Abra -- Where you wrote: "If I tell you that I’ll never go in a McDonald’s in my entire life, and then I take you out to lunch at McDonalds, I think you could say that I have just proven a negative. That is to say that I have just negated something that I had claimed to be true."

That has nothing to do with my point. All you have proven with your example is that it's possible for you to tell a lie, and that is completely separate and irrelevant from the "proving a negative" concept. In fact, once you set foot in McDonald's, the whole premise falls apart because it can no longer BE a negative.

We can quibble about semantics, and we can twist the wording to turn it into something other than it was intended to be. If I say there is no such thing as a car with a periscope, I cannot prove it, but I will consider that the likely reality until shown otherwise. If you then go out and deliberately build a car with a periscope solely to prove that such a thing does exist, that in no way negates the validity of my previous position at the time it was formulated. I will have to amend it NOW, based on the new information. But the fact that there is now a car with a periscope, built today, has no impact on my PRIOR belief.

And you are not proving a negative by building such a car -- you are simply controverting the negative entirely. The negative can only "exist" in a scenario where there is an absence (or ignorance) of its antithesis.

Which is my point about God -- I can't prove he doesn't exist. I'm perfectly willing to admit he might, as soon as I have seen an indicator. I have yet to see one. In the absence (or my ignorance) of any valid foundation for belief in a God, I hold the position that he probably does not exist.

But I certainly can't prove that. No more than I could prove Tarzan never existed. I think it's unlikely, I think it's all a fictional creation, but I don't know for sure.

and on the eighth day GOD created Mc Donalds ..and on the ninth day..apple pies ...and Eve said Adam would you like a bite of mine..and the rest is history....

but what came first the Mc Donalds or the apple pie...mankind has ponder this question over the ages..

I’m in complete agreement with you here sir.

However my point was entirely differnet.

Let’s suppose that I claim that I have a periscope that is waterproof. I refuse to show it to you but just make the claim. You can’t prove that I don’t have one.

However, if during the conversation I tell you that the periscope can’t be used underwater because it isn’t waterproof. Then it’s no longer necessary for me to even produce the periscope. You already know that my story about it is inconsistent. It can’t be both waterproof and not waterproof at the same time.

So while you can’t ‘prove’ whether or not my periscope exists, you can ‘prove’ (by using what I’ve told you about it) that even if it does exist it can’t possible have the properties that I claim.

In other words, you may not be able to disprove the existence of someone’s picture of god. But you can certainly prove that their picture itself makes no sense and therefore their god (if it has all the properties they claim) would be a paradox if it did exist.



And my point is that a periscope can’t be both waterproof and not waterproof simultaneously. Especially if it is being claimed the periscope is unchanging and dependable.

So I still hold that while you may not be able to disprove that a god exists, you can show that a particular picture of a god that is inconsistent would be a paradox if it did exist.

Abra, I think we're bifurcating here!

My position has nothing to do with the PROPERTIES of the "periscope." Frankly, I couldn't give a damn one way or the other. I don't care if it shoots radioactive lobsters at clowns.

I'm only talking about the bare fact, yes-or-no, of whether the thing exists or not, as klc noted.

Maybe we have to define "periscope" (or "god," or "radioactive lobster") if we want to cover all the bases. I'm not really interested in that, though.

Does it exist or not? I don't believe it does. That's based on nothing but observation and many years of reading every readily-available book/magazine/etc. that I ran across.

Can I prove that it doesn't exist? No. But, from the larger standpoint, I can't really prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist. So I think it's disingenuous for people to say, "Ah ha! You can't PROVE God doesn't exist, therefore he MUST exist!"

By that logic, EVERYTHING must exist. And yet I have never seen a blue, three-headed poodle.

I think you bring up a good point.

You've suggested that we are unlikely to care if it's an object of somone's own keeping.

However, you might take that a step further and ask why we should care about the existence of a god?

I think there are two kinds of people:

People who can be happy without invoking the idea of a god.

And people who can't handle life without invoking the idea of a god.

If a person has no need for a god they aren't going to be motivated to consider one. They may have actually already found god and not even know it! They just don't call it god.

On the other hand, a person who is desparate to believe in a god may be willing to consider anything.

there is nothing to prevent the monotheistic biblical God from being the pantheistic God Abra describes

Well in that case there must be ‘properties’ that you expected to see and never saw.

I think it’s those properties that you need to put under a microscope.

After all, what does it mean to say that god exists or doesn’t exist if you have no ‘definition’ for what god means?

I say that the universe is god. I think it’s pretty obvious to any sane reasonable person that the universe exists. Therefore they experience the proof of my god directly with every breath they take.



All I’m saying is that people who say, , "Ah ha! You can't PROVE God doesn't exist, therefore he MUST exist!". I say that it may be possible to PROVE that THEIR PICTURE of god is illogical and inconsistent, thus proving that THEIR PICTURE of god can be shown at the very least to be paradoxical. We usually accept that as a proof of nonexistence.



I will agree with you that the inability to disprove something does not PROVE that it DOES exist. Anyone who says, "Ah ha! You can't PROVE God doesn't exist, therefore he MUST exist!" needs to take classes in rational thinking. Those kinds of statements are just an exhibition of ignorance with respect to reason.

I see what you are saying, but I would also point out that we don’t all necessarily view god with the same picture, as Slow points out too,…



If this should be true then there were simply some misunderstandings in our “pictures” of god, but that had nothing to do with god herself.

"Well in that case there must be ‘properties’ that you expected to see and never saw."

Actually, I think it's because I found far more rational explanations for everything, than what any religion offered -- explanations that had nothing to do with a mythological, super-powerful invisible friend up in the clouds. Is the sun a big ball of hydrogen being fused into helium, or is it some guy in a flying chariot arcing through the sky?

"After all, what does it mean to say that god exists or doesn’t exist if you have no ‘definition’ for what god means?"

But I do have a definition. It just turns out that the character was "revealed" to be fictional -- a la Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Superman, Homer Simpson, God.

"I will agree with you that the inability to disprove something does not PROVE that it DOES exist. Anyone who says, "Ah ha! You can't PROVE God doesn't exist, therefore he MUST exist!" needs to take classes in rational thinking. Those kinds of statements are just an exhibition of ignorance with respect to reason."

....which, in my opinion, is a very apt definition of "religion" in general....

There is no debate that I am aware of that Gravity, Strong Force and Electromagnetism are not seperate and individual forces. Since they are in fact seperate forces, there is no reason to believe that they are linked together in the manner you suggest.



It absolutely is evidence of the Christian God.

1) The physics behind the Anthropic Principle indicate that a god must have created the universe.
2) For a god to have created the universe, that god would have to exist outside of this universe.
3) Said god would need nearly limitless power and awareness.

Although there are many religions that suggest number 1, there are only two that suggest 2 and 3. That is Christianity and Judaism. Your own belief is that the universe is god, which is proven impossible by the anthropic principle. We can easily rule out thousands of religions with just the Anthropic Principle as our guide. So if the physics behind the Anthropic Principle are accurate (and we have to reason to believe they are not), then the only possible god is the God of the Bible or another god which is not described any religion.

Just my 2 cents here...God made man in his own image,right? Well that must mean even God has a mother.Yet nothing mentioned about this little conundrum in the bible.Now this is not to say don't have faith in a God,Goddess,but to also have faith in yourself. Besides it's better to have an idea rather than a faith.An idea can change,adapt over time.It's hard to change one's faith.Also one thing I have mentioned earlier was that back in those times very few people knew how to read.So if a man wanted to put something into the Bible which "claimed" to be Holy Scripture,he could and no one would be the wiser.

I find my self engaging in a rude display.

Gypsy, please excuse my presence as a humorous hi-jack of your intended query.

It is an abundant muse on JSH that my beliefs are nakedly present.

But i can't help myself from standing in concert with unbelievers. The warmth of humorous and or thoughtful entertainments begs my attendance .

Besides, the letter 9 is one of my favorites.

And rather than lurk and peek through the window at the party, I much rather prefer the vulnerability of safety in numbers



I think it would be impossible to disprove the inexistence of any god as long as we think and have conversations in our heads.

That we communicate our thoughts in so many colorful ways is a dead give away.

Faith has nothing to do with it. Perhaps you’re locked into a specific idea of what “god” has to mean?

As far as the dog chasing its tail, this would be true of all religions. Even to claim there’s a separate godhead doesn’t change that. Then the question becomes, “What created god?”

All you’re doing there is pinning the dog’s tail onto the godhead and hoping that the god will have an explanation.

In fact, this is why many people need to have a god. They just can’t handle not-knowing. So they imagine that there is an all-knowing god and then they give a sigh of relief and say, “Ahhh, at least someone knows what the hell’s going on!”.

I have no problem with not knowing all the answers. My pantheistic view most certainly doesn’t provide all the answers, but it much more sense to me than any other religion I’ve ever heard.

I wouldn’t trust the Biblical God to know the answers to anything because he seems to have been confused the whole way through the Bible. He demonstrated a great ability to not be able to control much of anything at all.

Actually - this is not true. Abra has demonstrated numerous times that the monotheistic God of the bible has to be mythical in his describing the pantheistic God - because the pantheistic god would never do what the biblical God has been attributed as doing. They cannot co-exist, nor can they be the same.

GOD is GOD it is mankinds misinterpretation that brings us to debate...



(my two cents)

Geeeez....

Get over it, you lot.

Your god can be bigger than my god...I don't care...

and if I had a god, neither would they.

Splitting hairs....


such a waste of time...pedantic words semantics...and corrupted absolutes...

if you god is so great ....enjoy them...no need to defend them, whatever gender you attached to your god.

I think more people in America trust God with their money than anyone else.

This is true.

If the biblical God actually is like the Bible proclaims then it cannot possibly be the pantheistic god.

I often beleive that Jesus himself may have been an enlightened man. But to believe that requires also believing that the people who wrote about him put a lot of words into his mouth that he never actually spoke.

I can believe that, but it would require a huge sales pitch to get other people to buy into it. Better to just denounce the whole Bible.

I only defend my god because my cat doens't need any defense.