Proof of God

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why must a god exist? Angel never got around to explaining that.

Because without a sentient non material agency the universe with its myriad intricacies, deep mathematical structure, order and stability would not exist.

All evidence I find in science is that science cannot explain why the universe exists and why it has these incredible attributes.

Perhaps there's an analogy here with Godel's incompleteness theorem, this is something I encourage others to read about if they've never heard of it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Prove that it is certain. If you don't know who or what it is then how do you know that is is there? Why does it have to be there?

But once again what is a proof? just because you have conditions X, Y and Z as your conditions for belief does not prove that someone else having other conditions for acceptance would not accept a proof.

If I present a proof of some proposition to you and Angel and Angel is satisfied with the proof but you are not then what of it?

If you and others here cannot accept some of the proofs then so what? it matters not, and it certainly does not prove that the offered proofs were invalid.

You are not the sole arbiter of truth, you are the sole arbiter of what you regard as truth but that's a very different and rather unimportant thing.

 

[devildavid]

But once again what is a proof? just because you have conditions X, Y and Z as your conditions for belief does not prove that someone else having other conditions for acceptance would not accept a proof.

If I present a proof of some proposition to you and Angel and Angel is satisfied with the proof but you are not then what of it?

If you and others here cannot accept some of the proofs then so what? it matters not, and it certainly does not prove that the offered proofs were invalid.

You are not the sole arbiter of truth, you are the sole arbiter of what you regard as truth but that's a very different and rather unimportant thing.

Which means everything you claim is true in this post is not true it is only what your think is true. Your position defeats your own ability to convince anyone of anything. You are pretty much saying we can't possibly know anything and everything can be seen as only true to each individual. Welcome to the wonderful world of solipsism, an intellectual dead end.

 

[devildavid]

Because without a sentient non material agency the universe with its myriad intricacies, deep mathematical structure, order and stability would not exist.

All evidence I find in science is that science cannot explain why the universe exists and why it has these incredible attributes.

Perhaps there's an analogy here with Godel's incompleteness theorem, this is something I encourage others to read about if they've never heard of it.

The universe does not have deep mathematical structure, which is a meaningless term. Man invented math as a tool to help understand the workings of the physical universe. There is not just order and stability in the universe, there is disorder and chaos.

Science explains how, not why. Why is not a scientific question.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Which means everything you claim is true in this post is not true it is only what your think is true.

Yes, that's it.

Your position defeats your own ability to convince anyone of anything.

Ahh, but disagreeing with you does not mean I care what you think or beleive, does not mean that I want anything from you, I disagree period; what you end up believing is your own concern.

You are pretty much saying we can't possibly know anything and everything can be seen as only true to each individual. Welcome to the wonderful world of solipsism, an intellectual dead end.

I'm awfully sorry if reality upsets you but it is what it is, deal with it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The universe does not have deep mathematical structure, which is a meaningless term.

Yes it does, ask Roger Penrose, as just one example or perhaps John Lennox.

Man invented math.

I of course said this all along, you are now contradicting yourself however, you said that math transcends us, is objective reality etc etc.

as a tool to help understand the workings of the physical universe.

So you agree that (apparently) man can understand creation.

There is not just order and stability in the universe, there is disorder and chaos.

So you say, but do go on, I'm curios.

Science explains how, not why. Why is not a scientific question.

Ahh very good, now do tell me what is the difference between "why" and "how"?

Cause and effect is cause and effect is cause and effect is cause and effect...

In other words, give me your favorite example of a "why" and I'll translate that into a "how", go on, try me.

 

[devildavid]

Yes, that's it.



Ahh, but disagreeing with you does not mean I care what you think or beleive.



I'm awfully sorry if reality upsets you but it is what it is, deal with it.

Reality? You just missed the point. There is no reality. Or is there? Who knows? Every point we make refutes itself. We are not really discussing anything here.

 

[devildavid]

Yes it does, ask Roger Penrose, as just one example or perhaps John Lennox.



I of course said this all along, you are now contradicting yourself however.



So you agree that (apparently) man can help us understand creation.



So you say, but do go on, I'm curios.



Ahh very good, now do tell me what is the difference between "why" and "how"?

Roger Penrose and John Lennox only can believe what they believe. They know nothing, just like you and I. And others in their filed disagree with them. So drop all the names you want, it really doesn't matter what they say, it only matters what the evidence supports.

Never said man did not invent math. Only said that individuals don't get to decide for themselves what math is. Saying 1+1=3 does not make it so.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Reality? You just missed the point. There is no reality. Or is there? Who knows? Every point we make refutes itself. We are not really discussing anything here.

Are you now actually, finally, admitting that there is no reality?

 

[devildavid]

Are you now actually, finally, admitting that there is no reality?

As fat as you are concerned, there isn't any. Only me and my reality are real. Are we really discussing anything?

 

[RAMOSS]

Because without a sentient non material agency the universe with its myriad intricacies, deep mathematical structure, order and stability would not exist.

How do you know that?? What experiments did you run that brought you to that conclusion? Let's see you support this claim with other than logical fallacies, but rather with objective and tangible evidence, with proposed experiments to try to falsify it. Do you have anything more than the 'argument from assertion'?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Roger Penrose and John Lennox only can believe what they believe. They know nothing, just like you and I. And others in their filed disagree with them. So drop all the names you want, it really doesn't matter what they say, it only matters what the evidence supports.

Do go on, Penrose is a professor of theoretical physics and Lennox is a professor of mathematics, I'm not "name dropping" I'm simply making you aware of things you don't seem to be aware of.

If you have some disagreement with anything they've written then please share it.

Never said man did not invent math. Only said that individuals don't get to decide for themselves what math is. Saying 1+1=3 does not make it so.

You're backtracking now, and claiming 1+1=3 is not true all depends on what you mean by "1" and "2" and "3" - since these are abstract concepts they MUST be defined in some way?

So please show me, tell me, what is the definition of "1"? did you know that ancient civilizations had no concept or symbol for "0"? did you know that negative number like -123 could never be understood by the ancient?

And what about our friend "i" (square root of -1) can you define that? can you show me how I might owe you "i" dollars?

 

[devildavid]

Do go on, Penrose is a professor of theoretical physics and Lennox is a professor of mathematics, I'm not "name dropping" I'm simply making you aware of things you don't seem to be aware of.

If you have some disagreement with anything they've written then please share it.



You're backtracking now, and claiming 1+1=3 is not true all depends on what you mean by "1" and "2" and "3" - since these are abstract concepts they MUST be defined in some way?

So please show me, tell me, what is the definition of "1"? did you know that ancient civilizations had no concept or symbol for "0"? did you know that negative number like -123 could never be understood by the ancient?

And what about our friend "i" (square root of -1) can you define that? can you show me how I might owe you "i" dollars?

Those guys don't exist in my reality. Neither do you. I am every poster in this forum posting to himself. Nothing is real. Nothing to get hung about. "1" is the loneliest number.

 

[zyzygy]

The square root of -1, corresponding to the point (0,1) in the geometric representation of complex numbers as points in a plane.

 

[Individual]

That's fine, I agree it is reasonable to assume this; but as for "more reasonable" well right there we have a problem, this is subjective.

I find it reasonable to infer that God - a sentient intelligent agency - brought the universe into existence and I do not think its reasonable that something as profoundly intricate and orderly as the natural world just "is" or just "emerged" nothing in my understanding of science and physics leads me to conclude that the universe was not intentionally engineered, it looks and acts to me exactly as I'd expect it to if God had created it.



Well I understand this, I used to share that view but no longer do, part of the reason I no longer do is that I had started to see no rational reason to prefer the materialist position, it stopped "making sense" to feel the need to "justify" a creator, I recognized that in my case it had been - to a degree - prejudice.

For thousands of years some of the greatest minds and thinkers adopted a God view of the world, the universe and had no trouble at all pursuing scientific investigations, most of those who contributed to science in fact had deeply held beliefs in a creator.

It has simply become intellectually fashionable to "see no reason for God" and assume there are purely materialist mechanistic "explanations" for everything, yet the explicability of the universe is itself inexplicable without something deeper.

Some here seem to really believe that science has gradually made a God less and less relevant, less and less necessary yet the very fact that we can comprehend and manipulate the natural world, that it has order, laws that are trustworthy etc is - IMHO - irreconcilable with a purely materialist system, I just cannot accept that a materialist universe can be invoked to explain a materialist universe.

I have no problem accepting there are two or more beliefs of how the Universe came into existence. I simply cannot accept as this thread claims that one is provable. None of the beliefs has, or likely can ever be proven to include or exclude God(s).

 

[Individual]

Roger Penrose and John Lennox only can believe what they believe. They know nothing, just like you and I. And others in their filed disagree with them. So drop all the names you want, it really doesn't matter what they say, it only matters what the evidence supports.

Never said man did not invent math. Only said that individuals don't get to decide for themselves what math is. Saying 1+1=3 does not make it so.

And did not man create Gods in an attempt to answer all unanswerable questions asked?

 

[devildavid]

And did not man create Gods in an attempt to answer all unanswerable questions asked?

But even god is not an answer. God amounts to Peewee Herman clumsily falling off his bicycle and then claiming, "I meant to do that". So even if you posit a god whose intention created everything, why should that be meaningful if we don't really know if it really was intended?

 

[Individual]

But even god is not an answer. God amounts to Peewee Herman clumsily falling off his bicycle and then claiming, "I meant to do that". So even if you posit a god whose intention created everything, why should that be meaningful if we don't really know if it really was intended?

That's where religion comes to the aid of such belief, forgiveness for all sins except disbelief in God, life after death, 72 virgins (male and female virgins?) after death, etc.

Without religion, religious beliefs, what actual NEED is there for a belief in God(s) EVEN if God(s) were to exist?

 

[Triton]

Well there are only self evident facts anything else is an inference.

For example cogito, ergo sum is an example of a self evident fact.

I agree. Whatever framework we as individuals work with, is based on assumptions.

 

[Quag]

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Same ol' unsupported assertions of dismissal.

yadda yadda yadda still no proof of God

 

[Quag]

Happy Anniversary, Angel

Join Date: May 3, 2017

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating."​

5 years of inane posts from you grats

 

[Angel]

5 years of inane posts from you grats

Your math is as sound as your logic, it seems.

 

[Quag]

Your math is as sound as your logic, it seems.

Its morning.
Still waiting for actual proof of God

 

[Angel]

Its morning.
Still waiting for actual proof of God

And I'm still re-posting five of them for your engagement.

Three Arguments
Three Proofs
Three Appeals to Reason


6.​

Angel's Empirical Argument For God

The experience of the person I am in the world—my consciousness, my life, and the physical world in which my conscious life appears to be set—these phenomena comprise a Stupendous Given. There's no getting around them and no getting outside them and no accounting for them from within the phenomena themselves. These phenomena point to something beyond themselves. The attempt to account for these phenomena from within the phenomena themselves has given rise to science, art and religion and the whole cultural adventure we call "civilization"—the long human struggle for purchase on the Stupendous Given. In the end, however, the only account that accords with reason is the account that infers to a Stupendous Giver. In sum, from the existence of consciousness, the existence of life, and the existence of the physical universe, the inference to the best explanation is God.

7.​

1. If God does not exist, his existence is logically impossible.

2. If God does exist, his existence is logically necessary.

3. Hence, either God’s existence is logically impossible or else it is logically necessary.

4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.

5. The concept of God is not contradictory.

6.Therefore, God’s existence is logically necessary.[/B]

The Necessity of God’s Existence: Ontological Arguments Worth Considering

8.​

1. If the universe were eternal and its amount of energy finite, it would have reached heat death by now.

2. The universe has not reached heat death (since there is still energy available for use).

3. Therefore, (b) the universe had a beginning.

4. Therefore, (c) the universe was created by a first cause (God)[/B]

The Necessity of God’s Existence: Ontological Arguments Worth Considering

Number 9

WILLIAM PALEY

THE WATCH AND THE WATCHMAKER

https://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/rjohns/paley.pdf​

Number 10

The Argument from Contingency


15 minutes well spent.​

 

[Quag]

And I'm still re-posting five of them for your engagement.

Proof of God not failed "arguments"