Very easy - create a simple definition of God based on the tangible/quantitative.

As you will see, proving God depends on one's definition of God.

Whilst proving God is dependent on one's definition of God, I agree that the intangible/qualitiative aspect of God can be proven to one by the fact that s/he thinks and dreams. These are four-dimensional, timeless and spaceless qualities, which religion historical attempted to explain. The difficulty however is that since God is a process, it's definition is subject to time and will therefore change according to the experiences and perception of the person defining. Therefore, a definition will be relative to the person defining it and only true of that moment in time.

This post has been edited by My Invisible Thoughts: Dec 22 2007, 08:06 AM

From a logical point of view:
It seems that the deductive step from the fact that one thinks or one dreams falters when proceeding beyond the statement "there are dreams" or "there are thoughts." If it is a major leap to the conclusion that there is an "I" who has those dreams or thoughts---no matter how lively they appear---then it is even greater to the conclusion to the (real) existence of God.

That there is a concept of God, on a par with there is a concept of a unicorn, and that this concept of God varies from one person to the next, or one historical epoch to the next, seems to argue that the origin of God is strictly human.
Z

Please can you elaborate a little more.

So, by applying the same kind of reasoning, I can do this? That there is a concept of nature that varies from one person to the next, or one historical epoch to the next, seems to argue that the origin of nature is strictly human.

The original question that began this thread was whether one can deduce God's existence. I have argued that such a deduction, taken in a strict logical sense, is not possible. In a more general sense, whether one can produce arguments able to convince anyone of God's real existence (in the sense of not being an object of imagination or feeling, but as actually existing) is open to debate. Hence, the question under discussion is not really whether God exists or not, but whether his (or hers or its) can be satisfactory demonstrated.

The gist of what I was saying is that any conception (or historical propensity) to "believe in God" may tells us something about human nature, but certainly does not prove God's existence, just as much as my mental picture of a unicorndoes not mean that any have ever actually roamed this planet.
Z

You are correct. Earlier I said that proving God depends on it's definition. If I choose to define God as a human being, I can prove to you that God exists by showing to you a human being. If I choose to define God as the floor or as existance, I can prove this to you by showing to you the floor or the objects that existance constitues. However, God's definition in most cases is based on an intangible quality that has no physical charactoristics. This is where it becomes diffcult proving God's existance. Again, there are ways of describing this quality. For instance, if I refer to the personality of a human as my definition of God, I can define God as being kind and polite. I can prove that God is kind and polite by allowing you to be aquainted with that human which has a kind and polite personality. However, as I said earlier, definitions of God will be relative to each person and proving God will depend on its definition.

For reasons that are very obvious, there is no physical evidence that can prove the 'intangible' aspect of God.

I disagree that because the concept of God varies from one person to the next suggests that the origin of God is strictly human, it only suggests that the origin of the definitions are human.

In relation to deducing God's existance, the process of deduction is based on the physical. Therefore, in so far as one's definition of God is physical, it can be proved. It is however impossible to use a physical process in order to prove something which is not physical for very obvious reasons.

This post has been edited by My Invisible Thoughts: Dec 22 2007, 04:41 PM

I am not clear about how the process of deduction is based on the physical. Here is an example of the process of deduction:
All A is B
All B is C
Therefore, All A is C.
The only physical basis for the syllogism is that it is in my "head" and, so scientist tells us, the result of electrical stimulation of brain cells. Perhaps we mean different things by the word "physical," but in this example, the process (and it legitimacy) is independent of any physical object.

One could, moreover, define God's existence to be non-physical (or not physical in the sense that we understand physical, namely actually existing in time and space); this might make a proof of God somewhat difficult, but I am not clear how it would automatically rule out its possibility. Many arguments make sense, even if they refer to non-existences, because of generalized, or abstract, terms.

Lastly, it is not obvious (at least to this one) that one cannot use a physical process (thinking, for example) to prove something which is not physical. This "rule" which is not physical, could never be proved if that were the case.
Z

The best way of demonstrating logic is by the use of maths/physics. And what I meant to say was that physics/maths cannot be used to prove something which is not made from physical matter or which is not constrained by time nor space.

I agree that many arguments make sense even where they refer to non-existences, but that four-dimensional entities cannot be proved using physics/maths.

This post has been edited by My Invisible Thoughts: Dec 23 2007, 09:17 AM

Certainly the application of laws of thought (logic) to existent observations depends on establishing the "truth" of the premises, and for this reason alone, one could take any attempt with a grain of salt.
Z

After having a philosophical discussion tonight, I have managed to form a clearer conclusion as to why God's existance cannot be deduced -

1. The truth about god cannot be communicated since communication is limited to the tangible.

2. There needs to be agreement on the definition on God before one can prove it's existance - whether God is exclusively tangible / intangible or both. The intangible aspect however cannot be proved, since proof is based on physical evidence, and without it, communication of the intangible is flawed, as asserted above.

The first argument, that human knowledge is limited to a certain kind of universe, has always seemed crucial. As Kant pointed out, when that knowledge is extended improperly to subjects outside of that universe of possible knowledge, the result is "antimonies" where one can equally "prove" two opposite propositions.
One might go further and say that any proposition with existential implications must, at least in principle, be subject to verification. But direct verification would not be possible and the "rules" for doing it would most likely rest on assumptions that would be circular.
Z

Oh God! Why did you stop!