God proof unnecessary.

[attofishpi]

The truth of the premise established beyond a reasonable doubt

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

As an aside. Why do you believe that Allah exists AND that the contents of the Quran are entirely its words?

[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.

As an aside. Why do you believe that Allah exists AND that the contents of the Quran are entirely its words?

This is exactly the problem with basic beliefs. There is no deductive justification.

It amounts to asking why I believe that the number zero exists, or why I believe that there is always a next number after the previous one.

You either accept or reject basic beliefs. There is nothing more to do than that.

[attofishpi]

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

As an aside. Why do you believe that Allah exists AND that the contents of the Quran are entirely its words?

This is exactly the problem with basic beliefs. There is no deductive justification.

You must have some conscious or subconscious deductive justification to believe something.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Do any of these guys say anything worth discussing?

[attofishpi]

Do either of these guys say anything worth discussing?

Says perhaps THE most boring person on the forum.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Can't hear you mate. Won't. Someone else needs to quote you.

God proof is impossible until He does it. Which would open up the biggest can of worms possible.

It would mean He changed. Or that we had sufficiently as a technical and philosophical civilization for Him to be able to prove Himself. Which further begs the question why? What about us stopped Him until whenever? He could have proved Himself any time He liked. No trace. Not in the grandiose Jesus story let alone any lesser story.

But let's posit a best case God, transcendent intentional Love as the ground of infinite eternal being. Who just waits for us to die, without a trace. And don't give us that freewill garbage. We are Heaven's breeding ground. Its maggots.

[godelian]

You must have some conscious or subconscious deductive justification to believe something.

Possibly, but there is no justification for basic beliefs within the system that they construct.

[Fairy]

Do any of these guys say anything worth discussing?

Nope.

God is found only within the one true genuine seeker. The seeker is the finder, and is why God split into two, to separate only for the thrill of coming together again.

There’s no God to be found in arguing over God. Discussing who or what God is with others is a waste of time and energy, it is futility.

This is why we should adhere to the principle of stillness, to quiet, to be still and know I am God.

God is existence, absolute reality. The knowledge of God is an artificial representation of God. Not actual God as God is presented.

That’s all there is to say about God. All we can do is leave breadcrumbs of this truth, that’s already within all of us. We’re just all walking each other home back to the beloved.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

What you say?

[Fairy]

Do either of these guys say anything worth discussing?

Says perhaps THE most boring person on the forum.

Wrong. It’s you who is the most boring person on this forum.

I’d rather eat broken glass for an eternity, than spend one more minute listening to you droning on about your version of what can only be described as the most mind numbingly boring version of God.

[Greatest I am]

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.

I maintain that facts are better than fictions.

Faith without facts is for fools. So is the supernatural and magic.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Eh?

[Fairy]

Eh?

Chocolate bunny ears.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Hello? Is there anyone there?

[godelian]

I maintain that facts are better than fictions.

Facts that occur in the physical universe may be perfectly true but are not irrefutably provable. Induction never irrefutably proves anything.

Irrefutable proof only exists in mathematics, which in certain ways, since it is an abstraction, is indeed a fiction.

Physical facts, since they never irrefutably prove anything, are certainly not better than deductive fictions/abstractions which actually do irrefutably prove.

Faith without facts is for fools.

Money, most of which is no longer physical, is an abstraction and therefore is in a sense indeed a fiction. But then again, that fictions/abstraction controls the world.

For twelve years, people have been calling me a fool because of my unshakable faith in Bitcoin, which is absolutely not a physical fact. Bitcoin is certainly just a fiction/abstraction, if only, because almost all money is. I may indeed be a fool but quite a wealthy one.

The stock exchange is also just an abstraction/fiction. There is nothing physical about it. Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, only owns such fictions.

Physicalism is literally a very poor worldview.

It fails to understand how the modern world works. Physicalism is in fact very stupid.