Proof of God

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I was asked by KingMerv00 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84273&page=6) to try and type up some arguments in support of a God or rather in support of Theism in general, so I decided to type this up in defense of God and Theism. This post is a continuance of this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84134) and this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83737). You should probably read all three posts respectively in order to fully understand this following post.

C.S. Lewis once said concerning Christianity "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." I am writing up this short post concerning theism though not necessarily Christianity itself and the credence in theism and or deism in order to provide an efficacious and determinative composition concerning the beliefs thereof and the extenuation or apologia in a palliative framework based upon dialectic syllogistics in coherence which will in my assessment be unambiguously irrefrangible. I want to stress that the following post was condensed into a breviloquent and concise framework who’s aim is sheer simplicity and practicality. Furthermore much of what I wrote in this post was removed due to conservation of space.

I’m going to prove a couple of things including the existence of God, validity of theism and faultiness of a distinctly secular or atheistic worldview. I’m going to do this by drawing together some of the philosophical and scientific developments of the past few centuries into a consistent logical and reasonable framework relying on epistemological certitude which will negate the need for dogmatism in theistic beliefs. Much of what I will provide as proof has been presented by past philosophers ranging from Descartes, Gödel, Lewis, Kant to Aquinas however with my personal adjustments which will remove any inconsistencies and fallacies and will beyond any reasonable doubt prove that God must exist, does exist, is good and must be exalted in genuflections worship. I have seen a considerable amount of the arguments for God or theistic beliefs in general and know how many of them are inconsistent and fallacious so I personally have experience with this endeavor to prove the existence of a God or validity of theism.

As I present my proofs with as much brevity as I possibly can and I want you to remember that these arguments have been invented by men much more intelligent than yourselves and denying them on a whim without proper investigation would not only be ignorant and impractical but also potentially dangerous due to their prodigious implications. Many theists tend to attack science or specifically evolution in an attempt to prove a God. They believe that by attacking evolution they can prove a God exists or by making straw men concerning evolution or atheism they can prove a God exists. I personally can sympathize with you on how bromidic and platitudinous many theists and creationists can be however I wish you to bare with me because the following proofs are anything but and are positively imperative to properly investigate and study under distinct circumstances. The following expostulations will be outlined below in detail before I commence with the actual arguments themselves.

My first proofs will investigate epistemology and the existence of knowledge itself to lay a framework for my future proofs. I will examine the origin of epistemology, it’s validity, the origin of knowledge itself as well as our ability to truly ‘know’ specific aspects of our universe in it‘s relation to our conscious minds. I will then move onto familiar theistic beliefs including the existence of a creator God and the origin of our universe as well as a specifically omnipotent and omni-benevolent personal God who cares for humanity. I will do this by also pointing out foibles, fallacies and pitfalls in many atheistic arguments against the existence of an omnipotent creator God who cares for humanity that have long been cherished. I will now venture into my first attempt at proof which is an exposition of epistemology and it‘s relation to our everyday lives and conscious minds.

We live in a complicated and sonorously convoluted world where we make decisions daily and in order to make decisions relevant to our existence in such a world we must have several axioms already prepared before we do anything. If we walk onto a bridge we must believe apriori that the bridge will hold our weight. This apriori assumption is based on the premise that most bridges that exist will hold the weight in question and the bridge probably wouldn’t be allowed to exist if it didn’t. This means in order to believe the bridge will hold our weight we must also hold other beliefs including the existence of some administrative body that oversees the building of bridges. Such apriori inductive conclusions are clearly fallacious but for practical purposes we must make hundreds assumptions each and every day. Do we sit down into a chair without knowing absolutely whether or not it will collapse? Do we drive our car without knowing absolutely whether or not it will burst into flames? Do we step outside without knowing whether or not a hammer will fall from the sky and instantly kill us where we stand? Of course the answer to all of the above is a resounding ‘yes’ unless of course one has infinite knowledge of the future.

In order to live any sort of reasonable existence we must make assumptions everyday about the world we live in, most of the time with a limited amount of evidence present to prove them. We can’t prove that a hammer will not fall on our hands the minute we walk outside and instantly kill us, however we must assume that the statistical probability of such a thing occurring is so rare that the disadvantages from never going out side far out weigh the 1 in a hundred million chance a hammer will fall from the sky and kill us. We believe a-priori that no hammer will fall onto our heads and kill us and we base this belief on other beliefs . In order to hold those such beliefs we must also hold moreover other beliefs and so on and so forth until we’re left with a single originating belief of all beliefs.

All beliefs about the world are dependent upon other beliefs excluding one. The one belief that is in itself independent is the belief in our own existence. Our own existence can be proven by itself and requires no faith, no axioms, simply logic and reason. This endeavor popularized by French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes. In his now famous phrase from his Discourse on Method “Cogito ergo sum” (French: "Je pense, donc je suis") he established a way to no longer doubt the most basic belief, our very own individual and personal existence. Cogito ergo sum translate often into the English phrase “I think, therefore I am!” which means that if one is able to think then one must reasonably exist. Descartes used this as a ground frame from which he could restore his previously doubted beliefs. No matter how hard he tried he could not convince himself that he himself did not exist.

Descartes in attempt to find the undoubtable and essential truths of the universe and in an effort to rid his mind of those beliefs that cannot or are not founded on factual evidence he decided to start by the beginning and by clearing his mind of all beliefs, doubting everything he has ever known he was lead to the conclusion that the one thing he could not initially doubt was his own existence. In his second meditation on the first philosophy he had this to say: “I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.” (Med. 2, AT 7:25)

However “Cogito ergo sum” is often criticized and any criticism of the phrase is inherently based on simplistic misunderstandings of the phrase itself and it‘s implications. The most common criticism of the phrase is that it assumes the existence of a thinker before even proving the existence of a thinker and thus is begging the question for which it initially sets out to prove. This however is incorrect and invalid for two reasons. Firstly, Simply assuming the existence of something prior to proving it is a common route of inference. Secondly, “Cogito ergo sum” was never actually used by Descartes. A more reasonable phrase would be “Thought, therefore existence!” which excludes the initial assumption of existence and only states a fact: ‘thought‘. This is also the case in the less common extension of the phrase which is “Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum” and translates to “Doubt, therefore thought, therefore existence!” and means that if doubt exists then by definition thought exists and if thought exists then a thinker must also exist by definition.

It has also been criticized where its critics make the assertion that the argument makes the assumption that “Whatever thinks, exists” however this is no assumption. Logically whatever has the property N, exists. That is to say, whatever has any property by definition must exist or it couldn‘t have a property. This means that if anything has anything then that thing must exist. If N has ‘thought’ and can think then logically N must exist for it could not have thought if it didn’t exist. We can’t logically be mistaken about our own existence for if we did not exist then how could we mistake our own existence? Could such a capacious aberration possibly be made? Perhaps as Descartes put it, some ‘demon’ (Or maybe God) is deceiving or deluding us to think and therefore our thoughts are not our own. However in such a circumstance this does not disprove our existence but simply proves our existence as well as the existence of some ‘demon’ (Or God) deceiving us for it would be impossible for a demon to deceive us into thinking if we did not exist in the first place.

So far I have proven that the individual (I) exists and possibly a God. That I personally exist and for you who are reading this, you can be sure that you yourself exist and can not reasonably doubt such a contention no matter how you attempt to convince yourself otherwise. This is the first step in a long road to proving things that generally have a much higher degree of doubt at first glance but can be proven to be just as reasonable as the initial contention that you as an individual entity must logically exist.

The next step is examining our own experiences of the apparent world around us. Currently in our endeavor we have proven our own personal and individual existence through the fact that we are ‘thinking things’ however we have yet to prove that our personal experiences of the world around us are legitimate experiences of something ‘out there’ opposed to hallucinations distinctly inside of our own consciousness. In order for our experiences to exist they must have an origin whether the origin is our own unconscious mind or something separate from us (Perhaps Descartes demon, or perhaps God). We now have to look at our two possibilities and discern the most rational one from the most irrational one, or maybe they both lead to the same conclusion. If our experiences of the world around us originates from our own minds then they must have a cause thereof. Rationally every event precedes a prior cause and if we are experiencing something (let’s say a tree) then our thoughts of the tree whether real or delusional must have been preceded by a cause which brought about the experience of the tree. That cause could not have been ourselves because then we face the regress problem and are forced to come to the conclusion that the cause of our experiences are outside of our own minds. If we are experiencing a tree and the cause of that experience exists within our own unconscious minds then that cause of that experience must itself have a previous cause which itself has a previous cause, etc. This would result in a never-ending chain of causes and effects all inside of our unconscious minds and nothing to distinguish between unconscious causes and conscious effects (such as the aforementioned tree) which would be impossible.

Now that we have come to the conclusion that the origins of our experiences are outside of our own minds, we now have to attempt to figure out whether or not our experiences as they appear to be are caused by what we also experience. That is to say, Are our experiences of the “world out there” caused by the “world out there” or are they caused by Descartes demon? There are two approaches one could take towards this problem. This could easily be approached from a pragmatic standpoint which would suggest that it is most rational to simply assume that our experiences are caused by a real and physical “world out there” simply because believing otherwise would no doubt result in problems. For instance if we believed that there was no world outside of our consciousness and deciding to get into a vehicle and drive off of a cliff under the faulty assumption that there was no car, no cliff, no gravity, no universe. This can be verified by working under the assumption that there is no world outside of our consciousness and deciding to get a sharp pencil and stabbing ourselves in the arm. This will lead to suffering which is undesirable and thus from a pragmatic standpoint makes more sense to assume that a pencil exists, that our arm exists, that the laws of physics exist because otherwise we would face problems daily.

However aside from the pragmatic stance, we can also use deductive reasoning to come to conclusion that there is an “outside world” apart from our own experiences. This can easily be done by looking at the fact that as we have concluded earlier, our experiences logically must be caused by an outside entity whether it be some deceiving demon or the world itself as we perceive it. If it is indeed Descartes demon then this will also lead us to the conclusion that an outside world exists separate from our own minds. If Descartes demon exists then it must have a motivation for deceiving us. If it has a motivation for tricking us then that motivation must have an origin and that motivations origin must have an origin and so on and so forth. It must also be working within a universe that physically allows it to deceive us. It must also itself have had a beginning per the laws of causality. This leads us to the conclusion that even if Descartes demon existed, then it must be working within a universe outside of both it and our minds.

Now that we have proven that we exist and an outside world apart from our senses exists where are we left? We are left with the question of the origin of us and our world. We exist and we exist in a world. Where did we come from? Where did our world come from? We can come to conclusions about this using deductive and inductive reasoning which I will do. I will show using logical reasoning that a God must exist and does exist. That God made this world and this universe and that this God is the God described in the biblical narrative. I will now move into the arguments showing that a God must and does exist logically.


I will arbitrarily choose an argument to begin with and the following argument has no special implications that would warrant it’s being mentioned first and is totally arbitrary and random. The first argument, or rather the first ‘type’ of argument I will use is a basic ‘ontological’ argument. Ontology is the study of the basic properties of existence itself and ranges from questions concerning what constitutes actual existence and to what the various ranges of existence are.

Now we’re all familiar with Anselm's Ontological Argument for the existence of God posited by Anselm of Canterbury which has historically been shown to be flawed. The argument is basically that “God” is the being from which no greater being can be conceived and in order for God to fit this definition he must logically exist for a God that is imaginary is surely less great than a God that is actual. If God does not exist in reality and the concept of God existing exists in and only in the human imagination we’re left with a God less great than it would be if it existed in the imagination as well as reality.

This argument has been criticized by many and rightfully so, most notably for it’s assumption that a God would be greater if it actually existed than if it existed merely inside of the human imagination. Philosophers (most notably Gasking) have even created an alternative to this argument that disproves the existence of a God and goes as thus:

1.The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2.The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3.The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4.The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5.Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
5.Therefore, God does not exist.

As comically ironic as this refutation is, it relies on intrinsic weaknesses of the ontological argument as it was presented by Anselm of Canterbury and many other previous philosophers. In my revision I will get rid of the unnecessary and flawed components of the ontological argument and present it in a mathematical framework that proves the existence of a God.

Now as revised I will attempt to explain this ontological proposition in as simple terms as possible limiting my use of mathematics throughout though some logical equations will need to be used in limited quantity for specific purposes however don’t let them mesmerize you they are actually very simple. I will first attempt to explain the argument in words which I aptly admit will be difficult and limiting due to the limits on language.

Firstly we must look at the definition of the “God” we are referring to. The definition is as follows: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe. By this definition we can see that one inherent property of our would-be god is being “supernatural” which means ‘above or beyond what is natural’, one inherent property is omnipotence and omniscience which mean having all powers or abilities and having all knowledge or wisdom respectively. A common attribute ascribed to “God” is omnipresence (existing everywhere at once) however for the sake of this argument I won’t use such an attribute.

This means that ‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the previous paragraph. Now I will make the first postulation which is ’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context. I do not mean ’positive’ to be any sort of moral aesthetic definition. Now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails B necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'. This means that since ‘N’ is positive it’s negation would not be positive but negative. Since N=God therefore the property of being God is essentially positive and is thus necessarily positive because as previously explained it’s negation would logically be negative. By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’. This means that if God is a positive being necessarily God is thus positive and if God is God-like then the property of being God-like is an essence of God. Which is to say, If God is by definition positive then a necessary component of God which would be “Godlike” is thus necessarily positive as well. N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world. Such contingent propositions rely on plenitudes that which lead us to the logical conclusion that the property of being God is illustrated. This bears out in the following modal logical equation:

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

Where N is an entity, G is Godlike, and P are inherent properties. Excuse my logical syntax If it has some mistakes, the premise and conclusions themselves are adequately valid which show that it would be logically impossible if a God could not or did not exist and the only conclusion we are left with is that a God does exist and must exist.



I would now like to get into an interesting set of evidences which will suggest many unbelievers arguments are inherently flawed for one primary cause: Biology. Scientists have been studying our Genome for years and only recently have they found new and exciting evidence suggesting a biological basis for religion. Dr. Dean Hamer from the U.S. National Cancer Institute has proposed a very intriguing theory about the biological basis of religion which points out the VMAT2 gene which is responsible for religious experiences. VMAT2 is a monoamine and monoamines are neurotransmitter which are with the many chemicals related to emotional sensitivity including Epinephrine, Dopamine and Serotonin.

Let us now look at the circumstance of proving something exists which obviously exists without a shadow of a doubt (assuming certain axioms about our world obviously). Let’s use the example of a fire truck, if I see a big red fire truck blazing down the road all sirens screaming then I will believe and rightfully so that a fire truck is indeed blazing down the road across from me with all of it’s sirens screaming as loud as they can. I believe this simply because I see it and would not believe it otherwise. Now let’s imagine a deaf and blind man, could he have any sense of the truck? No. It’s obviously too far away for him to feel it’s vibrations and since he is deaf and blind he can’t hear or see it. Would this deaf and blind man be correct in his statement that there is no fire truck blazing down the road all sires screaming? Of course not. The fire truck exists despite the fact he can’t hear or see it. He is simply physically limited and therefore is unable to perceive the presence of the fire truck.

Where does this leave us? Let’s look at the facts: In the entire world around 5-10% of people have no belief in a God. The other 85-95% of them have a belief in God in one form or another whether it be Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindu’s, or just simply theists without a specific religion. (Cia.gov) What does this tell us? That a small minority of the world lacks a belief in a God for one reason or another. Since as stated above there is genetic evidence religion has genetic components, one possible reason so many belief in a God is because they are genetically predisposed to believe in such. People who are religious have naturally different digoxin synthesis which relates to dopamine, noradrenaline, and morphine synthesis than individuals who are ’atheistic’. (PMID: 12803140) What implications does this have for our argument? Think back to the deaf and blind man who can not perceive the fire truck right in front of him. Let’s say he is genetically deaf and blind and was born that way. Given that religious people make it clear that they can “feel” the prescience of God what are we to say about this? Can we say their sense of God existing is faulty and nothing more than a delusion? Can a blind deaf man say that the fire truck is nothing more than a delusion? What right does the man who lacks adequate perception to perceive such a deity to say to those who do perceive it that they are delusional? Perhaps religious people have a specific ability to sense the creator the way people with working eyes and ears have a specific ability to sense the fire truck. Albert Hofmann said: “God only speaks to those who understand the language.” Perhaps the people who are unable to perceive a creator are just as crippled as those who are deaf and blind and can not see the fire truck when it is obviously right in front of their faces. Those who deny a creator are as biologically crippled as the man who was born blind and deaf.

Opp:
There is no evidence of a God, What proof do you have that there is one? I can envisage no evidence for a creator so your entire argument is pointless. People were born with religious predispositions because in our evolutionary past it benefited them in some way or another. This can’t be used as evidence of a creator because these people who hold religious sentiments are simply delusional and suffer from mental illness.

Rep:
On the contrary, We can not say for sure what advantages those with religious predispositions had in ancient times if any. The fact that they did seems to be totally irrelevant to the argument. Those who have eyes seem to have an advantage over those without them (though for different reasons obviously). The man who is deaf and blind can not see any evidence in support of the existence of a fire truck barreling by with it’s sirens screaming. Does this mean it isn’t there? Of course not. The fact that he suffers from a biological impairment doesn’t mean that he is right to claim that there is no evidence of a fire truck simply because he can not perceive it. He is not justified in doing so.

This brings us to another road of argumentation which will examine epistemological worldviews and our current understandings of science and philosophy. C.S. Lewis once said: "Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable." One very prominent worldview is one that uses something called epistemological pragmatism or pragmatic epistemological objectivity, which basically says that the only way to truly understand the world we currently live in with all of our limited abilities of perception is to use what “works best” in our lives. As mentioned earlier one method of solving the problem of Descartes ‘Cartesian other’ is using a form of pragmatism. This philosophy says that we can’t actually prove the Cartesian other however in order to live our daily lives we must assume such entities or else we would fall into deep troubles. If for instance we thought that an angry man with a Gun were nothing more than imaginary fabrications of our minds or simply tricks which did not exist we would quickly find ourselves in trouble if we didn’t take such circumstances seriously from a point of view that they actually exist and can harm us. This type of pragmatism says that we can’t truly ‘know’ the world outside of our sense but we can know what ‘works best’ and for all practical purposes what ‘works best’ is what is actual.

All of the scientific method rests on the idea of a pragmatic epistemological worldview. If we were to do scientific tests to confirm or deny a specific phenomena and we didn’t truly believe that there was even a “world” outside of our sense then none of our tests would mean anything. In order for science to work we must be practical and posit such entities otherwise any attempts to measure or deduce them would result in utter failure. Living in a world where we doubt everything and believe only which can be totally proven via logical argumentation we would surely die within minutes. This means that it is pragmatic and simply common sense to hold some beliefs simply for their practical value and nothing else.

Where am I going with this? Let’s look at religion itself and determine if it has any practical value apart from purely empirical proof supporting it’s assertions. Studies have shown that on average people who are religious, attend church often, pray often and believe in God are more happier than those people of the same age group and demographic who don’t. Belief in God makes people happy and it’s no wonder, pleasure causing chemicals are pumping through their brains controlled by the VMAT2 gene I mentioned earlier. (Borg, Jacqueline et tal.) What does this have to do with anything? Going with our previous pragmatic worldview, we believe things to be true if they “work” for our existence. If something works within our worldview and reference frame then we use it for practical reasons. We must hold it to be true even if it can’t necessarily be empirically proven.

Religion makes people happy and “works” in their lives on a daily basis. Some people including Richard Dawkins might say that this is not in the least bit a justification for such beliefs let alone a proof of them, however this is clearly false. Living in a purely pragmatic world we can never truly ‘know’ what is real and what isn’t real. (Aside from the base beliefs established above) The best we can possibly do is look at what fits best within our worldview and use that as a basis of reality. If “God” fits into our pragmatic worldview like a puzzle piece then it must logically be true or else our entire puzzle falls apart just as the scientific method falls apart if specific axioms aren’t assumed including the ‘Cartesian other‘. Denying an intrinsic piece of the puzzle in an epistemologically pragmatic worldview simply leaves us left with nothing to base our daily lives on, nothing to base science on, nothing to base common sense upon.

Opp:
This is hogwash. The fact that religion makes people ‘happy’ has no bearing on it’s validity. It would make me happy to believe that there is a pot of gold buried in my yard however this doesn’t mean such a belief would then automatically be justified. There is no reason to believe something simply because it makes one “happy”.

Rep:
On the contrary, The argument isn’t that theism is justified because it makes people ‘happy’ but is justified because it ‘works’ in their lives. Let me ask you a question. I assume that you believe in science and hold an empirical and material worldview. You believe that anything that exists is material and the only way for us to have any knowledge of anything is for such things to be ‘material’ otherwise we couldn’t perceive them. I also assume that you do not doubt the existence of reality simply because it can’t positively and absolutely be proven. What justification do you have for believing that you’re sitting at your computer right now reading this? Perhaps you are a “brain in a vat” and are imagining it all or dreaming it all. Perhaps you’re sleeping and are having a dream that you’re reading it. You can’t prove you aren’t.

Can you prove that anything material exists? That it's not all some fantasy of your mind? No. You must assume it exists for pragmatic purposes. Pragmatism is using what "works" best. You can't provide evidence the world outside your consciousness exists. Evidence that can't be explained by the whole brain in a vat scenario. You use pragmatism to assume it to be true to go about your daily life because assuming otherwise would mean sure death. For those of you who have been reading this far and don’t know the meaning of ‘pragmatism’, the dictionary defines it as thus: character or conduct that emphasizes practicality. Or: a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.


Now I want to move onto a few common arguments which purport to disprove the existence of a God. As you know, there are numerous definitions for “God” however the most common definitions include specific attributes including ‘omnipotence‘. Omnipotence literally means “all power” and is defined as the ability to manipulate reality in such a way one is able to do anything. Basically power without any limits. Now the monotheistic God of Abraham is defined as being omnipotent or all powerful (Example being Matthew 19:26). Unbelievers contend that there is an “omnipotence paradox” that makes it impossible for omnipotence to logically exist which would disprove God. I will explain how this is incorrect.

The omnipotence paradox basically asks whether or not an omnipotent being (God in this example) can perform an action that would make it impossible for it to perform another action thus negating it’s omnipotence. I will assume that God is indeed ‘omnipotent’ and all powerful and can do anything, so I won’t argue that the argument is valid due God not being omnipotent. One very common form of the argument is "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?" The argument claims that there are only two possibilities. God CAN make a stone so heavy he can’t lift and in which case he can’t lift it thus negating his omnipotence. Or alternatively God can NOT make a stone that heavy and his omnipotence is instantly negated. There are numerous flaws in this reasoning and I will explain a few of them.

One common response is one that Aquinas made in his Summa Theologica where he stated :”It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible. For a thing is said to be possible or impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not incompatible with the subject, as that Socrates sits; and absolutely impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey.” Here he seems to be arguing that God can do anything that is “possible” and if something is logically impossible then he can not do it. Asking whether or not he can make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift is a meaningless question according to him.

This is one possibility to the omnipotence of a being that doesn’t necessarily negate it’s omnipotence. Another argument put forward is the contention that if God can do ‘anything’ than he should be able to remove his own omnipotence for a temporary amount of time while creating the stone (which at the time is too heavy for him to lift as it’s created) and then restore his omnipotence and lift the stone. Logically when the stone is being made he is not omnipotent and is making a stone that he could not lift however after it was made he could restore his omnipotence and then be able to lift the stone.

This leads to another and in my opinion the most convincing solution to the omnipotence paradox. “Can God make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it?” Yes and No. Without removing his omnipotence, God can make a stone so heavy that he can not lift and then he can lift it. How? Remember the definition of omnipotence? It means “All powerful” which means that God can do “anything”. Not simply “anything logically possible” but “anything logically impossible” as well. God can create a stone so heavy he can not lift and then he can easily lift it. This is logically impossible however what’s stopping being who can “do anything” by definition from…Doing anything? God could even microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it!”


Another very common argument against the existence of a God is the so called “Problem of Evil”. This argument states that if a omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God made the world then logically “evil” could not exist in such a world because the creation is the result of the creator and a bad creation can only mean a bad creator and by definition an omnibenevolent God would do all he could to prevent evil from occurring. If such a God can not prevent evil from occurring then he must not be omnipotent which would disprove his existence by definition. The origin of this argument as stated above probably comes from Plato who said in his Timaeus that: Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world? Epicurus put it; “Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?” There are several problems with this argument and I will explain them.

Many things must be clarified before this argument can mean anything. Firstly one must define “God”, Not all definitions of “God” include omnibenevolence however for the sake of argument let’s assume he is perfectly ‘good’ as well as omnipotent and omnipresent. We’ll assume this simply because it’s not necessarily required to refute the argument. The next question we encounter is the definition of “evil” and this one is a bit more difficult to simply dismiss. How does one define “evil”? Who defines ‘evil’? Who gets to say whether or not something is bad or good? Can such a thing be done? Many people do not believe ‘evil’ can be defined and this would mean that the entire argument is worthless and invalid. However if someone assumes that a ‘evil’ and ‘good’ exist then again, who defines ‘good’ or ‘evil’? C.S. Lewis once said: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Clearly, A moral law means that there must be a moral law maker. Someone who created the universe and it’s inherent properties and who defines “good and evil”. This conclusion would negate the argument again because it proves a God exists.

Another common argument is the so argument that if God is perfect and omnipotent then why does the world seem to be designed so poorly? We encounter the same problems with this argument as we do in the above argument. How does one define “poorly”? Can it be defined or is it simply an epistemologically subjective term without any concrete meaning? Moreover who said that the apparent poor construct of the world we live in is a result of the creation of God and not a result of something else? This argument presupposes that God constantly controls the universe in such a way to prevent so called ‘incompetent design’ from appearing and this is to say the least baseless. If God is omnibenevolent he MUST control his design to make sure bad things don’t happen? We encounter the same problems with this logic as we did above in the question of ‘evil’. All conclusions will get to the same results which were stated above.


The so called “Physical mind argument” against not necessarily the existence of a God but an afterlife is another common argument used against theistic beliefs, in this case in an afterlife. I’m going to explain how these types of arguments are inherently false. First let us examine the argument itself and I’m going to quote Keith Augustine from infidels.org who has put forth this argument: “If a nonphysical mind (rather than the brain) does our thinking, then altering the brain (say by lobotomy) should have no effect on one's ability to think. But, in fact, altering the brain does (often dramatically) affect one's ability to think. Therefore, thinking is probably not something done by a nonphysical mind, but rather something that the brain does. And since the brain is destroyed by death, thinking--or one's mind as a whole--is probably destroyed by death too.”

In essence he is arguing that if a nonphysical conscious is controlling our physical bodies then physically affecting the brain with drugs or even lobotomy shouldn’t have any effect on our ability to think. However when we do alter the brains physical attributes or chemistry we do see drastic changes in the way we think ergo our brains are the controlling our thoughts and when our brains die so does our consciousness and our ability to think or perceive. This argument has many flaws and I will outline the main flaws here.

This argument hits on the so called “mind body” problem of philosophy which is one of the central problems in the philosophy of the mind. The mind-body problem deals with the supposed relationship between the brain, the physical organ in the skull and our consciousness and whether or not our brain is the actual cause of our consciousness. There are two basic schools in this philosophy are Dualism and monism. Dualists hold the position that our minds and bodies are distinctly separate and some of the first to espouse specifically dualism in this context were Plato and Aristotle. Dualists do not believe that our brains are the cause of our consciousness. The other school of thought in this philosophy are Monists. Monists contend that the mind and body are not separate but are essentially linked together, generally though biological processes.

The problem with the assertion that if a nonphysical conscious is controlling our physical bodies then physically affecting the brain with drugs or even lobotomy shouldn’t have any effect on our ability to think is our brains could easily work like televisions that receive information but are not forming the information themselves. This is to say, our consciousness isn’t a direct result of our brains but our brains simply work as receivers. If one toys with a television antenna then the reception will change, the same way as if one toys with our brains our consciousness changes. Though one might say that our consciousness doesn't work like a 'receiver' though this is false. We receive information everyday from the outside world through our sense. Our brains are receiving input from our senses every second of every day.

I hope this following was as simple and clear as I hoped it would be, I did not spend as much time as I should have copy editing it as I typed it up in about 20 minutes. Some of the things I say might not be totally referenced and if that's the case please do not hesitate to ask for sources for it or further explanations of something that isn't totally clear to you.

[Complexity]

As I've mentioned in other posts, it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of a god.

You are presenting arguments that you provide support for your belief that there is a god, but they can not be considered a proof, nor can they be strengthened or augmented in a way that transform them into a proof.

Please don't get out your dictionary - that grows tiresome. You lack the basic understanding and training to use these words and concepts correctly.

You need to read and think for several years. Seriously.

There is no need to keep us apprised of your opinions on religion or philosophy during this several-year period.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Please don't get out your dictionary - that grows tiresome.

And proves I'm right...


There is no need to keep us apprised of your opinions on religion or philosophy during this several-year period.


Really? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84446)

[Azure]

Dustin, while I very much respect your intentions...and have learned a lot from just that one post...I don't think you will ever prove God exists.

When I saw the thread title...I figured someone had started another stupid thread, trying to 'prove' God exists. But alas, this seems much more interesting.

[KingMerv00]

It is late. No time to respond now. Maybe tomorrow. I will say am unfamiliar with the notation in:

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

Therefore I am unable to comment on that unless someone clears it up for me.

[Marquis de Carabas]

C.S. Lewis once said concerning Christianity "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." I am writing up this short post concerning theism though not necessarily Christianity itself and the credence in theism and or deism in order to provide an efficacious and determinative composition concerning the beliefs thereof and the extenuation or apologia in a palliative framework based upon dialectic syllogistics in coherence which will in my assessment be unambiguously irrefrangible. I want to stress that the following post was condensed into a breviloquent and concise framework who’s aim is sheer simplicity and practicality. Furthermore much of what I wrote in this post was removed due to conservation of space.
If there is in existence any singular entity or occurrence that I find myself completely enamoured of it is to witness someone utilise convoluted grammatical structure and words of voluminous length in an attempt at coruscation and subsequently confuse a pronoun having the quality of possessiveness with it's homophone.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If there is in existence any singular entity or occurrence that I find myself completely enamoured of it is to witness someone utilise convoluted grammatical structure and words of voluminous length in an attempt at coruscation and subsequently confuse a pronoun having the quality of possessiveness with it's homophone.


I just tried to use words that would convey the most meaning and be most easily understood by a majority of readers.

[Ginarley]

Impressive post... I'd suggest reading Ed De Bono's Simplicity just as an aside ;)

...snip...
Firstly we must look at the definition of the “God” we are referring to. The definition is as follows: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe. By this definition we can see that one inherent property of our would-be god is being “supernatural” which means ‘above or beyond what is natural’, one inherent property is omnipotence and omniscience which mean having all powers or abilities and having all knowledge or wisdom respectively
.....snip...

I'm far from convinced this definition is meaningful enough to build an entire belief around. What does it even mean? It seems to me that its built up of a whole bunch of thought-experiment-like concepts (omnipotence, omniscience, supernatural), none of which really mean anything in any useful sense?

Also I don't suppose you could elaborate on how something can be "above or beyond what is natural"? Why is this supernatural-ness even necessary?

I'm also curious as to the choice of the words "ruler of the universe" - what does this mean?

Cheers
Ian

[Complexity]

Dustin - you don't do this very well.

Please go in a corner and talk to Yrreg if you won't learn things quietly on your own.

[Z]

First, Dustin, let me express what I think the majority of readers may wish to express, but will restrain themselves from so doing.

Your posts are wordy, lengthy, and unnecessarily expository.

After all, it takes you two paragraphs just to get through the introduction, and another do explain what you plan to do in the next!

Learning how to employ concise, precise, and accurate terms is at least as important, if not more so, than learning an expansive vocabulary.

Second, let me express my sincere best wishes for your endeavor, as a fellow man of faith. It's not at all an easy task you've set yourself, and many men far more intelligent than you have tried this same task, and all have failed, without exception.

Now, I'll make every attempt at reading through the entire post - ADHD notwithstanding - but when I reach a point I have trouble with, I will stop and seek explanation, clarification, or debate.

So we did fine until we got to here:

The next step is examining our own experiences of the apparent world around us. Currently in our endeavor we have proven our own personal and individual existence through the fact that we are ‘thinking things’ however we have yet to prove that our personal experiences of the world around us are legitimate experiences of something ‘out there’ opposed to hallucinations distinctly inside of our own consciousness. In order for our experiences to exist they must have an origin whether the origin is our own unconscious mind or something separate from us (Perhaps Descartes demon, or perhaps God). We now have to look at our two possibilities and discern the most rational one from the most irrational one, or maybe they both lead to the same conclusion. If our experiences of the world around us originates from our own minds then they must have a cause thereof. Rationally every event precedes a prior cause and if we are experiencing something (let’s say a tree) then our thoughts of the tree whether real or delusional must have been preceded by a cause which brought about the experience of the tree. That cause could not have been ourselves because then we face the regress problem and are forced to come to the conclusion that the cause of our experiences are outside of our own minds. If we are experiencing a tree and the cause of that experience exists within our own unconscious minds then that cause of that experience must itself have a previous cause which itself has a previous cause, etc. This would result in a never-ending chain of causes and effects all inside of our unconscious minds and nothing to distinguish between unconscious causes and conscious effects (such as the aforementioned tree) which would be impossible.

And the reason I get caught up on this paragraph, is because among other experiences, we have the experiences of thought, imagination, and dreams, which we already know do NOT originate from beyond the mind, but rather originate WITHIN our mind. Now, you COULD argue that all mental activity is ultimately caused by external experience, but I don't think you can get 100% acceptance of such an argument. A solipsist, for example, would conclude that all experience is necessarily internal experience, internally generated by the subconscious mind for the conscious mind. An acosmist, on the other hand, would say that all experience is necessarily internal experience, generated by the uber-mind for the individual illusionary mind.

Another reason this paragraph gives me pause, is that you seem to think a never-ending chain of causes and effects is impossible. This is one assertion that, I feel, requires further scrutiny. What leads you to believe in the primal necessity of a 'first cause'? This alone sounds like a well-veiled attempt at inserting God early in the story... simply asserting that there had to be a 'First Cause' by claiming that an unbroken, eternal cause-effect chain is impossible isn't going to cut it. We need to see why you think this, and what proof you have that such eternal cause-effect chains AREN'T possible.

I can understand the desire to avoid the infinite regression argument, of course - if you don't nip it in the bud in this early stage of your argument, what's to stop the skeptic from asking you what created God, and what created God's creator, and so on?

So at this point, the best I can agree with you on, is that thought does, in fact, exist (and suggests a thinker). However, if one mind is all that does exist, then all thoughts are necessarily internal thoughts, and self-causal. Even with the model which we feel best represents reality, internal self-caused thoughts do appear to exist (though, to be fair, it would be more appropriate to say that such thoughts are caused by factors we are not yet aware of).

If we can discuss this paragraph first, I feel we will be able to move on to the next few.

Thanks in advanced,

The Rev.

(P.S. As a priest, nothing would please me more than a logically sound proof of the Divine. As a result, I intend to be more critical and cautious when examining so-called 'proofs' than many Atheists, who are quite happy with asking for direct evidence and leaving it at that. If and when we Believers ever do manage to make a solid Proof of the Divine, that Proof absolutely has to be airtight and indefeatable.

So far, your proof lacks that.

[Complexity]

Dustin - I forgot to thank you for so clearly identifying yourself as an evangelical Christian in the thread I started for your beliefs.

It was pretty obvious to me, but you were having too much fun dancing around clear statements in the other threads.

Your beliefs sadden me. So it goes.

You wanted to know if I had other questions about your beliefs.

Do you think that your identification as an evangelical Christian communicates your beliefs sufficiently, or is there more to you than that?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm far from convinced this definition is meaningful enough to build an entire belief around. What does it even mean? It seems to me that its built up of a whole bunch of thought-experiment-like concepts (omnipotence, omniscience, supernatural), none of which really mean anything in any useful sense?

Well it's the most comprehensive definition for monotheistic beliefs.

Also I don't suppose you could elaborate on how something can be "above or beyond what is natural"? Why is this supernatural-ness even necessary?

"Above or beyond what is natural" simply means separate from the natural world in some sort of way. Not just separate but superior, superior in the sense of able to 'do more' to put it simply. Though God doesn't necessarily need to always be separate from the natural world.

I'm also curious as to the choice of the words "ruler of the universe" - what does this mean?

Controller of or ability to control the universe.

[Z]

I just tried to use words that would convey the most meaning and be most easily understood by a majority of readers.

No, you've tried to use balloon-terms. It's really quite transparent.

Dusty, what is the average reading level of the majority of readers? Do you know?

Clue: It ain't even post-high-school.

[Hokulele]

Impressive post... I'd suggest reading Ed De Bono's Simplicity just as an aside ;)


Strunk & White, The Elements of Style wouldn't hurt either.

[Apathia]

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N


It's Kurt Godel's improved version of the Ontological Argument.
It is quite technical and worthy of serious attention. It is not, though, regarded as a proof. It contains, as it's ancient Anselm version, unstated assumptions about the realtionship between abstract ideals and emperical reality. Most theologins don't expect Philosophy to provide a solid foundation for belief. The atitude of most Evangelical Christians is that these kinds of arguments have some apologetic value, but the crux of the matter is the subjective experience of the Divine Presence. They feel this must be aforded a more pivitol place in life and not be dismised by an insistance on objectivity at all costs.

Dustin,

Is your experience the glue that holds all this together for you? Or are you still insisting on "Proofs?"
I have no quarrell with you if you are saying your belief is pragmatic and functional for you, and that you find your subjective experience to be revelatory in your worldview.
I've had mystical experiences myself, and over the years my understanding and interpreation of them has changed as I've come to see the wide variety of religious and secular contexts in which people have them.
So, you won't find me saying your experience was some kind of abnormal psychiology. At the same time, I ask you not to characterize those who haven't had the same experiences or interpret them in different ways as "blind" and "cripple."

[Ginarley]

Well it's the most comprehensive definition for monotheistic beliefs.

That entirely avoids my question. What does that definition you provided actually mean?

"Above or beyond what is natural" simply means separate from the natural world in some sort of way. Not just separate but superior, superior in the sense of able to 'do more' to put it simply. Though God doesn't necessarily need to always be separate from the natural world.

I'll try a different tact then - what is the "natural world" you speak of?

Controller of or ability to control the universe.

What does controlling the universe actually mean?

My point is that it is all well and good to throw words at a definition, but unless you are clear what those words actually mean, the definition doesn't actually define anything. You most certainly cannot demonstrate the existence of something that is poorly defined.

Strunk & White, The Elements of Style wouldn't hurt either.

Elementary Principle of Composition point 17 and the Approach to Style point 6 leap to mind perchance? :)

[Wolfman]

Dustin,

Just a few comments:

First, I once believed, and argued, pretty much the same as you do. And I was convinced that my arguments "proved" the truth of what I was saying.

I was wrong.

Rather than do a detailed analysis of your arguments, I'll just make a few quick observations. First, you are guilty of the logical fallacy of using arguments where "it seems likely", "it seems more reasonable", or other such statements are later transformed somehow into "it is true". You build a foundation, and all subsequent "conclusions" are based on that foundation; and, if that foundation is true, then the conclusions have merit. However, the foundation you've based those conclusions on is not demonstrated, proven fact; it is assumptions about life, the universe, and your perception of the universe. Change those assumptions, and the conclusions are invalidated.

Second, it is a huge, huge step from "I can prove that a god must exist" to "The Christian god is the true god". You stated in your OP that:
I will show using logical reasoning that a God must exist and does exist. That God made this world and this universe and that this God is the God described in the biblical narrative.Now, first, I do not consider that you've 'proven' (logically or otherwise) the existence of a god. But even if I considered your arguments to be valid arguments that some kind of god must exist, you don't even come close to demonstrating that the "God made this world and this universe and that this God is the God described in the biblical narrative". Again, your entire argument is based on personal observation/experiences, ignoring or dismissing any alternate observations/experiences of others.

In fact, subconsciously, you seem to be taking Descartes "cognito ergo sum" to the illogical conclusion that, since you have observed/experienced a particular phenomenon, therefore that phenomenon must be true; or the corollary, that your explanation for that phenomenon must be the only possible explanation.

Every religion on the planet could use exactly the same arguments that you've used to argue for the "existence" of some kind of god; one could even use it as a "logical" argument for a polytheistic system. After all, if one argues that the "ultimate" being (a being greater than which there can be no other) must logically exist, it is equally logical to assume that there must be various stages of "gods" underneath that god.

And every religion on the planet would be quite capable of presenting "logical" arguments as to why their god is, logically, the only god that could really exist.

All one has to do is pick and choose one's presuppositions, and one can "prove" just about anything.

[Apathia]

Excellent post, Wolfman!
I was wondering how I could make the same reply but feared it would be way too long. You have captured it in a few brief paragraphs.
Most telling is this:
All one has to do is pick and choose one's presuppositions, and one can "prove" just about anything.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Second, let me express my sincere best wishes for your endeavor, as a fellow man of faith. It's not at all an easy task you've set yourself, and many men far more intelligent than you have tried this same task, and all have failed, without exception.

You claim yourself to be a "fellow man of faith"? What sort of "Faith" are you promoting here? The kind of faith that is synonymous with 'dogma' or the kind of faith that simply equals belief? If you are saying you hold dogmatic beliefs then your world view is inherently illogical and you have no justification or grounding to critique me in any way, shape or form.


And the reason I get caught up on this paragraph, is because among other experiences, we have the experiences of thought, imagination, and dreams, which we already know do NOT originate from beyond the mind, but rather originate WITHIN our mind.

No. The material for such things come from the "world outside". Thoughts, dreams, etc all originate from the outside world outside of our consciousness. From our perspectives, dreams originate from the world outside and are based on such. Simply our minds processing what it receives from the outside world. You can't use dreams, thoughts or imagination as an example of something occurring specifically inside of our minds with no cause elsewhere.



Another reason this paragraph gives me pause, is that you seem to think a never-ending chain of causes and effects is impossible. This is one assertion that, I feel, requires further scrutiny. What leads you to believe in the primal necessity of a 'first cause'? This alone sounds like a well-veiled attempt at inserting God early in the story... simply asserting that there had to be a 'First Cause' by claiming that an unbroken, eternal cause-effect chain is impossible isn't going to cut it. We need to see why you think this, and what proof you have that such eternal cause-effect chains AREN'T possible.

No. Re-read what I said...

If we are experiencing a tree and the cause of that experience exists within our own unconscious minds then that cause of that experience must itself have a previous cause which itself has a previous cause, etc. This would result in a never-ending chain of causes and effects all inside of our unconscious minds and nothing to distinguish between unconscious causes and conscious effects (such as the aforementioned tree) which would be impossible.


I can understand the desire to avoid the infinite regression argument, of course - if you don't nip it in the bud in this early stage of your argument, what's to stop the skeptic from asking you what created God, and what created God's creator, and so on?

Nothing stopping them from asking such a thing.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It's Kurt Godel's improved version of the Ontological Argument.
It is quite technical and worthy of serious attention. It is not, though, regarded as a proof. It contains, as it's ancient Anselm version, unstated assumptions about the realtionship between abstract ideals and emperical reality. Most theologins don't expect Philosophy to provide a solid foundation for belief. The atitude of most Evangelical Christians is that these kinds of arguments have some apologetic value, but the crux of the matter is the subjective experience of the Divine Presence. They feel this must be aforded a more pivitol place in life and not be dismised by an insistance on objectivity at all costs.

Good grief, use a spell checker man!

No, My argument does NOT make the same baseless assumptions as the Anselm version.


Dustin,

Is your experience the glue that holds all this together for you? Or are you still insisting on "Proofs?"
I have no quarrell with you if you are saying your belief is pragmatic and functional for you, and that you find your subjective experience to be revelatory in your worldview.
I've had mystical experiences myself, and over the years my understanding and interpreation of them has changed as I've come to see the wide variety of religious and secular contexts in which people have them.
So, you won't find me saying your experience was some kind of abnormal psychiology. At the same time, I ask you not to characterize those who haven't had the same experiences or interpret them in different ways as "blind" and "cripple."

No. Pragmatism has nothing to do with the improvement on Kurt Gödel argument, but is discussed later in the post.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That entirely avoids my question. What does that definition you provided actually mean?

I don't know what you mean.



I'll try a different tact then - what is the "natural world" you speak of?

The world existing in or formed by nature.



What does controlling the universe actually mean?

Could mean a lot of things. Be a bit more specific in your question.

[PixyMisa]

Firstly we must look at the definition of the “God” we are referring to. The definition is as follows: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.
Please define: "supernatural", "perfect", "omnipotent", "omniscient", "originator", and "universe". Depending on your answers, we may need you to define additional terms.

Thank you.
I just tried to use words that would convey the most meaning and be most easily understood by a majority of readers.
You failed.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Please define: "supernatural", "perfect", "omnipotent", "omniscient", "originator", and "universe". Depending on your answers, we may need you to define additional terms.


Supernatural-of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural.

Perfect-exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose.

Omnipotent-almighty or infinite in power, as God.

Omniscient-having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

Originate-to take its origin or rise; begin; start; arise.

Universe-All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

[PixyMisa]

Supernatural-of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural.

Perfect-exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose.

Omnipotent-almighty or infinite in power, as God.
BZZZT! Circular definition!

Omniscient-having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

Originate-to take its origin or rise; begin; start; arise.

Universe-All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
Thanks, Dustin.

Okay, let's work with those.

Can we say that the universe is all that is natural? That would tie the definitions of "universe" and "supernatural" together. Is that acceptable?

And for omnipotent, if we define that instead as being without limit in its actions, or, able to perform any coherently defined action? (So none of that "rock so heavy he can't lift it" guff.)

Omniscient... Hmm. Let me think on that one.

Your definition of perfect doesn't work, though, because then you'd need to define God's purpose, or the need for God.

And "originate" doesn't work at all, because that's a definition pertaining to time, and time is a property of the universe, not of God, right?

I have some other points (not related to definitions) but I'll address those in a separate post.

[Apathia]

Good grief, use a spell checker man!

No, My argument does NOT make the same baseless assumptions as the Anselm version.

No. Pragmatism has nothing to do with the improvement on Kurt Gödel argument, but is discussed later in the post.

Yes, my post was awful. It wasn't my meaning that pragmatism had anything to do with Godel's proof. So I'll post that part again and try to clean up the spelling errors:

Dustin,

Is your experience the glue that holds all this together for you? Or are you still insisting on "Proofs?"
I have no quarrel with you if you are saying your belief is pragmatic and functional for you, and that you find your subjective experience to be revelatory in your worldview.
I've had mystical experiences myself, and over the years my understanding and interpretation of them has changed as I've come to see the wide variety of religious and secular contexts in which people have them.
So, you won't find me saying your experience was some kind of abnormal psychology. At the same time, I ask you not to characterize those who haven't had the same experiences or interpret them in different ways as "blind" and "cripple."

[l0rca]

Is anyone else here exhausted when it comes to reading 'fresh' theistic arguments? Theists: if you want to debate God, and remain somewhat respectable, you've got to put it into the context of past philosophy and arguments. 'Inventing' worn out philosophical proofs bothers us. We don't want to read very long essays, to only half-way through realize that the arguments are entirely old. It's even worse when the writer doesn't acknowledge this. It makes that writer seem uneducated on the subject.

If we're going to look at the history of this and judge where the next reply comes from, it is the theist who must reply, in regards to Popper, Hume, Kant, etc. I'm not going to waste my time (and evidently neither are most of us, at least seriously) in argument with someone who's reinventing old arguments. Will any of you realize empiricism is the dominating strategy for understanding and rationalizing the universe? Will any of you stop ignoring this, and finally try to confront it?

I'll take you seriously when you confront the flaws, confront our counter-arguments, and give us a good reply, not asking is to presuppose wild axioms. This is the 21st century, and philosophy has been around for a very long time. We'e all sort of yawning about this God thing right about now.

[Z]

You claim yourself to be a "fellow man of faith"? What sort of "Faith" are you promoting here? The kind of faith that is synonymous with 'dogma' or the kind of faith that simply equals belief?

I mean 'faith' as in 'holding onto beliefs which are themselves unproven through observation and fact', as opposed to 'holding on to beliefs which are disproven through observation and fact'.

If you are saying you hold dogmatic beliefs

I did not.

then your world view is inherently illogical and you have no justification or grounding to critique me in any way, shape or form.

An empty assertion, at best. Even one who holds on to dogmatic beliefs may have considerable justification and grounds to critique you. For example, a Baptist priest might also well be an expert in use of precision in language, and may well have both justification and grounds to critique your excessively flowery diatribe.

No. The material for such things come from the "world outside". Thoughts, dreams, etc all originate from the outside world outside of our consciousness.

Are you equating 'the world outside' with anything which is beyond immediate awareness?

From our perspectives, dreams originate from the world outside and are based on such. Simply our minds processing what it receives from the outside world. You can't use dreams, thoughts or imagination as an example of something occurring specifically inside of our minds with no cause elsewhere.

I have to disagree. Our minds also process what they send to themselves, as well. Hence, memory and imagination, dreams and thoughts, are all internal to the mind. However, I am beginning to suspect that your use of 'mind' relates ONLY to conscious awareness, which I feel is a fallacy. The conscious awareness is only a fragment of the mind, and an ephemeral and possibly illusory one, at that.

Indeed, in order to disprove that thoughts and imaginings cannot originate in the mind, you would first have to define what the mind is, and demonstrate the truth of the definition.

Anyway, I suspect I'm merely misinterpreting your choice of words here. Please clarify what you mean by 'mind'.

No. Re-read what I said...

If we are experiencing a tree and the cause of that experience exists within our own unconscious minds then that cause of that experience must itself have a previous cause which itself has a previous cause, etc.

Why? I'm afraid your result makes little sense, but the cause of that result needs explanation. Please explain why you think the unconcious mind cannot be the originator of an experience without itself suffering causation. Indeed, by your thinking, God could not exist, because God would be the cause of experiences, and the cause of that experience must have a previous cause... etc.

In other words, you either have to accept infinite regression at all levels, or primal causation at all levels... or even both. But you have to be prepared to justify your choice.

From what I can tell from your writings, you do NOT accept infinite regression when it applies to God, but do NOT accept primal causation when it applies to the mind. Please clarify.

Nothing stopping them from asking such a thing.

And you have an answer for this? Or no?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Is your experience the glue that holds all this together for you? Or are you still insisting on "Proofs?"

Proof.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I mean 'faith' as in 'holding onto beliefs which are themselves unproven through observation and fact', as opposed to 'holding on to beliefs which are disproven through observation and fact'.

Yes. Dogma.



I did not.

You do.

Dogma-a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.


An empty assertion, at best. Even one who holds on to dogmatic beliefs may have considerable justification and grounds to critique you. For example, a Baptist priest might also well be an expert in use of precision in language, and may well have both justification and grounds to critique your excessively flowery diatribe.

Except that's not what I'm attacking. You're purportedly critiquing my reasoning when your entire world view is based on nothing.


Are you equating 'the world outside' with anything which is beyond immediate awareness?

The "World outside" meaning outside of the cause of our consciousness, whatever that may be.



I have to disagree. Our minds also process what they send to themselves, as well. Hence, memory and imagination, dreams and thoughts, are all internal to the mind. However, I am beginning to suspect that your use of 'mind' relates ONLY to conscious awareness, which I feel is a fallacy. The conscious awareness is only a fragment of the mind, and an ephemeral and possibly illusory one, at that.

Indeed, in order to disprove that thoughts and imaginings cannot originate in the mind, you would first have to define what the mind is, and demonstrate the truth of the definition.

Anyway, I suspect I'm merely misinterpreting your choice of words here. Please clarify what you mean by 'mind'.

Give me an example of a 'thought' that isn't totally reliant upon external experiences.


Why? I'm afraid your result makes little sense, but the cause of that result needs explanation. Please explain why you think the unconcious mind cannot be the originator of an experience without itself suffering causation. Indeed, by your thinking, God could not exist, because God would be the cause of experiences, and the cause of that experience must have a previous cause... etc.

In other words, you either have to accept infinite regression at all levels, or primal causation at all levels... or even both. But you have to be prepared to justify your choice.

From what I can tell from your writings, you do NOT accept infinite regression when it applies to God, but do NOT accept primal causation when it applies to the mind. Please clarify.

Firstly, I'm saying there must be some dichotomy between conscious thoughts and unconscious causes of those thoughts if indeed the causes of our thoughts are ourselves.

Secondly, I never said that God can't suffer from the infinite regress problem either.


And you have an answer for this? Or no?

It's not relevant to the existence of a God. God exists whether he was made by another previous God or whether he made himself.

[PixyMisa]

Now, one of my favourite topics:
If one toys with a television antenna then the reception will change, the same way as if one toys with our brains our consciousness changes.
Dustin, this is deeply, deeply inaccurate.

If you vaporise an antenna, you lose all signal, the same as if you destroy a brain you lose all consciousness.

But that is as far as the analogy goes!

Specific physical brain defects, whether congenital, medical, or due to injury, map consistently to specific mental deficiencies.

Take the case of anterograde amnesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterograde_amnesia): When the hippocampus is damaged, the subject is quite capable of performing daily tasks, but is no longer capable of forming long-term memories. Sufferers can engage in conversation, but will remember nothing of it an hour later.

Take the case of split-brain studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_brain): In severe cases of epilepsy, one possible treatment is the severing of the corpus callosum, a bridge between the two hemispheres of the brain. A side effect of this, though, is that the patient cannot name an object that is presented to their left field of view, even though they can identify it. This is because the left eye is wired to the right hemisphere by the optic nerve (which was not severed, of course), but speech is controlled by the left hemisphere.

Or take the experiments that show (I will have to dig up some references for you) that conscious awareness of a decision to act comes some hundreds of milliseconds after motor neurons start firing to perform the action.

To claim that
This is to say, our consciousness isn’t a direct result of our brains but our brains simply work as receivers.
Requires that we have a language receiver... or rather, a spoken language receiver and a written language receiver, for they are separate functions in the brain; several separate visual perception receivers (because we can trace the neural activity of visual perception through the brain); both a short-term and a long-term memory receiver; and so on and on.

And these "receivers", were they really such, can be tricked in rather odd ways for "receivers".

Take the McCullough Effect (http://www.cheswick.com/ches/me/) as an example here. This is a class of optical illusions that produces a persistent change in your colour perception - lasting hours or even longer - based on whether lines are vertical or horizontal. Biologically, evolutionarily, this appears to be an automatic adjustment to your colour perception that works just fine in the real world. It works less well for Psych 101 students, and I would find it interesting to hear your explanation of this if our awareness of colour is somehow beamed into us from... elsewhere.

Finally, we now have the ability to monitor brain activity to millisecond resolution in living, conscious human subjects via NMR. We can see the cascades of brain activity, from one part of the brain to the next (each adjacent), when, for example, a visual cue is presented. We can have a test where the subject has to press one button or another depending on the visual cue, and we can track all the brain activity involved, starting with the optic nerve. There is, quite simply, no room left for the "receiver" theory. It's a "God of the gaps" claim, and while I can't say the gaps are entirely gone, they are far too small for such a theory to find any place in our understanding of the mind.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Specific physical brain defects, whether congenital, medical, or due to injury, map consistently to specific mental deficiencies.

Take the case of anterograde amnesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterograde_amnesia): When the hippocampus is damaged, the subject is quite capable of performing daily tasks, but is no longer capable of forming long-term memories. Sufferers can engage in conversation, but will remember nothing of it an hour later.

Doesn't negate my comparison.

Take the case of split-brain studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_brain): In severe cases of epilepsy, one possible treatment is the severing of the corpus callosum, a bridge between the two hemispheres of the brain. A side effect of this, though, is that the patient cannot name an object that is presented to their left field of view, even though they can identify it. This is because the left eye is wired to the right hemisphere by the optic nerve (which was not severed, of course), but speech is controlled by the left hemisphere.

Doesn't negate my comparison.

Or take the experiments that show (I will have to dig up some references for you) that conscious awareness of a decision to act comes some hundreds of milliseconds after motor neurons start firing to perform the action.

Doesn't negate my comparison.

To claim that

Requires that we have a language receiver... or rather, a spoken language receiver and a written language receiver, for they are separate functions in the brain; several separate visual perception receivers (because we can trace the neural activity of visual perception through the brain); both a short-term and a long-term memory receiver; and so on and on.

And these "receivers", were they really such, can be tricked in rather odd ways for "receivers".

Take the McCullough Effect (http://www.cheswick.com/ches/me/) as an example here. This is a class of optical illusions that produces a persistent change in your colour perception - lasting hours or even longer - based on whether lines are vertical or horizontal. Biologically, evolutionarily, this appears to be an automatic adjustment to your colour perception that works just fine in the real world. It works less well for Psych 101 students, and I would find it interesting to hear your explanation of this if our awareness of colour is somehow beamed into us from... elsewhere.

Finally, we now have the ability to monitor brain activity to millisecond resolution in living, conscious human subjects via NMR. We can see the cascades of brain activity, from one part of the brain to the next (each adjacent), when, for example, a visual cue is presented. We can have a test where the subject has to press one button or another depending on the visual cue, and we can track all the brain activity involved, starting with the optic nerve. There is, quite simply, no room left for the "receiver" theory. It's a "God of the gaps" claim, and while I can't say the gaps are entirely gone, they are far too small for such a theory to find any place in our understanding of the mind.

I don't see how that negates my comparison.

[Wolfman]

*noting that there is strangely lacking a response to my post*

[PixyMisa]

Doesn't negate my comparison.
Provide an explanation of how this is possible under your "receiver" speculation.

I don't see how that negates my comparison.
Where does the receiver come into play, Dustin?

We can measure every stage of visual perception and response, from the retina itself through to conscious awareness (which comes last!) as the process cascades through the brain. We can see the neural activity shift as signals flash from one section to another. We can even measure the time delay from the initiation of the response to the conscious awareness of the decision.

Where, in all this physical activity, will you insert your external signal?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Provide an explanation of how this is possible under your "receiver" speculation.

Receivers can have different parts for different functions as well.

Where does the receiver come into play, Dustin?

We can measure every stage of visual perception and response, from the retina itself through to conscious awareness (which comes last!) as the process cascades through the brain. We can see the neural activity shift as signals flash from one section to another. We can even measure the time delay from the initiation of the response to the conscious awareness of the decision.

Where, in all this physical activity, will you insert your external signal?

Tell me where the consciousness comes into play. Our abstract "minds". You can explain the various routes to perception of specific things but you haven't explained exactly how it equals our abstract minds.

[PixyMisa]

Receivers can have different parts for different functions as well.
So we receive one signal, you say, and then it spreads out into different parts of the brain for interpretation?

I say yes, that's exactly right - except that this applies to physical signals from the real world, and your supposed magical signal does not and cannot play any part.

Tell me where the consciousness comes into play. Our abstract "minds". You can explain the various routes to perception of specific things but you haven't explained exactly how it equals our abstract minds.Okay, first, I note that you completely avoided my question.

Second, what is the difference between perception, which is entirely explained by physical processes, and your so-called "abstract mind"? What is it that you think the "abstract mind" does?

Third, if consciousness - i.e. the abstract mind - is beamed in from elsewhere, how does it know what we just saw?

And fourth, why is it that we don't know what we just saw until 200 to 300 milliseconds after we decide to respond to it? We are "conscious" of a "conscious" decision, but we don't even know we've made the decision until well after we have acted upon it. How, Dustin, does that work?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Okay, first, I note that you completely avoided my question.

Second, what is the difference between perception, which is entirely explained by physical processes, and your so-called "abstract mind"? What is it that you think the "abstract mind" does?

Third, if consciousness - i.e. the abstract mind - is beamed in from elsewhere, how does it know what we just saw?

And fourth, why is it that we don't know what we just saw until 200 to 300 milliseconds after we decide to respond to it? We are "conscious" of a "conscious" decision, but we don't even know we've made the decision until well after we have acted upon it. How, Dustin, does that work?


Let me rephrase the question so as you can understand.

What causes me to think about something I choose to think about? Is it purely biological with no choice there? If I think about a random thing like...A tree. What causes me to think of a tree? The thought enters my brain 200-300 milliseconds before I have perception of it, right? What causes it to occur?

[Wolfman]

Hmmm...since my original post apparently deserves no response, I'll add one more item:

That is, one should be automatically suspicious of "logical" arguments which are begun with the presupposition of a particular truth. Ie. Dustin (and others who make these arguments) believe first that god exists; then set out to use "logic" to prove or justify that belief. However, when one begins a 'logical' argument with the foregone conclusion that this argument must be correct, it is inevitably going to lead to errors. Dustin isn't using non-biased logic to examine a proposition and determine if it is true or not; he is using "logic" to "prove" something that he has already pre-determined is true.

There is a world of difference between these two different forms of argument and logic. Take pretty much any major belief system on the planet -- theistic or atheistic -- and begin with the assumption that this belief is true, and a believer will be able to formulate an argument which appears completely logical to support and "prove" that belief.

Muslims do this. Christians do this. Buddhists do this. Atheists do this. Etc., etc., etc.

The question is this; if one began with a complete lack of knowledge of any god, of any religion, of any theology, would such an observer's "logical examination" of the universe around them lead them to anything even remotely resembling Christian theology? No, of course not. In fact, take 100 different people in such a situation, and they'd likely end up with 100 different world views. Just as, in real life, we've ended up with countless different religions, theologies, etc.

To me, a "logical" argument which is begun with the presupposition that the point they are trying to prove must be true, is suspect from the very beginning. It is not an examination of "what is true", but rather an exercise in "proving what I believe is true". In Dustin's case, any "logical" argument which excluded the existence of god would automatically be discarded, regardless of its merit, because such an argument does not fit with his already predetermined view that god exists.

[Apathia]

Proof.

I hope then that your journey takes you to better than that.

[PixyMisa]

Let me rephrase the question so as you can understand.

What causes me to think about something I choose to think about?
What do you mean by "cause"?

Is it purely biological with no choice there?
What do you mean by "choice"?

If I think about a random thing like...A tree.
Sure.

What causes me to think of a tree?
See the first question.

The thought enters my brain 200-300 milliseconds before I have perception of it, right?
I don't know if that is measurable.

What I'm saying is that there are some (rather clever) experiments that show that there is a delay of 200 to 300 milliseconds between the moment you begin to perform a conscious action and your awareness that you decided to do so. So either action precedes decision - even though this was, as far as the subjects can report, a conscious decision - or decision precedes consciousness. Either one presents your "receiver" with a certain amount of difficulty.

[PixyMisa]

... one should be automatically suspicious of "logical" arguments which are begun with the presupposition of a particular truth.
Except for Proof by Contradiction, and I'm pretty sure that's not where Dustin's going with this.

[Wolfman]

Except for Proof by Contradiction, and I'm pretty sure that's not where Dustin's going with this.
And even with proof by contradiction, it doesn't really work. Among his statements, Dustin has claimed that it is "logical" to conclude that the Biblical god is the only logical god. In order to support such an argument, one would need to demonstrate that, if a person had no previous exposure to any theological beliefs whatsoever, and was left only with "logic" to examine the universe around him (and all the tools necessary to do so), he would inevitably come to the conclusion that A) a god must exist and B) that that god's characteristics were the same as the characteristics of the god described in the Bible (without having any pre-existing knowledge of that god).

Yet I cannot see any "logical" argument by which such a result can be proven inevitable, not even probable. The entirety of human experience, including "logical" examination by numerous highly intelligent and logical people, has led to countless different views on "reality", the "existence of god", and the "nature of god".

Unless Dustin can demonstrate that a person would inevitably come to such conclusions without any pre-existing knowledge or bias, I consider such arguments to be pointless, and to demonstrate nothing other than the well-documented ability to use "logic" to prove pretty much anything, if you've decided what you want to prove in advance.

[Solus]

Dustin, you expect us to read that whole argument you present, when you hardly ever give respect to any forum members? Not worth my time, either you really converted or you are a clearly showing your colors as a troll.

[PixyMisa]

And even with proof by contradiction, it doesn't really work. Among his statements, Dustin has claimed that it is "logical" to conclude that the Biblical god is the only logical god. In order to support such an argument, one would need to demonstrate that, if a person had no previous exposure to any theological beliefs whatsoever, and was left only with "logic" to examine the universe around him (and all the tools necessary to do so), he would inevitably come to the conclusion that A) a god must exist and B) that that god's characteristics were the same as the characteristics of the god described in the Bible (without having any pre-existing knowledge of that god).
Well, if what he was really trying to do was prove that God doesn't exist... But of course that won't work for much the same reasons.

Unless Dustin can demonstrate that a person would inevitably come to such conclusions without any pre-existing knowledge or bias, I consider such arguments to be pointless, and to demonstrate nothing other than the well-documented ability to use "logic" to prove pretty much anything, if you've decided what you want to prove in advance.
And blindly insist that your logic is unassailable even when it has been picked to pieces.

[Ginarley]

I don't know what you mean.

My point here is that your definition of god is full of essentially meaningless terms that don't really define anything. I am asking what you mean by your definition of god.

The world existing in or formed by nature.

What is nature then? (Hint: a definition should never include the term it is trying to define...)

Could mean a lot of things. Be a bit more specific in your question.

Yes controlling the universe could mean a lot of things. That is exactly my point. I want to know what YOU mean by that phrase with respect to your definition of god.

I am not trying to be pedantic for the sake of it here mate - you have made a very bold claim of a proof of god and I have a suspician you don't actually know what it is you are trying to prove exists. At least I don't think you know specifically enough for it to have any meaning beyond "something exists" - and if your argument falls into the "something exists" category then far be it from me to argue. I wouldn't call existence god though, and I am pretty sure that is not what you mean.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

My point here is that your definition of god is full of essentially meaningless terms that don't really define anything. I am asking what you mean by your definition of god.

How is it meaningless?




Yes controlling the universe could mean a lot of things. That is exactly my point. I want to know what YOU mean by that phrase with respect to your definition of god.

I am not trying to be pedantic for the sake of it here mate - you have made a very bold claim of a proof of god and I have a suspician you don't actually know what it is you are trying to prove exists. At least I don't think you know specifically enough for it to have any meaning beyond "something exists" - and if your argument falls into the "something exists" category then far be it from me to argue. I wouldn't call existence god though, and I am pretty sure that is not what you mean.

Controlling the universe would mean having control over some or all aspects of the universe including natural laws.

[Wolfman]

Ya' know, Dustin, I like your style.

Why bother with logical, rational debate? Instead, write an incredibly long post and insist that everyone must read it before responding...then when people actually take the time to read it, and respond with rational, logical questions/objections, you simply ignore all but a very few, and you focus primarily on subjects that involve minor points of semantics, rather than fundamental criticisms of the foundations of your "logic".

As I said, at one time, I used to have beliefs and arguments similar to yours...perhaps the difference between us is that I actually took the time to listen to others, and examine their arguments, rather than blindly proceeding on the assumption that I'm right, and can therefore safely dismiss all contrary points of view.

A tactic which, I must admit, really seems to be a prerequisite to maintaining beliefs such as yours.

[PixyMisa]

How is it meaningless?
You have to define all the terms used in your definitions.

And the you have to define all the terms used in those definitions.

Somewhere along the way, you have to stop using words and tie your concepts to logic, mathematics, or direct observations.

You have failed to do so.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Ya' know, Dustin, I like your style.

Why bother with logical, rational debate? Instead, write an incredibly long post and insist that everyone must read it before responding...then when people actually take the time to read it, and respond with rational, logical questions/objections, you simply ignore all but a very few, and you focus primarily on subjects that involve minor points of semantics, rather than fundamental criticisms of the foundations of your "logic".

As I said, at one time, I used to have beliefs and arguments similar to yours...perhaps the difference between us is that I actually took the time to listen to others, and examine their arguments, rather than blindly proceeding on the assumption that I'm right, and can therefore safely dismiss all contrary points of view.

A tactic which, I must admit, really seems to be a prerequisite to maintaining beliefs such as yours.


I apologize if I haven't gotten to your posts yet. However I know all of the arguments that would oppose me and I used to believe in them. I'm not ignoring anyones arguments.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You have to define all the terms used in your definitions.

And the you have to define all the terms used in those definitions.

Somewhere along the way, you have to stop using words and tie your concepts to logic, mathematics, or direct observations.

You have failed to do so.

Again, All words are defined in relation to other words. Every single definition works that way. I have defined the words used in my definition already at your request. You can't deny my definition because it "needs further words defined" or "relies on words" or any other nonsensical reasoning. All definitions to any words anywhere use other words. That's how definitions works, that's how language works.

[PixyMisa]

Again, All words are defined in relation to other words.
False.

Every single definition works that way.
False.

I have defined the words used in my definition already at your request.
Yes - and now you need to define the words you use in those definitions.

Until you tell us how to measure it.

You can't deny my definition because it "needs further words defined" or "relies on words"
I don't deny it; I just point out that it is thus necessarily either ill-defined or circular.

All definitions to any words anywhere use other words. That's how definitions works, that's how language works.
You don't have a clue how language works.

Hang on.

You say this is a "Proof of God".

You defined God. Inadequately, but let that pass.

What do you mean by proof?

This time.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

False.

One example then.


False.

One example then.



Yes - and now you need to define the words you use in those definitions.

Until you tell us how to measure it.

Define "Innovation" for me. Without relying on other words that also need defining.


I don't deny it; I just point out that it is thus necessarily either ill-defined or circular.

What definitions aren't?


You don't have a clue how language works.

Hang on.

You say this is a "Proof of God".

You defined God. Inadequately, but let that pass.

What do you mean by proof?

This time.

THIS time I'm using both definitions of proof. In the improvement on Gödel's argument I'm using proof in a logical context. In the other arguments I'm using proof as evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true. I believe I made that clear in the O.P.

[PixyMisa]

One example then.

One example then.
Already provided.

Define "Innovation" for me. Without relying on other words that also need defining.
Why?

What definitions aren't?
Nouns. Many adjectives and verbs.

I you just look in common language dictionaries, all you will find is words. That's why science doesn't use them.

THIS time I'm using both definitions of proof. In the improvement on Gödel's argument I'm using proof in a logical context. In the other arguments I'm using proof as evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true. I believe I made that clear in the O.P.
What do you mean by "sufficient"?

Is this a deductive proof? Or inductive? What is the nature of this evidence?

[PixyMisa]

Dustin, you said you found a reason for beliving in God that you found so convincing that it caused you to convert from atheism.

What was that reason?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Already provided.

Do you mean this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2680479&postcount=30)?

Refuted here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2680489&postcount=35), and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2680498&postcount=40).

Try again.


Why?

Because you can't define it without relying on other words which also be defined, which in turn rely on more words that need to be defined, etc. Which is your criticism of my definition, which is baseless since all works are defined in relation to other words.


Nouns. Many adjectives and verbs.

Pick one then. "Innovate" is a verb. Define it without relying on other words that also must be defined.

I you just look in common language dictionaries, all you will find is words. That's why science doesn't use them.

Science doesn't use words? :confused:


What do you mean by "sufficient"?

Sufficient-adequate for the purpose; enough: sufficient proof; sufficient protection.

Is this a deductive proof? Or inductive? What is the nature of this evidence?

The rework of Gödel's proof? It's modal.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin, you said you found a reason for beliving in God that you found so convincing that it caused you to convert from atheism.

What was that reason?

Explained in detail in the OP.

[Wolfman]

I apologize if I haven't gotten to your posts yet. However I know all of the arguments that would oppose me and I used to believe in them. I'm not ignoring anyones arguments.
Funny that -- I've posted a very fundamental argument, which requires no clarification of terms, and have posted it several times; yet you fail entirely to respond to it.

So I'll try again.

It is your contention that A) it is logical to believe in god, and that a logical examination of the universe will reveal the existence of a god, and B) that further to this, a logical examination of the universe will also demonstrate that the Christian god is the only "logical" one.

It is a necessary corollary to your argument -- but one which you have ignored entirely -- that if your argument is true, then it should be possible to demonstrate that a person who was presented with our universe, without any preconceived notions as to the origin of that universe, or the existence of supernatural beings, and who examined that universe from a purely neutral, logical point of view, would necessarily come to the conclusion that A) there was a god, and B) that that god's nature was the same as (or at least very similar to) the nature of the Christian god.

However, I contend that this is not the case. First, I would contend that it would be fully possible -- and logical -- for a person examining our universe to conclude that it had an entirely natural origin, no supernatural origin at all. Just as it would be fully possible for such a person to conclude that it had a supernatural origin.

But beyond that, once we take the debate to specifics such as the nature of that god, your argument becomes ludicrous. Even if we conclude that the existence of a god is logical, what is there in the universe to indicate that there is only one? Why not multiple gods? Either multiple gods who are all omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent, or else some hierarchical system of superior and inferior gods? Or that such a god is pure "good", and has no evil in him, despite the existence of evil/pain/suffering in the universe (and therefore come to the conclusion that there must be some other entity/force that causes those things)? Or, in fact, any other trait/characteristic ascribed to the Christian god?

Your arguments in regard to the existence of a god have at least a decent philosophical foundation; albeit they no more serve as "proof" of anything than do any of the hundreds of other philosophical/theological "proofs" of the existence (or non-existence) of any particular god.

However, when you then add that it proves the Christian god, it serves only to demonstrate how little you actually understand the "logic" of your own arguments. As I've stated previously, your logic is predicated on a predetermined belief as to what is "true", and then tailoring your arguments to suit that belief.

But if we were to remove that initial belief, and instead present a person who was a blank slate, with no preconceived notions or beliefs, I think it is ludicrous in the extreme -- and an entirely unsupportable logical premise -- to think that they would logically come to the same conclusions, or that those are the only logical conclusions which could be reached.

Why is the Bible (or any other religious text) necessary? Because without it, there is no logical basis for arriving at those beliefs. Honestly, you think that a truly neutral observer, looking at our universe, would be required by logic to conclude that A) there is a god, B) there is only one god, C) that god is composed of three different aspects (father, son, holy spirit), etc.?

Of course not. Any "proofs" of this are made after the fact. You decide what is true, then you tailor your arguments to fit it.

And, since you know that your conclusion is correct, it is logical for you to conclude that your arguments, and the steps taken to reach that conclusion, must also be correct. And to dismiss any opposing or contradictory arguments.

But Dustin, that has nothing to do with logic. Nothing to do with "empirical proof". It is just another game of semantics and logical jousting, in which every side proves whatever they want, and neither side proves anything. Which, perhaps, is the reason you seem to prefer to much to focus on issues of semantics...it enables you to maintain your view, without actually examining the overall structure upon which your argument is based.

Is your argument a valid justification for the beliefs that you hold personally? I'd say that, based on your experience and view of the universe, yes it is.

Is your argument a "logical" argument that demonstrates a "proof" of anything? Not at all. Given exactly the same evidence, many people would come to many different conclusions, and every one would be equally convinced of the "truth" of their view.

[andyandy]

The only "proof" so presented is this

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

without further expansion. Considering your difficultly with

If P then Q
Q
then P

only yesterday, i am, shall we say sceptical that you fully understand the notation. Perhaps you could explain how this amounts to a proof.

The rest of the post - there is no further proof presented.

ETA

Excellent post by Wolfman - I agree entirely.

[PixyMisa]

Science doesn't use words? :confused:
Nope.

For all formal work, science uses mathematics.

Sufficient-adequate for the purpose; enough: sufficient proof; sufficient protection.Good grief, Dustin. Are you incapable of understanding this?

Are you proposing a formal proof, deductive and conclusive, and impossible?

Or merely evidence, which is just non-existent?

The rework of Gödel's proof? It's modal.
No, not that nonsense. Your "proof" that God exists.

[PixyMisa]

Explained in detail in the OP.
Your OP is a 7000-word collection of logical fallacies. Which bit of it?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It is your contention that A) it is logical to believe in god, and that a logical examination of the universe will reveal the existence of a god, and B) that further to this, a logical examination of the universe will also demonstrate that the Christian god is the only "logical" one.

It is a necessary corollary to your argument -- but one which you have ignored entirely -- that if your argument is true, then it should be possible to demonstrate that a person who was presented with our universe, without any preconceived notions as to the origin of that universe, or the existence of supernatural beings, and who examined that universe from a purely neutral, logical point of view, would necessarily come to the conclusion that A) there was a god, and B) that that god's nature was the same as (or at least very similar to) the nature of the Christian god.

Indeed.

However, I contend that this is not the case. First, I would contend that it would be fully possible -- and logical -- for a person examining our universe to conclude that it had an entirely natural origin, no supernatural origin at all. Just as it would be fully possible for such a person to conclude that it had a supernatural origin.

Possible but not necessarily logical for the former.

But beyond that, once we take the debate to specifics such as the nature of that god, your argument becomes ludicrous. Even if we conclude that the existence of a god is logical, what is there in the universe to indicate that there is only one? Why not multiple gods? Either multiple gods who are all omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent, or else some hierarchical system of superior and inferior gods? Or that such a god is pure "good", and has no evil in him, despite the existence of evil/pain/suffering in the universe (and therefore come to the conclusion that there must be some other entity/force that causes those things)? Or, in fact, any other trait/characteristic ascribed to the Christian god?

Why one God instead of two or three? Think of the irresistible force meeting an immovable object paradox and you'll see.

As far as 'evil' goes, I addressed that in the OP.


However, when you then add that it proves the Christian god, it serves only to demonstrate how little you actually understand the "logic" of your own arguments. As I've stated previously, your logic is predicated on a predetermined belief as to what is "true", and then tailoring your arguments to suit that belief.

I haven't proven the Christian God yet. The OP just opens the door for a good number of candidate Gods (Yahweh being one of them).


Why is the Bible (or any other religious text) necessary? Because without it, there is no logical basis for arriving at those beliefs. Honestly, you think that a truly neutral observer, looking at our universe, would be required by logic to conclude that A) there is a god, B) there is only one god, C) that god is composed of three different aspects (father, son, holy spirit), etc.?

Yes.


Of course not. Any "proofs" of this are made after the fact. You decide what is true, then you tailor your arguments to fit it.

If the arguments and premises are valid, I see no problem.

And, since you know that your conclusion is correct, it is logical for you to conclude that your arguments, and the steps taken to reach that conclusion, must also be correct. And to dismiss any opposing or contradictory arguments.

I don't dismiss any opposing arguments. I carefully address and consider them and toss them out if they are flawed.


But Dustin, that has nothing to do with logic. Nothing to do with "empirical proof". It is just another game of semantics and logical jousting, in which every side proves whatever they want, and neither side proves anything.

Huh?

Which, perhaps, is the reason you seem to prefer to much to focus on issues of semantics...it enables you to maintain your view, without actually examining the overall structure upon which your argument is based.

Or because I prefer to be concise.


Is your argument a valid justification for the beliefs that you hold personally? I'd say that, based on your experience and view of the universe, yes it is.

It's a justification of God. Period. Not just for me but for you as well.

Is your argument a "logical" argument that demonstrates a "proof" of anything? Not at all. Given exactly the same evidence, many people would come to many different conclusions, and every one would be equally convinced of the "truth" of their view.

So tell me how, given my evidence, you would come to a different conclusion.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The only "proof" so presented is this

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

without further expansion. Considering your difficultly with

If P then Q
Q
then P

only yesterday, i am, shall we say sceptical that you fully understand the notation. Perhaps you could explain how this amounts to a proof.

The rest of the post - there is no further proof presented.

ETA

Excellent post by Wolfman - I agree entirely.

1. I compiled that argument so obviously I know the notation.

2.That one argument is an example of a "logical" proof of God opposed to a proof in other contexts which equal 'evidence'.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Nope.

For all formal work, science uses mathematics.

Explain to me Darwin's theory of Evolution using no words.


Good grief, Dustin. Are you incapable of understanding this?

Are you proposing a formal proof, deductive and conclusive, and impossible?

Or merely evidence, which is just non-existent?

I'm afraid I am incapable of understanding anything you're requesting.


No, not that nonsense. Your "proof" that God exists.

There's more than one in the OP.

Your OP is a 7000-word collection of logical fallacies.

What fallacies? Be specific.

Which bit of it?

The entire thing. All of it.

[PixyMisa]

Explain to me Darwin's theory of Evolution using no words.
That would involve rather a lot of equations, Dustin. You do it.

I'm afraid I am incapable of understanding anything you're requesting.
I noticed this.

Are you claiming a formal proof, or just evidence?

There's more than one in the OP.
Whatever. Which of these "proofs" convinced you? Would it not be more valuable to focus on it?

What fallacies? Be specific.

In your own words: The entire thing. All of it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That would involve rather a lot of equations, Dustin. You do it.

NO can do. It's impossible.


I noticed this.

Are you claiming a formal proof, or just evidence?

Both.


Whatever. Which of these "proofs" convinced you? Would it not be more valuable to focus on it?

All of them did.



In your own words: The entire thing. All of it.

Be more specific. In my post each argument rests upon the other arguments and you can't comprehend one of them without the entire framework of the others and the introduction. That's why I can't cut out one single piece of it for you. However if you claim I have committed multiple fallacies then please provide an example of one of them. Just one.

[andyandy]

1. I compiled that argument so obviously I know the notation.

.

No - not obviously. You're likely simply restating the argument you'd heard given in words elsewhere.


Explain how you've graduated from failing to understand the most basic of logical fallacious deductions....

If P then Q
Q
Then P

to

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

in a little over 24 hours

Because without further proof, I'd have to conclude you're lying.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No - not obviously. You're likely simply restating the argument you'd heard given in words elsewhere.


Explain how you've graduated from failing to understand the most basic of logical fallacious deductions....

If P then Q
Q
Then P

to

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

in a little over 24 hours

Because without further proof, I'd have to conclude you're lying.


The affirming the Consequent fallacy I made the other day was a simple error which I quickly corrected upon notification. Sort of like 'mispelling' a word and then noticing that it's misspelled. Moreover, I'm a fast learner.

[PixyMisa]

The affirming the Consequent fallacy I made the other day was a simple error which I quickly corrected upon notification.
Wow. That has got to be nominated for... something.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Wow. That has got to be nominated for... something.

Do you ever make errors? Misspell words? Misstate things? I've read your posts and you do on a regular basis.

[PixyMisa]

That was not my point.

[andyandy]

The affirming the Consequent fallacy I made the other day was a simple error which I quickly corrected upon notification. Sort of like 'mispelling' a word and then noticing that it's misspelled. Moreover, I'm a fast learner.

LOL :D

In your premise you make this statement

N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world.

and then you use this to conclude that God (N) exists.

You've simply assumed your conclusion in your premise.

here is your argument.

If God is omnipresent then he exists somewhere.
Therefore God is omnipresent
Therefore God exists

This is not a proof. :)

and you still haven't explained the notation - so i still don't believe you understand it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

LOL :D

In your premise you make this statement

N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world.

and then you use this to conclude that God (N) exists.

You've simply assumed your conclusion in your premise.

This is not a proof.

here is your argument.

God is omnipresent
Therefore God is omnipresent
Therefore God exists

and you still haven't explained the notation - so i still don't believe you understand it.

You cut one tiny fraction out of the end of my argument and then concluded that was my entire argument.

N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world.

is only the end of that one argument. Of course that's not an a valid argument in itself! You cut 90% out of it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

iff= if and only if.

◘= necessity.

├= inference.

┬= truth

↔= equals

¬= false.

This means that ‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the previous paragraph. Now I will make the first postulation which is ’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context. I do not mean ’positive’ to be any sort of moral aesthetic definition. Now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails B necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'. This means that since ‘N’ is positive it’s negation would not be positive but negative. Since N=God therefore the property of being God is essentially positive and is thus necessarily positive because as previously explained it’s negation would logically be negative. By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’. This means that if God is a positive being necessarily God is thus positive and if God is God-like then the property of being God-like is an essence of God. Which is to say, If God is by definition positive then a necessary component of God which would be “Godlike” is thus necessarily positive as well. N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world. Such contingent propositions rely on plenitudes that which lead us to the logical conclusion that the property of being God is illustrated.

[PixyMisa]

Let's take a few more pieces, trimming out most the foliage so we can focus on the, uh, "good" bits:

So far I have proven that the individual (I) exists and possibly a God.
Cogito ergo sum is a proof of self existence. All other things that are not internally contradictory are possible, but you can't say anything about them one way or another without evidence. So you have not proven that "possibly a God" exists.

If our experiences of the world around us originates from our own minds then they must have a cause thereof.
Why? Does this also apply to God? What if my unconscious mind is God? (Better let myself sleep in, then...)

That cause could not have been ourselves because then we face the regress problem and are forced to come to the conclusion that the cause of our experiences are outside of our own minds.
Nope.

You don't know the nature of the unconscious mind. Maybe there were always trees in it. Maybe it is a tree. You simply cannot make such a statement.

If Descartes demon exists then it must have a motivation for deceiving us. If it has a motivation for tricking us then that motivation must have an origin and that motivations origin must have an origin and so on and so forth.
Maybe Descarte's demon is also a tree?

It must also be working within a universe that physically allows it to deceive us.
Not if it's a tree.

Alas, you are doomed to solipsistic misery.

[andyandy]

You cut one tiny fraction out of the end of my argument and then concluded that was my entire argument.



is only the end of that one argument. Of course that's not an a valid argument in itself! You cut 90% out of it.

The rest of your "proof" is nothing of the sort

This means that ‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the previous paragraph. Now I will make the first postulation which is ’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context. I do not mean ’positive’ to be any sort of moral aesthetic definition.

So N is God. For some reason we assume that both a necessary and sufficient condition for "God" is that N has "positive property"

that means we assume that if we prove "positive property" we prove "God." A bizare notion, but let's see where this is going.


Now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails B necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'. This means that since ‘N’ is positive it’s negation would not be positive but negative. Since N=God therefore the property of being God is essentially positive and is thus necessarily positive because as previously explained it’s negation would logically be negative. By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’. This means that if God is a positive being necessarily God is thus positive and if God is God-like then the property of being God-like is an essence of God. Which is to say, If God is by definition positive then a necessary component of God which would be “Godlike” is thus necessarily positive as well.

An attempt to prove "postive property" by first assuming that God is positive

N is positive
Therefore its negation would be negative
Therefore God has positive property


N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world.

If God is omnipresent then he exists somewhere.
Therefore God is omnipresent
Therefore God exists

the premise and conclusions themselves are adequately valid which show that it would be logically impossible if a God could not or did not exist and the only conclusion we are left with is that a God does exist and must exist.



In summary;

"positive property" is necessary and sufficient for "God"
We assume God is positive, therefore God has positive property
We assume God is omnipresent therefore God exists.

Therefore God does exist and must exist.

utter tosh.

[PixyMisa]

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

iff= if and only if.

◘= necessity.

├= inference.

┬= truth

↔= equals

¬= false.

This means that ‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the previous paragraph.

N is god-like if it is omni-X.

Now I will make the first postulation which is ’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context.
Postulate: N is god if I say so.

Now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails B necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'.
Uh, what? What's B?

This means that since ‘N’ is positive it’s negation would not be positive but negative.
We can probably accept that part.

Since N=God
Uh, isn't that what you're trying to prove?

therefore the property of being God is essentially positive and is thus necessarily positive because as previously explained it’s negation would logically be negative. By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’.
Where? Why? That's the first time you mentioned existence.

This means that if God is a positive being necessarily God is thus positive and if God is God-like then the property of being God-like is an essence of God.
Yeah, well.

Which is to say, If God is by definition positive then a necessary component of God which would be “Godlike” is thus necessarily positive as well.
Waiting...

N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world.
That's incoherent. Try again.

Such contingent propositions rely on plenitudes that which lead us to the logical conclusion that the property of being God is illustrated.
Nope.

[PixyMisa]

utter tosh.
Concise. Elegant. A 9.5. :)

[Mid]

could any one summarise the op in a way that minimises verbosity? I keep on getting to the 2nd paragraph and my eyes glaze over

[andyandy]

could any one summarise the op in a way that minimises verbosity? I keep on getting to the 2nd paragraph and my eyes glaze over

"I believe in God
I am never wrong
Therefore I possess only positive property
Positive property is a sufficient condition for God
therefore God exists
I am God"

:D

[PixyMisa]

I think everyone's eyes must have glazed over before they reached this bit (I was just idly scrolling through, and it jumped out and bit me):
All of the scientific method rests on the idea of a pragmatic epistemological worldview. If we were to do scientific tests to confirm or deny a specific phenomena and we didn’t truly believe that there was even a “world” outside of our sense then none of our tests would mean anything. In order for science to work we must be practical and posit such entities otherwise any attempts to measure or deduce them would result in utter failure.
Yes, Dustin is saying that science only works if you believe in it.

[Zep]

Rhymes with "banker".

[Z]

Yes. Dogma.





You do.

Dogma-a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.

Then you are a fellow man of faith i.e. dogma, because you have no proof either.

Your OP thus far does not constitute proof; rather, it demonstrates a post-hoc rationalization of faith.

Except that's not what I'm attacking. You're purportedly critiquing my reasoning when your entire world view is based on nothing.

Explain. AFAIK, I've never explained my entire world view to you, nor explained what I base that world view on. But please, elaborate.

The "World outside" meaning outside of the cause of our consciousness, whatever that may be.

Ah, so external to the brain.

In that case, you're quite wrong, since imagination, thought, etc. all originate within the brain - and originate external to consciousness.

Give me an example of a 'thought' that isn't totally reliant upon external experiences.

An obvious impossibility. Not the thought itself, but giving you an example of said thought. Why? Because to express such a thought, I have to put it into language, which ARE totally reliant upon external experiences. The best I could give you is to say 'abstract thoughts'. An abstract thought could well be completely free of any necessity of external experiences.

The only way we could know for sure, is to have someone born free of any senses whatsoever, and have them develop senses at some point well after developing long-term memory, and have them describe their thoughts prior to developing senses to us.

Since that's never happened so far, we cannot express what a thought free of external experiences would be like, only what they might be like.

Firstly, I'm saying there must be some dichotomy between conscious thoughts and unconscious causes of those thoughts if indeed the causes of our thoughts are ourselves.

Sure there are. Conscious thoughts are in one part of the brain, the unconscious causes are in another part, and both parts are inside ourselves.

Secondly, I never said that God can't suffer from the infinite regress problem either.

Actually, you have by choosing to claim that you can logically prove the existence of the Biblical God, who is 'his own beginning and ending'. Hence, the Biblical God violates infinite regress, and you claim to be able to prove (via the logical structure you started in your OP) this God's existence.

It's not relevant to the existence of a God. God exists whether he was made by another previous God or whether he made himself.

You forgot to add "...if God exists at all.

And it obviously does matter, since the Biblical God had no maker, and therefore violates the notion of infinite regress.

Nevertheless, you failed to respond appropriately to my post. Evasion noted.

Now, a brief comment on your pseudo-proof that has gained so much attention above:

1) what if only one world exists?
2) what if, no matter how many worlds exist, there is no God in ANY world?

Another small comment: your tone is exceptionally aggressive and belittling, and your responses to people's well thought out replies are often equivalent of saying, 'nuh-uh. nope. 'cuz I said so.' For someone with such a verbose and overinflated opening post, your replies since then read like a semi-literate third-grader taunting the school nerd.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Then you are a fellow man of faith i.e. dogma, because you have no proof either.

Your OP thus far does not constitute proof; rather, it demonstrates a post-hoc rationalization of faith.

How?



Explain. AFAIK, I've never explained my entire world view to you, nor explained what I base that world view on. But please, elaborate.

No evidence.



Ah, so external to the brain.

No. If we're simply a "conscious being" then our "unconscious selves" would be outside of our conscious selves.

In that case, you're quite wrong, since imagination, thought, etc. all originate within the brain - and originate external to consciousness.

All imaginations and thoughts have their bases in our experiences of the world outside of our minds. I can think of none that don't.



An obvious impossibility. Not the thought itself, but giving you an example of said thought. Why? Because to express such a thought, I have to put it into language, which ARE totally reliant upon external experiences. The best I could give you is to say 'abstract thoughts'. An abstract thought could well be completely free of any necessity of external experiences.

The only way we could know for sure, is to have someone born free of any senses whatsoever, and have them develop senses at some point well after developing long-term memory, and have them describe their thoughts prior to developing senses to us.

Since that's never happened so far, we cannot express what a thought free of external experiences would be like, only what they might be like.

Right. Any thoughts or imaginations are based solely upon the information from our senses. Our brains develop from the input from our senses. Someone born without the ability to see, feel, taste, smell, hear, would probably not develop any ability to even think.


Sure there are. Conscious thoughts are in one part of the brain, the unconscious causes are in another part, and both parts are inside ourselves.

Even if we were simply "thinking beings" there must be a dichotomy.



Actually, you have by choosing to claim that you can logically prove the existence of the Biblical God, who is 'his own beginning and ending'. Hence, the Biblical God violates infinite regress, and you claim to be able to prove (via the logical structure you started in your OP) this God's existence.

In the OP I've only proven a deistic God.




Now, a brief comment on your pseudo-proof that has gained so much attention above:

1) what if only one world exists?
2) what if, no matter how many worlds exist, there is no God in ANY world?

If that were the case there would be no God.

Another small comment: your tone is exceptionally aggressive and belittling, and your responses to people's well thought out replies are often equivalent of saying, 'nuh-uh. nope. 'cuz I said so.' For someone with such a verbose and overinflated opening post, your replies since then read like a semi-literate third-grader taunting the school nerd.

No. I say "Nuh-uh" and then explain how they are wrong. There's a difference.

[zooterkin]

In the OP I've only proven a deistic God.


As opposed to what other sort of god?

ETA: Never mind, my fault for not checking that 'deism' has a specific meaning. Just to check, you mean a god who created the world and then left it to run on its own?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

As opposed to what other sort of god?

ETA: Never mind, my fault for not checking that 'deism' has a specific meaning. Just to check, you mean a god who created the world and then left it to run on its own?


Yes. Though it could probably be stretched to a theistic God with little effort. I'll type up my arguments in support of a Theistic God and specifically a Christian God (Yahweh) later.

[andyandy]

In the OP I've only proven a deistic God.

.

to recap - your proof through ontological argument...

"positive property" is necessary and sufficient for "God"
We assume God is positive, therefore God has positive property
We assume God is omnipresent therefore God exists.

Therefore God does exist and must exist.


It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. No, wait, it still is pretty funny :D

[Morrigan]

Troll.

[Hokulele]

I may have missed it (I admit, I didn't read everything in this thread), but did Dustin anywhere address whether his proof only applies to monotheism as opposed to polytheism? Would polytheism be just as valid a result of his "proof"?

I know he mentioned a single god, and linked it to the OT, but I didn't see anything reducing the number of potential gods down to just one.

[andyandy]

I may have missed it (I admit, I didn't read everything in this thread), but did Dustin anywhere address whether his proof only applies to monotheism as opposed to polytheism? Would polytheism be just as valid a result of his "proof"?

I know he mentioned a single god, and linked it to the OT, but I didn't see anything reducing the number of potential gods down to just one.

Dustin is under the impression that he has simply proved an OmniGod so far - he has promised to prove the Christian God later....

:D

[zooterkin]

Yes. Though it could probably be stretched to a theistic God with little effort. I'll type up my arguments in support of a Theistic God and specifically a Christian God (Yahweh) later.

So, what do you mean by 'Theistic God'? That's surely just tautological, since 'theism' is just belief in god or gods?

Anyway, is a deistic god necessarily omnipresent?

[Hokulele]

Dustin is under the impression that he has simply proved an OmniGod so far - he has promised to prove the Christian God later....

:D


An OmniGod, eh? I could really use one of those this week. :)

I'll be patient on the Christian God, I've got millions of Shinto kami lined up waiting to play . . .

[D'rok]

--snip--

I’m going to prove a couple of things including the existence of God, validity of theism and faultiness of a distinctly secular or atheistic worldview. I’m going to do this by drawing together some of the philosophical and scientific developments of the past few centuries into a consistent logical and reasonable framework relying on epistemological certitude which will negate the need for dogmatism in theistic beliefs.

--snip--

Well....after that "gift" of wisdom Glaucon feels a little dirty...kind of like those German Goo-girls must feel.


Dustin - I forgot to thank you for so clearly identifying yourself as an evangelical Christian in the thread I started for your beliefs.

Wow. I had no idea. In hindsight it seems obvious. This explains a lot.

I guess when the Sophoclean Chorus asked this of Dustin...

Was it madness that struck your mind?
Or was it a god great bounds away,
Who leapt upon your life,
Bringing disaster?
Cry, cry misfortune! I cannot bear to look.
Many things I wish to ask.
I wish to learn, I wish to see.
But you are blinding me with horror.

Ah, what a dreadful thing you've done! How could you bear
To put out your sight? Which god spurred you on?


...the answer was YHWH. Sad, really.

I've changed my requirement for evidence of god. I will pray to YHWH that Dustin/Oedipus regains his sight. If this happens, I'm a believer. If the universe is that ironic, why fight it?

[Z]

How?

Read the various posts above this one by various posters.

It's quite obvious.

No evidence.

Yes, I know you have no evidence of the assertion that my world view is based upon nothing, since I've never described to you either my worldview nor its basis. I also never explained what I have faith in, nor what reason I give to accept faith (belief without proof), nor on what subjects.

Do you accept that your senses are telling you the truth? That's faith.

Do you believe that you exist (as opposed to being only a small portion of a larger thinking being)? That's faith.

And you've already admitted (elsewhere) to being an Evangelical Christian, who believes in the Bible and God (as Trinity) - none of which with any evidence to back it up. So you, too, are a man of faith.

Now you're attempting to write logical 'proofs' to support your faith - that would be ad-hoc rationalization.

And 'proofs' do not constitute evidence, nor proof in the common-usage sense.

Even if - and so far, it seems a HUGE if - your 'proof' works out in the end, it still won't be positive evidence for any God, much less the Christian God.

No. If we're simply a "conscious being" then our "unconscious selves" would be outside of our conscious selves.

It's time for you to define what we are then. As near as I can tell, we consist of both conscious and unconscious components, all internal to us.

If you're limitiing us to only 'conscious beings', then you're reducing what we are to one small section of the brain - and not even the most important part, either. And by this, then memory, most thoughts, decision, senses, beliefs, hopes, fears, etc. are ALL external to us. NOTHING AT ALL is internal, except the processing of awareness itself, and even that is partially external to us!

Your definition - if it is 'a conscious being' - is useless in any practical sense.

All imaginations and thoughts have their bases in our experiences of the world outside of our minds. I can think of none that don't.

Then you have a poor sense of abstraction and imagination.

Right. Any thoughts or imaginations are based solely upon the information from our senses. Our brains develop from the input from our senses. Someone born without the ability to see, feel, taste, smell, hear, would probably not develop any ability to even think.

I disagree, though I think their thoughts would be entirely alien to us. But in a meaningful sense, I would tenetively agree.

However, that's following the causal chain past the necessities of reason in order to stretch a point beyond credulity. You're saying that the causes of thoughts have to be external to us - sure, ultimately, all causation could be traced back to the Big Bang, at least, so every thought, imagining, etc. can be said to have its cause (ultimately) being external to us. EVERYTHING including us had its cause external to us, regardless of what you believe (solipsists and acosmists notwithstanding).

However, your argument is resting on the idea that experiences - all experiences - begin outside of us. What I'm challenging is mainly your definition of what 'we' are. If we are our physical selves, including the flesh and bone and blood and brain, then many experiences are initiated within ourselves, rather than without. However, you seem to be using an extremely limited version of what 'we' are.

This demonstrates the absolute importance of pre-defining your terms.

Maybe we can move past this paragraph if you re-write it with properly defined terms?

Even if we were simply "thinking beings" there must be a dichotomy.

Why? Explain.

In the OP I've only proven a deistic God.

Not even that much. But you've also mentioned intending to prove a Theistic and even a Christian God.

See, part of your 'proof' of a deistic God leads to the inevitable conclusion that such a God must be prone to infinite regression. That conclusion, though not explicitely stated in your own conclusion, is nevertheless a conclusion that must be carried forward in the two proceeding proofs; it will necessarily come to conflict when attempting to prove the Christian God. Remove that conclusion from the C.G. proof, and you will also have to remove it - and all related arguments - from the D.G. proof, which in turn will cause most of your theory to shift alarmingly to one side, and possibly even collapse.

That's the trap of complex proofs - you have to carefully watch all of your premises and assumptions at every step to make sure they remain internally consistant throughout. You can't take a single conclusion in isolation and use that to start a whole new series of proofs with new assumptions and new axioms, if those assumptions and axioms, when applied to the original proof, would cause a failure in the original conclusion!

Do you see what I'm trying to say, in spite of my lack of clear language?

If that were the case there would be no God.

Exactly. And the 'proof' fails as a result.

No. I say "Nuh-uh" and then explain how they are wrong. There's a difference.

From what I've seen that's exactly what you don't do, at least half of the time.

But that was a much more civil reply. Nicely done.

[D'rok]

I got a royal (and deserved) smackdown from C4ts for this very thing, so I'm going to gleefully re-use his move:

I am writing up this short post concerning theism though not necessarily Christianity itself and the credence in theism and or deism in order to provide an efficacious and determinative composition concerning the beliefs thereof and the extenuation or apologia in a palliative framework based upon dialectic syllogistics in coherence which will in my assessment be unambiguously irrefrangible. I want to stress that the following post was condensed into a breviloquent and concise framework who’s aim is sheer simplicity and practicality.


Cleanup on isle 7. Someone spilled the thesaurus.

[andyandy]

I got a royal (and deserved) smackdown from C4ts for this very thing, so I'm going to gleefully re-use his move:

waffle waffle

.

that is so my new sig :D

[modecom]

Explain to me Darwin's theory of Evolution using no words.

OK

[calebprime]

C.S. Lewis once said concerning Christianity "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." I am writing up this short post concerning theism though not necessarily Christianity itself and the credence in theism and or deism in order to provide an efficacious and determinative composition concerning the beliefs thereof and the extenuation or apologia in a palliative framework based upon dialectic syllogistics in coherence which will in my assessment be unambiguously irrefrangible. I want to stress that the following post was condensed into a breviloquent and concise framework who’s aim is sheer simplicity and practicality. Furthermore much of what I wrote in this post was removed due to conservation of space.

...


:jaw-dropp He did write that.

[D'rok]

For all the lurkers, I'd just like to point out Dustin's fundamental assumption which is also his fundamental error.

Dustin must (and does) equivocate proof with evidence. If he does not, then even if he is successful in constructing a deductively valid proof of god, it has no bearing on the reality of god. But if a logical proof is the same thing as observational evidence, then he succeeds.

This is why he will consistently and fervently maintain that he can interchange the two terms at will, and he will use the prosaic dictionary definition to back this up.

His entire house of cards is constructed on this single assumption.

[zooterkin]

Dustin must (and does) equivocate proof with evidence.


I assume you meant to type 'equate' rather than 'equivocate'?

[D'rok]

I assume you meant to type 'equate' rather than 'equivocate'?

No. I meant equivocate:
Defn: To use equivocal language intentionally.

Equivocal:
Defn: Allowing the possibility of several different meanings, as a word or phrase, esp. with intent to deceive or misguide; susceptible of double interpretation; deliberately ambiguous

Here's the wikipedia defn of equivocation:
Equivocation is the misleading use of a word with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).


He's not exactly equating proof with evidence. He admits the difference, he just insists on picking the context that suits him.

[Loss Leader]

I haven't read the entire thread so I don't know if this has been pointed out. I'm just going to highlight the parts in the OP where Dustin makes his primary logical error and, in so doing, fails to prove anything about anything:


TNow I will make the first postulation which is ’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” ... N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds.


So, right there Dustin "proves" the existence of God by assuming the existence of God. Oh, he dressed it up all fancy-like but acalling something a Chilean sea bass doesn't change the fact that it's still just a Patagonian toothfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonian_toothfish).

There's more:

One possible reason so many belief in a God is because they are genetically predisposed to believe in such. ... Perhaps religious people have a specific ability to sense the creator the way people with working eyes and ears have a specific ability to sense the fire truck.


This is an argument from ... guessing. It's just guessing. There is no reason why a biological disposition towards religion necessarily indicates that religion is correct. Any claim that it does is just an argument from ignorance or incredulity.


On the contrary, We can not say for sure what advantages those with religious predispositions had in ancient times if any... The man who is deaf and blind can not see any evidence in support of the existence of a fire truck barreling by with it’s sirens screaming. Does this mean it isn’t there? Of course not.


Argument from analogy. As has been often repeated, no new information can be gained by analogy. All that analogy can do is either: 1) teach someone something that has already been proven; or 2) suggest a conclusion which can be testably proven or disproven.


The fact that he suffers from a biological impairment doesn’t mean that he is right to claim that there is no evidence of a fire truck simply because he can not perceive it. He is not justified in doing so.


A particularly disgusting little logical trick, Dustin has in this sentence shifted the burden of proof from the proponent ("there IS a fire truck") to the opponent ("there is not"). That's not the way things work. If he wants to prove the existence of God, he has the burden of proof. The blind man is perfectly justified in stating, "I will not believe in fire trucks until you show me evidence of them."


Studies have shown that on average people who are religious, attend church often, pray often and believe in God are more happier than those people of the same age group and demographic who don’t. Belief in God makes people happy and it’s no wonder.... If something works within our worldview and reference frame then we use it for practical reasons. We must hold it to be true even if it can’t necessarily be empirically proven.


Assuming that all of Dustin's facts are right, his logical error here is a non-sequitor. This is his argument:

1. Belief in God makes people happy.
2. Being happy "works".
3. Thus, God exists.

But 1 and 2 don't necessarily lead to 3. If they are both true, 1 and 2 lead to the conclusion: "People should believe in God." There's just no reason why believing in God necessarily equals the existence of God.

And, in fact, we can take issue with whether being happy is a good thing, whether "happiness" equates with a religion "working" and all sorts of other problems with the truthfulness of these things. For instance, a religious belief that "works" would, to me, mean that prayers come true. As I am not currently dating Natalie Portman, we know for a fact that prayers do not come true.



If “God” fits into our pragmatic worldview like a puzzle piece then it must logically be true or else our entire puzzle falls apart just as the scientific method falls apart


A non-sequitor. He has perhaps shown that "religion" fits into our worldview, not "God."



I hope this following was as simple and clear as I hoped it would be


I am skeptical that Dustin hoped this would be simple and clear. He has hidden his logical errors in a wall of meaningless text and I, at least, believe he has done so on purpose.

[Miss Anthrope]

A beautiful desconstruction, LL.

[Loss Leader]

A beautiful desconstruction, LL.


Miss Anthrope, you are quickly becoming my favorite person of all time. You are eclipsing Natalie Portman and fast closing in on Tricia Helfer.

[zooterkin]

No. I meant equivocate:
Defn: To use equivocal language intentionally.

Equivocal:
Defn: Allowing the possibility of several different meanings, as a word or phrase, esp. with intent to deceive or misguide; susceptible of double interpretation; deliberately ambiguous

Here's the wikipedia defn of equivocation:
Equivocation is the misleading use of a word with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).


He's not exactly equating proof with evidence. He admits the difference, he just insists on picking the context that suits him.

Ok, I see what you're saying, I was just thrown because equivocate is intransitive, so you can't really use it as you did.

ETA: Sorry, I'm not really a member of the grammar police, but as it stood, I didn't understand what you were saying, and just wanted to clarify. "Equate" worked both logically and grammatically.

[D'rok]

Ok, I see what you're saying, I was just thrown because equivocate is intransitive, so you can't really use it as you did.

ETA: Sorry, I'm not really a member of the grammar police, but as it stood, I didn't understand what you were saying, and just wanted to clarify. "Equate" worked both logically and grammatically.

I probably am guilty of some faulty "verbification".;) I should have said Dustin is guilty of equivocation and then explained why.

[Miss Anthrope]

Miss Anthrope, you are quickly becoming my favorite person of all time. You are eclipsing Natalie Portman and fast closing in on Tricia Helfer.

You rock, LL. But remember, cylon model 13 oddly resembles Robyn Hilton (http://www.faz.net/m/%7BD24330AE-73AE-4928-A2A0-36BA0DEADB0B%7DFile2.jpg)
[/derail]

[Complexity]

1. I compiled that argument so obviously I know the notation.


I doubt very much that you know the notation, but doubt even more if you understand the ideas behind the notation.

For a start, explain what is meant by 'consequence' and 'derivability' in the context of formal logic?

Why is the difference between these concepts important?

How do 'consequence' and 'derivability' relate to Godel's proof of the completeness of the first-order predicate calculus?

How do 'consequence' and 'derivability' relate to Godel's proof of the incompleteness of the second-order predicate calculus?

What do 'soundness' and 'completeness' mean in the context of formal logic and what do they have to do with the previous two questions?

[Loss Leader]

You rock, LL. But remember, cylon model 13 oddly resembles Robyn Hilton (http://www.faz.net/m/%7BD24330AE-73AE-4928-A2A0-36BA0DEADB0B%7DFile2.jpg)
[/derail]


"Affairs of state must take precedence over ... afairs of state."

[Apathia]

Put the Ontological Arguments in a pan and they all cook down to
God exists by definition; therefore God exists.
There is a great knight jump on the board to get from an abstract concept to an empirical reality. The platonic worldview accommodated such pieces making such moves, as the world of intellectual concepts was the Reality.
That worldview has disintegrated. That underpinning is gone. Instead our intellectual culture now seeks empirical evidence for assertions about reality.
To us going from a abstract concept to an empirical assertion is, as AndyAndy put it, "tosh." Proof is for Mathematics. And though the structures of math often find great relevance to the natural. empirical world, they don't always, and they don't simply.

For the Ontological Argument to be as robust as it would like, we must first provide an underpinning or structure that connects concepts and perception in such a way what we can imagine has a say in what can and does exist.
That's why Theists often find the Idealist Worldview more user-friendly.
But worldviews aren’t based on proofs. They boil down to have cultures and individual persons relate to their environment. It’s all very messy, and people inevitably disagree.

Bottom-line, there's a lot of unseen premise going on in the Ontological "proofs." Because of that, you can't do Theology by Mathematics.
And if you are an Evangelical, it's not at base about intellectual argument. That's fine for persuasion, but in the end it's about the Divine Encounter. And if all you depend upon are just some "proofs," you are "most miserable."

[Apathia]

:jaw-dropp He did write that.

No, he only wrote
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

That may be a jaw dropper of itself, but it won't result in dislocation.

[Solus]

Since we are picking apart Dustin's pathetic OP I'll add another fallacy he used.

As I present my proofs with as much brevity as I possibly can and I want you to remember that these arguments have been invented by men much more intelligent than yourselves and denying them on a whim without proper investigation would not only be ignorant and impractical but also potentially dangerous due to their prodigious implications.

Dustin is appealing to authority to prove his point, an obvious logical fallacy. I wonder how many fallacies there are in Dustin's OP?

[PixyMisa]

Yep. Appeal to authority and a casual insult at the same time. That's class, that is.

[Bob Klase]

Logically whatever has the property N, exists. That is to say, whatever has any property by definition must exist or it couldn‘t have a property. This means that if anything has anything then that thing must exist.

Thank you for the logical proof that fairies, unicorns, vampires and gargoyles, Zeus, Neptune, the square root of -1 and the FSM all exist along with your god. They all have properties.

[andyandy]

Thank you for the logical proof that fairies, unicorns, vampires and gargoyles, Zeus, Neptune, the square root of -1 and the FSM all exist along with your god. They all have properties.

hey! You leave imaginary numbers out of this....

$\sqrt{-1}= i $ is very happy existing thank you :)

[Bob Klase]

I don't dismiss any opposing arguments. I carefully address and consider them and toss them out if they are flawed.

What a shame you didn't do that with your supporting arguments before you wasted all this time.

[Foster Zygote]

...in a palliative framework...

Do you mean that you are constructing a framework to "relieve without curing" or, more likely, "To cloak or conceal"?

[Giggywig]

For instance, a religious belief that "works" would, to me, mean that prayers come true. As I am not currently dating Natalie Portman, we know for a fact that prayers do not come true.

It could also mean Gael García Bernal has been praying a lot harder than you or me.

[Darth Rotor]

Do you mean that you are constructing a framework to "relieve without curing" or, more likely, "To cloak or conceal"?
I suspect he meant neither.

I am writing up this short post concerning theism though not necessarily Christianity itself and the credence in theism and or deism in order to provide an efficacious and determinative composition concerning the beliefs thereof and the extenuation or apologia in a palliative framework based upon dialectic syllogistics in coherence which will in my assessment be unambiguously irrefrangible. I want to stress that the following post was condensed into a breviloquent and concise framework who’s aim is sheer simplicity and practicality. Furthermore much of what I wrote in this post was removed due to conservation of space.
I think he was pulling everyone's chain by throwing every $64 word he could into one run on sentence, and two OK sentences, in order to craft a single, self-contradictory paragraph, and then see who bit. :p

Prolix and ponderous, thy name is Dustin. :p

On the other hand, it might just be a bad case of Sesquipedalian Chimerical Juju (http://prolix.sourceforge.net/). :cool: )


DR

[andyandy]

Prolix and ponderous, thy name is Dustin. :p


DR


He has tried to be breviloquent in his verbosity ;)

[Loss Leader]

double post

[andyandy]

double post

no it's not! :D

[Mid]

I was going to post a comment comparing the op to something that Sir Humphrey Appleby would come out with, but then I realised I was probably being unfair (and probably obscure to non UK people)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Now that I am done reading the thread, I will read the OP.

Will be back in three hours or so :p .

[CapelDodger]

I was going to post a comment comparing the op to something that Sir Humphrey Appleby would come out with, but then I realised I was probably being unfair (and probably obscure to non UK people)

Unfair to Sir Humphrey, you mean? An Oxford man would eschew such prolixity.

[CapelDodger]

Double post.

[Loss Leader]

no it's not! :D


How do you know in my reality it isn't? Perhaps sufficiently advanced aliens have hidden my first post from you or you are in a coma dreaming this conversation and it never really happened?

[CapelDodger]

For all the lurkers, I'd just like to point out Dustin's fundamental assumption which is also his fundamental error.

Dustin must (and does) equivocate proof with evidence. If he does not, then even if he is successful in constructing a deductively valid proof of god, it has no bearing on the reality of god. But if a logical proof is the same thing as observational evidence, then he succeeds.

This is why he will consistently and fervently maintain that he can interchange the two terms at will, and he will use the prosaic dictionary definition to back this up.

His entire house of cards is constructed on this single assumption.

I'm OK with that, reading "equivocate" as "confuse".

The fundie error that he makes is to think that he should even be trying to prove his belief. Sartre brought up the "god-shaped hole" in modern Western society, which fundies attempt to fill by the very methods that created the hole in the first place. Missing the point of religion entirely.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Per the blind man talk. What's your point? Would it be proper for the blind man to accept whatever you tell him is there? What if you told the blind man that there is a purple pikachu? Should he believe in its exustence.

As for "it works." What do you mean by "it works?" What if a atheistic view "works" for me in my life? I can still function perfectly well, no matter which view I take. I even save time and money being an atheist.

As for your antenna-mind argument, it doesn't work. Sure, messing with the antenna would disrupt what we see on the television, but it would not disrupt the signal itself.

[D'rok]

How do you know in my reality it isn't? Perhaps sufficiently advanced aliens have hidden my first post from you or you are in a coma dreaming this conversation and it never really happened?

Premise 1-If we see transitional posts showing a gradual phylogeny in the thread record from earlier posts to later posts then Loss Leader double posted.

Premise 2-We see Premise 1 as being true.

Conclusion- Loss Leader double posted.

Dusti-llogism in action.

[The Atheist]

Hey, Dustin.

Just to save everyone's time and sanity, I suggest the following plan:

You have just proved god.

Piggy and EGarrett have just disproved god here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81853)

Why don't you three all trot off for a week's camping and sort it out.

Cheers.

[The Great Hairy One]

Hello All,

Well, I take a weekend off and Dustin posts his Proof! Teach me to relax, won't it.

I've read through the OP, and the thread. And I have to say that I am disappointed. I've been an "arguing atheist" for almost 20 years (I started posting on alt.atheism in 1989), and Dustin's argument is not new. It's far from new. It's about as old as religion itself.

Basically, it can be boiled down to "god exists because I think god exists". The rest is just semantics and fancy talk. The philosophical equivalent of the ball & three cups trick. There is no proof, and certainly no evidence, present in the OP.

Sorry, Dustin, but you'll have to do better than that mate. :)

Cheers,
TGHO

[D'rok]

I'm OK with that, reading "equivocate" as "confuse".

The fundie error that he makes is to think that he should even be trying to prove his belief. Sartre brought up the "god-shaped hole" in modern Western society, which fundies attempt to fill by the very methods that created the hole in the first place. Missing the point of religion entirely.


Good point. I can actually respect someone who fills their god-shaped hole using faith as long as they are intellectually honest about it. I get the sense that Azure is one of those people, although who knows....on teh Internetz you can be whoever you want to be.

[Kariboo]

Ah, the thesaurus tactic, unfortunately already disclosed in a Friends episode in 2003. Late and unoriginal

Joey: (using a laptop) Oh, Monica and Chandler's recommendation. I want it to sound smart but.. I don't know any big words or anything, so...

Ross: Why don't you use your Thesaurus?

Joey: What did I just say?

Ross: Watch. (he takes the laptop) Here, you ehm... You highlight the word you want to change.Go under Tools and the Thesaurus generates... 'gives'... 'gives' a whole list of choices. You can pick the word that sounds smartest.

Joey: Oh my God, that's great! I'm smart!! No, no, I'm... "brainy, bright, clever", I love this thing! Look out ladies, Joey Tribbiani's got the whole package!!

Joey: Hey, finished my recommendation. And I think you’ll be very, very happy. It’s the longest I ever spent on a computer without looking at porn.

Chandler: I don’t... uh... understand.

Joey: Some of the words are a little too sophisticated for ya?

Monica: It doesn’t make any sense.

Joey: Of course it does! It’s smart! I used the the-saurus!

Chandler: On every word?

Joey: Yep!

Monica: Alright, what was this sentence originally?

Joey: Oh, ‘They are warm, nice, people with big hearts’.

Chandler: And that became ‘they are humid prepossessing Homo Sapiens with full sized aortic pumps...?

Joey: Yeah, yeah and hey, I really mean it, dude.
http://livesinabox.com/friends/1005.shtml

Now excuse me while I go shower, a the-saurus just threw up on me

[Azure]

"Affairs of state must take precedence over ... afairs of state."

Lmao...I just saw that movie today.

:D

[Azure]

Good point. I can actually respect someone who fills their god-shaped hole using faith as long as they are intellectually honest about it. I get the sense that Azure is one of those people, although who knows....on teh Internetz you can be whoever you want to be.

I think you have sensed right.

If Dustin can 'prove' that God exists....whatever God that may be....there is no more room for faith.

I think a lot of theists will agree with me.

[blobru]

I liked the modal part of Dustin's blockbuster proof to end all proofs (coming soon to a theatre near you).
And if you strip if of its jargon, I think the OP (Merv) of the thread ("I think I've heard evert theistic argument...") that started this thread might not have heard it before.
IMO <big gulp>: :scared: :dig:

Godel's modal proof really claims God is provable (Godel's life work, distinguishing between provable and unprovable statements) without providing the proof directly.
The modal proof of God is not saying
This is a proof that God exists (not directly, anyway), but rather
There is a proof that God exists, and
This is a proof that there is a proof that God exists, because
God is "proof" (the laws of logic, like Spinoza identified God with the laws of nature), so
The concept of "God" is a kind of proof (even if only God understands it), thus
"God" is the proof that there is a proof that God exists.

Pretty ingenious, and a little bit batty maybe, "proving" the proof exists without showing it to us; in short: "God" is proof is "proof" of God.
Most logicians seem to agree that like the ontological argument it relies on circular reaoning, here with an appeal to transcendental logic. :hypnotize

I share the opinion of posters like Azure who say God can't be proven or disproven; but it's darn tempting, even fun, to try!
Kudos to Dustin for introducing the modal proof in his essay on God. As god-proofs go, it certainly is... ummm... different (kinda cool too). :cool:

[Dustin Kesselberg]

to recap - your proof through ontological argument...

"positive property" is necessary and sufficient for "God"
We assume God is positive, therefore God has positive property
We assume God is omnipresent therefore God exists.

Therefore God does exist and must exist.


It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. No, wait, it still is pretty funny :D

Is that how you interpreted my post? I think you need to re-read it, this time with your monitor turned on...

So, what do you mean by 'Theistic God'? That's surely just tautological, since 'theism' is just belief in god or gods?

Anyway, is a deistic god necessarily omnipresent?


Deistic Gods aren't necessarily omnipresent though I defined mine as being so.



Yes, I know you have no evidence of the assertion that my world view is based upon nothing, since I've never described to you either my worldview nor its basis. I also never explained what I have faith in, nor what reason I give to accept faith (belief without proof), nor on what subjects.

You said you believed in God. That's enough.


Do you accept that your senses are telling you the truth? That's faith.

You must have missed my whole OP...

Do you believe that you exist (as opposed to being only a small portion of a larger thinking being)? That's faith.

This question makes no sense. If I'm only a "thinking being" then I as a whole am that being not a portion of it.

And you've already admitted (elsewhere) to being an Evangelical Christian, who believes in the Bible and God (as Trinity) - none of which with any evidence to back it up. So you, too, are a man of faith.

None of which has evidence to back up? Try again?



And 'proofs' do not constitute evidence, nor proof in the common-usage sense.

The dictionary disagrees.


It's time for you to define what we are then. As near as I can tell, we consist of both conscious and unconscious components, all internal to us.

If you're limitiing us to only 'conscious beings', then you're reducing what we are to one small section of the brain - and not even the most important part, either. And by this, then memory, most thoughts, decision, senses, beliefs, hopes, fears, etc. are ALL external to us. NOTHING AT ALL is internal, except the processing of awareness itself, and even that is partially external to us!

Your definition - if it is 'a conscious being' - is useless in any practical sense.

When I say "Conscious being" I mean our consciousness is all we're aware of. The Cartesian self. Anything other than that either exists outside of ourselves or inside. I've shown how if we're only "thinking beings" then it can't exist inside therefore our perceptions are coming from outside of ourselves.


Then you have a poor sense of abstraction and imagination.

Example?



I disagree, though I think their thoughts would be entirely alien to us. But in a meaningful sense, I would tenetively agree.

Huh?

However, that's following the causal chain past the necessities of reason in order to stretch a point beyond credulity. You're saying that the causes of thoughts have to be external to us - sure, ultimately, all causation could be traced back to the Big Bang, at least, so every thought, imagining, etc. can be said to have its cause (ultimately) being external to us. EVERYTHING including us had its cause external to us, regardless of what you believe (solipsists and acosmists notwithstanding).

However, your argument is resting on the idea that experiences - all experiences - begin outside of us. What I'm challenging is mainly your definition of what 'we' are. If we are our physical selves, including the flesh and bone and blood and brain, then many experiences are initiated within ourselves, rather than without. However, you seem to be using an extremely limited version of what 'we' are.

This demonstrates the absolute importance of pre-defining your terms.

Maybe we can move past this paragraph if you re-write it with properly defined terms?

If we're our physical selves then any experiences we have come(or are based on) from the outside world through our senses. You've yet to give an example otherwise.



Why? Explain.

Because our unconsciousness controlling our consciousness would mix together resulting in a non-thinking thing.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

OK

What's this? What's that first thing? What's that last thing? Are they changing? Why are they changing? How long did it take to change? Will they keep changing?

Since we are picking apart Dustin's pathetic OP I'll add another fallacy he used.



Dustin is appealing to authority to prove his point, an obvious logical fallacy. I wonder how many fallacies there are in Dustin's OP?

Nonsense, I'm saying they should not be dismissed on a whim due to that, not that they should be accepted due to that.

Hey, Dustin.

Just to save everyone's time and sanity, I suggest the following plan:

You have just proved god.

Piggy and EGarrett have just disproved god here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81853)

Why don't you three all trot off for a week's camping and sort it out.

Cheers.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2678154&postcount=474

Hello All,

Well, I take a weekend off and Dustin posts his Proof! Teach me to relax, won't it.

I've read through the OP, and the thread. And I have to say that I am disappointed. I've been an "arguing atheist" for almost 20 years (I started posting on alt.atheism in 1989), and Dustin's argument is not new. It's far from new. It's about as old as religion itself.

Basically, it can be boiled down to "god exists because I think god exists". The rest is just semantics and fancy talk. The philosophical equivalent of the ball & three cups trick. There is no proof, and certainly no evidence, present in the OP.

Sorry, Dustin, but you'll have to do better than that mate. :)

Cheers,
TGHO


You didn't read the OP, If you did you wouldn't claim it was an argument opposed to multiple arguments, nor would you have claimed my argument boils down to "god exists because I think god exists".

I think you have sensed right.

If Dustin can 'prove' that God exists....whatever God that may be....there is no more room for faith.

I think a lot of theists will agree with me.


Depends on how one defines "faith". If faith is defined as belief without evidence, who would want that? :confused:

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So, right there Dustin "proves" the existence of God by assuming the existence of God. Oh, he dressed it up all fancy-like but acalling something a Chilean sea bass doesn't change the fact that it's still just a Patagonian toothfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonian_toothfish).


There's nothing wrong with that. I assumed God existed to see if his non-existence was more or less consistent. Then I showed that he couldn't possibly not exist therefore he must exist.


This is an argument from ... guessing. It's just guessing. There is no reason why a biological disposition towards religion necessarily indicates that religion is correct. Any claim that it does is just an argument from ignorance or incredulity.

There would be no reason for the deaf, blind man to assume that he was without obvious perception either.




A particularly disgusting little logical trick, Dustin has in this sentence shifted the burden of proof from the proponent ("there IS a fire truck") to the opponent ("there is not"). That's not the way things work. If he wants to prove the existence of God, he has the burden of proof. The blind man is perfectly justified in stating, "I will not believe in fire trucks until you show me evidence of them."

I've already proven it. However in the fire truck example, The blind man isn't justified in denying the fire trucks existence due to his biological impairment anymore than the nonbeliever is justified in denying the creator.


Assuming that all of Dustin's facts are right, his logical error here is a non-sequitor. This is his argument:

1. Belief in God makes people happy.
2. Being happy "works".
3. Thus, God exists.

But 1 and 2 don't necessarily lead to 3. If they are both true, 1 and 2 lead to the conclusion: "People should believe in God." There's just no reason why believing in God necessarily equals the existence of God.

I never said it did.

And, in fact, we can take issue with whether being happy is a good thing, whether "happiness" equates with a religion "working" and all sorts of other problems with the truthfulness of these things. For instance, a religious belief that "works" would, to me, mean that prayers come true. As I am not currently dating Natalie Portman, we know for a fact that prayers do not come true.

"Working" and "Being happy" aren't synonymous. Belief in God "works" in the lives of billions and that doesn't always equate to making them 'happy' simply allowing them to live.



A non-sequitor. He has perhaps shown that "religion" fits into our worldview, not "God."

To billions it's "God", thus God fits into their world views.



I am skeptical that Dustin hoped this would be simple and clear. He has hidden his logical errors in a wall of meaningless text and I, at least, believe he has done so on purpose.

Nonsense. I simply use words that convey the most meaning. My OP was as short as I could possibly make it and I had to use specific words opposed to full sentences that would convey the same meaning. My post would have been 20 times longer had I not condensed long sentences into single words to save space.

[PixyMisa]

There's nothing wrong with that. I assumed God existed to see if his non-existence was more or less consistent. Then I showed that he couldn't possibly not exist therefore he must exist.
Where was this, Dustin? Everyone who has read your post somehow missed it.

"Working" and "Being happy" aren't synonymous. Belief in God "works" in the lives of billions and that doesn't always equate to making them 'happy' simply allowing them to live.
In what way does it work, such that it can be distinguished from not working?

Nonsense. I simply use words that convey the most meaning. My OP was as short as I could possibly make it and I had to use specific words opposed to full sentences that would convey the same meaning. My post would have been 20 times longer had I not condensed long sentences into single words to save space.
Yet somehow your post is strewn liberally with logical fallacies. How did that happen?

[The Great Hairy One]

You didn't read the OP, If you did you wouldn't claim it was an argument opposed to multiple arguments, nor would you have claimed my argument boils down to "god exists because I think god exists".



I did read it, Dustin, and that's exactly what you are saying.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Dustin Kesselberg]

From now on I won't reply to people who make vague assertions and who don't provide clear examples and quote exactly what they are referring to after the make the assertions.

[The Great Hairy One]

From now on I won't reply to people who make vague assertions and who don't provide clear examples and quote exactly what they are referring to after the make the assertions.


TGHO: 1

Dustin: 0

Round 2, anyone?

Cheers,
TGHO

[thaiboxerken]

So, I take it that you don't have any real evidence that your god exists, Dustin?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So, I take it that you don't have any real evidence that your god exists, Dustin?


Read the OP.

[thaiboxerken]

Read the OP.

Ok, so you don't have any real evidence that your god exists. Thanks.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Ok, so you don't have any real evidence that your god exists. Thanks.


Have you read the OP? Or are you just being obtuse on purpose and wasting my time?

[thaiboxerken]

Get your paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and get back to me about your OP. I got as far as your silly Descarte proved that the individual exists, and maybe a god-demon and realized that the rest of the post is probably just as silly. When you come up with real evidence that your god exists, feel free to show it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Get your paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and get back to me about your OP. I got as far as your silly Descarte proved that the individual exists, and maybe a god-demon and realized that the rest of the post is probably just as silly. When you come up with real evidence that your god exists, feel free to show it.


I already have. If you're not intelligent enough to understand Cartesian philosophy then I doubt you're intelligent enough to understand some of the more complex aspects of my post. It's probably best you stopped reading, you wouldn't have understood it anyway.

[PixyMisa]

We've read the OP, sesquipedalian monstrosity that it is.

We've pointed out innumerable... well, not innumerable... heaps of logical fallacies.

You have yet to acknowledge any of those.

None of us here think you have proved anything whatsoever. If you want to change our minds, you will never do it with a great splodge of text like that.

You need to take one step at a time, considering all objections, defining your terms and refining your logic with exquisite care.

We'll help by telling you where you're wrong.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If anyone has anything specific to say regarding my post, quotes included, then I'd be more than happy to respond.

[Mashuna]

There's nothing wrong with that. I assumed God existed to see if his non-existence was more or less consistent. Then I showed that he couldn't possibly not exist therefore he must exist.

Do you honestly think that you have done this? I really can't tell if the whole OP is a complex wind-up, or if you genuinely believe in this statement.

[PixyMisa]

If anyone has anything specific to say regarding my post, quotes included, then I'd be more than happy to respond.
Every part of it, from beginning to end, is nonsense of the first order.

It would be rude for me to quote the entire thing, so please reference all of my (and everyone else's) objections upthread, not one of which have you adequately addressed.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Do you honestly think that you have done this? I really can't tell if the whole OP is a complex wind-up, or if you genuinely believe in this statement.

Absolutely. If you read the OP, the entire OP then you will agree.

[PixyMisa]

Well, I agree that you seem to believe that you have done this, sure.

[Mid]

Unfair to Sir Humphrey, you mean? An Oxford man would eschew such prolixity.

Given I seem to be in a political drama mood all I'll say is:

You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

:D

[D'rok]

Depends on how one defines "faith". If faith is defined as belief without evidence, who would want that? :confused:


You, apparently. Others are just honest with themselves about this.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You, apparently. Others are just honest with themselves about this.


No. I base my beliefs on established facts and evidence. See my OP. I've shown that God exists.

[Solus]

Get your paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and get back to me about your OP. I got as far as your silly Descarte proved that the individual exists, and maybe a god-demon and realized that the rest of the post is probably just as silly. When you come up with real evidence that your god exists, feel free to show it.

I already have. If you're not intelligent enough to understand Cartesian philosophy then I doubt you're intelligent enough to understand some of the more complex aspects of my post. It's probably best you stopped reading, you wouldn't have understood it anyway.

What peer-reviewed scientific journal did you get your OP published in Dustin? Please share that with us....

[D'rok]

No. I base my beliefs on established facts and evidence. See my OP. I've shown that God exists.


Oops, you did it again.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2681222#post2681222

[PixyMisa]

No. I base my beliefs on established facts and evidence.
What established facts and evidence?

See my OP. I've shown that God exists.
Well.... No. No, sorry to say, Dustin, that you have not done this after all. Your premises are unsupported and your logic is invalid, as has been explained to you by everyone here.

Your OP is of no value. Give it up. Start instead with a single statement, an axiom, an observation, a postulate, whatever. Get people to agree with that. Then build on it. We'll help. It won't work, of course, but we're happy to help.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What peer-reviewed scientific journal did you get your OP published in Dustin? Please share that with us....


The fact that it's not published in a scientific journal makes it invalid?

[Mashuna]

Absolutely. If you read the OP, the entire OP then you will agree.

Since N=God therefore the property of being God is essentially positive and is thus necessarily positive because as previously explained it’s negation would logically be negative. By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’

So how does this avoid Kant's refutation of the argument from ontology, where he criticises Anselm for misstating existence as a property?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So how does this avoid Kant's refutation of the argument from ontology, where he criticises Anselm for misstating existance as a property?


I never asserted existence is a property.

[The Great Hairy One]

No. I base my beliefs on established facts and evidence. See my OP. I've shown that God exists.


I have to remind you of my post from a previous thread:
Unless you provide a time stamped photograph or video to coincide with your post, you did no such thing.


Dustin, unless you provide actual evidence, you've proved exactly nothing.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Mashuna]

I never asserted existence is a property.

In the quote I posted from your OP you defined the property of being God as essentially positive, and defined essentially existing as being positive. Is this not just redefining words to get around explicitly listing existence as a property?

[D'rok]

Put the Ontological Arguments in a pan and they all cook down to
God exists by definition; therefore God exists.
There is a great knight jump on the board to get from an abstract concept to an empirical reality. The platonic worldview accommodated such pieces making such moves, as the world of intellectual concepts was the Reality.
That worldview has disintegrated. That underpinning is gone. Instead our intellectual culture now seeks empirical evidence for assertions about reality.
To us going from a abstract concept to an empirical assertion is, as AndyAndy put it, "tosh." Proof is for Mathematics. And though the structures of math often find great relevance to the natural. empirical world, they don't always, and they don't simply.

For the Ontological Argument to be as robust as it would like, we must first provide an underpinning or structure that connects concepts and perception in such a way what we can imagine has a say in what can and does exist.
That's why Theists often find the Idealist Worldview more user-friendly.
But worldviews aren’t based on proofs. They boil down to have cultures and individual persons relate to their environment. It’s all very messy, and people inevitably disagree.

Bottom-line, there's a lot of unseen premise going on in the Ontological "proofs." Because of that, you can't do Theology by Mathematics.
And if you are an Evangelical, it's not at base about intellectual argument. That's fine for persuasion, but in the end it's about the Divine Encounter. And if all you depend upon are just some "proofs," you are "most miserable."

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/13941466e6a75815d6.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6324)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/13941466e6a75815d6.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6324)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/13941466e6a75815d6.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6324)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/13941466e6a75815d6.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6324)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/13941466e6a75815d6.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6324)

[Kahalachan]

OK after reading all of the first post, it's not proof of god. It's a justification for a belief in god.

I don't know why people think they can intellectually prove god. You can't because it lies beyond our scope of understanding. It can't be proven or disproven.

It seems to cheapen faith to try and prove it anyways. Proof and faith are antonymns of each other.

If god is proven then what good is faith?

If faith is a virtue why waste time with proof?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

In the quote I posted from your OP you defined the property of being God as essentially positive, and defined essentially existing as being positive. Is this not just redefining words to get around explicitly listing existence as a property?

Nope.

OK after reading all of the first post, it's not proof of god. It's a justification for a belief in god.

I don't know why people think they can intellectually prove god. You can't because it lies beyond our scope of understanding. It can't be proven or disproven.

It seems to cheapen faith to try and prove it anyways. Proof and faith are antonymns of each other.

If god is proven then what good is faith?

If faith is a virtue why waste time with proof?

What part of my altered Gödel argument isn't a proof?

[PixyMisa]

Present the statements one at a time. You'll soon find out.

[Mashuna]

Nope.



Thanks for your thorough answer. Allow me to rephrase my question.

In the quote I posted from your OP you defined the property of being God as essentially positive, and defined essentially existing as being positive. This is redefining words to get around explicitly listing existence as a property. Hence your argument fails.

[Kahalachan]

"Perhaps religious people have a specific ability to sense the creator the way people with working eyes and ears have a specific ability to sense the fire truck"

This is conjecture and not proof. It's justification for a belief.

Let's take Dr. Persinger's experiment with stimulating the "god experience" in the brain. Atheists can argue that god is merely a delusion or feeling the brain generates and there is no god. Theists can argue god imbued us with an antennae. Are either of these proven? I don't see how either side can prove their case.

With the blind man example who can't see the red fire truck. They can't see red but they could understand it in terms of wavelength. Science has empowered the blind to "see" red in a different way. Just as I can't see infra-red or ultra-violet but I am capable of understanding it and knowing it exists.

But this is because wavelength is measurable. There is someway to quantify this objectively.

God is taken purely on faith. There's ways to justify this faith with arguments. But these arguments alone don't prove god.

I still wonder why the same people who say faith is a good thing, will do the opposite and try to offer up proof?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Thanks for your thorough answer. Allow me to rephrase my question.

In the quote I posted from your OP you defined the property of being God as essentially positive, and defined essentially existing as being positive. This is redefining words to get around explicitly listing existence as a property. Hence your argument fails.

All we have to work with is language. If I'm not listing 'existence' as a property then I'm not listing existence as a property.

"Perhaps religious people have a specific ability to sense the creator the way people with working eyes and ears have a specific ability to sense the fire truck"

This is conjecture and not proof. It's justification for a belief.

This isn't my my altered Gödel argument.

Let's take Dr. Persinger's experiment with stimulating the "god experience" in the brain. Atheists can argue that god is merely a delusion or feeling the brain generates and there is no god. Theists can argue god imbued us with an antennae. Are either of these proven? I don't see how either side can prove their case.

With the blind man example who can't see the red fire truck. They can't see red but they could understand it in terms of wavelength. Science has empowered the blind to "see" red in a different way. Just as I can't see infra-red or ultra-violet but I am capable of understanding it and knowing it exists.

Not unless you know it's there. If it's too far away to touch or feel, you can't see or hear it, you have no way of knowing it even exists. Moreover, Understanding the wavelength of the color read doesn't compare to understanding what it looks like.

But this is because wavelength is measurable. There is someway to quantify this objectively.

God is taken purely on faith. There's ways to justify this faith with arguments. But these arguments alone don't prove god.

I still wonder why the same people who say faith is a good thing, will do the opposite and try to offer up proof?

I don't believe faith is a good thing is it's defined as belief without evidence. I hold no beliefs without evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

The fact that it's not published in a scientific journal makes it invalid?

The fact that it's invalid guarantees that it will never be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The fact that it's invalid guarantees that it will never be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

So everything published in a peer-reviewed journal is automatically valid? :rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

I don't believe faith is a good thing is it's defined as belief without evidence. I hold no beliefs without evidence.

Well, except for the belief that your god exists. You have FAILED to show any valid, credible or scientific evidence that your god exists. I have to wonder, Dustin, why did you lie about being agnostic/atheist on this board? Was it your goal to use guerrilla tactics to try and trick people into believing that your god exists? Why do you use metaphysical, philosophical garbage arguments to try and trick people into believing your god exists? Why haven't you submitted your "proof" that your god exists to any mathematical or scientific journals yet?

[thaiboxerken]

So everything published in a peer-reviewed journal is automatically valid?

No, I just stated a fact that your particular "proof" will never be published in a peer-reviewed journal because it is invalid.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Well, except for the belief that your god exists. You have FAILED to show any valid, credible or scientific evidence that your god exists.

Tell me how the OP is wrong. Quote each argument I make and explain how it's wrong in detail.

I have to wonder, Dustin, why did you lie about being agnostic/atheist on this board?

I used to be an Atheist.

Was it your goal to use guerrilla tactics to try and trick people into believing that your god exists?

How would that work? :confused:

Why do you use metaphysical, philosophical garbage arguments to try and trick people into believing your god exists?

You've yet to show how any of my arguments are "garbage". I'm not trying to trick anyone. I'm trying to reveal to them the truth.


Why haven't you submitted your "proof" that your god exists to any mathematical or scientific journals yet?


I didn't compose my arguments to be used for any journals, I wrote them up for this forum. My arguments are metaphysical and philosophical religious arguments, at most they could go into some philosophy journal but it's too much trouble introducing them to such a thing.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, I just stated a fact that your particular "proof" will never be published in a peer-reviewed journal because it is invalid.

How do you figure? Scientific journals, peer reviewed reputable scientific journals often have numerous studies that are totally invalid. Why would one not be published if it's invalid when multitudes of others are published and are invalid?

[PixyMisa]

Tell me how the OP is wrong. Quote each argument I make and explain how it's wrong in detail.
All of it is wrong, Dustin. Rather, you pick one statement that you stand by, and let us concentrate on that. Then, when we have finished with that, one way or another, we can move on to the next.

You've yet to show how any of my arguments are "garbage". I'm not trying to trick anyone. I'm trying to reveal to them the truth.
Clearly your current methods are failing, then. Time for a fresh approach.

[Mashuna]

All we have to work with is language. If I'm not listing 'existence' as a property then I'm not listing existence as a property.

Except that you are, in your OP,

’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context.

Here, you define the essential properties of God as being positive.

By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’.

Here you define existing as being positive.

So by your definition of positive, you have claimed existing as being an essential property of God.

[thaiboxerken]

Tell me how the OP is wrong. Quote each argument I make and explain how it's wrong in detail.

There is no point to doing that as you keep ignoring anyone else that's done this.


I used to be an Atheist.

During the time you've been posting on this board? I doubt it.

How would that work?

"Hey guys, I'm an atheist, but check out this proof of a god. Hey guys, this proof of a god has just convinced me. Hey guys, I can prove the christian god exists." I didn't say it would work, but it is the tactic you're using.


You've yet to show how any of my arguments are "garbage". I'm not trying to trick anyone. I'm trying to reveal to them the truth.

I don't have to, many others have shown your arguments to be garbage. You haven't impressed one god damned soul in this thread. Your "truth" is anything but. Your god doesn't exist. Your jesus was a mythological hero. Your religion is a sham.


I didn't compose my arguments to be used for any journals, I wrote them up for this forum. My arguments are metaphysical and philosophical religious arguments, at most they could go into some philosophy journal but it's too much trouble introducing them to such a thing.

Your arguments wouldn't qualify for any mathematical or scientific journal because they are GARBAGE. You are deluded to think that there is any validity to your arguments.

[thaiboxerken]

Why would one not be published if it's invalid when multitudes of others are published and are invalid?

Because your arguments are so illogical and glaring invalid that any paper you submitted on this particular subject would find it's way to the circular file.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

There is no point to doing that as you keep ignoring anyone else that's done this.

This thread wouldn't be 10 pages long if I ignored everyones comments. :rolleyes:



During the time you've been posting on this board? I doubt it.

Until about a week ago.




I don't have to, many others have shown your arguments to be garbage.

I've addressed them.

You haven't impressed one god damned soul in this thread.

Are you frustrated? Perhaps Jesus can help.

Your "truth" is anything but. Your god doesn't exist. Your jesus was a mythological hero. Your religion is a sham.

I've already proven God exists.



Your arguments wouldn't qualify for any mathematical or scientific journal because they are GARBAGE. You are deluded to think that there is any validity to your arguments.

Except journals don't distinguish between scientifically valid and invalid papers as far as I can tell. So many of them published being invalid.

Because your arguments are so illogical and glaring invalid that any paper you submitted on this particular subject would find it's way to the circular file.


So illogical and glaringly invalid yet you can't address them? You just point to other people having addressed them which I throughly replied to and repudiated? Hmm.

[zooterkin]

Until about a week ago.


Sorry, it's hard to concentrate with this loud ringing noise... ah, it's coming from this box by my computer, marked 'Troll detector'. Does anyone else have one of these, and has it just gone off, or is mine broken?

[thaiboxerken]

This thread wouldn't be 10 pages long if I ignored everyones comments.

You use ad-nauseum tactics to effectively ignore criticism.


Until about a week ago.

I find that very hard to believe. I think you were a christian all along.


I've addressed them.

Not really.


Are you frustrated? Perhaps Jesus can help.

Bull. Even if your jesus existed, he's still dead.


I've already proven God exists.

Only in your own feeble mind. If you really had proof, you could publish it in a scientific journal. Somehow, my psychic powers tell me that this will never happen. I'm pretty sure you'll never even try to get it published because you know, as well as everyone else, that there is no scientific or logical basis to your proof.


Except journals don't distinguish between scientifically valid and invalid papers as far as I can tell. So many of them published being invalid.

Ahh, the classic attack on science by the believer. A few invalid papers have been published, but they are usually found by other scientists and retracted. That's why the journal is there.


So illogical and glaringly invalid yet you can't address them? You just point to other people having addressed them which I throughly replied to and repudiated?

You only claim to repudiate them.

[The Great Hairy One]

Sorry, it's hard to concentrate with this loud ringing noise... ah, it's coming from this box by my computer, marked 'Troll detector'. Does anyone else have one of these, and has it just gone off, or is mine broken?


I'M SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER MY IRONY DETECTOR!!!

:D :p

Cheers,
TGHO

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I find that very hard to believe. I think you were a christian all along.

I've posted here 2 1/2 years. I've been pretending to be an atheist all that time? :rolleyes:



Only in your own feeble mind. If you really had proof, you could publish it in a scientific journal. Somehow, my psychic powers tell me that this will never happen. I'm pretty sure you'll never even try to get it published because you know, as well as everyone else, that there is no scientific or logical basis to your proof.

Ok. Ignore my proof of God because I haven't posted it in a "scientific journal". Right.

Ahh, the classic attack on science by the believer. A few invalid papers have been published, but they are usually found by other scientists and retracted. That's why the journal is there.

There's no one standing around looking at papers deciding whether or not they are "valid" and warrant being published. As you say, papers are published and then invalidated not the other way around.


Sorry, it's hard to concentrate with this loud ringing noise... ah, it's coming from this box by my computer, marked 'Troll detector'. Does anyone else have one of these, and has it just gone off, or is mine broken?

I've been here almost 3 years. You've been for 3 months. I think you need to re-evaluate what the word "troll" means. Who's the one throwing insults and using profanity in this thread? Definitely not me. I'm simply discussing my religious beliefs and my proofs for God. I'm doing so in a friendly and adult manner. The vast majority of my over 4,000 post over the past almost 3 years have been friendly unless provoked.

Yet I suddenly decide to change my religious beliefs and I get called a "troll" by someone who hasn't even been here for 3 months? :nope:

[andyandy]

oh this is shaping up to be a classic thread :D

Dustin your rebuttal of the criticism of your ontological argument "read it again with your monitor switched on" is pretty weak - even by your own standards....have another go. What do you disagree with?


This means that ‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the previous paragraph. Now I will make the first postulation which is ’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context. I do not mean ’positive’ to be any sort of moral aesthetic definition.


So N is God. For some reason we assume that both a necessary and sufficient condition for "God" is that N has "positive propertythat means we assume that if we prove "positive property" we prove "God." A bizare notion, but let's see where this is going.

Now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails B necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'. This means that since ‘N’ is positive it’s negation would not be positive but negative. Since N=God therefore the property of being God is essentially positive and is thus necessarily positive because as previously explained it’s negation would logically be negative. By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’. This means that if God is a positive being necessarily God is thus positive and if God is God-like then the property of being God-like is an essence of God. Which is to say, If God is by definition positive then a necessary component of God which would be “Godlike” is thus necessarily positive as well.

An attempt to prove "postive property" by first assuming that God is positive

N is positive
Therefore its negation would be negative
Therefore God has positive property


N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world.


If God is omnipresent then he exists somewhere.
Therefore God is omnipresent
Therefore God exists

the premise and conclusions themselves are adequately valid which show that it would be logically impossible if a God could not or did not exist and the only conclusion we are left with is that a God does exist and must exist.


In summary;

"positive property" is necessary and sufficient for "God"
We assume God is positive, therefore God has positive property
We assume God is omnipresent therefore God exists.

Therefore God does exist and must exist.

utter tosh. It is isn't it? Either you've copy and pasted that argument from somewhere else without really understanding it - but were hoping people would be impressed by some logical analysis, or you wrote it yourself and misunderstand even basic requirements for proof. It is laughable. Truly i would expect better from junior school kids.

[Complexity]

The only "proof" so presented is this

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

without further expansion. Considering your difficultly with

If P then Q
Q
then P

only yesterday, i am, shall we say sceptical that you fully understand the notation. Perhaps you could explain how this amounts to a proof.


1. I compiled that argument so obviously I know the notation.


I doubt very much that you know the notation, but doubt even more if you understand the ideas behind the notation.

For a start, explain what is meant by 'consequence' and 'derivability' in the context of formal logic?

Why is the difference between these concepts important?

How do 'consequence' and 'derivability' relate to Godel's proof of the completeness of the first-order predicate calculus?

How do 'consequence' and 'derivability' relate to Godel's proof of the incompleteness of the second-order predicate calculus?

What do 'soundness' and 'completeness' mean in the context of formal logic and what do they have to do with the previous two questions?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So N is God. For some reason we assume that both a necessary and sufficient condition for "God" is that N has "positive propertythat means we assume that if we prove "positive property" we prove "God." A bizare notion, but let's see where this is going.

Wrong. ‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the OP. I said ’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context. I do not mean ’positive’ to be any sort of moral aesthetic definition. This means that God can't exist unless his existence is explicitly stated in the initial premise, obviously admitting of no question in that context.



An attempt to prove "postive property" by first assuming that God is positive

N is positive
Therefore its negation would be negative
Therefore God has positive property

Positive*

You're confused yet again though. I said now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails 'B' necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'. Initial premise.




If God is omnipresent then he exists somewhere.
Therefore God is omnipresent
Therefore God exists

You're extracting the end of the argument as it's own argument. This is just the last premise ending in the conclusion. An argument will obviously be fallacious if you cut the first 90% out of it and then examine it.


In summary;

"positive property" is necessary and sufficient for "God"
We assume God is positive, therefore God has positive property
We assume God is omnipresent therefore God exists.

Therefore God does exist and must exist.

utter tosh. It is isn't it? Either you've copy and pasted that argument from somewhere else without really understanding it - but were hoping people would be impressed by some logical analysis, or you wrote it yourself and misunderstand even basic requirements for proof. It is laughable. Truly i would expect better from junior school kids.


You've ignored 90% of the argument.

[zooterkin]

I've been here almost 3 years. You've been for 3 months. I think you need to re-evaluate what the word "troll" means. Who's the one throwing insults and using profanity in this thread? Definitely not me.

The implication is that I'm using profanity. Care to indicate exactly where I've done that?


I'm simply discussing my religious beliefs and my proofs for God. I'm doing so in a friendly and adult manner. The vast majority of my over 4,000 post over the past almost 3 years have been friendly unless provoked.

Yet I suddenly decide to change my religious beliefs and I get called a "troll" by someone who hasn't even been here for 3 months? :nope:

Sorry, I must have mis-read the membership agreements, or something. How long must I be a member before I can express an opinion?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

For a start, explain what is meant by 'consequence' and 'derivability' in the context of formal logic?

Firstly, As I mentioned earlier it's a modal not formal argument. A consequence is the same as a conclusion of a set of premises or postulates. Derivations are sequences formulas given extrapability of the initial consequence from the previous formula.

How do 'consequence' and 'derivability' relate to Godel's proof of the completeness of the first-order predicate calculus?

The same way they do for any modal formula.

How do 'consequence' and 'derivability' relate to Godel's proof of the incompleteness of the second-order predicate calculus?

See above.

What do 'soundness' and 'completeness' mean in the context of formal logic and what do they have to do with the previous two questions?

Soundness means that the argument's logic is valid and the premises are true. "Completeness" has no relevancy to my argument since it's already functionally valid in it's premises.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The implication is that I'm using profanity. Care to indicate exactly where I've done that?

I'm not referring to you but to others in this thread. Especially "ThaiBoxerken"

Sorry, I must have mis-read the membership agreements, or something. How long must I be a member before I can express an opinion?

So you admit it's an "opinion"? As in unsupported by any evidence?

[The Great Hairy One]

All this discussion on philosophy and semantics is all fine and good, however it really doesn't get us anywhere.

I'd like to see some actual hard evidence. Something I can put under a microscope, or measure with a voltmeter, or pour some ammonium nitrate on and get a reaction.

Using philosophical arguments one can prove that red is blue, night is day and three legged chairs have a right to exist. None of that adds up to empirical evidence, ladies and gentlemen!

Cheers,
TGHO

[andyandy]

Wrong. ‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the OP. I said ’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context. I do not mean ’positive’ to be any sort of moral aesthetic definition. This means that God can't exist unless his existence is explicitly stated in the initial premise, obviously admitting of no question in that context.

right - I'm accepting your premise the "positive properties" are a necessary and sufficient quality for God - just to see where you take it.

those positive properties boil down to omni-ness. Okaykokey. No proof yet.

You're confused yet again though. I said now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails 'B' necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'. Initial premise.
This means that since ‘N’ is positive it’s negation would not be positive but negative. Since N=God therefore the property of being God is essentially positive and is thus necessarily positive because as previously explained it’s negation would logically be negative. By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’. This means that if God is a positive being necessarily God is thus positive and if God is God-like then the property of being God-like is an essence of God. Which is to say, If God is by definition positive then a necessary component of God which would be “Godlike” is thus necessarily positive as well.


In your logical analysis all you're saying is that set membership of N implies a given attribute, and that a given attribute implies membership of set N. This is not a proof - but restating your premise in a rather convoluted and horribly written way.

you assume N is positive
Therefore its negation would be negative
Therefore God has positive property

This is just restating your premise. You've already said that a necessary and sufficient condition for N is that it has positive property. Now, you assume N has positive property - and guess what, conclude that N has positive property!


You're extracting the end of the argument as it's own argument. This is just the last premise ending in the conclusion. An argument will obviously be fallacious if you cut the first 90% out of it and then examine it.

So this bit of logic makes no sense? But when added to a "proof" of positive property it does? And suddenly we have a magical proof of God?

Dustin you are an absolute waste of time.

[Z]

Is that how you interpreted my post? I think you need to re-read it, this time with your monitor turned on...




Deistic Gods aren't necessarily omnipresent though I defined mine as being so.




You said you believed in God. That's enough.




You must have missed my whole OP...



This question makes no sense. If I'm only a "thinking being" then I as a whole am that being not a portion of it.



None of which has evidence to back up? Try again?




The dictionary disagrees.




When I say "Conscious being" I mean our consciousness is all we're aware of. The Cartesian self. Anything other than that either exists outside of ourselves or inside. I've shown how if we're only "thinking beings" then it can't exist inside therefore our perceptions are coming from outside of ourselves.




Example?





Huh?



If we're our physical selves then any experiences we have come(or are based on) from the outside world through our senses. You've yet to give an example otherwise.





Because our unconsciousness controlling our consciousness would mix together resulting in a non-thinking thing.

You are making no sense. When you graduate junior high school, come back and we'll talk junior.

Our unconsciousness DOES control our consciousness, nitwit. All the scientific evidence has demonstrated this quite clearly. EVERY conscious thought or action is preceeded by unconsious mental activity.

Thus, you're wrong.

And show me where I said I believe in God. Further, show me where you've shown evidence for believing in the Bible, in being an evangelical Christian, etc.

And, no, a proof is not evidence. Nor is evidence proof. Otherwise, I could prove that dragons and faeries exist, and are far more powerful than the Christian God.

But all of this is clearly lost on you. You still think your conscious self is somehow primary to your being. Welcome to the real world, Dustin - your conscious awareness is an afterthought, and not much more than that.

From all the evidence, that which is 'you' is a small portion of that which is your biological self. Your conscious awareness is part of the brain which reflects on things that have happened, rather than deciding what things should happen. Decisions occur on the unconscious level and are reported to the conscious mind. Movements are originated in non-conscious areas and reported to the conscious mind.

The evidence is pretty damning for your point of view, Dusty.

However, none of this matters. You believe in Christianity, so your only hope of killing the monster of guilt you're feeling now is to try to rationalize it after the fact and come up with some logical gymnastics to justify your faith.

You're pretty sad. As a skeptic, you're clearly a failure, since your attempts at rationalizing faith have more fallacies and logical holes than the Bible itself, pound-for-pound. And as a believer, you're clearly a failure, since you simply can't accept faith alone, and must try to justify your faith.

Pathetic.

When you get an education, please return here and perhaps we can continue our discussion. Until then, I don't feel like wasting my time on the pseudo-philosophical rationalizations of a brainwashing victim.

Oh, and one more thing: Eschew obfuscation. This, most of all, you need to learn.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

All this discussion on philosophy and semantics is all fine and good, however it really doesn't get us anywhere.

I'd like to see some actual hard evidence. Something I can put under a microscope, or measure with a voltmeter, or pour some ammonium nitrate on and get a reaction.

I've provided evidence already. The fact that you can't touch or smell it doesn't negate the fact it's evidence none the less. Not all evidence is material or can be measured and weighed. It's very chauvinistic and narrow minded of you to believe so. Logically it's just as valid as 1+1=2.


Using philosophical arguments one can prove that red is blue, night is day and three legged chairs have a right to exist. None of that adds up to empirical evidence, ladies and gentlemen!

Cheers,
TGHO

Prove red=blue using valid philosophical arguments.

[Complexity]

Firstly, As I mentioned earlier it's a modal not formal argument. A consequence is the same as a conclusion of a set of premises or postulates. Derivations are sequences formulas given extrapability of the initial consequence from the previous formula.

The same way they do for any modal formula.

See above.

Soundness means that the argument's logic is valid and the premises are true. "Completeness" has no relevancy to my argument since it's already functionally valid in it's premises.


As I thought, you don't have an ***** clue.

Dustin doesn't understand anything about the statements of formal logic that he so blythely throws around. Typical fundy xian apologist.

Learn to spell 'premisses', you fundy troll.

'extrapability'?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You are making no sense. When you graduate junior high school, come back and we'll talk junior.

You're obviously not a man of God.

Our unconsciousness DOES control our consciousness, nitwit. All the scientific evidence has demonstrated this quite clearly. EVERY conscious thought or action is preceeded by unconsious mental activity.

I know.

Thus, you're wrong.

About?


And show me where I said I believe in God. Further, show me where you've shown evidence for believing in the Bible, in being an evangelical Christian, etc.

You said you were a priest! Are you an atheist priest?

:rolleyes:

And, no, a proof is not evidence. Nor is evidence proof. Otherwise, I could prove that dragons and faeries exist, and are far more powerful than the Christian God.

Proof is often defined as the amount of evidence needed to convince. Which of course varies. Prove that dragons and fairies exist.

But all of this is clearly lost on you. You still think your conscious self is somehow primary to your being. Welcome to the real world, Dustin - your conscious awareness is an afterthought, and not much more than that.

No I don't. You need to update yourself on Cartesian philosophy. It's a form of argumentation used in epistemology.


From all the evidence, that which is 'you' is a small portion of that which is your biological self. Your conscious awareness is part of the brain which reflects on things that have happened, rather than deciding what things should happen. Decisions occur on the unconscious level and are reported to the conscious mind. Movements are originated in non-conscious areas and reported to the conscious mind.

Define "You". Am you only your conscious self or are you your entire body?



However, none of this matters. You believe in Christianity, so your only hope of killing the monster of guilt you're feeling now is to try to rationalize it after the fact and come up with some logical gymnastics to justify your faith.

Only a man who is logically fit can perform logical gymnastics.


You're pretty sad. As a skeptic, you're clearly a failure, since your attempts at rationalizing faith have more fallacies and logical holes than the Bible itself, pound-for-pound. And as a believer, you're clearly a failure, since you simply can't accept faith alone, and must try to justify your faith.

You've failed to point out any of my "fallacies".

Some priest...Calling your fellow man a 'failure'? Go copulate with an adolescent, "father".



Pathetic.

:)


When you get an education, please return here and perhaps we can continue our discussion. Until then, I don't feel like wasting my time on the pseudo-philosophical rationalizations of a brainwashing victim.

You sure do take a logical butt whooping hard don't you? Resorting to childish insults and taunts as a result? THAT is pathetic.

[rikzilla]

I've provided evidence already.
No you haven't.

The fact that you can't touch or smell it doesn't negate the fact it's evidence none the less. Not all evidence is material or can be measured and weighed.

That's pretty funny stuff. So Dustin, how does this "evidence" which cannot be touched, seen, or measured in any meaningful way differ from "no evidence"??

It's very chauvinistic and narrow minded of you to believe so.

:confused:

chau·vin·ism
–noun 1. zealous and aggressive patriotism or blind enthusiasm for military glory.
2. biased devotion to any group, attitude, or cause.

Seems to me that you are the one with "biased devotion" here Dustin. So, can you explain for us how "evidence" for your god differs from, say. evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Logically it's just as valid as 1+1=2.
No. It's not.

-z

[Dustin Kesselberg]

As I thought, you don't have an ***** clue.

Dustin doesn't understand anything about the statements of formal logic that he so blythely throws around. Typical fundy xian apologist.

Learn to spell 'premisses', you fundy troll.

'extrapability'?


How don't I know what I'm saying? I explained clearly and answered your questions. You don't understand my answers and now you're getting overtly aggressive as you always do when you're cornered.

BTW, "Extrapability" is the ability to extrapolate. ;)

[zooterkin]

I'm not referring to you but to others in this thread. Especially "ThaiBoxerken"

So, does that mean you're not accusing me of throwing insults either?


So you admit it's an "opinion"? As in unsupported by any evidence?
It's my suspicion from the various threads I've read that you've posted in that you are not entirely open about your motives for posting, and there's something about the wording that you tend to use that gives me the impression that you are advancing positions that you don't believe in in order to get a reaction. I fully admit this is all subjective, but from other posts I've seen, I'm not the only one to hold this opinion.

Thanks for the earlier reply stating that you were positing an omnipresent deistic god (which I would have thought was an odd combination to choose. There is no need for a deistic god to be omnipresent, and your 'proof' appears to depend on the god being omnipresent). You didn't answer the question as to what you meant by a 'Theistic God'.

How about you tell us exactly what it was that converted you in the last week? Was it the process of writing out the proof? Did someone else convince you? Did you have a Damascene experience? Did some final piece of logic just click into place? I find it odd that you are not apparently eager to share the experience here, since it must be such a life-changing experience for you.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's pretty funny stuff. So Dustin, how does this "evidence" which cannot be touched, seen, or measured in any meaningful way differ from "no evidence"??

Let's assume a scenario.

Premise1-All A's are N's.

Premise2-Here is an A.

Conclusion-Here is an N.


I've proven that there is an 'N' in this scenario. No material evidence needed.


:confused:


It's dumb to believe the only proof or evidence must be empirical or material.



Seems to me that you are the one with "biased devotion" here Dustin. So, can you explain for us how "evidence" for your god differs from, say. evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

"Flying Spaghetti Monster". He flies? He's made of Spaghetti? I'm assuming. How do you know he flies and is made of spaghetti? I can prove my God given his specific attributes. Can you prove yours given his different attributes?

[rikzilla]

Proof is often defined as the amount of evidence needed to convince. Which of course varies. Prove that dragons and fairies exist.

Convince who? Just because you believe in something does not make it so Dustin. You cannot change reality by believing real hard. Just because there somewhere exists a fool who believes the earth is flat does not mean the earth has been proved to be flat. Crazy, deluded, or just plain dumb people only prove that there are crazy, deluded, and dumb people.



-z

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So, does that mean you're not accusing me of throwing insults either?

Well you did call me a "Troll" that one time...


It's my suspicion from the various threads I've read that you've posted in that you are not entirely open about your motives for posting, and there's something about the wording that you tend to use that gives me the impression that you are advancing positions that you don't believe in in order to get a reaction. I fully admit this is all subjective, but from other posts I've seen, I'm not the only one to hold this opinion.

Yes. That's nonsense. People on this forum tend to use underhanded tactics to get a point across. If they can't address something outright and clearly then they evade it and make baseless insinuations about the poster of the post in an attempt to discredit him or her since they can't attack their arguments. Take a look at what "Z" just did. You shouldn't go down that road.


Thanks for the earlier reply stating that you were positing an omnipresent deistic god (which I would have thought was an odd combination to choose. There is no need for a deistic god to be omnipresent, and your 'proof' appears to depend on the god being omnipresent). You didn't answer the question as to what you meant by a 'Theistic God'.

My proof doesn't rely on God being omnipresent. Exclude his omnipresence and the proof is still valid.

By "Theistic" I mean pays attention to life and actively makes changes to the universe in a way to alter it.


How about you tell us exactly what it was that converted you in the last week? Was it the process of writing out the proof? Did someone else convince you? Did you have a Damascene experience? Did some final piece of logic just click into place? I find it odd that you are not apparently eager to share the experience here, since it must be such a life-changing experience for you.

I was hiking outdoors when it happened a few days ago. All of a sudden the horizon became bright and I felt an extreme sense of well being and comfort, that changed to understanding of the entire universe as a whole. All of a sudden I understood how wrong I had previously been. I feel to my knees and suddenly everything clicked. It was like suddenly walking out of the fog and seeing the clear landscape in it's pristine beauty and a breath of fresh air suddenly entering my lungs that have long been deprived of oxygen and I knew that Jesus existed. All of the reasoning behind it came to me suddenly and I stopped being an Atheist and converted to Christianity.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Convince who? Just because you believe in something does not make it so Dustin. You cannot change reality by believing real hard. Just because there somewhere exists a fool who believes the earth is flat does not mean the earth has been proved to be flat. Crazy, deluded, or just plain dumb people only prove that there are crazy, deluded, and dumb people.



