Proof of God

[Sherlock Holmes]

But the threads topic is, or at least it was, "Proof of God", fact, fiction, hypothesis, theory, or simply an unproven/unprovable belief?

Yes that's true and my earlier posts were confined to that, but here I'm responding to what someone else posted and claimed to be a "fact", I take issue with that claim.

The simple fact is that Angel is either incapable or unwilling to engage in civil, reasoned and rational conversation of the threads topic which has resulted in the introduction of numerous pointless obliquities.

That may or may not be the case, I've been in the thread barely at all, my own posts about the validity of a belief in God are there for you to consider.

 

[Individual]

Yes, you're waiting for me to give and not giving anything yourself.

Am I refusing to engage intelligently and is this really a distraction? These are questions you should be asking yourself.

Everyone who has posted in this thread has given YOU something, and asked questions of you. You constantly have refused to clearly answer any questions asked, leaving others only to guess what you mean to say and then complaining they do not understand what you've vaguely left for them, or moving away from the threads topic.

I and others have been trying to converse with YOU, and in order to make any progress YOU need to answer questions you are asked, including those you claimed you will answer in order to understand where you are coming from. The ONLY question I've asked myself is what can I say that might get you to contribute something in return.

You appear to be hoping that I or another will eventually say something that will allow you to respond with, "See, God must exist!", and that's quite unlikely to occur.

 

[Angel]

Everyone who has posted in this thread has given YOU something, and asked questions of you. You constantly have refused to clearly answer any questions asked, leaving others only to guess what you mean to say and then complaining they do not understand what you've vaguely left for them, or moving away from the threads topic.

I and others have been trying to converse with YOU, and in order to make any progress YOU need to answer questions you are asked, including those you claimed you will answer in order to understand where you are coming from. The ONLY question I've asked myself is what can I say that might get you to contribute something in return.

You appear to be hoping that I or another will eventually say something that will allow you to respond with, "See, God must exist!", and that's quite unlikely to occur.

Stop talking about "everyone" and "others" and just examine your own participation in this thread. And stop outright lying about me in these latest Internet Skeptic posts of yours.
I've answered all questions put to me in good faith, answered in good faith.
Examine your own posts, friend.

 

[Individual]

Yes that's true and my earlier posts were confined to that, but here I'm responding to what someone else posted and claimed to be a "fact", I take issue with that claim.



That may or may not be the case, I've been in the thread barely at all, my own posts about the validity of a belief in God are there for you to consider.

I've more than once told Angel I can see how some may find a belief in the existence of God(s) meaningful in their lives, but I see no possible way of showing such an existence to be a proven/provable fact.
Angel appears to refuse to accept that, which has led us to his claiming science has proven nothing although I believe he means relative to Gods existence but neither does science attempt to prove God does not, could not, or can not exist.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I've more than once told Angel I can see how some may find a belief in the existence of God(s) meaningful in their lives, but I see no possible way of showing such an existence to be a proven/provable fact.

Well proof is a rather subtle concept, we often demand it but do we fully grasp what it means?

The most rigorous definition is from math and logic, here a proof is a series of deductions from a set of premises leading to some conclusion, the conclusion is proven if the deductions are valid this is a valid argument, valid proof.

A sound proof is a valid proof where we additionally know that the premises are true.

Furthermore science relies on induction rather than deduction, so clearly the concept of any proof be it for God or anything else, is shrouded in uncertainty and details.

Ask yourself how did you establish the truth of any premises your own arguments for anything, were established? If you believe anything to be true then have you demanded the same rigor of yourself that you demand from Angel?

Angel appears to refuse to accept that, which has led us to his claiming science has proven nothing although I believe he means relative to Gods existence but neither does science attempt to prove God does not, could not, or can not exist.

As I say I'm new to this thread and can't comment on what is clearly a contentious history between other participants.

 

[Individual]

Stop talking about "everyone" and "others" and just examine your own participation in this thread. And stop outright lying about me in these latest Internet Skeptic posts of yours.
I've answered all questions put to me in good faith, answered in good faith.
Examine your own posts, friend.

Another lie, in your post #3631 you wrote "I claim that your scientific naturalism confuses and conflates 'the nature of phenomena' and 'the phenomena of nature.' What do you have to say about that?"

I'm still waiting on you to provide YOUR distinction between the two terms YOU presented in your post #3560 where you wrote
"It -- your scientific naturalism -- fails to distinguish between "the nature of phenomena" and "the phenomena of nature." (The word "phenomena" is the plural form of the word "phenomenon," by the way.) This is a grave, if common, error among science mavens and acolytes of scientism. Do you grasp the distinction?

Before we carry this very interesting topic forward, let's be sure we're on the same page, yes? Do you grasp the distinction made above, the distinction between "the nature of phenomena" and "the phenomena of nature"?

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

And I'm still awaiting YOUR explanation of the distinction.

Perhaps YOU should examine YOUR own posts, and cease making false claims.

 

[Angel]

Another lie, in your post #3631 you wrote "I claim that your scientific naturalism confuses and conflates 'the nature of phenomena' and 'the phenomena of nature.' What do you have to say about that?"

I'm still waiting on you to provide YOUR distinction between the two terms YOU presented in your post #3560 where you wrote
"It -- your scientific naturalism -- fails to distinguish between "the nature of phenomena" and "the phenomena of nature." (The word "phenomena" is the plural form of the word "phenomenon," by the way.) This is a grave, if common, error among science mavens and acolytes of scientism. Do you grasp the distinction?

Before we carry this very interesting topic forward, let's be sure we're on the same page, yes? Do you grasp the distinction made above, the distinction between "the nature of phenomena" and "the phenomena of nature"?

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

And I'm still awaiting YOUR explanation of the distinction.

Perhaps YOU should examine YOUR own posts, and cease making false claims.

Why didn't you enlarge the font on this request:

Before we carry this very interesting topic forward, let's be sure we're on the same page, yes? Do you grasp the distinction made above, the distinction between "the nature of phenomena" and "the phenomena of nature"?

 

[Individual]

Well proof is a rather subtle concept, we often demand it but do we fully grasp what it means?

The most rigorous definition is from math and logic, here a proof is a series of deductions from a set of premises leading to some conclusion, the conclusion is proven if the deductions are valid this is a valid argument, valid proof.

A sound proof is a valid proof where we additionally know that the premises are true.

Furthermore science relies on induction rather than deduction, so clearly the concept of any proof be it for God or anything else, is shrouded in uncertainty and details.

Ask yourself how did you establish the truth of any premises your own arguments for anything, were established? If you believe anything to be true then have you demanded the same rigor of yourself that you demand from Angel?



As I say I'm new to this thread and can't comment on what is clearly a contentious history between other participants.

Several of us have posed questions about the validity of the premises offered in the OP, which has yet to be resolved.

I've not really been attempting to prove anything at all, other than Gods existence has not been proven to be factual.

 

[Individual]

Why didn't you enlarge the font on this request:

Simply because I've given you my distinction between the two terms.

And although asked for you to exhibit your distinction between the two terms as you claimed you would provide, I remain patiently awaiting.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Several of us have posed questions about the validity of the premises offered in the OP, which has yet to be resolved.

I've not really been attempting to prove anything at all, other than Gods existence has not been proven to be factual.

So what would that mean, if God's existence hasn't been proven (to you) as "factual"?

Is everything you currently believe proven? factual?

 

[Angel]

Several of us have posed questions about the validity of the premises offered in the OP, which has yet to be resolved.

A palpable falsehood.
See here, most recently:

True.

True.

True.

I'm not seeing that one. Even if God does exist, maybe he was created by another God or some sort of force or part of existence. Why does a being that has super-intelligence, and super power must exist and there is no way for reality to ever work without such a being? I could think up a possible universe where nothing exists, not even God, or a timeless multiverse exists instead of God. And that also means that means he can't snap himself out of existence, since he must exist now. God might exist but might not be a necessary God.

Or maybe he exists because he is timeless, he just happened to exist timelessly instead of something else, instead of must existing. This is related to the question of why there is something or not nothing or why the existence is one way instead of being another. Why did we have a timeless God instead of a timeless multiverse or nothing? If you can't come up with a reason why we got a timeless God instead of a timeless other thing, then you can't claim that God is necessary and must exist.

Another problem is that I don't see why God must existing is conditional on him existing. If anything its the other way around. God exists because he must exist. If God must exist, then him existing has nothing to do with it, and you can't say he must exist if he exists.

I'm going to assume for now the premise that if God exists, he must exist. God either exists or he doesn't exist. And in the last premise, he must exist if he exists. And if that works, then I guess he is a necessary being and must not exist if he doesn't exist.

But the last premise that I have a big problem with works much better if swapped in order with this one:
God must exist or God must not exist (establishing the God we are talking about is a necessary God).
Therefore if God exists, then he must exist.

This premise would be more about establishing the type of God we are talking about, a necessary God, rather than proving him. Then we can be sure that if a necessary God does exist, he must exist.



I'm not seeing that one either. Maybe a necessary God is actually impossible, and it is impossible for God to be necessary, because its impossible for a complex intelligence to be necessary, just like it is impossible for me to be necessary. Maybe all intelligences require a beginning and education. Or maybe we exist in a Godless universe where God isn't possible, or a God can be created but then isn't necessary and doesn't must exist.

The premises of this conclusion are deeply flawed, so this conclusions is deeply flawed. You can also stop here. If you have shown that God must exist, then you don't need to show he exists, because its pretty obvious.

A most creditable engagement of the OP argument. Save for one other, which addressed two points in the modal logic much earlier in the thread, yours is the only good-faith engagement of the argument.

It seems to me you are correct in your criticism. Of course, no argument, even without the flaws you point out, is going to convince anyone of the existence of God. It is, as I saw you post in another thread, a matter of faith ultimately.

Nevertheless, as these ontological arguments go, you focus on the key: the necessity of God's existence. And I agree with you, that proof of that necessity is all that is needed for existence to follow. And of course defining God as a necessary being just begs the question.

In short, your full and sincere engagement is most appreciated by this member, who must deal for the most part with dismissals and dissing from fellow members.

Good faith leads to resolution. Try it.

 

[Angel]

Simply because I've given you my distinction between the two terms.

And although asked for you to exhibit your distinction between the two terms as you claimed you would provide, I remain patiently awaiting.

You have given no such distinction in intelligible terms.

 

[Individual]

A palpable falsehood.
See here, most recently:


Good faith leads to resolution. Try it.

Good faith = pre-existing belief?
I've previously stated that your proof would face little or no argument from those who have a belief in God(s).

I've stated that I have no pre-existing belief of God(s) necessity, which none of your posts have provided any palpable evidence to the contrary.

 

[Individual]

You have given no such distinction in intelligible terms.

Perhaps you should then give it a try.

 

[Angel]

Good faith = pre-existing belief?
I've previously stated that your proof would face little or no argument from those who have a belief in God(s).

I've stated that I have no pre-existing belief of God(s) necessity, which none of your posts have provided any palpable evidence to the contrary.

No, good faith means honest open engagement.

Perhaps you should then give it a try.

As soon as you admit you don't understand the distinction, I'll explain it.

 

[marke]

Like I said you clearly have no clue about evolution. It is an observed proven fact. Being willfully ignoring on your part doesn't help your lost cause.

Nobody has ever observed or recorded evidence of DNA alteration in evolutionary changes from one living creature to another. In addition, no scientific explanation has ever been developed with support from lab observations as to how plants evolved into vertebrates or vice versa.

Evolution must be believed by faith and not by sight.

 

[marke]

Wrong.

"Evolutionists" (a word used only by creationists) think that chimpanzees and hominids came from the same ancestor approximately 7 million years in the past. Human and chimp DNA is approximately 98.8% the same. Each human/chimp cell contains roughly three billion base pairs, or bits of information, 1.2% difference means there are about 35 million differences. The last common ancestor of humans and mice lived some 65 million years ago.

View attachment 67277431

Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse​

There has been no scientific observation of DNA changes in living creatures in the process of evolutionary change. Mice and humans do share a common ancestor, just like chimps and humans and watermelons and humans. They were all created by God.

 

[Individual]

No, good faith means honest open engagement.


As soon as you admit you don't understand the distinction, I'll explain it.

1. That's a two way street, and I've done nothing less, perhaps it would be helpful were you to reciprocate.

2. And you now ask me to lie? I gave you my definition of the distinction as I apply it, AND I've admitted that I have no idea at all of how you apply a distinction between the two phrases until you present it.
That is honest and open engagement in conversation!

 

[Individual]

There has been no scientific observation of DNA changes in living creatures in the process of evolutionary change. Mice and humans do share a common ancestor, just like chimps and humans and watermelons and humans. They were all created by God.

For that to be a true fact, God would have to exist.
The problem as I see it is that an a priori belief in the common definition of God as being factual, all phenomena nature has produced serves as proof of God.

 

[marke]

For that to be a true fact, God would have to exist.
The problem as I see it is that an a priori belief in the common definition of God as being factual, all phenomena nature has produced serves as proof of God.

For those willing to correctly interpret the facts and scientific data all phenomena produced by nature serves as proof of God. For others, they refuse to believe God due to their a priori faith in unproven godless explanations for natural phenomena.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

No, good faith means honest open engagement.

As soon as you admit you don't understand the distinction, I'll explain it.

And yet you have never engaged in that either in this thread, anywhere, or any other thread, nor can you link to any single instance of you having done so./

Please try and be less dishonest, but thanks, as always, for the unintentional irony.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

For those willing to correctly interpret the facts and scientific data all phenomena produced by nature serves as proof of God. For others, they refuse to believe God due to their a priori faith in unproven godless explanations for natural phenomena.

Why do you hate god and claim there is no proof it her?

 

[Individual]

For those willing to correctly interpret the facts and scientific data all phenomena produced by nature serves as proof of God. For others, they refuse to believe God due to their a priori faith in unproven godless explanations for natural phenomena.

1. Can you provide an example of how you associate "correctly interpret the facts and scientific data all phenomena produced by nature" as "proof of God"?

2. What "explanations for natural phenomena" have been found in need of inserting God in their explanations?

 

[marke]

1. Can you provide an example of how you associate "correctly interpret the facts and scientific data all phenomena produced by nature" as "proof of God"?

2. What "explanations for natural phenomena" have been found in need of inserting God in their explanations?

Truth and facts do not "need" explanations or insertions. Humans trying to discover facts and truth need explanations. The reason evolutionists cannot explain the origin of life is not just because evolution itself is clueless about the origin of life, but also science itself is clueless about life's origin as long as it is stuck on stupid assumptions that some unknown godless miracle of nature must have been the cause and not God.

 

[Angel]

1. That's a two way street, and I've done nothing less, perhaps it would be helpful were you to reciprocate.

2. And you now ask me to lie? I gave you my definition of the distinction as I apply it, AND I've admitted that I have no idea at all of how you apply a distinction between the two phrases until you present it.
That is honest and open engagement in conversation!

1. The record speaks for itself.
2. No, I'm asking for good faith from you. You gave me sentence fragments twice whose meaning is anybody's guess. I've pointed this out to you and asked for a clear statement or an admission that you really don't understand -- you refuse to do either. That's bad faith. You insist on playing some game with me, like a test of will or something -- you did the same thing when you refused to discuss a point with me in the "God is Real" thread for no good reason. So be it.