Why? is man considered intelligent if .

[daveb]

Treat god just like mathematics...first you need definitions and axioms. THEN you can prove either a god exists/doesn't exist. Until then, it;s all just speculation.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Treat god just like mathematics...first you need definitions and axioms. THEN you can prove either a god exists/doesn't exist. Until then, it;s all just speculation.

You could derive some proposition p="God exists" validly from your axioms whatever they might be, but that wouldn't prove p is true in the world.

 

[Gokul43201]

You could derive some proposition p="God exists" validly from your axioms whatever they might be

Can you ? I have never seen one that works. I strongly believe that you can not derive a property such as omnipotence from any consistent set of axioms.

 

[George Jones]

This is basically Anselm's ontological proof of God.

One of the greatest (if not the greatest) logician of all time came up with his own version of an ontological proof, but Godel was also a very strange bird.

Regards,
George

 

[RelativeGravity]

I strongly believe that you can not derive a property such as omnipotence from any consistent set of axioms.

I'm with you on that. Because God is so great, we shouldn't be able to reduce Him to a simple equation.

 

[Exitsign]

I think people use god as a way of finding hope and having faith in something to live there lives.

I think you should stop being a downer and let the people think what they want to think. Because the way you say it, we're all going to stop existing after we die. So why havn't you killed yourself yet. If theres no point in your existance.
With that I just want to say . . .
I think people like YOU use this anti-God speech to gain some positive emotion to ease the pain of your suicidal theory.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't understand why people still believe in god. It seems to me since man could ask questions that it could not find the answers too they would answer it with god made it that way.

some people aren't necissarily concerned with physical truth, and are more interested in the intangible, spiritual truth. It's not physically provable or disprovable. No reason to disrespect someone pursuing a different path of knowledge.

Honestly, most practical religious folks don't try and tie their religion into physical reality. Their realm is morality and society. When we try to intepret character and meaning physically, or they try to intepret the physical world people get offended. As far as I'm concerned, it comes from people stepping out of their fields on both sides.

Logical minded people don't quibble over silly pseudoarguments, whether they're religious, scientific, or both.