God is a CONCEPT

    It is impossible to prove or disprove god because god neither exists nor fails to exist.  It's like trying to prove the number e exists: chances are that you've never actually seen e in real life, you've only read about it in books.  Of course, it would be silly to say that the existence of e is therefore infinitely improbable, since  e doesn't go about existing or not existing anyway.
    This is where /sci/ seems to be stuck, trying to prove/disprove the general concept of god.  For the arguments to progress, you need to understand the relationship between god and religion.  Religion tends to consist of three components: God(s), miracles, and practices.  Miracles are what the religion claims to be god's manifestation on Earth: these range between things that happened naturally(ie the existence of the universe, people recovering from illness on their own) and magical stories of things that never really happened(ie Moses parting the Red Sea, God creating the world in a week.)  Practices are the component of religion that says things like: love thy neighbor, thou shalt not murder, slay the infidels (often openly conflicting with itself.)  Religion ties the three together using miracles to "prove" that their god "exists" and wants them to follow their religion's practices.  The miracle->god->practice chain is normally non sequitur and is facilitated by a magic book (ie bible, qur'an) and/or a class of priests/prophets who are free to (mis)interpret the religion for the common people.
    Religion is afraid of science because science can disprove the "miracles" with which religion "proves" its god is correct.  However, neither science nor religion can prove/disprove a concept.

You're a moron. God could easily prove his existence by showing his face in the sky and exploding the moon or someshit like that. And disproving the existence of God? ONE DOES NOT PROVE NEGATIVES YOU FAGGOT. EVER.

There, I just collapsed your whole thesis. Enjoy middle school.

Claim: The ancient egyptians did not watch Seinfeld.

Proof: Seinfeld existed millenia after the ancient egyptian civilization collapsed.

QED.

>>3
Time travel.

>>3

They were too busy enslaving the jews to watch sitcoms about them.

>>2
you can prove "negations" if that's what your retarded ass meant.

>>2
ONE DOES NOT PROVE NEGATIVES YOU FAGGOT. EVER
That's not true. I could prove that there's no beer in my refrigerator. It's as easy as opening the refrigerator door.

Proving that an existing object is not in an existing location != proving an object you do not know exists is in a (possibly) infinite location

I believe there is possibly a higher consciousness. I call this god. I believe that there is much more the universe than we can ever know or even pretend to understand, I call this concept God.
I am humbled at our inability to know and am in awe of the universe. I try to find my place in the world and make the most of my existence, and this is my prayer.

>>1
>It's like trying to prove the number e exists: chances are that you've never actually seen e in real life, you've only read about it in books.  Of course, it would be silly to say that the existence of e is therefore infinitely improbable, since  e doesn't go about existing or not existing anyway.

You clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Maybe you're a bit butthurt that no sane person accepts your imaginary friend?

I believe that there is much more the universe than we can ever know or even pretend to understand, I call this concept God.

I hate faggots who do that.

>>7

That doesn't "prove" anything.  It's strong evidence, yes, but you being unable to see a beer in your fridge doesn't prove that one isn't there.

It could be hiding behind something, or in something, or could be a magic space beer that is invisible.  Sure, all of those things are very very unlikely, but there is no way to prove 100% that there is no beer in your fridge.

>>7

That doesn't "prove" anything.  It's strong evidence, yes, but you being unable to see a beer in your fridge doesn't prove that one isn't there.

It could be hiding behind something, or in something, or could be a magic space beer that is invisible.  Sure, all of those things are very very unlikely, but there is no way to prove 100% that there is no beer in your fridge.

>>13
How old are you, kid?

>>14
Disregard that, I suck cocks. Just kidding. Seriously, though, I must apologize for my condescending question. I'm tired, and years of debating on the topic of religion, philosphy, and related matters has left me frustrated and jaded. (Politeness? On my 4chan!? It's more likely than you think.)

What I wanted to say is, when people refer to something like beer, they're referring to something specific that is very visible. It's more convenient than saying "the golden carbonated beverage in an aluminum can, etc. etc." every time you want to refer to it. As for it maybe just hiding behind or inside something, well, let's assume we took that into consideration. I was kind of hoping that people would have figured that part out on their own.

>>8
I was simply pointing out that the popular statement, "one can never prove a negative" is false. That means that atheists can bear the burden of proof.

