My God proof challenge, it's concise

[magicalpants]

...But it was slightly too long for the Subject/Title

What is determinably and/or demonstrably different than if god did not exist :?:

I don't know about you, but I love this question. If possible how could I improve it? While I like it as is, I think it may confuse people... :? perhaps an explanation would be most helpful, a way to expand what this question is asking.

 

[lrkun]

...But it was slightly too long for the Subject/Title

What is determinably and/or demonstrably different than if god did not exist :?:

I don't know about you, but I love this question. If possible how could I improve it? While I like it as is, I think it may confuse people... :? perhaps an explanation would be most helpful, a way to expand what this question is asking.

Doesn't make sense. Just do the converse: What difference can be determined or demonstrated if a god existed?

Anyway, if you plan to use that question state is this way: "What difference can be determined or demonstrated if a god did not exist?"

 

[magicalpants]

Doesn't make sense. Just do the converse: What difference can be determined or demonstrated if a god existed?

Anyway, if you plan to use that question state is this way: "What difference can be determined or demonstrated if a god did not exist?"

It doesn't make sense to you? I guess it is a tad confusing, even I'm getting confused upon rereading it. I think I'll say something like: If god did not exist, what would be different that could be determined and/or demonstrated than if god does exist? Possibly making a reference to a parallel universe exactly the same as ours, detail for detail, except we know that said parallel universe was not created by any god or intelligent agent.

 

[lrkun]

Doesn't make sense. Just do the converse: What difference can be determined or demonstrated if a god existed?

Anyway, if you plan to use that question state is this way: "What difference can be determined or demonstrated if a god did not exist?"

It doesn't make sense to you? I guess it is a tad confusing, even I'm getting confused upon rereading it. I think I'll say something like: If god did not exist, what would be different that could be determined and/or demonstrated than if god does exist? Possibly making a reference to a parallel universe exactly the same as ours, detail for detail, except we know that said parallel universe was not created by any god or intelligent agent.

Nothing will be different. This is my answer to your question. If a god exists or didn't exist or will exist in the future, nothing will be different.

Why? Because we don't have a basis for the existence of such a god, but even though, the universe still exists.
[showmoremsg msg=arguments_Counter-arguments]Matrix argument/solipsism (counter)

This is water (counter argument)

Choice (counter)

Compulsion (counter)

Factors argument

Proof (counter)

Bible

Myth (counter)

Cycle begins again.[/showmoremsg]

-oOo-

Commentary

Well, the god factor is not necessary. You can make this conclusion if you apply occam's razor. Wherein we know that the universe exists, however we don't know if a god exists or existed or will come to exist. (groundless allegation)

So, if you base the existence of the universe on something without basis, then you'll find problems with respect to correlating the two. I mean to say is, you have to prove the existence of god before you can correlate it to an existing universe.

In things like this, I can say, the universe exists because konokan made it happen. It's not a less valid hypothesis than any god as claimed by their prophets.

Well, in the light of all these things, the challenge is not concise. It is broad. A concise query or quaero talks about one issue.

 

[magicalpants]

Nothing will be different. This is my answer to your question. If a god exists or didn't exist or will exist in the future, nothing will be different.

Why? Because we don't have a basis for the existence of such a god, but even though, the universe still exists.
[showmoremsg msg=arguments_Counter-arguments]Matrix argument/solipsism (counter)

This is water (counter argument)

Choice (counter)

Compulsion (counter)

Factors argument

Proof (counter)

Bible

Myth (counter)

Cycle begins again.[/showmoremsg]

-oOo-

Commentary

Well, the god factor is not necessary. You can make this conclusion if you apply occam's razor. Wherein we know that the universe exists, however we don't know if a god exists or existed or will come to exist. (groundless allegation)

So, if you base the existence of the universe on something without basis, then you'll find problems with respect to correlating the two. I mean to say is, you have to prove the existence of god before you can correlate it to an existing universe.

In things like this, I can say, the universe exists because konokan made it happen. It's not a less valid hypothesis than any god as claimed by their prophets.

Well, in the light of all these things, the challenge is not concise. It is broad. A concise query or quaero talks about one issue.

Concise is in reference to expressing the challenge, not in enacting it. The whole point is to show that there isn't anything that does not have a logical, reasonable, rational, explanation short of invoking god. The answer, nothing would be different, is beneficial to the argument which can lead to further questioning which would establish that the entirety of their belief is faith, and at that very blind faith. And you might have an idea where that leads.

 

[lrkun]

Concise is in reference to expressing the challenge, not in enacting it.

I see. If you purposely want to state it that way, then it will make understanding the question more difficult.

The whole point is to show that there isn't anything that does not have a logical, reasonable, rational, explanation short of invoking god.

My understanding of what you're trying to say is that everything has a reasonable explanation except god. Am I correct with understanding your meaning?

 

[monitoradiation]

i happen to think concise should go alongside with coherence. I have no idea what you just said, OP.

 

[magicalpants]

My understanding of what you're trying to say is that everything has a reasonable explanation except god. Am I correct with understanding your meaning?

That's a reasonable inference, it was more or less to point out that there is nothing that required god to explain it.

i happen to think concise should go alongside with coherence. I have no idea what you just said, OP.

Fair enough, coherence or clarity is part of concise. My original wording was confusing, but I don't see what's wrong with:
If god did not exist, what would be different that could be determined and/or demonstrated than if god does exist?

Maybe I'm crazy but there are a few things some theists would think of, and by their own reassessment or some explanation from who gave the question in the first place, would realize are completely explainable. Short of giving a hypothetical I think it helps take a conversation in a favorable direction.

 

[monitoradiation]

If god did not exist, what would be different that could be determined and/or demonstrated than if god does exist?

You may as well just ask:

"What would the world be like if there were no god?"

 

[kenandkids]

If god did not exist, what would be different that could be determined and/or demonstrated than if god does exist?

You may as well just ask:

"What would the world be like if there were no god?"

I, personally, wonder what the world would look like were there a god...

 

[lrkun]

If god did not exist, what would be different that could be determined and/or demonstrated than if god does exist?

You may as well just ask:

"What would the world be like if there were no god?"

It'll remain the way it is, however it constantly changes, just as you can observe.

I, personally, wonder what the world would look like were there a god...

If you have read the old testament of the bible, we can hypothesize that it might be like that.

 

[kenandkids]

If you have read the old testament of the bible, we can hypothesize that it might be like that.

On the contrary, I think that would be how it would appear were there many gods. Often the ot god is proclaiming himself to be the best of the group and needed to be held as #1. Add to this the fact that he only represented a minute fraction of people, and I just can't buy it.
If there were a god, the world would be far more homogeneous and there would be only negligible disagreements among humans. It seems logical that something worth the job title would hold people accountable or even just not allow people to misbehave. imo anyhow.

 

[lrkun]

If you have read the old testament of the bible, we can hypothesize that it might be like that.

On the contrary, I think that would be how it would appear were there many gods. Often the ot god is proclaiming himself to be the best of the group and needed to be held as #1. Add to this the fact that he only represented a minute fraction of people, and I just can't buy it.
If there were a god, the world would be far more homogeneous and there would be only negligible disagreements among humans. It seems logical that something worth the job title would hold people accountable or even just not allow people to misbehave. imo anyhow.

Hmmm, it may be like that, however, it's only hypothetical. Another alternative would be like the greek stories. Ex. the hercules. However, I might be bias to the epic of gilgamesh.

 

[magicalpants]

Maybe I'm a bit naive with regards to talking to creationists but I think they might believe that they have an answer or response that isn't an admittal that there is nothing that requires the invocation of god as an explanation, solution, or what have you.

 

[lrkun]

Maybe I'm a bit naive with regards to talking to creationists but I think they might believe that they have an answer or response that isn't an admittal that there is nothing that requires the invocation of god as an explanation, solution, or what have you.

True, because they don't really provide concise facts, instead they give you a word, which has no equivalent in this reality. They sell nothing, but people still buy. As mary says, I'm a nun, I've learned from the biggest trickster there is, Jesus.

 

[magicalpants]

Maybe I'm a bit naive with regards to talking to creationists but I think they might believe that they have an answer or response that isn't an admittal that there is nothing that requires the invocation of god as an explanation, solution, or what have you.

True, because they don't really provide concise facts, instead they give you a word, which has no equivalent in this reality. They sell nothing, but people still buy. As mary says, I'm a nun, I've learned from the biggest trickster there is, Jesus.

I wish believers would actually define what they believe, including what faith is. I think it's the first step to realize the basis of their beliefs are a practice of thinly veiled mysticism; faith.

 

[lrkun]

I wish believers would actually define what they believe, including what faith is. I think it's the first step to realize the basis of their beliefs are a practice of thinly veiled mysticism; faith.

Let's move one step higher than definition. They should demonstrate/illustrate what faith is. Words don't really mean anything, unless it has an equivalent in perceivable reality or the world we live in.

Ex. Yellow Labrador Retriever

Faith?

I can't imagine what it is, because I have yet to sense it. Hehe. >.<

 

[magicalpants]

I wish believers would actually define what they believe, including what faith is. I think it's the first step to realize the basis of their beliefs are a practice of thinly veiled mysticism; faith.

Let's move one step higher than definition. They should demonstrate/illustrate what faith is. Words don't really mean anything, unless it has an equivalent in perceivable reality or the world we live in.

Ex. Yellow Labrador Retriever

Faith?

I can't imagine what it is, because I have yet to sense it. Hehe. >.<

I doubt they would have a favorable response to that though.

 

[lrkun]

I doubt they would have a favorable response to that though.

Correct. On the otherhand, atleast they can try. It'd be made clear rather than not yes?

 

[magicalpants]

I doubt they would have a favorable response to that though.

Correct. On the otherhand, atleast they can try. It'd be made clear rather than not yes?

I don't know. I should probably respond tomorrow because the sedating medications are kicking in and I'm only half paying attention because I'm listening to non-stamp collector videos but...I think the only way to move this forward might be to actually try these things out to see which work better or at all for that matter.