Proof of God

[TypicalRussian]

Why is that a valid question at all? YOu have to be screwed up in the head to think it.

wrong/

 

[NWO_Spook]

You're in the wrong thread, pilgrim. This thread is not about religion. This thread is about the existence of God, not the nature of God. You must have taken a wrong turn somewhere and wandered off from the Dick Dawkins wagon train. Rein in your team of horses and light out for the swamplands of Internet Atheism where your posts belong.

I'm replying to a post and my points are relevant in that context, so mind your own ****ing business.

Unlike you who are so clever and erudite, yes?

Indeed. I have studied Ancient History and Classical Literature with Hons., as well as English Literature at a tertiary level, so yes, erudite is an appropriate epithet. What have you done?

Have you ever come across Ibsen's The Wild Duck in your pretensions to erudition?

Pretensions? Aren't you the one who is always braying about 'good faith posting', troll?

You're in the right thread, but I agree with the comment by Angel that it is the existence of God NOT the nature of God which should the focus. What proof is there of the existence of a supernatural being/entity, without the insertion of unproven/unprovable claims of the nature of such a being/entity? If the existence can be proven, perhaps then we might begin to try and discover the nature of the being/entity. Would it have magical powers, the ability to create from nothing a Universe, life, etc.? Those are things religions have applied in defining Gods, so leave them out of the discussion or premises attempting to prove a Gods existence.

I'm replying to another's post and I have long since lost interest in the OP, but I do agree with you and pointed out the very same to the OP some time ago.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why is that a valid question at all? YOu have to be screwed up in the head to think it.

As you wish.

 

[NWO_Spook]

God is inferred, reasonably inferred just as black holes are inferred from their impact on bodies close to them, nothing inappropriate about this.

No, gods are 'believed' and any supposed inference is nothing more than a product of fallacious reasoning.

They're extraordinary until one expands their worldview, accepts the possibilities,

No, the claims of theists are extraordinary because they don't occur normally. Nothing more and nothing less.

the presence of the universe is extraordinary, not explicable, yet there it is - it does exist and far too few people here regard it as not extraordinary.

Its existence isn't extraordinary, for it is 'common', unlike virgin births and zombies.

Yes these are extraordinary but I no longer regard them as absurdly so as I used to. There are written accounts of these events, these accounts convey that people at that time also regarded these as extraordinary even those devote Jews who believed in a God are recorded as being stunned and unwilling to accept what they saw.

The writers at the time simply wrote it, their record is all that we could ever expect to have.

The authenticity of ancient texts based upon hearsay is in itself a belief system.

A theory (and evolution should be no exception) stands or falls on the basis of being falsifiable, so if a theory is falsified by some test then it matters not that the theory might have passed a hundred other tests, the failed test is the breaker. This is the way its done for all theories in the physical sciences.

A nice evasion. You claimed that evolution failed the tests, so, if you'd be so kind as to demonstrate your claim, I would appreciate it.

 

[NWO_Spook]

wrong/

Watch me. I will ignore your posts to demonstrate my claim.

 

[ArtemisBarca]

This word play is not going to help anyone, you can replace "reason" with "cause" if you wish or even "had a cause that is the reason it exists".

Someone else has said that nature doesn't do "why" but only "how" and I ask what's the difference?

Most scientific investigations in fact do ask "why" rather than "how" - for example why does the moon always show the same face toward the earth and why does a stick placed into water look bent and so on.

But having said this how did you establish that "nature doesn’t have reasons for the things it does"?

A) “Reason” has about 9 different definitions that cover a broad spectrum, and I can guarantee you when a creationist uses it concerning creation. They mean the definition that includes a deliberate action by an intelligent being..

Exhibit A : the OP lol..

It is just FULL of word play:. Word play is the evidence they consider “proof of god”...

B) Word play is where creationists live, because they for damn sure don’t have any experimental evidence that supports their case..

They take quotes from famous scientists out of context or quote one from over 100 years ago before we even knew Pluto existed.

Use word play on scientific theory to pretend it supports a Christian god, when it doesn’t.. at all ... which is why the person who created the theory was an atheist lol..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ArtemisBarca]

And the explanations are always about how, not why.

EXACTLY..

Why??

Because science does not recognize a “why”... philosophy/religion covers the “why”..

Ps. Philosophy is not a science lol..

“Why” is a human construct that does not exist without an intelligent being to ask it..

“How” exists if you believe in to or not... if anyone is their to ask it or not..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TypicalRussian]

Watch me. I will ignore your posts to demonstrate my claim.

wrong.

 

[Individual]

Well you did say you found nothing plausible, so I wanted to get some clarity.

I've always found it extremely difficult to apply one unprovable belief as the basis for proving another unprovable belief to be more than just a belief.

Sure, so will we agree if I say a non-material agency caused the universe to exist?

I can't say that I find "non-material agency" an agreeable term.

If we use - just for this discussion - the term "God" to represent the non-material agency that caused the universe to exist, does that mean that you would say there's evidence for God? if "God" is just the label for this agency?

Why would we want to do that when the term "God" carries so much baggage? Should the Higgs Boson have been called the God particle?

Yes but quantum mechanics and other theoretical concepts from physics are still material, still have physical properties, you cannot rationally infer some as yet undiscovered material phenomena as the reason that there are material phenomena.

I can't agree with that since we are still struggling to gain an understanding of quantum mechanics, which may result in modification of the laws of physics as they currently exist in order to more fully understand the happenings at the quantum level.

The existence of matter and energy is evidence of something, some event of some kind. But that event won't have been a material event because that would require the matter and energy to exist already.

As I understand, there was no matter initially only an enormous amount of energy, from which the first matter was formed. We can only keep asking questions as the best means of attempting to find an answer. There will always be unanswered/unanswerable questions which can be applied to a belief in God(s) for those who have a need/want of the existence of a supernatural being/entity.

 

[Angel]

I'm replying to a post and my points are relevant in that context, so mind your own ****ing business.
Indeed. I have studied Ancient History and Classical Literature with Hons., as well as English Literature at a tertiary level, so yes, erudite is an appropriate epithet. What have you done?
Pretensions? Aren't you the one who is always braying about 'good faith posting', troll?
I'm replying to another's post and I have long since lost interest in the OP, but I do agree with you and pointed out the very same to the OP some time ago.

I got your number a long time ago, sir. Swear all you want and call me names, I got your number and you're not getting away with your phony-baloney superiority persona on my watch. Your post was and still is full of hot air.

 

[Angel]

A) “Reason” has about 9 different definitions that cover a broad spectrum, and I can guarantee you when a creationist uses it concerning creation. They mean the definition that includes a deliberate action by an intelligent being..

Exhibit A : the OP lol..

It is just FULL of word play:. Word play is the evidence they consider “proof of god”...

Point out the word play for us, counselor. Your word for it hardly passes muster with any but blustering Internet Skeptics.

 

[Angel]

Why is that a valid question at all? YOu have to be screwed up in the head to think it.

Keep a civil tongue in your head, Spinoza.

 

[Angel]

EXACTLY..

Why??

Because science does not recognize a “why”... philosophy/religion covers the “why”..

Ps. Philosophy is not a science lol..

“Why” is a human construct that does not exist without an intelligent being to ask it..

“How” exists if you believe in to or not... if anyone is their to ask it or not..

Is this post of yours a "Why" or a "How," we wonder? Or is it perhaps a "Whereby" or a "Whence"?

 

[NWO_Spook]

I got your number a long time ago, sir. Swear all you want and call me names, I got your number and you're not getting away with your phony-baloney superiority persona on my watch. Your post was and still is full of hot air.

You wouldn't know **** from clay and you know absolutely nothing about me, except that which I've permitted you to know. Furthermore, my post was relevant to the post I replied to, as well as being correct. So, run along troll and at least try to understand that which is being discussed before you run your cyber-mouth in future. Ok?

 

[Triton]

EXACTLY..

Why??

Because science does not recognize a “why”... philosophy/religion covers the “why”..

Ps. Philosophy is not a science lol..

“Why” is a human construct that does not exist without an intelligent being to ask it..

“How” exists if you believe in to or not... if anyone is their to ask it or not..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Both "how" and "why" are human constructs and while philosophy is not a science, science is certainly a philosophy. By your own account, science should then be able to answer "why" questions.

 

[Angel]

You wouldn't know **** from clay and you know absolutely nothing about me, except that which I've permitted you to know. Furthermore, my post was relevant to the post I replied to, as well as being correct. So, run along troll and at least try to understand that which is being discussed before you run your cyber-mouth in future. Ok?

I repeat:

I got your number a long time ago, sir. Swear all you want and call me names, I got your number and you're not getting away with your phony-baloney superiority persona on my watch. Your post was and still is full of hot air.

Your post was, as most of your posts are, irrelevant. incorrect, and full of hot air. Shall we discuss this, or would you prefer to swear and call me names? I'm guessing the latter.

 

[Quag]

They prove that God exists.

No they dont

You have said over and over that these are not proofs, yet cannot explain why.

You reject their conclusions not because you reject the premises (which is absolutely fine to do) but because you claim the proofs are not in fact proofs, I asked you to prove that these are not proofs by examining the definition of a proof and seeing where they deviate from that definition, you have so far failed to do this.

I have explained why many times and I havent rejected the permises you seem fixated on the wrong things. I have stated the premises are unsupported. That dosent mean they are wrong or right just that there is no reason to accept them. As they are unsupported the arguments cannot prove anything. This is very basic logic

So what is it exactly? your jumping around here.

Do you disagree with the premises and the arguments are otherwise correctly formed or do you think that the arguments are themselves illogically formed?

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with a premise, that's fine but you've been saying more, you've been saying that no proofs have been presented.

What you're saying now is that proofs have been presented and you do not accept the premises, that's fine but it does not mean a proof has not been presented.

I want to add that there is a difference between a sound argument and a valid argument, I don't think you are clear on the distinction.

When you claim "no proofs have been presented for God" you are in fact saying that no valid arguments have been presented, if that's the case you have to show me where the invalid reasoning is.

When you claim that you do not accept a proof that's different, that means you regard that argument as valid but not sound, a sound argument is a valid argument where we also know the premises are true.

So which is it, is the argument from contingency or the Kalam cosmological argunment valid or invalid? sound or unsound?

Read what I posted and stop trying to dream up what I have said
All the proofs fail for the exact same reason and it isnt because I reject the premises it is because they are unsupported

 

[Quag]

I don't think that some people get that 'arguments' are neither evidence or proof.

They are confused about the meaning of proof they think "a proof" and "proof" are the same thing. They also fail to comprehend the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution

 

[ArtemisBarca]

Both "how" and "why" are human constructs and while philosophy is not a science, science is certainly a philosophy. By your own account, science should then be able to answer "why" questions.

The word is a human construct..

Cause and effect exist with our without people..

Why does not..

When doing a math problem or any form or any other form of experimentation you have to account for the how, you do not have to account for the why..

If you want to know how far a frog can or did jump you have to create variables to measure the frogs leg length, muscle strength, air pressure, humidity, gravity, exc...

Guess what you do not need a variable for???

Why is the frog jumping...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ArtemisBarca]

Point out the word play for us, counselor. Your word for it hardly passes muster with any but blustering Internet Skeptics.

“What ever must exist”..

What was that?? Line 2 lol.



Nothing MUST exist.. must is a relative term... nothing “must exist” in a vacuum.. I’ll try and keep going as I can’t jump back and forth mid reply.

Must requires you include an “if”..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Triton]

The word is a human construct..

Cause and effect exist with our without people..

Why does not..

When doing a math problem or any form or any other form of experimentation you have to account for the how, you do not have to account for the why..

If you want to know how far a frog can or did jump you have to create variables to measure the frogs leg length, muscle strength, air pressure, humidity, gravity, exc...

Guess what you do not need a variable for???

Why is the frog jumping...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cause and effect are also human constructs to logicalize events. Without a human-like observer, this concept would probably not exist.

 

[ArtemisBarca]

Point out the word play for us, counselor. Your word for it hardly passes muster with any but blustering Internet Skeptics.

“God can exist, so god must exist”

You have not established god can exist , and for damn sure have not sited the if statement that has to accompany “must”..

A) I doubt seriously science recognized a “law of thought” lol

B) saying what can exist, must exist is just laughable off the muscle..

Dragons can , exist . So dragons must exist..

You could have angel’s wings and a halo, so you must have them both..

That is less than toddler logic..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zyzygy]

“God can exist, so god must exist”

You have not established god can exist , and for damn sure have not sited the if statement that has to accompany “must”..

A) I doubt seriously science recognized a “law of thought” lol

B) saying what can exist, must exist is just laughable off the muscle..

Dragons can , exist . So dragons must exist..

You could have angel’s wings and a halo, so you must have them both..

That is less than toddler logic..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is the kind of logic that Interner Believers use.

 

[ArtemisBarca]

Proof of God

​

1. Whatever exists, can exist. (axiom: actuality implies possibility)
2. Whatever must exist, exists. (axiom: necessity implies actuality)
3. Whatever must exist, can exist. (axiom: necessity implies possibility)

4. If God exists, God must exist. (definition)

5. Either God must exist or God must not exist. (law of thought)
6. It is not the case that God must not exist. (negation of impossibility)
7. Therefore, God must exist. (from 5 and 6)

8. If God must exist, then God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
9. If God can exist, then God exists. (from converse of definition and 1)
10. God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
11. Therefore God exists. (from 9 and 10)

This is a modal argument in simple direct English answering the skeptical challenge to provide a proof of God's existence.
The author of the proof welcomes comment and good-faith engagement.​

​

You cannot know if god must not exist because you don’t have your if statement...

God must/must not exist IF “X” is true..

There could be variables in the universe that prove it was not created by a god..

Hence then god must not exist..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ArtemisBarca]

That is the kind of logic that Interner Believers use.

For sure..

Honestly I kinda think a toddler might call the OP out for being ridiculous.. lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk