Proof of God

[Angel]

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.

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

 

[devildavid]

A Question of Character

Never Again.​

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

Thank you for repeating the clear cut evidence that I won the bet. You can pay up any time.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

More running away? my dear fellow you introduced the idea of "valid examples" of self evident things yet you are unable to tell us what constitutes valid, your response when probed is to make up some more smoke and mirror questions rather than answer what you were asked.

You want me to come up with an valid example of self evidence yet refuse to tell me what valid is?

Once again if you are able to distinguish valid and invalid examples of self-evidence then tell us what process you apply to determine this purported validity else I'll conclude that once again you're just waffling.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

The point is that you base your daily decisions on unprovable assumptions yet pretend you base them on facts, why are you doing this to yourself? I mean it's getting silly now Dave.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Incorrect. To quote Matt Dillahunty, "Faith is the excuse people give for believing when they don't have a good reason." If you have a good reason to be convinced of something, you give that reason. There's no need to appeal to faith when your belief is backed by evidence.

Unlike theism, science does not make proclamations of truth, it creates models that explain our current best understanding of the universe based on empirical evidence. Take the Big Bang Theory, for example. It doesn't claim to know what prompted the beginning of the universe, that the cause was or was not a god or even that there was a cause at all. It simply explains that, according to the evidence we've observed thus far, this is what happened. It could be (& likely is, in some way) wrong & is open to revision, but only in light of evidence that throws a wrench in the current model.

Nice scare quotes, by the way.

Everything I believe I have a good reason for, science and theism are ways of understanding.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

since theists claim to believe in a god "based on faith" -- necessarily absent of any evidence whatsoever.

How did you reason in order to reach the conclusion there's no evidence? what is the proposition that you believe there's no evidence for?

 

[Demoness]

How did you reason in order to reach the conclusion there's no evidence? what is the proposition that you believe there's no evidence for?

When I said "absent of any evidence whatsoever," I was referring to the definition of faith. I do not claim that there is no evidence at all, but that I haven't been presented with any sufficient enough to warrant belief in a god.

 

[Demoness]

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."

No. Lmao. Oh how I loathe the semantics tap dance. You're amazing at it, though, I'll give you that.

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.

Bolded is a claim. You have yet to demonstrate how reality existing points more towards a god than universe-creating pixies separate from God, or the cosmos, or literally anything else that you have not ruled out as a possibility. You're drawing a line between these things without demonstrating that such a line actually exists & what that line would entail.

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

Questions that Angel has yet to answer:

If you have a definition [of God], lay it on me.

In other words: What is your definition of God?

How did you determine it's impossible for a god to exist without needing to exist?

 

[devildavid]

The point is that you base your daily decisions on unprovable assumptions yet pretend you base them on facts, why are you doing this to yourself? I mean it's getting silly now Dave.

My daily decisions are based on things that are statistically consistent. I'm not starting new with assumptions every day, but statistically based facts that are consistent.

 

[devildavid]

Everything I believe I have a good reason for, science and theism are ways of understanding.

Theism is merely a belief in god(s). It does not help anyone understand anything, any more than atheism helps anyone understand anything.

 

[Individual]

Theism is merely a belief in god(s). It does not help anyone understand anything, any more than atheism helps anyone understand anything.

Atheism does not impede learning and/or understanding.

A belief founded on a belief remains a belief.

 

[Angel]

...Questions that Angel has yet to answer:

In other words: What is your definition of God?

Posted 50 times if posted once in this thread: God is the Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi (roughly the ground of all that exists)

 

[Angel]

This was the 10th argument posted in this thread, compliments of Sherlock Holmes:

Number 10

The Argument from Contingency


15 minutes well spent.​

I renew my challenge to the diffident skeptics among us: a dollar to a doughnut you cannot even tell us what the argument from contingency is, let alone engage it, let alone -- and this gets into your fantasy life -- answer or refute it!

 

[zyzygy]

How does theism help with understanding science?

 

[devildavid]

Posted 50 times if posted once in this thread: God is the Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi (roughly the ground of all that exists)

There is no such thing as the ground of all that exists, there is just all that exists. So no Latin phrase makes it so, just as no Latin phrase makes anything so. You can phrase it in Swahili if you like, but its intellectual weight does not change. It is not there, it is sleight of hand, a cheap parlor trick, as effective as snake oil. So no amount of preaching under the guise of philosophy makes it so, and treating philosophy as a religion does not amke it so. Philosphy is not answers, it is questions, and it none of the questions have been answered or ever will be.

 

[weaver2]

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.​

​

Why does all this matter? Those that want to believe in a God can believe; those that don't want to believe in a God don't have to. The only reason to post proof of God is to let others know they are wrong for not believing. And that's kinda mean spirited.

 

[Angel]

Why does all this matter? Those that want to believe in a God can believe; those that don't want to believe in a God don't have to. The only reason to post proof of God is to let others know they are wrong for not believing. And that's kinda mean spirited.

It matters not at all. But withal it matters a million times more than the pathetic pusillanimous loudmouth lunkhead atheist denial of God and degradation of theists, which if one is looking something to call "mean spirited" takes the cake.

 

[devildavid]

Why does all this matter? Those that want to believe in a God can believe; those that don't want to believe in a God don't have to. The only reason to post proof of God is to let others know they are wrong for not believing. And that's kinda mean spirited.

I wouldn't call it mean spirited. I'd call it preachy, condescending, and a demonstration of unwarranted intellectual arrogance.

 

[weaver2]

It matters not at all. But withal it matters a million times more than the pathetic pusillanimous loudmouth lunkhead atheist denial of God and degradation of theists, which if one is looking something to call "mean spirited" takes the cake.

It's been my experience that real atheists don't say much about God. They are pretty much live and let live sort of people. Those that are angry and loud are actually people that have been hurt by religion and are really anti religion not atheists.

 

[Daisy]

I wouldn't call it mean spirited. I'd call it preachy, condescending, and a demonstration of unwarranted intellectual arrogance.

Much like the atheists does, only I would add ridiculing and mocking to that...

 

[devildavid]

Much like the atheists does, only I would add ridiculing and mocking to that...

There is no preaching of atheism, as it is not a belief system. And believers do more than their fair share of mocking and ridiculing those of different religious beliefs as is evidenced in this very forum. Don't you have some fellow "christiians" to mock and ridicule?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

When I said "absent of any evidence whatsoever," I was referring to the definition of faith. I do not claim that there is no evidence at all, but that I haven't been presented with any sufficient enough to warrant belief in a god.

So rather than an absolute "there is no evidence" all you really meant is you personally haven't encountered anything that you regard as evidence.

Well so what? it is entirely reasonable to refuse to accept a claim if you haven't encountered evidence, what are you getting at here?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

My daily decisions are based on things that are statistically consistent. I'm not starting new with assumptions every day, but statistically based facts that are consistent.

So you have faith in things that are statistically consistent.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Theism is merely a belief in god(s). It does not help anyone understand anything, any more than atheism helps anyone understand anything.

So tell me then, what does "understand" mean to you?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Atheism does not impede learning and/or understanding.

A belief founded on a belief remains a belief.

Which is clearly something you believe.