Logical proof of a deistic "God"

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by martillo, Aug 6, 2017.

Page 2 of 5
  1. origin

    origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,890
    Yes, that is a baseless assumption, which led you to your baseless conclusion that there is proof of a God.

    If someone has faith in a God that is fine and I cannot prove that you would be wrong in your belief. But the 'logic' you put out was clearly flawed and in no way what so ever does it prove there is a God.
     
    origin, Aug 7, 2017
    #21
    Kristoffer likes this.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345

    Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Your not helping your cause with the above rambling

    I would like to keep addressing the issue and refrain from commenting on personal traits

    But it is a strain

    Really (in a nice way) find out a lot more about a lot more

    I will keep track of the thread but at the moment I will pull out before I over extend my 3 PING limit

    Best of luck with finding what ever it is your looking for

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Michael 345, Aug 7, 2017
    #22

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    If we assume that
    - particles obey the motions of the waving tail of a cosmic unicorn
    then it follows that
    - a cosmic unicorn exists.

    If we assume that
    - particles are pixie dist
    then it follows that
    - Tinkerbell is God.

    These are equally valid as the OP.
     
    DaveC426913, Aug 7, 2017
    #23
    origin likes this.

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. martillo

    martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    896
    No. Actually is about indirect evidence but not so silly as you try to show it.
     
    martillo, Aug 7, 2017
    #24
  8. origin

    origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,890
    It seems that your argument boils down to: There is order to the universe therefore there must be a God.

    The problem is that there is no evidence that there needs to be a God, or guiding hand, for this order.
     
    origin, Aug 7, 2017
    #25
  9. martillo

    martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    896
    I could take all of opinions of people here and I have a good understanding of your disagreement. I take it as the very probable response of the scientific community. Actually I didn't expect something different. Just curious about the criticism I could obtain. Thanks for that.
     
    martillo, Aug 7, 2017
    #26
  10. origin

    origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,890
    You're welcome.
     
    origin, Aug 7, 2017
    #27
  11. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    In quantum field theory, electric and magnetic forces are carried by "messenger particles" (photons), and are not action at a distance.

    Why can't this "universe supra-computer" that runs the physical laws of the universe just be ... the universe?

    What makes you think something extra is required? Why do you think there needs to be an "outside" input?

    This is called the argument from design.

    The same argument was assumed to hold in order to account for the diversity and complexity of life on Earth - right up until Charles Darwin came along with the idea of evolution by natural selection.

    Just because something looks designed, it doesn't mean that thing has a Creator behind it.

    What if there are many universes, all with different values of the physical constants, and we just happen to be in one that has the particular values we observe?
     
    James R, Aug 8, 2017
    #28
  12. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    Yes, my examples are more fanciful than yours but note the salient similarities:

    1] Pixie dust, cosmic unicorns and computers are all human inventions. It would be an astonishing coincidence if the universe were made of something that was not invented for another 14 billion years.

    2] They are all truisms. If we assume the thing that makes them true is true, then the thing must needs be true.

    Finally, I challenge your invocation of the term 'evidence'. I think what you have is an analogy.
    The Earth is like a spinning top. That is not evidence that the Earth is a spinning top.
     
    DaveC426913, Aug 8, 2017
    #29
  13. spidergoat

    spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Physical laws don't run the universe. They are man-made descriptions of physical behavior. Your argument is a classic argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. You can't conceive how it works, so you invent a universal supra-computer to explain it, while failing to explain the existence of a universal supra-computer.
     
    spidergoat, Aug 8, 2017
    #30
  14. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    I did not interpret the OP as failing to understand.

    I interpreted as seeing a system that has entities (particles) and rules of behavior (forces) and making the assumption that these things cannot act/interact without doing so within a framework to contain it and an engine to drive it.

    I guess that's the same thing as what you said.

    (Then again, I didn't make the leap right away that the OP is probably an ID proponent looking for fuel.)
     
    DaveC426913, Aug 8, 2017
    #31
  15. gmilam

    gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,531
    Shouldn't that be "cdesign proponetist"?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    gmilam, Aug 8, 2017
    #32
  16. river

    river

    Messages:
    17,307
    This being is biological .
     
    river, Aug 9, 2017
    #33
  17. martillo

    martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    896
    DaveC426913 wrote:
    Right.
    But it doesn't worth discuss anymore.
     
    martillo, Aug 9, 2017
    #34
  18. Michael 345

    Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Michael 345, Aug 9, 2017
    #35
    Beer w/Straw likes this.
  19. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Beer w/Straw, Aug 9, 2017
    #36
  20. Michael 345

    Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Looks like My Little Pony with a ident crisis

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Michael 345, Aug 10, 2017
    #37
  21. martillo

    martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    896
    Ironies, disdains, derisions... with some kind of humor of course.
    My more than ten years in forums let me know they sourge from silly people with lack of rationalism capabilities (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism). But very good sustaining what have learned whatever would be.
    Just following the same "humor" I would say they are good parrots...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I can't forget the always ending emoticon of course:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
    martillo, Aug 10, 2017
    #38
  22. Michael 345

    Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Are you familiar with Poe?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Michael 345, Aug 10, 2017
    #39
  23. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    The fact that you don't like the answers you're getting doesn't make them irrational.
     
    DaveC426913, Aug 10, 2017
    #40
    Michael 345 likes this.
Page 2 of 5

Share This Page