• 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

Elvira said:
Have you not noticed...he doesn't...he stands back to gossip, nothing more...
Click to expand...

Yes Ive noticed that about PTF so why would anyone reply to him?
 
Angel said:
And if yes, does that not expose the flaw in your criticism of my logic?
Click to expand...

Isn't that what each of your responses to all criticism should have been attempting to do, advancing your claim rather than denigrating those who find it unacceptable for whatever reasons of their own?
 
Individual said:
Isn't that what each of your responses to all criticism should have been attempting to do, advancing your claim rather than denigrating those who find it unacceptable for whatever reasons of their own?
Click to expand...
My claim is advanced in the argument of the OP. and those who dismissed it out of hand were properly treated. How does this post of yours advance discussion? Do you believe it to be responsive to the post it ostensibly replies to?
 
Quag said:
Angel can make that claim but will have to prove it.

You appear to be trying to use 2 diffrerent definitions of belief at the same time

No you made a claim you cannot prove and are now running away from even trying by making another claim you cannot prove

The problem here is you cannot prove God yet continue to pretend that you have. Then you resort to insults when people point out that you havent
Click to expand...
Angel justifies his claim in the exact same way Quag justifies his, and the discussion must stop. What didn't you understand about this? Do you want me to spell it out for you?
 
Quag said:
The argument fails to prove God is necessary and thus fails to prove God exists
Click to expand...
Your dismissal of the argument fails to prove the argument fails to prove God exists.
 
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...

Premise 5 is false. It is not the case that God either must exist or must not exist. The universe does not require God to exist, but nor does it require him not to. God MAY exist.
 
Angel said:
My claim is advanced in the argument of the OP. and those who dismissed it out of hand were properly treated. How does this post of yours advance discussion? Do you believe it to be responsive to the post it ostensibly replies to?
Click to expand...

1. Whatever exists, can exist. - Obviously true
2. Whatever must exist, exists. - What can be or has been proven to must exist?
3. Whatever must exist, can exist. - Perhaps I was wrong, the argument appears to have failed in the previous step.
4. If God exists, God must exist. - There's no point in going further unless step 2 can be clarified in a meaningful way and undeniably accepted by all.
5. Either God must exist or God must not exist. -
6. It is not the case that God must not exist. -
7. Therefore, God must exist. -
8. If God must exist, then God can exist. -
9. If God can exist, then God exists. -
10. God can exist. -
11. Therefore God exists. -

"So can you prove any being is logically necessary?" If your premise begins with God being a necessity, it has been made a forgone conclusion that God must exist.

Each and every post I make/made has been with intent to acquire a meaningful reply to the questions I ask.
 
Irredentist said:
Premise 5 is false. It is not the case that God either must exist or must not exist. The universe does not require God to exist, but nor does it require him not to. God MAY exist.
Click to expand...
Premise 5 is a law of thought -- the law of excluded middle.
The universe most assuredly requires God to exist -- God is the necessary condition of the universe.
If God MAY exist, then God MUST exist -- that's essentially the OP argument, and it derives from an axiom of modal logic.
 
Individual said:
Each and every post I make/made has been with intent to acquire a meaningful reply to the questions I ask.
Click to expand...
To be sure, but you don't answer questions, you just ask them. Most of your posts are non-responsive in this way.
The proof you request is on the way.
 
Angel said:
To be sure, but you don't answer questions, you just ask them. Most of your posts are non-responsive in this way.
The proof you request is on the way.
Click to expand...

I do answer questions, but I can't help it if you don't like my answers. I'm not the one trying to prove anything.
If you can provide it, I'll certainly acknowledge it.
 
Individual said:
I do answer questions, but I can't help it if you don't like my answers. I'm not the one trying to prove anything.
If you can provide it, I'll certainly acknowledge it.
Click to expand...

Angel doesn't do proof.
 
Individual said:
I do answer questions, but I can't help it if you don't like my answers. I'm not the one trying to prove anything.
If you can provide it, I'll certainly acknowledge it.
Click to expand...
No you don't answer questions. Here is just the most recent post with questions you ignored:
Angel said:
My claim is advanced in the argument of the OP. and those who dismissed it out of hand were properly treated. How does this post of yours advance discussion? Do you believe it to be responsive to the post it ostensibly replies to?
Click to expand...
The questions go to your habitual non-responsiveness, and your non-responsive reply ignores them.
 
Proof of God # 7

Definition of God (for RAMOSS): Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi (roughly the necessary ground of all that exists)
​

1. If God does not exist, his existence is logically impossible.

2. If God does exist, his existence is logically necessary.

3. Hence, either God’s existence is logically impossible or else it is logically necessary.

4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.

5. The concept of God is not contradictory.

6.Therefore, God’s existence is logically necessary.


Quag said:
The argument fails to prove God is necessary and thus fails to prove God exists
Click to expand...

devildavid said:
God is not necessary.
Click to expand...

Individual said:
What necessarily exists?
Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:
I would settle for a definition that would be universally agreed on, and theoretically testable.
Click to expand...

zyzygy said:
Angel doesn't do proof.
Click to expand...
The Necessity of God’s Existence: Ontological Arguments Worth Considering
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
No you don't answer questions. Here is just the most recent post with questions you ignored:

The questions go to your habitual non-responsiveness, and your non-responsive reply ignores them.
Click to expand...

As I said, I answered your questions and if you don't like my answers I'm sorry.
 
Angel said:
Proof of God # 7

Definition of God (for RAMOSS): Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi (roughly the necessary ground of all that exists)
​

1. If God does not exist, his existence is logically impossible.

2. If God does exist, his existence is logically necessary.

3. Hence, either God’s existence is logically impossible or else it is logically necessary.

4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.

5. The concept of God is not contradictory.

6.Therefore, God’s existence is logically necessary.

The Necessity of God’s Existence: Ontological Arguments Worth Considering
Click to expand...

A more rational and reasoned version of the above would be:

1. God's existence is either logically possible or logically impossible.

2. If a God does exist, it's existence is might be logically necessary or else it might be logically unnecessary.

3. Hence, either God's existence is logically impossible and logically unnecessary OR ELSE it is logically possible AND either logically necessary OR logically unnecessary.

4. If God's existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is of no practical use.

5. The concept of God is early humans answer to all questions of existence and natural events affecting their lives.

6. Therefore God's existence is logically unproven/unprovable.
 
Angel said:
To be sure, but you don't answer questions, you just ask them. Most of your posts are non-responsive in this way.
The proof you request is on the way.
Click to expand...

"So can you prove any being is logically necessary?"

If your premise begins with God being a necessity, it has been made a forgone conclusion that God must exist.

Each and every post I make/made has been with intent to acquire a meaningful reply to the questions I ask.

So far I think most, if not all of us, non-believers in God agree on one item you posted, "What exists can exist".
 
Individual said:
As I said, I answered your questions and if you don't like my answers I'm sorry.
Click to expand...
So you answered the questions, you say?

Well, where is your answer to this question:
How does this post of yours advance discussion?

And where is your answer to this question:
Do you believe it to be responsive to the post it ostensibly replies to?

Post #s will suffice. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom