• 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

325 pages and still no proof of God
 
Angel said:
For the benefit of Internet Skeptics obsessed with the title of this thread

proof

n.
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.

3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

Proof - definition of proof by The Free Dictionary
Click to expand...

And the definition of God...

god

n.
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.


Based on the definition of God, an unprovable concept, the Universe, life, and consciousness, undeniably exist, therefore God MUST exit. That should prove sufficient for all those who find the definition of God to be factually true.

While I have no problem with the concept of God(s), as a belief, the fact that it came to exist prior to any knowledge at all about Nature and the process of evolving change produced by Nature.
1. Whatever exists, can exist. <-- No question about that.
2. Whatever must exist, exists. <-- "Virtual particles sometimes creating/accumulating Real particles" and/or "God"? Natural OR supernatural cause?

Those of us with an open mind simply ask questions seeking answers. Those with a truly closed mind begin with an answer, and place all their efforts in trying to prove it correct. If God(s) factually exist, it/they will be found out of necessity and if not found they either don't exist or don't want to be found, which would make them irrelevant.

For those who wish to insert religion/scripture into this thread, I offer what a Buddhist Monk said when I asked if he believed in the existence of God(s) or an afterlife.
"All that matters is HOW you live your life."
 
Individual said:
And the definition of God...

god

n.
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.


Based on the definition of God, an unprovable concept, the Universe, life, and consciousness, undeniably exist, therefore God MUST exit. That should prove sufficient for all those who find the definition of God to be factually true.

While I have no problem with the concept of God(s), as a belief, the fact that it came to exist prior to any knowledge at all about Nature and the process of evolving change produced by Nature.
1. Whatever exists, can exist. <-- No question about that.
2. Whatever must exist, exists. <-- "Virtual particles sometimes creating/accumulating Real particles" and/or "God"? Natural OR supernatural cause?

Those of us with an open mind simply ask questions seeking answers. Those with a truly closed mind begin with an answer, and place all their efforts in trying to prove it correct. If God(s) factually exist, it/they will be found out of necessity and if not found they either don't exist or don't want to be found, which would make them irrelevant.

For those who wish to insert religion/scripture into this thread, I offer what a Buddhist Monk said when I asked if he believed in the existence of God(s) or an afterlife.
"All that matters is HOW you live your life."
Click to expand...
I thought you said you weren't trying to prove anything. Or have you already forgotten that post?
 
Angel said:
I thought you said you weren't trying to prove anything. Or have you already forgotten that post?
Click to expand...

What do you feel I am trying to prove?

"
Based on the definition of God, an unprovable concept, the Universe, life, and consciousness, undeniably exist, therefore God MUST exit. That should prove sufficient for all those who find the definition of God to be factually true.

While I have no problem with the concept of God(s), as a belief, the fact that it came to exist prior to any knowledge at all about Nature and the process of evolving change produced by Nature.
1. Whatever exists, can exist. <-- No question about that.
2. Whatever must exist, exists. <-- "Virtual particles sometimes creating/accumulating Real particles" and/or "God"? Natural OR supernatural cause?

Those of us with an open mind simply ask questions seeking answers. Those with a truly closed mind begin with an answer, and place all their efforts in trying to prove it correct. If God(s) factually exist, it/they will be found out of necessity and if not found they either don't exist or don't want to be found, which would make them irrelevant."

One or the other. I have no way of proving the initial cause to be the result of Natural or Supernatural cause, though I tend to find Natural to be the only place we can actually ask questions about and produce useful answers relating to biology, chemistry, physics, etc. I leave the afterlife to religion/religious beliefs.
 
Angel said:
I thought you said you weren't trying to prove anything. Or have you already forgotten that post?
Click to expand...

Individual said:
What do you feel I am trying to prove?

"
Based on the definition of God, an unprovable concept, the Universe, life, and consciousness, undeniably exist, therefore God MUST exit. That should prove sufficient for all those who find the definition of God to be factually true.

While I have no problem with the concept of God(s), as a belief, the fact that it came to exist prior to any knowledge at all about Nature and the process of evolving change produced by Nature.
1. Whatever exists, can exist. <-- No question about that.
2. Whatever must exist, exists. <-- "Virtual particles sometimes creating/accumulating Real particles" and/or "God"? Natural OR supernatural cause?

Those of us with an open mind simply ask questions seeking answers. Those with a truly closed mind begin with an answer, and place all their efforts in trying to prove it correct. If God(s) factually exist, it/they will be found out of necessity and if not found they either don't exist or don't want to be found, which would make them irrelevant."

One or the other. I have no way of proving the initial cause to be the result of Natural or Supernatural cause, though I tend to find Natural to be the only place we can actually ask questions about and produce useful answers relating to biology, chemistry, physics, etc. I leave the afterlife to religion/religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
So you answer my question with a question, essentially repeat your enture post without quoting it, and continue to try to prove something after posting grandly that you're not trying to prove anything in this thread.
Do you know "bad faith" means?
Perhaps I should ask instead whether you know what "good faith" is?
 
Angel said:
So you answer my question with a question, essentially repeat your enture post without quoting it, and continue to try to prove something after posting grandly that you're not trying to prove anything in this thread.
Do you know "bad faith" means?
Perhaps I should ask instead whether you know what "good faith" is?
Click to expand...

Of course I asked a question. You claimed I was trying to prove something and I wanted to know what you were referring to in the words of my post which were contained within quotes.

Bad faith (French: mauvaise foi) is a philosophical concept utilized by existentialist philosophers Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre to describe the phenomenon in which human beings, under pressure from social forces, adopt false values and disown their innate freedom, hence acting inauthentically.


Good faith (Latin: bona fides), in human interactions, is a sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction.

I would be exercising bad faith by acceptance of your "Proof of God" to be anything more than an unproven/unprovable belief when I can't find it sufficient to satisfy my minds acceptance.

I am exercising good faith by providing you with questions which, if your premise is provably true, might lead you to doing just that. Although I have to admit my expectations are quite low.


You often appear incapable of accepting disagreement, driving you to resort to more childish, or derogatory responses like the one below.

Angel said:
You lose. Goodbye.
Click to expand...

But, while I have more than once stated that your philosophical proof of God may suffice as adequate for maintaining a belief in the existence of God, it does NOT suffice as adequate for a reality existence of God.

If, it is not your intent to prove a real existence of a God being and you accept as fact that such proof is unobtainable, I find no difficulty at all in accepting your proof as adequate for the minds of those who wish to choose such a belief without need of imposing the same belief upon others.
 
Individual said:
Of course I asked a question. You claimed I was trying to prove something and I wanted to know what you were referring to in the words of my post which were contained within quotes.

Bad faith (French: mauvaise foi) is a philosophical concept utilized by existentialist philosophers Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre to describe the phenomenon in which human beings, under pressure from social forces, adopt false values and disown their innate freedom, hence acting inauthentically.


Good faith (Latin: bona fides), in human interactions, is a sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction.

I would be exercising bad faith by acceptance of your "Proof of God" to be anything more than an unproven/unprovable belief when I can't find it sufficient to satisfy my minds acceptance.

I am exercising good faith by providing you with questions which, if your premise is provably true, might lead you to doing just that. Although I have to admit my expectations are quite low.


You often appear incapable of accepting disagreement, driving you to resort to more childish, or derogatory responses like the one below.



But, while I have more than once stated that your philosophical proof of God may suffice as adequate for maintaining a belief in the existence of God, it does NOT suffice as adequate for a reality existence of God.

If, it is not your intent to prove a real existence of a God being and you accept as fact that such proof is unobtainable, I find no difficulty at all in accepting your proof as adequate for the minds of those who wish to choose such a belief without need of imposing the same belief upon others.
Click to expand...
I'm not responding to bad faith posts anymore. Get your act together or leave me alone.
 
Angel said:
Anticipating the Internet Skeptical refrain about the number of pages in the thread and the lack of proofs, we post the following as a public service.

1.

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)

2.

If God is not logically impossible, then God exists.
God is not logically impossible.
Therefore, God exists.

3.

That which is inexplicable yet rational must be attributed to inexplicable rationality.
That which goes by the name "God" is Itself inexplicable rationality.
Therefore, that which is inexplicable yet rational must be attributed to that which goes by the name "God."

4.

Order implies rationality.
The universe is ordered.
Therefore, the universe implies rationality

5.

That which is necessary to explain the existence of an otherwise inexplicable state of affairs is its ground.
God is that which is necessary to explain the existence of an otherwise inexplicable state of affairs.
Therefore, God is Ground.

6.

Angel's Empirical Argument For God

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.

7.

Definition of God: 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.[/B]


8.

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)[/B]

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

And so we get:
Quag said:
325 pages and still no proof of God
Click to expand...

Brought to you without an appropriate sense of shame by Internet Skepticism.
 
Angel said:
I'm not responding to bad faith posts anymore. Get your act together or leave me alone.
Click to expand...

You appear to be a prime example of how beliefs, especially religious beliefs, can result in people committing unacceptable/violent acts upon others.

Perhaps you should enrol in some anger management courses before attempting to converse in "good faith" with others.
 
Angel said:
And so we get:


Brought to you without an appropriate sense of shame by Internet Skepticism.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating those "arguments" that fail to prove God. We are waiting for you to actually prove God
Blind faith such as exhibited by you is NOT proof of God
 
Quag said:
You keep repeating those "arguments" that fail to prove God. We are waiting for you to actually prove God
Blind faith such as exhibited by you is NOT proof of God
Click to expand...
Dismissals like yours are no refutations of anything I've posted. Keep waiting by all means, but silently if at all possible.
 
Quag said:
You keep repeating those "arguments" that fail to prove God. We are waiting for you to actually prove God
Blind faith such as exhibited by you is NOT proof of God
Click to expand...

This thread is a total fail. There is no proof of God as has been established over and over
 
Individual said:
You appear to be a prime example of how beliefs, especially religious beliefs, can result in people committing unacceptable/violent acts upon others.

Perhaps you should enrol in some anger management courses before attempting to converse in "good faith" with others.
Click to expand...
Defend that first claim, sir. It's rank calumny otherwise.

I'm not angry -- I'm just fed up with Inter Skepticism and its discursive antics.
 
There is no proof of God despite what a logic denialist says
 
Angel said:
Defend that first claim, sir. It's rank calumny otherwise.

I'm not angry -- I'm just fed up with Inter Skepticism and its discursive antics.
Click to expand...

No need to.

In the future exercise caution in making claims you are incapable of backing up, or at least accept that what suffices for your beliefs need not suffice for everyone.
 
Individual said:
No need to.

In the future exercise caution in making claims you are incapable of backing up, or at least accept that what suffices for your beliefs need not suffice for everyone.
Click to expand...
No need to defend a calumny? Typical Internet Skeptical bad faith.

In future engage or lurk. Don't waste my time with non-responsive religious propaganda.
 
Angel said:
No need to defend a calumny? Typical Internet Skeptical bad faith.

In future engage or lurk. Don't waste my time with non-responsive religious propaganda.
Click to expand...

Typical logic denialist post
 
Angel said:
No need to defend a calumny? Typical Internet Skeptical bad faith.

In future engage or lurk. Don't waste my time with non-responsive religious propaganda.
Click to expand...

Don't respond unless you can provide something to advance your claim.
 
Individual said:
Don't respond unless you can provide something to advance your claim.
Click to expand...
That's all I've done in this thread is defend my claim against bad faith posts like yours. I'm sick of it. Your latest -- your denial of the proof/certainty conflation compounded by the outright lie that you've kept them apart all along and adding insult to injury by quoting a statement of yours made after I pointed out the conflation -- instead of acknowledging that that was were you were doing all along but now with the help of the concept of certainty you can state clearly what you meant all along -- this was the straw that broke the camel's hump.
 
328 pages. And I see no proof of god
 
Angel said:
That's all I've done in this thread is defend my claim against bad faith posts like yours. I'm sick of it. Your latest -- your denial of the proof/certainty conflation compounded by the outright lie that you've kept them apart all along and adding insult to injury by quoting a statement of yours made after I pointed out the conflation -- instead of acknowledging that that was were you were doing all along but now with the help of the concept of certainty you can state clearly what you meant all along -- this was the straw that broke the camel's hump.
Click to expand...

Be careful. Don't conflate yourself. You might break something.
 
Angel said:
That's all I've done in this thread is defend my claim against bad faith posts like yours. I'm sick of it. Your latest -- your denial of the proof/certainty conflation compounded by the outright lie that you've kept them apart all along and adding insult to injury by quoting a statement of yours made after I pointed out the conflation -- instead of acknowledging that that was were you were doing all along but now with the help of the concept of certainty you can state clearly what you meant all along -- this was the straw that broke the camel's hump.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should take a pill or something.
Are you now claiming that you're NOT certain that God exists?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom