• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

So you didn't read my post #3288?
 
Individual said:
So you didn't read my post #3288?
Click to expand...
Yes, I read it. You persist there in making the same logical error of substituting terms in a syllogism which I've corrected and explained a half dozen times already. Words have meaning, and you cannot substitute terms in a syllogism as you please. "Something" does not mean the same things as "God" and cannot be substituted in the argument without forfeiting validity and soundness. How many times must I correct people who aren't paying attention?
 
Angel said:
Yes, I read it. You persist there in making the same logical error of substituting terms in a syllogism which I've corrected and explained a half dozen times already. Words have meaning, and you cannot substitute terms in a syllogism as you please. "Something" does not mean the same things as "God" and cannot be substituted in the argument without forfeiting validity and soundness. How many times must I correct people who aren't paying attention?
Click to expand...

I agree, words have meaning. Obviously "Something" does not means the same thing as "God". So you were not being honest when claiming to not know the nature of God? How about when I replace the word "Something" with "Nature"?
 
Individual said:
I agree, words have meaning. Obviously "Something" does not means the same thing as "God". So you were not being honest when claiming to not know the nature of God? How about when I replace the word "Something" with "Nature"?
Click to expand...
As I recall, you already tried that. That occasioned one of the half-dozen corrections I refer to in my last post. Nature is a contingent being; God is a necessary being. One cannot simply exchange these terms in a syllogism and preserve validity and truth.
 
Angel said:
As I recall, you already tried that. That occasioned one of the half-dozen corrections I refer to in my last post. Nature is a contingent being; God is a necessary being. One cannot simply exchange these terms in a syllogism and preserve validity and truth.
Click to expand...

God is not a necessary being
 
Angel said:
Keep repeating falsehoods, Internet Skeptic. This is your forte.
Click to expand...

What falsehoods?
You repeat falsehoods every time you post one of your so called "proofs" of God
 
Angel said:
As I recall, you already tried that. That occasioned one of the half-dozen corrections I refer to in my last post. Nature is a contingent being; God is a necessary being. One cannot simply exchange these terms in a syllogism and preserve validity and truth.
Click to expand...

Nature a being? I find nature, or to be more concise the elements of nature, necessary for all that exists and God(s) simply the best/only answer human minds were capable of producing as an answer to all questions involving nature with the limited/lack of knowledge that existed when they began to define Gods.

What would the God you refer to be made up of? A single particle, capable of thinking, designing and creating?
If as you've claimed, you don't know the nature of God, how can you possibly know the capabilities of God?

Your proofs don't provide any evidence of a Gods existence without prior belief in the definition of a God to be true rather than imagined.

Sorry, but you're not advancing your argument by claiming to have corrected anything I or others have posted.
 
Angel said:
As I recall, you already tried that. That occasioned one of the half-dozen corrections I refer to in my last post. Nature is a contingent being; God is a necessary being. One cannot simply exchange these terms in a syllogism and preserve validity and truth.
Click to expand...

Nature is not a being. When you capitalize Nature, it is not a being. It is the ground of being and you can't conflate its existence with the nature of Nature which is a Great Mystery.
 
Angel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your mind is closed the the proof of Xlerb as the ground of being which I proved using empirical abduction
 
vegas giants said:
The existence of god is not necessary for the universe to exist
Click to expand...
Yes, that's one way the word "necessary" has been used in connection with God. Not the way it was used in the post to which you replied, but we'll set that aside for now.
"Necessary" in the sense in which you've taken the term means "without which not" (sine qua non) and so the question to you, the question you must have already answered in order to post the confidant assertion you posted, the question is: "Without what instead is the universe not possible?" The universe exists, yes? We agree on that score. Well, wherefore? How do you explain it?
 
Individual said:
Nature a being? I find nature, or to be more concise the elements of nature, necessary for all that exists and God(s) simply the best/only answer human minds were capable of producing as an answer to all questions involving nature with the limited/lack of knowledge that existed when they began to define Gods.

What would the God you refer to be made up of? A single particle, capable of thinking, designing and creating?
If as you've claimed, you don't know the nature of God, how can you possibly know the capabilities of God?

Your proofs don't provide any evidence of a Gods existence without prior belief in the definition of a God to be true rather than imagined.

Sorry, but you're not advancing your argument by claiming to have corrected anything I or others have posted.
Click to expand...
"Nature" is the uninspired name we have given to physical phenomena the nature of which has been and still is a total mystery to us notwithstanding the superficial tentative accounts offered by natural science for the last 2500 years. Yes, nature is a necessary condition for Nature. Big Whoop.

Your account of the origin of religion is the naive atheist account. It's warmed-over Dawkins. Which makes it vomit.

And for the last time, my proofs are not presented as evidence; they are arguments.

Also for the last time, I hope, religions offer insights into the nature of God. I am not about religion here. I am only about the existence of God, nature unknown. I don't know what God's capabilities are. I only know that the universe, life and consciousness cannot otherwise be rationally explained.
 
Angel said:
"Nature" is the uninspired name we have given to physical phenomena the nature of which has been and still is a total mystery to us notwithstanding the superficial tentative accounts offered by natural science for the last 2500 years. Yes, nature is a necessary condition for Nature. Big Whoop.

Your account of the origin of religion is the naive atheist account. It's warmed-over Dawkins. Which makes it vomit.

And for the last time, my proofs are not presented as evidence; they are arguments.

Also for the last time, I hope, religions offer insights into the nature of God. I am not about religion here. I am only about the existence of God, nature unknown. I don't know what God's capabilities are. I only know that the universe, life and consciousness cannot otherwise be rationally explained.
Click to expand...

And I have said more than once, I accept your arguments sufficient for YOUR belief though NOT for mine.
 
Individual said:
And I have said more than once, I accept your arguments sufficient for YOUR belief though NOT for mine.
Click to expand...
You need to have belief to accept the "argument", making the "argument" redundant.
 
Angel said:
Yes, that's one way the word "necessary" has been used in connection with God. Not the way it was used in the post to which you replied, but we'll set that aside for now.
"Necessary" in the sense in which you've taken the term means "without which not" (sine qua non) and so the question to you, the question you must have already answered in order to post the confidant assertion you posted, the question is: "Without what instead is the universe not possible?" The universe exists, yes? We agree on that score. Well, wherefore? How do you explain it?
Click to expand...

The universe was created by scientific processes. The big bang created the universe. Prior to the big bang there was only the initial singularity. That has no beginning and the universe will likely become a singularity again and repeat the orocess
 
Angel said:
"Nature" is the uninspired name we have given to physical phenomena the nature of which has been and still is a total mystery to us notwithstanding the superficial tentative accounts offered by natural science for the last 2500 years. Yes, nature is a necessary condition for Nature. Big Whoop.

Your account of the origin of religion is the naive atheist account. It's warmed-over Dawkins. Which makes it vomit.

And for the last time, my proofs are not presented as evidence; they are arguments.

Also for the last time, I hope, religions offer insights into the nature of God. I am not about religion here. I am only about the existence of God, nature unknown. I don't know what God's capabilities are. I only know that the universe, life and consciousness cannot otherwise be rationally explained.
Click to expand...

Individual said:
And I have said more than once, I accept your arguments sufficient for YOUR belief though NOT for mine.
Click to expand...
Another non-responsive post from you!
I take pains, in response to a post of yours, to articulate four salient points, and what is your reply? "I know you are but what am I!" You remember Pee Wee Herman.

My first point is directed at you scientific naturalism.
My second point criticizes your view of the origin of the concept of God.
My third point corrects a common error of Internet Skepticism which you repeat in the post I replied to.
My fourth point reminds you again of the two God questions which you tend to conflate.

And what do I get by way of reply from you?
 
Quag said:
You need to have belief to accept the "argument", making the "argument" redundant.
Click to expand...
According to you, belief is nothing more than opinion. How does holding an opinion make redundant an argument?
 
vegas giants said:
The universe was created by scientific processes. The big bang created the universe. Prior to the big bang there was only the initial singularity. That has no beginning and the universe will likely become a singularity again and repeat the orocess
Click to expand...
You must mean "natural processes" inasmuch as "scientific processes" makes no sense. What evidence do you have for your "initial singularity"?
 
Angel said:
Another non-responsive post from you!
I take pains, in response to a post of yours, to articulate four salient points, and what is your reply? "I know you are but what am I!" You remember Pee Wee Herman.

My first point is directed at you scientific naturalism.
My second point criticizes your view of the origin of the concept of God.
My third point corrects a common error of Internet Skepticism which you repeat in the post I replied to.
My fourth point reminds you again of the two God questions which you tend to conflate.

And what do I get by way of reply from you?
Click to expand...

All I can give you is an honest answer.
I have no belief in the existence of supernatural beings/entities.
Your premises fail to convince me to accept your conclusion.
Perhaps your life REQUIRES you to believe in a God or Gods, for reasons which may make sense to YOU. Many others, including myself find no such need, for reasons which may differ among us but make sense to us just the same.
I can't speak for Pee Wee Herman, so my reply is "you believe what you find rational/reasonable, but I and others believe what we find rational/reasonable.
 
Individual said:
All I can give you is an honest answer.
I have no belief in the existence of supernatural beings/entities.
Your premises fail to convince me to accept your conclusion.
Perhaps your life REQUIRES you to believe in a God or Gods, for reasons which may make sense to YOU. Many others, including myself find no such need, for reasons which may differ among us but make sense to us just the same.
I can't speak for Pee Wee Herman, so my reply is "you believe what you find rational/reasonable, but I and others believe what we find rational/reasonable.
Click to expand...
You're not responding to my points. Don't you get that? All you're doing when I make a point is saying "You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe." What is your idea of discussion anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom