• 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:
The "bad faith" was initiated by YOU, who has constantly avoided engaging in the threads topic.
You have failed miserably, but are simply unwilling/incapable of accepting the truth. A true fanatic.
Click to expand...
Your resort to untruth is noted. Now wave bye-bye.
 
Individual said:
Just more non-proof of God? Your premises have failed to convince, so you can only blame others for your failure?
Click to expand...
Actually engage one of the arguments and we'll start to take your posts seriously.
 
Angel said:
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Click to expand...

Another question unanswered.

What's God been proven to do with anything at all, with the exception of religion?
 
Last edited:
Individual said:
Another question unanswered.

What's God been proven to do with anything at all, with the exception of religion?
Click to expand...
The PeeWeeHermanism noted. Now what's my religious beliefs got to do with anything we're about in this thread?
 
Angel said:
Actually engage one of the arguments and we'll start to take your posts seriously.
Click to expand...

What do you think I and others have been trying to do?

Your second premise in your OP, "2. Whatever must exist, exists." was a stopping point for me.
 
Individual said:
What do you think I and others have been trying to do?

Your second premise in your OP, "2. Whatever must exist, exists." was a stopping point for me.
Click to expand...
So it was "a stopping point for" you -- so what? Show how it fails.
 
Angel said:
The PeeWeeHermanism noted. Now what's my religious beliefs got to do with anything we're about in this thread?
Click to expand...
Just pointing out that without religion, God(s) existence is purposeless for our existence.
 
Individual said:
Just pointing out that without religion, God(s) existence is purposeless for our existence.
Click to expand...
Oh, is that what you were pointing out by asking me if I was a religious person? Well, you could've everyone with that! C'mon. man. Engage my posts in good faith and we'll get along; persist in the horse manure and you'll be left in the barn.
 
Angel said:
Oh, is that what you were pointing out by asking me if I was a religious person? Well, you could've everyone with that! C'mon. man. Engage my posts in good faith and we'll get along; persist in the horse manure and you'll be left in the barn.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you can show some purpose to the existence of God(s) outside of religion?
Or perhaps answer my question of your 2nd premise "2. Whatever must exist, exists." by telling us what we have found that must exist?

And since you directed me to this thread, engage in "Proof of God" instead of the " Quag and the Angel: a dialogue" thread.
 
Angel said:
Premise 1 is about what is possible. Premise 2 is about what is necessary. The two premises are about different things.
Click to expand...

Just what is it that we have found to be necessary?
 
Individual said:
Then perhaps you can show some purpose to the existence of God(s) outside of religion?
Or perhaps answer my question of your 2nd premise "2. Whatever must exist, exists." by telling us what we have found that must exist?

And since you directed me to this thread, engage in "Proof of God" instead of the " Quag and the Angel: a dialogue" thread.
Click to expand...
I've already answered both wuestions asked here, and don't understand your parting shot (your last comment in the post).

Individual said:
Just what is it that we have found to be necessary?
Click to expand...
God and Other Necessary Beings

It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings.[1] We will be concerned with the latter sort of entity in this article.

There are various entities which, if they exist, would be candidates for necessary beings: God, propositions, relations, properties, states of affairs, possible worlds, and numbers, among others. Note that the first entity in this list is a concrete entity, while the rest are abstract entities.
Click to expand...
God and Other Necessary Beings (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 
Angel said:
I've already answered both wuestions asked here, and don't understand your parting shot (your last comment in the post).


God and Other Necessary Beings


God and Other Necessary Beings (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as necessary beings. That is just a claim made of some of those who engage in the made up thing called philosophy. It is not commonly understood among humanity, just understood among those who tend to philosophize about such things. So there is really nothing commonly understood or accepted in regard to this philosophical idea of contingent and necessary beings. It is merely a notion of philosophy, not an observation of real, physical existence. It is just an idea, not a fact.
 
Angel said:
You did not try and I did not run away. Engage the OP argument if you have aught to say, or retire from the field.
Click to expand...

I did engage the OP, you ran away like you always do. What you will never ever do is try to defend your failed so called "proofs"
 
Angel said:
You got lost all right. This is where you put your two cents in:



Your two cents is now worth a half-penny.
But carry on and go for broke. It's no skin off my back.
Click to expand...

And you are claiming that all the science created by mankind over the centuries has not contributed to a greater knowledge of the universe? Is that what you are trying to say here? I can't fathom this level of idiocy.
 
Vadinho said:
And you are claiming that all the science created by mankind over the centuries has not contributed to a greater knowledge of the universe? Is that what you are trying to say here? I can't fathom this level of idiocy.
Click to expand...
That's the second time you used the word "idiocy" to describe something you've admitted twice you don't understand. There is a currebtly active thread entitled "Internet Skepticism: Casting Call." I strongly recommend you audition there. This pre-audition posting of yours makes you one of the stronger candidates.

