Even God couldn't prove he exists.

[uwot]

Anyone who has read Descartes' Discourse on Method or Meditations will understand just how sceptical it is possible to be. Needlessly so, in many cases, but Descartes' radical scepticism threw out the one thing he didn't really want to get rid of. In order to reinstate God, Descartes fell back on the ontological argument. Basically, imagine the most perfect possible thing. Existence is a perfection. Therefore to be the most perfect possible thing, the most perfect possible thing has to exist. If that looks like a useless argument, that's because it is. It gets worse, because Descartes argued he could rely on God to give him 'clear and distinct ideas'. So having previously admitted that there are other potential causes for his ideas: dreams, hallucinations, confusions, illusions, delusions and whatnot, what clear and distinct idea could God give a person that could not be attributed to any other source? Is there anything a god could do to prove it exists?

[attofishpi]

Anyone who has read Descartes' Discourse on Method or Meditations will understand just how sceptical it is possible to be. Needlessly so, in many cases, but Descartes' radical scepticism threw out the one thing he didn't really want to get rid of. In order to reinstate God, Descartes fell back on the ontological argument. Basically, imagine the most perfect possible thing. Existence is a perfection. Therefore to be the most perfect possible thing, the most perfect possible thing has to exist. If that looks like a useless argument, that's because it is. It gets worse, because Descartes argued he could rely on God to give him 'clear and distinct ideas'. So having previously admitted that there are other potential causes for his ideas: dreams, hallucinations, confusions, illusions, delusions and whatnot, what clear and distinct idea could God give a person that could not be attributed to any other source? Is there anything a god could do to prove it exists?

Well of course, if it wanted to!

I get the feeling you are going to want to know what precisely God could do to prove itself as an existence!?

..and then one must deal with the quandary of what DEFINES God.

So.

A bloke walks into a bar, asks for a glass of water right in front of you. The water sits there, the bloke says "I am God, and I just got a cheap glass of shiraz." The water right in front of you turns to red. He says have a taste. You sip, indeed it is wine.

Proving NOTHING.

I had this conversation with AUK many years ago, as to what would convince him, it truly was ridiculous, BUT I will insist, pending definitions of what GOD IS, that it is plausible that IT can prove its own existence, beyond a reasonable doubt (my art shall remain non part of this debate)

So.

Until God is defined, I shall not partake.

ps. I know I keep jumping in and adding more - this 'perfection' thing has a little synchronicity to it for me. Noboby likes to hear someones dream, especially atheists. Well, (two weeks ago) the "Life of Pi" boat I was in, and there was no tiger. Just me and Christ. I asked him a question, did God form our reality from the chaos of the early universe?...to which he replied yes. I started falling backwards over the side of the boat, and I am looking up at Christ. There was no water it seemed as I was now upside down looking up at Christ who now stood, with HIS soles upon mine, both of us outside of the boat.
HE said "IT IS PERFECT" - to which I assume he meant REALITY.
(sorry)

WHO IS GOING TO DEFINE WHAT DEFINES GOD?

[Sculptor]

Anyone who has read Descartes' Discourse on Method or Meditations will understand just how sceptical it is possible to be. Needlessly so, in many cases, but Descartes' radical scepticism threw out the one thing he didn't really want to get rid of. In order to reinstate God, Descartes fell back on the ontological argument. Basically, imagine the most perfect possible thing. Existence is a perfection. Therefore to be the most perfect possible thing, the most perfect possible thing has to exist. If that looks like a useless argument, that's because it is. It gets worse, because Descartes argued he could rely on God to give him 'clear and distinct ideas'. So having previously admitted that there are other potential causes for his ideas: dreams, hallucinations, confusions, illusions, delusions and whatnot, what clear and distinct idea could God give a person that could not be attributed to any other source? Is there anything a god could do to prove it exists?

What do you mean by "god".
You seem to assume that such a thing exists, and that this thing is male.
Can you justify your initial assumptions?

[uwot]

...Is there anything a god could do to prove it exists?

What do you mean by "god".
You seem to assume that such a thing exists, and that this thing is male.
Can you justify your initial assumptions?

You'd have to ask Descartes. I'm assuming he had what I understand is a fairly standard christian definition of 'God the father'. You'll note that when I ask the question, I refer to a god as 'it', and I certainly don't assume any such thing exists. It's a hypothetical question.

[uwot]

I get the feeling you are going to want to know what precisely God could do to prove itself as an existence!?

Well yeah, that's the question.

..and then one must deal with the quandary of what DEFINES God.

Hm. Something that could prove it exists would be a start.

[attofishpi]

I get the feeling you are going to want to know what precisely God could do to prove itself as an existence!?

Well yeah, that's the question.

..and then one must deal with the quandary of what DEFINES God.

Hm. Something that could prove it exists would be a start.

I disagree. For your foray into Descartes, one simply needs to at least define God, and then simply prove that this definition of God could prove itself to exist. No? (sorry uwot - on a re-read - we are still on the same page)

Me proving God exists is not in question, but whether our agreed upon definition of God and whether it can prove itself to exists IS.

YES?

[attofishpi]

So then, what defines the Christian God that Descartes perceived?

Of course, as a Christian myself, I will if required take the challenge on.

[Age]

Anyone who has read Descartes' Discourse on Method or Meditations will understand just how sceptical it is possible to be. Needlessly so, in many cases, but Descartes' radical scepticism threw out the one thing he didn't really want to get rid of. In order to reinstate God, Descartes fell back on the ontological argument. Basically, imagine the most perfect possible thing. Existence is a perfection. Therefore to be the most perfect possible thing, the most perfect possible thing has to exist. If that looks like a useless argument, that's because it is. It gets worse, because Descartes argued he could rely on God to give him 'clear and distinct ideas'. So having previously admitted that there are other potential causes for his ideas: dreams, hallucinations, confusions, illusions, delusions and whatnot, what clear and distinct idea could God give a person that could not be attributed to any other source? Is there anything a god could do to prove it exists?

ALL the PROOF NEEDED for the IDEA that God, Itself, exists, EXISTS.

What 'you', human beings, just HAVE TO DISCUSS and WORK OUT, FIRST, is; What IS God, EXACTLY (or PRECISELY)?

And, a VERY EASY and SIMPLE WAY to do this is to just ask the question; What could the God word be referring to, EXACTLY (or PRECISELY)? and just ANSWER this OPENLY and Honestly.

ALSO, the EXACT reason WHY 'you', human beings, are taking SO LONG to work out what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS here is EXAMPLED by YOUR very OWN CHOICE of words "uwot".

[attofishpi]

AND...there it goes. AGE can you ignore this thread of all the threads of the forum, please, I implore you not to get involved.

[Age]

Anyone who has read Descartes' Discourse on Method or Meditations will understand just how sceptical it is possible to be. Needlessly so, in many cases, but Descartes' radical scepticism threw out the one thing he didn't really want to get rid of. In order to reinstate God, Descartes fell back on the ontological argument. Basically, imagine the most perfect possible thing. Existence is a perfection. Therefore to be the most perfect possible thing, the most perfect possible thing has to exist. If that looks like a useless argument, that's because it is. It gets worse, because Descartes argued he could rely on God to give him 'clear and distinct ideas'. So having previously admitted that there are other potential causes for his ideas: dreams, hallucinations, confusions, illusions, delusions and whatnot, what clear and distinct idea could God give a person that could not be attributed to any other source? Is there anything a god could do to prove it exists?

Well of course, if it wanted to!

I get the feeling you are going to want to know what precisely God could do to prove itself as an existence!?

..and then one must deal with the quandary of what DEFINES God.

So.

A bloke walks into a bar, asks for a glass of water right in front of you. The water sits there, the bloke says "I am God, and I just got a cheap glass of shiraz." The water right in front of you turns to red. He says have a taste. You sip, indeed it is wine.

Proving NOTHING.

I had this conversation with AUK many years ago, as to what would convince him, it truly was ridiculous, BUT I will insist, pending definitions of what GOD IS, that it is plausible that IT can prove its own existence, beyond a reasonable doubt (my art shall remain non part of this debate)

So.

Until God is defined, I shall not partake.

Now this is one of, or the, WISEST thing/s I have SEEN written here, in this forum.

ps. I know I keep jumping in and adding more - this 'perfection' thing has a little synchronicity to it for me. Noboby likes to hear someones dream, especially atheists. Well, (two weeks ago) the "Life of Pi" boat I was in, and there was no tiger. Just me and Christ. I asked him a question, did God form our reality from the chaos of the early universe?...to which he replied yes. I started falling backwards over the side of the boat, and I am looking up at Christ. There was no water it seemed as I was now upside down looking up at Christ who now stood, with HIS soles upon mine, both of us outside of the boat.
HE said "IT IS PERFECT" - to which I assume he meant REALITY.
(sorry)

WHO IS GOING TO DEFINE WHAT DEFINES GOD?

EVERY one can 'try', INDIVIDUALLY. But ONLY EVERY one, TOGETHER, IN AGREEMENT, can get the definition Right, and then KNOW that 'that definition' IS True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

[Age]

AND...there it goes. AGE can you ignore this thread of all the threads of the forum, please, I implore you not to get involved.

WHY?

[Age]

Anyone who has read Descartes' Discourse on Method or Meditations will understand just how sceptical it is possible to be. Needlessly so, in many cases, but Descartes' radical scepticism threw out the one thing he didn't really want to get rid of. In order to reinstate God, Descartes fell back on the ontological argument. Basically, imagine the most perfect possible thing. Existence is a perfection. Therefore to be the most perfect possible thing, the most perfect possible thing has to exist. If that looks like a useless argument, that's because it is. It gets worse, because Descartes argued he could rely on God to give him 'clear and distinct ideas'. So having previously admitted that there are other potential causes for his ideas: dreams, hallucinations, confusions, illusions, delusions and whatnot, what clear and distinct idea could God give a person that could not be attributed to any other source? Is there anything a god could do to prove it exists?

What do you mean by "god".
You seem to assume that such a thing exists, and that this thing is male.
Can you justify your initial assumptions?

If ANY one ASSUMES 'god' OR 'God' is a male, then there is IRREFUTABLE PROOF that they do NOT KNOW what 'God' IS, EXACTLY, (nor PRECISELY).

[Age]

...Is there anything a god could do to prove it exists?

What do you mean by "god".
You seem to assume that such a thing exists, and that this thing is male.
Can you justify your initial assumptions?

You'd have to ask Descartes. I'm assuming he had what I understand is a fairly standard christian definition of 'God the father'. You'll note that when I ask the question, I refer to a god as 'it', and I certainly don't assume any such thing exists. It's a hypothetical question.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Have you LOOKED AT the topic title here, which 'you' WROTE "uwot"?

If you do decide to, then you MIGHT ALSO RECOGNIZE WHY I WROTE the last sentence in my first post, in this thread.

You might have referred to 'God', correctly, as an 'it', in your hypothetical question, (which by the way can be VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY ANSWERED, IRREFUTABLY I WILL ADD), but anyway, you ALSO referred to 'God' being 'male gendered'. Which is WHY the topic title IS IRREFUTABLE.

[Age]

I get the feeling you are going to want to know what precisely God could do to prove itself as an existence!?

Well yeah, that's the question.

IF that IS 'the question', then WHY did you NOT ask 'that question'?

Maybe if you redefine YOUR question, you know the ONE that you REALLY want answered, then WE could ANSWER 'it' FOR YOU.

Also, will YOUR (new) question be a hypothetical one or NOT?

..and then one must deal with the quandary of what DEFINES God.

Hm. Something that could prove it exists would be a start.

Is it POSSIBLE to 'prove' some thing to 'you' or NOT "uwot"?

It seems VERY CONTRADICTORY to EXPECT some thing to be able to PROOF 'itself' to you but ALSO BELIEVE that absolutely NOTHING can be PROVEN, correct?

[attofishpi]

AND...there it goes. AGE can you ignore this thread of all the threads of the forum, please, I implore you not to get involved.

WHY?

1. Because I can't read your writing where you are SHOUTING IN CAPITALS.
2. You talk irrational shit where you think you have proof of something, and it never materialises.
3. You stated somewhere here in this thread, that I wrote the WISEST thing you've read on the forum, if that was such for you, it certainly wasn't for me and anyone else that has ever written anything on this forum, ergo, stop writing bollocks, this thread COULD be interesting if you just kept the FUCK out of it. (no offence).