Proof of God

[NWO_Spook]

you should take it serious because I am AWESOME

No, you are boring and not very erudite.

 

[TypicalRussian]

No, you are boring and not very erudite.

how so?

 

[NWO_Spook]

how so?

Run along now, I'm done with your crap.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

People have claimed to be abducted by aliens and we cannot say that their claims are a lie or a fabrication with any certainty, but people are understandably sceptical owing to the extraordinary nature of their claims.

Of course and I respect that, skepticism is prudent.

But devildavid did not express skepticism, he said "God has not been observed in any way" how does he know? of course he does not, he is making an assertion that he cannot prove, a luxury he believes others should never be permitted.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and theist claims simply lack sound evidence. All the so-called classical philosophical arguments are fallacious, despite the many failed attempts to demonstrate otherwise and anecdotal evidence has little merit.

Well I avoid such phrases, so far as I'm concerned there are axioms/assumptions and there are deductions or inferences, the application of logic and empirical reasoning are all that we can leverage here and I think all claims should be treated in the same way whether some regard them as "extraordinary" or not is not important.

If we told people 500 years ago that one day we'd talk in real-time across thousands of miles they'd describe that as extraordinary, but is it? depends who you are and what your existing knowledge is, some of us find the claim that Christ was God (for example) as not extraordinary just as you and I don't regard the claim about radio conversations as an extraordinary one.

The very act of describing something as extraordinary arises from personal attitudes, personal world views, there's no objective way to say if something is or is not extraordinary.

No, evolution hasn't failed any 'tests'.

How do you know?

 

[TypicalRussian]

Run along now, I'm done with your crap.

mean.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Of course and I respect that, skepticism is prudent.

But devildavid did not express skepticism, he said "God has not been observed in any way" how does he know? of course he does not, he is making an assertion that he cannot prove, a luxury he believes others should never be permitted.

I'm not talking about David. There is no evidence that a god has been observed that anyone could consider reliable.

Well I avoid such phrases, so far as I'm concerned there are axioms/assumptions and there are deductions or inferences, the application of logic and empirical reasoning are all that we can leverage here and I think all claims should be treated in the same way whether some regard them as "extraordinary" or not is not important.

I think whether it is extraordinary or not is pertinent as it is indicative of plausibility, and as some theistic claims are indeed 'extraordinary' (such as virgin births and resurrections from the dead), they require a certain level of credible evidence, not just ancient hearsay.

If we told people 500 years ago that one day we'd talk in real-time across thousands of miles they'd describe that as extraordinary, but is it? depends who you are and what your existing knowledge is, some of us find the claim that Christ was God (for example) as not extraordinary just as you and I don't regard the claim about radio conversations as an extraordinary one.

The comparison is invalid when examined with the claims previously mentioned.

The very act of describing something as extraordinary arises from personal attitudes, personal world views, there's no objective way to say if something is or is not extraordinary.

Virgin births and Zombies rising from the dead are indeed extraordinary events and that is not a subjective evaluation-they do not happen. One cannot simply dismiss the description of theistic claims as 'extraordinary' as 'subjective' because one simply wants to.

How do you know?

I'll leave it to you to fulfil your burden of proof on your claim that it has failed tests. As far as I know, it hasn't and is considered to be a valid theory If you claim it fails certain tests, then it is your responsibility to demonstrate thus, not for me to prove evolution right.

 

[NWO_Spook]

mean.

You may see it that way, but I don't indulge in stupid conversations.

 

[Quag]

Just because you are not accepting any of these proofs does not mean that they are failed at all, you don't seem to understand that for some proposition to be proved does not require you to personally accept it.

Accepting or rejecting the conclusion is not relevant to them failing as proofs, they fail as proofs because there is no reason to accept the premises.

Nobody here cares what you believe but when you or others post irrational claims about what's proven and what's not I will challenge you.

Your irrational claim that these worthless "arguments" prove God are illogical and show a deep misunderstand of what a proof is.

 

[Individual]

To which I respond that IMHO God too has been proven, several proofs have been presented in this thread.

Which one of the several proofs do you find to be the strongest?

 

[Angel]

...Virgin births and Zombies rising from the dead are indeed extraordinary events and that is not a subjective evaluation-they do not happen. One cannot simply dismiss the description of theistic claims as 'extraordinary' as 'subjective' because one simply wants to....

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.

 

[Angel]

No, you are boring and not very erudite.

Unlike you who are so clever and erudite, yes? Have you ever come across Ibsen's The Wild Duck in your pretensions to erudition?

 

[Angel]

Which one of the several proofs do you find to be the strongest?

That's a question you should be answering, among others you've avoided.

Here are five arguments. Let's see you engage even one of them:

Three Arguments
Three Proofs
Three Appeals to Reason


6.​

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.

7.​

1. If God does not exist, his existence is logically impossible.

2. If God does exist, his existence is logically necessary.

3. Hence, either God’s existence is logically impossible or else it is logically necessary.

4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.

5. The concept of God is not contradictory.

6.Therefore, God’s existence is logically necessary.[/B]

The Necessity of God’s Existence: Ontological Arguments Worth Considering

8.​

1. If the universe were eternal and its amount of energy finite, it would have reached heat death by now.

2. The universe has not reached heat death (since there is still energy available for use).

3. Therefore, (b) the universe had a beginning.

4. Therefore, (c) the universe was created by a first cause (God)[/B]

The Necessity of God’s Existence: Ontological Arguments Worth Considering

Number 9

WILLIAM PALEY

THE WATCH AND THE WATCHMAKER

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

Number 10

The Argument from Contingency


15 minutes well spent.​

 

[Individual]

I'm not talking about David. There is no evidence that a god has been observed that anyone could consider reliable.


I think whether it is extraordinary or not is pertinent as it is indicative of plausibility, and as some theistic claims are indeed 'extraordinary' (such as virgin births and resurrections from the dead), they require a certain level of credible evidence, not just ancient hearsay.


The comparison is invalid when examined with the claims previously mentioned.


Virgin births and Zombies rising from the dead are indeed extraordinary events and that is not a subjective evaluation-they do not happen. One cannot simply dismiss the description of theistic claims as 'extraordinary' as 'subjective' because one simply wants to.


I'll leave it to you to fulfil your burden of proof on your claim that it has failed tests. As far as I know, it hasn't and is considered to be a valid theory If you claim it fails certain tests, then it is your responsibility to demonstrate thus, not for me to prove evolution right.

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.

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.

 

[Individual]

That's a question you should be answering, among others you've avoided. Here are five arguments. Let's see you engage even one of them:

I have answered that I found no strength in ANY of them. I, and others have made numerous attempts to engage you in each of them to no avail.

 

[Angel]

I have answered that I found no strength in ANY of them. I, and others have made numerous attempts to engage you in each of them to no avail.

Dismissal is not engagement. Engage one of them, and let's see why you "found no strength" in it.

 

[Individual]

Dismissal is not engagement. Engage one of them, and let's see why you "found no strength" in it.

Go back and engage any of the reasons given for the dismissal of the premises presented to result in your drawn conclusion.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm not talking about David. There is no evidence that a god has been observed that anyone could consider reliable.

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

I think whether it is extraordinary or not is pertinent as it is indicative of plausibility, and as some theistic claims are indeed 'extraordinary' (such as virgin births and resurrections from the dead), they require a certain level of credible evidence, not just ancient hearsay.

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

Virgin births and Zombies rising from the dead are indeed extraordinary events and that is not a subjective evaluation-they do not happen. One cannot simply dismiss the description of theistic claims as 'extraordinary' as 'subjective' because one simply wants to.

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.

I'll leave it to you to fulfil your burden of proof on your claim that it has failed tests. As far as I know, it hasn't and is considered to be a valid theory If you claim it fails certain tests, then it is your responsibility to demonstrate thus, not for me to prove evolution right.

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.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Accepting or rejecting the conclusion is not relevant to them failing as proofs, they fail as proofs because there is no reason to accept the premises.

Prove to me please that these are not proofs. For example the argument from contingeny, the subject discussed by Russell and Copelston, prove to me that that is not a proof. If you cannot prove that then why do you insist on claiming it over and over and over? Do you believe things that cannot be proven?

Your irrational claim that these worthless "arguments" prove God are illogical and show a deep misunderstand of what a proof is.

So educate me, explain what a proof is, go on...

It seems to that a proof in your world is an argument who's conclusion you like and if we get a conclusion that you don't like then you react "Ahh, but that's not a proof!".

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Which one of the several proofs do you find to be the strongest?

Perhaps the argument from contingency or the Kalam cosmological argument.

 

[Quag]

Prove to me please that these are not proofs? for example the argument from contingeny, the subject discussed by Russell and Copelston, prove to me that that is not a proof. If you cannot prove that then why do you insist on claiming it over and over and over? Do you believe things that cannot be proven?

They are failed proofs because there is no evidence to support the premises.

So educate me, explain what a proof is, go on...

a
: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b
: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

Proof | Definition of Proof by Merriam-Webster

We are talking about B here and with regards to these failed proofs presented in this thread., Since the premises they are based upon are not supported they all fail as proofs

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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



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



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.



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.

My sentence

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

should have been:

They're extraordinary until one expands their worldview, accepts the possibilities, the presence of the universe is extraordinary, not explicable, yet there it is - it does exist and far too many people here regard it as not extraordinary.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

They are failed proofs because there is no evidence to support the premises.





Proof | Definition of Proof by Merriam-Webster

We are talking about B here and with regards to these failed proofs presented in this thread., Since the premises they are based upon are not supported they all fail as proofs

Very good, so we're dealing with "b":

the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

So we have two things here:

1. derivation from other statements
2. principles of reasoning

Now from where I'm sitting I don't see a problem, for example the argument from contingency or the Kalam cosmological argument, each of them satisfies the above definition.

So why do you keep claiming these are not proofs?

My opinion is that for you at least a proposed proof is labeled as not a proof when you dislike the conclusion.

 

[Quag]

Very good, so we're dealing with "b":



So we have two things here:

1. derivation from other statements
2. principles of reasoning

Now from where I'm sitting I don't see a problem, for example the argument from contingency or the Kalam cosmological argument, each of them satisfies the above definition.

So why do you keep claiming these are not proofs?

My opinion is that for you at least a proposed proof is labeled as not a proof when you dislike the conclusion.

I said they are failed proofs because they fail to prove anything.
You are fixated on the form and ignoring the content
By your "logic" an argument with false premises can prove something because it has the right form

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I said they are failed proofs because they fail to prove anything.

They prove that God exists.

You are fixated on the form and ignoring the content.

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.

By your "logic" an argument with false premises can prove something because it has the right form

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?

 

[devildavid]

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



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



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.



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.

You cannot infer something non physical from something physical. Black holes are part of the physical universe and inferred by physical evidence. They are not considered supernatural, as god is.