Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Felix]

I don't need or want to be reincarnated. I've had enough of the universe.

I suspect there are many other worlds besides this one you could incarnate in.

[Belindi]

Don't worry about Hell , haicowy. There is more than enough pain and suffering in this temporal life to please your punishing God. By the way, not all Christians believe God deliberately punishes, rather the opposite.He is the only being that can understand all bad people and all good people.

And again he said, “To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, until it was all leavened.”

— Luke 13:20–21, E

[NickGaspar]

Beliefs are ideas that people have that don't require proofs. Some people ardently believe that Trump is good for America, whilst many more people rabidly believe he isn't. There is not adequate proof yet for either belief.

And furthermore, proofs are beliefs. Science can prove things that get overturned, like when quantum mechanics came along.

I call myself agnostic, but I am scared of the idea of Hell. So somewhere in my brain I must believe in God.

"Beliefs" are claims that people accept/believe.
These beliefs can be based either on knowledge(claims backed up by current facts) or on faith(claims without sufficient evidence).
So people accept/believe claims on really good reasons (knowledge based belief) or on really bad reasons (faith based beliefs).
On Trump's example, there are mountain of evidence that Trump is not only bad "for America" but for the rest of the world too. That is not a political statement but a general critique on the pseudo philosophical system of politics.

You are correct, we also believe/accept claims based on proofs, but science is not "mathematics". Science doesn't "prove things". Science can only offer the best tentative description based on Current Available Facts. Since our technology advances and our improved observations change those facts, our descriptions are informed by them! I don't really get your example on Quantum Mechanics but I think that we are generally in agreement.

Now we are all ''agnostics" since there are zero available knowledge claims in support of our belief/rejection of god(s) claims.
You are also correct in your statement: "So somewhere in my brain I must believe in God." Its a fact that beliefs are not a matter of choice.Either our personal standards are met or not by a claim.
That is what allows your fear of Hell to dictate your beliefs about god. Your standards are not high enough, allowing irrational beliefs to sneak in your belief. I am not sure how we set/change our standards, but it happened to me at least once and it affected the way I evaluate all faith based claims. I no longer accept claims about magic or the supernatural or gods on face value .

[Snkr]

Free will, if one could prove the existence of God, could he exist?
The bible states he gave Man free will, so regardless, you can believe what ever you want.

[Repoman05]

Belief isn't dependent on facts for lots of people. These are usually unsavory types of people that can believe anything they want at will. It's likely a very natural ability that some people innately have or have cultivated. Probably some sort of capacity used specifically for deceit which could have an evolutionary advantage in specific contexts I.e. war, distribution of plunder, tricking/wooing mates, livening up parties, leading etc. Honest lies, lies you can believe in.

Horrific disadvantage in a world that understands lies and fallacies. Some might think it a measure of intelligence, machiavellian even. Note the connectivity to Catholics. Most thoughtlessly arrogant groups are already at the forefront of the lexicon on the topic. Anyone seen ji-Zeus today?

[Repoman05]

Why not?

[UniversalAlien]

Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

That is a loaded question that is far more complex than it first appears. You first must define 'God',
'Impossible', and 'Prove', not to mention belief - Not a simple task as many books have been written on each of these concepts.

To me the weakest part of this question is 'Impossible' - Can you prove impossible?
That means in this and any other universe that may exist throughout all time! {time being an assumption}

Both Theists and Atheists suffer from an assumption problem - They make assumptions based upon an apparent reality, a matrix, that may be only one of many states of existence.

Because the existent state itself is always questionable, the existence or non existence of a deity is also always questionable, philosophically speaking.

Looked at this way the answer is simple:

Belief proves nothing, but science, except in a limited sense also proves nothing as the existent World is not provable.

Max Planck the famous Noble Prize winning Physicist and founder of Quantum Mechanics put it this way:

“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
― Max Planck, The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics

That said, the existence of existence would require a primary catalyst to be
- Some might see that catalyst as a deity - but of course, as of now, that can not be proven.

What can be accepted though, even if again it is not provable:

Again Max Planck:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck


Max Planck did not believe in God in a religious sense - Therefor the consciousness he infers is primal
- the bedrock of the Matrix.

