4 ms·
> Not any more than we can proof that a diety exists outside of this world. Why can't this be proven? Make no mistake, I'm not well versed on arguments for God
by ue_ 10y ago
> Not any more than we can proof that a diety exists outside of this world.
Why can't this be proven? Make no mistake, I'm not well versed on arguments for God, though it has been attempted in the past to prove with logic that a God or God-like being must exist. Are you saying that such arguments are always fallacious? Or only the ones you've seen?
- pavel_lishin 10y ago> > Not any more than we can proof that a diety exists outside of this world. > Why can't this be proven? How would it be?
- ue_ 10y agoAquinas' cosmological argument, or the ontological argument have been attempts to do so. Some such as Edward Feser still uphold that the cosmological argument is valid (I'm not well versed enough to say either way myself). I'm unclear as to whether you are dismissing the very idea of whether God's existence can be proven, or whether you are rejecting arguments made hitherto on a case-by-case basis.
- pavel_lishin 10y agoI'm not familiar with his argument - some quick googling boils it down to this; > 1. The cosmos or universe exists. > 2. The existence of the cosmos has a cause. > 3. That cause is God. And that seems more like playing a "pin a word on a concept" than proving the existence of a deity. Anyway, I'm positing that if God exists, it is by very nature outside space and time, and not really within the realm of provability.
- Insanity 10y agoSure enough there have been arguments made for God (and against God) by philosophers, but that does not make any of these testable nor sufficient proof as we would understand it in science.
- ue_ 10y agoI didn't mean to say that the proof could be used in science, but neither can the proofs of pure mathematical theorems, either, such as the ones involving infinity. You don't have to test something for it to exist logically.