Proof of the existence of God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jason.Marshall, Jan 16, 2015.

  1. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The things you consider facts and logic are in fact neither.

    The nose on my face doesn't fall off thanks to a number of factors; materials and forces. I thank the protein collagen for keeping my cells together, and nuclear forces for keeping atoms together. I have to acknowledge my immune system for defending my nose from attack by fungi and bacteria, and gravity for keeping it all on Earth where it doesn't get frozen off.

    Flippancy is not a logical fallacy, it's simply an irreverent attitude towards that which others consider sacred. I value it highly.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Pachomius:

    It's probably because their opponents so often try to sneak in unwarranted assumptions and thereby assume what they are trying to prove. The atheists are often better logicians and so won't let the theists get away with underhanded tactics. It's understandable that some theists get upset about that.

    It actually isn't up to the atheists to define what God is. If you say God exists, then it is up to you to provide a working concept of God. The atheists' job is to try to dismantle the edifice that you build, showing that your concept of God is illogical, ridiculous, untenable, or whatever.

    You're making the extraordinary claim. It's up to you to substantiate it. Put in some effort. The atheists can't do all your thinking for you.

    It seems to me that the kind of agreement you want is for the atheists to roll over and say "Ok, you win. God does exist after all." Anything short of that gets the "flippancy" label.

    ---
    I might add that there are some very specific and well publicised concepts of God available in the marketplace of ideas, some of which have been mentioned above. We could, for example, consider the God of the bible (or perhaps the God of the Old Testament, who seems a bit different from the God of the New Testament). Or we could consider the Allah of the Qur'an, or Zeus from the Greek pantheon, or Odin the Norse god, or Shiva. If you'd like to discuss the possibility that any of these specific gods is (or isn't) the creator of the universe, we could do that. If you'd prefer to discuss a different god (e.g. your own preferred conception of God), we could do that, too, although you'd probably have more explaining to do to flesh out your concept.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Isn't this like the third or fourth time you've posted pretty much this exact same message?

    You get a response you don't like and just back to posting it again.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    It is not anti-knowledge but anti-unsupportable-belief.
    It IS founded on facts and logic, which is why when the facts run out we do not make up new ones for the sake of it, nor do we claim to know what we do not, and hence why many of us conclude: "we do not know".
    You may not like that as an answer. But it is an answer that is founded on "facts and logic".
    Which book would that be? Lord of the Rings? Ender's Game? War and Peace? Pride and Prejudice? Ian Botham's autobiography?
    Petty questions? You think interrogating your position is to ask "petty questions"? You have done nothing to show that you even understand your own position. You have done nothing to show how it is based on actual facts and valid logic, rather you seem to be deriving rather sweeping "facts" by using examples that can not possibly be applied validly to the generalisation you argue from.
    We ask questions of your position, and now you accuse us, amongst the rest of the accusations you casually hurl at atheists, of asking "petty questions".

    And rather than even attempt to answer any of these petty questions (for being "petty" you must have answers speedily available) you instead just press your reset button and start all over again, deeming people "incompatible" for discussion with you.

    If you want to make claims, for @&%$'s sake support those claims, stand by those claims, and defend them not by ignoring the criticisms (as you have so far almost exclusively done) but by actually having the decency, the courtesy, to answer those questions.
    The only stubborn refusal here is yours in not actually responding to criticism of your position but instead just resetting and repeating, ad nauseam it seems, the same questions, the same position.
    The explanation I would give is that it is due to weak and strong nuclear forces, electromagnetic force, and gravitational force, brought together in our nose in a combination arrived at through evolution.
    If you want to ask what is the ultimate explanation of those, there is nothing phoney about simply saying that I don't know. On the contrary, it is the height of arrogance to assume that you do know, especially where you are unable, as in your case it seems, to show the proof.
    That is indeed what you claim.
    Now prove it.
    You have not yet done so.
    If you define God as that which does X, then to argue that because X happens therefore God exists - as your current argument is akin to - is to beg the question. It is invalid logic.
    If all you do is repeat the same claim and the same argument without addressing the fallacy you commit then you are just trolling.
    Reset...
    Repeat...

    And the great Wheel of Drivel turneth once more.
     
  8. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    I don't recall you replying intelligently to anything that we've written. You've never made any serious response to anything that any of us say.

    What you do, over and over, is try to pose as if you are the board's professor, giving "you atheists" (you rarely interact with us individually, that seems to be something very difficult for you) assignments, questions that you demand people answer. When we do, you never respond directly to our answers and you never answer the questions that we put to you. Instead you address your imaginary audience, telling it that we are "flippant", or that we fail to "think on facts and logic". In other words, you talk to yourself. Then the whole thing recycles to the beginning and you give "the atheists" a new assignment. It gets annoying after a while.

    I don't recall writing anything in this thread that wasn't serious.

    In post #323, you threw out one of your assignments: "So dear atheists, just for the sake of an experiment in thought, what is your concept of God?"

    In post #331, I responded by giving a detailed account of what I take the word 'God' to mean. There wasn't a hint of flippancy in that post. I think that my reply was quite fair and accurate, and expect that most theists would agree with it.

    If you disagree with anything that I wrote in post #331 or in any other post, please tell us what it is. I even tried to elicit a response from you, by saying that your own "creator and operator of everything with a beginning" seems seriously deficient as a God concept. That's because it doesn't directly address God's supposedly being a 'person', because it ignores the moral and soteriological dimensions of theism, and because it says nothing about God's being holy, about God being the one and only suitable object for religious passion.

    And there you go, recycling the thread back to the beginning, back to your presenting an initial question, rather than you engaging in conversation with us, following up on our replies to your earlier questions.

    Why don't noses fall off faces? That's probably due to the mechanical properties of biological materials. The strength of those materials is able to resist the forces that gravity exerts on the mass of our bodies.

    But that's neither here nor there. Physical questions about the mechanical properties of noses are qualitatively very different kinds of question than the question of why existence exists in the first place.

    If you think that you can perceive any factual or logical defect in anything I write, I invite you to try to plausibly challenge it. State specifically what you think the defect is, why you think it's a defect, and what you would say instead.

    My pointing out that human beings don't know the answer to the ultimate question of why reality exists at all, that we don't even know what a satisfactory answer would look like or how to go about finding it, isn't even remotely flippant. Nor is it false humility. I'd call it intellectual realism.

    If you are convinced that you know the what answer is to the ultimate question of why reality exists, then by all means, tell the rest of humanity what the 'secret of the universe' is. Try to make your explanation as plausible as you can make it. (I don't believe that you can do it.)
     
  9. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    James R, I have a reply to your words, but first I will present my piece for today.


    Okay, atheists and kindred personalities, let us effect a joiner, tell me what is your concept of God; not that I am into getting you to admit the existence of God, but just to see whether you can think on facts and logic.

    You see -- if you don't then you are hopeless, to be logical you have got to know what is the concept of God a theist is advocating Which God he knows with certainty to exist.

    So, as you can read and understand, this is the concept of God from yours truly:

    In concept God is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

    So, as you deny God exists, then if you care to get into a joinder with me which is logical from your part, then you also take up the concept of God from me, and you prove that there is no entity corresponding to that concept of God, and I from my part will prove to you from facts and logic that there is certainly existing an entity in concept the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

    That is the way of logic for you to be an atheist for, otherwise it is all dodging.


    Now, if you care to effect a joinder with me on facts instead of on logic, then you look up a fact that is the best rebuttal for the existence of God, in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

    That is what I want you to learn, to think on facts and logic.

    First, to be logical you must get to come to a joinder with your opponent in the exchange of thoughts.

    Secondly, if you want to concentrate on facts to effect a joinder, then choose a fact by which God is effectively rebutted in regard to His existence, owing to the actual reality of the existence of your fact, which invalidates altogether any concept of God by which man understands God to be the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

    But the way of atheists is to not effect any joinder at all, but to dodge and to engage in all kinds of flippancy.

    Bertrand Russell taught you flippancy of the kind by comparing God to ridiculous fictions like an orbiting teapot in space.

    This man is a model of flippancy when he goes against God, unlike Antony Flew who was an atheist but never of the flippant type; he followed where evidence leads; and finally the evidence became overwhelming, and he went public announcing that he has come to enough evidence to admit the existence of God in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

    But he never converted to any theistic religion, because he could not accept that religion and God need to be linked together.

    Sad that atheists so many follow the flippancy of Russell and not the example of Antony Flew.

    Let you oh atheists today be different from Russell, think on facts and logic, and not to be engaged in flippancy of whatever sort, that only shows to intelligent and insightful fellow humans that you have nothing in your heart and mind except flippancy, and that is your worse defense of whatever claim you have to being rational in your self-identity as an atheist.


    Now to James R:

    "It's probably because their opponents so often try to sneak in unwarranted assumptions and thereby assume what they are trying to prove. The atheists are often better logicians and so won't let the theists get away with underhanded tactics. It's understandable that some theists get upset about that."


    The accusation goes either ways depending upon the accuser.

    Tell me, if you have been reading my posts, where do I sneak in an assumption?
     
  10. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Your assumption is that a God exists.
     
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    If only Pachomius would share with us his concept of God, then we could get somewhere in this discussion.
     
    Sarkus likes this.
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    We know the concept of God that you, the theist, is advocating.
    We have known from the outset. We have asked you to present your argument for claiming that this God exists... The "proof" suggested in the thread title. You have offered nothing. We have waited. We do wait. We undoubtedly shall continue to wait.
    We know this already, given you have penchant for just repeating it over and over again.
    Get on with your actual argument.
    Please?
    Yes, we do, as we have already said we do for the purposes of this discussion. Why do you keep repeating it and not actually move on with your argument?
    No, we have no need to prove that there is no entity corresponding to that concept of God. It is solely for you to show that there is. If you can not, that is the end of the matter, irrespective of what we can show or not.
    Now, if some atheists among us held the view that this concept of god does not exist, then the onus on them would be to prove it as you suggest.
    But the majority of us here do not make such a claim, we merely claim that you can not prove it, that your concept of God can not be proven.
    That is at least what you keep saying, yet in 200+ posts you have made reference to a few noses not falling off faces! a few babies being caused by their parents... And that is it. Nothing else. No logical argument that has not already shown to be fallacious, fallacies that you have failed to address.
    You mean admitting "I don't know" is dodging?
    Do you think it better to have a wrong answer than to say "I don't know"?
    Plus I am not sure you understand what atheism is: it is not the claim that God does not exist, it is merely lack of belief in the existence of gods.
    There are no facts that rationally support either the existence of God or the non-existence of God.
    You assume that God exists a priori, and if you find the world to be in the situation it would if that God existed then you claim that the facts of that situation support your concept of God. This is nothing but question begging on your part.
    After all, if God does not exist and we exist then our existence is itself evidence that God does not need to exist, and it would prove your concept of God non-existent.
    But it would also be a case of question-begging, and as equally invalid.
    Your arrogant tone is not only unwarranted but laughable, given that it is you who has failed to "think on facts and logic" throughout the drivel that you post.
    Nonsense. To be logical one must merely reach valid conclusions from whatever propositions you begin with.
    One does not need to do that either... One must merely show why your position is not valid, not supportable, flawed. The other position is one of "I don't know... But you can't prove to me that you are correct".
    Yet the most open people in this thread have been the atheists. They have shared their concept of God, they have taken time to examine your posts and provide counters to them, to show you where they think you have erred in your thinking.
    And all you do is shove it back in their faces by resetting your position.
    No, he offered an analogy to highlight a specific aspect of the theistic position, not with regard the nature of the God in which those theists believe.
    Your blinkered vision is apparent once again.
    Anthony Flew caved in to fallacious logic in the end, to personal incredulity.
    He had no more evidence at the end than he did at the start of his life, where he could control the power his personal incredulity had over him. Yet toward the end he let it dominate his position. And as such he caved in to fallacious reasoning.
    Irrelevant to the topic in hand.
    Ah, so anyone who disagrees with your position is guilty of flippancy?
    You have accused Russell of such already: you accused him of such in his debate with Copleston. I called you out on that and have asked you to indicate where in that debate he became flippant.
    Please do so or retract your accusation. He is not here to defend himself, and so I must ask you to defend your accusation.
    Verbosity, flippancy, pomposity... which word are you going to discover in the dictionary next time to accuse atheist of?

    All I see here, all I read from you, Pachomius, are the rantings of an immature mind who has no intellect capable of actually defending the drivel that you spout. You want to sound intelligent, you write in a manner that tries to place you above the atheists, yet it is a lofty position built of an empty mind, constructed out of pixie dust, wishful thinking, and hopeless logic.

    If you're going to continue posting your drivel, at least do so with respect. Your unintelligent content is one thing, but the manner in which you write is starting to irritate a number of people, and thus you do not help yourself.
     
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Double post.
     
  14. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Given the evidence of your earlier posts, I don't think that you are in any position to grade other peoples' ability to "think on facts and logic". What you need to do is demonstrate that you are able to do it yourself.

    That's an awfully dry and philosophical definition. It leaves out God's personal, moral and soteriological qualities, to say nothing of whatever it is that makes God an object of religious passion and worship. It doesn't seem to me to be what most theists have in mind when they use the word 'God'.

    Although your proposed definition of 'God' seems deficient to me, let's agree to accept it for the sake of discussion.

    I don't feel any need to do that. I don't even think that such a proof is possible. (I'm an agnostic regarding the big metaphysical questions.) I do think that some proposed answers are much more plausible than others, but plausibility isn't proof.

    If you can, which I strongly doubt. I expect to find errors in facts and logic in your argument, should you ever present one.

    Until you present your argument, you would seem to be the one who is dodging.

    I'll ask a few questions instead:

    Why should we assume that everything with a beginning has a 'creator' and an 'operator'?

    How do 'creator' and 'operator' differ from 'cause' (in physics' efficient cause sense) and from the so-called 'laws of physics'?

    Why should we imagine that a single being is 'creator' and 'operator' of everything with a beginning, instead of different 'creators' and 'operators' in different cases?

    Why should we assume that the same kind of account that applies to particular events inside a universe applies to universes as a whole (especially if we define 'universe' to mean 'everything that exists)?

    Stop playing games. You aren't the board's professor. You aren't even remotely qualified for that role.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2015
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    What exactly is the definition of troll?
     
  16. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,231
    No idea, though i have been called it a few times.

    Anyone?
     
  17. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219

    For the purpose of debate that is the proposition.

    And that is what we are into, to prove the proposition from facts and logic.

    Now, what is your proposition as an atheist?

    That God does not exist?

    And how do you plan to prove the proposition from yourself?

    You will tell me, you don't have to prove anything because you are not into affirming anything; but still you have to explain how you came to the certainty of there being no God.

    And also you will tell me that it is impossible to prove a negative proposition, that is where you are in gross error.

    Do something reading and thinking on facts and logic, what is the peculiar nature of a negative proposition; consider that you cannot write a thesis much a dissertation on a negative proposition.

    And also do some reading and thinking on facts and logic, what is the meaning of burden incumbent upon the prop0nent of a claim.

    At all costs, believe me, no human in possession of an active mind can proceed with arbitrariety on adopting any proposition at all, be it an affirmative one and neither a negative one: it is his office as a rational entity to be in possession of an explanation for any side of a question, be it the affirmative side and also the negative side.
     
  18. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Here is my oft-repeated concept of God: God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.
     
  19. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    What is the evidence for my concept of God? The fact that the universe began to exist 13.8 billion years ago, and also your nose is not falling off uncertainly.
     
  20. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    Considering how much you talk about facts and logic, Pachomius, it's amazing how little of both can be found in your posts.
     
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I can't prove God doesn't exist. There could be a God. I am not certain there isn't one. But I'm an atheist because I don't believe there is a God. No one has given me sufficient reason to think there is a God. And my own thinking on the subject has not come to that conclusion.

    I don't think your proposal is sufficient reason to believe there is a God.

    There is the problem of your concept, things that begin to exist require a cause. This rule is derived from observation of things that already exist. In our universe, cause and effect seem to describe interactions between particles of matter and energy. But what about before there was matter and energy? Can a rule derived from observation of something which already exists be applied to something which doesn't yet exist? Don't all causes require time and space in which to occur? Do noses tell us anything about the imaginary space and time before noses were possible? It is still possible that some special things do not have causes. There is some reason to think that is possible, due to the study of quantum physics. We already know that there can be something called quantum entanglement, where particles, such a photons, seem to be linked irrespective of distance. This is a situation that violates common sense (the "nose on your face" principle, which is roughly similar to what physicists call the "principle of locality"). Therefore, we can conclude that the "nose on your face" principle is false. Common sense principles that seem to be true in our common experience have been empirically proven false when applied to the way the universe fundamentally works.

    Even if I assume for the moment that your assumption is correct, that things which begin do require a cause, we cannot conclude that cause is God. Creating a concept is not the same thing as proving the concept. For example I could say, "Ghosts are the cause of all hiccuping.". Do you hiccup? Yes? Well, that is proof of ghosts. While the existence of hiccups fits my concept of their cause, it doesn't really prove the concept is correct. Defining God as the cause doesn't show that God is the cause.

    It's possible you are right. But if I show that it's also possible you are wrong, atheists win, because showing something is possible isn't the same as showing something is likely or true.



    I will check back in tomorrow, to see if you are able to grasp this simple lesson in facts and logic. If so, perhaps I will deem you worthy of further instruction, I know such things are often beyond the abilities of most theists, who don't value (or understand) reason but rather faith, the belief in things in the absence of evidence.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2015
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    spidergoat

    No

    Have we not got past this reasoning and then the following logic

    Time is not required , time is irrelevant

    The essence of the cause is based on the matter of the cause , at that time
     
  23. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    The age of the universe being 13.7 billion years and the fact that the nose on my face doesn't fall off isn't proof of God.

    It's simply proof that the universe has been around for 13.7 billion years and that I have stable facial features.

    To you food on the table is proof of God. Everything is proof of God. However, it is no more (or less) proof of God than it is for any other concept someone could come up with including Santa Claus being the creator and operator of the universe or the creation and "operation" of the universe having non-supernatural causes.
     

Share This Page