Proving that God is Imaginary by Logic

[Nakosis]

In Advaita non-dual philosophy God and creation are not-two.

I believe all consciousness is God/Brahman/Consciousness so yes I experience my individual consciousness but have not yet experienced Cosmic/Universal Consciousness.

But then wouldn't all material also be of God?

I might as well wave to the rock outside my window... "Hey! God... How you doing?"
Look in the mirror and say... "Looking pretty dope God."

 

[George-ananda]

But then wouldn't all material also be of God?

I might as well wave to the rock outside my window... "Hey! God... How you doing?"
Look in the mirror and say... "Looking pretty dope God."

In Advaita philosophy only Consciousness/God/Brahman alone is real. Matter is part of Maya (illusion). Matter can be likened to the props in the play/drama of Consciousness.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You can't see love, you can't hear it, you can't touch it, taste it, or smell it, therefore it doesn't exist for atheists. So, therefore, all atheists are psychopaths.

Logic.

Love doesn't do anything in and of itself. It's an experience or feeling someone has and through that experience, the "person" does the action not love itself.

In the christian case (not sure about Jew and Muslim) Love "does" something. That's the difference. Can you feel love whisper in your ear (as I hear some christians tell me he does)? Does love have messengers? Children? A he? If love is beyond and above, what characteristics do you give it so that it is love and not say being happy experience that involves no person(s) in order to achieve it or vis versa?

Probably 99% christians I've spoke to during the years call god love. What is the definition of the word that would match the actions and edicts of abrahamic scripture while still maintaining it exists despite having no sensory traits outside of culture to culture and person to person interpretation of such?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

By same logic also gravity is imaginary.

...but it can be tested.

 

[stvdv]

You could have made your reply "to prove the other wrong" simpler
LOVE
Would you still say "Now I can see LOVE, so I know LOVE?"

A poor woman was in an arranged marriage. She did not find the man attractive but there was no other option for her. The woman lived in a hut without electricity and she slept on a floor mat and she had child after child after child.

One day the woman went over to a neighbors house, the neighbor had electricity and a television, and she watched a television show about two young adults who were in love and defied their parents and ran off together to elope. Only then did the woman really understand what love was because it was something she never experienced. Her idea of love was primitive, to her, people being together for a long time was love.

Good example

If you have never felt it then you can't really describe it. A textbook definition of love is not love.

I thought my example made that quite clear too, or not?

 

[Nakosis]

In Advaita philosophy only Consciousness/God/Brahman alone is real. Matter is part of Maya (illusion). Matter can be likened to the props in the play/drama of Consciousness.

Right, in seeing through the illusion, there's God. So you are not waving to the rock. You are waving through/beyond the illusion to God.

 

[sun rise]

Science is constrained by its own materialism. It can only do so much.

Science by definition is about the material world.

Do you experience God? Is God something you experience?

Yes.

If you have never felt it then you can't really describe it. A textbook definition of love is not love.

The person who has never experienced a headache can look at an EEG etc and read a definition but not really know what a headache is. Whack that person on the skull with a book and that person will exclaim "Oh THAT's wha a headache truly is".

Probably 99% christians I've spoke to during the years call god love. What is the definition of the word that would match the actions and edicts of abrahamic scripture

Talk is cheap. There's a few that walk the talk.

 

[Rival]

Science by definition is about the material world.

Right, and that's limiting.

 

[George-ananda]

Right, in seeing through the illusion, there's God. So you are not waving to the rock. You are waving through/beyond the illusion to God.

Actually I don't wave at rocks but I treat living things with love and respect.

 

[Heyo]

You think that picture is love?

Nope. It is one visual example that love is possible to be evidenced.
But love is a bad comparison for god anyhow. Love is not a thing. Love is something we do. It's a quirk of the English language that we can substantivise a verb so it becomes just an argument of linguistics.

But there are other things that exist but aren't real, like shapes and numbers (ideals), laws and borders (constructs), literary figures like Harry Potter (fantasies) and dreams (illusions). God (depending on your definition) is most likely an illusion.

 

[epronovost]

Proving that God is Imaginary by Logic

Step 1, as logical step, would be to define "GOD" first. A definition all agree on.

Has that problem already been solved?

To define something, that is per definition "beyond definition" seems problematic

So, best to let go logic, when talking about God

I think ou made a mistake in sylogism there. God is a term with a LOT of definitions which indeed makes any discussion about the existence of god(s) pointless without a commonly accepted definition, but "God" in a Christian context is very well defined. There are numerous theological treaties and hily scriptures about the nature of God, his powers, his wishes, his history with humans, etc. This specific deity is the one adressed in this very poor quality video. It already has a workable definition. It's thus possible to design thought experiments (or even classical experiments) to test it's existence.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Wrong on a number of levels.

1) Not having evidence for something is not a demonstration that it isn't true/doesn't exist.
2) The God of classical theism/Abrahamic faiths is considered the ground of being itself. Thus he is not conceived as some discrete, individual physical object like a chair. He is the fundamental reality that enables the chair to exist in the first place.

It is wise to at least attempt to understand that which you criticize. The guy in this video appears to have only been exposed to the most simplistic versions of fundamentalist theism.

I would have to disagree. The God of classical theism is supposed to be both omnipotent and is supposed to care deeply about humans and what happens to us. So, in the case of that god, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence because based on how the god is described, we would expect to see unambiguous evidence of it interacting with the world.

 

[Fool]

I think this is a good video. Of course it is not a rigorous logical proof, but it is a good, commonsense video overall. I have no doubt that many religious people will not like it, but probably not be able to offer a sound refutation. Thoughts?

you can't see imagination
you can't hear it
you can't smell it
you can't taste it
you can't even feel it.

but you know it exists after the fact, effect and not before.

it's cause is consciousness, mind. so this is the eternal part and the part materialists get wrong. it isn't matter over mind, it mind over matter.

spooky action at a distance

 

[Fool]

I think ou made a mistake in sylogism there. God is a term with a LOT of definitions which indeed makes any discussion about the existence of god(s) pointless without a commonly accepted definition, but "God" in a Christian context is very well defined. There are numerous theological treaties and hily scriptures about the nature of God, his powers, his wishes, his history with humans, etc. This specific deity is the one adressed in this very poor quality video. It already has a workable definition. It's thus possible to design thought experiments (or even classical experiments) to test it's existence.

the word god predates christianity. not everyone sees it as a form as much as it is an action.

for the hebrew and native americans its an action first and a noun/object secondarily

 

[epronovost]

the word god predates christianity. not everyone sees it as a form as much as it is an action.

Of course the word or concept of god far predates christianity. The fact remains thought that the video in the OP concerns itself with the christian definition of God not the others. It provides logical arguments against such a definition not the others.

 

[questfortruth]

Proving that God is Imaginary by Logic

Step 1, as logical step, would be to define "GOD" first. A definition all agree on.

Has that problem already been solved?

To define something, that is per definition "beyond definition" seems problematic

So, best to let go logic, when talking about God

God is the name of God.

 

[ChristineM]

You can't see love, you can't hear it, you can't touch it, taste it, or smell it, therefore it doesn't exist for atheists. So, therefore, all atheists are psychopaths.

Logic.

Yes it does exist. It can be observed and measured on an mri
And people who say otherwise could possibly be psychopaths

 

[PureX]

Everything is "imaginary". Everything is an idea created in our minds in response to our experiences with reality. So the point being posed, here, is indistinct. It's meaningless in and of itself.

 

[ChristineM]

Right, and that's limiting.

I don't find reality limiting.

 

[PureX]

Yes it does exist. It can be observed and measured on an mri
And people who say otherwise could possibly be psychopaths

All you see on an MRI is the electronic signature of brain activity. A phenomena that exists in association with any and all human cognition. It neither proves nor disproves the "existence" of anything but itself. The cognition exists. Regardless of the externalized conceptualization associated with it.