Proof of the existence of God

So when we talk about God, what are we talking about, if not the origin of the material world.
Show me a debate where the God that is being debated is not such understood to be the God of the Bible in character and attributes?

If however, the God you are discussing is a being that can be arbitrarily defined to suit ones discussion tactics, then I apologize, as I am in the wrong place.

If you wish to discuss 'God' with me, then know that I am using the God of any scripture where God is defined.

If God does not exist, then we don't exist. This is not my personal idea, it is based on any scriptural description of God (all which define Him as the original cause/creator). Seattle said ''imagine a world without God''. Which God do you think he was referring to?

It's not fallacious. God is defined as the original cause/creator by all major scriptures, and subsequent religions. So if this being does not exist, there can be no effect/creation. Whether it is my belief, or claim, it stands to reason. Deal with it.

I don't know what you're talking about.
Religion is simply how we live our life, as every action sets up a reaction.
People like Jesus come to the planet to show people (by example) that this world is not the be all end all.

I don't have to claim it, or even believe it, to understand that. I only have to read it.

If this world isn't the be all end all, and we're not aware of our real identity, due to our thinking this is all there is, then our actions still count, whether or not we believe in God.
As such the living entity must still be acting in some capacity. That action constitutes ''religion'', our way of life.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why are they?

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then perhaps you should stop committing the fallacy?
Did you also make the same expression every time your teacher marked your homework as being wrong?

Unfortunately your response is very much contingent upon your belief: if you do not believe in God you do not make claims such as "A world with no God, means no ability to imagine, and a world where imagination exists is a world with God."
True, God either exists or God does not. You believe God does exist. Hence you make the claims you do. Unfortunately you can't support your position with anything other than question-begging / circular arguments.

No, it's not. His claim starts with no assumption of God's existence, nor of it being a requirement for our existence. Yours is entirely predicated on your belief such that you are apparently unable to entertain a notion of God not existing without dismissing everything you believe God to be responsible for.

Not really. A universe where the creator is factually apparent would require rather different laws of physics - including the notion of the universe being closed.

I am responding to the words you write: the logical conclusion of them is that you have claimed God's existence as fact.
Are you not able to see this in what you have said?
So let me reiterate your logic:
A) Imagination exists (claimed fact). Heck, let's just agree that it is a fact.
B) A world where imagination exists is a world with God (claimed fact). This is you claiming something as true - i.e. claiming something as fact
From A and B: God exists (claimed fact).
The logic is inescapable. Deal with it.

I, and undoubtedly many others, are fed up with you constantly denying what you have logically implied, denying it simply on the grounds that we have applied some deductive reasoning to your words, rather than stop at the specific words you use.
It is you who should man-up and admit to what you have actually said, even if it is not what you have meant to say.
If you say that a+c = 3, and that a = b, then it is true to say that you have said that b+c = 3. You, on the other hand, would keep bleating that you have not said it

All very nice, but utterly irrelevant as we are using the definition you have given: "the initial cause". So thanks for the red herring.

Okay - I define Squuble as the cause of your existence.
Hence, according to you, Squuble must exist simply because you exist.
Defining something does not mean it exists, even if it is defined as the cause of all that exists. That definition could simply be wrong, or of something that simply does not exist. Unfortunately your belief in the existence of God seems to preclude you from possibly contemplating that notion. You are trapped in circular logic and the pitiful thing is that you appear utterly blind to it.

It IS fallacious - it is the very epitome of circular reasoning: you define something that is necessary for existence and thus claim it to exist because we exist. How much more circular can you get???
I'm not surprised you don't recognise it as such, though, as you haven't done no matter how many times over the past number of years you have been advised of it. So why should you change now.

No, religion is not simply how we live our life. Go and look up what religion is. You seem now to be watering down its meaning so as to be so banal as to be meaningless.
If you think religion is "simply how we live our life" then every animal has religion, or do they not "live their life"? And all you have effectively said is the tautological and ultimately pointless: "it is natural to humans to live their life". Well dur! Go to the top of the class for that stunning insight.

And?

Indeed, "it is natural to humans to live their life".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your efforts to mask your drivel in some semblance of coherence are truly pathetic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was in response to this claim... JBrendonK, Imagine a world in which it is a fact that there is no God. Now look at our world and it looks the same as that world you just imagined.

So again, you tell me which God he is referring to. If he was referring to the original cause/creator of the material world, then my point is valid.
If he is not, then he must define what he means by 'God'.

If he is making no assumption of God' existence or not, then why did he ask us to imagine a world with no God, without giving a definition of God?
Mine is simply taking the concept of God a little further, to show him that if God exists, we cannot imagine, because we wouldn't exist.

If he maintains, like you, that God can be whatever one wants him to be. Then like I said before, I'm in the wrong discussion.

He said ''imagine a world with no God'', then he goes on to conclude that this world IS the one you just imagined. He is the one who made a claim, I simply attempted to broaden that view.

We are talking about God. Sarkus. Not Squbble.
God has character and attributes, even if He is fictional. It is a pointless exercise to 'imagine a world without God' if you don't account for them.

I'm not arguing with him, I'm taking what he said, further. He was the one who as to imagine a world without God. Which in and of itself is claim to know who and what God is.
You should take him to task on his logical assumption, as you obviously cannot grasp mine

Like I said, you aren't capable of grasping what I'm saying, because of how your mind operates. You're too stiff. Lighten up.

Don't be stupid Sarkus. Every religion teaches how to live the essential aspects of life.
When to sleep, wake, what to eat, how to dress, what to say, what not to say, and so on.
Some religion are strict, some aren't, some are liberal/secular, some aren't. It depends on who is leading. But religion isn't necessarily about belief in God. Catholic priests have confessed to not believing in God, or what they are teaching, while teaching it. There are lot's of people who claim to be religious, but realise they don't believe in God. Alot of them become agnostics and atheists.

jan.

 

Circular reasoning, and no doubt you send yourself to sleep with the consistency of your fallacious approach.
You are assuming that God exists up front, thus concluding that God does exist (due to the definition of God we are using). So your point is invalid due to the circular reasoning you are invoking.
Just because you define something as the cause of X does not mean it exists just because X exists. If I define Squuble as the cause of the taste of coffee, then just because coffee has a taste means that Squuble exists??? Or should we compare the theory of Squuble's existence against the competing theories for the taste of coffee?
Similarly your notion that God exists, and that God is the original cause, is a theory that needs to be put up against the theory that the material world needed no such creator, and the theory that the God as defined by you simply does not exist.

So please desist with the circular reasoning that seems to permeate your entire argument / discussion in such threads.

And I'm betting you can't see the circular reasoning in your line of thinking?
It doesn't matter what definition you give God if God does not exist. Giving something a definition does NOT mean that it is a reality, that it exists, that it is the truth. You are assuming that not only the definition is correct but that the definition applies to an existent thing. While we can accpet the definition, we are capable of imagining a world where it does not apply to anything.

In this discussion I have not said that God can be whatever one wants, and we are all using your definition of God. We are simply not all making the a priori assumption that the definition applies to something that exists. You are doing that, and doing it from the outset. That is why you can't get past the first hurdle in the thought experiment.

Fallaciously so, resulting in a conclusion that is only relevant to those interested in fallacious views.

And my example makes my point for me, which I can only assume explains, but does not excuse, your unwillingness to address it.

FFS. "Even if He is fictional."??? If He is fictional then he does not exist, correct? And if He is fictional and you exist then surely God is not the original cause of the material world, and thus He does not exist...
Note the circularity of that argument as well? I bet you do, because you want to be able to show how it is a flawed argument. Yet I'll go further and say that you can't see how your own argument for God's existence is equally as flawed.
The only non-fallacious argument in this respect is to conclude that our existence (or the existence of the material world) can not itself determine whether or not God exists. This is the point that all those making the counter argument you have issue with are ultimately making.

He has used your definition. He has simply not started with the assumption that God exists. You have. The circular argument is yours.

He is pointing out the circular reasoning in your argument, as I have done above, by showing that if you start with the assumption that God does not exist (i.e. "imagine a world without God") then you will conclude that God does not exist - and the world will look as it does now.
To repeat: the only non-circular argument is to conclude that the world looking as it does now, or even existing at all, can not be used to determine whether God exists or not. Those making the opposite argument to you, using your own circular logic, know this, and are only making the circular argument to show you how yours is circular, with the conclusion dependent upon the initial assumption.

If by "too stiff" you mean I can't follow logically fallacious arguments to be able to agree with their conclusions, then yes, I am "too stiff". How my mind operates is reasonably rationally, thanks, and is capable of discerning woefully fallacious arguments such as yours. I can grasp what you're saying, and it is logically fallacious as I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you. If you think by telling me to "lighten up" you're asking for me to overlook your continued use of such fallacious logic then no, I won't "lighten up". You commit logical fallacy after logical fallacy, and expect people not to notice? Maybe others won't notice. I do notice.

Yet another fallacy: you equated religion to "simply how we live our life" - and while religions might certainly teach aspects of that, it is simply not true that "living one's life" is the same as religion. While one Q may lead to P, it is fallacious to conlcude, as you have implied, that P is necessarily the result of Q. Maybe that is not what you meant to imply, and if not it would be just another example of you not being able to understand the implications of what you do write. And then you lay the fault at the door of those who can understand the implications.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And the relevance of this to your claim that "religion is simply how we live our life", or the prevoius claim that "religion is natural to humans" rather than merely clinging onto the tails of what is natural to humans (society, community etc)?

 

He claimed that God does not exist.
My response shows that he has not thought this through. It is a response to his claim.
Your accusation is based on YOUR own assumption.

My notion is not the issue. It is his notion that God does not exist, which is the issue.
If we are to establish that God does not exist, then God has to mean something.
How is it possible, in your mind, to conclude the non existence of God without knowing what God is, or even supposed to be?

There is no circular reason, that is purely your assumption. He already brought God up, and made a conclusion, which was based on an incomplete definition of God. I merely highlighted at least one of those definitions to show that his reasoning is lacking.

Where did I mention that it is truth, or reality? I'm not telling him that God DOES exist, he brought up the subject matter, not me.
I have to assume that he has a definition, and some understanding/comprension of that definition, because it was a claim. This means that my response to him, should be relevant to him because we are talking about the same thing.

You're the one making assumptions, and basing your argument on them, despite my explanations.
We are capable of imagining anything we are capable of, but he asked us to imagine a world without GOD, resulting in such a world as the one we live in today. If he had missed out the exercise, and assert that God does not exist, period, he wouldn't have got a response from me. By including the exercise, he is assuming that God means something, hence my response.

If God does not exist, then none of His attributes exist, the most important one being His creative one. It is therefore easy to draw that conclusion within the imagination. One does not have to make any claims.

If someone posed the question ''who would win in a fist fight between me and Superman?'' There would be nothing wrong in concluding superman,
due to his abilities, despite knowing that Superman is a fictional character, regardless of whether one accepts Superman as a real being or not.

Where did I claim that God exists?
He claimed that God does not exist. That is the only claim that is being made.
You merely assume that I made the claim, and that assumption is wrong. Why can't you accept that?

You drew that conclusion, and that conclusion is based on faulty logic, and prejudice.

Correct, in the same way Superman is fictional.

Correct, which is the general atheist perspective. God does not exist (for whatever reason). Like I said, had he claimed that God does not exist, he wouldn't have got a response from me. However, he asked us to imagine a world in which God doesn't exist. So what does he mean by 'God'? I can only assume he means the original cause/creator.
If that is what he means, then is open season on what the reality of God not existing would mean. If his exercise started with the conclusion that God is a fictional character, then he asks us to imagine a world where such a fictional character does not exist, then it is his logic that is at fault ,not mine.

Then what did he use to draw his conclusion?

 

...

What is it about the world we look at now, that could determine that God does NOT exist, especially without knowing what God is, or supposed to be?
It seems to me that you are attempting to bring God, period, into the realm of science, and if it can't be detected, it can be said to not exist (lack of evidence). But that simply assumes that God is something that can be tested.


How is the assertion that 'God can't be tested, any different than if God exists then He can be tested? None. Why? It is simply points of comprehension. IOW we access God from our understanding of God, and we seek out God from that POV. So accepting God or not, purely on science, is nothing but an expression of ones understanding of God.