You want to believe this primal, fundamental consciousness is a deity ???

Of course you can't prove it - But in the famous words of my generation:
"Whatever turns you on" - And that, and that alone is the only reason to believe in the God myth !!!

[Belindi]

I agree with Universal Alien.
I add 'believe in' in the context of God should specify 'believe in' like you believe whisky can make you drunk, or alternatively like you believe in as in 'trust in' or 'have faith in' Mr Trump.

[Joshua10]

In answer to the original question of the post.Neither side can prove the existence or non existence of God in a carnal sense as carnal proof is a “red herring”. All either side can do is hope that there either is or isn’t a God.This can be reasoned logically.

[philosopher19]

In response to the title of this thread, I thought the following ought to be added:

It is not impossible to prove God. Rather, it is impossible to meaningfully/semantically reject God's existence. This was discussed here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17304

[LuckyR]

In response to the title of this thread, I thought the following ought to be added:

It is not impossible to prove God. Rather, it is impossible to meaningfully/semantically reject God's existence. This was discussed here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17304

What do you mean by "reject"?

[philosopher19]

In response to the title of this thread, I thought the following ought to be added:

It is not impossible to prove God. Rather, it is impossible to meaningfully/semantically reject God's existence. This was discussed here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17304

What do you mean by "reject"?

I mean like in the following way:

I reject the three-sidedness of triangles. Just as it is impossible for me to meaningfully/semantically reject the triangularity of triangle, it is meaningfully/semantically impossible for me to reject the existence of God.

[UniversalAlien]

In response to the title of this thread, I thought the following ought to be added:

It is not impossible to prove God. Rather, it is impossible to meaningfully/semantically reject God's existence. This was discussed here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17304

What do you mean by "reject"?

I mean like in the following way:

I reject the three-sidedness of triangles. Just as it is impossible for me to meaningfully/semantically reject the triangularity of triangle, it is meaningfully/semantically impossible for me to reject the existence of God.

Isn't this like saying it is impossible to reject the existence of what some would call 'fantasy'

Point is how can you defend {or reject] an entity/concept that is subject to many definitions and interpretations

You can though accept or reject the idea that there is an immortal almighty power that creates and rules all that exists.

- And getting back to the original question - Prove it

[LuckyR]

In response to the title of this thread, I thought the following ought to be added:

It is not impossible to prove God. Rather, it is impossible to meaningfully/semantically reject God's existence. This was discussed here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17304

What do you mean by "reject"?

I mean like in the following way:

I reject the three-sidedness of triangles. Just as it is impossible for me to meaningfully/semantically reject the triangularity of triangle, it is meaningfully/semantically impossible for me to reject the existence of God.

A triangle is physical, gods are metaphysical. No similarity (from the standpoint of proof) whatsoever.

Or to put it another way, it is in fact impossible for you (personally) to reject the existance of god, because you have faith. Great. Faith by definition kicks in in the absence of proof.

[philosopher19]

In response to the title of this thread, I thought the following ought to be added:

It is not impossible to prove God. Rather, it is impossible to meaningfully/semantically reject God's existence. This was discussed here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17304

What do you mean by "reject"?

I mean like in the following way:

I reject the three-sidedness of triangles. Just as it is impossible for me to meaningfully/semantically reject the triangularity of triangle, it is meaningfully/semantically impossible for me to reject the existence of God.

Isn't this like saying it is impossible to reject the existence of what some would call 'fantasy'

Point is how can you defend {or reject] an entity/concept that is subject to many definitions and interpretations

You can though accept or reject the idea that there is an immortal almighty power that creates and rules all that exists.

- And getting back to the original question - Prove it

No it's not the same. The argument I gave the link to shows that the following beliefs are contradictory:

Triangles don't have three sides (whereas in actual fact triangles have three sides)
God does not absolutely exist (whereas in actual fact only God absolutely or indubitably exists)

I could lay out the argument/proof here, but I don't think it's appropriate. If you want to discuss the argument, then I think it's best that we discuss it on that thread.