Proof of God

[Sherlock Holmes]

You cannot infer something non physical from something physical.

Why not?

Black holes are part of the physical universe and inferred by physical evidence. They are not considered supernatural, as god is.

I never said they were supernatural.

 

[devildavid]

Why not?




I never said they were supernatural.

Because.

So why make a comparison with a physical thing inferring another physical thing? There is no legitimate comparison.

How does a physical thing infer a non physical thing? If you lose your keys and later find them where you don't expect them to be, do you infer that something supernatural moved them?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Because.

Because what?

So why make a comparison with a physical thing inferring another physical thing? There is no legitimate comparison.

Why not make the comparison? why is it not legitimate?

Unless you can prove that non-material cannot influence material you have no grounds for saying that I can't make the inference.

How does a physical thing infer (I think you meant "imply") a non physical thing? If you lose your keys and later find them where you don't expect them to be, do you infer that something supernatural moved them?

You've not answered my question (nothing new for you), so prove that the non-material cannot be inferred from the material? You cannot do that, so you therefore cannot claim that it's no legitimate to do this.

I infer a non-material agency as the cause for the presence of the material, for the existence of the material.

I do that because it is very rational, if we do not do that then we get either the material has always existed or we get the material caused itself to exist.

The latter is an absurdity so we're left with:

1. A non-material agency caused the material universe to exist.
2. The material universe has always existed.

Now given that science reveals cause and effect, things that happen have causes, then I find 1. to be intellectually more satisfying than 2.

You may prefer 2. and that's fine but we each choose either 1. or 2. a choice.

 

[Angel]

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

So you admit to the dismissals. Enough said.

 

[Individual]

Perhaps the argument from contingency or the Kalam cosmological argument.

I found nothing plausible in either.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I found nothing plausible in either.

So stuff like "everything that exists has a reason for its existence" is not plausible? really? this is the bedrock postulate of science, cause and effect, and you're abandoning this just because it might imply God?

 

[Individual]

So stuff like "everything that exists has a reason for its existence" is not plausible? really? this is the bedrock postulate of science, cause and effect, and you're abandoning this just because it might imply God?

Absolutely I agree it's very plausible to believe that everything that exists has a reason to exist.

Certainly you may imply that reason to be God, but proving it to be God is where we disagree.

I don't know hw many times I have to say this, I admit to being unable to prove God(s) do not exist but neither have I seen any reasonable/rational evidence presented proving God(s) do exist.

Something, yet to be known, IMO is responsible for all that exists and we are just beginning to learn about quantum physics, quantum vacuum, and virtual particles.

 

[Individual]

So you admit to the dismissals. Enough said.

Yes, dismissals, for reasons which you have constantly ignored.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Absolutely I agree it's very plausible to believe that everything that exists has a reason to exist.

Well you did say you found nothing plausible, so I wanted to get some clarity.

Certainly you may imply that reason to be God, but proving it to be God is where we disagree.

Sure, so will we agree if I say a non-material agency caused the universe to exist?

I don't know how many times I have to say this, I admit to being unable to prove God(s) do not exist but neither have I seen any reasonable/rational evidence presented proving God(s) do exist.

If we use - just for this discussion - the term "God" to represent the non-material agency that caused the universe to exist, does that mean that you would say there's evidence for God? if "God" is just the label for this agency?

Something, yet to be known, IMO is responsible for all that exists and we are just beginning to learn about quantum physics, quantum vacuum, and virtual particles.

Yes but quantum mechanics and other theoretical concepts from physics are still material, still have physical properties, you cannot rationally infer some as yet undiscovered material phenomena as the reason that there are material phenomena.

The existence of matter and energy is evidence of something, some event of some kind. But that event won't have been a material event because that would require the matter and energy to exist already.

 

[ArtemisBarca]

Well you did say you found nothing plausible, so I wanted to get some clarity.



Sure, so will we agree if I say a non-material agency caused the universe to exist?



If we use - just for this discussion - the term "God" to represent the non-material agency that caused the universe to exist, does that mean that you would say there's evidence for God? if "God" is just the label for this agency?



Yes but quantum mechanics and other theoretical concepts from physics are still material, still have physical properties, you cannot rationally infer some as yet undiscovered material phenomena as the reason that there are material phenomena.

The existence of matter and energy is evidence of something, some event of some kind. But that event won't have been a material event because that would require the matter and energy to exist already.

I’m pretty sure “has a reason to exist” means nothing..

“Having a reason” is not a specific claim..

No everything that does exist does not have a reason to exist....


Nature doesn’t have reasons for the things it does.. that is a human construct that does not exist without humans..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I’m pretty sure “has a reason to exist” means nothing..

“Having a reason” is not a specific claim..

No everything that does exist does not have a reason to exist....

Nature doesn’t have reasons for the things it does.. that is a human construct that does not exist without humans.

This word play is not going to help anyone, you can replace "reason" with "cause" if you wish or even "had a cause that is the reason it exists".

Someone else has said that nature doesn't do "why" but only "how" and I ask what's the difference?

Most scientific investigations in fact do ask "why" rather than "how" - for example why does the moon always show the same face toward the earth and why does a stick placed into water look bent and so on.

But having said this how did you establish that "nature doesn’t have reasons for the things it does"?

 

[devildavid]

This word play is not going to help anyone, you can replace "reason" with "cause" if you wish or even "had a cause that is the reason it exists".

Someone else has said that nature doesn't do "why" but only "how" and I ask what's the difference?

Most scientific investigations in fact do ask "why" rather than "how" - for example why does the moon always show the same face toward the earth and why does a stick placed into water look bent and so on.

But having said this how did you establish that "nature doesn’t have reasons for the things it does"?

And the explanations are always about how, not why.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And the explanations are always about how, not why.

No, the explanations are about why not how.

Of course this is silly because the explanation does not even use the terms "why" or "how" it is just an explanation.

 

[Triton]

"How" things work and "why" things work are semantically congruent depending on your interpretation of those two words - the question is whether you see "why"-questions as inquiries of metaphysical purpose or as a explorations of cause and effect.

The distinction is ultimately important. You could answer "why the universe exists" by saying "oh well, because the big bang happened" or it could be a question of its ultimate purpose. I think science is best at answering the concrete "why"-questions, whereas we must use philosophy to answer the metaphysical "why"-questions. For now.

 

[RAMOSS]

Do you really believe your worthless "arguments" are worth something?
Get5 a clue child

I don't think that some people get that 'arguments' are neither evidence or proof.

 

[Angel]

I don't think that some people get that 'arguments' are neither evidence or proof.

You apparently don't get that all proofs are arguments.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't think that some people get that 'arguments' are neither evidence or proof.

But a proof is an argument.

 

[RAMOSS]

But a proof is an argument.

But, only in math.

And, ontological arguments are not proof.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

But, only in math.

And, ontological arguments are not proof.

Is this the best you atheists can do here?

You've resorted to nit picking silly stuff like when to use "how" and "why" and now "proof" and "argument".

Many of you are fond making assertions yet fall silent when asked to explain yourselves.

For example I will now ask you to prove to me that ontological arguments are not proofs and you'll evade this one too!

 

[RAMOSS]

Is this the best you atheists can do here?

You've resorted to nit picking silly stuff like when to use "how" and "why" and now "proof" and "argument".

Many of you are fond making assertions yet fall silent when asked to explain yourselves.

For example I will now ask you to prove to me that ontological arguments are not proofs and you'll evade this one too!

Why, because none of the ontological arguments have premises that can be shown to be true. They are chosen to come to be predetermined conclusion, and can are just claims that must be taken on faith.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why, because none of the ontological arguments have premises that can be shown to be true.

Many arguments, particularly in science have premises which cannot be "shown" to be true so what's the big deal?

Furthermore why must a premise be proven to be true when such a proof will itself have premises!

They are chosen to come to be predetermined conclusion, and can are just claims that must be taken on faith.

Even if that were true, it doesn't matter in the slightest, why premises are chosen has no bearing on the validity of the argument; but I suppose you'd be happy to select premises that do not support your conclusion such is the silliness I see here.

But do go on, I'm sure you'll have another inane pointless little response.

 

[RAMOSS]

Many arguments, particularly in science have premises which cannot be "shown" to be true so what's the big deal?

Furthermore why must a premise be proven to be true when such a proof will itself have premises!



Even if that were true, it doesn't matter in the slightest, why premises are chosen has no bearing on the validity of the argument.

But do go on, I'm sure you'll have another inane pointless little response.

The big difference is that when it comes to results in science, the can be tested along the way. They start with actual data, and then make projections that can be tested. This is known as 'using evidence in support of an argument'.

The ontological arguments, not so much. All the steps are unverfiable, and along the lines of 'argument from assertion'. There is no verification and no tests along the way. That is not proof. That is , well, basically nonsense that fools grasp

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The big difference is that when it comes to results in science, the can be tested along the way.

Only some claims, for example show me the test for "The universe was not created 100,000 years ago, deliberately with the appearance of looking much older"? go on show me the test for this?

They start with actual data, and then make projections that can be tested. This is known as 'using evidence in support of an argument'.

Yes this is called the scientific method but rests on numerous unproven assumptions like the laws of physics have always been the same and so on, no possibility of "proving" these either they are assumed we've gone over this many times already.

The ontological arguments, not so much. All the steps are unverfiable, and along the lines of 'argument from assertion'. There is no verification and no tests along the way. That is not proof. That is , well, basically nonsense that fools grasp

I'm afraid there are question that cannot be evaluated by scientific testing, like I said already above; this is so obvious yet escapes the materialist mind all the time.

All arguments (yes shock horror including scientific ones) rest on assumptions, calling out arguments for God because they too assume things is useless.

You have faith in science, faith that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, faith that the laws will not jump around next year, faith that the universe is orderly and predictable, you cannot prove any of these things, you just use scientific induction to establish them.

Like it was pointed out scientific induction is actually the step of taking the unobserved and treating it as if it had been observed, for example if you drop a hammer tomorrow you claim it will fall but you cannot prove it will fall, the fact you have observed it hundreds of times is elevated as proof that it will fall tomorrow but you actually have no idea what it will do tomorrow until tomorrow.

 

[TypicalRussian]

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

wrong/

 

[RAMOSS]

Only some claims, for example show me the test for "The universe was not created 100,000 years ago, deliberately with the appearance of looking much older"? go on show me the test for this?



Yes this is called the scientific method but rests on numerous unproven assumptions like the laws of physics have always been the same and so on, no possibility of "proving" these either they are assumed we've gone over this many times already.



I'm afraid there are question that cannot be evaluated by scientific testing, like I said already above; this is so obvious yet escapes the materialist mind all the time.

All arguments (yes shock horror including scientific ones) rest on assumptions, calling out arguments for God because they too assume things is useless.

You have faith in science, faith that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, faith that the laws will not jump around next year, faith that the universe is orderly and predictable, you cannot prove any of these things, you just use scientific induction to establish them.

Like it was pointed out scientific induction is actually the step of taking the unobserved and treating it as if it had been observed, for example if you drop a hammer tomorrow you claim it will fall but you cannot prove it will fall, the fact you have observed it hundreds of times is elevated as proof that it will fall tomorrow but you actually have no idea what it will do tomorrow until tomorrow.

Why is that a valid question at all? YOu have to be screwed up in the head to think it.