Proof of God

[devildavid]

How is it not self-evident?

You can't observe it in others.

 

[Triton]

You can't observe it in others.

One's own consciousness then. I thought we were past this.

 

[devildavid]

One's own consciousness then. I thought we were past this.

Self-evident refers to things that all can agree on. We can only know our own consciousness, not that of others. Therefore, not self-evident.

 

[Triton]

Self-evident refers to things that all can agree on. We can only know our own consciousness, not that of others. Therefore, not self-evident.

Subjective consciousness is then self-evident, in which non-conscious individuals would become objects.

 

[devildavid]

Subjective consciousness is then self-evident, in which non-conscious individuals would become objects.

Some people see others as objects. So is it really self-evident?

 

[Triton]

Some people see others as objects. So is it really self-evident?

I'm curious, is anything self-evident in your book?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

Monotheism is a tenet of Zoroastrianism, what evidence do you have to the contrary?

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

Why would I care if some of my beliefs overlap with others? when did this pointlessness become important to you?

Recall that it was you who said you don't subscribe to the tenets of scientism, I asked which ones and you said "all of them" I asked how many are there and you evaded that question - see this vacuous reply of yours.

In a strenuous effort to evade polite yet direct questions, you have tried to derail the discussion, you have no idea how many tenets there are within scientism yet you are confident you subscribe to none of them!

You wrote "I don't subscribe to any tenets of scientism".

I'm afraid you really do believe in scientism, unless you can tell me which aspects of it you disagree with I see nothing wrong my analysis here.

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

Your posts are often vacuous, shallow and unhinged, if this assessment of you upsets you then what of it?

Had you answered the question "Which tenets of scientism don't you subscribe to" (a polite, simple, reasonable question), rather than evading it and waffling and so on my estimate of you might have been different.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm curious, is anything self-evident in your book?

Let's see if David cares to answer your question, he is a slippery one...

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Self-evident refers to things that all can agree on. We can only know our own consciousness, not that of others. Therefore, not self-evident.

Self evident means that no proof is necessary to recognize a proposition as true, I do not need proof that I am, it is self evident.

This does not become no longer self evident simply because some other person demands proof, I do not suddenly doubt my own existence just because you ask me to prove it to you!

 

[Individual]

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?



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

I wasn't attempting to make a scientific statement.

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?

We wouldn't be having this discussion if it was provable, would we?

Yes it has.

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.



Yes, it is an inference using the same reasoning as we use within science, causes are the reasons for effects.

The answer to your question is yes, hypothetically. Then the task of proving the hypothesis true begins.

 

[Individual]

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



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?



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.



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.



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



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?

The problem I found with this thread is that it BEGINS with the necessity of a belief that a God being/entity factually exists in order to reach the conclusion of "Therefore God exists".

Basically it starts with the word God defined as the only explanation for the creation of the Universe, though that is not shown at the beginning.
It cannot be proven that God does not exist, therefore God "MUST?" exist or God is "NECESSARY"?
The Universe exists, self evident.
Therefore God exists.

And that is why I've asked,

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?


Naturally occurring change by creation and destruction are constantly taking place, without the necessity of God(s).

 

[devildavid]

Monotheism is a tenet of Zoroastrianism, what evidence do you have to the contrary?



Why would I care if some of my beliefs overlap with others? when did this pointlessness become important to you?

Recall that it was you who said you don't subscribe to the tenets of scientism, I asked which ones and you said "all of them" I asked how many are there and you evaded that question - see this vacuous reply of yours.

In a strenuous effort to evade polite yet direct questions, you have tried to derail the discussion, you have no idea how many tenets there are within scientism yet you are confident you subscribe to none of them!

You wrote "I don't subscribe to any tenets of scientism".

I'm afraid you really do believe in scientism, unless you can tell me which aspects of it you disagree with I see nothing wrong my analysis here.



Your posts are often vacuous, shallow and unhinged, if this assessment of you upsets you then what of it?

Had you answered the question "Which tenets of scientism don't you subscribe to" (a polite, simple, reasonable question), rather than evading it and waffling and so on my estimate of you might have been different.

Monotheism is not a tenet, it is a description of a belief.

More ad hominem crap. It is ineffective. I don't know that this thing you call scientism is actually anyjing more than something made up for people like you to label people like me. There is no such thing as official tents of scientism and you don't seem to understand what a tenet is. Bur since you are the one who uses the word scientism you should be able to list all the tenets and we can go through them to see if I believe in them without being aware that I believe in them, another false assumption that believers have about non-believers.

 

[devildavid]

Let's see if David cares to answer your question, he is a slippery one...

I refuse to play your childish gothca word games.

 

[devildavid]

Self evident means that no proof is necessary to recognize a proposition as true, I do not need proof that I am, it is self evident.

This does not become no longer self evident simply because some other person demands proof, I do not suddenly doubt my own existence just because you ask me to prove it to you!