For the record, that is not what I'm saying -- the characterization of my view in your post -- that is not what I'm saying by a long shot. Now go prepare for your audition. Here's the address. Tell them Angel sent you.
Internet Skepticism: Casting Call
 
Angel said:
I've already answered both wuestions asked here, and don't understand your parting shot (your last comment in the post).


God and Other Necessary Beings


God and Other Necessary Beings (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Click to expand...

I won't deny that God is commonly accepted as a Necessary Being by those who have been predisposed to believe in the existence of God.
The "and Other Necessary Beings" IMO, is purposeful in that it uses the fact that our individual existence is based upon the existence of our parent beings.
It's just as commonly accepted that tracing our lineage back in time, we don't find Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but instead we find that we evolved as a distinct species from the hominid family.
Tracing our lineage back much further we might find another necessary being, a now extinct fish the Tiktaalik, to have much more to do with our existence than God(s).

Not having been predisposed to believe in the existence of God or God having been responsible for the creation of the Universe and/or life, I found the link you provided inadequate as proof to initiate a belief, but perhaps helpful for those seeking reason to maintain a belief.

If I recall correctly, it did quite briefly mention quarks and bosons.
 
devildavid said:
There is no such thing as necessary beings. That is just a claim made of some of those who engage in the made up thing called philosophy. It is not commonly understood among humanity, just understood among those who tend to philosophize about such things. So there is really nothing commonly understood or accepted in regard to this philosophical idea of contingent and necessary beings. It is merely a notion of philosophy, not an observation of real, physical existence. It is just an idea, not a fact.
Click to expand...
And this quoted above is "just a claim made of" someone "who engage in the made up thing called" devildavid's posts.
 
Angel said:
That's the second time you used the word "idiocy" to describe something you've admitted twice you don't understand. There is a currebtly active thread entitled "Internet Skepticism: Casting Call." I strongly recommend you audition there. This pre-audition posting of yours makes you one of the stronger candidates.

For the record, that is not what I'm saying -- the characterization of my view in your post -- that is not what I'm saying by a long shot. Now go prepare for your audition. Here's the address. Tell them Angel sent you.
Internet Skepticism: Casting Call
Click to expand...

Look, if you want to make this claim without causing a misunderstanding of your intent, then explain yourself or stop digging the hole. I am not going to research your drivel to allow you to avoid an explanation.
 
Angel said:
Dismissal is not engagement.
See here:
Internet Skepticism: Casting Call
Click to expand...

Dismissal is one of your calling cards, along with insults, diversions and eventually just plain running away liek the intellectual coward that you are.
But internet fanatics like you never let reality interfere with your zealotry
 
Vadinho said:
Look, if you want to make this claim without causing a misunderstanding of your intent, then explain yourself or stop digging the hole. I am not going to research your drivel to allow you to avoid an explanation.
Click to expand...

Angel doesn't support his claims. He just diverts, insults and eventually runs away.
 
Vadinho said:
Look, if you want to make this claim without causing a misunderstanding of your intent, then explain yourself or stop digging the hole. I am not going to research your drivel to allow you to avoid an explanation.
Click to expand...
What claim? You don't even know what my claim is. It's like I expressed it in a foreign language. Misunderstanding between scientism (your view) and literary culture (my view) is inevitable. To "research [my] drivel," as you quaintly put it, would require a 12-year reeducation in the humanities. If you wish to carry on in this pointless exchange, start by telling me what my claim is.
 
Quag said:
Dismissal is one of your calling cards, along with insults, diversions and eventually just plain running away liek the intellectual coward that you are.
But internet fanatics like you never let reality interfere with your zealotry
Click to expand...
"Intellectual coward," ay? So you finally show your true colors. You cannot avoid personal derogation because of your frustration, I understand that, but it's no excuse.
 
Individual said:
I won't deny that God is commonly accepted as a Necessary Being by those who have been predisposed to believe in the existence of God.
The "and Other Necessary Beings" IMO, is purposeful in that it uses the fact that our individual existence is based upon the existence of our parent beings.
It's just as commonly accepted that tracing our lineage back in time, we don't find Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but instead we find that we evolved as a distinct species from the hominid family.
Tracing our lineage back much further we might find another necessary being, a now extinct fish the Tiktaalik, to have much more to do with our existence than God(s).

Not having been predisposed to believe in the existence of God or God having been responsible for the creation of the Universe and/or life, I found the link you provided inadequate as proof to initiate a belief, but perhaps helpful for those seeking reason to maintain a belief.

If I recall correctly, it did quite briefly mention quarks and bosons.
Click to expand...
What you read is an entry on philosophy. The lineage example was just that, an example. You ignore the rest of the abstracta.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom