• 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

Individual said:
Maybe you should take a pill or something.
Are you now claiming that you're NOT certain that God exists?
Click to expand...
Maybe you should find another hobby.
No, that's not what my post says. Jeez! You can't even read a post with understanding. How do you expect to read a logical argument?
 
marke said:
Of course you believe God does not exist and nature exists. What you cannot scientifically verify is the unscientific idea that the universe just somehow miraculously big banged itself into existence with no help from God.
Click to expand...
That's the conversation stopper. These science mavens need one unacknowledged miracle to maintain their belief system.
 
Proof of God

Thread Arguments and Definitions​

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.

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]
Click to expand...
Angel said:
Definition of God:

Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi
(roughly the necessary ground of all that exists)​
Click to expand...
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...
 
329 pages and.....

Still 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...

You have never and will never try to defend your claims all you ever do is divert to avoid doing so
 
Angel said:
Dismissals like yours are no refutations of anything I've posted. Keep waiting by all means, but silently if at all possible.
Click to expand...

Refusal to even defend your so called "proofs" leaves you with no choice but to ty and divert.
 
Angel said:
Proof of God

Thread Arguments and Definitions​
Click to expand...

A bunch of "arguments" based on unsupported and unsupportable claims is not proof of anything
They are all worthless
 
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Pudding.....mmmmmm!
 
Angel said:
Maybe you should find another hobby.
No, that's not what my post says. Jeez! You can't even read a post with understanding. How do you expect to read a logical argument?
Click to expand...

Try applying some logic relative to the thread topic.

"Proof of God"
Your OP and later comments are evident as being adequate to support YOUR belief in a God for reasons YOU feel useful, and perhaps needed.

I accept as fact that YOU believe in God.

Your OP and all later comments have provided no new evidence of a Gods existence, and while they may appear logically sound to you they fail miserably for me.
Illogically, you begin with an unproven/unprovable definition of a believed to exist being/entity (God) as the creator of all that exists who is believed to have existed eternally without a beginning, and then attempt to apply logic in proving such an existence to be true based on facts that ARE provably true and have been attributed to the definition of God simply because there was no other answer early beings had the means to acquire.

Having been born in much more modern times, after great advances in technology and science, while I freely admit that no one has proven that God does not or could not exist neither has there been any evidence found needing a God for what exists.

Your OP with changes I would apply to make it TRUE.

1. Whatever exists, can exist.
2. Whatever must exist, exists.
3. Whatever must exist, can exist.
4. If something exists, something must exist.
5. Either something must exist or something must not exist.
6. It is not the case that something must not exist.
7. Therefore, something must exist.
8. If something must exist, then something can exist.
9. If something can exist, then something exists.
10. Something can exist.
11. Therefore something exists.

That is much more correct logically, and leaves us to wonder what "something" might be.
Obviously for some persons God fills the void for defining something, though beyond proof, while others are still open to what can be found.

I have no need of your acceptance of the above, but it suffices for me
 
Angel said:
You might also mention that you and some others don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

When talking about God(s), NO ONE knows what they are talking about.
 
Quag said:
A bunch of "arguments" based on unsupported and unsupportable claims is not proof of anything
They are all worthless
Click to expand...
Worthless are these posts of dismissal, Internet Skeptic. Even if "a bunch of 'arguments' based on unsupported and unsupportable claims is not proof of anything," these are nonetheless "a bunch of 'arguments'" -- your posts, on the other hand, are vacuous dismissals. You have no argument at all. The only feeble argument you have ever offered in the three unfortunate years I've been reading your dreck has been shown, in the thread "Quag and the Angel: a dialogue," to be absurd and to make all dialogue futile. Get real.
 
Angel said:
Proof of God

Thread Arguments and Definitions

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...
​
Click to expand...

That, is where you have failed.

The word "God" defines an unproven/unprovable belief of what early humans conceived to be responsible for what exists, and in many cases put such belief to great misuse.

 
Individual said:
That, is where you have failed.

The word "God" defines an unproven/unprovable belief of what early humans conceived to be responsible for what exists, and in many cases put such belief to great misuse.
Click to expand...
All a card-carrying Internet Skeptic like you can testify to is that an argument or series of arguments like mine fail to compel a closed mind like yours to accept the assertion of God's existence as true. That's all.
 
Angel said:
All a card-carrying Internet Skeptic like you can testify to is that an argument or series of arguments like mine fail to compel a closed mind like yours to accept the assertion of God's existence as true. That's all.
Click to expand...

You should talk about a closed mind?

As best we can tell the both the Universe and life had a beginning, prior to which time neither existed.
Something caused what exists to exist. What it was is beyond our ability to prove positively.
Nature has been proven capable of creating a great many things, and I find no difficulty in accepting Nature to have been what created both the Universe and life.
How? I have no proven/provable idea.
You, on the other hand believe a God to be responsible for what I believe Nature responsible.
How? You have no proven/provable idea.
Can you prove the definition of God to be true?
Your proof requires acceptance of the definition to be correct in order to apply your premises with the assertion of a conclusion that God exists.

I simply believe that "something" unknown and yet to be discovered is much more rationally reasonable than a God.

Be thankful skeptics exist, they have made life much safer and more usefully productive for us to have thoughts and express them.

An after thought:
What your proof does, is prove what you can only believe to be true about the definition of the word God.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
"The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."

All a card-carrying Internet Skeptic like you can testify to is that an argument or series of arguments like mine fail to compel a closed mind like yours to accept the assertion of God's existence as true. That's all.
Click to expand...

Your mind is closed to Xlerb. The power of Xlerb compels you!
 
Angel said:
Worthless are these posts of dismissal, Internet Skeptic. Even if "a bunch of 'arguments' based on unsupported and unsupportable claims is not proof of anything," these are nonetheless "a bunch of 'arguments'" -- your posts, on the other hand, are vacuous dismissals. You have no argument at all. The only feeble argument you have ever offered in the three unfortunate years I've been reading your dreck has been shown, in the thread "Quag and the Angel: a dialogue," to be absurd and to make all dialogue futile. Get real.
Click to expand...

Your continued attempts to divert are worthless as they dont work. You have failed to support your claims they are thus worthless in any attempt at a proof.
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
Your continued attempts to divert are worthless as they dont work. You have failed to support your claims they are thus worthless in any attempt at a proof.
Click to expand...
Keep repeating falsehoods, Internet Skeptic. This is your forte.
 
devildavid said:
Your mind is closed to Xlerb. The power of Xlerb compels you!
Click to expand...
Your mind is stuffed with nonsense like Xlerb, which has been refuted and corrected a dozen times already, but keeps starring in your posts nonetheless because you in fact have nothing to say on topic.
 
Individual said:
You should talk about a closed mind?
Click to expand...
You guys will say anything for want of anything to say. On what basis do you make this charge of close-mindedness? Have I dismissed arguments? No. No arguments have been offered by you or your colleagues. Have I denied points? No. No points have been made by you or your colleagues. All you and your colleagues do is dismiss and deny. So you can only mean that my mind is closed to dismissals and denials. And even there I've engaged your dismissals and denials. I should talk, you say? That's rich coming from an Internet Skeptic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom