• 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

Tracks

It's all a matter of tracking, folks.

If you come across these tracks:
ld5LMLG.jpg

You'd be justified in concluding that a bird had been there.


If you came across these tracks:
iCL5v2Yl.jpg

You'd be justified in concluding that a dog had passed through.

And so on:
6TUfoU1.jpg



If you come across a universe, life forms, and conscious being...
you'd be justified in inferring to a God.


Atheists are poor trackers, is all.​
 
Angel said:
Tracks

It's all a matter of tracking, folks.

If you come across these tracks:
ld5LMLG.jpg

You'd be justified in concluding that a bird had been there.


If you came across these tracks:
iCL5v2Yl.jpg

You'd be justified in concluding that a dog had passed through.

And so on:
6TUfoU1.jpg



If you come across a universe, life forms, and conscious being...
you'd be justified in inferring to a God.


Atheists are poor trackers, is all.​
Click to expand...

Analogy fails
You will only conclude birds or dogs if you already knew what dogs are and the tracks they make. You are assuming you know what god is and that universe, life forms, and conscious being are the tracks left by god. You have no reference to base any assumptions on, just your belief which is not proof of anything but that you have beliefs
 
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...

While at first glance, this looks like it might be a very rigorous logical argument, it's not.

For example, this "logical" sequence does not seem so logical to me:

"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."

There are lots of things where "it is not the case that ____must not exist", but how does that lead to the conclusion that "therefore ____must exist"?

As an analogy, it is not the case that parallel universes or dark matter must not exist. They might. Or not. How does that lead to the conclusion that they therefore must exist?
 
Angel said:
Tracks

It's all a matter of tracking, folks.

If you come across these tracks:
ld5LMLG.jpg

You'd be justified in concluding that a bird had been there.


If you came across these tracks:
iCL5v2Yl.jpg

You'd be justified in concluding that a dog had passed through.

And so on:
6TUfoU1.jpg



If you come across a universe, life forms, and conscious being...
you'd be justified in inferring to a God.


Atheists are poor trackers, is all.​
Click to expand...

Oh my god. One of the worst analogies I have ever seen. And you call yourself a philosopher?
If you have no knowledge of animals, then you will have no clue what made those tracks.
 
rwee2000 said:
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was accepted as a religion in the Netherlands, but really is that any more or less silly then a virgin birth?

"Joseph I'm pregnant, but God did it." Yea right.

Given that's the really easy to prove the bible is wrong, and it can't even keep the same story straight in the same chapter.

Two (Genesis 6:19-20)--"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
Seven (Genesis 7:2-3)--"You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3 also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."


I could go on and on, but I know you'll do some mental gymnastics, to convince yourself that the bible is right somehow.
Click to expand...

Genesis 7 merely makes the distinction of clean and unclean animals, where Genesis 6 does not...the basis for making a distinction in clean animals was the fact they were used as animal sacrifices, so naturally more were needed, where unclean animals were not...not a difficult thing to figure out...
 
Angel said:
It's all a matter of tracking, folks.
If you come across a universe, life forms, and conscious being...
you'd be justified in inferring to a God.
Click to expand...

Art, music, and the migration of monarch butterflies justify the inference of a God better than a universe, life forms and "conscious being". .
 
Angel said:
We're talking about different matters. You're talking about organized religion. I'm talking about the existence of God apart from any and all religious beliefs about God.
This thread is about the latter.
Click to expand...

So, PROVE that god exists. If god doesn't exist then it should be easy to prove. I know, according to the bible, anything is possible if you have faith, right? So let's gather up all the amputees, find the Christians, pray and see if any of them grow a limb back. After all with all the amputees in just the US that has to be ONE who has size of a mustard seed.

He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Matthew 17:20
 
Elvira said:
Genesis 7 merely makes the distinction of clean and unclean animals, where Genesis 6 does not...the basis for making a distinction in clean animals was the fact they were used as animal sacrifices, so naturally more were needed, where unclean animals were not...not a difficult thing to figure out...
Click to expand...

“The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you” (Leviticus 11:6).

So rabbit chew a cud?

Really the story in Genesis say as a statement that "you shall bring two of every kind" later it say 7 of clean and 2 of unclean. Really if you read genesis you'll see it is clearly two stories that combined into one.

Like is said you'll do some mental gymnastics to convince yourself the bible is right, so tell me does a rabbit chew it's cud?
 
rwee2000 said:
So, PROVE that god exists. If god doesn't exist then it should be easy to prove. I know, according to the bible, anything is possible if you have faith, right? So let's gather up all the amputees, find the Christians, pray and see if any of them grow a limb back. After all with all the amputees in just the US that has to be ONE who has size of a mustard seed.

He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Matthew 17:20
Click to expand...
After what I pointed out to you in my last reply, why are you still talking about the Bible?
 
rwee2000 said:
“The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you” (Leviticus 11:6).

So rabbit chew a cud?

Really the story in Genesis say as a statement that "you shall bring two of every kind" later it say 7 of clean and 2 of unclean. Really if you read genesis you'll see it is clearly two stories that combined into one.

Like is said you'll do some mental gymnastics to convince yourself the bible is right, so tell me does a rabbit chew it's cud?
Click to expand...

You would really do well to understand what you're talking about before you make feeble attempts...

Why does the Bible classify the hare as a cud chewer?

The Scriptural reference to the hare as a cud chewer has frequently been doubted by some critics of the Bible. (Le 11:4, 6; De 14:7) It should not be overlooked, however, that the modern, scientific classification of what constitutes chewing of the cud provides no basis for judging what the Bible says, as such classification did not exist in the time of Moses. Even in the 18th century, English poet William Cowper, who had at length observed his domestic hares, commented that they “chewed the cud all day till evening.” Linnaeus, famed naturalist of the same century, believed that rabbits chewed the cud. But it remained for others to supply more scientific data. Frenchman Morot discovered in 1882 that rabbits reingest up to 90 percent of their daily intake. Concerning the hare, Ivan T. Sanderson in a recent publication remarks: “One of the most extraordinary [habits], to our way of thinking, is their method of digestion. This is not unique to Leporids [hares, rabbits] and is now known to occur in many Rodents. When fresh green food, as opposed to desiccated [dried] winter forage, is available, the animals gobble it up voraciously and then excrete it around their home lairs in a semi-digested form. After some time this is then re-eaten, and the process may be repeated more than once. In the Common Rabbit, it appears that only the fully grown adults indulge this practice.”​—Living Mammals of the World, 1955, p. 114.

Certain British scientists made close observations of the rabbits’ habits under careful controls, and the results they obtained were published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1940, Vol. 110, pp. 159-163. Briefly this is the way the hare reingests its food: If a rabbit eats a breakfast of fresh food, it passes through the stomach into the small intestine, leaving behind in the cardiac end of the stomach some 40 or 50 grams of pellets that were already present when the fresh food was eaten. From the small intestine the morning meal enters the caecum or blind end of the large intestine and there remains for a period of time. During the day the pellets descend, and in the intestines the bacterial protein in them is digested. When they reach the large intestine they bypass the material in the caecum and go on into the colon where the excess moisture is absorbed to produce the familiar dry beans or droppings that are cast away. This phase of the cycle completed, the material stored in the dead end of the caecum next enters the colon, but instead of having all the moisture absorbed it reaches the anus in a rather soft condition. It is in pellet form with each coated with a tough layer of mucus to prevent them from sticking together. Now when these pellets reach the anus, instead of being cast away, the rabbit doubles up and takes them into the mouth and stores them away in the cardiac end of the stomach until another meal has been eaten. In this way the special rhythmic cycle is completed and most of the food has passed a second time through the digestive tract. Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt, Head Curator, Department of Zoology of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., in commenting on these findings, wrote: “There seems to be no reason to doubt the authenticity of the reports of various workers that rabbits customarily store semi-digested food in the caecum and that this is later reingested and passes a second time through the digestive tract.” He also observed that here is an explanation for “the phenomenally large caecum of rabbits as compared with most other mammals.”​—Awake!, April 22, 1951, pp. 27, 28.
Click to expand...

Cud — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
 
weaver2 said:
Angel said:
Tracks

It's all a matter of tracking, folks.

If you come across these tracks:
ld5LMLG.jpg

You'd be justified in concluding that a bird had been there.


If you came across these tracks:
iCL5v2Yl.jpg

You'd be justified in concluding that a dog had passed through.

And so on:
6TUfoU1.jpg



If you come across a universe, life forms, and conscious being...
you'd be justified in inferring to a God.


Atheists are poor trackers, is all.​
Click to expand...
Art, music, and the migration of monarch butterflies justify the inference of a God better than a universe, life forms and "conscious being". .
Click to expand...
"All things point to God."
Angel Trismegistus​
 
Angel said:
After what I pointed out to you in my last reply, why are you still talking about the Bible?
Click to expand...

As most people here are Christians, it a natural starting point. If you wish to discuss if any god could exist, the simple answer is NO.
 
rwee2000 said:
Either the bible is wrong, or "god" doesn't know rabbits don't chew their cud. And the mental gymnastics continue.
Click to expand...

The 3rd possibility is you are wrong...I'll go with that...
 
rwee2000 said:
As most people here are Christians, it a natural starting point. If you wish to discuss if any god could exist, the simple answer is NO.
Click to expand...
The Bible and Christianity have nothing to do with this thread. Don't you understand this?
Talking about the Bible in a thread that is not about religion is "a natural starting point" only for someone who can't think outside militant atheist talking points.
What reason do you have for your throwaway point, that God cannot exist?
 
Elvira said:
You would really do well to understand what you're talking about before you make feeble attempts...
Cud — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
Click to expand...

The Jewish dietary laws have no connection to God other than using Him as a big stick to threaten everybody into obeying them. They are a way for people living in crowded unsanitary conditions to avoid internal parasites and diseases as much as possible. Rabbits are classified as unclean because they carry Tularemia.

(from Mayo Clinic)
Tularemia is a rare infectious disease that typically attacks the skin, eyes, lymph nodes and lungs. Tularemia — also called rabbit fever or deer fly fever — is caused by the bacterium Francisella tularensis. The disease mainly affects mammals, especially rodents, rabbits and hares, although it can also infect birds, sheep, and domestic animals, such as dogs, cats and hamsters. Tularemia spreads to humans through several routes, including insect bites and direct exposure to an infected animal. Highly contagious and potentially fatal, tularemia usually can be treated effectively with specific antibiotics if diagnosed early.

The dietary laws also eked out food supplies by limiting meals to either dairy or meat but not both.

With modern medicine and sanitation they are unnecessary. God couldn't care less what you eat. But, organized religion cares and they use them to call down Gods wrath on the mindlessly religious. It makes them feel more sanctified than those eating bacon and eggs and pepperoni pizza.
 
weaver2 said:
The Jewish dietary laws have no connection to God other than using Him as a big stick to threaten everybody into obeying them. They are a way for people living in crowded unsanitary conditions to avoid internal parasites and diseases as much as possible. Rabbits are classified as unclean because they carry Tularemia.

(from Mayo Clinic)
Tularemia is a rare infectious disease that typically attacks the skin, eyes, lymph nodes and lungs. Tularemia — also called rabbit fever or deer fly fever — is caused by the bacterium Francisella tularensis. The disease mainly affects mammals, especially rodents, rabbits and hares, although it can also infect birds, sheep, and domestic animals, such as dogs, cats and hamsters. Tularemia spreads to humans through several routes, including insect bites and direct exposure to an infected animal. Highly contagious and potentially fatal, tularemia usually can be treated effectively with specific antibiotics if diagnosed early.

The dietary laws also eked out food supplies by limiting meals to either dairy or meat but not both.

With modern medicine and sanitation they are unnecessary. God couldn't care less what you eat. But, organized religion cares and they use them to call down Gods wrath on the mindlessly religious. It makes them feel more sanctified than those eating bacon and eggs and pepperoni pizza.
Click to expand...

Boondoggle...:roll:
 
Angel said:
The Bible and Christianity have nothing to do with this thread. Don't you understand this?
Talking about the Bible in a thread that is not about religion is "a natural starting point" only for someone who can't think outside militant atheist talking points.
What reason do you have for your throwaway point, that God cannot exist?
Click to expand...

In the past, since cultures were fairly isolated and would not change for thousands of years, the existence of a God or gods DID make a huge difference. He/she/they were the mouthpieces of the cultural ideals/values/norms/morals of that particular culture. So the existence of God as the lawgiver and enforcer of those ideals made it a very useful concept. It also helped when on those less common occasions when a particular culture came in contact with other cultures. It would help preserve the cultural identity. That's why the Israelite God Yahweh claimed that he was a "jealous" God. You didn't want these Israelites wandering off and worshipping other Gods, therefore other cultural ideals and identities, like for example the Babylonian Marduk or something. He even made a covenant with them: I will protect you, but only as long as you preserve your cultural identity, ie, worship only me.

Even as late as the 19th century, profound writers and thinkers like Dostoevsky, as they were experiencing the decline of religious belief and theism, were wondering what this would mean for social norms, values, and morality. "Without God, anything is possible", he wrote in his Crime and Punishment. Without an ultimate moral lawgiver, who would be able to dictate the values of a society?

But the modern world has brought several changes that challenge this traditional view:

1) As technology has brought us into ever-increasing contact with other cultures, the evidence has become overwhelming that each culture has its own set of cultural values, and its own set of god/gods which espouse those values. This makes some people wonder if we are not just projecting our values to our deities, rather than the other way around.

2) Even within the same culture, as it changes and evolves over time, so does what its deities seem to want and say. The acceleration of the growth of science and technology has only thrown this into sharper relief. The introduction of new technologies like gene therapy, stem cell research, artificial intelligence, artificial insemination, etc... have raised many questions for which there is no direct answer in traditional scripture. So we have had to debate and figure out the ethics of these things on our own. So this seems to suggest also that the culture is just projecting its values to its deities, rather than the other way around, with some lawgiver issuing eternal, immutable, and unquestionable commands for all time.

IOW, we may be making this stuff up.

So let's go back to Dostoevsky's question of: without God, is everything really possible? Can we humans be responsible and mature enough to create our own values rather than God? That's still a difficult question. The world is still largely very theistic, so we don't really know by experience what it would be like if large parts of the population just stopped believing. The experience of countries where religion has been on the wane, like for example in Scandinavian countries, suggests that not much would happen. But would that experience be replicated everywhere? Hard to say.

(cont'd on next post...)
 
Last edited:
(cont'd from previous post)

But one very big change in the modern (relatively) world has been the separation of church and state. When the idea was first being proposed, there was a lot of concern about how government and the people in a democracy would be able to create their own values and laws without the guidance of the ultimate moral lawgiver, God. Anything would then be possible, right? But the outcomes have actually been quite good. Actually, they have been better than with what was happening with the assumption of a divine lawgiver.

Listen to the impressions and experiences of some of the folks dealing firsthand with this ground-breaking paradigm-shift:

"It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom.... We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov. "
-James Madison,

"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity."
-James Madison

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.”
-James Madison


"Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America...All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-Thomas Payne
Click to expand...

So if modern secular democracies can create social values and norms by a process of democracy, consultation, debate, etc.... without the assumption of a divine lawgiver, it doesn't seem like EVERYTHING is possible. MORE things may be possible, ie, more freedom. But everything? Doesn't seem like it based on our experience so far. And an advantage is that such secular value-making is far more limber, thoughtful, and open to new ideas and developments than constantly trying to find eternal laws for every new technology and development. Are we mature enough, have enough judgment, enough intelligence, to think for ourselves, or do we still need to be told what to do for everything like a small child?

So if this process of secularization has been more successful on the political level, I am not sure why a similar process can't work on the personal level. But of course, I could be wrong. Because individuals tend to be much more varied in their level of maturity and judgment. So maybe having a "God says..." in front of moral values may still be needed for those with less education, judgment, or maturity in society.

(cont'd on next post...)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom