God proof unnecessary.

[Fairy]

Because God exists as an absolute all proofs of God must fail.

Relative limited proof claims about the absolute are absurd.

Existence is without doubt or error. Existence is God.

[Greatest I am]

Because God exists as an absolute all proofs of God must fail.

Relative limited proof claims about the absolute are absurd.

Existence is without doubt or error. Existence is God.

The Bible is clear that God is unknowable, unfathomable and works mysteriously.

How can you say anything real and true about any God, when we cannot even define words the same way.

If a God says he loves, it is not love defined as we would define it, given examples of a good God using genocide and evil.

If you find a God, shoot it.

[Fairy]

Because God exists as an absolute all proofs of God must fail.

Relative limited proof claims about the absolute are absurd.

Existence is without doubt or error. Existence is God.

The Bible is clear that God is unknowable, unfathomable and works mysteriously.

How can you say anything real and true about any God, when we cannot even define words the same way.

If a God says he loves, it is not love defined as we would define it, given examples of a good God using genocide and evil.

If you find a God, shoot it.

I agree.

These words are the unknowable known in this conception ( the dream )

[godelian]

Because God exists as an absolute all proofs of God must fail.
Relative limited proof claims about the absolute are absurd.
Existence is without doubt or error. Existence is God.

It is the definition itself of "proof" that gives the answer. Take for example the following statement:

PA ⊢1+1=2

Proof is always deductive. Inductive proof does not exist. The statement says: From Peano arithmetic (PA) the statement "1+1=2" is provable. You always "prove from". PA is a set of system-wide basic beliefs from which you can prove statements about natural numbers. PA itself cannot be proven. Concerning "God exists":

T ⊢God exists

What exactly is T supposed to be? What collection of system-wide basic beliefs or premises are we supposed to prove "God exists" from? This question to prove that "God exists", is typically asked by people who do not want to accept it as a basic belief. They want proof. Fine, but even if we find a T from which to prove that "God exists", we still won't have proof for T itself. At that point, they will ask proof for T. Already 2500 years ago, Aristotle pointed out that in a deductive proof system, you will always end up with basic beliefs:

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

Identifying the alternatives as either circular reasoning or infinite regress, and thus exhibiting the regress problem, Aristotle made foundationalism his own clear choice, positing basic beliefs underpinning others.

So, the answer to the request for proof that "God exists", is a simple question: Proof from what premises exactly?

[Fairy]

Because God exists as an absolute all proofs of God must fail.
Relative limited proof claims about the absolute are absurd.
Existence is without doubt or error. Existence is God.

It is the definition itself of "proof" that gives the answer. Take for example the following statement:

PA ⊢1+1=2

Proof is always deductive. Inductive proof does not exist. The statement says: From Peano arithmetic (PA) the statement "1+1=2" is provable. You always "prove from". PA is a set of system-wide basic beliefs from which you can prove statements about natural numbers. PA itself cannot be proven. Concerning "God exists":

T ⊢God exists

What exactly is T supposed to be? What collection of system-wide basic beliefs or premises are we supposed to prove "God exists" from? This question to prove that "God exists", is typically asked by people who do not want to accept it as a basic belief. They want proof. Fine, but even if we find a T from which to prove that "God exists", we still won't have proof for T itself. At that point, they will ask proof for T. Already 2500 years ago, Aristotle pointed out that in a deductive proof system, you will always end up with basic beliefs:

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

Identifying the alternatives as either circular reasoning or infinite regress, and thus exhibiting the regress problem, Aristotle made foundationalism his own clear choice, positing basic beliefs underpinning others.

So, the answer to the request for proof that "God exists", is a simple question: Proof from what premises exactly?

I don’t understand any of that. You’d be better off running all that by ChatGPT

[godelian]

I don’t understand any of that.

Well, I guess that that is normal. I think that most people do not understand the answer to the question "Can you prove that God exists?". The answer cannot "yes" or "no", because the question is incomplete.

[Fairy]

I don’t understand any of that.

Well, I guess that that is normal. I think that most people do not understand the answer to the question "Can you prove that God exists?". The answer cannot "yes" or "no", because the question is incomplete.

I just believe God is another word for infinite existing life.

It’s fuzzy because a human being didn’t make it all happen, but it’s definitely happening and there’s no one around to know how it got off it’s own starting block, except speculation and endless changing theories. Ultimately it’s unknowable.

[Greatest I am]

The major dividing point to beliefs in God is the belief in the supernatural and or magic.

The natural Gods are less genocidal and cruel than the supernatural ones.

I guess that there is truth in the term, God is War.

[godelian]

The major dividing point to beliefs in God is the belief in the supernatural and or magic.

No, the dividing point is rather a lot of confusion about how deductive logic works.

