd never quote anything from his 'Don Juan' meetings (because, let's face it, they're bunkum), but if you chase down his logic behind these transcendental experiences, he talks mainly about playing with his own expectations, manipulating them to achieve a different reality.

What would it be like to believe in something god-like 100 percent, with no margin for doubt? I'm not convinced we'd get an answer even if we could somehow go inside the mind of the most delusional, straight-jacketed religious schizophrenic. By observing his (OR HER) inner life, a duality would occur, which in turn would require a shared responsibility for this god-like thing, which de facto we'd be unable to get. Yet it is worth thinking about just because...

I'm a big lucid dreamer, me, and a profound thing I've noticed is this: lack of processing power on the part of my mind does not seem to be a consideration. I can come into consciousness in non-reality surrounded by the densest, most sophisticated details. And it's a hell of a thing for a human to be willing to take responsibility for everything. Every weird, quantum-age idea. Like, for instance, a certain amount of consciousness coming from the future, and, the

And when our minds get,

When the, (trips up, head falls in campfire, burns to death like drunken cowboy in Red Dead Redemption)

always making me smile :smile:

[Mr.Ghost]

@petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

In history – that is in a history when still anybody believed that there was a God or were gods – people already wanted to know. The idea of proving God seemed to be especially popular at the beginning of the last millenium. The first one to come up with such a "proof" was the monk Anselm of Canterbury. This is a short summary of his argument:

• Everybody can agree on the following definition: God is that above which you can think nothing greater
• Now think God like this, but think that he does not exist
• Woops, you can think of something higher can't you? Because a God who does exist, is definitely greater than one who doesn't
• Ergo: Our mind is not capable of thinking God without also thinking that he exists

Now for the million ₫ question (currency: vietnamese dong) : Why does this argument not prove that god exists?

frankly, I could not ensure the existence of God, on the other hand, I would say that this being does not really exist

[pe7erpark3r]

@Mr-Ghost said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

frankly, I could not ensure the existence of God, on the other hand,

Yeah, well, no, this "proof" I summarized, does not prove (ensure) the existence of god, no.

I would say that this being does not really exist

Why would you say God does not exist? Do you have a good reason?

[Mr.Ghost]

@petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

Why would you say God does not exist? Do you have a good reason?

.....i just say it....

[pe7erpark3r]

@Mr-Ghost said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

@petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

Why would you say God does not exist? Do you have a good reason?

.....i just say it....

:joy:

thats not what i meant :unamused: :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

[steelfirehawk]

I can prove God exists, but it's a long story, and even still an individual can choose to not believe me, even with evidence. I'll use the signs of my life that are easy to research. First of all my middle name is Steel, because my dads middle name is Flint, and he did this to symbolize a father son connection. I was born on 4/27/88. Well the funny thing about that is that 427 engines were made in Flint Michigan. There's also a game called the Stanley Parable based off of Half Life where the main character starts in room 427, and its the players objective to do as the narrator says, or go any other direction just to see Stanleys fate out of morbid curiosity. Also I was born in Indiana in the poorest city in America by record at the time of my birth, and my moms name is Deanna. So I was being conceived literally in Deanna my mother

Many of us adults know of a cheep high gravity beer called 211 Steel Reserve. My friends were calling me Steel Reserve before I knew the of the beer, but strange things happened regarding that number. I found out there's an album by Rush called 2112 about a man who suffers a terrible fate. On 2/11/13 the previous pope stated his resignation, and on that same day lightening struck the Vatican not once, but twice, and many of us have heard the expression that lightening does not strike the same place twice. The first woman I fell in love with was born 2/08/80 and there's a 3 day gap between her birthday the number 211, and valentines day.

My dad was born 8/08 and whats very odd about this is that long after I took a serious interest in Ukulele over all instruments I found out that Hawaii's area code is 808. I could go on and on about the strange signs of my life to be honest, but as I said no one has to believe me, even if they took the time to research, and find evidence of the things I share, and even then there is the question if I am telling the truth about names, origins and birth dates etc. As for me I have had all the evidence I need god exists, and moreover I have even seen demons flee from the name of Jesus, but again no one will likely even believe it.

[steelfirehawk]

it's simply easier to allow oneself to believe we evolved from monkeys to enable ourselves to be compulsive in the flesh like animals. People don't want to believe in God so they can do what they want without any regard to a higher power that judges purely, and righteously.

[Sabo-go-thud]

Okay....I want to break this down a little more. Not to prove/disprove an overall force that drives our reality, but ask...."can you prove I (@sabo-goes-thud) exist?" Or anyone else here.

Are you sure your talking to a human or a line of code or a lizard of the Illumina?

[pe7erpark3r]

@steelfirehawk said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

I can prove God exists, but it's a long story, and even still an individual can choose to not believe me, even with evidence. I'll use the signs of my life that are easy to research...

You have got to be very very careful with those playing with those numbers. Because the problem is, you can easily find connections anywhere. For example a lot of people in indiana where conceived by a woman named deanna. Since your name is Steel, and your friends might have heard the name of the beer in commercial a couple of times, it is rather likely that you would get exactly that nickname. By what rule should there be a connection with the album that is called 2112? Would there be the same connection if it was called 2211 or 2121? You know what I mean? You will see connections everywhere, if you look for this kind of connection, because there are connections like this anywhere.

And last but not least, there is a certain amount of coincidences that simply must happen in everybodies life! Just simply because their propability is in fact this high. Sorry, but IMHO the things you listed do not even qualify as evidence.

Seeing demons flee however would qualify as evidence, if you really saw them with your own eyes, which I doubt is what you mean by that. It really depends on exactly what you saw, wether it could be called evidence. However you must know that it wouldn't be proof. Seeing any kind of creature in this earth, even if it was a demon, would not prove God's existence. A real life demon apearing is strong evidence, but it is not proof.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Sabo-go-thud said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

Okay....I want to break this down a little more. Not to prove/disprove an overall force that drives our reality, but ask...."can you prove I (@sabo-goes-thud) exist?" Or anyone else here.

Are you sure your talking to a human or a line of code or a lizard of the Illumina?

There is an important difference between proving God's existence and the existence of literally anything or anyone else. Because there could be something that God must be, which you and me are not: necessary.

But we can break this down further if you want. It could be the case that we are not able to think. It could indeed be the case, that our thoughts don't really make any sense at all. It's just that they seem to make sense to us. Ergo, it could be that all our conclusions are wrong. It could be, that you are dreaming this whole world up, that nothing is real, and you could not prove anything, because you cannot really think. But there is one thing, that cannot be denied by you. That one thing is you. Because you experience. And experience requires a space in which it can happen. This space is you (your consciousness).

Now lets assume again, that our thoughts do indeed work, which is what you do, when you live your life (you do think, that you understand how your car works, or else you wouldn't dare to drive the hellish thing aye?). Now you have a problem. Because now you know that you exist, because you experience. The problem is this: Why do you exist? Why in the world would anything exist? And a reason seems to be necessary. Ergo. It could be possible to prove God (the reason), while it is impossible to prove to you, that I (or anyone else) exists, with the same clarity.

[Jeebuz]

I believe that God exists as a manifestation of our own intellectual evolution. To put it simply, God is the default placeholder for most people for everything unknown because that is simpler than not knowing. So to answer your question there is no way, yet, of knowing either way 😊

[pe7erpark3r]

@Jeebuz said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

I believe that God exists as a manifestation of our own intellectual evolution. To put it simply, God is the default placeholder for most people for everything unknown because that is simpler than not knowing. So to answer your question there is no way, yet, of knowing either way 😊

Thank God our times have been doing great at putting an end to using God as a placeholder for everything unknown! But we might have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater too :joy:.

You are absolutely right btw., in the scientific sense (e.g. test → measure → interpret results), and it will also stay that way. Because whatever God is, He is not (a he :joy:...) anything like this world. He wouldn't be God if we could measure Him. In fact that is the whole dilemma: God could be doing absolutely nothing, and He would still be real and we could never measure Him (just like the parts of the universe that drift away from us faster than the speed of light) and He could also be doing lots and lots of things and they would just appear random to any measuring device...

But I'll write about another one of the ways to God, that'll really get you thinking soon.

[Jeebuz]

@petrapark3r Thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent response. :) I am glad I found this site now!

I find the biggest issue with us trying to understand or even discover the existence of a God, is our somewhat ignorance of the fact that we may not even have the capability/means to do so. I mean that is like us expecting a programmed character in a computer game to develop awareness of their programmer's (God) world, something that doesn't even exist or have any measurable connection within their own environment/programming.

My strongest hypothesis (and secretly hoping) :) would be that we are some form of advanced symbiosis between our human lives and another form of life, similar I guess to a kind of virtual reality system. What else could it be right :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

[Zack Williamson]

@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

In history – that is in a history when still anybody believed that there was a God or were gods – people already wanted to know. The idea of proving God seemed to be especially popular at the beginning of the last millenium. The first one to come up with such a "proof" was the monk Anselm of Canterbury. This is a short summary of his argument:

I see how many times you try to prove god. But of course all of your attempts are ridiculous. Try to differ between argument and proof, there is a lots of difference between both terms. I bet this argument is not free from flaws which ill prove for you. https://wikidiff.com/argument/proof
Note- You won't repeat god of gaps or argument from ignorance, divine fallacy, straw-man arguments, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, appeal to logic, existential fallacy, argumentum ad populam, appeal to probability or any other logical fallacy as per as you did in previous topic. You should accept this guideline.

• Everybody can agree on the following definition: God is that above which you can think nothing greater

This is not a correct definition of God. It is given by a Christian Anselm. Check definition with google. https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/god

• Now think God like this, but think that he does not exist

Devil/satan is that above which you can think nothing more evil. Now think satan like this, but think that he does not exist

• Woops, you can think of something higher can't you? Because a God who does exist, is definitely greater than one who doesn't

You can something more evil cant you ? Because a satan does exist, is definitely more evil than one who doesn't

• Ergo: Our mind is not capable of thinking God without also thinking that he exists

Our mind is not capable of thinking Satan without also thinking that he exists

Now for the million ₫ question (currency: vietnamese dong) : Why does this argument not prove that god exists?

Now for the million ₫ question (currency: vietnamese dong) : Why does this argument not prove that satan exists

Haha funny. There is no theist till the date who will accept both devil and god exist simultaneously. Try to differ both terms 'conceive' and 'real'. Devil, satan, angel, god are just concepts, it does not matter they come in our mind or not rather then they must really exist in physical world.

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and the (b) ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. An existing god therefore wouldn't be a being greater than which a greater cant be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a god which did not exist
7. Ergo, god doesn't exist.

@steelfirehawk said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

it's simply easier to allow oneself to believe

Believe is a faith without evidence. I refer you to differentiate some terms. Science is based on empirical evidences and theories. It is not based on imagination or faith.

we evolved from monkeys to enable ourselves to be compulsive in the flesh like animals. People don't want to believe in God so they can do what they want without any regard to a higher power that judges purely, and righteously.

Morality does not stem from god. We were evolved and we had jealous genes yet we were altruistic. I give you an evidence of animals, they still save one-another and somehow they kill each-other too. Do animals obey any dogmatic religion ? No. I bet you became a religious man after the terror and fear of your God. Fear of transgression, fear of calling racist, fear of calling kafir, fear of punishment, fear of death, fear of gays, fear of calling fool etc. Please visit a middle-eastern country, for your own sake. I hope you will change your assertions about how atheists are being treated there.

@Sabo-go-thud said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

Are you sure your talking to a human or a line of code or a lizard of the Illumina?

I can visit you anytime, I cannot visit him anytime. You type on a keyboard, is not a miracle. Thus, analogy you to god is basically absurd

[Lazz]

@pe7erpark3r Ideas exist. God exists, at the very least as an idea. Whether God is this supreme omnipotent being is debatable, but just someone having an idea of God causes his/hers/its existence. Or is the result of. Whichever.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Vex-Man said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

In history – that is in a history when still anybody believed that there was a God or were gods – people already wanted to know. The idea of proving God seemed to be especially popular at the beginning of the last millenium. The first one to come up with such a "proof" was the monk Anselm of Canterbury. This is a short summary of his argument:

I see how many times you try to prove god. But of course all of your attempts are ridiculous. Try to differ between argument and proof, there is a lots of difference between both terms. I bet this argument is not free from flaws which ill prove for you. https://wikidiff.com/argument/proof
Note- You won't repeat god of gaps or argument from ignorance, divine fallacy, straw-man arguments, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, appeal to logic, existential fallacy, argumentum ad populam, appeal to probability or any other logical fallacy as per as you did in previous topic. You should accept this guideline.

Sorry for the late reply, I've been very busy IRL. You should read what I write more carefully. I clearly said here that this is no proof at all. Also I wrote this before our conversation :yum:

• Everybody can agree on the following definition: God is that above which you can think nothing greater

This is not a correct definition of God. It is given by a Christian Anselm. Check definition with google. https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/god

You have a better definiton of God? I think this one is perfect. I mean of course there are other ideas of other God's like roman Gods or hinduistic Gods, but this is the perfect definition of the one absolute being, that fits also the christian God, the origin of all.

• Now think God like this, but think that he does not exist

Devil/satan is that above which you can think nothing more evil. Now think satan like this, but think that he does not exist

• Woops, you can think of something higher can't you? Because a God who does exist, is definitely greater than one who doesn't

You can something more evil cant you ? Because a satan does exist, is definitely more evil than one who doesn't

• Ergo: Our mind is not capable of thinking God without also thinking that he exists

Our mind is not capable of thinking Satan without also thinking that he exists

You have missed the point. Just because one island is bigger than the other does not mean it exists. Just because someone who exists is more evil than someone who doesn't, does not mean he exists. This argument works only with the God of above definition, and with nothing and noone else. If you do not agree, that just means you have not understood the argument.

Now for the million ₫ question (currency: vietnamese dong) : Why does this argument not prove that god exists?

Now for the million ₫ question (currency: vietnamese dong) : Why does this argument not prove that satan exists

Haha funny. There is no theist till the date who will accept both devil and god exist simultaneously. Try to differ both terms 'conceive' and 'real'. Devil, satan, angel, god are just concepts, it does not matter they come in our mind or not rather then they must really exist in physical world.

The argument does not prove that God exists, because it concludes from the pure world of thought to the real world. But other than that the argument is sound, and it does not work for Satan, because Satan is not that "above which nothing greater can be thought". It only works with God.

There are lots of believers and theologicians who both accept that God exists and the devil, for the devil is not defined as that below which nothing more evil can be thought. The devil is defined as simply a created being, like you or me, who has completely decided against God. E.g. evil itself is defined as the absolute absence of God. This is like with light (this comparison is an anecdote from Albert Einstein btw.), you can measure light, because it is something, it is real. You cannot measure darkness. Darkness is simply the absence of light.

@steelfirehawk said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

it's simply easier to allow oneself to believe

Believe is a faith without evidence. I refer you to differentiate some terms. Science is based on empirical evidences and theories. It is not based on imagination or faith.

It is also based on axioms, improvable assumptions based on... well nothing but the fact, that without them science does not make sense... but I do agree that simply believing something without any evidence or reason to believe is indeed irrational...

we evolved from monkeys to enable ourselves to be compulsive in the flesh like animals. People don't want to believe in God so they can do what they want without any regard to a higher power that judges purely, and righteously.

Morality does not stem from god.

Thinking about morality does not require God, true. But immorality requires you to either think that God does not care, to make up an unjustified concept of God that allows you to be immoral, or – the easiest – to think that God does not exist. It is not surprising that people statistically assume that atheists are more readily doing evil than believers.

We were evolved and we had jealous genes yet we were altruistic. I give you an evidence of animals, they still save one-another and somehow they kill each-other too. Do animals obey any dogmatic religion ? No. I bet you became a religious man after the terror and fear of your God. Fear of transgression, fear of calling racist, fear of calling kafir, fear of punishment, fear of death, fear of gays, fear of calling fool etc. Please visit a middle-eastern country, for your own sake. I hope you will change your assertions about how atheists are being treated there.

Thank god we live in christian countries where freedom is written in capital letters. But you are right, even many christians fear God. But that is just a result of not trusting Him. Of course God is just and against sin, because without justice there would not be mercy, only tolerance. And God is all merciful, for He loves us more than you could ever imagine. He will forgive you all the evil you do, and bring you back to Him if you just let Him. Therefore it is wrong to fear Him, for He only wants happiness and peace for you for all eternity. If you really trusted Him you would see, that He's ever so gentle, lovingly intervening, when you stray. The problem is just, that many people do not wake up, if they are not shocked. So sometimes He can put things rather strongly. But that too is just to bring people back to Him, who is only Love. So, do not fear God, only adore Him (the "fear of God" in the bible does not mean being scared, it means to know that God is Holy and to lower your head in front of Him, so He can lift you.)

[bye69]

@pe7erpark3r GOD will exist if you want him/her to exist. This is the essence of faith.

[Zack Williamson]

You have a better definiton of God? I think this one is perfect I mean of course there are other ideas of other God's like roman Gods or hinduistic Gods,

There are many definitions available on the internet. They are universal definitions of God/s

but this is the perfect definition of the one absolute being,

Absolute being is one who is combination of present, past and future. Devil can be absolute one as well.

that fits also the christian God, the origin of all.

Allah says he is the origin of all things, Brahma says he is the ultimate creator. Who is true ?

You have missed the point. Just because one island is bigger than the other does not mean it exists.

The point is not which island is bigger. The point is how many trees can be found in both islands. I can think of an island which has a great number of trees, but I can think of another island which has more trees than previous one. I can count how exactly they are in numbers. Can’t I ? B an island has greater number of trees than that of island A. Island C has more trees than that of island B. And so on. Take the example of bigger island now. I can measure the exact length of island with kms, then i can conceive one more island which is bigger than previous one. There might be more more more island and none of them would really exist.

Just because someone who exists is more evil than someone who doesn't, does not mean he exists.

‘Greatness’ or 'perfectness' or 'absolute one' is just a property and property cannot be reduced to existence. There has been a lot of debate among philosophers on this subject. Kant really won this debate. ‘Evilness’ is also a property. This argument has been refuted by Hume and Kant together.

This argument works only with the God of above definition, and with nothing and noone else.

This is not true. The argument was given by Anselm and he himself said about ‘being’. Check this argument from internet. Kant compared two beings A and B. It is plausible to suppose that a sufficient condition for entity A being greater than entity B is that A has all and only the properties that B has except that A has, in addition, a property P that makes A more valued or prized than B. On this account, a judgment that A is a greater entity than B, given that A is exactly the same as B, except that A exists and B does not, assumes that existence is a property of A. However, the assumption that existence is a property of objects is a very controversial one; and insofar as the ontological argument makes this assumption, it is not a dearly sound argument. Kant's point still has force:
By whatever and by however many predicates we may think a thing-even if we completely determine it-we do not make the least addition to the thing when we further declare that this thing is. Otherwise, it would not be exactly the same thing that exists. but something more than we had thought in the concept; and we could not, therefore, say that the exact object of my concept exists.

But other than that the argument is sound, and it does not work for Satan, because Satan is not that "above which nothing greater can be thought".

Again, ‘greater’ is just a property like ‘more evil'. Satan is one “above which nothing more evil can be thought”. Existence of devil is perfect than that of non-existence.

There are lots of believers and theologians who both accept that God exists and the devil, for the devil is not defined as that below which nothing more evil can be thought.

This argument was based on old testament and it itself said, “the fool has said in his heart, that there is no God”.
You just need to use the reductio ad absurdum technique: I can define “Ultimate Underwear” as the greatest underwear that can be conceived (e.g. it washes itself, it doesn’t stink, it fits all waists, etc). By Anselm’s logic this underwear must exist. Similarly, the greatest possible potato chip, dog, cricket bat, and so on, must exist. This is false.

The devil is defined as simply a created being, like you or me, who has completely decided against God.

Evolved being only if we consider ourselves*. Hinduism and Islam are agree with ‘absence of god is devil and absence of devil is God. And perhaps, OT of bible was also agree with it (the source where the argument was derived).

This is like with light (this comparison is an anecdote from Albert Einstein btw.), you can measure light, because it is something, it is real. You cannot measure darkness. Darkness is simply the absence of light.

Subjective vs objective, science is objective and is not subjective like people thoughts about devil-god. For atheist philosophers, human is the god/(s).

It is also based on axioms, improvable assumptions based on... well nothing but the fact,

Non-empirical assumptions are based on empirical knowledge. Anselm's argument was flawed with circular logic. However, you've chosen less flawed version.

I think above things do not matter because I just noticed someone else has answered better than mine on this same thread.

But immorality requires you to either think that God does not care, to make up an unjustified concept of God that allows you to be immoral, or – the easiest – to think that God does not exist.

You forgot about the most peaceful religion of this whole effing universe is atheist - Jainism. They do not even kill insects, nor they kill crops-worms. The Jains preach a doctrine of utter nonviolence. While the Jains believe many improbable things about the universe, they do not believe the sorts of things that lit the fires of the Inquisition. You probably think the Inquisition was a perversion of the "true" spirit of Christianity. Perhaps it was. The problem, however, is that the teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries.

It is not surprising that people statistically assume that atheists are more readily doing evil than believers.

I see, you bring communism vs Nazism in every conversation. Why don’t you check pornhub and try to insert a word a ‘priest’ or ‘church’ in search ? My friend told to me a day before yesterday that he was enjoying some gangbang porns of christian priests. As you know I am an atheist, I do not believe in anything very quickly. After-all, I do not watch porns (watching porns may decrease brain's grey matter) so I tried to look for internet data instead. https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/stories/hidden-wounds-christians-say-rape-is-common-persecution-method-against-women/
History is the victim of the statistics- 30 percent fights for the name of religion
Rest 70 percent- not for the name of atheism but they were fought for resources, land acquisition and border disputes.

Communism did not fight for the name of atheism, Nazism did fight for the name of religion. Communism fight for their doctrine and atheism does not have a doctrine. Communism has a dogma so as christianism has. Communism has heroes marx, stalin, mao, lenin and they were founders of marxism, maosim, leninism etc. Athe is not a guy like christ, mao or marx. Christian communism is also a branch of marxist communism. Communism is said to be a political religion. They should read Jainism books and follow it first rather than believing in any thing else. It’s true that the tyrannical communist regimes of Mao and Stalin were opposed to religion, with religious belief discouraged and punished under their rule. This had less to do with atheism and more to do with the threat of religion as competition with their own tyrannical plans. Totalitarian regimes are built on dogma and fear, not freedom of speech and inquiry. In this way, they greatly resemble religion. In effect, these leaders essentially created religions and inserted themselves at the top as new deities. The problem with communism, however, is not that it is too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions.” This cult of personality are not derived from atheism, and it is hard to see how one could argue that its activities were representative of atheists as a whole.Indeed, many free, irreligious nations, such as Denmark and Sweden, are among the most peaceful and prosperous countries in the world. The point, however, is not to say that atheism necessarily causes people to be happier or more prosperous. What is clear, however, is that atheism does not lead to violence, tyranny or genocide any more than religiosity guarantees a peaceful and prosperous nation. The world’s religions have rules and holy books that tell their followers what’s wrong or right and how to behave. Thus, it is reasonable to hold a religion accountable for the message that it preaches. There are no holy atheist scriptures, no atheist pope and no atheist rituals, tenets, creeds, code or authority. Atheism cannot be held accountable for the activities of atheists in the same way that religion can be judged by its doctrine because atheism has no doctrines.

But you are right, even many christians fear God. But that is just a result of not trusting Him. Of course God is just and against sin, because without justice there would not be mercy, only tolerance. And God is all merciful, for He loves us more than you could ever imagine. He will forgive you all the evil you do, and bring you back to Him if you just let Him. Therefore it is wrong to fear Him, for He only wants happiness and peace for you for all eternity. If you really trusted Him you would see, that He's ever so gentle, lovingly intervening, when you stray. The problem is just, that many people do not wake up, if they are not shocked. So sometimes He can put things rather strongly. But that too is just to bring people back to Him, who is only Love

Worse still is the concept of hell, where non-believers suffer in eternal torment simply for disbelieving in God. Indeed, this torture is supposedly granted even to theists who believe in the wrong gods. If the Christian religion is the “right” one, every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Jew would burn in hell for eternity (John 3:18-36, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 and Revelation 21:8), and this rule is the same for other religions that believe in the concept of hell, such as Islam:
Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. (Quran 4:56)

So, do not fear God, only adore Him (the "fear of God" in the bible does not mean being scared, it means to know that God is Holy and to lower your head in front of Him, so He can lift you.)

An all-loving god would surely not damn his children to an eternity of torture simply for being born into a culture that believes in the wrong deity, follows the wrong holy book or attends the wrong type of church services.

@Sha-WARM-a said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

@pe7erpark3r GOD will exist if you want him/her to exist. This is the essence of faith.

I couldn't understand what you were trying to say but here is a quote. Did you mean it is your will for wanting him to exist ?

[bye69]

@Vex-Man What I wanted to say is that the existence of God depends on the person.
Believing that he exists without proof is called faith.

No Science can prove its existence. If there is then, this question has long been answered!

Obviously, we cannot determine his existence if you are asking for a real being? We cannot compare whats real and whats imaginary in the first place. Can you add an imaginary number to a real number? Of course not! At least you need a physical representation of the imaginary number to add them!.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Vex-Man said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

You have missed the point. Just because one island is bigger than the other does not mean it exists.

The point is not which island is bigger. The point is how many trees can be found in both islands. I can think of an island which has a great number of trees, but I can think of another island which has more trees than previous one. I can count how exactly they are in numbers. Can’t I ? B an island has greater number of trees than that of island A. Island C has more trees than that of island B. And so on. Take the example of bigger island now. I can measure the exact length of island with kms, then i can conceive one more island which is bigger than previous one. There might be more more more island and none of them would really exist.

As I said, you have missed the point: You cannot conclude from the greatness or greaterness or more-number-ness of anything (other than God) to its existence. The only reason why this works with that-which-is-greater-than-anything-you-can-think-of, because the fact that you cannot think of anything greater is what defines it. The island with its number of trees is not defined by the fact that you cannot think of anything greater. God however is defined as that-which-is-greater-than-anything-you-can-think-of and thus His existence necessarily follows from that definition.

Just because someone who exists is more evil than someone who doesn't, does not mean he exists.

‘Greatness’ or 'perfectness' or 'absolute one' is just a property and property cannot be reduced to existence. There has been a lot of debate among philosophers on this subject. Kant really won this debate. ‘Evilness’ is also a property. This argument has been refuted by Hume and Kant together.

This argument works only with the God of above definition, and with nothing and noone else.

This is not true. The argument was given by Anselm and he himself said about ‘being’.

Philosophers and words ... wether its a God or a being is not relevant. What is relevant is only the definition greater than anything that can be thought of not about wether its a being or God.

Check this argument from internet. Kant compared two beings A and B. It is plausible to suppose that a sufficient condition for entity A being greater than entity B is that A has all and only the properties that B has except that A has, in addition, a property P that makes A more valued or prized than B. On this account, a judgment that A is a greater entity than B, given that A is exactly the same as B, except that A exists and B does not, assumes that existence is a property of A. However, the assumption that existence is a property of objects is a very controversial one; and insofar as the ontological argument makes this assumption, it is not a dearly sound argument. Kant's point still has force:
By whatever and by however many predicates we may think a thing-even if we completely determine it-we do not make the least addition to the thing when we further declare that this thing is. Otherwise, it would not be exactly the same thing that exists. but something more than we had thought in the concept; and we could not, therefore, say that the exact object of my concept exists.

Indeed, and since the definition is not about a 'being' and wether it has the property 'existence' but simply that-which-is-greater-than-anything-that-can-be-thought-of. These are my words, this is the definition as I wrote it. So please do in the future stop refuting other people's (e.g. Anselms) concrete words. Try to refute mine instead.

I (me, not Anselm) am not saying, that the God I think of as non-existing is the same as the God that has existence. I perfectly do agree, that the existing God is something completely different from the non-existing god I'm thinking.

And I do disagree with the notion, that something that does exist is not greater than something that doesn't. In fact I don't even have to disagree with: here is my defition of greater "being better or more or of more subsance in any way than something else".

But other than that the argument is sound, and it does not work for Satan, because Satan is not that "above which nothing greater can be thought".

Again, ‘greater’ is just a property like ‘more evil'. Satan is one “above which nothing more evil can be thought”. Existence of devil is perfect than that of non-existence.

True, an existing devil is more evil than a non-existing devil. But he's not in an absolute sense greater. His greatness does not define him. From my definition of God you can see, that He's defined by His greatness alone. You can think of a lot of things that are greater than the devil, even the most evil, and the greatest existing devil: God for example, or you, since you are less evil than the devil you are in fact greater than the devil... Are you starting to get what makes this definition of God special?

There are lots of believers and theologians who both accept that God exists and the devil, for the devil is not defined as that below which nothing more evil can be thought.

This argument was based on old testament and it itself said, “the fool has said in his heart, that there is no God”.
You just need to use the reductio ad absurdum technique: I can define “Ultimate Underwear” as the greatest underwear that can be conceived (e.g. it washes itself, it doesn’t stink, it fits all waists, etc). By Anselm’s logic this underwear must exist. Similarly, the greatest possible potato chip, dog, cricket bat, and so on, must exist. This is false.

Yeah, as explained before, this argument does not work for the greatest XYZ. It only works for The Greatest.

The devil is defined as simply a created being, like you or me, who has completely decided against God.

Evolved being only if we consider ourselves*.

No, I did mean created, not evolved... I believe in God and I believe we are being created, just like the devil and anything else that is not God. This is the definition I was referring to. No need to introduce another concept here. It is irrelevant if there was an evolution or not, to the question wether we are created or not. And the devil as he is defined in the christian world view is not evolved or developed. He just made an eternal decision against God.

Hinduism and Islam are agree with ‘absence of god is devil and absence of devil is God. And perhaps, OT of bible was also agree with it (the source where the argument was derived).

An educated Hindu explained to me that in Hinduism there is no such thing as an absolute good (God) or an absolute evil (devil). Everything seems to be involving including the gods. So I'm pretty sure Hinduism would not agree with this definition, it just makes no sense in the context of hinduism.

Islam would neither agree with it. Islam agrees with the absolute God, just calls him Allah. And in front of an absolute god, there cannot be an equally absolute opposite...

I assure you that the christian world view does not agree with God being the absence of the devil. I can assure you that in the christian world view (at least the only authoritatively defined, the catholic world view), God is the defintion of good, and the devil is mainly a creature that decided against good. In the christian world view evil does not exist. It is purely the absence of good. Good on the other hand exists, and it is not purely the absence of evil, for it is God himself. This is the christian (catholic) world view.

This is like with light (this comparison is an anecdote from Albert Einstein btw.), you can measure light, because it is something, it is real. You cannot measure darkness. Darkness is simply the absence of light.

Subjective vs objective, science is objective and is not subjective like people thoughts about devil-god. For atheist philosophers, human is the god/(s).

This was an analogy to explain the idea that goodness (light) exists and evil (darkness) does not, not a reference to science as the basis of an argument.

You forgot about the most peaceful religion of this whole effing universe is atheist - Jainism. They do not even kill insects, nor they kill crops-worms. The Jains preach a doctrine of utter nonviolence. While the Jains believe many improbable things about the universe, they do not believe the sorts of things that lit the fires of the Inquisition. You probably think the Inquisition was a perversion of the "true" spirit of Christianity. Perhaps it was. The problem, however, is that the teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries.

People. Let me remind you that we are talking about people. People can interpret anything into anything, like the Nazi's interpreted that it was okay to kill millions of Jews into Nietsche's philosophical texts.

The new testament is pretty clear about killing: They brought an adulterous woman before Jesus, and asked him to comply with the law and thus stone her. He says: Who has no sin, should throw the first stone. Jesus does not speak muddled about such things! He clearly does not condemn even the greatest sinner (adultery was seen as one of the greatest sins) and he asks his disciples to give those who beat them on their left cheek their right to beat too.. So, there really is no interpretational room for killing heretics or witches or anything of the like...

Also I – as a german – have a funny (forgive my dark humor) annecdote about the inquisition. You know that they also burned witches right? The witchhunt in spain had a total of 8 victims. This is because the laws worked like this: you get blamed to be a witch. you go to prison. you renounce. they let you go. you get blamed again. you go to prison again. you renounce again. they let you go again. Those 8 people prolly did not renounce, who knows... What do you think the germans did? If you do something, do it right, right? So the germans, including the very zealous witchhunter Martin Luther, killed thousands and thousands of suspected witches... As I said: people...

It is not surprising that people statistically assume that atheists are more readily doing evil than believers.

I see, you bring communism vs Nazism in every conversation. Why don’t you check pornhub and try to insert a word a ‘priest’ or ‘church’ in search ? My friend told to me a day before yesterday that he was enjoying some gangbang porns of christian priests. As you know I am an atheist, I do not believe in anything very quickly. After-all, I do not watch porns (watching porns may decrease brain's grey matter) so I tried to look for internet data instead. https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/stories/hidden-wounds-christians-say-rape-is-common-persecution-method-against-women/
History is the victim of the statistics- 30 percent fights for the name of religion
Rest 70 percent- not for the name of atheism but they were fought for resources, land acquisition and border disputes.

Very true. And even those 30 percent of wars in the name of religion are not actually because of religion. They too are because the believers (people again) want more power, influence, fame, money or resources.

Communism did not fight for the name of atheism, Nazism did fight for the name of religion.

Nazism did not fight for religion either, they fought for their ideology.

Communism fight for their doctrine and atheism does not have a doctrine. Communism has a dogma so as christianism has. Communism has heroes marx, stalin, mao, lenin and they were founders of marxism, maosim, leninism etc. Athe is not a guy like christ, mao or marx.

