Proof of God

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, everything is not belief just like everything is not knowledge. Do you know the difference between the two?

Do you or do you not believe what you just wrote above?

 

[devildavid]

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?

I don't subscribe to any tenets of scientism, if such things even exist.

 

[devildavid]

Do you or do you not believe what you just wrote above?

I know what I wrote. I can see it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If something is relative, it cannot be a proof.

Why not?

 

[devildavid]

Why not?

Because.

 

[devildavid]

Another vacuous, meaningless, pointless little post.

You get what you give.

False, you gave nothing yet you got your own existence, life, awareness.

This has nothing to do with your original post and my reply.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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."

This is illogical, you cannot claim that an answer to a question must be false if it leaves scope for further questions. Every explanation in the sciences leads to further unanswered questions, Lennox knows this but pseudo scientists like Dawkins do not.

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.

Again it is an explanation, if not then the claim that the universe has always existed in some form also explains nothing yet Dawkins and many other espouse this view of cosmology.

God is eternal. If something can be eternal, why not the universe God supposedly created?

And vice versa - if the universe can be eternal why cant a creator God be eternal?

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?

Yes but when people claim the universe is eternal we are expected to accept it as a rational possibility yet the claim that God is eternal is somehow taken to be irrational by some.

The situation is though that if the universe is eternal then it has no scientific explanation, it exists without cause, no laws led to it coming to exist, which is the antithesis of science, science has been used to discover that science explains nothing, this is not knowledge it is the opposite.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What makes something self evident?

The answer to that is: God.

 

[devildavid]

The answer to that is: God.

That is not an answer to that at all. What makes something self evident? Give an example, if that would help.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't subscribe to any tenets of scientism, if such things even exist.

How many tenets don't you subscribe to? you must know this in order to be certain you don't subscribe to any of them.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That is not an answer to that at all. What makes something self evident? Give an example, if that would help.

It is an answer, prove that it is not an answer, can you?

 

[devildavid]

How many tenets don't you subscribe to? you must know this in order to be certain you don't subscribe to any of them.

If i don't know them, how could I possibly subscribe to them? What tenets of Zoroastrianism do you subscribe to?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If i don't know them, how could I possibly subscribe to them? What tenets of Zoroastrianism do you subscribe to?

Really? so you don't know what the tenets of scientism are yet you are certain you do not subscribe to any of them?

So how do you know you don't subscribe to any of the tenets of scientism, say by sheer coincidence?

Clearly you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[zyzygy]

629 pages and still no proof of a god.

 

[devildavid]

Really? so you don't know what the tenets of scientism are yet you are certain you do not subscribe to any of them?

So how do you know you don't subscribe to any of the tenets of scientism, say by sheer coincidence?

Clearly you do not know what you are talking about.

What tenets of Zoroastrianism do you subscribe to?

How can I subscribe to something that I don't know about? Or more likely something that is just the fabrication of those who try to label others who disagree with them?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What tenets of Zoroastrianism do you subscribe to?

I subscribe to the tenet of monotheism.

How can I subscribe to something that I don't know about?

You can't but you can subscribe to something that others also subscribe to despite the fact that you don't know they subscribe to it.

Or more likely something that is just the fabrication of those who try to label others who disagree with them?

Your coming off the rails David, you sure hate it when your shallowness is exposed don't you.

 

[Angel]

629 pages and still no proof of a god.

"Stout fellow! Give 'em the old razzle-dazzle!"​

 

[Angel]

629 pages and still no proof of a god.

Yet Another Argument That Goes Unchallenged
(For zyzygy)

WILLIAM PALEY

THE WATCH AND THE WATCHMAKER

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

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

629 pages and still no proof of a god.

630 pages and still no refutation of several proofs of the existence of God.

 

[Triton]

That is not an answer to that at all. What makes something self evident? Give an example, if that would help.

I would say any position that is only further fortified by attempted refutation is self-evident. For example, any attempt to refute your own consciousness only confirms its existence.

 

[devildavid]

I would say any position that is only further fortified by attempted refutation is self-evident. For example, any attempt to refute your own consciousness only confirms its existence.

That leads to the dead end of solipsism, not anything self-evidenct.

 

[devildavid]

I subscribe to the tenet of monotheism.



You can't but you can subscribe to something that others also subscribe to despite the fact that you don't know they subscribe to it.



Your coming off the rails David, you sure hate it when your shallowness is exposed don't you.

Monotheism is not a belief with any tenets nor is it a tenet itself.

So how can you be sure you don't unknowingly subscribe to the tenets of any other religions in the world?

Your ad hominem attack demonstrates who is really going off the rails.

 

[Triton]

That leads to the dead end of solipsism, not anything self-evidenct.

It doesn't. Consciousness is just one example. There may be other things which are equally self-evident, which would theoretically allow you to construct a very rigorous framework for how you should process reality.

 

[devildavid]

It doesn't. Consciousness is just one example. There may be other things which are equally self-evident, which would theoretically allow you to construct a very rigorous framework for how you should process reality.

Consciousnesses is not self evident.

 

[Triton]

Consciousnesses is not self evident.

How is it not self-evident?