• 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:
If you're not going to be straightforward and admit you don't grasp the distinction, let's have your dictionary grasp of the distinction.
Click to expand...

You asked "Indicate that you do by putting the distinction into your own words. Otherwise ask me to explain the distinction. "

Go ahead and explain the distinction.
 
Individual said:
If not one, how many then?
I didn't count but there were not enough I hadn't read to come close to being half.

The question of have I read all 50 books?
I answered the question, and since none of the books I have read altered my beliefs/views of science, I asked you two questions of why they had not accomplished what you claimed they should.
Click to expand...
I can think of a couple of reasons. One, you really haven't read half, but see among the 50 some familiar titles assigned to you to read in what we here call high school, Two, you read just about half and no more with scant comprehension or appreciation. Three, the larger point is not restricted to these 50, but to the 5000 books most of which you never read or even heard of.
 
Individual said:
You asked "Indicate that you do by putting the distinction into your own words. Otherwise ask me to explain the distinction. "

Go ahead and explain the distinction.
Click to expand...
Once you admit you don't grasp the distinction and can't put it in your own words.
 
Angel said:
I can think of a couple of reasons. One, you really haven't read half, but see among the 50 some familiar titles assigned to you to read in what we here call high school, Two, you read just about half and no more with scant comprehension or appreciation. Three, the larger point is not restricted to these 50, but to the 5000 books most of which you never read or even heard of.
Click to expand...

Believe what you want, but let's move on.
 
Angel said:
Once you admit you don't grasp the distinction and can't put it in your own words.
Click to expand...

I freely admit that it is quite possible I might disagree with what YOUR distinction may be, but unless/until you provide it we will never know.
 
Individual said:
Believe what you want, but let's move on.
Click to expand...
Sure, let's move on, but for the record I was only responding to your skeptical question: "What 'serious literature' are you referring to?"
 
Individual said:
I freely admit that it is quite possible I might disagree with what YOUR distinction may be, but unless/until you provide it we will never know.
Click to expand...
Let me remind you of something you may have forgotten already -- this exchange comes out of my criticism of your argument for scientific naturalism. I claimed that your scientific naturalism is based on a fallacy, a confusion, a conflation of concepts. So I asked you whether or not you understand the distinction we are now discussing, the distinction between "the nature of phenomena" and "the phenomena of nature." I did not ask whether or not you agree with that distinction -- I asked whether you grasp the distinction. Instead of admitting that you don't know what I'm talking about, you first claim that you grasp the distinction with the help of your dictionary. But you won't say what it is you understand by the distinction. Now you're finessing the question to agreement or disagreement. Does the distinction mean anything to you? Yes or no?
 
Angel said:
A moral compass.
Internet Skepticism and Internet Atheism are found wanting in this regard.
Click to expand...
Everyone has a moral compass, and not all point to God, any god.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
I can see this thread has followed the usual, predictable route that it seems to do on most discussion forums.

I'd like to therefore inject another angle to the discussion and that is that God must exist in order to explain the presence of the universe, or alternatively the presence of the universe demonstrates that God exists.

We can prove that the presence of the universe cannot have a scientific, material explanation because all scientific explanations presuppose the existence of material quantities and laws of nature - unless these already exist no material processes can take place, change (materially based cause and effect) is not possible.

That is, all scientific explanations AKA "theories" always include one or more axioms, these axioms are not deduced but assumed, they are themselves not explained nor can be unless we posit additional axioms.

So the explanation for the presence of the universe must be another kind of explanation, one that is not material/scientific but supernatural, this "agency" that can give rise to a material realm from a state where there was previously no matter, no laws, no material realm - must be God.

The explanation then, if put into words, terms that have some meaning for humans would be: In the beginning God created...

There simply is no other way to explain the presence of the universe.
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
Evolution doesnt explain the origin of life nor does it try to. You seem confused on what it actually is about
Click to expand...

Of course evolution cannot explain the origin of life because evolution had nothing to do with God's creation of original life on earth.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I can see this thread has followed the usual, predictable route that it seems to do on most discussion forums.

I'd like to therefore inject another angle to the discussion and that is that God must exist in order to explain the presence of the universe, or alternatively the presence of the universe demonstrates that God exists.

We can prove that the presence of the universe cannot have a scientific, material explanation because all scientific explanations presuppose the existence of material quantities and laws of nature - unless these already exist no material processes can take place, change (materially based cause and effect) is not possible.

That is, all scientific explanations AKA "theories" always include one or more axioms, these axioms are not deduced but assumed, they are themselves not explained nor can be unless we posit additional axioms.

So the explanation for the presence of the universe must be another kind of explanation, one that is not material/scientific but supernatural, this "agency" that can give rise to a material realm from a state where there was previously no matter, no laws, no material realm - must be God.

The explanation then, if put into words, terms that have some meaning for humans would be: In the beginning God created...

There simply is no other way to explain the presence of the universe.
Click to expand...

This is not a different angle. This is the claim of the OP. You are both wrong.
 
devildavid said:
This is not a different angle. This is the claim of the OP. You are both wrong.
Click to expand...
What, wrong because you say so? Where are your reasons, your argument, your bonafides? Have you got anything besides a "No" to offer the discussion?
 
Angel said:
What, wrong because you say so? Where are your reasons, your argument, your bonafides? Have you got anything besides a "No" to offer the discussion?
Click to expand...

You are both wrong.
 
devildavid said:
Have you read The Shy Stegosaurus of Cricket Creek? If not, do it quickly or we have nothing more to discuss.
Click to expand...
Quite a confession! Your idea of "serious literature" helps explain the nature of your myriad posts to my threads. Much obliged for the testimony.
 
Angel said:
Quite a confession! Your idea of "serious literature" helps explain the nature of your myriad posts to my threads. Much obliged for the testimony.
Click to expand...

Go read 100 Pounds of Popcorn if you wish to pursue serious discussion.
 
devildavid said:
The whole thing.
Click to expand...

I see, so your claim is that every assertion I made in that post is false and demonstrably so.

Very well.

Now then please explain why you regard this to be a false statement: "all scientific explanations AKA "theories" always include one or more axioms".
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I see, so your claim is that every assertion I made in that post is false and demonstrably so.

Very well.

Now then please explain why you regard this to be a false statement: "all scientific explanations AKA "theories" always include one or more axioms".
Click to expand...

All scientific explanations are not called theories. They don't include axioms.
 
devildavid said:
All scientific explanations are not called theories. They don't include axioms.
Click to expand...

Tell me then how an explanation differs from a theory and please supply an example of a scientific explanation that has no axioms.

Bear in mind "A scientific theory is an explanation" taken from here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom