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
    He would still have to show that cause could only be a God.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,233
    It's just a pointless debate. Anyone who has an interest in this area would conclude.... It is impossible to prove that God exists through facts and logic.

    This guy seems decent enough, so I bowed out before I got pissed off.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,233
    Exactly.

    I can't articulate any more of what I mean... maybe buying a football/soccer ball and comparing that to the sun is a fair reflection of Cris's example.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    10,353
    It is certainly fair if the purpose of the comparison is the equivalence of their spherical nature.
    Disapproving / disagreeing with the comparison because one is kicked around a park and the other is vastly larger, hotter and the primary source of energy on earth, is thus to miss the purpose of the comparison in the first instance.
    Clearly Pachomius disagrees, and thus it is not pointless if the outcome of this debate is that one side or other changes their view based on what is discussed here.
    It might prove to be pointless, however, if Pachomius continues to "discuss" the way he has done in his 180+ posts thus far.
     
  8. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Dear everyone, I am not reading your posts because I am already taken up with Spider.


    Now, Spider you now have the information of the concept of God from me, namely:

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

    This is the God that I will show you to exist by you and me thinking on facts and logic.

    But you are asking me how I came to this concept of God?

    That is a very good question!

    The general question however is: how do concepts get to be in our mind?

    Do you have any idea at all?

    As you ask a question, you must already have some idea of the answer, and you want to get more ideas from others so that you will come to a better idea, in particular the correct one.

    This will require you to do thinking on facts and logic i.e. correct reasoning.

    Okay, here we go.

    I had already the concept of God from my Christian faith -- though I have to tell you as I have already unless memory fails me told folks here that I am into what I call myself, a liberal Christian -- on this matter, more later.

    From my Christian faith as I have already told Dave at least two times, it is the teaching of the Christian faith that God is first and foremost in relation to the universe and everything with a beginning:

    Creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.​

    This thought is founded on two very ancient texts of the Christian faith but I take them to be also founded on thinking on facts and logic, if we would prescind from revelation.

    Here are the two most ancient texts:

    1. In the beginning God made heaven and heart h. -- Gen. 1:1
    2. I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and hearth. -- Apostles' Creed verse 1​

    On the foundation of those two texts and also innumerable similar texts from the history of the Christian faith, I formulated my concise and precise and definite concept of God, namely:

    That God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.​

    So, that is how I have come to my own draft of the concept of God.

    And that is the concept of God I will be proving that He exists in objective reality, and you to prove that He does not.


    Are we now joined on the issue, dear Spider?


    Annex

    {quote]
    Spidergoat yesterday at 8:36 AM #117

    Spider says:
    I'm mostly an atheist with respect to the Abrahamic God. That is commonly defined as an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent being that created the universe, is involved with our daily lives, and listens to prayers. I can be reasonably certain that God doesn't exist. A deistic God that created the universe and is no longer involved with it is harder to disprove, but is also unnecessary to explain the natural world.

    Anyway, we can use your concept. How did you arrive at this concept through facts and logic or evidence?

    {/quote]
     
  9. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    His "thinking on facts and logic" turns out to be..."I read it in the Bible"....
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Wow - so you refuse to discuss with davewhite04 on the basis of him requiring you to use quotes from the Bible to support your case, and here you are doing just that.

    But what is more telling is that you continually claim to be "thinking on facts and logic" - and yet you have not shown that your concept is based on any such thing, other than your belief that they are... i.e. you "take them to be also founded on thinking on facts and logic"

    So are you able to show that there are facts and logic behind this concept of yours? Or are you just going to take the word of the Christian faith on it, while also claiming that you are not considering revelation?

    I.e. you are relying on the revelation of the Christian faith, with no actual grounding on facts and/or logic, and just an assumption / belief that what you rely on is "founded on thinking on facts and logic".
    The concept you are using is one that spidergoat will not claim to be able to disprove.
    The onus is also not on him disproving your position, but on you proving yours. Yet you have shown no such thing thus far... and still we wait... still you avoid actually providing any "facts and logic" that show you to be correct.

    Tick tock.
    Still waiting.
     
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Indeed - and the belief that it must therefore have been "founded on thinking of facts and logic". It's laughable as much as it is pathetic.
     
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    There has to be something wrong with him. Who has a single track mind to that extent? Repeating the same phrases (and entire conversations) over and over before they can make a new point is indicative of some kind of mental illness.
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I've heard your argument, and I think it has several flaws. For instance, you argue this:
    1. Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause.
    2. The universe began to exist from absolute nonexistence, NOT from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
    3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
    You are comparing conditions that are not similar.
     
  14. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,233
    if he showed a superiority complex could be mental illness but i don't think he has mental illness, though ocd might explain the perfect posts(to him).
     
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    You might be right. OCD and English as his second language?
     
  16. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,233
    I think the writing is down to a badly schooled Gentlemen - Sherlock Holmes
     
  17. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Dear Spider, when you say that someone says this or that, you must not only report in your own words and leave it at that, saying in your own words what he says, but for you to be taken seriously by critical readers, you must just quote faithfully what he has written.

    Now, you reported as coming from me:

    1. Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause.​

    Please bring forth my text from where you got that line which you just made up and you can be suspected of intentionally with ill purpose dis-representing my text or my mind.

    Please, at all costs, do not give readers any ground to suspect that you are into dis-representing an opponent's oral words when in the first place, he did not talk but he wrote (see your word 'heard' in bold in your post reproduced below).

    I am very disappointed with you, for this lapse from your part which can be suspected of gross dishonesty.


    From Spiders, Yesterday at 9:00 AM #130
    Pachomius:
    And that is the concept of God I will be proving that He exists in objective reality, and you to prove that He does not.
    I've heard your argument, and I think it has several flaws. For instance, you argue this:
    1. Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause.
    2. The universe began to exist from absolute nonexistence, NOT from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
    3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
    You are comparing conditions that are not similar.
     
  18. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I know you didn't write it that way. I am asserting the true meaning of your argument so that we can dissect it.

    My point is that you can't extend the fact that things have causes in our general experience with something qualitatively unlike it, the beginning of the universe.
     
  19. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    You are in the wrong orientation and as I said already, you are liable to be suspected of ill intention in consciously dis-representing the written texts of a writer here or reading his mind without first having proven that you can read people's minds.

    So, stop already with making up syllogisms which are your devious tool for dis-representing my written texts and/or claiming in effect to know my mind, but all in conspicuous bad faith of dis-representing me, period.

    Read what I have to say about you and also about atheists generally, in regard to my concept of God expressed time and again in this forum, namely,

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

    Addressing everyone here:

    Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and observe whether atheists here will be positively contributing to my research work on how they think on facts and logic on the issue God exists or not.

    But right from the start I have to share with you dear readers this misgiving, namely, that atheists as they already maintain that everything just comes forth from randomness or chaos, there is no order, no stability, even there is nothing at all but this nothingness gave forth by randomness and instability the whole universe and you and me and them.

    Why do they have this kind of a most deplorable cognitive or better incognitive attitude?

    Because owing to their original sin of the bias as described above, namely, everything came forth from randomness, chaos, nay, even nothingness, they never ever mastered the virtue of disciplined systematic thinking on facts and logic, to come to the knowledge of reality outside their random, chaotic, nothingness mind if we can call their brain a mind.

    Now, atheists, let you and me work together for me to get you to understand this sentence from yours truly, namely:

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

    What words don't you know of their meanings? Tell me and I will explain to you what they mean, the words you don't know the meanings of; but I tell you if you have reading comprehension in English, every word in that sentence should be clear to you as to its meaning.

    What is the purpose I am seeking in asking atheists here whether they understand every word in the sentence above, you ask me, dear readers?

    I tell you, it is because of the random chaotic and nothingness mind of atheists, we have to first get connected with their mind so that we can communicate with them, thus they can be of some advantage to the success of this enterprise, a study on the incogntive mind of atheists on the issue God exists or not.

    As we all know who have experienced trying to get kids to pay attention, it is impossible to do anything for them or with them, if they don't get connected with us as to engage in any mutual undertaking with them.

    Okay, atheists, just so that we or I and you will get connected, just read the sentence above again, namely:

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

    What words don't you understand in that sentence?

    If you understand every word, then tell me what difficulty i.e. objection do you have with that sentence?


    See you guys again tomorrow.



    Annex


    {quote]From spidergoat, post #135 yesterday at 9:32 AM

    I know you didn't write it that way. I am asserting the true meaning of your argument so that we can dissect it.

    My point is that you can't extend the fact that things have causes in our general experience with something qualitatively unlike it, the beginning of the universe.

    {/quote]
     
  20. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    OK, let me try this a different way, since it's obvious your imagination is limited, and you have never had a real debate with anyone. I will ignore for the moment, your ignorance of the nature of atheism, and your stupid accusation that I'm misrepresenting your position.

    Your statement assumes a couple things, including the existence of the God you are trying to prove. I understand how in general things (OK, the beginning of things, which is an unnecessary caveat), all have causes. But why do you think that the beginning of all things, a different scenario, also abides by the same rule?

    By the way, your argument is formally known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It is well known to atheists, as are it's many flaws.
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    We have done. It is you who has not: you have referenced no facts relevant to the matter, and no logic as to how you reached your concept, nor how that concept leads to the conclusion that God certainly exists, other than as the concept.
    Other than gross inaccuracy in your generalisation of what atheists think, this seems to be nothing but an argument from incredulity on your part. Oh, wait, is that too much "thinking on facts and logic" for you?
    Show that it is "incognitive", please.
    As for "deplorable", first resolve your inaccuracies and then move away from the arguments from incredulity, from consequence, from emotion. (shock: more "thinking on facts and logic"!)
    Utter drivel. It is precisely the "thinking on facts and logic" that you demand (and that you have so far failed to evidence that you are even capable of) that leads many atheists to their position regarding the notion of gods.
    Whereas your own "thinking on facts and logic" seems to be "I read it in the Bible and I assume that they must have thought on facts and logic."
    How many times do we need to tell you, Pachomius: we understand your concept. We have done since you first posted it. The issue is not with us understanding your concept but instead is with (a) how you fail to move on from that concept and put it to use to show, as you claim, that by "thinking on facts and logic" we can show this concept to certainly exist; (b) the weaknesses that exist with your perceived / anticipated line of argument.
    Admittedly this latter is pre-emptive, and may do you an injustice, so for Pete's sake just get on with detailing your argument.

    The rest of your post is just more of the same drivel.

    We understand your concept. We don't necessarily agree with it for the following reasons:
    It assumes that the universe was created.
    It assumes that the universe is operated.
    It assumes that everything with a beginning is created and operated.

    These are just 3 issues with it. Others may provide more, but let's start with these 3.

    Your concept is possibly acceptable if those assumptions are conditional: e.g. IF the universe was created, and IF the universe is operated, and IF everything with a beginning was created and is operated then in concept God is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

    So please show us how "thinking on facts and logic" answer these concerns we have?
     
  22. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Dear Spider, in my concept of God namely as in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, that is not any assumption on paper that God exists, it is on paper an invitation for you to present your concept of God, so that we will work together to come to an agreed on concept of 'God, for the purpose of us two: from your part that God does not exist or does exist (I don't know exactly what is your position at all, God exists or does not exist), and from my part God exists, as per the concept we have come to agree on.

    So, please if you have at all any inkling of a concept of God, please set it forth on paper.

    Don't be wasting the time of readers.




    {quote from Spider]
    spidergoat, Yesterday at 5:23 AM Report
    #137

    OK, let me try this a different way, since it's obvious your imagination is limited, and you have never had a real debate with anyone. I will ignore for the moment, your ignorance of the nature of atheism, and your stupid accusation that I'm misrepresenting your position.

    Your statement assumes a couple things, including the existence of the God you are trying to prove. I understand how in general things (OK, the beginning of things, which is an unnecessary caveat), all have causes. But why do you think that the beginning of all things, a different scenario, also abides by the same rule?

    By the way, your argument is formally known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It is well known to atheists, as are it's many flaws.

    {quote]
     
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    And thus the cycle continues.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Oh, the irony... it might even have been funny if it wasn't so miserably pathetic.
     

Share This Page