Is God a self-deception?

[Guest guest]

Pamho!

 

>> Anything or anyone does not exist if you cannot prove it to me.

 

>OK, taking that one step further: I don't believe in your theory that

>nothing exists until I can prove it to you, so until you prove your theory

>to me as being valid, it doesn't exist for me, so we have nothing to

>discuss.

 

That's was a good one Well thought!

 

>> If you say

>> that God is real for you but you cannot impart to me your realization

>>then

>> you are under self deception.

 

Wrong again! This is just the fallacious argument from ignorance again. Just

because I can't prove something to you, it doesn't mean that I'm under

self-deception. I could be completely right. If we follow your logic then

you are under self-deception if you think your reasonable - because you

can't prove it to me, no matter how hard you try (just an example.)

 

You can't argue like that

 

> A person under LSD can see many things and

> to him they are real. You say that God exists and to you He is real. Prove

> it. Show me. You can't. I want proof, evidence, not some play with words.

> Stop using these cheap tactics used in debates.

 

In order to prove something to someone, that someone should be qualified.

H.H. Hridayananda Dasa Goswami writes very nicely:

 

"People often ask us “can you prove the existence of God?” The word “proof”

indicates a conclusive demonstration that establishes the validity of an

assertion, in this case the assertion that God exists.

 

But as soon as we speak of a demonstration, the next question is: “to whom

shall I demonstrate?” If we speak of evidence of data, we must know who will

see and hear it. In other words, who will judge the results of a particular

experiment, test, or trial.

 

Consider a hypothetical example. Doctor Waterport, the famous scientist, has

just discovered a sophisticated formula that solves a technical mathematical

problem. He proudly calls his colleagues together and presents them with

thirty pages of ultra technical symbols. His fellow scientists pore over the

pages and conclude: “yes, this is the answer we have been looking for.” If

Dr. Waterport were to show the proof to an ordinary person on the street,

the person wouldn’t even know how to hold the pages right side up. Because

he is not trained in mathematics, the proof would be meaningless to him. So

the conclusion of our analysis is that the proof demands a qualified

audience.

 

Certainly, any valid proof must be logical. But just how we apply logic

depends on our previous experience. For example, suppose an apple tree is

growing outside your window. One morning you hear a sound like that of an

apple hitting the ground and when you look outside you see a ripe apple

lying beneath the tree. Logically, you conclude, the apple has just fallen

from the tree. Your logical statement rests on your previous observation

that the apple tree produces apples, that ripe apples fall to the ground,

and that they make a certain sound when this occurs. And your statement

appears logical to those with similar experience.

 

We apply logic, then, in terms of our experience. Therefore, how can we

expect to make God logical to a person who has had no spiritual experience?

How can God appear logical to a person to whom the very terminology of the

science of God is unintelligible? Thus, it is ludicrous when those who are

spiritually blind, deaf, and dumb demand that God be made “logical” to them

and that His existence be “proved” in their terms.

 

In general, it is illogical for a person untrained in some field of

knowledge to demand that a particular fact pertaining to that field of

knowledge be logically demonstrated to him. Thus, if someone who has no idea

of what a number is demands that I logically demonstrate that two plus two

equals four, I can’t do it. Similarly, if a spiritual ignoramus demands that

God be logically demonstrated to him, his very request is illogical. How

could the illogical demands of atheists be possibly met?"

 

http://www.acharyadeva.com/en/life/logicofabsolute.php

 

So the atheistic demand for proof is irrational, if the atheist is not

willing to do what's needed to understand the presented proof(s).

 

Ys, AKD