What you're attempting to do is to put God purely in the category of science, and any other so called understanding is to be unacceptable. That is no different than saying ''my religion is the one true religion, and all other religions are unacceptable''.

I've seen your logic regarding my response, and it is wrong. You haven't grasped where I'm coming from because you cannot accept anything other than your own position. You have to cry fallacy because your mind cannot, and will not (more importantly) accept anything other than what you are prepared to accept. IOW you're willfully ignorant.

By 'lighten up', I mean let go of some of that baggage that weighs you down.
We are having a discussion, you accuse me of fallacy, based on faulty logic. Remember I'm the one you're accusing, and I'm here, and I'm telling you your logic is wrong or mistaken. Instead of going any further to at least try to prove that your logic has some basis in reality, you stick to your assumptions of me. It is as if you're afraid to go any further, so you hold up the discussion with this nonsense. Are you afraid of breaking down walls? Are you afraid that you may have to accept God, if you let your guard down? Because that's how it looks.

Religion encompasses everything to do with the person.

''A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions havenarratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or theUniverse. From their beliefs about the cosmos andhuman nature, people may derive morality, ethics,religious laws or a preferred lifestyle.

Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of a deity, gods, orgoddesses), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances,initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music,art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology... HERE


jan.

 

I don't think it is smart to call religious people the I-word. If that is what you are saying? No matter what you and I believe or not: religious people in general deserve great respect, like any other person deserves great respect who is kind and shows respect to others.

 

I took his response and gave it a tiny spin to highlight how condescending it was.

BTW a lot of religious people show no respect to others.

 

Your mistake is your assumption.
I don't regard you as a baby in any sense of the word, and I did make you aware of that.

jan.

 

You kind of equating atheism to a baby's lack of understanding of the mechanisms that makes a car work is what I found condescending.

Edit: just noticed my post #666 was in a religion thread. Fitting \m/,

 

How could you or I possibly know whether or not the universe needed a creator?

jan.

 

We can't, but the universe doesn't seem to need one.

 

And from a baby's perspective a car doesn't seem to need need a creator.
It doesn't mean the baby is stupid it simply means the baby is not equipped to answer the question.

Jan.

 

From a baby`s perspective, there`s no such thing as a creator.

 

Your response? Post 662 is a response by you to someone who has posed a thought experiment, not someone who has made a claim of God's non-existence.
It is the response you made to this person that is fallacious, for the reasons laid out previously and which you simply choose to ignore... in fact not just ignore but dismiss as incorrect, with nothing but a handwave.

There is no issue - it is a thought experiment.
Let me remind you of it: "Imagine a world in which it is a fact that there is no God. Now look at our world and it looks the same as that world you just imagined."

Noone has established that God does not exist; it is a question of whether you can imagine it or not.

It's not possible, and I don't conclude the non-existence of God. Nor has the comment to which you responded with your circular argument.

I have laid out the circularity of your reasoning, numerous times, and I find it insulting for you to dismiss it without reference to the content. Your dismissal of it thus appears unwarranted and unsupported.
Further, I am not sure you even realise what you are now arguing about, and all you are trying to do is evade.

To repeat: one can deduce with sound logic what you did say:
"A world with no God, means no ability to imagine, and a world where imagination exists is a world with God."
To add to the explanations, let me try this one:
A: Imagination exists.
B: Without God, there is no ability to imagine.
Conclusion: Since imagination exists, there must be a god.
This is your circular reasoning, and it is also a claim of the reality of God's existence. You ARE saying that God does exist, because you equate God being necessary for imagination, and I think we agree that imagination exists.

Again, I'm not sure what you think you're arguing against here... there was no claim made of non-existence, just a thought experiment (requoted above) to which you replied fallaciously.

You have given no explanations.

God does mean something in his thought experiment - it means what you define it as: the cause of all.
But that does not necessarily mean that God does not exist in reality.

If God does not exist in reality then His attributes still exist as concepts in relation to the concept of God. But if God does not exist then Him being the cause of all has no place in reality other than as a concept. And if God does not exist then everything in reality you deem caused by God is actually caused by something else. If God does exist, then by definition he would be the cause of all. But you can not use his definition as the proof of his existence (i.e. use circular reasoning), as you have done, currently do, and undoubtedly will continue to do, and not expect to be called out on it every time.

Yet you don't seem capable of imagining God as a fictional character. Your arguments all carry with them the a priori assumption of God's existence, from which you conclude God's existence. Circular reasoning.

See above. You did claim that God exists. You do claim it. You will do again. I have explained and justified why your claim is a sound deduction from the words you have used. The only thing you haven't actually done is explicitly stated it, but rather implicitly.

Please identify the faulty logic. I have done so with yours, and now you merely try to handwave the criticism away.
And where is the prejudice? You mean against arguments who employ fallacious logic? Yes, I am extremely prejudiced against those. That's not a problem to those that don't employ them.

Well done. Now then, if God is fictional (the way Superman is fictional), then without using an a priori assumption that God exists as anything other than as a fiction, what would the world around you look like?

It is irrelevant whose perspective it is.

Yes, that is what he meant.

And you could only respond with a logically fallacious argument, as explained seemingly ad infinitum. Had you started "I believe God exists so am unable to imagine a world without God..." then we would at least know your limitations and this whole debacle could have ended early.

He didn't start with that conclusion. It started with a simple thought experiment - to imagine what the world would look like if God does not exist / was not real / is a fiction / etc. Where is the conclusion that God is a fictional character in that?

The conclusion that the world would be the same? It is simple logic: when two competing theories lead to the same result, it is not possible to conclude which theory is correct by reference to the result.
The "result" is this world. The competing theories are "God exists and is the cause of all", and "God does not exist, and something else led to this exact same result".
By reference to the result we can thus not conclude which theory is correct. Anyone who does can only do so through circular reasoning from their a priori assumption of existence or non-existence of God.

I'll get to your other response later.

 

A universe that is caused by God, does not necessarily mean God has to be factually apparent, it is obviously not designed for that. Again it requires comprehension of who and what God is, to gain any insight into whether or not God caused the universe, or whether He even exists. Science alone cannot do that, unless the definition of God is changed to suit it's conclusions.

How would you discern that the laws of physics aren't that way because of God' will?
You assume that they are the way they are simply because of your worldview, and have scientific basis in them, any than someone who believes that God caused them to be the way the are. You are simply using science to back your worldview, a view that does accept not God.

It's not a red-herring, Sarkus. Get over it.
''Initial cause'' differs from ''original cause''.
You'd be a natural at neurolinguistic programming.

Do you follow me so far...

So with this understanding of God (which Seattle mentioned), I cannot get passed the notion that if God is origin of this universe, then if God does not exist, His effects do not exist. Human beings, being one of those, leads me to the conclusion that if God does not exist in this imaginary world, then nothing can exist.

If I relax the notion of God's attributes, and imagine a world where God doesn't have them. It becomes a pointless exercise, pretty much like celestial dancing iron boards. Because I'm not imagining God as He is defined, but as I define Him.

jan.

 

Then we should assume nothing until circumstances teach us otherwise. Circumstances have not yet taught us otherwise.

 

There is nothing that can determine that God does not exist... only that God has so far not been needed to explain anything that can be tested.

Relevancy to the matter in hand?

I'm attempting nothing than to point out the circular nature of your argument.

And once again you claim my logic is wrong yet you can not explain where it is wrong or how it is wrong - you just repeat the claim that it is wrong.
I cry fallacy because that was what was before me when I read your argument, and you have yet to show how the criticism is invalid.
As for what I will and will not accept, try an argument that is logical and see how I get on. So far you haven't offered one.

There is none.

Sound logic, adequately explained to all those that can understand logic. The accusation stands, and all you can do by way of counter is to bleat "You're wrong".

You can tell me what you like, but I'll go by the arguments you have raised - and the logic you have used is invalid for the reasons already explained, and which have yet to be countered.

Have you not read any of what I have written??? Again - where is the flaw in my criticism of your argument as circular?

There is no discussion while you rattle off fallacy after fallacy. I like discussions where arguments lead from premises to conclusions in a valid manner, yet you throw around arguments that simply don't - and you accuse me of holding up discussions??
Maybe you only want to discuss with those who will accept your illogical arguments?

If the person is religious. Not everyone is, thus religion is not simply how we live our life. There's little left to be said on the matter