• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof of God

The only logic in having a God (or gods) is to offer an explanation for that which otherwise could not (currently) be explained. Take the biblical dietary laws as an example: they are basically don't eat stuff which spoils quickly without refrigeration or which contain microorganisms/parasites which require complete cooking to render them harmless. Since folks back then had no idea why certain eating foods often caused illness in folks, they substituted a "command from God" as the reason for it to be accepted - much as a child accepts "because I said so" from a parent as a completely valid reason not to do/say something.
You are talking about one of the many religious stories about God's nature. My proof has nothing to do with religion at all.
 
Angel said:
6. It is not the case that God must not exist. (negation of impossibility)
Begging the question.

The end.
 
Sorry, man. Your standard rely is out of line here. There is no "flavor" of god here. God here is a purely logical category.
And by the way, if you claim logical inconsistency in the proof, it behooves you to demonstrate that inconsistency.

It's not my job to disprove what you didn't prove. Ttwt is right that your argument can be used to justify the existence of ANYTHING, even leprechauns and unicorns. You can not show there is a difference here between unicorns and god.

And please just stop pretending you want to debate in good faith. Everyone that's talked to you longer than a minute knows you're incapable of it. Why is it so important to you to have your faith validated on internet forums?
 
Not quite the end, not until you make out a case that God is logically impossible.

I showed the error in your opening post claim. That is sufficient.

As a separate topic, I can certainly demonstrate the impossibility of the commonly described god of Christianity, that's trivial.
 
No, you are making the same error here as you made in your earlier post. The God of the OP proof is a purely logical entity, defined by necessity of being. No "powers" are invoked, no "physical attributes."

Nope your "logic" is simply making the assertion that (a?) God must exist therefore he/she/it does. What is a God with no powers or physical attributes - that is simply the "logical" creation of an invisible friend.
 
It's not my job to disprove what you didn't prove. Ttwt is right that your argument can e used to justify the existence of ANYTHING, even leprechauns and unicorns. You can not show there is a difference here between unicorns and god.
If you claim logical inconsistency, then it's your job to show logical inconsistency.
And as I pointed out in my replies to the member whose posts you refer to, leprechauns and such are not in the same logical category as the logical God of the proof.
 
You are talking about one of the many religious stories about God's nature. My proof has nothing to do with religion at all.

Your "proof" is no more than talking in circles. HAND
 
If you claim logical inconsistency, then it's your job to show logical inconsistency.
And as I pointed out in my replies to the member whose posts you refer to, leprechauns and such are not in the same logical category as the logical God of the proof.

Why are they not in the same category? What makes them "logically different"? You're just stating your own opinion without basis then claiming it's a logical fact you derived.
 
Proof of God

iFT1wGb.jpg



1. Whatever exists, can exist. (axiom: actuality implies possibility)
2. Whatever must exist, exists. (axiom: necessity implies actuality)
3. Whatever must exist, can exist. (axiom: necessity implies possibility)

4. If God exists, God must exist. (definition)

5. Either God must exist or God must not exist. (law of thought)
6. It is not the case that God must not exist. (negation of impossibility)
7. Therefore, God must exist. (from 5 and 6)

8. If God must exist, then God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
9. If God can exist, then God exists. (from converse of definition and 1)
10. God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
11. Therefore God exists. (from 9 and 10)


This is a modal argument in simple direct English answering the skeptical challenge to provide a proof of God's existence.
The author of the proof welcomes comment and good-faith engagement.​

That doesn't prove the existence of any god.

You've become quite attached to this particular fail; I've seen you post it before.
 
Why are they not in the same category? What makes them "logically different"? You're just stating your own opinion without basis then claiming it's a logical fact you derived.

That poster and logic remain hilariously and tragically unacquainted.
 
I showed the error in your opening post claim. That is sufficient.

As a separate topic, I can certainly demonstrate the impossibility of the commonly described god of Christianity, that's trivial.
You "showed" nothing. You asserted something -- show it/
Here's your assertion:
Begging the question.

The end.
 
