Proof of God

Angel · Mar 18, 2020

Quag said:
No it proves you keep trying to make a strawman.

You're repeating this strawman charge like a veritable Internet Skeptic. I use your reasoning to support my claim, and together with your claim discussion reaches an impasse.

Angel · Mar 18, 2020

Quag said:
No it proves you keep trying to make a strawman.

No, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You're hoist by your own petard.

dave8383 · Mar 18, 2020

Angel said:
I don't mind going off topic. I mind wasting my time. Natural science hasn't even scratched the surface of Reality and has given us nothing in the way of an explanation of the World.

What do you mean by "explanation" of the world?

Angel · Mar 18, 2020

Quag said:
Why does there need to be an explanation and if there is one why would we even know?

Because the universe is rational and the human mind is rational. And we'd know because the explanation is rational.

calamity · Mar 18, 2020

I think God just showed himself. And, he’s saying, “Y’all shood-a voted for Hillary.”

:lamo

Individual · Mar 18, 2020

Angel said:
I don't mind going off topic. I mind wasting my time. Natural science hasn't even scratched the surface of Reality and has given us nothing in the way of an explanation of the World.

That may be true, but on the other hand what has a belief in God(s) given us in the way of an explanation of the World?

Angel · Mar 18, 2020

dave8383 said:
What do you mean by "explanation" of the world?

A rational account for the existence of the universe, life on Earth, and consciousness.

Angel · Mar 18, 2020

Individual said:
That may be true, but on the other hand what has a belief in God(s) given us in the way of an explanation of the World?

God is the only rational explanation of the World (universe, life, consciousness) -- the sine qua non of this tremendous mystery we are experiencing.

dave8383 · Mar 18, 2020

Angel said:
A rational account for the existence of the universe, life on Earth, and consciousness.

I'm not being difficult, but what does that mean? Do you mean why? How? Purpose? What?

Individual · Mar 18, 2020

Angel said:
God is the only rational explanation of the World (universe, life, consciousness) -- the sine qua non of this tremendous mystery we are experiencing.

That, then is what you need to prove.
I was with you at step 1, "Whatever exists, can exist."

Angel · Mar 18, 2020

dave8383 said:
I'm not being difficult, but what does that mean? Do you mean why? How? Purpose? What?

Just a humble How. I'm about to post another argument that might make this clearer. Hold on.

Angel · Mar 18, 2020

Angel's Empirical Argument For God (#6 in this thread)

The experience of the person I am in the world—my consciousness, my life, and the physical world in which my conscious life appears to be set—these phenomena comprise a Stupendous Given. There's no getting around them and no getting outside them and no accounting for them from within the phenomena themselves. These phenomena point to something beyond themselves. The attempt to account for these phenomena from within the phenomena themselves has given rise to science, art and religion and the whole cultural adventure we call "civilization"—the long human struggle for purchase on the Stupendous Given. In the end, however, the only account that accords with reason is the account that infers to a Stupendous Giver. In sum, from the existence of consciousness, the existence of life, and the existence of the physical universe, the inference to the best explanation is God.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/belie...post1069490983

Proof of God #8
Definition of God (for RAMOSS): Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi (roughly the necessary ground of all that exists)

1. If the universe were eternal and its amount of energy finite, it would have reached heat death by now.

2. The universe has not reached heat death (since there is still energy available for use).

3. Therefore, (b) the universe had a beginning.

4. Therefore, (c) the universe was created by a first cause (God)

The Necessity of God’s Existence: Ontological Arguments Worth Considering

Angel · Mar 18, 2020

Individual said:
That, then is what you need to prove.
I was with you at step 1, "Whatever exists, can exist."

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
For starters, engage the argument posted here:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/377349-god-real-85.html#post1071522987

Angel · Mar 18, 2020

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.

DarthPedant said:
I think Number 4, or the jump from 4 to 5 seem to be a simple fallacy. Because to justify 5, 4 would need to read 'if and only if...' As it stands, 4 does not rule out gods that are logically impossible but also not contradictory. (Magic unicorns don't contradict anything either, but the author of your link considers them logically impossible, I guess because he says so.)

These kinds of 'proofs' really don't speak to people who don't already believe in a god. They are fundamentally about just defining a god into existence.

To me, this sounds like pure gibberish with a little begging the question thrown in.

I followed the link to read the explanation... The author just dismisses the idea that gods might be like magical unicorns as a non starter with no discussion. He might as well have just said 'nu uh!' But it seems to me quite possible that gods are almost exactly like magical unicorns.

If I had read Kant, I might suspect that 'pure reason' without any anchors can defend any premise, true or false. So I don't even know why 'logically possible' is considered a high bar. Nor do I know how anyone could declare something like a god to not be 'logically impossible' if logic can defend any position. I suspect gods are in fact impossible, whether or not they are 'logically impossible'.

Likewise, zero conversation about why the concept of a god is not contradictory. This is just an assertion, not an argument. And I'm not even clear what is being asserted... What would constitute a contradiction in this scenario. Nothing is inconsistent with the existence of a magical supreme being?

You might as well sum up all your proofs as:

If Angel says a god exists, then a god exists.
Angel says a god exists.
Therefore a god exists.

It's a valid 'proof' but not a sound one to anyone who doesn't accept the premises.

Is the point of these proofs to convince anyone, or just to feel smug about your position? I don't see how your proofs would convince anyone not inclined to believe and just looking, rather desperately, for a justification.

1. A biconditional does not work at 4 because the transition to 5 depends on modus tollens, and modus tollens produces falsehood with the biconditional, but truth with the simple conditional.

2. The magical unicorn counter-example does not refute the argument. There are endless things that are not logically impossible. Pointing out something else that is not logically impossible does not defeat the claim that God is not logically impossible. "Logically impossible" means self-contradictory or entailing contradictory statements.

3. When you suspect that God is logically impossible, do you mean physically impossible?

4. The point of posting proofs in this forum is identical to your point in replying to the posting of proofs in this forum -- amusement.

Sorry for the delay. The coronavirus panic here in NYC has disrupted my days considerably, and I've logged in just to brush away gadfly posts.

Individual · Mar 18, 2020

Angel said:
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
For starters, engage the argument posted here:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/377349-god-real-85.html#post1071522987

Suffice it to say that I have an eye for the beauty nature produces.

But you do appear to imply in that thread that the existence of God in not provable.

Individual · Mar 18, 2020

Angel said:
Let's keep the discussion organized.

If you have an eye for beauty, then you should be able to understand those who have an eye for God, no?
Upon which statement of mine do you base your inference that I'm saying that God is unprovable?

No.

If,"the existence of God is not something to be known", that which you claim to be evidence of Gods existence will require proving it to be so.

Angel · Mar 18, 2020

Individual said:
No.

If,"the existence of God is not something to be known", that which you claim to be evidence of Gods existence will require proving it to be so.

No? Goodbye, atheist.

Individual · Mar 18, 2020

Angel said:
No? Goodbye, atheist.

Proof isn't that easy to produce, is it? Perhaps even impossible?

Angel · Mar 18, 2020

Individual said:
Proof isn't that easy to produce, is it?

Good faith in an interlocutor seems even harder to find. "No," you said? Goodbye, I said. We have nothing to discuss.

Angel · Mar 18, 2020

Look what I found!

Angel said:
Tracks

It's all a matter of tracking, folks.

If you come across these tracks:

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

If you came across these tracks:

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

And so on:

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.

NWO_Spook · Mar 18, 2020

Angel said:
Look what I found!

That would have to be the silliest analogy I've ever read from an apologist, and believe me, I've read some nonsense over the years. There is no inference in such an assertion, but simply an assumption based upon a non-sequitur, which completely excludes the possibility of a naturalistic cause, which of course would be more logical, as it isn't the product of a contrived fantasy.

I know reasoned arguments from atheists have given you cause to exhibit an on-line meltdown of late, but seriously, I implore you to think things through, as I'm almost embarrassed for you.

Individual · Mar 19, 2020

Angel said:
Good faith in an interlocutor seems even harder to find. "No," you said? Goodbye, I said. We have nothing to discuss.

The fact is that what you present as evidence for belief in the existence of God(s) has failed, and continues to fail. It would be dishonest and/or insincere for me to post replies to your questions that I didn't believe to be true.

The most basic first question is the existence of the universe in which we live, how did it come to exist? Was the cause initiated by supernatural force or natural force? For me, I find "natural force" most reasoned/reasonable. To insert God, a supernatural force, as an answer we then begin to ask questions about God, none of which can be answered in any way provable, hence religion is created as the result of stories about such a being or beings.

The question of life in the universe, how did it come to exist? Was the cause initiated by supernatural force or natural force? For me, again, I find "natural force" most reasoned/reasonable. Our early ancestors produced no archaeologists which much later provided us with a greatly different view of what actually existed and evolved over great periods of time, including ourselves.

"1. Whatever exists, can exist."

That's the extent of what can be undeniably proven.

Angel · Mar 19, 2020

Individual said:
The fact is that what you present as evidence for belief in the existence of God(s) has failed, and continues to fail. It would be dishonest and/or insincere for me to post replies to your questions that I didn't believe to be true.

The most basic first question is the existence of the universe in which we live, how did it come to exist? Was the cause initiated by supernatural force or natural force? For me, I find "natural force" most reasoned/reasonable. To insert God, a supernatural force, as an answer we then begin to ask questions about God, none of which can be answered in any way provable, hence religion is created as the result of stories about such a being or beings.

The question of life in the universe, how did it come to exist? Was the cause initiated by supernatural force or natural force? For me, again, I find "natural force" most reasoned/reasonable. Our early ancestors produced no archaeologists which much later provided us with a greatly different view of what actually existed and evolved over great periods of time, including ourselves.

"1. Whatever exists, can exist."

That's the extent of what can be undeniably proven.

You said "No" to my invitation. I said "Goodbye to you. Rudeness to courtesy is a form of bad faith.

Angel · Mar 19, 2020

devildavid said:
...If Xlerb exists, Xlerb must exist.
Xlerb is a logically necessary being.

Both of these statements are true statements.

Angel said:
I have corrected you before. You're either forgetting or lying.

devildavid said:
Xlerb is a logically necessary being.

devildavid said:
If Xlerb exists, Xlerb must exist.

devildavid said:
God is not a logical category, any more than Xlerb is.

I'll find your previous Xlerb post and my correction of it. In the meanwhile, learn from the following posts the error of your thinking:

Angel said:
As I replied to the quoted post early in the thread:

Meaning affects the validity and soundness of a logical argument. One cannot just substitute terms and expect to maintain validity and soundness.

Angel said:
Here's all I meant to point out:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Above is the classic example of a valid and sound logical argument.
One cannot preserve the validity and soundness of this logic by substituting any terms for Socrates that are not men.
Substituting a leprechaun or Dick Tracy or Russell's teapot or the Golden Gate Bridge or Zeus for the term "Socrates" does not preserve the valid and sound logic.
Leprechauns and unicorns and Bigfoot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster have different meanings (different senses and referents) from the term "God" and cannot be substituted for the term "God" while at the same time preserving the validity and soundness (such as they may be) of a logical argument for the existence of God.
Now, the argument for the existence of God may fail, but it fails on its own terms. One cannot substitute non-divine terms to demonstrate that failure.

Angel said:
Only someone ignorant of elementary logic would think that terms in a logical argument can be replaced at will while preserving validity and soundness.
Your attempt to do this for idyllic Northern European goblins is a matter of record of course, and a source of mirth to those who do know something about logic.

Angel said:
One cannot make your substitutions. Their logical definition is different.

Angel · Mar 19, 2020

NWO_Spook said:
That would have to be the silliest analogy I've ever read from an apologist, and believe me, I've read some nonsense over the years. There is no inference in such an assertion, but simply an assumption based upon a non-sequitur, which completely excludes the possibility of a naturalistic cause, which of course would be more logical, as it isn't the product of a contrived fantasy.

I know reasoned arguments from atheists have given you cause to exhibit an on-line meltdown of late, but seriously, I implore you to think things through, as I'm almost embarrassed for you.

Your reputation for tracking God precedes your post. Happy hunting. Shh.

Proof of God

Privileged