Self-evident has nothing to do with proof. Self-evident is a made up term and varies by whatever aims the user has.

 

[Marrybore]

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.



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.



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



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.

It's not an argument against God's existence, exactly, but you have to remember that the claim that God is eternal and that nothing created Him does not have any proof.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I wasn't attempting to make a scientific statement.

In which case science is not the only way to acquire knowledge because that itself is a belief so belief is necessary.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if it was provable, would we?

Your inability to understand a proof is not proof that there is no proof. Furthermore your unwillingness to accept some of the proofs presented does not prove there are no proofs.

The answer to your question is yes, hypothetically. Then the task of proving the hypothesis true begins.

Hardly because the question itself is predicated on a proof not being possible - reread it.

I mean how dim are people here? I asked "can one write down a true proposition that cannot be proven to be true?" and you reply "The answer to your question is yes, hypothetically. Then the task of proving the hypothesis true begins."

FFS.

 

[Triton]

I mean how dim are people here? I asked "can one write down a true proposition that cannot be proven to be true?" and you reply "The answer to your question is yes, hypothetically. Then the task of proving the hypothesis true begins."

FFS.

It's because they don't have

DIVINE INTELLECT

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

David,

What is the meaning of this signature "Remember Bowling Green! Remember Atlanta! Remember Sweden!"?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Monotheism is not a tenet, it is a description of a belief.

More ad hominem crap. It is ineffective. I don't know that this thing you call scientism is actually anyjing more than something made up for people like you to label people like me. There is no such thing as official tents of scientism and you don't seem to understand what a tenet is. Bur since you are the one who uses the word scientism you should be able to list all the tenets and we can go through them to see if I believe in them without being aware that I believe in them, another false assumption that believers have about non-believers.

I see so doing some research, finding out what "scientism" is generally accepted to represent, identifying specific "tenets" (it was you who introduced this term to our discussion) and counting the number of them that you do not personally believe is too much effort.

All words David are "something made up".

Anyway since cowardice seems to be the modus operandi adopted by you, I will quote a definition of "scientism" your task is very simple indeed, tell me which aspects of it you do not agree with.

This is from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like “merely”, “only”, “simply”, or “nothing more than”. Scientism restricts human inquiry.

I can only conclude laziness as the motivation for you not finding this yourself, the effort was approx 45 seconds of my time.

also we have this from Wikipedia

Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, implying a cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I refuse to play your childish gothca word games.

Let me translate "I refuse to answer some questions honestly if doing so appears to weaken my position as observed by others".

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Self-evident has nothing to do with proof. Self-evident is a made up term and varies by whatever aims the user has.

FFS are you serious? David "term" is a made up f*****g term, as are "self" and "evident" and "proof" and "made up term".

Here's a set of definitions of self-evident David:

a self-evident proposition is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof

What does “self-evident” mean? According to Jefferson and other prominent thinkers of his time, such statements as “all Men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights’ are obviously true. Such statements do not require proof. The “truths” are held to be unquestionable and beyond debate, since their truth is said to be obvious. They can be stated without elaborating or defending them. These ideas were very familiar to Jefferson and the other authors and editors of the Declaration. They were also very familiar to most Americans of the time.

A fact or situation that is self-evident is so obvious that there is no need for proof or explanation.

Obviously true, and requiring no proof, argument or explanation.

It seems to me that you've made up your own definition of the term "has nothing to do with" and that it differs from the meaning every other person on earth associates with it!

:doh

 

[Individual]

In which case science is not the only way to acquire knowledge because that itself is a belief so belief is necessary.

Who said science is the ONLY way to acquire knowledge?

Your inability to understand a proof is not proof that there is no proof. Furthermore your unwillingness to accept some of the proofs presented does not prove there are no proofs.

What has been pointed out numerous times is that some of the OP premises are fallacious, requiring the belief in the conclusion in order to accept the premises true, without question.

Hardly because the question itself is predicated on a proof not being possible - reread it.

I thought you'd like that answer, as it's quite fitting to this thread.

I mean how dim are people here? I asked "can one write down a true proposition that cannot be proven to be true?" and you reply "The answer to your question is yes, hypothetically. Then the task of proving the hypothesis true begins."

FFS.

How would we know that it cannot be proven true, or false, without trying?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Who said science is the ONLY way to acquire knowledge?

You did write this, which prompted this line of discussion:

What better way exists of acquiring useful knowledge about the world we live in than science?

but never mind, lets press on...

What has been pointed out numerous times is that some of the OP premises are fallacious, requiring the belief in the conclusion in order to accept the premises true, without question.

Premises are regarded as true because it is rational and reasonable to do so, if they lead to a conclusion then that's to be expected; the fact that some premises leads to a conclusion you do not approve of is simply because you assume the premises are not true.

 

[zyzygy]

Still no proof of a god.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Still no proof of a god.

Still no letup in denying something that's been proved.