Why are they not in the same category? What makes them "logically different"? You're just stating your own opinion without basis then claiming it's a logical fact you derived.
The difference is that between logically contingent and logically necessary entities.
 
The problem with any arguments such as this pertains to the notion of so-called "proof", which is more of a western concept. Proof in Western thought typically pertains to physical realities - things composed of matter and/or energy. Metaphysical or immaterial realities are of a different nature and hence not studied in the same manner. Think of Kant's discussion's of the phenomenal and the noumenal. God's existence can no more be proven than notions of logic, thought, reason, or truth.
 
The difference is that between logically contingent and logically necessary entities.

Again more BS - since you personally need a God to exist then it, in fact, does exist.
 
The problem with any arguments such as this pertains to the notion of so-called "proof", which is more of a western concept. Proof in Western thought typically pertains to physical realities - things composed of matter and/or energy. Metaphysical or immaterial realities are of a different nature and hence not studied in the same manner. Think of Kant's discussion's of the phenomenal and the noumenal. God's existence can no more be proven than notions of logic, thought, reason, or truth.
Are you claiming that only matters of fact can be proved, and not matters of reason? This seems counter-intuitive to me; not to you? What about mathematical proofs, for example? It seems to me that the very model of proof derives from logic and math.
 
Why are they not in the same category? What makes them "logically different"? You're just stating your own opinion without basis then claiming it's a logical fact you derived.

Because that is the OP's assertion - being the entire basis of this (now worthless?) thread, which boils down to the OP's belief trumps anyone's skepticism.
 
Again more BS - since you personally need a God to exist then it, in fact, does exist.
Your assertion is duly noted. Google the distinction between contingency and necessity if you're interested in moving beyond mere contrarian assertion.
 
Proof of God
Poorly rehashed Argument from Necessity. Yawn

The error is easy to identify.

1. Whatever exists, can exist.
2. Whatever must exist, exists.
3. Whatever must exist, can exist.
4. If Harry Potter exists, Harry Potter must exist. (definition)
5. Either Harry Potter must exist or Harry Potter must not exist.
6. It is not the case that Harry Potter must not exist.
7. Therefore, Harry Potter must exist.
8. If Harry Potter must exist, then Harry Potter can exist.
9. If Harry Potter can exist, then Harry Potter exists.
10. Harry Potter can exist.
11. Therefore Harry Potter exists.

The problem obviously is that Point 4 begs the question. You are defining your deity (or Harry Potter) as necessarily existing; thus you are using your preferred conclusion as one of your own premises. Naughty Angel.
 
The difference is that between logically contingent and logically necessary entities.

That's nonsense. What if I consider unicorns god? You're simply pretending they're different because it makes your argument look ridiculous and you can't even articulate WHY they're supposed to be different.
 
Your unsupported denial and dismissal are duly noted.
You apparently failed to note that the OP invites "good-faith engagement."

My denial and refusal and dismissal don't need evidence because you have offered no evidence to support your assertion god exists.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I can't prove a negative, and that's irrelevant, because you can't even support your claim at all, without this word salad nonsense.
 
That's nonsense. What if I consider unicorns god? You're simply pretending they're different because it makes your argument look ridiculous and you can't even articulate WHY they're supposed to be different.

That has been "logically" explained by the OP's (self-declared?) need for (their?) God to exist and the OP's option for accepting a unicorn's existence.
 
The member who brought up leprechauns was in error. I replied to him to that effect.
You replied but you didn't actually demonstrate the point is wrong. Why couldn't someone write a similar proof but with something else in place of "God"? "4 - If unicorns exist, unicorns must exist", "4 - If flying elephants exist, flying elephants must exist", "4 - If Zeus exist, Zeus must exist" etc.

The premise you point to, #5, concerns necessity and necessity alone; it has nothing to do with possibility or the possibility of possibility.
Sure, but it's still logically flawed. If you wrote "God is ether necessary or not necessary" that would be correct but obviously breaks your proof. "Not necessary" isn't the same as "Must not exist".
 
Back
Top Bottom