• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Agnosticism is debunked using advanced methods of Science

questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
lewisnotmiller said:
'God' is a relatively modern word. So was God nameless before this? Is a being defined by its label?

As for 'God does not exist' it depends entirely on how you define God, I suppose.

In one sentence you reduce discussion of God to a binary decision between monotheism and atheism. You also assume monotheism predates all else.
I think our polytheistic friends here might quibble on both counts.
Click to expand...
From our perspective the ancients prayed to God. Human is the detector, current detectors say, that there was God all the time, but with different names. "It's always the Son" (song).

God is the Name, and the Name is God. Look up video "tell me my name" (Neverending Story, final scenes).

Not, I have not violated the forum rules: monotheism and polytheism are theisms.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Israel Khan said:
Why did you change the definitions in the first place if it leads to confusion? And why would a magazine called "science magazine" use the term devil to explain beings in our solar system anyway?
Click to expand...
I will write down my definitions at the beginning of the paper, saying, that they hold only for this paper. Thank you.

I will not mention devil, God in the paper meant for modern Scientific Community. Thank You.
 
lewisnotmiller

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
From our perspective the ancients prayed to God. Human is the detector, current detectors say, that there was God all the time, but with different names. "It's always the Son" (song).

God is the Name, and the Name is God. Look up video "tell me my name" (Neverending Story, final scenes).
Click to expand...

Apart from the ones who didn't pray to a monotheistic God. Which was most of them.

questfortruth said:
Not, I have not violated the forum rules: monotheism and polytheism are theisms.
Click to expand...

At no point did I say you did. My point was that even if I accepted what you're calling 'logic' as actual logic, you're still failing to account for diversity in belief, most easily exampled by contrasting polytheistic beliefs with yours.

Your 'logic' apparently proves true that which can't be proven untrue, yet you merrily leap to conclude that means a monotheistic God. Polytheism, pantheism and panentheism are simply discounted without consideration.
 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
Heyo said:
I concur 100% with your analysis.
I just want to point out that the agnosticism you describe is a modern, colloquial, watered down version of Huxley's philosophical position.
Agnosticism, in his sense, is the ignorance of gods' existence and nature and the imperative that one should hold judgement in case of ignorance. So it's not (only) that I don't know if god exists but that I don't know what god is - and neither do you.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don’t think I could have say it better.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Israel Khan said:
Nope just because a concept inspires an idea in someone that doesn't mean that the concept is exempt from that idea. Bad logic.
Click to expand...
The Middle Ages has given us the concepts of knowledge, methods, etc. based on Theology. As examples, the scientific criterions of Beuty, Simplicity come from properties of God: He is simple, beautiful. The Middle Ages' achievements were used by modern Science. Without God there are no Middle Ages. Thus, God is needed.
 
Samael_Khan

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
questfortruth said:
The Middle Ages has given us the concepts of knowledge, methods, etc. based on Theology. As examples, the scientific criterions of Beuty, Simplicity comes from properties of God: He is simple, beautiful. The Middle Ages' achievements were used by modern Science. Without God there are no Middle Ages. Thus, God is needed.
Click to expand...

Bad logic. The idea of God motivated them to engage in science and conjure up concepts but that doesn't prove that God exists, just that the idea of God did. There are atheists today that make scientific discoveries which proves that God is not needed.

Also the majority of people in history were religious so it was most likely that these concepts would have developed from them, if not inevitable because I am not sure if atheists existed at those times.Therefore one cannot use such a past to determine whether God is needed to determine those things. In my mind the idea of God was a result of humans trying to find the truth about reality therefore it isn't surprising that they are linked.
 
ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
questfortruth said:
a) One can surely find something useful for Gödel, because I have my own results: I relied on logic and reason. Thus, one can prove Gödel even without speaking within the Mathematical convention.
Click to expand...

But you have provided no logic or reasoning - you've just said that there are undecidable things and therefore we can never prove everything. It's trivial and doesn't prove Gödel.

questfortruth said:
b) I see it differently, I have far more text than the trolling "if there are absolutely undecidable things, then there are things that can't be decided".
Click to expand...

It doesn't look like it.

questfortruth said:
c) We need to define what is Truth. A thing is called True if it will never be found false. By that definition of Truth the undecidable things are always true.
Click to expand...

This is just nonsense. You cannot find false that I have an invisible dragon in my garage, nether can you prove false that there are no invisible dragons in my garage. Hence my garage has an invisible dragon in it and has no invisible dragons in it.

questfortruth said:
Because Reality is not an illusion, the two true things can not contradict each other. Therefore, any set of axioms is consistent.
Click to expand...

Your axioms have nothing to do with reality, and they are contradictory.
 
tas8831

tas8831

Well-Known Member
questfortruth said:
Faith is faithfulness to knowledge. Because I do not know for sure, I do not believe it.
Click to expand...

"But if one can neither prove nor disprove God, then God exists."

But if one can neither prove nor disprove Teapot, then Teapot exists.

You cannot remain consistent even within your own thread.
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
I disagree, because the inventor of Occam's Razor is theist, and used it to show a case for Theology. The Science has not from Moon fallen, the Science of the modern era is a child of the Middle Ages; thus, God can not be cut off by Occam's Razor.


Do not quote text-book without applying it to my case. I see no connection.
Click to expand...

I see no connection of math, neither did Godel, related to any argument for the existence of God. Everything I described is not necessarily, but it is academically accurate.
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
tas8831 said:
"But if one can neither prove nor disprove God, then God exists."

But if one can neither prove nor disprove Teapot, then Teapot exists.

You cannot remain consistent even within your own thread.
Click to expand...

Therefore there is a God in the teapot.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
lewisnotmiller said:
This is the same you that claimed God is true because he can't be disproven, right?
Click to expand...

If a god would be false, it can be demonstrated by either:
1. contradiction in his theology,
2. contradiction in nature,
3. inventing god-less model of reality [google "missing antimatter paradox"]

ratiocinator said:
You cannot find false that I have an invisible dragon in my garage, nether can you prove false that there are no invisible dragons in my garage. Hence my garage has an invisible dragon in it and has no invisible dragons in it.
Click to expand...

Disprove of invisible red dragon in your garage is following. Because the dragon is read and dragon, then somebody has seen him. Thus, he is not invisible. We came to contradiction, thus there is no such dragon.

lewisnotmiller said:
Apart from the ones who didn't pray to a monotheistic God. Which was most of them.
Click to expand...
In my Religion the polytheism is correct at least in one thing: God exists, and wrong in number of Him. His number is 1, not 100.

Israel Khan said:
Bad logic. The idea of God motivated them to engage in science and conjure up concepts but that doesn't prove that God exists, just that the idea of God did. There are atheists today that make scientific discoveries which proves that God is not needed.

Also the majority of people in history were religious so it was most likely that these concepts would have developed from them, if not inevitable because I am not sure if atheists existed at those times.Therefore one cannot use such a past to determine whether God is needed to determine those things. In my mind the idea of God was a result of humans trying to find the truth about reality therefore it isn't surprising that they are linked.
Click to expand...

The "principle of sufficient reason" states that everything must have a reason or a cause. The modern formulation of the principle is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz, although the idea was conceived of and utilized as well by the THEIST Dr. Thomas Aquinas. The cause of modern Beuty and Simplicity scientific principles can not be illusion (otherwise their application violates the principle of sufficient reason), because in such case all Science is illusive. The cause of the Beuty and Simplicity criterion/concept is the belief, that Beautiful and simple God exists. And because the concepts have been justified by experiment/observation, then the source of the concepts (God) must be real as well.

tas8831 said:
"But if one can neither prove nor disprove God, then God exists."

But if one can neither prove nor disprove Teapot, then Teapot exists.
Click to expand...

By using infinite amount of research time and unlimited resources one can find out, that there is no 10 cm sized teapot on the orbit around the Sun (or any star or galaxy you like to check; in case of another galaxy the warp-drive/wormhole/StarGate technology would be available soon: check my breakthrough paper, need a link to viXra?).
 
Last edited:
Q

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
questfortruth said:
the missing matter paradox does not shrink. The Cosmological Constant Problem does not shrink.



Creatures have names and false names (nicknames). The Being, whose true name is God, He is True God. That is the unique Being, other "gods" are idols.


Anybody can join my quest for Truth. I got to know, that Faith is staying true to Knowledge: faith is faithfulness to it. Therefore, I apply powers of reason, to battle the wrong ways, which lead to dead ends.



Do not be troll/bully. Be informative, not sure like a "god".



Please read my paper. I went beyond Gödel's area of application.



The Bible says about what kind of beings are out there: God, holy angels, devils, animals, humans. No aliens. Jesus Christ says about Holy Church, book of Acts says about Church's first eukamenical council. But because Church of Aliens has not participated in the eukamenical council of the book of Acts, then there are no Aliens. Church has no division, so there is only one Church: at Earth, no other Churches at stars.



Being, whoes official name is God.
Click to expand...

the missing matter paradox does not shrink. The Cosmological Constant Problem does not shrink.

Correction: the missing matter paradox and the cosmological constant problem have YET to shrink. Just like at one time the planets in the night sky were thought to be 'wandering stars' that didn't fit the model of an Earth orbiting the sun and these 'wandering stars' were considered to be 'proof of god' because we couldn't explain them. Of course NOW we know that they're PLANETS and NOT something we can't explain. On that day your God shrank a bit. And in the future when science figures out the missing matter paradox and the cosmological constant problem your God will shrink even more.

If your god is nothing more than what we haven't figured out yet then your god will constantly grow smaller and have less influence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top