Anti-Existence Proof

[gnostic]

Originally Posted by hammbone

But it does put God in the impotience category. Along with the Easter Bunny.

The Easter Bunny doesn't exist????

*horrified gasp*

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Hammbone

Well if God does not exist in a sense of which we can understand than by what defination is God real? How can something be real if it doesn't exist in anyway that we can physically effect or comprehend? What is the difference between a God that you can not see, hear, touch or meassure and no God at all?

Do you consider observation to be measurement?

For example, for every Catholic saint, there are at least two purported observations of the effects of God on the physical universe. There are a huge number of observations for the Hindu "Milk Miracle".

Now... I personally think that there are alternate explanations for these observations, but I'm not sure how you can declare with certainty that God cannot be seen, heard, touched or measured at all.

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Do you consider observation to be measurement?

For example, for every Catholic saint, there are at least two purported observations of the effects of God on the physical universe. There are a huge number of observations for the Hindu "Milk Miracle".

Now... I personally think that there are alternate explanations for these observations, but I'm not sure how you can declare with certainty that God cannot be seen, heard, touched or measured at all.

I can declare it with as much certainty as theists declare that god exists.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Willamena

No, but you'd have to have an actual lake actually in the experiment.

Edit: Your objects are prayers. You're dropping prayers into the lake of 'God' and expecting to see ripple effect; but while the prayer and the alleged effect are actualized, the lake is not actualized.

I think you're looking at my analogy wrong. God is the object and the lake is our universe.

Maybe in my original example using prayer I should have clarified my assumption that there was a direct correlation between the praying and God's act of healing.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by camanintx

I think you're looking at my analogy wrong. God is the object and the lake is our universe.

Maybe in my original example using prayer I should have clarified my assumption that there was a direct correlation between the praying and God's act of healing.

Even with the clarification, your experiment does not contain a God object. Prayer is an act of people.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Even with the clarification, your experiment does not contain a God object. Prayer is an act of people.

Do you think blind prayer (where the person being prayed for doesn't know) would work if there wasn't a God?

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by camanintx

Do you think blind prayer (where the person being prayed for doesn't know) would work if there wasn't a God?

You're basing your argument on the idea that if someone prays to God, and their prayer is realised, that God is proven to have acted.
When in fact all that you have is evidence that prayer has an effect (in this hypothetical scenario), it is you that is linking the effects of prayer to God.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

I can declare it with as much certainty as theists declare that god exists.

Okay, who ordered the tu quoque?