• 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

DarthPedant said:
Your troll skills go to 11, but you confirm my impression that theists with an apologetics bent don't care if anything they say is true. Pat yourself on the back if that was the effect you were going for.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm ever hopeful that their god is going to help them provide their burden of proof for their claims. Unfortunately that never happens, but as you noted, he has provided them with exceptional name calling and trolling skills.

Very Trumpian, don't you think? It really confirms that Trump represents Christian values and principles extremely well.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
And another proof! The hits just keep on coming!
Click to expand...

We've demonstrated your argument is flawed in numerous ways. Why would you make a statement you know is wrong?
 
Last edited:
JustHanging said:
We've demonstrated your argument is flawed in numerous ways. Why would you make such a demonstrably incorrect statement?
Click to expand...
The only thing you've demonstrated in this thread is that you don't understand a basic philosophical distinction: contingency and necessity.
Thanks for your proof.
 
Angel said:
The only thing you've demonstrated in this thread is that you don't understand a basic philosophical distinction: contingency and necessity.
Thanks for your proof.
Click to expand...

Please quit deflecting.

You have made two claims. First, when it was pointed out that your argument pops contradictory beings into existence, you made the claim that your argument only applies to necessary beings, and not contingent beings. Prove it.

You then claimed your god is necessary, and Santa is contingent. Prove it.

Please provide your burden of proof for both claims as honest discussion requires.
 
Last edited:
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...

Here's a question for you, Angel... Let's say we came up with a "God Theorem" that mathematically proves the existence of God. 100%. Wouldn't the fact that we were able to come up with such a "proof", itself be proof that he does not exist? Mathematical proof is bound by our existence within the Universe... yet for God to have created the Universe, He must necessarily exist outside of it, and therefore would not be bound by it's laws. Essentially, the null hypothesis (that God can't exist) must therefore equal the counternull hypothesis (that God must exist). Both truths are equally valid, because that's the nature of infinity... negative infinity equals positive infinity.
 
JustHanging said:
Please quit deflecting.

You have made two claims. First, when it was pointed out that your argument pops contradictory beings into existence, you made the claim that your argument only applies to necessary beings, and not contingent beings. Prove it.

You then claimed your god is necessary, and Santa is contingent. Prove it.

Please provide your burden of proof for both claims as honest discussion requires.
Click to expand...
This is Philosophy 101, man. Maybe you get up to speed before you presume to post on these things, yes?
 
Cordelier said:
Here's a question for you, Angel... Let's say we came up with a "God Theorem" that mathematically proves the existence of God. 100%. Wouldn't the fact that we were able to come up with such a "proof", itself be proof that he does not exist? Mathematical proof is bound by our existence within the Universe... yet for God to have created the Universe, He must necessarily exist outside of it, and therefore would not be bound by it's laws. Essentially, the null hypothesis (that God can't exist) must therefore equal the counternull hypothesis (that God must exist). Both truths are equally valid, because that's the nature of infinity... negative infinity equals positive infinity.
Click to expand...
As far as I can see you've answered your own question, yes?
And as far as I understand your answer, God is Schrodinger's Cat, yes?
 
Angel said:
As far as I can see you've answered your own question, yes?
And as far as I understand your answer, God is Schrodinger's Cat, yes?
Click to expand...

The analogy did occur to me. It's a scary thought, though.... the cats could have been right all along. *L*

But think about it.... for God to exist, then there can't be any option unavailable to Him - even the option that He created a Universe where He doesn't exist.
 
Angel said:
Proof of God's Existence
in 25 words or less​


If you have posted to this thread, then God exists.
You have posted to this thread.
Therefore, God exists.
Click to expand...

If you have posted to this thread, then nothingness decayed into existence to form the universe in which you posted to this thread.
You have posted to this thread.
Therefore, nothingness decayed into existence to form the universe in which you posted to this thread.



If you posted in this thread , whatever i say was necessary for you to be able to post in this thread is part of an accurate explanation for how you posted in this thread.
you have posted in this thread
therefor whatever i say was necessary for you to be able to post in this thread is part of an accurate explanation for how you posted in this thread.

if you posted in this thread then any claims i make about what had to happen for that to occur have to be accurate or else they are not what had to happen for you to post in this thread
you have posted in this thread Proof of God
therefore any claims i make about what had to happen for that to occur have to be accurate or else they are not what had to happen for you to post in this thread
therefore i have to show any claims i make about what had to happen for you to post in this thread are accurate, for my claims to count as proof of what was necessary for you to post in this thread
therefore just saying something is particular was necessary is not proof that said particular thing was actually necessary
 
Angel said:
No circle there, blarg. But thanks for the proof of God's existence your post has provided.
Click to expand...

clearly false they had a nifty little picture of text forming a circle while demonstrating the principle at the same time.

was also circular reasoning in the post of yours i quoted then and this one and probably in your reply if you hold to the same pattern
 
Angel said:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/373366-proof-god-14.html#post1070837961
Click to expand...

I fail to find anything in the above post, or the link contained, which proves a necessity of any beings existence.
Although evidence exists where humans have lived in early times that a belief in the existence of many variations of God like entities, I know of nothing attributed to a God or Gods which can not or has not been explained in more modern times with necessity involving God or Gods.

A real proof of a God or Gods, IMO, would be if you could claim something which undeniably could not exist without need of a God as the origin of its' existence.
I feel the only undeniable evidence that exists is that early humans all over the world had no knowledge to explain much of anything so they created Gods to suffice in explaining the unknown.
 
"As you believe, so shall it be...."

That's a constant theme Jesus goes back to over and over again in the New Testament. It's the essence of Faith. But you know what else it is? It's a tacit embrace of probabilities..... all of them.
 
blarg said:
clearly false they had a nifty little picture of text forming a circle while demonstrating the principle at the same time.

was also circular reasoning in the post of yours i quoted then and this one and probably in your reply if you hold to the same pattern
Click to expand...
A picture of a circle is supposed to argue on your behalf that a conditional syllogism I posted is circular? Is that what you're selling here?
 
Angel said:
A picture of a circle is supposed to argue on your behalf that a conditional syllogism I posted is circular? Is that what you're selling here?
Click to expand...

nah was just being cute though when that circle is literally a claim based on and looping perfectly around itself and you make posts where you you claim god is necessary for a post to happen and that since a post happened god is necessary for posts to happen then that is a pretty good demonstration of you going in a circle with your reasoning

this is the argument im selling for why what you posted was circaler ( assuming i still have the right link to paste in ) ( ok it is )

Proof of God
 
Cordelier said:
"As you believe, so shall it be...."

That's a constant theme Jesus goes back to over and over again in the New Testament. It's the essence of Faith. But you know what else it is? It's a tacit embrace of probabilities..... all of them.
Click to expand...

I believe that I am going to win the lottery next week.
 
Angel said:
This ridiculous post of yours is hardly worth replying to.
You obviously don't understand or aren't even aware of the philosophical concepts of contingency and necessity -- which of course doesn't keep you from gassing about them.
Moreover, you don't even understand the thread you presume to post repeatedly in -- this thread is not about Yahweh, or Allah, or Brahma or any other god of any religion.
Get with it, man.
Click to expand...

This is about your own personal version of god, which is no more necessary than any other made up version of god. But for some reason you think your generic god is not subject to the same skeptical examination as religious versions of god. Yet you have never made a strong case as to why this is. All gods are inventions of human beings. None have been observed or experienced in a way that can be verified independently using any form of evidence.
 
Angel said:
This ridiculous post of yours is hardly worth replying to.
You obviously don't understand or aren't even aware of the philosophical concepts of contingency and necessity -- which of course doesn't keep you from gassing about them.
Moreover, you don't even understand the thread you presume to post repeatedly in -- this thread is not about Yahweh, or Allah, or Brahma or any other god of any religion.
Get with it, man.
Click to expand...

You are the one who mistakenly believes that because man made up philosophical concepts they are somehow irrefutable truths. Man uses philosophy, not the other way around.
 
zyzygy said:
If anyone exists then does Lord Krishna exist?
Click to expand...

If the Christian concept of God can be proven to exist using arguments typical of European culture, then the existence of other God can be proven to exist using the arguments of that culture. The problem is not proving that God exists. With only a little contortion, it can be done. The problem is figuring out which is the real God. And for that we have war.
 
blarg said:
nah was just being cute though when that circle is literally a claim based on and looping perfectly around itself and you make posts where you you claim god is necessary for a post to happen and that since a post happened god is necessary for posts to happen then that is a pretty good demonstration of you going in a circle with your reasoning

this is the argument im selling for why what you posted was circaler ( assuming i still have the right link to paste in ) ( ok it is )

Proof of God
Click to expand...
But the link is to your travesty of my argument, and your travesty of my argument isn't circular.
 
weaver2 said:
If the Christian concept of God can be proven to exist using arguments typical of European culture, then the existence of other God can be proven to exist using the arguments of that culture. The problem is not proving that God exists. With only a little contortion, it can be done. The problem is figuring out which is the real God. And for that we have war.
Click to expand...

You left out the possibility of no gods.
 
devildavid said:
Your usual resort to insults when you have nothing else.
Click to expand...

A common accusation with you...did you ever consider, maybe it's the way you respond to others that brings about such responses to you?
 
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...

Here are my views on this issue which I think might be helpful.

The main point I will to make is that all philosophical positions/beliefs or lack thereof pertaining to the existence of God are not based on proofs but largely are positions of faith, convictions, personal biases or beliefs. The first fallacy I will discuss pertains to the misguided view that God’s existence can be proven or disproven in particularly due to the advances in science. What many people don’t realize is that all scientific endeavors require numerous presuppositions in order to pursue its tasks (In case there are some who don’t know what a presupposition is, I will provide a definition: Presuppose 1. To assume or suppose in advance. 2. To require or involve necessarily as an antecedent condition.). Some of these presuppositions include:

- the uniformity of nature
- induction
- laws of logic
- volition
- epistemology
- truth
- the reliability of the mind and the senses
- consciousness
- reality
- existence (philosophically speaking)

In other words, there are many things that “science” cannot prove. These presuppositions, or axioms, precede scientific endeavors and all searches for knowledge for that matter. It would pointless to debate such things since without their reality and validity there would be no foundation for any debate. Also if these presuppositions are “real” and “exist” to what do they owe their reality or existence to? As such if there is indeed a God would not this deity be “above,” transcend or greater than these presuppositions? Consequently if “science” cannot “prove” these presuppositions why should I be foolish enough to think that “science” can prove or disprove the existence of God, or the soul or other metaphysical entities. Consider the abstract notion of “truth.” Is “truth” real or is it an illusion? Can you define it without presupposing it? Furthermore, if science is the study of the “natural” or physical world, and if God or the soul are metaphysical or supernatural, how then could science prove or disprove their existence? Such things ultimately are philosophical matters and hence any claim towards a “burden of proof” in philosophical matters is fallacious. These philosophical issues that have been around for centuries are not going away no matter how much science progresses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom