• 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

ecofarm said:
Natural, universal, rights are survival based. We agree in order to insure species survival. Everyone agrees. Everyone violates.

Despite violation, rights remain. If they did not, there could be no concept of injustice. There "could be no"... meaning it could not exist. It would not exist. The word would not be in existence.
Click to expand...

Survival has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with ability.
 
Mach said:
Existence is.
Consciousness observes existence.
Identity is...I am me, and you are you.
It's possible for humans to differentiate true from false.

These are some examples of self-evident claims. They are accepted as true in the argument, even if you reject them.

Natural rights...probably self-evident too.
As a shared observation, most people are aware of their instinct for survival. This gets codified as "right to life" when making up rules for society..it stems from our shared desire to live, and to see those we love and depend on live..and by extension we can imagine everyone feels the same (within reason).
But there's more to it. We do not have a survival instinct by accident, it resulted from it being an overall a better survival trait than without. And such things can be modeled in mathematics. Game theory has examples of such social interactions, potential rules and outcomes. When fairness, can be quantified, and trust...tit for tat, etc., it appears those rules are the case whether we believe them, or not. There's a gulf of work that has to be done to bridge the two (if it's even logically possible entirely), but there is enough there that it seems to be the case.

So these rules of game theory, that predict outcomes, we did not create them, we discovered them. And evolution also discovered them, and coded them into our DNA.
Click to expand...

Evolution did not discover anything or code anything. Evolution is a process we have observed. It is about a combination of genetic variation and environmental factors. There is nothing guiding this, it just happens.
 
devildavid said:
Evolution did not discover anything or code anything. Evolution is a process we have observed. It is about a combination of genetic variation and environmental factors. There is nothing guiding this, it just happens.
Click to expand...
I said we discovered the rules. Evolution encoded aspects of those rules through natural processes. It wasn't random, it was based on reality.

"It just happens" is not science. Science is founded on causality. Causality is another one of those self-evident truths we accept, even when we reject it.
 
Mach said:
I said we discovered the rules. Evolution encoded aspects of those rules through natural processes. It wasn't random, it was based on reality.

"It just happens" is not science. Science is founded on causality. Causality is another one of those self-evident truths we accept, even when we reject it.
Click to expand...

Evolution does not do anything. It is a name given to a process. Genetic mutation and environmental factors are the causes of what we call evolution. There are no rules, just results that we observe. It is a process observed in hindsight. It happened, and we attempt to explain how it happened. Evolution simply is about things that happen and the resulting life forms that arise from those things that just happen.
 
devildavid said:
No rights are universal. The founders were men trying to justify breaking away from British rule. They figured using the concept of rights endowed by a creator would make their case sound stronger.
Click to expand...

They used the terminology from the philosophers in the 'Age of Enlightenment', and took metaphysical concepts as axioms. When those axioms are challenged, many arguments fall to pieces.
 
devildavid said:
No rights are universal. The founders were men trying to justify breaking away from British rule. They figured using the concept of rights endowed by a creator would make their case sound stronger.
Click to expand...

The Founders brought the Enlightenment to political realization. Your limited grasp does not limit reality.

devildavid said:
Survival has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with ability.
Click to expand...

Universal agreements are driven by species survival. This is not difficult material.


RAMOSS said:
They used the terminology from the philosophers in the 'Age of Enlightenment', and took metaphysical concepts as axioms. When those axioms are challenged, many arguments fall to pieces.
Click to expand...

Oh, please.

Like everyone hasn't heard the intellectually Neanderthal, "natural rights don't exist". Every pimple faced teenager in debate class has attempted it. Stop believing you're super special and super smart and you know more than those stupid foolish Founders and architects of the Enlightenment. Learn something. Become an Enlightened individual.
 
ecofarm said:
The Founders brought the Enlightenment to political realization. Your limited grasp does not limit reality.



Universal agreements are driven by species survival. This is not difficult material.




Oh, please.

Like everyone hasn't heard the intellectually Neanderthal, "natural rights don't exist". Every pimple faced teenager in debate class has attempted it. Stop believing you're super special and super smart and you know more than those stupid foolish Founders and architects of the Enlightenment. Learn something. Become an Enlightened individual.
Click to expand...

Very pretentious declarations. What your assertion is missing is showing that it is more than a culturally influenced made made opinion.
 
Quag said:
Sounds nice,
the OPs version is to take a bunch of mud dug from next to an outhouse and put it in a pie plate
Click to expand...

Nasty and uncalled for.
 
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...

Interesting proof, but God is not defined.

The material conception of God does not exist and this is not always true.

Some say "God" and mean Jesus Christ, or Krishna and them as "God" is a dissertation in itself.

From the standpoint of privacy it seems likely that there is no "proof" of God.

If you were God, would you leave a proof, so that someone like you or I would be able to prove God or his identity?

To prove God you must be bigger than him.

Though you cannot prove God, you can use His existence to prove other theories.

Pythagoras' fifth theorem; if one of two parallel lines is crossed by a third, then that line must at some point cross the other.

There is no proof of this theorem, Pythagoras didn't leave one, mathematicians have spent their lives trying to prove it and failed, but Pythagoras used it to prove other theories.

If you jostle the equator on a globe it may cross the fifteenth, but not the thirtieth parallel.
 
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...

Great minds think alike here. I was wondering whatever happened to the word 'may' too. There is both doubt and potential in that little word. I'd hate to be without a word to describe that nifty and incredibly versatile concept and I sure don't see it as logical to refuse it the dignity of rational merit.
 
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...

If that kind of use of logic (or other, there's much more of those) is viable to create more believers there should be next to 0 atheist around. Even Jesus knew that by saying followers should be like children and take truth in and let it grow (plant allegory). Atheism is just lack of believing, it's not about being dumb - when you think like believer you take those differently.
 
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...

not sure about 5 what if god has 1/23 odds or even 567/571 odds

and as for 6 its not the case that my playstation 4 must not exist yet i don't have one any way or if you want to argue that since i don't have a playstation 4 then it must not exist then it could be the case god must not exist if it dosent

7 therefor my playstation 4 must exist? no see above

8 so we have not established that the playstation god must exist or that it can

9 no still dont have my playstation even though those game consoles are known to exist can't even say that much for any gods

10 3 -4 don't demonstrate a god exists 3 just says what exists has to exist duh and 4 has nothing backing its claim that gods must exist if its possible for gods to exist and give no reason why gods would even be possible in the sense they could happen instead of in the sense that we don't know they cant happen

11 therefore god has not been shown to exist
 
ecofarm said:
The Founders brought the Enlightenment to political realization. Your limited grasp does not limit reality.



Universal agreements are driven by species survival. This is not difficult material.




Oh, please.

Like everyone hasn't heard the intellectually Neanderthal, "natural rights don't exist". Every pimple faced teenager in debate class has attempted it. Stop believing you're super special and super smart and you know more than those stupid foolish Founders and architects of the Enlightenment. Learn something. Become an Enlightened individual.
Click to expand...

So you continue with ad hominem attacks.

The Founders established rights which they did not apply to everyone universally within their newly formed country, let alone the world. And it was they who created theses rights, not discovered them.

The abstraction of rights has zero to do with species physical survival. Many species are extinct. Did those species lack rights? No, they did not physically survive due to their inability to survive in their given environment. Rights have no connection to species physical ability to survive.
 
Mach said:
I invented my instinct for survival?
I invented the outcomes of certain game theory strategies we model?

(no)
Click to expand...

No, man invented the concept of rights. Man invented game theory.

The survival instinct has zero to do with rights and game theory. It is a physical thing, not an abstraction.
 
ecofarm said:
Ask yourself (and everyone you ever meet):

1. Do you agree to observe the right to life in order to preserve it for yourself.
2. right to expression.
3. right to self defense.


Everyone, throughout time and place, answers 'yes'. These rights are (socially) natural via universality and driven by species survival. Many violate, private and government, but our rights remain. Only in this belief can there exist a concept of injustice.

Getting this is called "being Enlightened". It's the roots of self government, the Enlightenment. It had political, science and other implications.

Our rights come from social science, not anyone's decree. That's the heart of the Enlightenment.


I'll give an example. On Star Trek (presumably all versions), there's a moment when someone in the crew remarks, "they're/you're/I'm Enlightened". They mean operating under our paradigm in regard to natural rights.

To be Enlightened is to understand that we, as individuals, don't decide others rights.
Click to expand...

None of this has been universally agreed upon.

And you are doing what you said we can't do.
 
devildavid said:
So you continue with ad hominem attacks.

The Founders established rights which they did not apply to everyone universally within their newly formed country, let alone the world. And it was they who created theses rights, not discovered them.

The abstraction of rights has zero to do with species physical survival. Many species are extinct. Did those species lack rights? No, they did not physically survive due to their inability to survive in their given environment. Rights have no connection to species physical ability to survive.
Click to expand...

It's more than many. The figure is closer to 99.999% of all species that ever existed are now extinct.

...which, IMO, proves that there is no god.
 
devildavid said:
No, man invented the concept of rights. Man invented game theory.
The survival instinct has zero to do with rights and game theory. It is a physical thing, not an abstraction.
Click to expand...

I don't remember ever having seen someone deny both reality, and the imaginary. Maybe that's a new thing, you could be the leader of a movement. The Null movement or something. You could play Nine Inch Nails as the soundtrack.
 
Rich2018 said:
Could it be that the first two Christians realized how powerful this was and prayed for God NOT to answer ANY prayer positively ?

Could it be that two Christians prayed for X to happen while another two prayed for X NOT to happen ?
Click to expand...

So you're saying in some Christians are A holes, by not wanting a child to be cured of cancer? And that they decided for everyone else, including "GOD" shouldn't be allowed to cure people.
 
blarg said:
not sure about 5 what if god has 1/23 odds or even 567/571 odds

and as for 6 its not the case that my playstation 4 must not exist yet i don't have one any way or if you want to argue that since i don't have a playstation 4 then it must not exist then it could be the case god must not exist if it dosent

7 therefor my playstation 4 must exist? no see above

8 so we have not established that the playstation god must exist or that it can

9 no still dont have my playstation even though those game consoles are known to exist can't even say that much for any gods

10 3 -4 don't demonstrate a god exists 3 just says what exists has to exist duh and 4 has nothing backing its claim that gods must exist if its possible for gods to exist and give no reason why gods would even be possible in the sense they could happen instead of in the sense that we don't know they cant happen

11 therefore god has not been shown to exist
Click to expand...
Read the entries linked in the following post, then re-read the proof with an understanding of necessary being, and then comment on the proof:
Angel said:
...
Necessary Being​

This business of necessary being is clearly a sticking point in the discussion of the OP proof. I've tried to explain the concept in my own words, but to no avail. Inasmuch as the concept of a necessary being is central to the proof, I post the following links for the purpose of clarification of the concept.

God and Other Necessary Beings

God and Other Necessary Beings (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Does a necessary being (or thing) exist?

Does a necessary being (or thing) exist?
Click to expand...
 
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."

See Agnosticism - Wikipedia

It is interesting that the term agnostic was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, one of Charles Darwin's earliest & staunchist supporters. How can something so vast & so powerful as to have created the Universe & life be knowable by the complex & powerful but still finite human mind? That question has only one answer: it cannot. Believing in a supreme being is only an exercise in self-deception.
 
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...


Sophistic mushy logic that "proves" the existence of yetis.
 
Jonsa said:
Sophistic mushy logic that "proves" the existence of yetis.
Click to expand...
Unsophisticated post that "proves" itself ignorant of the contingent existence of yetis.
See post #221 two posts before yours and improve a half hour learning some philosophy.
 
JacksinPA said:
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."

See Agnosticism - Wikipedia

It is interesting that the term agnostic was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, one of Charles Darwin's earliest & staunchist supporters. How can something so vast & so powerful as to have created the Universe & life be knowable by the complex & powerful but still finite human mind? That question has only one answer: it cannot. Believing in a supreme being is only an exercise in self-deception.
Click to expand...
By your own standard the agnostic cannot pronounce either way on the existence or non-existence of God, and therefore cannot pronounce on whether believing is self-deception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom