• 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

Angel

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,909
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.​
​
 
No, you did not just prove the existence of god by shuffling a few logically inconsistent sentences around. And even if there is a god, you have no idea if it's your particular flavor of one.

There is not one single shred of evidence to support god's existence or any way to prove one religion any more right than another. If you were secure in your faith in god you wouldn't have to constantly try to convince everyone and yourself on internet forums that he exists.
 
Angel said:
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.​
​
Click to expand...

Substitute leprechauns, unicorns or mermaids for God and your "proofs" of their existence are equally valid. Of course, #1 and #2 are the problem - the assumption being that if something (anything?) can be described by a person then it exists and therefore must exist. Reality is not simply that which can/must be imagined to exist.
 
Why prove God exists. God is self existent. That’s what makes Him God.
 
He posted this trash a while ago. It was obviously destroyed. That is not really that interesting.

What is interesting is his capacity to forget anything he does not like. Such mindless mindlessness. How he manages in the world I do not know. How would you have any sort of personal relationship with such a person?
 
I saw a naked man wandering the desert talking to burning hushes and $#it.
 
Angel said:
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.
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out already, if your proof were valid, it could be applied to literally anything.

I think the fundamental logical hole is in line 5 and the idea that something either must exist or must not exist. That excluded the logical possibility of something that may exist.
 
Angel said:
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.​
​
Click to expand...

God cannot exist (at least not these gods as they are currently defined).

Can Zeus exist?

How about that dude who carries the sun on his back, does he exist?

It's no different with Sky Daddy and his Earth Boy.
 
I know god exists. I have to listen to her complaints for at least an hour every morning, and further complaints and demands throughout the day. An evening cocktail calms her down a bit. And after dinner TV is like a sedative for her.

Try proving me wrong and then tell her at your own peril.
 
There has been no proof of god that would be acceptable in any other hypothesis. None.

This trash, illogical word salad goes right into the worthless theories bin.

Denied.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Substitute leprechauns, unicorns or mermaids for God and your "proofs" of their existence are equally valid. Of course, #1 and #2 are the problem - the assumption being that if something (anything?) can be described by a person then it exists and therefore must exist. Reality is not simply that which can/must be imagined to exist.
Click to expand...
One cannot make your substitutions. Their logical definition is different.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
No, you did not just prove the existence of god by shuffling a few logically inconsistent sentences around. And even if there is a god, you have no idea if it's your particular flavor of one.

There is not one single shred of evidence to support god's existence or any way to prove one religion any more right than another. If you were secure in your faith in god you wouldn't have to constantly try to convince everyone and yourself on internet forums that he exists.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Tim the plumber said:
He posted this trash a while ago. It was obviously destroyed. That is not really that interesting.

What is interesting is his capacity to forget anything he does not like. Such mindless mindlessness. How he manages in the world I do not know. How would you have any sort of personal relationship with such a person?
Click to expand...
If your personal vitriol is spent, perhaps you have something intelligible to say about the proof.
 
HonestJoe said:
As has been pointed out already, if your proof were valid, it could be applied to literally anything.

I think the fundamental logical hole is in line 5 and the idea that something either must exist or must not exist. That excluded the logical possibility of something that may exist.
Click to expand...
The member who brought up leprechauns was in error. I replied to him to that effect.
The premise you point to, #5, concerns necessity and necessity alone; it has nothing to do with possibility or the possibility of possibility.
 
calamity said:
God cannot exist (at least not these gods as they are currently defined).

Can Zeus exist?

How about that dude who carries the sun on his back, does he exist?

It's no different with Sky Daddy and his Earth Boy.
Click to expand...
We're talking about different things here. I'm talking about the logical existence of God; you're talking about the many stories about the nature of God.
 
Angel said:
One cannot make your substitutions. Their logical definition is different.
Click to expand...

Nope, they are simply not (as?) widely worshiped. Your assertion that a sky daddy (or whatever physical attributes you assign to your definition of "the true God") exists is based on no more than being able to describe his/her attributes and superpowers. Perhaps I should have added a bigfoot (yeti) to the list of mythical beings, since folks have sworn to have seen them too.
 
Obscurity said:
There has been no proof of god that would be acceptable in any other hypothesis. None.

This trash, illogical word salad goes right into the worthless theories bin.

Denied.
Click to expand...
Your unsupported denial and dismissal are duly noted.
You apparently failed to note that the OP invites "good-faith engagement."
 
Angel said:
Your unsupported denial and dismissal are duly noted.
You apparently failed to note that the OP invites "good-faith engagement."
Click to expand...

The only god that exists is the one in people's heads.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, they are simply not (as?) widely worshiped. Your assertion that a sky daddy (or whatever physical attributes you assign to your definition of "the true God") exists is based on no more than being able to describe his/her attributes and superpowers. Perhaps I should have added a bigfoot (yeti) to the list of mythical beings, since folks have sworn to have seen them too.
Click to expand...
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."
 
Angel said:
We're talking about different things here. I'm talking about the logical existence of God; you're talking about the many stories about the nature of God.
Click to expand...

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.
 
calamity said:
The only god that exists is the one in people's heads.
Click to expand...
Being exclusively "in people's heads" is no refutation of the proof. Everything known or claimed is in people's heads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom