Atheists still waiting for proof that God exists

[Cartoonist]

We aren't holding our breath

[rug]

1. In that case, describe that for which you want proof.

[Cartoonist]

2. A sentient being

You know, like the one described in the bible.

[rug]

15. And what proof are you looking for?

Because the conventional described attributes of god are more than sentience.

[Cartoonist]

19. Prove any attribute you like

I'm not particular.

[rug]

20. Okay. What proof do you want for infinite?

[Cartoonist]

21. What have you got?

Don't be shy.

[rug]

22. You're begging the question. What proof can contain something infinite?

The original question is literally pointless.

[Cartoonist]

24. Not so

If it exists it can be proven.

[rug]

28. Okay prove where matter came from.

[Cartoonist]

38. Why?

I make no fanciful claims of its origin..

[rug]

39. Because if you can't, there may be another thing to consider than an eternal, infinite universe.

You may have to suspend an intellectual conclusion of yours.

Still waiting for proof that matter always existed.

We aren't holding our breath

[Cartoonist]

42. I know

You've assumed the existence of a creator. I don't leap to conclusions.

[rug]

44. I consider the possibility of one to be rational.

There are not many things I assume.

[cleanhippie]

76. What's rational about assuming that possibility exists without evidence to support that assumption.

[rug]

89. Read the thread then get back to me about evidence.

Talk about circular bullshit.

It's like you all came from the same website.

[Angry Dragon]

163. You find that it is good to worship a being that would destroy all of mankind except eight people??

A being that would create evil??

[rug]

165. For starters, the question is whether it's rational to consider the existence of God.

It assumes nothing about the nature of such a God (although entropy suggests such an entity would be more likely to be productive rather than destructive).

Secondly, anyone who takes the story of Noah literally is foolish.

Finally, God in the tradition of Abraham does not create evil (which leads to another trite argument in which I am uniterested).

[Angry Dragon]

166. Evil existed before man ...........

[rug]

167. Impossible.

Both good and evil are concepts meaningless to anything but humans. Certainly no such concept existed before the beginning of any life nearly four billion years ago. That leaves a pretty long time for good and evil not to exist.

[Angry Dragon]

168. It says so in the Bible ........... god created the tree of knowledge .............. good and evil

If you are saying the bible is just a book of useless facts then why is it quoted so much??

[rug]

169. Not at all what I said. I hope you have not based your world view on that.

But, even if you do, it does not state that evil existed before humans.

[rurallib]

26. the ball should be in the court of those claiming the existence of god or gods

[rug]

29. "In that case, describe that for which you want proof."

[rurallib]

30. a god or gods existence

[rug]

31. Define the god you want proven.

[cleanhippie]

77. Circular bullshit.

[rug]

80. Now the circle is complete.

[cleanhippie]

83. It has to stop somewhere.

[rug]

85. Looks like it's on you.

[cleanhippie]

87. thanks to your smear.

Stay classy, as always.

[rug]

91. Yes, I see it's smeared.

[AlbertCat]

143. Define the god you want proven.

That which religion defines. No other belief claims such a thing.

[rug]

150. If you're demanding evidence, state what you want evidence of.

Alternatively, design the experiment to test the hypothesis you're challenging.

Go on now.

[cpwm17]

151. It should be obvious to you why many people can't believe in a god.

No one can ever provide even the slightest bit of evidence for the existence of any god. Shifting the burden of proof is all you got.

We live in a world that all evidence shows works through natural processes.

We live in a world that is not controlled by an intelligent and moral being. Many people are born into horrible situations. The poor people of Haiti are yet again being hit by a natural disaster. The people of Gaza are born into being treated like human trash. Mosquitoes spread deadly diseases and make life in the outdoors very uncomfortable. There are venomous predators that use pain to stun their victims. The list is long. There is no intelligent super power that created or allows all of this.

Inserting a magical being in place of the unknown, or ignoring what we do know and replacing it with a magical being is lazy thinking.

[rug]

170. Oh, it is and it has nothing to do with inapt notions of evidence.

[AlbertCat]

156. state what you want evidence of.

The god defined by religion. (See, I already did stated it. Didn't you read the post?)

YOU devise the scientific experiment. I'm not claiming any there's anything to experiment with.

Go on now.

[rug]

171. There is no experiment that can be made, none at all.

I would hope you realize than what a stupid demand it is for natural evidence of a supernatural god.

But it's a wan hope.

[AlbertCat]

172. There is no experiment that can be made, none at all.

Just as if nothing was there!


I would hope you realize than what a stupid demand it is for natural evidence of a supernatural god.

Not as stupid as believing in the supernatural!

[rug]

175. Ah, another hope, no matter how slight, dashed.

[AlbertCat]

176. Ah, another hope, no matter how slight, dashed.

HOPE?

Hope of what?

Childhood magic is real? Ancient superstitions are viable?

Hope that everyone who isn't Christian will die and be punished forever?

[rug]

178. Hope that you'd learn something.

Alas.

[AlbertCat]

179. Hope that you'd learn something.

From YOU????

Theology is as useful as Klingon.

[Brettongarcia]

95. Math can indicate an infinite series, without containing an infinity

1, 2, ,3; ad infinitum

[rickford66]

65. Why doesn't he take over all the TV broadcasts for a few minutes.

And then perform some miracles, like the ones we're always hearing or reading about. That would make me a believer.

[rug]

66. Because it's not a trained baboon.

Maybe if you spend an afternoon at the zoo you'll find the god you're looking for.

[rickford66]

68. Actually I'm not looking because he isn't there.

I was just suggesting a simple thing for any god to do to prove his/her existence. He supposedly used to show himself a number of times way back then. Is he on vacation now?

[rug]

70. Maybe a circus is a better choice for you.

It has pratfalls.

[rickford66]

72. I'll quit messin with ya.

I could believe in a life after death where we're all God. Not the Biblical God though. You don't need organized religion for that. I'll leave now, but if you come up with some real proof that God exists, some real tangible thing, let me know.

[rug]

73. Have a good night.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=237020

[Brettongarcia]

94. Ask a miracle and get one, promises 1 Kings 18.20-40 etc..

John 14.13, etc..

[rug]

101. I don't think Ba′al adds anything to this discussion.

[Brettongarcia]

109. Baal and God both are asked to prove their existence

[rug]

119. Which is a nonsequitur to this subthread.

[Brettongarcia]

122. The thread asserts God should prove his existence

I'm showing that in fact, the Bible demands and alleges such proofs.

So your assertion that no such proofs can or should be offered, would seem to put you, Rug, at odds with the Bible, Christianity, and the Roman Catholic Church.

[rug]

123. No. It asserts there remains no proof for an infinite, eternal universe.

Which explains the remaining confusion in your post.

[Brettongarcia]

126. Not: "Why doesn't he take over the TV"?

The larger OP is: where are those proofs of God. As part of all that, you allege no such proofs are possible, or needed. Particularly you say, proofs of an infinite God. I noted that it is possible to address even infinity.

And then, after the infinity question? We've begun to note other kinds of proofs that religion itself often asserts. Like God proving his existence through supplying physical miracles on demand, or on TV.

[rug]

127. ?

If you want to discuss "the larger OP" - yet again - start a thread. As it is you're deflecting from this actual OP.

[Brettongarcia]

130. The title: "Atheists are ... waiting for proof"

There are many possible kinds of proof that need to be addressed.

And? Your assertion that there can and should be no proofs - of infinity, say - attacks the title, rather than answering it. So, after some consideration of your approach, I'm getting back closer to the original question. Noting that in fact, in spite of your own objection to the very idea, much of the Bible itself allows a look for proofs. And even asserts that it has actually furnished such proofs. When God is shown working physical miracles.

[Cartoonist]

138. Sorry, but the Bible has no credibility

And what's that about infinity? Go ahead and prove that if you want. Good luck. I'm only asking for proof of God.

ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY
(1) The Bible is true.
(2) Therefore, the Bible is historical fact.
(3) The Bible says that God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

[Brettongarcia]

140. Many believers only accept biblical arguments.

Logic is wasted on them. As you might have noticed.

[Angry Dragon]

164. Some would say that if the exsistence of god could be proven then there would be no need for faith

[guillaumeb]

3. This is all you need.

[Cartoonist]

4. I already believe

that jukeboxes exist. I used to own one.

