• 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

There is no 'proof' that any god exists. You can craft all the syllogisms you want but there still is no god.

An all-powerful, all knowing god created disease. What sense does that make? An all-loving god gave us cancer?
 
Last edited:
First things first. What is god?

Yes, if you want to claim something exists, you have to say what it is you talking about. What does the word god describe?

In the end, if something requires word games and pseudo- philosophical rambling to "prove" that it exists there is something suspect about it. Why don't philosophers play word games to prove the existence of rutabagas? Why? Because it would reveal how ridiculous it is to use words alone to determine whether or not rutabagas exist. Just go find one yourself and observe it and take it in with your senses.
 
What is God and why is it any dirrerent from any other descriptions and definitions of it?
 
lwf said:
So you are defining God as existing and then using that definition as a premise to conclude that God exists? How is this not begging the question?
Click to expand...
No, I'm defining God as a necessary being, as opposed to a contingent being: if God exists, God is a necessary being. The question of existence is separate from the question of mode of existence.
 
HonestJoe said:
Only because you are defining God as a necessary being. I could define the Magic Space Pixie, call it a necessary being and it could replace God (or indeed join) in your proof.

Or maybe, just maybe, you're wrong. :cool:
Click to expand...
No, that is the definition of God, that is what makes God God, and I did not do the defining. If one wishes to talk about God, one wishes to talk about a necessary being. The Nagic Space Pixie is something you or Richard Dawkins made up in order to make mock of religion. I am not talking about religion at all. I'm talking about a logical necessity, or the Logical Necessity if you will.
 
Mach said:
You're insulting my rebuttal, you've shown no relevant error or inaccuracy.


You've stated, what you claim to be proving. Where is the "proof" that God must exist? < -your claim.
There isn't any. Yous stated it, then go on to claim in a word sald that you "proved" it, but you didn't, you asserted it, in error.

Once anyone accepts" God must exist", that literally means, "God exists". But the use of "must" is absurd anyway. Do you add irrelevant words to try and confuse people? That sounds like the devil's work.
Something either exists, or it doesn't. "Must" adds nothing but pomp and silliness.


By defining something, you cause that object to exist? Religious magic, please don't.
Click to expand...
That God is a necessary being and that God exists are distinct matters, different questions. The former defines God's mode of being of God in the event that God exists; the latter goes to God's existence or non-existence. You are conflating the two.

You're right: "something either exists or doesn't exist." But you're wrong about "must" -- it adds something, namely, the mode of existence.
 
calamity said:
So, you agree that your god-screed went south at item #4. Good. We are getting somewhere.
Click to expand...
No, you agree that my "god-screed went south at item #4." You're getting nowhere fast.
 
Visbek said:
I think you're missing the "modal nuances."

In modal logic, "necessary" means "true in all possible worlds." It doesn't mean "required to exist."

Thus, if you're talking about modal logic, necessity does not entail actuality. For example, per Kripke it is necessary that the name "Harry Potter" necessarily refers to a fictional wizard created by JK Rowling. Names as rigid designators does not mean that the target of the reference is an actual human being.



Yes, it is.

At a bare minimum, you have to actually prove that the deity of your choice is necessary (in the sense of "required to exist") -- and a logical argument can't do that for you. It is not the job of logic to prove that a premise describes an actual state of affairs in the world.

I might add that I can certainly imagine a consistent universe existing without any input or direction whatsoever from any deity. I am not aware of any contradictions that result from positing a godless universe. In fact, I can think of many logical contradictions that result from including a deity, especially if said deity happens to be omnipotent and/or self-creating; I can also think of many ways it clashes with what we know of reality, such as how omniscience is incompatible with quantum mechanics.



So is defining God as "necessary."



In formal logic, a conditional is not the same as "if... then" in ordinary language. In formal logic, a conditional is true if the antecedent is true.

ZGhGZ.jpg


When a conditional is rendered into ordinary language:

"If God exists" is true, and "God must exist" is true, then the argument is true
"If God exists" is false, and "God must exist" is true, then the argument is false
"If God exists" is true, and "God must exist" is false, then the argument is true
"If God exists" is false, and "God must exist" is false, then the argument is false

Plus, you declared it to be a definition. Conditionals are not definitions.



Somehow, this claim seems rather unlikely.

At a minimum, you are obviously associating properties with this term "God," such as the necessity of its existence. That also means that "God" has whatever properties are required to make its existence necessary.

And again, logical proofs don't prove that things exist. They only verify that an argument is sound. To wit:

• All nudibranches are mammals.
• Mammals exist.
• Therefore, nudibranches exist.

The argument is sound, but this does not prove that "nudibranches exist" is an accurate description of the world, because nudibranches are actually molluscs. It's not the job of logic to prove that the premises are accurate.
Click to expand...
My cup runneth over.
Much obliged.
I'll reply in serial posts in the sequel; I quoted the whole here, that latecomers to the thread should not miss it. That members might see what a philosophical discussion looks and sounds like.
 
devildavid said:
First things first. What is god?

Yes, if you want to claim something exists, you have to say what it is you talking about. What does the word god describe?
...
Click to expand...
Answered in the proof. Read it, why dontcha?
 
JacksinPA said:
There is no 'proof' that any god exists. You can craft all the syllogisms you want but there still is no god.

An all-powerful, all knowing god created disease. What sense does that make? An all-loving god gave us cancer?
Click to expand...
There are many proofs that God exists. You mean there are none that you are aware of or, having been made aware of, read or, having read, understood.

In your second sentence you go off half cocked against religion. The OP is not about religion. Please try to control your emissions of venom.
 
Angel said:
No, that is the definition of God, that is what makes God God, and I did not do the defining. If one wishes to talk about God, one wishes to talk about a necessary being.
Click to expand...
You did do the defining, it is literally specified in line 4 of your proof. You're free to assert that other people have defined God in this manner before you but that isn't relevant to your proof.

Angel said:
The Nagic Space Pixie is something you or Richard Dawkins made up in order to make mock of religion. I am not talking about religion at all.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about religion either and I certainly have nothing to do with Dawkins, who I view as an arrogant self-promoter. I consider your attempt to associate me with him a personal insult by the rules of the forum and would appreciate an apology. You are debating with me and on my words alone here.

Angel said:
I'm talking about a logical necessity, or the Logical Necessity if you will.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, you can present your proof as being for this "logical necessity" (it doesn't matter what you name it). The actual logic of the proof you've offered, essentially saying because it is necessary it must exist, remains fundamentally flawed.
 
Angel said:
There are many proofs that God exists. You mean there are none that you are aware of or, having been made aware of, read or, having read, understood.

In your second sentence you go off half cocked against religion. The OP is not about religion. Please try to control your emissions of venom.
Click to expand...

There are many attempted proofs that god exists (whatever that is), and all have failed.
 
Angel said:
No, that is the definition of God, that is what makes God God, and I did not do the defining. If one wishes to talk about God, one wishes to talk about a necessary being. The Nagic Space Pixie is something you or Richard Dawkins made up in order to make mock of religion. I am not talking about religion at all. I'm talking about a logical necessity, or the Logical Necessity if you will.
Click to expand...

Why is something for which there is no agreed upon definition, description, explanation, etc. of what it is, necessary? Necessary for what? For your exercise in logic to work out? You know, logic, that invention of man. A mental tool, not a thing discovered or observed. Just like god.
 
Quickly, with a show of hands, how many here have seen the TV ad for "miracle spring water?" Get a free sample and you will enjoy a miracle. With testimonies from those "real" people who did so and got unexpected checks in the mail for $1k's or some such nonsense. You know it is some king of scam, yet there are those out there who will step into it, and whoever is behind it will con some big bucks.

It's similar to Carny side show with the hands on healing with fervent shouts of Hallelujah. From the rear of the tent a man rises with a twisted arm shouting "Please God, Heal Me! Please make my arm like my other one!" over and over as he stumbles down the aisle to the stage. Suddenly there's a crack of extremely loud thunder and to the shock and awe of the audience, both of the man's arms are now twisted.

And there is the crux of the problem, the inevitable hucksterism that comes with religion. The personification of deities to satisfy the egos of men, because the gods resemble men and the behaviors of men. Worse, all too often religion has become the excuse for behavioral controls. Impugning the "natural" freedoms of mankind. Use for political purposes of just campfire tales as night descended on the scary world outside the caves where men found shelter. More evil has been conducted in this world than good by religions and those who use religion for their own agendas. We all know that. Right?

However, throughout history, known and unknown, religions have provided social structures, regardless of how we today look back at the effects of those social structures, and their success or lack thereof. And religions have provided believers with solace for the pains of the living, and joys for the celebration of belief. There cannot be denial of these attributes, even if one disapproves of the results, the misuse, and adheres to basic belief of atheism, "we are born, crap happens, and we die." Game over. Nothing else. Life is just an accident of colliding molecules.

It is very easy to come up with arguments rejecting religions, and in turn, the existence of a being, omniscient and omnipotent, a somewhat personification of all humanity and the universe as we know it. On the other hand, the internal search for meaning of life demands some sort of beginning point. And that is where godhood rests, in explaining, no matter how unacceptable we find that explanation, the reasons for life and existence. Ultimately a choice between accident and purpose. Not to be justified by any logic mankind devises, but a question of belief. Can't be proved or disproved. And as separated from the inherent confusion of religion created by man, more difficult to accept, perhaps. Perhaps, a wonderful word. Perhaps we need to step back and accept some questions cannot be answered within the confines of the human condition? And therefore knowing god an impossibility within the human condition.

I choose to believe a god exists who created life. I choose to believe there is a meaning for life. No one can prove me wrong. And that is the only logic for the existence of god. No one can reject my belief other than me. It is no one else's possession to reject.
 
HonestJoe said:
...I'm not talking about religion either and I certainly have nothing to do with Dawkins, who I view as an arrogant self-promoter. I consider your attempt to associate me with him a personal insult by the rules of the forum and would appreciate an apology. You are debating with me and on my words alone here....
Click to expand...
I feel your pain, pilgrim. Had anyone linked me with Richard Dawkins, even in a harmless disjunction, I'd send my seconds around at once to arrange a time and a place.
My sincerest apologies for associating you with Richard Dawkins, HonestJoe.
 
devildavid said:
Why is something for which there is no agreed upon definition, description, explanation, etc. of what it is, necessary? Necessary for what? For your exercise in logic to work out? You know, logic, that invention of man. A mental tool, not a thing discovered or observed. Just like god.
Click to expand...
You are confusing the gods of religion with the philosophical concept of God.
And the selfsame criticism you apply to logic applies to science. So science, logic, math, art, religion, etc., are inventions of man. So what?
 
devildavid said:
There are many attempted proofs that god exists (whatever that is), and all have failed.
Click to expand...
How do you know they've failed? Do you expect us to believe you've considered all of these proofs and found them wanting?
 
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...

This is going to be harsh, and I apologize in advance.

This is not a modal argument, but rather an ontological argument (philosophical argument logic tree) to prove the existence of God by playing on what words mean.

This sort of thing started around the 11th century with Saint Anselm and later clarified with in the 13th century with Thomas Aquinas. St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument was based on understanding from scripture (your lines 1-2.) St Anselm started his ontological argument with the idea of mind and spirit, therefor what is thought is real. Thomas Aquinas started his ontological argument with a proposition based on motion and self-evident (same theory, and applies to your lines 1-3.) But what both were really trying to do is merge what were more like modal arguments from Aristotle with the philosophy of Christianity at the time (for lack of a better way to put it.)

The reason this is important to the discussion is like all Christian philosophers the starting point is based on a belief, both examples were well rooted in the belief of God long before needing to put forth an ontological argument to justify their take on their faith. And there is not even a constant here on faith simply because we are talking about the latter stages of the Dark Ages, where historically speaking we have vast evidence of thinking based on the presumption of authority of a church where all sorts of sinister activity occurred including dealing with non believers. This is the only part of human history where recording on both sides of that period tell us humanity devolved. That applies to philosophy simply because the prevalence of thinking and the authority of the starting point for all these ontological arguments.

Fast forward a bit and you have philosophers like Georg Hegel put weight behind the argument, but never really claiming which part of the tree was right (your lines 1-3 or lines 8-10.) And today we have people like Dr. Alvin Plantinga up at Notre Dame who share the argument and claim and ontological argument damn near identical to yours even though he claims they are "reasons for God."

Here is the problem, I can remove the word God and insert the word Dragon or Unicorn and claim the exact same thing you are simply because that is the point of ontological arguments, it is weaponized philosophy by bending all of the following intentions of philosophy... asking the wrong question (the intention of Philosophy,) the meaning of words (our ability to try to answer them,) and what should a modal argument really be (the justification of a premise.)

You did not really do any of that and as such presented an ontological argument anyone can use to prove anything they want for really any premise they envision... which would be a complete bastardization of the whole point of Philosophy.

This does not prove God exists, nor does it prove Dragons and Unicorns exist either.
 
Angel said:
That God is a necessary being and that God exists are distinct matters, different questions. The former defines God's mode of being of God in the event that God exists; the latter goes to God's existence or non-existence. You are conflating the two. You're right: "something either exists or doesn't exist." But you're wrong about "must" -- it adds something, namely, the mode of existence.
Click to expand...

No, you claim they are distinct, with no evidence or reasoning behind the claim.

Your "proof" was already shown to be in error, as I stated, you claim God exists in #6, which you then claim you were "proving". It's begging the quesiton.

Unlike being false, my position hasn't changed because it's true. Meanwhile, we have you discussing "modes" and "necessary", "must", a "necessary being", all without any justification or rationale to support them, furthering my opinion that like most apologists, you try to deceive and distract, in any way you can, from the simple truth. If it were reasonable, your "axioms" that aren't really axioms at all, would be self-evidently true.
And they aren't.

We've had these discussions before, you ignore reason and prefer unreasonable arguments (aka arrived at via faith or deception, I think the latter given that you're no fool).
 
I see Angel is showing trying to prove that he is the smartest person in the room by attempting to prove God exists.
As usual he fails on all accounts
 
Angel said:
How do you know they've failed? Do you expect us to believe you've considered all of these proofs and found them wanting?
Click to expand...

Because every single one of them including you word salad is logical gibberish
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom