• 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 said:
A "you-can-say-that-again" kind of post.
In the running for Post of the Year recognition.
Would make a terrific Original Post in a new thread, dontcha think?
Click to expand...

Why do you keep quoting your own posts ?
Especially as thy are really bad ones that fail to advance your agenda.
 
Angel said:
Children and militant atheists do the sort of thing you suggest. It is a frivolous exercise, and insulting to the intelligence of a rational adult. Draw what epistemic conclusions you will.
Click to expand...

If you like logic, I am just using the logic of your argument and replacing X with Y in the logical sequence you lay out. But somehow you think the logic works with X but not Y. Why?
 
Angel said:
There's nothing logically impossible about solipsism either.
Click to expand...

OK. So then you have admitted that your logical “proof” in the OP is no proof.

QED.:)
 
ataraxia said:
If you like logic, I am just using the logic of your argument and replacing X with Y in the logical sequence you lay out. But somehow you think the logic works with X but not Y. Why?
Click to expand...
What a curious way of putting it -- "liking logic." Do you "like" science? Do you "like" truth?
Out of respect for your intelligence I'll assume that your "somehow you think the logic works with X but not Y. Why?" is an instance of deliberate disingenuousness, for surely you understand that logic goes to the form of reasoning and that the soundness (truthfulness) of a logical argument depends on the values of X or Y respectively.
 
ataraxia said:
OK. So then you have admitted that your logical “proof” in the OP is no proof.

QED.:)
Click to expand...
I acknowledged the flaws in the "proof" 300 posts ago. Was this the intent of your exchange of posts?
 
ataraxia said:
Horned, pure-white, graceful, powerful= description of a unicorn.

Jolly, slides down chimneys every year to bring presents for good boys and girls, ruddy cheeks, and a twinkle in the eyes= description of Santa.

Elephant headed god of learning and knowlege, good natured, with big belly= Description of Lord Ganesha in Hinduism.

These are all descriptions. What do these descriptions imply about their actual existence?
Click to expand...
Good. If you can disabuse weaver2 of his conflation of qualities and existence, you will have succeeded where I've failed.
 
Cordelier said:
I don't want to minimize the importance of science and scientific thought... but I think every devotee of science should take that they don't fall into the pitfall of the religious zealot. Take care that you don't become so attached to your own "one true faith" that it leaves you blind to other perspectives. I don't think science has all the answers any more than religion has all of the answers. The true power of insight is realized when we harness all of our mental energies to constructive endeavors and we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. Think of all of the millions of lives that have been spent in spiritual contemplation over the generations. Think of all the wisdom that has been distilled and passed down to us from those efforts. I think we'd be foolish in the extreme to ignore that vast inheritance just because it is old and dusty instead of new and shiny things that have caught your eye. We all need to be open to other perspectives and embrace knowledge and wisdom in all of it's many forms.

It's like traditional Chinese medicine.... modern medical science may write it off because it isn't "cutting edge"....but the way I figure it, people wouldn't be using those techniques after thousands of years if there wasn't something to them. If I get a headache, sure I can take a couple of extra-strength Tylenol... but guess what? Rubbing some tiger balm on my temples sure works a lot better.
Click to expand...

I believe that you may have misunderstood my point. Often in this type of debate those who argue from the atheist perspective have been heavily influenced by the philosophy of empiricism, which is prominent in Western thought. My critique is to that point out that there are many things that “science” cannot prove and as such their positions are based on philosophy and not science. The fact is that all philosophical positions/beliefs or lack thereof pertaining to the existence of God are not based on so-called proofs or empiricism, but largely are positions of faith, convictions, personal biases or beliefs. The most significant fallacy pertains to the misguided view that God’s existence can be proven or disproven in particularly due to the advances in science. What many 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)
- the adequacy of language in describing the world


These presuppositions, or axioms, precede scientific endeavors and all searches for knowledge for that matter. It would be pointless to debate such things since without their reality and/or 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 be greater than such notions? 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.
 
ataraxia said:
Not to Stephen Hawking.

”One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist. But science makes God unnecessary. … The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator....It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
-Stephen Hawking

Have you studied M-theory?
Click to expand...

And how would one empirically verify such views? A scientist has no more insight to metaphysical questions than does a philosopher.
 
Angel said:
I acknowledged the flaws in the "proof" 300 posts ago. Was this the intent of your exchange of posts?
Click to expand...

Oooooh, OK. Sorry, I missed it.

So remind me again what are we arguing about here? :thinking
 
Angel said:
Good. If you can disabuse weaver2 of his conflation of qualities and existence, you will have succeeded where I've failed.
Click to expand...

I think nature (qualities) and existence are inextricably intertwined. The nature of something is why you know it has an existence. If it can be described it exists either for real or in one's imagination. If existence is to be proven it's nature is known even it's a metaphysical nature. It doesn't exist if you can't say what it is that exists.

Logic was invented so people could communicate thoughts and ideas . It seems reasonable if one is trying to communicate about something one would have to be able to state the qualities if one wants the communication to be understood and/or successful. There would be no reason for proving it's existence if you were only talking to yourself.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Oooooh, OK. Sorry, I missed it.

So remind me again what are we arguing about here? :thinking
Click to expand...
The existence of God.
And more a civil give-and-take than an argument.
Reasons to believe.



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...
 
weaver2 said:
I think nature (qualities) and existence are inextricably intertwined. The nature of something is why you know it has an existence. If it can be described it exists either for real or in one's imagination. If existence is to be proven it's nature is known even it's a metaphysical nature. It doesn't exist if you can't say what it is that exists....
Click to expand...
"Inextricably intertwined" perhaps, but categorically distinct. You blur the distinction with your "exists either for real or in one's imagination." If you thought about it even for a moment, you'd see that this bit of cuteness from you proves the existence of God, which must needs horrify you, I would think.
 
Angel said:
What do you mean, "died"? And what is it about post #2 that you find so thrilling?
Click to expand...

It ceased to have meaningful life.

It refutes the OP, but I found nothing thrilling about it.
 
Angel said:
The existence of God.
And more a civil give-and-take than an argument.
Reasons to believe.
Click to expand...

Even the most theistic theologians today don’t really try to use the cosmological/teleological arguments anymore. Those are interesting really just from the perspective of a study of medieval intellectual history.
 
Individual said:
It ceased to have meaningful life.

It refutes the OP, but I found nothing thrilling about it.
Click to expand...
"Refutes," you say?
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Look to it.
 
ataraxia said:
Even the most theistic theologians today don’t really try to use the cosmological/teleological arguments anymore. Those are interesting really just from the perspective of a study of medieval intellectual history.
Click to expand...
Are there degrees of theism? (In reference to your "most theistic" BTW.)
What do theologians today "really try to use" and to what purpose?
 
Angel said:
"Refutes," you say?
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Look to it.
Click to expand...


Angel said:
I acknowledged the flaws in the "proof" 300 posts ago.
Click to expand...

Please don't tell us you still feel you have provided Proof of God.

re·fute
verb
prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.



The OP has been refuted numerous times.
 
Individual said:
Please don't tell us you still feel you have provided Proof of God.

re·fute
verb
prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.



The OP has been refuted numerous times.
Click to expand...
You post the meaning and then ignore it. A refutation is a proof, not merely an opinion or an assertion. Post #2, of which you are so enamored, is merely an assertion to the contrary, a contrary opinion. Not a refutation.
 
Angel said:
You post the meaning and then ignore it. A refutation is a proof, not merely an opinion or an assertion. Post #2, of which you are so enamored, is merely an assertion to the contrary, a contrary opinion. Not a refutation.
Click to expand...

In simple words, the OP DID NOT show a Proof of God.

The thread is meaningless, UNLESS you can back up the claim with irrefutable evidence.
 
Individual said:
In simple words, the OP DID NOT show a Proof of God.

The thread is meaningless, UNLESS you can back up the claim with irrefutable evidence.
Click to expand...
That's better -- stick to the "simple words."
The word "meaningless," like the word "refutes," is a bit too complex for your purpose here, which is merely to jeer.

And finally, you, the living conscious being behind the user name, is "irrefutable evidence" of the existence of God. Live with it.

In simple words:
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom