These proofs of the existence of God take the form of philosophical arguments:

1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
* Some things are moved.
* Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
* An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
* Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
* This mover is what we call God.

2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.

3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
* Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
* It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can't come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
* Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
* This being is what we call God.

4. The argument of degree (ex gradu).
* Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
* These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
* The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.

5. The argument of "design" (ex fine).
* All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
* These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
* To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
* Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
* This being we call God.

Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.

so who moved God then.


Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things

how are we sure the uncaused cause of all caused things is God. this isn't a proof but a more intellectual presentation of theist assumptions.


Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
* This being is what we call God.
hmm what philosopher said this?? why must it be that must only be ONE being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s). that's a flawed and biased philosophical argument.

Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe

not true, nothing is perfect including the instruments/people that gauge these "perfections"

All natural bodies in the world act for ends

the universe is still being explored and would continue to be explored. using words such as All is a gross assumption and far from a proof

Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
This being we call God.

BS, u see how none of the philosophical arguments skirt around the issue rather than try to explain the nature of God, the same he is infinite and independent of time argument disguised as philosophy.

@bawomol

You were not able to disprove the existence of God with your (low-level) scientific reasoning. Now this? You need to upgrade your reasoning process.

bawomol ,,,,,,,,,,,

It seem you are putting Ideal without basis, what kind of idealistic is that, do you have any book to prove it,

samba123:

do you have any book to prove it,

He does not necessarily need a book - any book. Just his rational thinking to be coherent will do for now, if he is willing and able to do so, rather than hide behind the same roundabout excuses we have seen so far.

Oh dear!

imhotep:

These proofs of the existence of God take the form of philosophical arguments:

Before I start I should point out that what you've posted are not proofs. Philosophical arguments, yes. Proofs, most definitely not.

1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
* Some things are moved.
* Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
* An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
* Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
* This mover is what we call God.

False syllogisms and begging the question.

First, the argument that we can deduce that everything is moved based on limited and material observations is a false one. It inores the fact that things which are counterintuitive exist. Furthermore, there has to be a clear and logical link between material observations and the application of those observations to something intagible, for the argument to be accepted as a logical one. Finally, actually, not everything has a mover. Radioactive decay, for instance doesnt. Virtual particles don't either. Those alone render the argument moot.

Edit: In my haste I forgot to incllude a final refutation of the argument that begs the question.

Although it has been shown that the basic premise of the "ex mutu" argument is flawed, there is no harm in pointing out that the final argument is just as bad. The argument presupposes that there has to be a mover that wasn't moved; however, there is no logical reason to call that final mover (in the context of the argument) "God". In fact, there's absolutely no reason to suppose that the "unmoved/unstarted/etc" would be a cognizant or, in fact, something with life. What's more, if decide to accept the principles laid out in the arguments, we'd have to conclude that based on our wider experience, the thing termed God must also be a mindless force.

2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.

Essentially the same argument as that above. Therefore, look up. Selah.

3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
* Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
* It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can't come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
* Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
* This being is what we call God.

Again, pretty much the same argument as the first one.


Gotta go, I'll address the rest later.

imhotep:

4. The argument of degree (ex gradu).
* Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
* These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
* The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.

First, this argument presupposes the existence of something akin to the Platonic Forms; however, like Plato's Forms, no evidence or logical argument for its existence has been provided. Also, there is no indication on how the "perfection paradigm" works. Finally, the syllogisms are begging the question again, particularly the final one.

5. The argument of "design" (ex fine).
* All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
* These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
* To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
* Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
* This being we call God.

No, to act for ends is characteristic of instinct. There's no logical reason inherent in the argument or externally to support the idea that an intelligent being guides all natural bodies.


Those were perhaps some of the worst arguments for the existence of a god I've seen.

@KAG
I am not bogged down by low level rationalizations, and I have been able to prove the existence of God without resorting to biblical references.

YOU, on the other hand, are yet to prove that God does not exist. Use your logic, science, rationality, or whatever. Give us a proof. Don't just counter what we say with cheap jabs. We are waiting.

imhotep:

@KAG
I am not bogged down by low level rationalizations,

What is with you and constant handwavings? It really is pathetic. Look, if you can't think of a rebuttal but for some reason you can't acknowledge that fact, then it's best to just not respond at all.

and I have been able to prove the existence of God without resorting to biblical references.

When did that happen? Where is it? That would be an incredible achievement if true. I for one can't wait for you to post that accomplishment.

YOU, on the other hand, are yet to prove that God does not exist. Use your logic, science, rationality, or whatever. Give us a proof. Don't just counter what we say with cheap jabs. We are waiting.

I did respond to the idea of proof and indicated why the concept of a god is unlikely. If I remember correctly, your most erudite response was something along the lines of : "Nice words; but only words nonetheless"


Go figure.

These proofs of the existence of God take the form of philosophical arguments:

1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
* Some things are moved.
* Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
* An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
* Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
* This mover is what we call God.

2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.

3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
* Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
* It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can't come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
* Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
* This being is what we call God.

4. The argument of degree (ex gradu).
* Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
* These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
* The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.

5. The argument of "design" (ex fine).
* All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
* These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
* To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
* Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
* This being we call God.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@KAG
Give us your proof that God does not exist, stop high-lighting imaginary flaws in our posts. Simple request, isn't it?

imhotep:

These proofs of the existence of God take the form of philosophical arguments:

See above.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@KAG
Give us your proof that God does not exist, stop high-lighting imaginary flaws in our posts. Simple request, isn't it?

Imaginary and mythological creatures can't be disproved. However, the probability for their existence can be shown to be very low, and the necessity for referring to something incapable of being evidenced can also be shown.

First, that no tangible evidence exists for the existence of gods, that they are always hidden behind the recesses in knowledge, and that for things with so many allocated properties they cannot be potentially tested or falsified in any way, indicates that gods, including the Christian one, are imaginary. To quote Anthony Flew, "Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive [god] differ from an imaginary [god] or even from no [god] at all?" [1]. Furthermore, since we can deduce the reasons for why humans may have needed to create gods, and strongly infer how the gods could have come into being as a result of human agents, we can further still see why the gods are imaginary

Secondly, god by its very definition is of a mythological nature. To ask that I prove that a god is mythological is to misunderstand what the terms imply. so, unless you have positive evidence you've been keeping secret, god belongs to mythology [2].

Finally, like I said on numerous occasions, science doesn't do proofs. Alcoholics who practise science may, but science doesn't. What can be shown though is the likelihood of something or the other. by the way, were you seriously asking me to use science to prove an unevidenced god is mythological?


____________________________________________________________ __________________________________

[1] Flew, Anthony, "Theology and Falsification", from: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/flew_falsification.html

[2] Meaning of mythology and its implications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

@KAG

KAG:


Imaginary and mythological creatures can't be disproved.

lets assume imhotep was imagining a God. credit to him, he has explained the concept of God within logical and intellectual concept, without any refrence to the bible.

this disproves ur belief of an imaginary God. your counter arguments are baseless and reflect an idle mind, that is bent on saying things for the pleasure of being lousy.

very unfortunate.

However, the probability for their existence can be shown to be very low, and the necessity for referring to something incapable of being evidenced can also be shown.

who assesed the existence of God and concluded that d possibility is low? u or who?
and whats the basis of ur belief that God is in incapable of being evidenced?

your opinion is a reflection of a beclouded mind, that has chosen to run to run away from realities, neccesities, spiritual awareness and consciousness which readily leads to the attainment of understanding.

the non-existence of God, has been unprovable over and over again cos the service of God has survived all generations(including pre-Christ). I wonder y the world is moving towards Him for directions in the name of several religions including islam and judaism?.

First, that no tangible evidence exists for the existence of gods,

gods dont exist, they are an invention of man. God exists, man is His creation.

for u to seek tangible or intangible evidence for His existetence or otherwise would amount to wishful thinking. I only hope u dont run out of His given grace cos like Jesus said "omo egbe oni se alayi segbe"

that they are always hidden behind the recesses in knowledge,

this is thesis, prove it.

and that for things with so many allocated properties they cannot be potentially tested or falsified in any way, indicates that gods, including the Christian one, are imaginary.

depends on where u read about this properties or qualities from. I can however vouch for the christian God. every inherent quality the scpture says he pocesses are provable.
if u follow the laws that abide with each of them, then u will get d desired reults.

e.g if u re sick or in need, it says ask and u shall be given. u must however ask in faith.
the scripture also defines faith as hoping for the things we want, the evidence of things not seen.
and many more examples.

To quote Anthony Flew, "Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive [god] differ from an imaginary [god] or even from no [god] at all?"

i deduce 2 things from this stsement.
1) this ideas are not urs. urs is a confused mind, that is continuosly influenced by jejunic facts butressed by your rather unfortunate intellectual inadequacies.
2) if these ideas are urs, then I guess u are one of the attention seekers, proliferating nairaland.
y? cos u should have read from the bible that the Xtian God, came in flesh, he wsa visible, tangible and real (un-imaginery). he ate, drank, walked, slept and shows the way to eternal life.

[1]. Furthermore, since we can deduce the reasons for why humans may have needed to create gods, and strongly infer how the gods could have come into being as a result of human agents, we can further still see why the gods are imaginary

if u refer to sango, ifa, obatala et al, then I agree with u.

Secondly, god by its very definition is of a mythological nature.

says who?

To ask that I prove that a god is mythological is to misunderstand what the terms imply. so, unless you have positive evidence you've been keeping secret, god belongs to mythology [2].

no. its the other way round.
God is real and existent. to expirience Him, follow the rules as stated in the bible.

you have to establish ur belief within logical limits, as to y u think God does not exist.

Finally, like I said on numerous occasions, science doesn't do proofs.

then science is stupid.
so i can say u are as good as a goat without proof.

does that readily mean u re a goat? since me too like science dont do proof.
stupid talk

Alcoholics who practise science may, but science doesn't.

exactly!
that explains y u re a goat.
I am not an alcoholic, so I have no prove.

What can be shown though is the likelihood of something or the other.

this is readily established in the bible, read to attain knowledge.

by the way, were you seriously asking me to use science to prove an unevidenced god is mythological?

no he wasnt.

he only asked u to prove the basis of ur statement that God is unevidenced and mythological

if u refer to sango, ifa, obatala et al, then I agree with u.

what makes them any different from the christian God. they all have been forced into our heads through cultural myths. christianity by the way was influenced by egyptian by greek paganism.

bawomolo:

christianity by the way was influenced by egyptian by greek paganism.

If you're still hellbent on circulating that idea after it has been thrashed, then a hearty welcome to your latecomer adventures!

These proofs of the existence of God take the form of philosophical arguments:

1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
* Some things are moved.
* Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
* An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
* Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
* This mover is what we call God.

2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.

3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
* Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
* It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can't come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
* Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
* This being is what we call God.

4. The argument of degree (ex gradu).
* Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
* These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
* The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.

5. The argument of "design" (ex fine).
* All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
* These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
* To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
* Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
* This being we call God.

Wonderful !

I hope they will know the truth from here also
]

bawomolo:

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/pagan.html

Yeah - thrashed as I said, and latercomer too!

Next!

abeg which of the gods sef?

noetic:

@KAG
lets assume imhotep was imagining a God. credit to him, he has explained the concept of God within logical and intellectual concept, without any refrence to the bible.

this disproves your belief of an imaginary God. your counter arguments are baseless and reflect an idle mind, that is bent on saying things for the pleasure of being lousy.

very unfortunate.

First, his arguments were based on false syllogims, made several incredible leaps, and on several occasions, begged the question ((see my first response in this thread).

Second, I don't where you got the idea that being able to create arguments for an allegedly imaginary concept means that the concept is then not imaginary, but it's wrong. Bertrand Russell's teacup argument is based on a imaginary concept: the teacup orbiting the sun doesn't automatically become real just because the argument can be articulated.

Finally, he didn't explain the concept of God.

who assesed the existence of God and concluded that d possibility is low? u or who?

I and other non-theists made that assessment. That is not to say some theists haven't drawn the same conclusion too.

and whats the basis of your belief that God is in incapable of being evidenced?

There's a reason religions plae great emphasis on faith. Furthemore, as at yet, no tangible evidence for the existence of any god hs been provided.

your opinion is a reflection of a beclouded mind, that has chosen to run to run away from realities, neccesities, spiritual awareness and consciousness which readily leads to the attainment of understanding.

Except it isn't.

the non-existence of God, has been unprovable over and over again because the service of God has survived all generations(including pre-Christ). I wonder y the world is moving towards Him for directions in the name of several religions including the great religion and judaism?.

Like I said, the existence of imaginary and mythological creatures can't be disproved. Religious beliefs that are amenable to communities draw people.

gods don't exist, they are an invention of man. God exists, man is His creation.

God (with a capital "g" is a subset of gods. Why do you presume that other gods are inventions of humans, but your god isn't?

for u to seek tangible or intangible evidence for His existetence or otherwise would amount to wishful thinking. I only hope u don't run out of His given grace because like Jesus said "omo egbe oni se alayi segbe"

Exactly!

this is thesis, prove it.

Zeus' fury was used to explain the occurence of lightening; Loki, the incidence of suffering and mishaps; and so on. In todays world, when something is as yet unknown by scientists, theists are forever quick to proclaim their god as the cause - except if it's some kind of infectious disease that isn't related to homosexuals, that is.

depends on where u read about this properties or qualities from. I can however vouch for the christian God. every inherent quality the scpture says he pocesses are provable.
if u follow the laws that abide with each of them, then u will get d desired reults.

e.g if u re sick or in need, it says ask and u shall be given. u must however ask in faith.
the scripture also defines faith as hoping for the things we want, the evidence of things not seen.
and many more examples.

The properties come from the different theists that seak for their gods. So, let me guess, those that are sick, ask and don't get given, are those without faith?

i deduce 2 things from this stsement.
1) this ideas are not urs. urs is a confused mind, that is continuosly influenced by jejunic facts butressed by your rather unfortunate intellectual inadequacies.
2) if these ideas are urs, then I guess u are one of the attention seekers, proliferating nairaland.
y? because u should have read from the bible that the Christian God, came in flesh, he wsa visible, tangible and real (un-imaginery). he ate, drank, walked, slept and shows the way to eternal life.

Um, Jesus wasn't a god. He was a man.

if u refer to sango, ifa, obatala et al, then I agree with u.

I meant all gods. Why do you agree about those ones?

says who?

Says the terms in use.

no. its the other way round.
God is real and existent. to expirience Him, follow the rules as stated in the bible.

you have to establish your belief within logical limits, as to y u think God does not exist.

I did.

then science is stupid.
so i can say u are as good as a goat without proof.

does that readily mean u re a goat? since me too like science don't do proof.
stupid talk

Wow! I'm really starting to reconsider my opinion on the type of people that are drawn to Christianity based solely on the discussions I've had with you guys in the past few days.

First, that's not a scientific statement, that's merely an utterance.

Second, modern science tries to avoid dogmatism, leaves room for falsifiability, and relies on evidence. The concept of "proof" doesn't follow that school of thought and is more appropriate to mathematics.

Finally, there's no need to use the scientifc method to show I'm not a goat because the terms you've used have very particular meanngs and implications; and those things adhere to certain modes of behaviour. However, using the scientific method can show to a ridiculously high degree that I'm not a goat.

exactly!
that explains y u re a goat.
I am not an alcoholic, so I have no prove.

poor joke?

this is readily established in the bible, read to attain knowledge.

Except it can't.

no he wasnt.

he only asked u to prove the basis of your statement that God is unevidenced and mythological

He was, but that bit is referrence to another thread.

KAG:
First, his arguments were based on false syllogims, made several incredible leaps, and on several occasions, begged the question ((see my first response in this thread).

Second, I don't where you got the idea that being able to create arguments for an allegedly imaginary concept means that the concept is then not imaginary, but it's wrong. Bertrand Russell's teacup argument is based on a imaginary concept: the teacup orbiting the sun doesn't automatically become real just because the argument can be articulated.

Finally, he didn't explain the concept of God.

@KAG

Thanks for all the (unscientific) dogmatic declarations. They are not convincing, and we don't have to take your word for it.

Now, give us a proof that God does not exist.

I don't know how many times I have asked this of you and bawomol. If you can analyse people's posts so well, you can provide a convincing proof. Hit the nail on the head.

KAG:

First, his arguments were based on false syllogims, made several incredible leaps, and on several occasions, begged the question ((see my first response in this thread).

I have re-read both your reply and his initial post. and I can only deduce what i initially connoted.

he has logically offered an explanation to the concept of the existence and supremacy of God.
what have u offered in return? u only kept beating about. u did not this-approve his claims, nor explained your belief about God`s non-existence. u only insisted God does not exist, yet asking for proof for His existence, when logic has been aapplied.
u create the impression of someone who has grudges against God. and the only way to relieve yourself is by denying His existence. if not, i wonder y u have given no tangible reason, fact or point to butress your claims.
what a waste of time

Second, I don't where you got the idea that being able to create arguments for an allegedly imaginary concept means that the concept is then not imaginary,

who is alleging He is imaginery? and whats the basis for this claim?. until u answer this, I think u are chasing shadows.

imhotep has proved within logical sense that God is real and not nihilant like u claim.
I have emphasised that there are procedures to communicate and expirience God, first hand.
just obey the rules.

but it's wrong. Bertrand Russell's teacup argument is based on a imaginary concept: the teacup orbiting the sun doesn't automatically become real just because the argument can be articulated.

thats russels` teacup argument.
imhoteps claim is based on logic to butress the reality of the existence and supremacy of God as emphasised in the scriptures.
the onus is on u to prove that this is imaginery.

Finally, he didn't explain the concept of God.

now u re contradicting yourself.
sounds like u have a pre-concieved idea of who God is. and thats why u keep using using the words imaginary and evidenced

so if he didnt explain the concept of God as u expected, maybe u can start from there to explain God better to us.
jibberish talk

I and other non-theists made that assessment.

clap for your self

if what u have said so far in this thread is the basis of such conclusion, then permit me to say that your union with this group of fellow theists is a union of purposeless backward thinking aimed at conclusions that are next to nonesense.

That is not to say some theists haven't drawn the same conclusion too.

exactly, arrant nonsense .

so also have there been non-theists who have discovered their folly and subsequently accepted Christ. _{of course they are of no relevance to u}

There's a reason religions plae great emphasis on faith.

and whats that reason?

Furthemore, as at yet, no tangible evidence for the existence of any god hs been provided.

this discussion will be purposeless if u don't define what tangible is?

are the events witnessed in the bible not enough evidences?
is your day to day life, not an evidence?
keep looking for whats not lost

Like I said, the existence of imaginary and mythological creatures can't be disproved.

if the imagination is done by u and for u, then u are right. because no one here is imagining except u.

Religious beliefs that are amenable to communities draw people.

whats your point?

God (with a capital "g" is a subset of gods.

first u don't believe there is a God or gods, now u say He is a subset. i think u re confused

Why do you presume that other gods are inventions of humans, but your god isn't?

of course they are, the baal and hinduism practiced by indians here in london is an evidence. the make objects and symbols and then worship them.

Zeus' fury was used to explain the occurence of lightening; Loki, the incidence of suffering and mishaps; and so on. In todays world, when something is as yet unknown by scientists, theists are forever quick to proclaim their god as the cause - except if it's some kind of infectious disease that isn't related to homosexuals, that is.

so whats your point?

So, let me guess, those that are sick, ask and don't get given, are those without faith?

yes, it is possibly due to their lack of faith and/or inactions on their part
no, there is a purpose for everything.

Um, Jesus wasn't a god. He was a man.

first u claim there is no God and that He is only a figment of man`s imagination, now u know so much about God that u can confidently assert that Jesus is not God.

u re a confused person with no basis for his lack of convictions. u can't even be consistent with your positions on this issues. what a sham

I meant all gods. Why do you agree about those ones?

because to me, they are like the hindus gods.

Wow! I'm really starting to reconsider my opinion on the type of people that are drawn to Christianity based solely on the discussions I've had with you guys in the past few days.

from what u have written so far, i believe u re not a consistent person (opinion wise). so u changing  your opinion on xtianity is no news.

First, that's not a scientific statement, that's merely an utterance.

says who?

scientifically, i deduce that your inability to logically counter imhotep`s claims about God are goat-like in nature. and so it is the baisis of my position that u are a goat.

Second, modern science tries to avoid dogmatism, leaves room for falsifiability, and relies on evidence.

what a contradiction. first u say science has no proof, now u say it relies on evidence.

I insist that urs is a confused mind

The concept of "proof" doesn't follow that school of thought and is more appropriate to mathematics.

says who?

how u can u common-sensically make a claim without providing proof.
and so because u think in your disputable wisdom, that science does no proof, we should take your claim that God does not exist.

this is the height of un-intelligence I have seen on nairaland.

Finally, there's no need to use the scientifc method to show I'm not a goat because the terms you've used have very particular meanngs and implications; and those things adhere to certain modes of behaviour.

u will c above why my claims are founded.

However, using the scientific method can show to a ridiculously high degree that I'm not a goat.

please use that scientific method and lets see.

imhotep:

@KAG

Thanks for all the (unscientific) dogmatic declarations.

Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word [dogmatic]. I do not think it means what you think it means."

They are not convincing, and we don't have to take your word for it.

Take my word for what

Now, give us a proof that God does not exist.

I don't know how many times I have asked this of you and bawomol. If you can analyse people's posts so well, you can provide a convincing proof. Hit the nail on the head.

"Imaginary and mythological creatures can't be disproved. However, the probability for their existence can be shown to be very low, and the necessity for referring to something incapable of being evidenced can also be shown."

KAG:
"Imaginary and mythological creatures can't be disproved. However, the probability for their existence can be shown to be very low, and the necessity for referring to something incapable of being evidenced can also be shown.

Ok. Now show us something that will convince us that the probability for the existence of God is very low.

noetic:

I have re-read both your reply and his initial post. and I can only deduce what i initially connoted.

he has logically offered an explanation to the concept of the existence and supremacy of God.
what have u offered in return? u only kept beating about. u did not this-approve his claims, nor explained your belief about God`s non-existence. u only insisted God does not exist, yet asking for proof for His existence, when logic has been aapplied.

I'm pretty sure I did more than that. Apart from the post to which you responded, I also wrote a rebuttal to the op in this post.

u create the impression of someone who has grudges against God.

I don't hold grudges against the non-existent.

and the only way to relieve yourself is by denying His existence.

Actually, I'm pretty partial towards the existence of gods, particularly the Christian one. It's pity She (the Christian God) doesn't exist, that would have been swell.

if not, i wonder y u have given no tangible reason, fact or point to butress your claims.
what a waste of time

I did.

who is alleging He is imaginery? and whats the basis for this claim?. until u answer this, I think u are chasing shadows.

You mean apart from those who point to the distinct lack of positive evidence, the disparate conceptions of gods, and the contradictions contained in those conceptions?

imhotep has proved within logical sense that God is real and not nihilant like u claim.

Actually, he didn't.

I have emphasised that there are procedures to communicate and expirience God, first hand.
just obey the rules.

What are those procedures, and what the rules?

thats russels` teacup argument.

Yes, what about Russell's teacup argument?

imhoteps claim is based on logic to butress the reality of the existence and supremacy of God as emphasised in the scriptures.

No, Imhotep's arguments weren't to buttress the reality or existence of the Christian God, they were to present - using several false syllogisms - the existence of a generic ontological entity he simply slapped the term "God" upon.

the onus is on u to prove that this is imaginery.

If there's a god that exists, then something will prevent me from being able to post this response.

now u re contradicting yourself.
sounds like u have a pre-concieved idea of who God is. and thats why u keep using using the words imaginary and evidenced

No, I wasn't contradicting myself. Also, to some extent I do have a conception of the connotations of the term God. That's generally irrelevant though.

so if he didnt explain the concept of God as u expected, maybe u can start from there to explain God better to us.
jibberish talk

He didn't explain it at all. The term "God" is used to represent a non-existent entity.

clap for your self

if what u have said so far in this thread is the basis of such conclusion, then permit me to say that your union with this group of fellow theists is a union of purposeless backward thinking aimed at conclusions that are next to nonesense.exactly, arrant nonsense .

Except it isn't.

so also have there been non-theists who have discovered their folly and subsequently accepted Christ. _{of course they are of no relevance to u}

So, there have been theists, including Christians, who have discovered their folly and subsequently accepted no gods exist. _{Are they of relevance to you?}

There's a reason religions place great emphasis on faith

and whats that reason?

Lack of evidence.

this discussion will be purposeless if u don't define what tangible is?

Tangible would be something that's not only capable of being empirically verified and ascribed to a particular source without ambiguity, but also potentially falsifiable.

are the events witnessed in the bible not enough evidences?

How?

is your day to day life, not an evidence?
keep looking for whats not lost

No.

if the imagination is done by u and for u, then u are right. because no one here is imagining except u.

I wasn't the one that dreamt up the bulk of the mythological figures

whats your point?

That Religious beliefs that are amenable to communities are attractive.

first u don't believe there is a God or gods, now u say He is a subset. i think u re confused

Do you know what a subset means? I ask because it seems you're mistaking the appropriation of terms with belief in the existence of what the terms describe.

of course they are, the baal and hinduism practiced by indians here in london is an evidence. the make objects and symbols and then worship them.

And I ask again, why do you presume their gods are human inventions but yours isn't?

Zeus' fury was used to explain the occurence of lightening; Loki, the incidence of suffering and mishaps; and so on. In todays world, when something is as yet unknown by scientists, theists are forever quick to proclaim their god as the cause - except if it's some kind of infectious disease that isn't related to homosexuals, that is.

so whats your point?

That the fortress of the gods is within the cracks in knowledge.

yes, it is possibly due to their lack of faith and/or inactions on their part
no, there is a purpose for everything.

Which is it?

first u claim there is no God and that He is only a figment of man`s imagination, now u know so much about God that u can confidently assert that Jesus is not God.

Um, it's simple logic. No gods exist, Jesus was a man that lived and died, therefore, Jesus wasn't a god. I could go further, but you get the point - hopefully.

u re a confused person with no basis for his lack of convictions. u can't even be consistent with your positions on this issues. what a sham

That, or you are incapable of following simple concepts. Like, you know, whatever.

because to me, they are like the hindus gods.

Why and how?

from what u have written so far, i believe u re not a consistent person (opinion wise). so u changing your opinion on xtianity is no news.says who?

Lol. It is the foolish man that is incapable of change, especially when the evidence compels such a change. In the past few days of debating Christins on this forum, including you, let's just say I don't have a lofty view of the majority anymore.

scientifically, i deduce that your inability to logically counter imhotep`s claims about God are goat-like in nature. and so it is the baisis of my position that u are a goat.

You probably missed my first post in this thread. By the way, you making a very fundamental linguistic mistake: goat-like is not the same thing as goat. One describes a behaviour akin to a stereotypical view attached to a particular animal; the other is the actual animal. The two aren't synonymous. So, your claim falls on two fronts.

what a contradiction. first u say science has no proof, now u say it relies on evidence.

Evidence is not the same thing as proof.

I insist that urs is a confused mind

No.

says who?

Says the definition of the term.

how u can u common-sensically make a claim without providing proof.
and so because u think in your disputable wisdom, that science does no proof, we should take your claim that God does not exist.

By providing evidence. Not quite.

this is the height of un-intelligence I have seen on nairaland.
u will c above why my claims are founded.
please use that scientific method and lets see.

First, from an analytical statement perspective, the term "goat" refers to a particular type of animal, and since humans are a different, distinct type of animal, then it can be concluded that I'm not a goat.

Empirical: All available evidence show that goats don't have the brain capacity to: think critically, use language, nor operate a computer, so it stands that I can't be a goat since I'm in fact doing all those things. There are other avenues, but those will have to do for now.

I'll check back in a few days to address any concerns, if there are any.

imhotep:

Ok. Now show us something that will convince us that the probability for the existence of God is very low.

I already sort of did. You reply was "Nice words. But just words nonetheless" or something like that. That discouraged any further need to address the point.

I have retrived your earlier post. Now let me analyze it:

KAG:
First, that no tangible evidence exists for the existence of gods, that they are always hidden behind the recesses in knowledge, and that for things with so many allocated properties they cannot be potentially tested or falsified in any way, indicates that gods, including the Christian one, are imaginary. To quote Anthony Flew, "Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive [god] differ from an imaginary [god] or even from no [god] at all?" [1]. Furthermore, since we can deduce the reasons for why humans may have needed to create gods, and strongly infer how the gods could have come into being as a result of human agents, we can further still see why the gods are imaginary

Is there any tangible evidence for the non-existence of gods/spirits

KAG:
Secondly, god by its very definition is of a mythological nature. To ask that I prove that a god is mythological is to misunderstand what the terms imply. so, unless you have positive evidence you've been keeping secret, god belongs to mythology [2].

Mythology refers to a body of myths/stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity.
None of the scholarly definitions of "myth" imply that myths are necessarily false. In a scholarly context, the word "myth" may mean "sacred story", "traditional story", or "story about gods", but it does not mean "false story". Therefore, scholars may speak of "religious mythology" without meaning to insult religion

KAG:
Finally, like I said on numerous occasions, science doesn't do proofs. Alcoholics who practise science may, but science doesn't. What can be shown though is the likelihood of something or the other. by the way, were you seriously asking me to use science to prove an unevidenced god is mythological?

Science is based on causality, experimentation and observation. The observed fact is the supreme arbiter in science. That is why I am challenging scientific atheists to PROVE (scientifically) that God does not exist.

By the way, the five proofs I posted are in summarized form.

The expanded document can be found here -> http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

imhotep:

I have retrived your earlier post. Now let me analyze it:

First, that no tangible evidence exists for the existence of gods, that they are always hidden behind the recesses in knowledge, and that for things with so many allocated properties they cannot be potentially tested or falsified in any way, indicates that gods, including the Christian one, are imaginary. To quote Anthony Flew, "Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive [god] differ from an imaginary [god] or even from no [god] at all?" [1]. Furthermore, since we can deduce the reasons for why humans may have needed to create gods, and strongly infer how the gods could have come into being as a result of human agents, we can further still see why the gods are imaginary

Is there any tangible evidence for the non-existence of gods/spirits

I have to admit I'm stumped: I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the question. I don't know what to say. I'm tempted to just advice you to read what you wrote very slowly until it hits you, but, I don't know. I said "no tangible evidence exists for the existence of gods." Why would you even ask that after my statement?

Mythology refers to a body of myths/stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity.
None of the scholarly definitions of "myth" imply that myths are necessarily false. In a scholarly context, the word "myth" may mean "sacred story", "traditional story", or "story about gods", but it does not mean "false story". Therefore, scholars may speak of "religious mythology" without meaning to insult religion

Um, yeah, I know, that's why I said gods belong in mythology.

Science is based on causality, experimentation and observation. The observed fact is the supreme arbiter in science. That is why I am challenging scientific atheists to PROVE (scientifically) that God does not exist.

Science doesn't do proofs. Mythological beings are outside the scope of the scientific method because they can't be empirically observed or tested, nor is there any way to falsify them.

KAG:
Mythological beings are outside the scope of the scientific method because they can't be empirically observed or tested, nor is there any way to falsify them.

Do you now see why science should make no categorical statements about God

imhotep:

Do you now see why science should make no categorical statements about God

It doesn't.

KAG:
However, the probability for their existence can be shown to be very low, and the necessity for referring to something incapable of being evidenced can also be shown.

But you earlier claimed to be able to show that the probability of the existence of mythological beings (God inclusive) is very low.

Did you not intend to SHOW this using the scientific method of experimentation and observation

imhotep:

But you earlier claimed to be able to show that the probability of the existence of mythological beings (God inclusive) is very low.

Did you not intend to SHOW this using the scientific method of experimentation and observation

Amongst other things, yes. Why?