• 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

Sherlock Holmes said:
Cowardice prevails in this thread I see, I've asked several times now "Is it possible to write a true statement that cannot be empirically proven?".

With all the collective atheist intellect here not a single one of you has even acknowledged the question, I know why because you do not know and very very few in this thread have the integrity and honesty to ever say "I don't know".
Click to expand...

What constitutes a true statement?
 
Angel said:
This would be the God or Transcendent Reality that lies behind all 1001 religions of the world, the God or Transcendent Reality that the 1001 religions of the world put believers in touch with in 1001 different ways..
Click to expand...

There is no transcendent reality.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Well, good call, you picked up on that and I deserve it.

Having said that, there is no proof in the absolute sense "here is the proof" where all parties will examine and say "Darn, yep, he's right, that's a serious proof, I was wrong".

Instead there is proof in the relative sense, I set out my assumptions and so on and then argue rationally from them, if you and I do not agree on these assumptions then of course my proof will have no value for you.

That's what I meant when I said there's no proof; there is no absolute, objective proof, all proofs rest upon an existing set of assumptions and these vary from person to person.

So - if you share my assumption - then I can prove that God exists, is real, created the earth and walked the earth.
Click to expand...

If something is relative, it cannot be a proof.
 
Angel said:
God is the only -- I repeat the only -- reason sufficient to explain the existence of the universe. Had you looked into the thread entitled "Principle of Sufficient Reason" and thought through the question open-mindedly you would understand this by now and wouldn't be spinning your wheels in posts like the one quoited here.
Click to expand...

Your unfounded assertion is rejected.
 
devildavid said:
Your unfounded assertion is rejected.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
God is the only -- I repeat the only -- reason sufficient to explain the existence of the universe. Had you looked into the thread entitled "Principle of Sufficient Reason" and thought through the question open-mindedly you would understand this by now and wouldn't be spinning your wheels in posts like the one quoited here.
Click to expand...

And those of us who remain open to whatever may be found, even if it might be God, are the one's who are closed minded?

The only wheel spinning I've seen in this thread is the futility being exercised in the attempt to prove the existence of God(s).
 
devildavid said:
There is no transcendent reality.
Click to expand...

devildavid said:
Your unfounded assertion is rejected.
Click to expand...
Take a hike.
A Question of Character​

Angel said:
That's another fair question -- whether the existence of God is a separate and distinct question from that of the nature of God. If it doesn't seem intuitive to you, perform this thought experiment: If God does not in fact exist, then the 1001 stories about God offered by the 1001 religions of the world are wrong -- fictions merely. On the other hand, if God does in fact exist, and if the 1001 stories about God offered by the 1001 religions of the world are in fact wrong about God, God would still exist despite the fictions.

Your last sentence broaches a different question, however: whether the existence of God can be determined without knowing the nature of God. I don't think there is a choice here. I can infer God's existence based on the objective existence of the universe, but except as the logical inference from the evidence I can infer nothing about God's nature except that God must be capable of generating a universe.
Click to expand...

devildavid said:
You missed a choice. If god does not exist, everything about god is a fiction.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
That wasn't missed. It's in the post. You missed it.
Click to expand...

devildavid said:
No, I didn't. It isn't there.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
Wanna bet?
Click to expand...

devildavid said:
Sure. How much?
Click to expand...

Angel said:
If it's there, you reply "Angel, you were right, I was wrong."
If it's not there, I reply in the same way substituting devildavid for Angel.
Click to expand...

devildavid said:
Ok, its a bet.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
I've bolded both what you claim isn't there and what is there above in the quoted posts.
Click to expand...

devildavid said:
Cool, I won the bet.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
So you renege on the bet. I see. It's been a question of character all along, hasn't it? Well, our exchanges of posts end here, mister. From now on, if you presume to reply to a post of mine, if I respond at all I'll be quoting the above character-revealing exchange. Good riddance to you, sir.
Click to expand...
Never Again.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/beli...ciple-sufficient-reason-4.html#post1071915313
 
Individual said:
And those of us who remain open to whatever may be found, even if it might be God, are the one's who are closed minded?

The only wheel spinning I've seen in this thread is the futility being exercised in the attempt to prove the existence of God(s).
Click to expand...
This is logic and semantics, not close-mindedness. If you want examples of close-mindedness, read your posts or devildabid's or Quag's.
 
Angel said:
This is logic and semantics, not close-mindedness. If you want examples of close-mindedness, read your posts or devildabid's or Quag's.
Click to expand...

YOU, may find it logical, I and some others do not.

Most everyone would probably agree that the Universe had a cause, but to call that cause a being/entity you call God, IMO, is a misuse of semantics and as shown by some of the responses by others makes this a religious issue, although you claim it not to be.

While I totally agree that you have proven what you believe sufficient to believe in the existence of God, it has not proven sufficient for those of us who with open minds seek more rational answers to what you claim to believe true.

What I find from reading posts by devildavid, Quag and a few others is that they are not obsessed with a need of God as you seem to be.
What effect would it have on you were it to be proven God(s) have never existed? For me, if it could be proven Gods in reality exist, the simple fact that they do not become involved in our lives would have no effect at all upon me. On the other hand, if God(s) were to appear and become involved in our lives in any way, only then would there be any reason at all to believe in them.

Believe what you want, but don't impose your God based beliefs on others and we can get along amicably.
 
Individual said:
YOU, may find it logical, I and some others do not.

Most everyone would probably agree that the Universe had a cause, but to call that cause a being/entity you call God, IMO, is a misuse of semantics and as shown by some of the responses by others makes this a religious issue, although you claim it not to be.

While I totally agree that you have proven what you believe sufficient to believe in the existence of God, it has not proven sufficient for those of us who with open minds seek more rational answers to what you claim to believe true.

What I find from reading posts by devildavid, Quag and a few others is that they are not obsessed with a need of God as you seem to be.
What effect would it have on you were it to be proven God(s) have never existed? For me, if it could be proven Gods in reality exist, the simple fact that they do not become involved in our lives would have no effect at all upon me. On the other hand, if God(s) were to appear and become involved in our lives in any way, only then would there be any reason at all to believe in them.

Believe what you want, but don't impose your God based beliefs on others and we can get along amicably.
Click to expand...
There is no more rational answer, and it's not a matter of "finding" something logical -- something is either logical or not logical. If you agree that the universe had a cause, then you must recognize the existence of God, There is no other rational explanation.

As for your attempt to spin this toward religion, that's just your natural bad faith coming through. Suppress it.
 
Angel said:
There is no more rational answer, and it's not a matter of "finding" something logical -- something is either logical or not logical. If you agree that the universe had a cause, then you must recognize the existence of God, There is no other rational explanation.

As for your attempt to spin this toward religion, that's just your natural bad faith coming through. Suppress it.
Click to expand...

Once again, referring to the cause of the Universe as "God" often confuses people, as the word has strong religious connotations.
 
If everything has a cause, must it also have a fate?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Richard Dawkins is embarrassing to watch when debating educated, competent opponents:

Click to expand...

On the contrary, I think Richard Dawkins has got it spot on. Who created God? "Who has designed the designer? Essentially, you've explained nothing."
The other fellow argues his point in a fairly convincing manner: he says that people who asked who created God, are missing the point - God is eternal. But, like Dawkins said, you've explained nothing. God is eternal. If something can be eternal, why not the universe God supposedly created? You can say "God was not created because God by definition was not created", but surely you could argue that the universe is eternal, or at least if created it spontaneously created itself, as God would have had to have done?
 
Angel said:
There is no more rational answer, and it's not a matter of "finding" something logical -- something is either logical or not logical. If you agree that the universe had a cause, then you must recognize the existence of God, There is no other rational explanation.

As for your attempt to spin this toward religion, that's just your natural bad faith coming through. Suppress it.
Click to expand...

I only recognize the existence of a cause, a rational explanation and term to call it will be the result of learning what the cause was.

God
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
3. In Angels posts, just a supernatural creature/being/entity, which the nature of is unknown except for the believed power to create a universe, life, etc. who simply has existed eternally having no cause.
 
Individual said:
I only recognize the existence of a cause, a rational explanation and term to call it will be the result of learning what the cause was.

God
...
3. In Angels posts, just a supernatural creature/being/entity, which the nature of is unknown except for the believed power to create a universe, life, etc. who simply has existed eternally having no cause.
Click to expand...
The existence of the cause is the rational explanation.
And Angel's concept certainly does not include "creature" and for obvious reasons.
 
Angel said:
The existence of the cause is the rational explanation.
And Angel's concept certainly does not include "creature" and for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

And what obvious reasons would they be?

Angel said:
Well, you made my list after all. I warned you. Now scram. As far as I'm concerned, you're done. You've had your say. More of a say than your say deserved. Your posts don't exist for me anymore. Your posting antics have been consigned to the limbo of Angel's disregard. In short, I shall not be replying to your posts henceforth. Have a nice day and stay safe.
Click to expand...

Well, then let's pick up where we left off,

1. The thread is titled "Proof of God"

2. The OP premises claim to result in a conclusion of "Therefore God exists."

3. It has been shown that the so called "Proof" rests entirely on a self proclaimed belief that ONLY God could be the ground of all that exists, "Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi".

4. For the conclusion claimed in 2 above to be True, would require proof of the belief in 3 above being proven True, rather than just a belief.

5. Therefore a question has been asked in an attempt to resolve that, which for some reason the OP claimant has steadfastly avoided any attempt to answer or discuss in a way to resolve the issue.

So again, that question, now for the 30th time:

The existence of the Universe, Life on Earth, and Consciousness, are self evident.
Can you show any evidence, proving that each, or any of them were created by a supernatural being/entity you call God?

YES or NO?

If YES, please do so.
If NO, then admit it.
-------------------------
The existence of God(s) can neither be proven True or False because the basis of their existence is but another unproven/unprovable belief.
Many of the once believed to exist Gods have been put to rest as we eventually discovered the natural reasons for what they had been believed to be responsible for, leaving just one to go.

The ONE OP Premise I found to be undeniably True was "Whatever exists, can exist." I find that applicable both pre and post T0 (the initiation of the Universe) in which we exist and view today.

Change is constantly happening, creation and destruction, life and death occurs everywhere in the Universe naturally.

Gods without human created religious beliefs are meaningless, and with such beliefs simply allow people to divide against one another no different than secular politics though unlike secular beliefs, religious beliefs can offer the hopes of rewards after death by the believed to exist God.

So in the end, ALL that can be proven is what one believes sufficient for the maintenance of their belief in the existence of a God, NOT the Truth or Falsity of such a being/entities existence.

Believe or not believe, it is nothing but a choice.
 
Yet Another Argument For God
(befuddling Our Internet Skeptics)

The Argument from Contingency


15 minutes well spent.​
 
Should we add that when challenged merely to paraphrase the argument from contingency, our local specimens of Internet Skepticism did their imitation of crickets, a bit of mimicry for which they are duly infamous.
 
Angel said:
Should we add that when challenged merely to paraphrase the argument from contingency, our local specimens of Internet Skepticism did their imitation of crickets, a bit of mimicry for which they are duly infamous.
Click to expand...

Everything is contingent.
 
Individual said:
What better way exists of acquiring useful knowledge about the world we live in than science?
Click to expand...

I see, so on the basis of that question you conclude there is no other way? is that your proof?

You do realize that what you say here is not itself a scientific statement? the claim that science and empiricism is the only way to acquire knowledge is a belief, you do understand this?

Individual said:
A proposition which cannot be proven to be true, remains only be believed to be true.
Click to expand...

Oh please, can you answer the f*****g question? it has a yes or no answer!

Individual said:
Are you saying that the existence of gravity is only believed to be true?
Click to expand...

No, I drew your attention to the fact that you claimed "there is no way to prove that God(s) exists" so I was asking how you reached this conclusion, what is the line of reasoning?

Individual said:
I've never studied scientism, so I can't really respond in any way about it, but science has proven to be quite useful in providing us with knowledge which has been put to use in improving our lives.
Click to expand...

Yes it has.

Individual said:
So has this thread given up trying to show "Proof of God"?
Click to expand...

I see no reason to answer your questions when you rudely refuse to answer mine, once again can one write down a true proposition that cannot be proven to be true? if you don't know then say so.

Individual said:
The "belief" claim that ONLY God could have created the Universe seems to be no less unproven/unprovable than the existence of the being/entity God itself.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is an inference using the same reasoning as we use within science, causes are the reasons for effects.
 
Individual said:
I reject the claim, as it provides no proof.
Click to expand...

Good Lord help us - it IS a proof in an of itself!

Individual said:
II find it much more reasonable and rational for the universe to have been created within the space it occupies, and the unproven/unprovable claim the reason to have been outside of the universe appears to be only an attempt to support the belief of a Gods necessity.
Click to expand...

What caused it then to "have been created within the space it occupies"? This is insane, you think its rational to believe the universe was created by being created?

Individual said:
Unlike God believers, I would have no problem if God(s) existence could be proven factually true, while God believers, IMO, irrationally feel a need to keep their belief alive to the point of denigrating those who disagree with such belief.
Click to expand...

It has been proven but you are not able to understand, that's what's actually going on here. Your existing beliefs prevent you from perceiving the truth.

Individual said:
Is science seen to be a threat to believers? The word "scientism" seems to support that to be true.
Click to expand...

Science is a gift from the creator, a comprehensible universe with predictable behavior that we can leverage for our own ends is a gift, it is part of the creation.

Individual said:
Basically, all knowledge is objective truths, while beliefs are subjective truths.
Click to expand...

Really? how can you prove this claim you make about "all knowledge"?

Individual said:
The primary difference between a believer and a non-believer is that the believer claims to know the truth, yet is incapable of proving it, while the non-believer remains searching for the truth, acquiring useful knowledge along the way as well as many more questions than what they began with.
Click to expand...

Please listen to yourself, this is the kind of naive self assurance that I've been drawing attention to these past weeks.

How can you search for truth without believing it is possible to recognize truth?
 
devildavid said:
Thank you for admitting that you can't find anything that I have posted that remotely demonstrates that I subscribe to scientism.
Click to expand...

Your welcome, now the question again that you seem to have missed: Which aspects of scientism don't you subscribe to? where do you disagree with scientism?

If you do not disagree with it then by definition you must agree with it, this is me applying the scientific method, I perform an experiment (ask you where you disagree) and on the basis of no response I conclude you are a believer in scientism.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom