• 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!

If God can not be proven in scientific way, is He unscientific?

Erebus

Well-Known Member
If He can read my proof, then He must accept my definitions. One can not argue with my definitions. Why? Because they are not subject to be proven. And they are beutiful, e.g., the definition of atheism. Such definition includes the satan into atheists as the source of all kinds of rebellion against Almighty One.

Sorry, you've completely lost me there. I get the impression we're both talking about different things.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Sorry, you've completely lost me there. I get the impression we're both talking about different things.
Same words in different papers can have different definitions. Therefore, in case of doubt, the definitions of words are given in the beginning of a paper. The reader can not argue with author's usage of a defined (by the author) word.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Sorry, you've completely lost me there. I get the impression we're both talking about different things.
And when reporting my article to other people, the reader may say this: "if we mean God as the Omniscient Being, and if atheism means rebellion against Him, then this author proved God."
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
To my opinion, the perfect proof can sound something like that:

Thesis: "If a human would know absolutely everything, then he can not be an atheist."

Re-formulated thesis: "I believe, that there is bottle, inside which is all knowledge of reality: "in vina veritas" (the Greeks have said). If people would drink out that bottle, they can not be atheists ever again. "

Proof:
Indeed, such one is Omniscient one, thus, he would be God. The definition of word "God": Any Omniscient Being is God. But God is not atheist. The definition of word "atheist": one who rejects the God (look the definition of word "God" above). "you are Gods", says Bible at least in two verses: in Old Testament and in New Testament.

Wrong. Your Definition? IS A STRAW MAN.

Does God believe in OTHER Gods? No? GOD IS AN ATHEIST.

Oh SNAP-- you are WRONG. Again.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I believe, that there is bottle, inside which is all knowledge of reality: "in vina veritas" (the Greeks have said). If people would drink out that bottle, they can not be atheists ever again.

I hope that is some sort of metaphor, but I truthfully haveno idea what you are trying to say here.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I hope that is some sort of metaphor, but I truthfully haveno idea what you are trying to say here.
Objection: "It is not given to man to learn everything, not to become God to him!"

There is no problem for theists: the Bible says in the Old and New Testaments, "you are Gods," and the Church teaches: "God became the Human, so that a human becomes God." But for atheists the solution is this: word "would", a subjunctive mood. If you would know everything, you will become an infinite strong believer.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Well, I need then to add to the proof the definition of word "God": Any Omniscient Being is God.
Then your argument boils down to an empty logical truism;

If your "definitions" are that "any omnipotent being is God" and "God is not atheist" then the proposition that "any omnipotent person is not atheist" is a logical truism. You might as well eliminate the God step entirely and simple assert that "any omnipotent being is not atheist".

The problem is that this is meaningless outside this abstract logic unless your assumptions can be demonstrated as valid in reality.
 
Top