>>9
The word "God" refers to the alleged all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent creator of the universe, so it doesn't make sense to call something "God" unless it fits that description. Maybe it's Wotan, or something we've never even heard of before.

>>13
you dont always need 100%. well actually, you never need it.

>>13

Sure, you can prove negatives. Every negative can be mechanically formulated to be a positive, and vice versa.

>>1
tl:dr

e exists you stupid bitch

Hmm 20th comment WO0t i own!! oya the whole religion thing is fuckin retarded and like 40% of the people take it to far to kill over it. I mean its not like anime or nething LOL. But seriously, people took a good idea and did what humans do they exploited it and tryed to anyway make a prophet << (money i spelt it wrong) out of something they have people beliving so hard into and so they put out hundreds ov televangilists and stuff like that can u say whatdafuxup

PROTIP:
"miracle->god->practice"
The whole point of religion is to get people to follow practices. If religion stops Average Joe from killing his neighbor (or someone like... you) since he's afraid of the "god" whose existence is proven through some "miracle," then let him be.

Not all humans can simply accept and follow the "practice" part of religion without the authority figure.

If you really want to be clever, go rework to "practices" part of religion to what you feel is correct and let the other parts enforce it. But then you'll just arguing over arbitrary ethics (e.g. when is it ok to take a life?).

Damn it all, we keep arguing about something whose definition we can't even agree upon.  What is God?  We all have some vague notion of what we mean when we refer to the term, but these notions are not necessarily the same, and they do not necessarily have to come together.

OP: concept, like e
>>2: sentient entity that actually exists and can manifest itself in the physical world
>>9: higher conciousness
>>15: creator of the universe
among other things...

I'll buy the concept argument, but only because concepts are manufactured by the human mind (and assumed to be true/consistent like math), rather than based on some physical reality.  With such a definition of God, we know nothing except philosophical wankery.  2 is a concept, but 2 apples does not define the concept of 2.

I vaguely believe in a divine entity, but this is the definition that cannot ever be proven either way.  Even if God appears before us, how do we know it's not a hallucination, or some glitch in the matrix?

Higher consciousness?  Just like the 1st one: philosophical wankery.

Assuming the universe has a beginning, something has to have created this world.  If we're going to arbitrarily define this thing as God, there's not much I can do about it.  By this definition, God might just be a big bang.  This definition does not require any sort of sentience.  If a fire extinguisher created the universe, then it would be God by this definition.  The original poster, however, added qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence.  Such qualities goes to the sentient entity category above.

>>21
Your statements would be ideal for Average Joe, but I'm not very happy with Osama Bin Laden telling Average Mohammed to commit suicide bombings though.

>>22: believes the mind is not physical reality.

This thread is retarded, I can prove that the world is round but I can't disprove the concept that the world is flat. Because if you haven't seen...... OMG I just found some space beer in my fridge

God is a CONCEPT
By which we can measure,
Our pain,
I'll say it again,
God is a concept,
By which we can measure,
Our pain,
I don't believe in magic,
I don't believe in I-ching,
I don't believe in bible,
I don't believe in tarot,
I don't believe in Hitler,
I don't believe in Jesus,
I don't believe in Kennedy,
I don't believe in Buddha,
I don't believe in mantra,
I don't believe in Gita,
I don't believe in yoga,
I don't believe in kings,
I don't believe in Elvis,
I don't believe in Zimmerman,
I don't believe in Beatles,
I just believe in me,
Yoko and me,
And that's reality.
The dream is over,
What can I say?
The dream is over,
Yesterday,
I was dreamweaver,
But now I'm reborn,
I was the walrus,
But now I'm John,
And so dear friends,
You just have to carry on,
The dream is over.

god could be a concept, but then it's not really god is it

though I guess if it's effects are positive you might aswell utilise it

If this god-thing is a "concept", then the validity to our lives is just about the same as me pulling Gilgamesh out of my ass.  Many are the assertions that this "concept" is literally watching my every move and will oxidize some other "concept" (i.e. a soul) of mine in a very hot place dimensionally positioned somewhere, if I don't KNUCKLE UNDER and obey the various commandments and rules of this "concept" (i.e. god-thing).  This is just making a big layered sandwich of bullshit and then demanding that people enjoy taking a bite.

No "concept" has the power to fry me like a flank steak on a curiously-subterranean-looking burner set to 'infinite'.  That's where the holy rollers fail it.  They think some silly concept has such an applicability, when they've completely stumbled over the need for proof once that applicability is raised.

In short, if your "god" really did remove itself from this reality in order to make room for the created reality itself, then its about as relevant to our existence as is the color of some rock 18km deep in the mantle of Pluto.  Choose one or the other, O Mental Midgets!

>>27
elaborate on "what" it means to have "validity to our lives".  you seem to be talking out of your "ass".  i can identify several ways a "concept" can have an "effect" on our lives, but i'm at a loss as to "what the fuck" is even meant by having "validity to" something.  NOW YOU MIGHT HAVE NOTICED i'm randomly quoting things for NO FUCKING REASON, but we'll ignore that for NOW.

>>24

Indeed. Pyrrhonism is laughable due to the fact that you must also be skeptic of the validity of pyrrhonism itself.

>>27
Very well written.  I agree with your statements, but the OP seems to have also suggested that God is more than just a concept (unfalsifiable).

I claim that e "exists" because it was a concept created to accurately model a sbuset of reality in some predictable fashion.  God does not necessarily "exist" because he was not created to model reality predictably.

Elaborate?  Why certainly, O Wise #28.

CONCEPT:  Obey the excessively-Jewish commandments of this god-thing or your pseudo-energy ass will roast like a Kosher sausage forever.

REALITY:  There's no proof of this god-thing, nor of a 'pseudo-energy ass' (or body part of any kind) (i.e. the "soul"), so the concept has NO VALIDITY once you see through the cloud of social bullshit that surrounds it.  People can tell you about the monster beneath the bed all they want -- once you realize that there's no monster there, and in fact monsters don't even exist, then the validity of the concept or threat goes right out the fucking window.

#28, you are a true dumbass and MUST be one of the religgies who are busily afflicting Mankind with mental throwbackery.  I submit that you grew girly squeamish at the idea that YOUR ghei-god concept has no real power, hence your yelping commenced.  THAT was my point, not that ALL CONCEPTS have zero validity.

That you made that jump to conclusion shows that you are not a logical thinker, hence, you're dismissed.  That's about the speed of you religgies who actually try to defend the idea of a giant alien space monster who -- despite being universe spanning -- somehow prefers yarmulkas and gefilte fish.

The concept of this god-thing has no validity in our lives since there's no proof whatsoever that the conceived entity exists.  PERIOD.  Now, GTFO and go scare some more little children with your fairy tales, religifreak.

>>31

You mean that we have never yet found convincing proof. Back in the first millennium we hadn't "found" any convincing proof that the world is spherical. Did that make it have no validity to us? Surely not, the geometry of the Earth influences many things, from tides to the weather.

>>31
28 here, i'm the atheist from the other thread actually, and again, you've baselessly assumed i hold some beliefs.  anyway, i wasn't trying to get you to be an idiot or embarass yourself again; i was actually questioning your syntax.  i haven't ever understood validity to be something that is "to" another thing in the way that you've used it, and this presented a difficulty as i tried to read your post.

despite you being an incredible idiot, i'm going to check back in a few days for your response.  i'll be out of state until then, so in advance i'll just generally point out that your reasoning is flawed and you're talking out of your ass in all posts between now and then.

>>1
I agree god is a concept, that’s it. The concept of god is a by product of speech and reasoning; an intellectual toy for the masses-whether they believe in its existence or not. God is where metaphysics BEGINS, without this idea we are nothing.

#32 said: «You mean that we have never yet found convincing proof.»

No, it means that a giant alien space monster with vast interest in Mankind would not be hard to find.  After searching for the fucking Easter Bunny steadily each Easter, you eventually have to grudgingly conclude that it's far more probable that a large and anthropomorphic rabbit with a strange interest in your kids DOESN'T EXIST.  If he DID exist, boy O boy, you'd see him one year, all right.  (I'm not talking about the queers who don bunny suits and try to feel up your kids.)

This "god" should be easy to prove, given "his" alleged frequent contact with Mankind.  Alas, when the cameras and recorders arrive, there's just blank film and silence.  Hence:  You people were just making things up.  That makes perfect sense, since the bookstores are filled with the fictional works of Mankind.

Even shorter:  HUMANS LIE A LOT.  Get over it.

I don't even need to get into the issue of "if YOU know this 'god' exists, then there MUST be a method by which 'he' is detected".  That pops your little argument like a SABO round does a child's balloon.

#32 said: «Back in the first millennium we hadn't "found" any convincing proof that the world is spherical.»

False.  There was plenty of convincing proof, like use of shadows on the ground, the Earth's shadow on the moon, and of course that silly little problem of watching ships sink under the horizon as they left.

Since people (like you) are largely fools and fearful shit-chimps, such evidence was largely ignored and the general populace sporting such simian mentalities continued to believe the world was flat, while they killed other chimps and mounted their own sisters.  (Rome, etc.)

YOU SEE, here, #32 buddy, is that you are standing there like a fucking moron, holding NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, when evidence is absolutely required and that it should be easy to get.  But you have none.  Well, the sensible man says "fella, you've got nuthin'" and walks away, shaking his head sadly that such a fool readily exists.

(Where do you queers get your so-called educations from, anyway?  The trivia that's printed on boxes of breakfast cereal?  Sheesh.)

#33, there's no flaw in reasoning to demand proof of something that should be emitting proof at the rate of furlongs per fortnight (approximately).  It's amazing how people try to argue around the hard requirement of proof ... and what the 100% lack of such proof clearly says about what was said to be true.

Please, please O fucknut, try and tell me how evidence is no longer evidentiary.  I'd love to hear how you'd spin that one, El Dingleberry.

>>35

32 here. Of course, it is ridiculous to believe in a God that alters the physical universe in an irrational, and frequent way. This is easy to disprove. It is not so easy to disprove that the universe was created by some kind of consciousness, and this is the point I'm trying to make.

I cannot believe in a Christian or Jewish God, since their faith is just so much circumstance, but upon the foundational question of whether or not some kind of being, some consciousness, created the universe, perhaps maintains its energies and physical laws in ways we can't comprehend, I don't see how this can be anything but an open question. Sure, you have your points about "valid" concepts and whatnot, but this is the point: God is not supposed to be something we can prove or disprove, the concept of God is not supposed to be something about which there exists evidence.

Believers do not sue for scientific backing or evidentiary reasoning... In fact I do not think they should make use of "reason" at all. It IS possible for faith and reason to be separated, for us to hold irrational beliefs that are quite exclusive to scientific ones, that only hold sway in irrational arenas, not the physical universe. But to do so we can only look inside ourselves and try to work out what we believe already.

I know you're going to go on about how it's all just airy-fairy bullshit and not of concern to any rational minded person, but God is the part of us that exists beyond the rationale, out of reach of it. God IS unscientific, simply because the science and reason of this universe is constricted to this universe.

"Believers do not sue for scientific backing or evidentiary reasoning"

I say that, I mean most believers.

Then leave your giant-alien-space-monster at the door when the adults are talking, #37.  If you feel you don't need to supply proof of your assertions, then your assertions will be summarily dismissed by rational men.  Your assertions have no place in schooling, legislation or law enforcement.  In fact, any place where people are inclined to talk about the topic of Harry Potter (and other such imaginary constructs) is a good guide for places where your assertions have their ONLY applicability.  Note well we don't quote from the "Books of Rowling" when justifying legislation, family arrangements, and in fact any matter of legal and community importance.

But that's not what the "holy rollers" do, is it?  They want to have their cake (i.e. belief in an imaginary being) and also eat it too (i.e. have others forced to abide by the dictates of this imaginary being).

It's time to remove the use of the Bible in courtrooms across the USA.  If the religitards continue to insist they don't need proof to believe in the existence of a giant alien space monster and the imaginary pronouncements it allegedly has, then their methods should be removed from the legal apparatus.  Or, we should just admit that "I so swear to Dumbledore" is an equally valid affirmation in court.

Sheesh.  Imagine if we lived in a world where engineers didn't use the demonstrable and repeatable principles of physics to build bridges, and instead claimed that some passage out of Romans assured us the bridge as built would not collapse under a working load.

>>39
I wholeheartedly agree with your statements regarding religion, but once again you completely phail to understand what 37 is trying to claim.  He did not at any point claim that this "imaginary stuff" should be applicable in courts of law or other places of rational interest.  In fact, he states very much to the contrary:

"It IS possible... for us to hold irrational beliefs that... ONLY hold sway in irrational arenas, NOT the physical universe"

Last I checked, "schooling, legislation or law enforcement" are very much parts of the physical universe.

With regards to what you said, the religinuts really need to be stopped, but that doesn't seem easy.