Proof of God

[Demoness]

Your expression of faith in science is noted. Welcome to the forum. Hope to hear a lot from you.

Whether I have faith in science or not depends entirely on how you define faith. Theists tend to use a very different definition of faith for their religion, so let's be clear. If your definition of faith is synonymous with confidence, then your observation would be correct. But using the word faith in place of confidence in a discussion about religion muddies things, since theists claim to believe in a god "based on faith" -- necessarily absent of any evidence whatsoever. I have confidence in science's findings being as accurate as we can get to understanding the universe because this has been demonstrated countless times.

& thank you, glad to be here.

 

[Marrybore]

You think? You think had I called It the "Ineffable Prime Mover" there would have been more of a good-faith response from the usual suspects?

Perhaps there would have been. It doesn't sound as good as calling it "God", I know... but there'd be less people asking you things like, "Why do you believe in God and not Allah then?", and "Why is God necessary in the first place?"

 

[Angel]

Whether I have faith in science or not depends entirely on how you define faith. Theists tend to use a very different definition of faith for their religion, so let's be clear. If your definition of faith is synonymous with confidence, then your observation would be correct. But using the word faith in place of confidence in a discussion about religion muddies things, since theists claim to believe in a god "based on faith" -- necessarily absent of any evidence whatsoever. I have confidence in science's findings being as accurate as we can get to understanding the universe because this has been demonstrated countless times.

& thank you, glad to be here.

This thread is not about religion. Anyone posting on religion is in fact posting off-topic. This thread is about the grounds for a rational inference to the existence of God. I use faith in the common everyday usage, more or less synonymous with trust.

 

[Demoness]

This thread is not about religion. Anyone posting on religion is in fact posting off-topic. This thread is about the grounds for a rational inference to the existence of God. I use faith in the common everyday usage, more or less synonymous with trust.

Using the word faith in lieu of confidence/trust in a discussion about a god still muddies things, my point remains unchanged. Exhibit A:

Quag said,

I have no doubt you have your reasons to believe in God and the specific one you believe in particular but you have no evidence of God just faith.

& Sherlock replied,

Yes I accept that, but I also recognize (I never used to) that everything I believe about the world around me is based on faith in some way.

Then you came in to say I had faith in science, but the way faith was being used by all of us beforehand is different than the definition you just gave, so pardon my confusion. Trusting that the peer-reviewed findings of science are accurate is not the same as having Sherlock's definition of faith in God, but it is the same according to yours. This is why I specifically use faith to mean "believing without evidence". For the sake of me not tearing my hair out, I'd like for there to be a clear distinction.

 

[Angel]

Using the word faith in lieu of confidence/trust in a discussion about a god still muddies things, my point remains unchanged. Exhibit A:

Quag said,

& Sherlock replied,

Then you came in to say I had faith in science, but the way faith was being used by all of us beforehand is different than the definition you just gave, so pardon my confusion. Trusting that the peer-reviewed findings of science are accurate is not the same as having Sherlock's definition of faith in God, but it is the same according to yours. This is why I specifically use faith to mean "believing without evidence". For the sake of me not tearing my hair out, I'd like for there to be a clear distinction.

What Quag says is immaterial. What Holmes says is gold. There is evidence for the existence of God. I believe Holmes would agree. It is not blind faith. You are conflating religious doctrines about the nature of God and rational inference to the existence of God based on evidence. Moreover everything we know we believe we know -- this goes for science as well as the existence of God. All knowledge is belief, but only some belief is knowledge. There's an element of faith in all knowledge claims.

 

[Angel]

...

Here's the OP of an old thread where the distinction referred to in my last reply is drawn:

The God Question

The God Question involves two propositions that must be distinguished in any discourse that aspires to clarity:

Proposition One

That God is.

Proposition Two

What God is.


Proposition One goes to the question of the existence of God.
Proposition Two goes to the question of the nature of God.

In discourse on The God Question, the conflation of Proposition One and Proposition Two should be avoided for the sake of clarity.
The conflation of Proposition One and Proposition Two makes for incoherence in discourse.
Much of contemporary discourse on The God Question is incoherent.

This thread is devoted to the philosophical exploration of the distinction between Proposition One and Proposition Two.
...​

 

[Quag]

1. Experience teaches us that there is cause and effect, this is what scientific theories articulate - relationships - if temperature rises so does pressure, if current increases so does temperature, this is a characteristic of the universe that enables us to exert some control over nature.
2. Experience teaches that causes and their resulting effects are related but not identical, temperature is related to pressure - they are not the same - temperature is related to current - they are not the same.

These are frankly not controversial, science proceeds with these concepts as bedrock concepts, too obvious to need stating in all but the most abstract theoretical treaties, if you disagree with either of these (and you are entitled to) then you'll need to explain why we must abandon what are commonly regarded as self evident truths by most scientists.

Yes I accept that, but I also recognize (I never used to) that everything I believe about the world around me is based on faith in some way.

Some atheists make the error of thinking faith is only used when discussing God and belief in God and so on, they seem to think that "science" deals only with "facts" and that therefore science is intellectually more sound than "religion".

The fact is we rely on faith whichever world view we adopt, for me this was key discovering that science too rests upon faith and that ultimately there's no conflict whatsoever between "science" and "God".

With the bolded you are contradicting yourself
But regardless you are still ignoring that there is a difference between belief that is based purely on faith without any evidence to support it and belief based on evidence. when the evidence is overwhelming it is usually considered proof.
or instance I know I have 10 fingers (yes it could possibly be that I have 3 more in another dimension I cannot perceive but for all intents and purposes it is proven to me by looking at them, feeling them and counting them etc..

 

[devildavid]

What Quag says is immaterial. What Holmes says is gold. There is evidence for the existence of God. I believe Holmes would agree. It is not blind faith. You are conflating religious doctrines about the nature of God and rational inference to the existence of God based on evidence. Moreover everything we know we believe we know -- this goes for science as well as the existence of God. All knowledge is belief, but only some belief is knowledge. There's an element of faith in all knowledge claims.

Belief in god does not qualify as knowledge.

 

[devildavid]

Using the word faith in lieu of confidence/trust in a discussion about a god still muddies things, my point remains unchanged. Exhibit A:

Quag said,

& Sherlock replied,

Then you came in to say I had faith in science, but the way faith was being used by all of us beforehand is different than the definition you just gave, so pardon my confusion. Trusting that the peer-reviewed findings of science are accurate is not the same as having Sherlock's definition of faith in God, but it is the same according to yours. This is why I specifically use faith to mean "believing without evidence". For the sake of me not tearing my hair out, I'd like for there to be a clear distinction.

Your confusion is caused by Angel's word games. He ignores context and its impact on word meaning.

 

[devildavid]

You think? You think had I called It the "Ineffable Prime Mover" there would have been more of a good-faith response from the usual suspects?

Thank you for confessing to using the word god just to get responses when if you really wanted good faith discussion you would not have used the word god.

 

[Demoness]

There is evidence for the existence of God.

Great, then I'd love to see it, because the OP is not evidence. If Holmes has evidence for a god, by the way, then I have no idea why he conceded to having faith without evidence, also known as "blind faith". Perhaps it's simply the case that he needs to clarify what he means.

You are conflating religious doctrines about the nature of God and rational inference to the existence of God based on evidence.

Where did I mention anything about the nature of God? Nothing I've replied to has any mention of the nature of God, either. I haven't seen a definition of God in this thread despite the fact that what constitutes as evidence for a God depends on what God is. If you have a definition, lay it on me.

There's an element of faith in all knowledge claims.

We can't be absolutely certain of anything, so I agree. But the problem is that when people try to prove a god exists, they fail because their argument is fallacious &/or their proposed evidence is not demonstrable.


To actually reply to the OP:

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)

How did you determine it's impossible for a god to exist without needing to exist? I will agree that, as far as we can know, something we may call a god existing is not impossible. But just because we cannot assert that the existence of a god is impossible doesn't mean we are warranted to believe a god exists without demonstrable evidence.

 

[Angel]

Great, then I'd love to see it, because the OP is not evidence. If Holmes has evidence for a god, by the way, then I have no idea why he conceded to having faith without evidence, also known as "blind faith". Perhaps it's simply the case that he needs to clarify what he means.

Where did I mention anything about the nature of God? Nothing I've replied to has any mention of the nature of God, either. I haven't seen a definition of God in this thread despite the fact that what constitutes as evidence for a God depends on what God is. If you have a definition, lay it on me.

We can't be absolutely certain of anything, so I agree. But the problem is that when people try to prove a god exists, they fail because their argument is fallacious &/or their proposed evidence is not demonstrable....

You didn't use the phrase "the nature of God," but in talking about religion or religious faith, you're talking about the nature of God. The 1001 religions of the world all offer stories about the nature of God or Transcendental Reality. The question of the existence of God is a separate and distinct question, and answers to this question best avoid assumptions about the nature of God as far as possible.

The evidence for God's existence is all around you and within you:

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.


Inference to the Best Explanation

In making this inference one infers, from the fact that a certain hypothesis would explain the evidence, to the truth of that hypothesis. In general, there will be several hypotheses which might explain the evidence, so one must be able to reject all such alternative hypotheses before one is warranted in making the inference. Thus one infers, from the premise that a given hypothesis would provide a "better" explanation for the evidence than would any other hypothesis, to the conclusion that the given hypothesis is true.

Inference to the Best Explanation

 

[devildavid]

Great, then I'd love to see it, because the OP is not evidence. If Holmes has evidence for a god, by the way, then I have no idea why he conceded to having faith without evidence, also known as "blind faith". Perhaps it's simply the case that he needs to clarify what he means.


Where did I mention anything about the nature of God? Nothing I've replied to has any mention of the nature of God, either. I haven't seen a definition of God in this thread despite the fact that what constitutes as evidence for a God depends on what God is. If you have a definition, lay it on me.


We can't be absolutely certain of anything, so I agree. But the problem is that when people try to prove a god exists, they fail because their argument is fallacious &/or their proposed evidence is not demonstrable.


To actually reply to the OP:

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)

How did you determine it's impossible for a god to exist without needing to exist? I will agree that, as far as we can know, something we may call a god existing is not impossible. But just because we cannot assert that the existence of a god is impossible doesn't mean we are warranted to believe a god exists without demonstrable evidence.

Angel never tires of this game. He uses the word god and has his own definition for god. His definition causes him to beg the question in his so called proof. He defines god as the only thing that is necessarry. Without this definition, his so-called proof falls apart. It is classic begging the question. He conflates describing god with religious belief yet he claims religious belief is not necessary to know there is a god. But he refuses to say what this god is except for something he has already defined as necessarry. And you just go rround and round in circles.

 

[Angel]

Angel never tires of this game. He uses the word god and has his own definition for god. His definition causes him to beg the question in his so called proof. He defines god as the only thing that is necessarry. Without this definition, his so-called proof falls apart. It is classic begging the question. He conflates describing god with religious belief yet he claims religious belief is not necessary to know there is a god. But he refuses to say what this god is except for something he has already defined as necessarry. And you just go rround and round in circles.

Gas attack.

A Question of Character​

That's another fair question -- whether the existence of God is a separate and distinct question from that of the nature of God. If it doesn't seem intuitive to you, perform this thought experiment: If God does not in fact exist, then the 1001 stories about God offered by the 1001 religions of the world are wrong -- fictions merely. On the other hand, if God does in fact exist, and if the 1001 stories about God offered by the 1001 religions of the world are in fact wrong about God, God would still exist despite the fictions.

Your last sentence broaches a different question, however: whether the existence of God can be determined without knowing the nature of God. I don't think there is a choice here. I can infer God's existence based on the objective existence of the universe, but except as the logical inference from the evidence I can infer nothing about God's nature except that God must be capable of generating a universe.

You missed a choice. If god does not exist, everything about god is a fiction.

That wasn't missed. It's in the post. You missed it.

No, I didn't. It isn't there.

Wanna bet?

Sure. How much?

If it's there, you reply "Angel, you were right, I was wrong."
If it's not there, I reply in the same way substituting devildavid for Angel.

Ok, its a bet.

I've bolded both what you claim isn't there and what is there above in the quoted posts.

Cool, I won the bet.

So you renege on the bet. I see. It's been a question of character all along, hasn't it? Well, our exchanges of posts end here, mister. From now on, if you presume to reply to a post of mine, if I respond at all I'll be quoting the above character-revealing exchange. Good riddance to you, sir.

