Is it possible to prove the non-existence of God?

[Profpat]

Gotta admit I haven't read all of this thread and therefore cannot be sure whether a post has been made to the effect I'm suggesting here:

Nearest interpretation of God that I know of is 'Nature'. Nature is ambivalent in the ways of human beings - neither for or against evolved individuals or species.
The idea that there's a personal God that intervenes in the affairs of humankind is egocentric and self serving - obviously an anthropomorphic invention.

Because there is biological life I believe there is proof of God. In summary, no, I don't think it's possible to prove the non-existence of God.

Hi RP;

How about in a personal loving God that doesn't intervene. That is within you, like Buddha Consciousness, The Wonderful Counselor, A loving and comforting God. Keep looking but inside, not outside of you.

Best to you sir,

Pat

[Profpat]

"even by openly claiming that the concept is undefinable."

Who Austin, would dare to do that except me and the TAO.

[austintorn@aol.com]

"even by openly claiming that the concept is undefinable."

Who Austin, would dare to do that except me and the TAO.

Prof, how did you see this thread? Can't I post any secret stuff about God not existing?

There is more secret stuff in Greg's 'Design Without a Designer' thread but I'm not sure you have the clearance to look here.

The TAO of the dot could be eternal causeless emitting stuff, as in pair production, but the stuff would not be holy. It's just stuff.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Hi RP;

How about in a personal loving God that doesn't intervene. That is within you, like Buddha Consciousness, The Wonderful Counselor, A loving and comforting God. Keep looking but inside, not outside of you.

Best to you sir,

Pat

He would be inside you, counseling or whatever, since the Deity doesn't intervene.

[Profpat]

Prof, how did you see this thread? Can't I post any secret stuff about God not existing?

There is more secret stuff in Greg's 'Design Without a Designer' thread but I'm not sure you have the clearance to look here.

The TAO of the dot could be eternal causeless emitting stuff, as in pair production, but the stuff would not be holy. It's just stuff.

Would it be holy if it came from a hole or if it's whole?

[austintorn@aol.com]

It would be holely or wholely but not holy.

It might even say 'Made in Japan', but stuff is neither holy nor unholy.

[THoR]

In order for something to act or be acted upon, change of be changed, it must first exist. This explicitly means that cause and effect is derived from the phenomenon of existence. Since no phenomenon can be derived from its own subordinate derivative, the reverse cannot be true. Existence is not the product of cause and effect.

If you contend there exists an entity not bound by the laws of nature and rules of logic, then feel free to embrace whatever belief you wish, but thereafter and forever more don't try to claim your argument is founded in logic. And if one exemption can be ceded, so can others - without limit.

[jim barlow]

I have a tiny problem treating existence as a "phenomenon". The problem seems to me a linquistic one: it has no opposite. It is not "bound by nature." Seems to me when I deny the existence of my blue rain coat (which I don't have) I am giving a different kind of information than the one we are talking about here.

Otherwise I agree with your thesis. I attach if I may my pet peeve about "atheists" which might have another "linguistic" impact on this unfortunate folk-artsy business

I think it is time to do away with the "a" word. It is negative and was invented by the
mentally disadvantaged. I suggest "Open Minded" to call those who without blocking themselves
into prefab, limiting mental structures are open to new ideas (spiritual and otherwise)
enjoying the unfolding of a gigantic and fascinating universe with its forces and secrets
presented to their developing understanding.

I may be in a minority for socio whatever reasons but don't new evolutionary directions always start with a minority?

[melanie]

'' A French scientist, whose name is Lavosier, declared, "Rien ne se cree, rien ne se perd." "Nothing is born, nothing dies." Although he did not practice as a Buddhist but as a scientist, he found the same truth the Buddha discovered.

Our true nature is the nature of no birth and no death.
Only when we touch our true nature can we transcend the fear of non-being, the fear of annihilation.

The Buddha said that when conditions are sufficient something manifests and we say it exists. When one or two conditions fail and the thing does not manifest in the same way, we then say it does not exist. According to the Buddha, to qualify something as existing or not existing is wrong. In reality, there is no such thing as totally existing or totally not existing.

We can see this very easily with television and radio. We may be in a room that has no television or radio. And while we are in that room, we may think that television programs and radio programs do not exist in that room. But all of us know that the space in the room is full of signals. The signals of these programs are filling the air everywhere. We need only one more condition, a radio or television set, and may forms, colors and sounds will appear.

It would have been wrong to say that the signals do not exist because we did not have a radio or television to receive and manifest them. They only seemed not to exist because the causes and conditions were not enough to make the television program manifest. So at that moment, in that room, they do not exist. Just because we do not perceive something, it is not correct to say it doesn’t exist. It is only our notion of being and non-being that makes us think something exists or doesn’t exist.
Notions of being and non-being cannot be applied to reality. ''



Neti Neti ... ( Not this not that, both and yet neither.)