[guillaumeb]

8. Then you are half way there.

What kind of Jukebox?

We had a 1954 Seeburg.

[Cartoonist]

14. The same

Lost it in a flood

[guillaumeb]

111. That is a bizarre coincidence.

Sorry for the loss.

[Act_of_Reparation]

16. Are you trying to suggest God exists...

...or that he has awful taste in music?

[guillaumeb]

112. Or, the third option, that you have to have faith. eom

[struggle4progress]

5. I really can't imagine what you think you are asking for, but I suspect only silly responses

(such as the following) are possible:

(0) Let us call the following sentence "P" -- If P is true then God exists

(1) By the law of the excluded middle, P must be either true or false

(2a) Also by the law of the excluded middle, any sentence of the form "If A then B" is equivalent to "Either A is false or B is true"

(2b) P is the sentence "If P is true then God exists" so P is equivalent to "Either P is false or God exists"

(3a) Assuming that P were false would lead to the conclusion that P is true. For suppose that P were false. Then "P is false" would be true; and therefore the sentence "Either P is false or God exists" would also be true. And hence by (2b) P would be true

(3b) It follows that P is true. For P must be either true or false; and if P were true, then P would be true; moreover, we have also just seen from (3a) that if P were false, then P would be true. So whether P be true or false, we must conclude that P is true

(4a) Since P is true, it is true that "If P is true then God exists"

(4b) Since P is true, the hypothesis of "If P is true then God exists" holds

(4c) By modus ponens, it follows that "God exists"

[Cartoonist]

6. You win

That was the silliest response I could've asked for.

[struggle4progress]

9. The idea is due to a very talented mathematician (J Barkley Rosser)

so might merit careful scrutiny

[Cartoonist]

13. After careful scrutiny

Comes reckless laughter.

See post 10

[struggle4progress]

27. That is certainly a clear indication of some problem. But can you find the actual problem?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Self-referential circular logic. . . . . nt

[Cartoonist]

10. Indeed

Simply substitute God with unicorn and the result is the same.

[struggle4progress]

12. I am pleasantly surprised you noticed that

[struggle4progress]

11. Not circular but indeed self-referential

[Lordquinton]

32. Ok, now let's substitute god for a unicorn

Or the FSM (blessed be his noodly appendage) or Bigfoot, or the lochness monster.

[struggle4progress]

34. That is certainly a clear indication of some problem. But can you find the actual problem?

[Lordquinton]

36. No, enlighten me.

[struggle4progress]

54. I should not want to deprive you of the pleasure of thinking it through yourself,

especially as there are likely to be several possible answers

The logic of Rosser's argument has been laid out in a detailed and specific manner in my #5

[Lordquinton]

59. Is there no one here that can give a straight answer?

[struggle4progress]

71. I took the trouble to spell out Rosser's argument in detail

If you're interested, you'll give a thoughtful response

There's not much benefit to me in explaining what I think we might learn from Rosser's argument, only to be rewarded by some juvenile snark, so the ball's in your court now

[cleanhippie]

78. So just summarize it in laymans terms.

Or is that the problem?

[struggle4progress]

105. There's not much benefit to me in explaining what I think we might learn from Rosser's argument,

only to be rewarded by some juvenile snark, so the ball's in your court now: if you're interested, you'll give a thoughtful response

[Cartoonist]

107. Try again

Rosser's argument has been quickly exposed as an empty joke with no logic to be discerned.

[struggle4progress]

108. Is it that you don't accept the law of the excluded middle, that you don't accept

material implication, that you don't accept argument by cases, or that you don't accept modus ponens?

[Cartoonist]

110. As pointed out by myself and others

The argument can be used to prove the existence of unicorns. Are you saying that unicorns exist?

[struggle4progress]

114. That is certainly a clear indication of some problem. But can you find the actual problem?

[malchickiwick]

103. Of Course One Could Easily Substitute "Santa Claus" for "God"

Or "tooth fairies" or "Loki" or "Mr. Bill" or "Donald Trump's critical thinking skills." Wouldn't the outcome be the same?

[struggle4progress]

104. That is certainly a clear indication of some problem. But can you find the actual problem?

[jonno99]

17. Perhaps you should have a talk with God about your questions & concerns -

Serioulsy...

[Cartoonist]

18. What is His number?

[jonno99]

23. There are many professed athiests who became believers. Their stories might give you

an acceptable answer.

[Cartoonist]

25. I am never moved by weak minds

[jonno99]

33. That answer seems to be a bit of a cop-out - or do you think that your attitude is unique?

IOW - It wouldn't surprise me to learn that many former atheists held the same opinion as you currently do - at one point in their lives.

But something changed...

[rug]

35. It takes a strong mind to concede one might be wrong.

[Cartoonist]

40. It takes a weak mind

To blindly accept something for which there is no proof of any kind.

I use the word proof for lack of a better word.

[rug]

41. It takes a porous mind to think there can be natural proof of unnatural things.

The word proof is not apropos. It really boils down to a philosophical, not a scientific question.

[Cartoonist]

45. I don't believe in the unnatural either

That's just another name for God

[rug]

46. Then you're stuck in explaining this universe.

Either hope that science will explain it, or blow off the whole question. I don't find either choice palatable or rational. The mind will always seek an answer.

[Cartoonist]

48. I prefer the scientific approach

to explain the universe, not the religious one.

[cleanhippie]

79. So god, which is as you just pointed out, unnatural?

Wow, rug, we may actually be coming to an agreement!

[rug]

82. We might, if you knew what the word meant.

[cleanhippie]

84. How disappointing, yet expected.

[rug]

86. I expect you're familiar with disappointment.

[cleanhippie]

88. When it comes to getting a straight answer from you, indeed I am.

[rug]

90. Can't blame me for your disappointments.

[Brettongarcia]

96. For he is known by the things that are visible

His fruits, works, signs, deeds, proofs.

Extrapolorating on this illegitimately, countless Christian philosophers held that the vastness of Creation, is proof of a creator.

Therefore, the Spaghetti.

[rug]

100. My, paraphrasing scripture. Here's Hebrews 11:3.

"By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, so that what is visible came into being through the invisible."

Nary a mention of limp noodles.

[Brettongarcia]

115. Daniel, in Dan. 1.4-15, has a porous mind?

Then 1 Kings 18.20-40?

[rug]

117. Are you just randomly typing Bible citations?

[Brettongarcia]

121. Daniel alleges a proof that God's food laws are good

In 1 Kings, both God and Ball are asked to work a physical miracle to prove their existence.

This procedure is approved, and included in the Bible.

So Judaism - and eventually, with a few more examples, Christianity - often assert they should and do furnish physical proofs, evidence, for their god.

This means that any strongly faith-based Christianity or religion - like your own, above - which eschews material proofs, has largely abandoned the Bible and its God. And therefore, any such religion might be accused of hypocrisy if it pretends or implies that this new religion is Judeo-Christian.

So assuming you are not 1) hypocritical, then 2) are you an advocate for some kind of non-Christian religion?

[AtheistCrusader]

180. On book tours, catering to other believers no doubt.

It's a nice racket if you can stomach it.

[Lordquinton]

37. Considering the evidence for a god existing has been all but completely eroded

I mean, evolution, plate tectonics, fossil record, carbon dating, lighting rods, all they have ia "you can't prove he doesn't exist"

[rug]

43. You really haven't been paying attention, quinton.

[Lordquinton]

49. Did someone provide any form of evidence to back up their claim?

[rug]

51. Precisely. You haven't been paying attention.

That's been - and is being - discussed right now ad nauseam.

[Lordquinton]

52. I have seen no proof posted

Just a whole lot of "you can't prove he doesn't."

[rug]

53. You haven't seen any definition of the required proof either.

But I'm not going to educate you. Jiust read the threads.

[Lordquinton]

57. Um, what?

Literally anything, any little bit of evidence, once someone does we can examine it and see if it holds up to any amount of scrutiny.

[Brettongarcia]

97. So Rug admits he has no proof, but just faith?

[rug]

99. Gosh, we'd better ask him.

[Brettongarcia]

113. Here is the question

So Rug: 1) if you believe that infinity can't be proved, then 2) do you believe that the infinite side of God cannot be proved?

And 3) if so, then does't your defense of religion rest largely on faith?

[rug]

118. Rather than ask Brettongarcia. I'll give you my answers.

1) Yes.

2) Yes.

3) Of course.

[Brettongarcia]

124. Here you abandon much of Christianity

And the parts of Catholicism that adhered to such parts of the Bible. As noted above

[rug]

125. Incorrect. The essence of Christianity is belief despite doubt.

John 20:24-29.

[Brettongarcia]

128. Like many Christians, you've misread John 20.24-30

Thomas is demanding material proof of God. Specifically that Jesus had fatal wounds, but still lived. Jesus note, does not refuse that request, but authorizes, even commands, doubting Thomas to probe the wounds of Jesus, with his fingers (John 20.27).

Next? Though Jeses "blesses"those who believe without such physical proofs, the word "bless" does not connote approval. Jesus tells his disciples elsewhere to say, bless those who curse them.

Getting a "Blessing" from God therefore, does not just mean getting approval for your actions from God. Rather it connotes that your behavior is bad; and it hopes that instead of your present bad behavior, you will be gifted with better behaviors and ideas, in the future.

After this rebuke of those who believe just on faith, without evidence or proofs, John 20 concludes with yet another, final assertion that many material proofs - here, "signs" - have been furnished, and should be sought, before believing (John 20.30-31).

[rug]

129. Lol! Sure I have.

1 Corinthians 15:12–20

[Brettongarcia]

131. 1 Corin. 15 asserts many material proofs

15.4-8 asserts that a resurrected physical Jesus was seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses. Indeed, 20.12-20 asserts that if such physical wonders did not actually occur, then your faith was wrong, and in vain.

[Cartoonist]

50. Not that BS again

Who created God?

[Cartoonist]

63. Prove it

That's all I ask

[Cartoonist]

75. I don't think you understand

You keep making unsupported statements and act like that settles it. It doesn't work that way.

[cleanhippie]

81. You said "God has always been there". That's what's being discussed.

Now prove your claim. Can you?

[lordsummerisle]

58. Dude

Welcome to DU, that's an awesome first post.

[cornball 24]

60. Amen!

[uppityperson]

62. Collecting old copies of the bible = good hobby

[MADem]

74. Welcome to DU.

I would urge you to read the TOS before you find yourself in hot water. We have standards of conduct here and your insult to some members of our community is poor form.

Broad brushed statements about members here aren't the way to get off on the right foot.

I know many atheists who are not tedious nor pretentious. I know some who are great, and some who are utter asses--just like some religious people I know.

Treat people as individuals, and don't make assumptions about them based upon their beliefs and views.

You might want to rethink your comments and your attitude.

[juxtaposed]

56. i'm not still waiting, I'm just happy no one has bothered me

[SusanCalvin]

61. I'm not waiting with bated breath because I don't expect it.

Left to my own devices, I seldom even think about the topic.

[Binkie The Clown]

92. I've decided I don't care if god exists or not, because...

god told me that all atheists go to heaven anyway.

But I'm still sure that I don't believe in astrology. None of us Virgos do. We're too logical for that.

[Cartoonist]

93. Day 2

Still no proof.

What has been proffered:

The meritless intelligent design argument. "Here's a tree, that proves God exists.."
No it doesn't, it just proves that trees exist.

A circular bit of nonsense that can be used to prove unicorns exist. Except that it doesn't prove anything at all.

A deflection into the unnatural universe where anything you desire can exist. The problem with that is I'm looking for a real world proof, not make-believe.

Next?

[NeoGreen]

102. Only day 2?...methinks this could take awhile longer...

...at least it has entertainment value

[jonno99]

145. Make sure you my offering to your list: there have been many atheists who once thought as you do -

but came to believe in God.

I imagine that they demanded proof - just like you. And yet they became convinced that God exists.

According to you the only reason this happens is that they became "weak minded". Perhaps you're right, or perhaps you're wrong, and there is something more to it.

Again, I suggest you explore the stories these former atheists have to tell. If you are serious about finding "proof" - you might get a satisfactory answer from them.

Good luck.

[Cartoonist]

146. What offering?

You haven't posted a proof, just hearsay.

How many accounts of people leaving their religion have you read? They far outnumber the atheists who have relapsed.

[jonno99]

153. I offered an answer to your question. You can spend your days howling "there is no proof",

or you can examine the lives & stories of those individuals who once thought as you now do. Something changed for them.

To be uninterested in their story and what they found is irrational - for one who is looking for truth.

[Cartoonist]

154. FYI

I have. They are all pathetic exercises in gullibility.

[jonno99]

155. Fair enough. Again, good luck. nt

[DetlefK]

98. Can you prove that God is provable?

That's why I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

Let's say, there is this entity. It's really powerful. It can do anything you expect God to be capable of. For example, it can draw a rabbit out of top-hat and guess which card you took out of the deck.

Now, how you do find out whether this entity truly is an omnipotent, omniscient God, or whether it's just a really powerful, really smart impostor?

[Cartoonist]

106. Hire Penn & Teller to judicate

Penn has declared himself to be an atheist, so we can expect maximum scrutiny.

[DetlefK]

120. So... the threshold for proving God is the opinion of an illusionist?

[rug]

135. lol!

[Cartoonist]

137. That's two who can't recognize humor

[rug]

139. That must be it.

[Orrex]

132. The same question must be asked of believers

Let's say, there is this entity. It's really powerful. It can do anything you expect God to be capable of. For example, it can draw a rabbit out of top-hat and guess which card you took out of the deck.

Similarly, how can believers declare that an infinite god is benevolent? A malevolent god, in fact, would be well served to affect an impression of benevolence in an infinitesimal area (e.g., the known universe) while actually being incomprehensibly evil.

How could a believer claim with any confidence that his or her god is good and not evil?

[DetlefK]

148. You are overlooking something:

Believers are not trying to prove God or whether God has this or that attribute. (Well, some philosophers do, but most believers don't.) They have the point-of-view that proof is unnecessary/inappropriate and that God should be approached by faith.

I see this as a major crux: The question whether God exists cannot be separated from how you want to make that test.



The concept of "proving" things experimentally is actually very young: The concept that some experiment can decide whether a philosophical theory is correct or not is only about 300-400 years old.
But mankind's history with religion is at least 10,000 years old. For the vast majority of mankind's history, the mere thought of disproving religious explanations via experiments was considered idiotic.

10,000 years. That's a long time and lots of cultural imprints and memes.

[Orrex]

160. Anyone who bases action or policy upon the existence (or Word) of God...

can be reasonably called upon to provide an argument that such a basis is legitmate, especially (as in the case of much formal US policy) when the "teachings" of God are put forth as though they overrule all other arguments. They can't simply require us all to assume that it's true--as is currently the standard.

If, instead, the believer were to assert and accept that they can't prove god's existence yet they still believe it, then that would be a statement of greater honesty. However, to say either that they can't prove it or (worse) that it can't be proven is a statement of denial, and certainly I see no reason to laud or respect that position.

So the question remains, and the question remains valid: how can the believer claim that god exists and is a benevolent entity, rather than a malign entity masquerading as good?

10,000 years. That's a long time and lots of cultural imprints and memes.

That's clearly true, but in itself it's no reason to revere or maintain those imprints or memes.

[Act_of_Reparation]

141. Atheist and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive terms.

One addresses belief, the other addresses knowledge. Regardless of what you think you do or do not know, if you do not believe in god, you're an atheist.

Own it.

[DetlefK]

149. I try to avoid making absolute statements based on belief.

[Act_of_Reparation]

152. No one's asking you to.

But you really ought to stop using those terms in a mutually exclusive way. Many atheists are agnostic as well. I'm one of them. I don't claim to know whether or not there is a god. Using "atheist" and "agnostic" as separate rungs on a ladder of increasing certainty necessarily ascribes beliefs to atheists that they simply do not profess.

[Cartoonist]

116. Thanks to S4P

I found this funny list of proofs

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Some examples:

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

RGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Ask atheists what caused the Big Bang.
(2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.
(3) Continue process until the atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions.
(4) You win!
(5) Therefore, God exists.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

142. Thanks.

I came across Kurt Godel's "proof" of God recently. It doesn't prove anything, of course.

It amazes me that some very bright people, like Godel, have devoted their time to such thoughts. I'm not sure if fear of death is the primary motivator or if it's something else.

[struggle4progress]

158. Good logicians typically enjoy unpacking arguments to understand what assumptions are involved,

and Godel's proof may be regarded simply as an effort to discern what assumptions are needed for Anselm's argument

There are no interesting logical arguments without assumptions: at best, assumption-free arguments yield only tautologies, which (of course) lack any content

A variant of the same game is to vary the reasoning rules allowed, in order to discover what happens: Rosser's argument is an example of that

[Buckeye_Democrat]

159. Godel didn't make it known until he thought he was dying in 1970.

I doubt it was a coincidence.

Yeah, axioms are the basis of pure logic and they're assumptions.

Here's the gist of Godel's "proof" of God:
1. God is, by definition, the greatest that anyone can conceive.
2. God exists in concept, but would be even greater in reality.
3. Since there's nothing greater than God, it must exist in reality.

Greater in reality? M'kay...

[struggle4progress]

161. ... Morgenstern recorded in his diary entry for 29 August 1970, that Gödel would not publish because

he was afraid that others might think "that he actually believes in God, whereas he is only engaged in a logical investigation (that is, in showing that such a proof with classical assumptions (completeness, etc.) correspondingly axiomatized, is possible)" ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

And your alleged "gist" of Godel's proof reads more like the twelfth century Anselm than like Godel himself: if one wants to know what argument Godel actually constructed in modal logic, it would be better to read Godel rather than some inexpert "gist"

Godel, of course, was a committed Platonist, as many practicing mathematicians are, at least with respect to mathematical practice. And many others, like myself, dwell in a world which has not yet become consistent: at some times Platonists apparently, and at other times outraged pragmatists, perhaps because the very formidable task of eradicating all traces of Platonism has completely defeated us, once we understood the work that would be involved. Perhaps an actual thorough-going Platonist will not see any problems with Anselm's argument; and an actual thorough-going pragmatist will regard it as vacuous nonsense -- and someone like me? Well, I throw up my hands and figure my limited energy might be better spent on other questions

Godel was a strange man. He never had any students; he wanted to explain at his naturalization hearing how the US could legally be converted into a dictatorship; and in the end, he died of malnutrition because he was afraid of being poisoned. He was also one of the greatest logicians who ever lived. I'm not inclined to sneer at him

[Buckeye_Democrat]

162. From that Wikipedia link...

Morgenstern's diary is an important and usually reliable source for Gödel's later years, but the implication of the August 1970 diary entry—that Gödel did not believe in God—is not consistent with the other evidence. In letters to his mother, who was not a churchgoer and had raised Kurt and his brother as freethinkers, Gödel argued at length for a belief in an afterlife.

I don't sneer at him. I also don't sneer at a genius like Newton who dabbled in religion too.

I majored in mathematics, and we covered Godel's clever Incompleteness Theorems. He was brilliant.

You're correct that I confused Godel's ontological proof with St. Anselm's argument.

[AlbertCat]

173. Gödel argued at length for a belief in an afterlife.

Hardly the same thing as there actually being an afterlife..... or a god.

[trotsky]

177. Funny but also eerily accurate.

The typical tactic is just to declare one's god unprovable and undetectable, and claim victory. Of course those who do so also claim to know properties of their god (creates stuff, loves us, etc.) so they utterly demolish their own position. At least it's entertaining.

[MFM008]

133. I'm afraid I'm not smart enough

To argue certainties on either side.
It is pointless to say you know the unknowable.

[rug]

136. That's a pretty smart observation.

[AlbertCat]

174. But you are smart enough....

...... to understand that religion's ideas of gods are superfluous and add nothing to knowledge.... this mixed with the state of knowledge and the times gods become an idea clearly shows it's not a 50/50 thing. The claims of existence/nonexistence are not equally plausible.

[Iggo]

134. Not waiting at all.

Ain't no Santa Claus, kids.

[AlbertCat]

144. Atheists still waiting for proof that God exists

No one is waiting.

We are all getting along with our lives not even worrying about it. There's nothing to wait for.

[Cartoonist]

147. I agree with your point

My thread title was a response to a different OP.

[stone space]

157. This atheist isn't waiting for any proof of existence or nonexistence.

This atheist doesn't expect to live long enough for such a proof of God's existence or non-existence to appear, as that would require a belief in eternal life that I don't posses.