Unbelievers ask the believers to deduce the existence of God.

The believers are certainly willing to do that, but ask in return from what premises exactly? What premises are unbelievers willing to accept? The answer is: none. Without premises, however, deductive logic is not even possible.

Hence, it is essentially an argument about deductive logic. Atheists want deduction without premises, which is simply not possible.

Atheists sometimes argue that if deduction is not possible, then we should simply switch to induction. However, induction never yields proof. Induction is never irrefutable. So, that is not a solution either.

Deductive logic requires a foundation of basic beliefs but atheists are not willing to accept that it does. Ultimately, it is a disagreement about logic itself.

[attofishpi]

The major dividing point to beliefs in God is the belief in the supernatural and or magic.

No, the dividing point is rather a lot of confusion about how deductive logic works.

Unbelievers ask the believers to deduce the existence of God.

The believers are certainly willing to do that, but ask in return from what premises exactly? What premises are unbelievers willing to accept? The answer is: none. Without premises, however, deductive logic is not even possible.

Nonsense.

The unbeliever permits the premise of the believer: Allah does exist.

You believe in that premise, the unbeliever then asks: Provide evidence that supports your belief.

Where's your evidence?

[godelian]

You believe in that premise, the unbeliever then asks: Provide evidence that supports your belief.

Where's your evidence?

Inductive evidence? That is never irrefutable proof. Hence, that would be pointless.

Deductive evidence. Fine, but what premises do you accept deductive evidence from?

You see, the following claim is provable:

PA ⊢ 1+1=2

premises ⊢ claim

However, the PA premise itself is not provable from anything. If you reject PA itself, then the proof is no longer valid.

So, what premise T does the unbeliever accept as such that:

T ⊢ God exists

It is the unbeliever who must clarify what T he accepts. It would be pointless for the believer to prove the claim from any other T because in that case the unbeliever could simply reject T itself.

The unbeliever, however, never proposes a T that he would accept.

[Fairy]

This NOTKNOWING KNOWN


The phrase "no one knows what they are, not even God" expresses a concept of ultimate unknowability, suggesting that even the highest being might not fully comprehend the nature of certain entities or events. This idea can be interpreted through different lenses, including the limited nature of human understanding, the mystery surrounding divine knowledge, and the concept of the unknowable in the face of creation or the ultimate reality.
Elaboration:
Limited Human Knowledge:
The statement highlights the limitations of human understanding and our inability to grasp the complete nature of things. Even with advanced knowledge and understanding, we may still find ourselves in a state of "not knowing" certain aspects of the universe or existence.
The Unknowable Nature of the Divine:
The phrase suggests that even God, as the ultimate being, may not possess complete knowledge of certain aspects of the universe or the nature of creation. This aligns with philosophical and theological concepts where the divine is beyond full comprehension.
Mysteries of Creation:
The idea that "no one knows" can also refer to the inherent mysteries of creation and the universe. There may be aspects of existence that are inherently unknowable, even to those who possess vast knowledge and wisdom.
Philosophical Interpretations:
In philosophy, this statement can be interpreted as a reflection on the nature of knowledge and the limits of human understanding. It suggests that there are certain things that may remain beyond our grasp, regardless of our intellectual capabilities.
Religious Interpretations:
In religious contexts, this phrase can be seen as a statement of God's transcendence and the mystery of the divine. It suggests that God is not completely knowable or understandable, even by beings like angels or the Son.
The Importance of Faith:
The idea of "no one knowing" can also be seen as a call for faith and trust in the face of the unknown. It suggests that we must embrace the uncertainties of existence and trust in the ultimate power or reality that is beyond our grasp.

[Fairy]

Existence is without doubt or error.

Existence is ABSOLUTE

Thinking you can know WHAT or HOW existence is, will simply drive you nuts. Better just to be still, silent, and trust only in the power that is life living you, and to realise there is no you living life. It’s always the other way around.

I trust only in God. I don’t know who or what GOD IS, but I trust it

[attofishpi]

You believe in that premise, the unbeliever then asks: Provide evidence that supports your belief.

Where's your evidence?

Inductive evidence? That is never irrefutable proof. Hence, that would be pointless.

Deductive evidence. Fine, but what premises do you accept deductive evidence from?

A nonbeliever will accept "Allah exists." as your premise.

The truth of the premise established beyond a reasonable doubt based on deductive reasoning of evidence provided, should be acceptable to the nonbeliever(s).

The unbeliever, however, never proposes a T that he would accept.

I disagree per my above statement. The nonbeliever would be left with no doubt, thus would now be a believer.

[godelian]

The truth of the premise established beyond a reasonable doubt

The truth of a basic belief cannot be established. It can only be assumed.