Communism is an atheistic ideology. Atheism and materialism are its core principles. And equality. Marx was a philosopher, like many atheists.

Mao and Lenin were politicians and serial killers...

Christian communism is also a branch of marxist communism.

Is the fact that someone thought some contradictory combination of two things goes together an argument?

Communism is said to be a political religion. They should read Jainism books and follow it first rather than believing in any thing else. It’s true that the tyrannical communist regimes of Mao and Stalin were opposed to religion, with religious belief discouraged and punished under their rule. This had less to do with atheism and more to do with the threat of religion as competition with their own tyrannical plans. Totalitarian regimes are built on dogma and fear, not freedom of speech and inquiry. In this way, they greatly resemble religion.

Some religions. It is not a coincidence that the idea of freedom of speech developed in christian countries (yes back then they were still all christians). And that the scientific process developed in catholic and anglican universities is neither a coincidence.

The catholic church made one big mistake: It did fight certain things that seemed to contradict the doctrine. For example Galileo's world view. The mistake is clear today: Wether the earth is flat has absolutely nothing to do with theology. That the earth is flat is not even in the bible! But back then people did think this was an attack on faith. Of course it was not, and this is clear today. But many people did not understand. In fact Galileo might have been the only one who really understood what he was talking about... And he was a christian so he clearly understood too, that there was no contradiction.

The catholic church made a few mistakes that is true. But the dark ages are not as dark as people always make them look. It really is no miracle that the scientific process was developed there, for the catholic church never fought any kind of progress that had nothing to do with the teaching. Lets take engineering for example. The church officials of the church did never fight an engineer and his inventions. I mean of course there was some power struggle here and there, but we are still talking about people.

Point is, religion does not have to hinder scientific progress, and 95% of scientific progress was not hindered by christian churches. And the rest was only hindered because people mistook the progress for an onlsaught against faith, which it simply wasn't. People make mistakes. And the church apologized for it a few 100 years later (the church needs a few 100 years for everything it does btw....)

In effect, these leaders essentially created religions and inserted themselves at the top as new deities. The problem with communism, however, is not that it is too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions.”

Which is always the danger of any kind of doctrine. This includes of course atheism and genderism and any religion...

This cult of personality are not derived from atheism, and it is hard to see how one could argue that its activities were representative of atheists as a whole.Indeed, many free, irreligious nations, such as Denmark and Sweden, are among the most peaceful and prosperous countries in the world. The point, however, is not to say that atheism necessarily causes people to be happier or more prosperous. What is clear, however, is that atheism does not lead to violence, tyranny or genocide any more than religiosity guarantees a peaceful and prosperous nation.

Of course you can say that atheism isn't communism, and you are right (even though 99% of communism is clearly atheistic). I'm just saying that statistically atheistic ideologies have done a lot more harm than religious ones. This is just numbers and facts, so I'd be very careful to say that there is no danger in atheism. In fact I'm pretty sure that the presence of atheism and atheistic movements did further the strength of the communistic ideology. Communism cannot take root so easily in a country that is deeply religious.

The world’s religions have rules and holy books that tell their followers what’s wrong or right and how to behave. Thus, it is reasonable to hold a religion accountable for the message that it preaches. There are no holy atheist scriptures, no atheist pope and no atheist rituals, tenets, creeds, code or authority. Atheism cannot be held accountable for the activities of atheists in the same way that religion can be judged by its doctrine because atheism has no doctrines.

As noted above I'm not judging atheism by its doctrine here, but by the effects that atheistic doctrines had in total numbers. And I'm just saying it is safe to assume, that there might be some danger in it, even if there are atheistic communities that are completely peaceful.

Worse still is the concept of hell, where non-believers suffer in eternal torment simply for disbelieving in God. Indeed, this torture is supposedly granted even to theists who believe in the wrong gods. If the Christian religion is the “right” one, every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Jew would burn in hell for eternity (John 3:18-36, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 and Revelation 21:8)

I'm too tired to find you the quote after writing you such a long response, sorry :sweat_smile:... the catholic teaching is quite clear about the fact that non-believers can be saved. What it says however is that they will all be saved through Jesus Christ. There is no way around Him. You will meet Him when you die. And you can then (at the latest) accept Him and be saved, or say: "you have no right to judge me" and thus condemn yourself.

and this rule is the same for other religions that believe in the concept of hell, such as Islam:
Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. (Quran 4:56)

So, do not fear God, only adore Him (the "fear of God" in the bible does not mean being scared, it means to know that God is Holy and to lower your head in front of Him, so He can lift you.)

An all-loving god would surely not damn his children to an eternity of torture simply for being born into a culture that believes in the wrong deity, follows the wrong holy book or attends the wrong type of church services.

As said above the all-loving God does not condemn his children to an eternity of torture for that at all. But He requires them to accept Himself at least when they meet Him (Jesus Christ) from face to face.