Proof of God

Sherlock Holmes · Aug 24, 2020

gboisjo said:
But why are you so hellbent on pounding your beliefs onto others who disagree. Its not the way most people act ..most people respect the beliefs of others.

If this bothers you then I politely suggest you do not participate in a thread about proving the existence of God and then complain that someone in the thread is defending the proposition "God's existence can be proved".

Some of the tripe that gets posted in here by atheists is quite frankly off the scales, I could publish a book about some of these exchanges and reveal to laymen just how poorly prepared many atheists are to discuss this subject.

Sherlock Holmes · Aug 24, 2020

zyzygy said:
Is there anything simpler than believing in the existence of a magic god? I bet that Sherlock believes in Santa Claus.

Yes there is, believing that an atheist actually believes they understand atheism.

watsup · Aug 24, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
But that's not true, that is not self evident to you, why must you lie? to avoid admitting error?

I'd love you to show me where I said the universe "cares". You have every right not to take it as axiomatic that's what axiomatic means - one chooses to accept it or not.

You don't understand then, which is what I've been saying to you. The fact you describe this as an "assumption" shows me very clearly that you do not understand.

Give me one example of a thing in nature who's existence is caused by itself, can you? of course you cannot, because it is a logical absurdity.

Not at all, again you are mistaking your own inability to understand the argument for a flaw in said argument.

Again you do not understand what we're discussing otherwise you'd not phrase things that way.

You'll have to explain this, you sound rather confused. Are you saying one should not have a reason for a belief? are you saying belief should not be concerned with truth?

First (again your lack of scholarship is showing) one never proves an assumption otherwise it would not be called an assumption but a deduction, so right away your lack of rigor is evident to me.

Please don't argue in future when I say you do not understand, anyone that claims an assumption needs to be proved is very clearly not equipped to discuss these matters.

Incredible, now you want a "reason" why I regard a self evident truth as a self evident truth (hint: because its a self evident truth).

Consider the self evident truth "I know I exist" what reason would you give for believing this?

Your entire response to my post betrays naivety and an exaggerated sense of your own erudition, some of the things you've said should actually embarrass you but of course they won't because you must disagree with me at all cost, even if the price for that is to post absurdities.

You do not understand! You post absurdities!

watsup · Aug 24, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
Yes there is, believing that an atheist actually believes they understand atheism.

Please explain to us what we do not understand about atheism. Or was that just a grandstanding statement from you which you can’t actually substantiate.

Sherlock Holmes · Aug 24, 2020

watsup said:
Lack of scholarship, scientific understanding, and logic.

I asked a polite question about which of two beliefs you were questioning, but just like the typical atheist you avoid answering, well I simply have no reason to respond to you any further.

watsup · Aug 24, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
I asked a polite question about which of two beliefs you were questioning, but just like the typical atheist you avoid answering, well I simply have no reason to respond to you any further.

Ummm...,polite questions are to followed up then by ad hom, as you did. By definition, that immediately turns it in to an impolite question.

Sherlock Holmes · Aug 24, 2020

Drowning Man said:
Again, if you are working off of logic, you're working off of not just belief, but reason.

It's not for us to prove your beliefs "illogical", but for you to show your premises reasonable.

There is no such thing as "reasonable" in logic, a premise either leads to a contradiction with other premises or it does not.

Once again, more evidence that you do not understand what we're talking about, many of your disagreements with me stem from your own lack of understanding - you do see that?

zyzygy · Aug 24, 2020

watsup said:
You do not understand! You post absurdities!

Perhaps Sherlock would tell us about his scholastic achievements?

zyzygy · Aug 24, 2020

watsup said:
Please explain to us what we do not understand about atheism. Or was that just a grandstanding statement from you which you can’t actually substantiate.

As usual.

zyzygy · Aug 24, 2020

Telling an atheist that he or she does not understand atheism! His flailing is a wonder to behold!

Sherlock Holmes · Aug 24, 2020

watsup said:
Please explain to us what we do not understand about atheism. Or was that just a grandstanding statement from you which you can’t actually substantiate.

Lots of things, these are a wonder to behold:

1. Claiming that a premise must be reasonable.
2. Claiming that an axiom must be proved.
3. Claiming that an inference, a deduction is the same thing as an assumption.
4. Claiming one needs no reason to believe something.
5. Objecting to an assumption simply because it is an assumption.
6. Objecting to me defending the proposition "God's existence can be proved" in a thread titled "Proof of God".
7. Objecting to faith yet insisting that one should have faith in science.
8. Inability to grasp that a thing cannot be the cause of that thing existing.
9. Faith that a thing can be the cause of its own existence yet inability to provide any examples from nature.
10. Objecting to an assumption that supports a conclusion just because one doesn't like the conclusion.
11. Claiming that "There's no such thing as truth" is a true statement.
12. Claiming that science is not based upon beliefs.

and the list goes on and on and on, really all of these and many more have been posted almost verbatim, by atheists in this thread.

Show this list to any Prof. of Philosophy and see their reaction - if you dare!

zyzygy · Aug 24, 2020

How to Prove that God Doesn’t Exist - Word on Fire

Note the polite, insult free discussion that follows the article.

Sherlock Holmes · Aug 24, 2020

zyzygy said:
How to Prove that God Doesn’t Exist - Word on Fire

Note the polite, insult free discussion that follows the article.

Man, you can't even get this right, try again:

Studentenviro said:
Well sonny, the fact you don't believe in them does not mean they are not real. You are not the arbiter of what is and what is not and given your extreme level of ignorance about any sort of knowledge you have no credibility.

and

Studentenviro said:
That is a total loony tune bunch of nonsense. If you believe that then you need to go back to kindergarten and stat over.

Drowning Man · Aug 24, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
But that's not true, that is not self evident to you, why must you lie? to avoid admitting error?

Oh, my... You couldn't get from the discussion we were having that I was continuing the analogy with the invisible pink unicorns? You're actually going so far as to claim that I'm "lying"?
/eyeroll

Sherlock Holmes said:
I'd love you to show me where I said the universe "cares". You have every right not to take it as axiomatic that's what axiomatic means - one chooses to accept it or not.

You do realize what an axiom is, right? It's not just a way to claim that you don't have to prove something. It is a NON-CONTROVERSIAL claim that can be just accepted as true by all parties so that they don't have to spend time on proving it.

An axiom would be something like, "we don't have to prove that we're not in a dream, or like Spock's head in a jar". Obviously your claims are NOT axiomatic, because people who don't already believe in a God, don't accept them. They are CONTROVERISAL claims.

Sherlock Holmes said:
You don't understand then, which is what I've been saying to you. The fact you describe this as an "assumption" shows me very clearly that you do not understand.

I understand perfectly that you want to assume something as true which requires proving.

Sherlock Holmes said:
Give me one example of a thing in nature who's existence is caused by itself, can you? of course you cannot, because it is a logical absurdity.

Again, the uncaused causer argument as problems.
First, what says that the universe as a whole must have been created?
Second, you break your own rule by claiming a "God"...

And so on.

Sherlock Holmes said:
Not at all, again you are mistaking your own inability to understand the argument for a flaw in said argument.

If you want to play it that way, go for it.
Of course, I would think that the point of your argument would be to convince non-believers. Yet you seem to admit that it isn't convincing to non-believers...so your point is...mental masturbation? Thinking yourself clever?

Sherlock Holmes said:
First (again your lack of scholarship is showing) one never proves an assumption otherwise it would not be called an assumption but a deduction, so right away your lack of rigor is evident to me.

/eyeroll
Then the invisible pink unicorns DO control your TV!
What? You don't believe in invisible pink unicorns? I'm ASSUMING they are true! Therefore my logic works!
/eyeroll

Sherlock Holmes said:
Incredible, now you want a "reason" why I regard a self evident truth as a self evident truth (hint: because its a self evident truth).

Even better! It's self-evident that invisible pink unicorns control your TV!
If you don't accept my argument, you just don't understand it...

Sherlock Holmes said:
Your entire response to my post betrays naivety and an exaggerated sense of your own erudition, some of the things you've said should actually embarrass you but of course they won't because you must disagree with me at all cost, even if the price for that is to post absurdities.

You're pretty much done, aren't you?

zyzygy · Aug 24, 2020

Drowning Man said:
Oh, my... You couldn't get from the discussion we were having that I was continuing the analogy with the invisible pink unicorns? You're actually going so far as to claim that I'm "lying"?
/eyeroll

You do realize what an axiom is, right? It's not just a way to claim that you don't have to prove something. It is a NON-CONTROVERSIAL claim that can be just accepted as true by all parties so that they don't have to spend time on proving it.

An axiom would be something like, "we don't have to prove that we're not in a dream, or like Spock's head in a jar". Obviously your claims are NOT axiomatic, because people who don't already believe in a God, don't accept them. They are CONTROVERISAL claims.

I understand perfectly that you want to assume something as true which requires proving.

Again, the uncaused causer argument as problems.
First, what says that the universe as a whole must have been created?
Second, you break your own rule by claiming a "God"...

And so on.

If you want to play it that way, go for it.
Of course, I would think that the point of your argument would be to convince non-believers. Yet you seem to admit that it isn't convincing to non-believers...so your point is...mental masturbation? Thinking yourself clever?

/eyeroll
Then the invisible pink unicorns DO control your TV!
What? You don't believe in invisible pink unicorns? I'm ASSUMING they are true! Therefore my logic works!
/eyeroll

Even better! It's self-evident that invisible pink unicorns control your TV!
If you don't accept my argument, you just don't understand it...

You're pretty much done, aren't you?

He appears to be incapable of understanding your arguments.

watsup · Aug 24, 2020

zyzygy said:
He appears to be incapable of understanding your arguments.

Superb!

Sherlock Holmes · Aug 24, 2020

I'm going to dwell on just one point, it exemplifies the kind of poor understanding I've been referring to:

Drowning Man said:
You do realize what an axiom is, right? It's not just a way to claim that you don't have to prove something. It is a NON-CONTROVERSIAL claim that can be just accepted as true by all parties so that they don't have to spend time on proving it.

You really need to understand that "controversial" plays not role whatsoever in the definition of an axiom nor must an axiom be accepted by all parties, I mean come on man, this is idiot's guide to philosophy stuff.

Just because some party chooses to call some axiom "controversial" does not automatically mean that the axiom is somehow invalid, wrong - I mean I can't believe I have to explain this stuff.

Take Einstein's axiom in special relativity "The speed of light is the same for all observers that are in inertial reference frames irrespective of their relative motion to the source" - Do you think that was NOT controversial?

You guys are just too much, it's incredible.

Drowning Man · Aug 24, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
There is no such thing as "reasonable" in logic, a premise either leads to a contradiction with other premises or it does not.

Once again, more evidence that you do not understand what we're talking about, many of your disagreements with me stem from your own lack of understanding - you do see that?

Yup. You're done. Please get back to me after you research logic, validity and soundness.

I realize that you really don't want anyone to question your assumptions...because you have absolutely nothing with your fuzzy logic if they do. But you can't reduce your argument down to:

Either Abigail or Beth go to the party (A v B)
If Cathy goes to the party, then Beth does not (C -> -B)
Cathy goes to the party (C)

Therefore, Abigail and Cathy went to the party (A + C).

Yes, all of the assumptions are held as true in the example above. And even if they aren't held as true, sure...you get the conclusion of A + C.
In that sense, what you laid out of your argument is VALID. That is, conclusion logically follows from the assumptions. Of course, the devil is in the details. Your argument hasn't been proved to be SOUND -- we have no reason to believe your premises. And no, you can't just assume them to be true, no matter how much you complain.

You're attempting pseudo-intellectual bull****. It doesn't fly.

Drowning Man · Aug 24, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
I'm going to dwell on just one point, it exemplifies the kind of poor understanding I've been referring to:

You really need to understand that "controversial" plays not role whatsoever in the definition of an axiom nor must an axiom be accepted by all parties, I mean come on man, this is idiot's guide to philosophy stuff.

Just because some party chooses to call some axiom "controversial" does not automatically mean that the axiom is somehow invalid, wrong - I mean I can't believe I have to explain this stuff.

Take Einstein's axiom in special relativity "The speed of light is the same for all observers that are in inertial reference frames irrespective of their relative motion to the source" - Do you think that was NOT controversial?

You guys are just too much, it's incredible.

My new axiom! Invisible pink unicorns exist!

watsup · Aug 24, 2020

Drowning Man said:
Yup. You're done. Please get back to me after you research logic, validity and soundness.

I realize that you really don't want anyone to question your assumptions...because you have absolutely nothing with your fuzzy logic if they do. But you can't reduce your argument down to:

Either Abigail or Beth go to the party (A v B)
If Cathy goes to the party, then Beth does not (C -> -B)
Cathy goes to the party (C)

Therefore, Abigail and Cathy went to the party (A + C).

Yes, all of the assumptions are held as true in the example above. And if they are held as true, sure...you get the conclusion of A + C.
In that sense, what you laid out of your argument is VALID. That is, IF the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. Of course, the devil is in the details. Your argument hasn't been proved to be SOUND -- we have no reason to believe your premises. And no, you can't just assume them to be true, no matter how much you complain.

You're attempting pseudo-intellectual bull****. It doesn't fly.

I don’t think that I have ever heard a more perfect description of Sherlock than the last sentence above.

Quag · Aug 24, 2020

Drowning Man said:
Yup. You're done. Please get back to me after you research logic, validity and soundness.

I realize that you really don't want anyone to question your assumptions...because you have absolutely nothing with your fuzzy logic if they do. But you can't reduce your argument down to:

Either Abigail or Beth go to the party (A v B)
If Cathy goes to the party, then Beth does not (C -> -B)
Cathy goes to the party (C)

Therefore, Abigail and Cathy went to the party (A + C).

Yes, all of the assumptions are held as true in the example above. And if they are held as true, sure...you get the conclusion of A + C.
In that sense, what you laid out of your argument is VALID. That is, IF the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. Of course, the devil is in the details. Your argument hasn't been proved to be SOUND -- we have no reason to believe your premises. And no, you can't just assume them to be true, no matter how much you complain.

You're attempting pseudo-intellectual bull****. It doesn't fly.

This is the problem, if you can just assume any premises are true then you can just skip to the end and not bother with an argument and assume the claim is true with exactly as much justification as if you wasted the time trying to make an argument.
It literally means someone claiming God does not exist is just as correct as someone claim God does exist or Gods exist.

Kreton · Aug 24, 2020

Angel said:
Proof of God

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.

No one ever in the history of mankind has ever been able to prove the existence of God or proved that God doesn't exist. You certainly aren't the one who outsmarted all of humanity.

That is why it is called faith.

Sherlock Holmes · Aug 24, 2020

Drowning Man said:
Yup. You're done. Please get back to me after you research logic, validity and soundness.

Don't forget "reasonableness" too, yes? because that's specifically what I pulled you up about.

Drowning Man said:
I realize that you really don't want anyone to question your assumptions...because you have absolutely nothing with your fuzzy logic if they do. But you can't reduce your argument down to:

Either Abigail or Beth go to the party (A v B)
If Cathy goes to the party, then Beth does not (C -> -B)
Cathy goes to the party (C)

Therefore, Abigail and Cathy went to the party (A + C).

Yes, all of the assumptions are held as true in the example above. And even if they aren't held as true, sure...you get the conclusion of A + C.
In that sense, what you laid out of your argument is VALID. That is, conclusion logically follows from the assumptions. Of course, the devil is in the details. Your argument hasn't been proved to be SOUND -- we have no reason to believe your premises. And no, you can't just assume them to be true, no matter how much you complain.

You're attempting pseudo-intellectual bull****. It doesn't fly.

I never claimed my argument was sound, nor would anyone claim any argument about the natural world was sound, for example no scientific "proof" is sound for the same reasons, axioms even in physics are quite simply, assumed.

Of course you are not compelled to accept my premises just as you are not compelled to accept any premise, for example the premise "The laws of physics are the same in every part of the universe" may be accepted or rejected as one sees fit.

Finally I've said here quite a few times that God is inferred (not proved) from the premises, I infer God because there can be no scientific explanation for the presence of the universe (self evident) and I assume (a axiom) there is nevertheless an explanation.

From these it does logically follow that something not-material, not-deterministic lies behind the explanation for the universe being here.

You either accept or reject the premise "The universe has an explanation for its existence" - you can choose either.

You either infer or not infer "God is the agency that caused the universe to exist" - you can choose either.

And you can if you so choose disagree that the universe cannot be invoked as the reason the universe exist.

But none of what I say is illogical, my conclusion does follow from my premises as much as anything else we can reason about in the natural world.

You can object to any of the steps but not on the basis of some presumed "reasonableness" or because you dislike the conclusion (God exists), that's all I am asking from you, to agree that it is a matter of your personal choice which axioms one adopts and making that choice in no way indicates that your choice is more logical or justifiable.

Sherlock Holmes · Aug 24, 2020

Quag said:
This is the problem, if you can just assume any premises are true then you can just skip to the end and not bother with an argument and assume the claim is true with exactly as much justification as if you wasted the time trying to make an argument.
It literally means someone claiming God does not exist is just as correct as someone claim God does exist or Gods exist.

Well now you're beginning to get it, it is 100% the case that you can just make up assumptions and reason from them, ideally untrue assumptions will eventually lead to a contradiction and so you can eventually reject them.

Consider the assumption that there's a thing called the "aether" it was reasonably assumed for rather a long time by physicists to actually exist, but eventually it was found that observations began to indicate it did not exist and it has been abandoned.

Or what about Drowning Man's axiom "Pink unicorns exist" - of course he can assume that and he might be correct or he might not, but evaluating it purely on the basis of preconceived notions of "reasonableness" is inadvisable in most cases and most certainly in the sciences.

Sherlock Holmes · Aug 24, 2020

Kreton said:
No one ever in the history of mankind has ever been able to prove the existence of God or proved that God doesn't exist. You certainly aren't the one who outsmarted all of humanity.

That is why it is called faith.

This is quite untrue, there are quite a few proofs of the existence of God, for example:

I suspect that what you meant to write is that you've yet to see a proof that you personally find convincing, which is a very different thing altogether.

Proof of God

Doesn't know