New Here

[impiku]

There are many negatives which can be proven. I can prove that there are no two integers a and b such that a/b is the square root of two, for example.

It is possible to prove a negative. The claim that you cannot prove a negative is a myth propagated by hardcore empiricists.

While I acknowledge that you technically cannot absolutely, totally disprove god, I also recognize that one cannot absolutely, totally prove ANYTHING outside of so-called "analytic" truths like mathematics and formal logic.

I'm not sure if this is consistent. If God possesses such characterists that come into conflict, via analytic reason a priori you could prove that God cannot exist by showing that the notion of God violates the fundamental laws of logic, like any matter in mathematics and formal logic. The reason why one cannot begin to demonstrate logically the nonexistence of God is because theists are unable to define it, which only undermines their faith. In principle, it is possible to prove that God does not exist, but there are propositions that should be substantiated first.

 

[unhealthytruthseeker]

I'm not sure if this is consistent. If God possesses such characterists that come into conflict, via analytic reason a priori you could prove that God cannot exist by showing that the notion of God violates the fundamental laws of logic, like any matter in mathematics and formal logic. The reason why one cannot begin to demonstrate logically the nonexistence of God is because theists are unable to define it, which only undermines their faith. In principle, it is possible to prove that God does not exist, but there are propositions that should be substantiated first.

Usually more sophisticated theologians, when forced to define god, give him definitions which are at least logically self-consistent and, if you're REALLY lucky, metaphysically coherent, though the latter is rare.

 

[impiku]

Usually more sophisticated theologians, when forced to define god, give him definitions which are at least logically self-consistent and, if you're REALLY lucky, metaphysically coherent, though the latter is rare.

Such as?

 

[unhealthytruthseeker]

Such as?

God is the maximally powerful conscious being that created the universe in its present form. Calling him maximally powerful rather than all-powerful short-circuits the omnipotence paradox. "Maximally powerful" means "having the most power possible" rather than "being able to do anything."

Sure, it's still ridiculous and we have no reason to believe it, but it's at least ostensibly free from internal contradiction.

 

[impiku]

Never heard of that definition. Can you name the theologian?

 

[unhealthytruthseeker]

Never heard of that definition. Can you name the theologian?

I believe either Augustine or Aquinas actually redefined omnipotence to be "maximal possible power" instead of "able to do anything at all."

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Welcome aboard. Please don't kick the critters.......

Well, then it's not omnipotence is it?

It's starting to look like that the 'laws of physics' limit the omnipotence? Or am I incorrect in making that assumption?

 

[Andiferous]

If you can prove it, it's yours. If not, it never was meant to be.

 

[unhealthytruthseeker]

If you can prove it, it's yours. If not, it never was meant to be.

If I can prove what?

 

[Thomas Doubting]

There are many negatives which can be proven. I can prove that there are no two integers a and b such that a/b is the square root of two, for example.

It is possible to prove a negative. The claim that you cannot prove a negative is a myth propagated by hardcore empiricists.

While I acknowledge that you technically cannot absolutely, totally disprove god, I also recognize that one cannot absolutely, totally prove ANYTHING outside of so-called "analytic" truths like mathematics and formal logic.

I'm not sure if this is consistent. If God possesses such characterists that come into conflict, via analytic reason a priori you could prove that God cannot exist by showing that the notion of God violates the fundamental laws of logic, like any matter in mathematics and formal logic. The reason why one cannot begin to demonstrate logically the nonexistence of God is because theists are unable to define it, which only undermines their faith. In principle, it is possible to prove that God does not exist, but there are propositions that should be substantiated first.

Unfortunately, "Faithâ„¢" doesn't require any logic, nor truth, actually "Faithâ„¢" is vehemently defending your belief system against truth. Which is also a reason why some millenia old books full of crap are still taken as the "Ultimate Truth,®" even though if you get 2 contradicting things as "truth" it should be logical that one of them is not true, but then again the "truth in reality" is not the same like the "Ultimate Truth,®" and "Faithâ„¢" only backs up and allows "Ultimate Truth,®" by making you stretch and twist and ignore "truth in reality" as much as needed to not exclude the "Ultimate Truth,®".

In short, you can't PROVE a negative to somebody who won't let you prove it.