God is God.
In fact, God Is.


'Nuff said.

Actually you need to define your definition of
God a bit more since not everyone believes in
the same God and definitions of Who and What
God is vary from Religion to Religion.

Prove it.

'Nuff said.

Disprove it.

'Nuff said

(This could get old fast. BTW, I was just trying to start a conversation. Sheesh. :-))

Disprove it

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on the claimant. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -- Carl Sagan.

But who is the claimant?

Zarm made the original claim. He's the one being asked to prove something, he's asking someone else to disprove his claim. Burden of proof is on Zarm.

Prove what?

To quote Zarm:

"God is God. In fact, God Is."

I assume you're asking Zarm to prove God's existence, but that's not really what he claimed...I think.

I'm asking him to prove his second assertion.

I'm NOT trying to be asinine here, I'm just trying to clarify:

You mean the assertion "God Is"?

I'm assuming that's what Blue was asking him to prove. However, when Zarm said "Disprove it", by default the onus went to Zarm, since it's impossible to prove a negative.

Okay, okay. So you want Zarm to prove the assertion that "God Is," which is basically "prove the existence of God."

He's the one making the extraordinary claim.

DISCLAIMER: IANAT (I am not a theologician), but IMHO the existence (or non-existence) of G-d is non-provable (almost by definition).

Actually, the claim he made, is not just "G-d is", but "In fact, G-d is".

That is, he's stating it as an axiom of the world.

Brrt! You don't prove axioms (you just state them). There's no "proof" for the concept of a straight line; it's just defined as "the shortest distance between two points" and we go on.

The debate is probably better framed as "why should we (1) believe in a deity, and (2) why should we believe in your deity". There is no complete empirical proof of God possible* but there might or might not be a good reason for one to adopt the existence of God as a good axiom. Uber-skeptic Martin Gardner, for example, believes in God credo consoles--because it consoles him. I bet he could convince almost anyone to agree with him.


===================

*Because if your test fails you haven't learned anything; by definition God could always remove Himself entirely from the possibility of being tested empirically. For example, if God created a global flood and one began searching rock structures for evidence of the corpses of the dead in the flood, God could very easily remove all traces of the global flood and make it forever look like there was *not* a global flood, and there would be no way for you to ever, ever know. Ever.

Atoms you send smashing into a target (for example) would not have that luxury.

Mark apparently remembers the discussion I had with him in the Creation v. Evolution board which pretty much grinded to a halt.

A proposed axiom with "Nuff said" as its only justification, Mark Morgan, will be questioned. (Atheism is a religion.)

The problem is with the word "axiom". It makes this proposition seem as logical as geometry. It is not.

I cannot disprove existence of God. That is not because religion is as logical as geometry; it is because faith and reason are two different things.

As for who has the burden of proof let me post an example:

There is a six foot Rabbit made of Fire!! "Nuff said"
Prove it! "Nuff said"
Disprove it! "Nuff said"

Proving a negative is tough. (Proving a negative universal like this is impossible, well, extremely improbable.) Blue would have to get every particle in the Universe and "prove" it is not a rabbit o'fire. Red only has to find one rabbit o'fire.

I think we need first to come to an agreement as to a definition of Who or What God is.One of the reasons there are so many different Religions is that there are so many different beliefs about
the Who and What.
For example those of us who are Christian believe
that God is a Knowable Person who can be Known
through his Son Jesus Christ(that Jesus is or isn't Deity Incarnate is a debate for another time and place,just setting down a basic Christian tenet here).
On the other hand there are some who believe that
God is totally Unknowable.
Monotheists believe in a single God(although
Christians,Jews and Muslims would all disagree on
exactly WHAT God was like in detail,those of us who are orthodox Christians believe that God is
a Trinity while Jews and Muslims believe this to
be nothing sort of blasphemy as they are unitarian
in their concept of God);Polytheists believe that
many Gods and Goddesses exist.
Even Atheists and Agnostics may not disbelieve in the same concept of God.
So the question,and the point I am trying really hard to make is,just what do we mean by God?

I am who am, er, maybe

I think we need first to come to an agreement as to a definition of Who or What God is.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

That's not too likely.

I will tell you when you get close.

I would have to agree with Josh that it is very unlikely that we would all come to an agreement as to what we mean when we talk about God.
I mean we could go around in circles arguing and
not really be talking about the same thing.
Even though we use the same word(s)we may not be using the same meaning(s).
E.g.look out both Christians and Hindus talk about salvation,but they mean totally different
things.

Are you sure you're Jewish, ScottN? Pretty sad to be one and not believe in God.

Is God Bipolar,
It seems that God has Bipolar disorder, and that
God is Manic-Depressive
See online the Article by the "Onion"
"God diagnosed with Bipolar disorder"
I know it's a comedy satire website,
but the article shows how God is Mentally ill
With Bipolar disorder(Manic-Depression)