Never Again.​

https://www.debatepolitics.com/beli...ciple-sufficient-reason-4.html#post1071915313

 

[Demoness]

You didn't use the phrase "the nature of God," but in talking about religion or religious faith, you're talking about the nature of God. The 1001 religions of the world all offer stories about the nature of God or Transcendental Reality. The question of the existence of God is a separate and distinct question, and answers to this question best avoid assumptions about the nature of God as far as possible.

N... No. I'm not, actually. I explained the typical usage of faith in that context, that's all. I made no claims or implications of what you or anyone defines as "the nature of God," because even followers within the same denomination will disagree on the nature of God. That's why I asked for your definition. I don't know why you're so hung up on that bit, but you seem to be doing everything you can to avoid even describing attributes of the god you believe in, so I have no earthly idea how you expect to ever prove one exists.

The evidence for God's existence is all around you and within you:

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.

This is meaningless rhetoric. You've stated a bunch of claims without supporting them with any evidence. You say reality (or "a Stupendous Given") points to God, but how did you determine this? Precisely what about the fact that reality seems to exist to us is evidence that God is the best explanation for it? Oh, & you've yet to answer why God must exist if he exists at all & how you reached that conclusion. Simply inferring something is the case does not make it so or even likely to be so, you need to demonstrate that this is the case.

Angel never tires of this game. He uses the word god and has his own definition for god. His definition causes him to beg the question in his so called proof. He defines god as the only thing that is necessarry. Without this definition, his so-called proof falls apart. It is classic begging the question. He conflates describing god with religious belief yet he claims religious belief is not necessary to know there is a god. But he refuses to say what this god is except for something he has already defined as necessarry. And you just go rround and round in circles.

If I don't get answers to my questions then ight I'm boutta head out, because there's no point in continuing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Angel]

N... No. I'm not, actually. I explained the typical usage of faith in that context, that's all. I made no claims or implications of what you or anyone defines as "the nature of God," because even followers within the same denomination will disagree on the nature of God. That's why I asked for your definition. I don't know why you're so hung up on that bit, but you seem to be doing everything you can to avoid even describing attributes of the god you believe in, so I have no earthly idea how you expect to ever prove one exists.

No, you're talking about religion from the getgo, and if you're talking about religion, you're talking abour stories about the nature of God whether or not you use the phrase "the nature of God." Here is your initial reply to me:
Here's your initial post:

Whether I have faith in science or not depends entirely on how you define faith. Theists tend to use a very different definition of faith for their religion, so let's be clear. If your definition of faith is synonymous with confidence, then your observation would be correct. But using the word faith in place of confidence in a discussion about religion muddies things, since theists claim to believe in a god "based on faith" -- necessarily absent of any evidence whatsoever. I have confidence in science's findings being as accurate as we can get to understanding the universe because this has been demonstrated countless times.

This is meaningless rhetoric. You've stated a bunch of claims without supporting them with any evidence. You say reality (or "a Stupendous Given") points to God, but how did you determine this? Precisely what about the fact that reality seems to exist to us is evidence that God is the best explanation for it? Oh, & you've yet to answer why God must exist if he exists at all & how you reached that conclusion. Simply inferring something is the case does not make it so or even likely to be so, you need to demonstrate that this is the case.

I'm sorry you feel this way. The evidence is the universe, life on Earth, and consciousness. Are these "claims" to you? God is the only adequate explanation of these phenomena. The inference to God is an inference to the best explanation.

If I don't get answers to my questions then ight I'm boutta head out, because there's no point in continuing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You got answers to your questions. If you are dissatisfied eith these answers and wish to "head out," then Godspeed, pilgrim.

 

[devildavid]

Gas attack.

A Question of Character

Never Again.​

https://www.debatepolitics.com/beli...ciple-sufficient-reason-4.html#post1071915313

I see you still can't see that I obviously won the bet. Do you ever let go of your word games and communicate directly and sincerely instead of playing your role of schoolmarm/teacher?

 

[Angel]

...
To actually reply to the OP:

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)

How did you determine it's impossible for a god to exist without needing to exist? I will agree that, as far as we can know, something we may call a god existing is not impossible. But just because we cannot assert that the existence of a god is impossible doesn't mean we are warranted to believe a god exists without demonstrable evidence.

The OP offers a modal ontological argument in plain English. The word "must" throughout translates the modal operator "necessarily." The definition of God is based on the contingent-necessary distinction in philosophy. If a necessary being is not impossible, then it exists. That's the argument in a nutshell.

 

[Angel]

You think? You think had I called It the "Ineffable Prime Mover" there would have been more of a good-faith response from the usual suspects?

Perhaps there would have been. It doesn't sound as good as calling it "God", I know... but there'd be less people asking you things like, "Why do you believe in God and not Allah then?", and "Why is God necessary in the first place?"

This is no doubt true. But do you think these same conceptually-challenged people will be able to make anything of an "Ineffable Prime Mover"?

 

[devildavid]

The OP offers a modal ontological argument in plain English. The word "must" throughout translates the modal operator "necessarily." The definition of God is based on the contingent-necessary distinction in philosophy. If a necessary being is not impossible, then it exists. That's the argument in a nutshell.

Philosophy has never established anything about god. All you have is your own preferred definition. Take that away, and your so-called argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[devildavid]

This is no doubt true. But do you think these same conceptually-challenged people will be able to make anything of an "Ineffable Prime Mover"?

Sounds like brand of laxative to me.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, everything is not based on faith in some way. Some things are based on knowledge.

Please give an example.

The things based to some degree on faith have to do with human behavior and relationships.

What is "human behavior"?

Most of what we rely on to stay alive and function every day is based on knowledge we gain in various ways through our physical and sensory experiences.

Yes that's true yet you have faith that the universe will always behave predictably because you cannot "know" this will be true tomorrow until tomorrow.

As for empirical knowledge you already know because I've mentioned it before that the scientific method relies on inductive reasoning where we take the known and assume it also applies to the unknown that assumption is an act of faith a belief.

You cannot do an experiment on earth and "know" that the same experiment carried out a billion light years away would give the same result, you cannot know the outcome of an unperformed experiment you can only have faith that it will.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Come up with the example first, and we'll go from there.

This is another vacuity David, you claimed that there are "valid" examples of self evident things. You said I had no "valid" examples of these.

You may be right but unless I know how you evaluate this "validity" I can't tell can I?

If you cannot tell me how to determine "validity" (your term) then by definition it's just something you made up, in your head, that cannot be explained.

You profess to know so much about knowledge and facts yet when pressed we see that your position is vacuous, there's nothing there, you cannot tell us what "validity" means with respect to self-evident things.

At this stage your process seems to be "Tell David and he'll tell you if its valid or not" which requires me to have faith in you, why would you ask me to have faith in you?

 

[devildavid]

Please give an example.



What is "human behavior"?



Yes that's true yet you have faith that the universe will always behave predictably because you cannot "know" this will be true tomorrow until tomorrow.

As for empirical knowledge you already know because I've mentioned it before that the scientific method relies on inductive reasoning where we take the known and assume it also applies to the unknown that assumption is an act of faith a belief.

You cannot do an experiment on earth and "know" that the same experiment carried out a billion light years away would give the same result, you cannot know the outcome of an unperformed experiment you can only have faith that it will.

Duh, what is human behavior. Gee, I don't know, maybe how humans behave.

Wow, what stunning insights. We can't do something a a billion light years away. Who knew? We can't know the results of experiments that we can't do. How did you figure that one out? Do you have any real point here. Or more pseudo-philosophical mush?

 

[devildavid]

This is another vacuity David, you claimed that there are "valid" examples of self evident things. You said I had no "valid" examples of these.

You may be right but unless I know how you evaluate this "validity" I can't tell can I?

If you cannot tell me how to determine "validity" (your term) then by definition it's just something you made up, in your head, that cannot be explained.

You profess to know so much about knowledge and facts yet when pressed we see that your position is vacuous, there's nothing there, you cannot tell us what "validity" means with respect to self-evident things.

At this stage your process seems to be "Tell David and he'll tell you if its valid or not" which requires me to have faith in you, why would you ask me to have faith in you?

Come up with an example of something self-evident and we will discuss it.