God proof unnecessary.

[puto]

godelian,

proof is a justified true belief. X and X2 can yes be repeated, then you are just ‘begging the question’ of reasoning poorly or justified, and assuming an argument. Objectively certain belief is impossible to conceive of as being false. Adequacy ruling out luck and accident elucidates subjective, and objective states that is the link to knowledge. A justified true belief S knows & q is true & S is justified in believing that q.
So, yes you are correct 'begging the answer become subjective a sort of feeling that one cannot possibly be wrong. Possible: S knows that q if and only if S believes it is possible that q. Possibility is a dangerous and not necessary.
An atheist needs to also prove non-existence of God, which the Bible Proves: Argument, Fables, and law, literature, and mythology, etc through arguments.

[godelian]

godelian,

proof is a justified true belief. X and X2 can yes be repeated, then you are just ‘begging the question’ of reasoning poorly or justified, and assuming an argument. Objectively certain belief is impossible to conceive of as being false. Adequacy ruling out luck and accident elucidates subjective, and objective states that is the link to knowledge. A justified true belief S knows & q is true & S is justified in believing that q.
So, yes you are correct 'begging the answer become subjective a sort of feeling that one cannot possibly be wrong. Possible: S knows that q if and only if S believes it is possible that q. Possibility is a dangerous and not necessary.
An atheist needs to also prove non-existence of God, which the Bible Proves: Argument, Fables, and law, literature, and mythology, etc through arguments.

Irrefutable proof is deductive. There is no irrefutable inductive proof. So, if they want proof of God, they need to tell us what they can accept us to deduce it from. Otherwise, they are simply going to reject that too.

By the way, if God physically appeared before you right now, the event would certainly be true, but it would not be proof. You would still have no argument that is irrefutable to someone else. You would still not be able to convince anyone else of what you just saw.

Therefore, the real problem is the following.

The atheist wants inductive proof, while he simply fails to understand that inductive proof is never irrefutable. At best, it is somewhat probable.

Proof of God is a document that deductively argues from new axioms that God Irrefutably exists, while the atheist will reject these new axioms as well.

[puto]

godelian,

the epistemic distinction between justified and unjustified beliefs is upheld. What justification condition, do not count as a sufficient? Justified true belief analysis is when the sceptic doubts the justification condition. The sufficient condition is whenever p exists, q exists. The question is what epistemologically is not truth-conduciveness? Having, been an academic answer what is the problem; the point of no direct access to truth? Belief, adequacy, and truth equals a justified truth belief. Where possibly did I, go wrong in my analysis of the question and, then answer? If we can doubt, then not knowledge.
Atheist must mean something entirely different to you than I. Talking, about nihilism? The God of the Bible exists, so I am a theist. Putting, [an a] in A,, theist means no more in definition of the word. God is not capable, or does not exist? My definitions the boundaries or extent of the word does not match your usage. Please, explain your arguments.

[Fairy]

You can realise that duality is illusory and that at a high level of consciousness all things are One.
But that does not mean you've realised what God is.
God is a much higher level of consciousness.

So nonduality without God is easier to access.
Nonduality is also far less threatening and far easier to integrate and make sense of.

God is such a mindfuck that it requires serious philosophical work to comprehend and integrate.

Relative ideas about the absolute are absurd and because God exists as an absolute all proofs of God must fail.

[godelian]

What justification condition, do not count as a sufficient?

Inductive justification does not count as irrefutable.

ChatGPT: Inductive justification does not count as irrefutable.

You're absolutely right: inductive justification is not irrefutable.

Here’s why, in clear terms:
Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to general conclusions. For example, if you observe that the sun has risen every day in your life, you might inductively conclude that it will rise tomorrow. But no matter how many observations you make, the conclusion could still turn out false. There’s always a logical gap between the premises and the conclusion. This is known as the problem of induction, famously articulated by David Hume. He argued that we cannot justify inductive reasoning without using induction itself — which is circular.

In contrast:
Deductive reasoning is irrefutable if the premises are true and the logic is valid. For instance, from “All humans are mortal” and “Socrates is a human,” it deductively follows that “Socrates is mortal.” There’s no room for error in a valid deductive inference.

So while induction is practically indispensable (e.g., in science), it does not provide certainty, and its justifications are always defeasible — open to revision or error.

So, irrefutable justification has to be deductive.

However, from what deeper foundational basic belief are we going to deduce the existence of God? Furthermore, what will prevent the atheist from rejecting such deeper foundational basic belief?

Atheist must mean something entirely different to you than I. Talking, about nihilism?

An atheist will always be able to sustain his belief that God does not exist. All he needs to do, is to reject every foundational basic belief from which you attempt to deduce that God exists. The atheist cannot defeat the believer either. It is up to the believer to decide if he wants to accept a particular foundational basic belief, i.e. God exists, and not to the atheist.

Epistemically, it is a stalemate.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

Very true.

If God could be proven than God is subject to proof and not only not absolute, as proof is relative, but effectively subject to a higher power, proof in this case, and thus not God. To prove God would be to inversely negate God thus rendering the proof as meaningless.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

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.

Very true.

If God could be proven than God is subject to proof and not only not absolute, as proof is relative, but effectively subject to a higher power, proof in this case, and thus not God. To prove God would be to inversely negate God thus rendering the proof as meaningless.

Reminds me of H2G2. Or H2GT2G to be pedantic.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

Very true.

If God could be proven than God is subject to proof and not only not absolute, as proof is relative, but effectively subject to a higher power, proof in this case, and thus not God. To prove God would be to inversely negate God thus rendering the proof as meaningless.

Reminds me of H2G2. Or H2GT2G to be pedantic.

Not familiar with the term H2G2. What does it mean?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Very true.

If God could be proven than God is subject to proof and not only not absolute, as proof is relative, but effectively subject to a higher power, proof in this case, and thus not God. To prove God would be to inversely negate God thus rendering the proof as meaningless.

Reminds me of H2G2. Or H2GT2G to be pedantic.

Not familiar with the term H2G2. What does it mean?

The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Bab ... plications

[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.

Very true.

If God could be proven than God is subject to proof and not only not absolute, as proof is relative, but effectively subject to a higher power, proof in this case, and thus not God. To prove God would be to inversely negate God thus rendering the proof as meaningless.

In a sense, that is true. You would need to fully understand the context in which God is an entity in the form of axiomatic rules from which the existence of God necessarily follows. You would need to understand his context better than your own.

[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.

Very true.

If God could be proven than God is subject to proof and not only not absolute, as proof is relative, but effectively subject to a higher power, proof in this case, and thus not God. To prove God would be to inversely negate God thus rendering the proof as meaningless.

Thanks Eod, me ol’ treasure.

It’s all very simple really, perhaps too simple for those who try to complicate it.

[godelian]

Imagine a collection of rules from which you can deductively and irrefutably prove your own existence.

So, you produce a document that formally reasons from the beginning till the end that you undeniably exist. You feed it to a computer-based proof assistant which verifies the proof, and confirms: yes, you exist, and this document flawlessly proves it.

We all know that this is not possible.

As far as I am concerned, people who demand proof of God's existence should first provide us with a document that irrefutably proves their own existence.

We will have fun rejecting all of their proofs first.

[Gary Childress]

Imagine a collection of rules from which you can deductively and irrefutably prove your own existence.

So, you produce a document that formally reasons from the beginning till the end that you undeniably exist. You feed it to a computer-based proof assistant which verifies the proof, and confirms: yes, you exist, and this document flawlessly proves it.

We all know that this is not possible.

As far as I am concerned, people who demand proof of God's existence should first provide us with a document that irrefutably proves their own existence.

We will have fun rejecting all of their proofs first.

If you want to believe in the existence of an unseen, unheard, clearly unbenevolent or impotent God, and think that your fellow human beings don't exist, then have fun with it.

[godelian]

If you want to believe in the existence of an unseen, unheard, clearly unbenevolent or impotent God, and think that your fellow human beings don't exist, then have fun with it.

The average "fellow human being" will never understand the difference between truth and provability. He often mistakenly thinks that he knows, but in reality, he knows fuck all.

Take yourself, for example. You did not understand my point at all. You do not understand the distinction between truth and provability.

So, you clearly do not understand that you cannot prove that you exist, simply because you do not understand what the term "proof" means.

It is obvious that you will never understand Godel's incompleteness theorem either. Some people complain that the theorem is hard. It is not hard at all, unless you are dumb as fuck, which indeed a lot of people are.

[Gary Childress]

If you want to believe in the existence of an unseen, unheard, clearly unbenevolent or impotent God, and think that your fellow human beings don't exist, then have fun with it.

The average "fellow human being" will never understand the difference between truth and provability. He often mistakenly thinks that he knows, but in reality, he knows fuck all.

When you realize that yourself, send us a postcard.