-z



I'm just saying that's how "evidence" is defined. Proof sufficient enough to convince.

[andyandy]

People on this forum tend to use underhanded tactics to get a point across. If they can't address something outright and clearly then they evade it and make baseless insinuations about the poster of the post in an attempt to discredit him or her since they can't attack their arguments. .

Dustin gets sanctimonous....


Take a look at what "Z" just did. You shouldn't go down that road


next sentence :D

[rikzilla]

Let's assume a scenario.

Premise1-All A's are N's.

Premise2-Here is an A.

Conclusion-Here is an N.


I've proven that there is an 'N' in this scenario. No material evidence needed.

That's not a proof Dustin, it's NONSENSE. You make no sense because you cannot seem to tell the difference between sense and nonsense. Your "proof" is nonsense, your "evidence" is similarly nonsense.


It's dumb to believe the only proof or evidence must be empirical or material.

It's simply deluded to believe otherwise.

"Flying Spaghetti Monster". He flies? He's made of Spaghetti? I'm assuming. How do you know he flies and is made of spaghetti?

Well I have seen much non-empirical evidence for the FSM, since this "evidence" (which BTW cannot be seen, felt, or tested in any meaningful way) has convinced me of the FSM's reality it is now a proof.

I can prove my God given his specific attributes. Can you prove yours given his different attributes?

Just as easily as you can...care to try?

-z

[rikzilla]

I'm just saying that's how "evidence" is defined. Proof sufficient enough to convince.
Okay then, I'm convinced the FSM can fly...there's your proof.

-z

[rikzilla]

Hey, this is fun! Dustin, you are going to burn in hell man! I can even prove it! See, Usama Bin Laden is a man of God, and he believes all "kufir" are going to hell. He is convinced by his knowledge of much non-empirical evidence...therefore this is proof that all kufir are going to hell.

Since you and I Dustin are kufir, I'll see you in hell.

It's true! :)

-z

[rikzilla]

Wow Dustin, you have single-handedly made 2 very useful english words disappear into meaninglessness!
Proof
Evidence


These words now mean nothing. Congratulations! I'm sure we are all better, more enlightened people now that those pesky terms are gone forever!

Dark Ages anyone??

-z

[PixyMisa]

You're confused yet again though. I said now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails 'B' necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'. Initial premise.
Dustin, Dustin my lad.

What is B?

It's never defined... And it's appears nowhere in the symbolic version of the quote proof unquote.

[D'rok]

I've provided evidence already. The fact that you can't touch or smell it doesn't negate the fact it's evidence none the less. Not all evidence is material or can be measured and weighed. It's very chauvinistic and narrow minded of you to believe so. Logically it's just as valid as 1+1=2.


Oops, you did it again.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2681222#post2681222




Prove red=blue using valid philosophical arguments.P: This thread is amusing
Q: Red is blue

If P then Q
P
Therefore Q

Perfectly valid argument. Proof and evidence, in your world.


I think in Dustin we have a new subspecies of woo. Some conspiracy theorists are after "da twoof" and are thus "twoofers", but Dustin is a philosopher after "da pwoof". Ladies and gents, I give you Dustin Kesselberg, "Pwoofer"

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's not a proof Dustin, it's NONSENSE. You make no sense because you cannot seem to tell the difference between sense and nonsense. Your "proof" is nonsense, your "evidence" is similarly nonsense.

Just because you don't understand basic logical statements doesn't mean it's "nonsense". In that sentence I showed a sound logical proof.


It's simply deluded to believe otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic


Well I have seen much non-empirical evidence for the FSM, since this "evidence" (which BTW cannot be seen, felt, or tested in any meaningful way) has convinced me of the FSM's reality it is now a proof.

Show me the evidence.


Show me the evidence!


Just as easily as you can...care to try?

-z

I did in the OP.

Okay then, I'm convinced the FSM can fly...there's your proof.

-z


Explain how this is a proof. What form of logic are you using? Where's the premise?

Dustin, Dustin my lad.

What is B?

It's never defined... And it's appears nowhere in the symbolic version of the quote proof unquote.

I used it to to set the ground for my initial premise. It's just a variable.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

P: This thread is amusing
Q: Red is blue

If P then Q
P
Therefore Q

Perfectly valid argument. Proof and evidence, in your world.



Not a sound argument. Your begging the question. You assume the fact you're trying to prove in the first place.

[D'rok]

Just because you don't understand basic logical statements doesn't mean it's "nonsense". In that sentence I showed a sound logical proof.

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. In one sentence you scold for lack of understanding, and in the next you demonstrate your own. You should win some kind of award for unintentional irony.

You showed a valid logical proof. We can't even evaluate its soundness because you didn't define A or N.

You are still fundamentally confused about truth, validity, and soundness.


Oh...and arguments are still not evidence.

[Complexity]

How don't I know what I'm saying? I explained clearly and answered your questions. You don't understand my answers and now you're getting overtly aggressive as you always do when you're cornered.

BTW, "Extrapability" is the ability to extrapolate. ;)


Dustin, you didn't answer any of my questions correctly or even close to half-right. You are ignorant of the concepts that I challenged you on.

'extrapability' wasn't in the dictionaries that I checked.

Are you going to spend the rest of your time on this board trying to convert us?

[D'rok]

Not a sound argument. Your begging the question. You assume the fact you're trying to prove in the first place.

Wrong yet again. You are so bad at this, I'm beginning to wonder if this is all an elaborate piece of performance art.

I assumed that this thread is amusing and concluded that red is blue. I did so validly given the form of the argument. The argument is unsound because its conclusion is false, not because of fallacious reasoning.

Here is begging the question:

P: This thread is amusing
Q: Red is blue

If P then Q
Q
Therefore Q

Recognize that form from yesterday? And this is still a valid argument so it meets your challenge to "prove red=blue using valid philosophical arguments."

[Apathia]

I was hiking outdoors when it happened a few days ago. All of a sudden the horizon became bright and I felt an extreme sense of well being and comfort, that changed to understanding of the entire universe as a whole. All of a sudden I understood how wrong I had previously been. I feel to my knees and suddenly everything clicked. It was like suddenly walking out of the fog and seeing the clear landscape in it's pristine beauty and a breath of fresh air suddenly entering my lungs that have long been deprived of oxygen and I knew that Jesus existed. All of the reasoning behind it came to me suddenly and I stopped being an Atheist and converted to Christianity.

I can relate to that and don't mean to belittle it. I remember one evening back in the dark ages of the 70's, when I had the same experience on understanding Paul's teaching in the NT that we are "not under the law, but under grace." The mythology and theology I packaged that in at the time has changed over the years. But the Acceptance and Affirmation remain with me.

This is a matter of the heart. Philosophical "proof" will only give you a dead husk. Contemplate before you cogitate yourself into corners.

I see no point to argue you back to Atheism but to encourage your examination and contemplation of your experience.
So I'll recommend I couple of, in my opinion great modern Christian authors whose content is way deeper than C.S. Lewis.

Paul Tillich
Soren Kierkegaard

Both of these helped put my head in perspective along my heart journey.
Oh, one more:
Martin Buber. He wasn't a Christian theolog but a Jewish mystic. But he ranks high in 20th Century Christian Theology.

I don't recommend these as content to tell you are wrong. That's not what they are about. And I have no theology I expect you to get upon reading them. They are deeply devotional and contemplative in their direction and content. They will broaden your perspective, so that you might just find out why Thomas Aquinas never finished his Summa Theologica.

[PixyMisa]

You said you were a priest! Are you an atheist priest?
Don't see why not. I am. I think Beleth is too. Possibly some of the other people here.

[rikzilla]

Just because you don't understand basic logical statements doesn't mean it's "nonsense". In that sentence I showed a sound logical proof.

To loosely paraphrase Penn; "BullFlop"

(snip)


Show me the evidence.


Show me the evidence!

The evidence is non-empirical. It cannot be seen, felt, or tested in any meaningful way, but since you've always been an advocate of such evidential standards, I'm surprised that you'd make such a silly demand! After all you did say:
Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg
I've provided evidence already. The fact that you can't touch or smell it doesn't negate the fact it's evidence none the less. Not all evidence is material or can be measured and weighed. It's very chauvinistic and narrow minded of you to believe so.

You also asserted that:
I'm just saying that's how "evidence" is defined. Proof sufficient enough to convince.

How can I "show" you my evidence??? Why do you demand such when you have already laid the ground rules that "it's evidence none the less"???

Will you be redefining these words yet again??
-z

(scrape...scrape...scrape...go the goalposts as they are tugged around the forum)






I

[PixyMisa]

I used it to to set the ground for my initial premise.
No you didn't. It's not in your premise. It's not even in the symbolic statement.

It's just a variable.
Representing what? You can't have "just a variable".

Why is it in the informal version of your statement, and not in the symbolic one? This alone is proof the two are not equivalent.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin, you didn't answer any of my questions correctly or even close to half-right. You are ignorant of the concepts that I challenged you on.

How didn't I answer them right?


Wrong yet again.

No, I'm right.

I assumed that this thread is amusing and concluded that red is blue. I did so validly given the form of the argument. The argument is unsound because its conclusion is false, not because of fallacious reasoning.

No. Your initial statement was that "IF this thread is amusing then Red=Blue" That was your first premise.

See..


P: This thread is amusing
Q: Red is blue

If P then Q
P
Therefore Q


My underline. The underline premise equates to "If this thread is amusing then red is blue". That's begging the questing of assuming red is blue in the first place. Ever. Amusing thread or no amusing thread.

Here is begging the question:

P: This thread is amusing
Q: Red is blue

If P then Q
Q
Therefore Q


That's also begging the question.


Recognize that form from yesterday?

Nope.

And this is still a valid argument so it meets your challenge to "prove red=blue using valid philosophical arguments."

It's not a valid argument if you're begging the question. It's a logical fallacy negating the argument all together, petitio principii.

[D'rok]

I was hiking outdoors when it happened a few days ago. All of a sudden the horizon became bright and I felt an extreme sense of well being and comfort, that changed to understanding of the entire universe as a whole. All of a sudden I understood how wrong I had previously been. I feel to my knees and suddenly everything clicked. It was like suddenly walking out of the fog and seeing the clear landscape in it's pristine beauty and a breath of fresh air suddenly entering my lungs that have long been deprived of oxygen and I knew that Jesus existed. All of the reasoning behind it came to me suddenly and I stopped being an Atheist and converted to Christianity.


If this is true, then your "proof" is a subjective emotional experience. If you are happy, then who are we to take that from you? Enjoy your peace of mind. But please, please stop trying to pretend that you have arrived at this state through logic and reason.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The evidence is non-empirical. It cannot be seen, felt, or tested in any meaningful way, but since you've always been an advocate of such evidential standards, I'm surprised that you'd make such a silly demand!

When I say "Show me the evidence" I mean provide a sound logical argument proving it exists as I did with God.




How can I "show" you my evidence??? Why do you demand such when you have already laid the ground rules that "it's evidence none the less"???

Because I question whether it's evidence at all.

[D'rok]

Dustin you are a hopeless case. Learn the difference between truth, validity and soundness or give up trying to use the concepts.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No you didn't. It's not in your premise. It's not even in the symbolic statement.

It doesn't need to be. It's just a variable elaborating a premise.


Representing what? You can't have "just a variable".

A variable "representing what"? :rolleyes:


Why is it in the informal version of your statement, and not in the symbolic one? This alone is proof the two are not equivalent.

Because It doesn't need to be.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If this is true, then your "proof" is a subjective emotional experience. If you are happy, then who are we to take that from you? Enjoy your peace of mind. But please, please stop trying to pretend that you have arrived at this state through logic and reason.


No. I came upon the logic and reason which proves God through my religious epiphany.

[andyandy]

Not a sound argument. Your begging the question. You assume the fact you're trying to prove in the first place.

distinct from your ontological argument....where you assume God exists - and prove.....God exists!

[Complexity]

How didn't I answer them right?


Uhh... the answers you gave were wrong?

Want to learn enough logic to understand those questions and their answers?

Pick up a good book on mathematical logic, empty at least half the BS out of your head, and have a good long read. Don't forget to work the problems.

Choose to remain ignorant and you'll remain a joke.

I started learning mathematical logic from Introduction to Mathematical Logic, H. Hermes, Springer-Verlag, 1972, and from a good teacher.

Are you going to keep trying to convert us?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

distinct from your ontological argument....where you assume God exists - and prove.....God exists!


There's a big difference. In my argument I assume God exists to differentiate between the logic of him existing vs not existing and then conclude that it would be impossible for him not to Exist. In D'rok's argument he assumes that Red=blue if this thread is 'amusing', concludes it's amusing and then extrapolates from that "Red=blue".

[zooterkin]

By "Theistic" I mean pays attention to life and actively makes changes to the universe in a way to alter it.
Ok, but I think that's a non-standard definition.

All of the reasoning behind it came to me suddenly and I stopped being an Atheist and converted to Christianity.

Fascinating. What are your views on Deuteronomy 13:6 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2616692&postcount=139) now? Do you still view Islam as a barbaric religion?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Wrong yet again. You are so bad at this, I'm beginning to wonder if this is all an elaborate piece of performance art.
That's been my belief from the beginning. I think he's playing silly buggers. Nobody who is truly attempting to be breviloquent uses the word. From that, I assumed it was either intended as a clever clue to his insincerity or else he simply had no clue what he was talking about. Either way...

:popcorn1

[D'rok]

I can't seem to resist. Somebody help me stop. Why am I punishing myself?

Nope

Here ya go:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2678330#post2678330

No. Your initial statement was that "IF this thread is amusing then Red=Blue" That was your first premise.

My underline. The underline premise equates to "If this thread is amusing then red is blue". That's begging the questing of assuming red is blue in the first place. Ever. Amusing thread or no amusing thread.


The assumption is not red is blue, the assumption is if this thread is amusing then red is blue.


It's not a valid argument if you're begging the question. It's a logical fallacy negating the argument all together, petitio principii.Begging the question is an informal fallacy. It does not affect validity.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Uhh... the answers you gave were wrong?

How? You're obviously the one who doesn't understand basic logic. If you did you would show me how my answers were wrong or you wouldn't continue to assert that they are wrong.

[PixyMisa]

Dustin, regardless of whether you think your proof is sound, it is completely clear that no-one agrees with you. Insofar as it is a unitary proof, your original post has been rejected; insofar as it is a collection of individual statements, each individual statement has been rejected.

Give it up.

Make one statement. Just one. One foundational statement from your proof. Get that accepted, and build from there.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Ok, but I think that's a non-standard definition.

Well you define it then.



Fascinating. What are your views on Deuteronomy 13:6 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2616692&postcount=139) now?

It's outdated. Jesus repudiated the Old testament 2,000 years ago.



Do you still view Islam as a barbaric religion?

Yes.

[rikzilla]

When I say "Show me the evidence" I mean provide a sound logical argument proving it exists as I did with God.

Since you haven't, I similarly haven't...which means that I have!
My work here is done! :)


Because I question whether it's evidence at all.
How can you question it? What basis do you use to question evidence which cannot be seen smelt, felt, or measured in any meaningful way? Since I have quoted you directly saying that it is chauvanistic to dismiss such "evidence", isn't it then chauvanistic of you to dismiss mine??

There is non-empirical evidence for the FSM.
It has convinced me that the FSM can fly.
Therefore I have proven that the FSM can fly.


This is your own argument, your own use of the terms:
Evidence
Proof
To convince


-z

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The assumption is not red is blue, the assumption is if this thread is amusing then red is blue.

Same thing. You're assuming that red=blue if this thread is amusing. However you're failing to show how red=blue regardless of this threads amusement..



Begging the question is an informal fallacy. It does not affect validity.

Valid but not sound.

[PixyMisa]

It doesn't need to be. It's just a variable elaborating a premise.
What premise? Elaborating it how? This is clearly untrue, since there is no elaboration at all.

A variable "representing what"? :rolleyes:
Yes, Dustin. What does the variable represent? Either it represents something you've defined or it renders your entire quote proof unquote unsound.

Because It doesn't need to be.
Then the informal statement of your quote proof unquote is of no value in explaining the formal statement of it. Thank you.

[andyandy]

There's a big difference. In my argument I assume God exists to differentiate between the logic of him existing vs not existing and then conclude that it would be impossible for him not to Exist. In D'rok's argument he assumes that Red=blue if this thread is 'amusing', concludes it's amusing and then extrapolates from that "Red=blue".

Dustin stop pretending you've proved god! You assume God exists, and therefore "prove" that he exists.

here is your argument dissected - you keep avoiding addressing it.


Wrong. ‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the OP. I said ’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context. I do not mean ’positive’ to be any sort of moral aesthetic definition. This means that God can't exist unless his existence is explicitly stated in the initial premise, obviously admitting of no question in that context.
.


right - I'm accepting your premise the "positive properties" are a necessary and sufficient quality for God - just to see where you take it
those positive properties boil down to omni-ness. Okaykokey. No proof yet.

I said now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails 'B' necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'. Initial premise.
This means that since ‘N’ is positive it’s negation would not be positive but negative. Since N=God therefore the property of being God is essentially positive and is thus necessarily positive because as previously explained it’s negation would logically be negative. By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’. This means that if God is a positive being necessarily God is thus positive and if God is God-like then the property of being God-like is an essence of God. Which is to say, If God is by definition positive then a necessary component of God which would be “Godlike” is thus necessarily positive as well.
.

In your logical analysis all you're saying is that set membership of N implies a given attribute, and that a given attribute implies membership of set N. This is not a proof - but restating your premise in a rather convoluted and horribly written way

you assume N is positive
Therefore its negation would be negative
Therefore God has positive property

This is just restating your premise. You've already said that a necessary and sufficient condition for N is that it has positive property. Now, you assume N has positive property - and guess what, conclude that N has positive property!

You're extracting the end of the argument as it's own argument. This is just the last premise ending in the conclusion. An argument will obviously be fallacious if you cut the first 90% out of it and then examine it.

So this bit of logic makes no sense? But when added to a "proof" of positive property it does? And suddenly we have a magical proof of God?


Assume God exists.
Assume "positive property" [ie omni-ness] is necessary and sufficient for God
Assume God has positive property
Therefore God does not have negative property
Therefore positive property is a property of God
Assume God is omnipresent
Therefore God exists somewhere
Therefore God exists everywhere
Therefore God possesses positive property
Therefore God exists.

The stupid burns.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Since you haven't, I similarly haven't...which means that I have!
My work here is done! :)

Sure I have. See my OP.


How can you question it? What basis do you use to question evidence which cannot be seen smelt, felt, or measured in any meaningful way?

You haven't presented it to me as I have presented my proof to you in the OP.


Since I have quoted you directly saying that it is chauvanistic to dismiss such "evidence", isn't it then chauvanistic of you to dismiss mine??

No. You've seen my arguments. I haven't seen yours.



There is non-empirical evidence for the FSM.
It has convinced me that the FSM can fly.
Therefore I have proven that the FSM can fly.
This is your own argument, your own use of the terms:
Evidence
Proof
To convince
-z

So can you put this evidence in the form of a sound argument establishing the "FSM" to be true as I have God? No? Ok then..

[rikzilla]

Where have you "proven" god? Please repost that bit, (just that bit please), so that we can have a butcher's at it.

The point, however, is that you are using words in ways that make them meaningless.

Sucking the meaning out of clearly useful words does not prove the existence of a god Dustin. All it does is confuse language, and hence confuse people who are trying very hard to understand you.

You are intentionally confusing. This is intellectual dishonesty of a uniquely destructive nature. Basically speaking, and I mean no offense, but when people do such things it usually means they are liars.

-z

[Complexity]

How? You're obviously the one who doesn't understand basic logic. If you did you would show me how my answers were wrong or you wouldn't continue to assert that they are wrong.


Dustin, you don't yet have enough background or the mental tools to understand a short answer to your demand, and I have no intention of providing you with enough education to enable you to understand.

You're supposed to be an adult. Behave like one - stop babbling ignorance and learn.

You claimed to understand the notation that you used in your 'proof'.

I challenged your understanding of that notation and the concepts underlying it.

I asked you some questions that anyone with a basic knowledge of mathematical logic would be able to answer.

Your answers to these questions demonstrate your ignorance of the subject.

You demand that I tell you how your answers are wrong.

I suggest that you learn something about the subject.

You say that I must be ignorant of logic because I won't tell you what you did wrong.

I tell you to grow up and do your own work. I owe you nothing.

You claimed knowledge that you don't have. Acquire it or not, as you wish. It really won't make any difference.

Are you going to keep trying to convert us?

[Z]

You're obviously not a man of God.

You're right.

You said you were a priest! Are you an atheist priest?

Nope. I'm a Wiccan Priest.

See how your assumptions can come back to bite you in the buttocks?

Proof is often defined as the amount of evidence needed to convince.

Ah, so you have no proof whatsoever. Got it.

Which of course varies. Prove that dragons and fairies exist.

Using your definition above - they exist because I say they exist.

Ah, there, see? I'm convinced.

Good definition!

While we're at it, I can prove that you owe me a million dollars.

Dustin owes me a million dollars.

There, I'm convinced.

I love this version of proof! I'll expect payment shortly.

...

Or are we using a more rational version of 'evidence'? Because so far, you've provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever of God. Of ANY god.

And by 'convince' - are you saying, amount of evidence needed to convince YOU, or ME, or CFLarsen... Who are you trying to convince?

So far, there's only one gullible knucklehead who's convinced by your statements.

Define "You". Am you only your conscious self or are you your entire body?

I am a continuous and dynamic system comprised of but not limited to any or all of the following components: my conscious being, my subconscious/unconscious being, the matter of my brain, the matter of my body, my clothing, hairstyle, and general appearance, my possessions, my works, my writings, my artwork, the memory of me in the minds of others, the record of me in the books and computer indices that have recorded my passing, the legend of me when the memory has faded, and my name.

Many thoughts originate, therefore, within me, and are based, therefore, within me.

Now, if you'd like to provide YOUR definition, we can perhaps proceed apace.

Only a man who is logically fit can perform logical gymnastics.

How silly. Only a man who is logically fit can perform logical gymnastics properly.

Any illogical fat slob can flop around on the mat of reason and compress his gonads on the balance beam of analysis. You're a prime example, in fact.

You've failed to point out any of my "fallacies".

No, you've failed to acknowledge them. I was one of the first to point out a fallacy, and you have failed to defend your statement even once.

Some priest...Calling your fellow man a 'failure'? Go copulate with an adolescent, "father".

Yes, I am a priest. And one of my many duties as a priest is to show people the truth, no matter how ugly that may be.

You're a failure as a skeptic. You're a failure as a believer. And you're a failure as an adolescent.

But I'll be quite happy to copulate with a consenting adolescent non-minor. Something you probably haven't experienced yet.

You sure do take a logical butt whooping hard don't you? Resorting to childish insults and taunts as a result? THAT is pathetic.

When did I take a logical butt whooping? You're swatting at air and thinking you're Mike Tyson, while we're just laughing at you and sipping our cocktails.

Still... if you have something logical and well-thought-out, please, bring it to the table.

I'm still waiting for you to respond logically and reasonably to my first reply in this thread. Bring it or admit error.

[PixyMisa]

Also, please tell us what B is.

Thank you.

[Complexity]

No. I came upon the logic and reason which proves God through my religious epiphany.


Well, your religious epiphany was wrong.

Sue the bastard that sold it to you.

[PixyMisa]

For a million dollars.

[D'rok]

Dustin stop pretending you've proved god! You assume God exists, and therefore "prove" that he exists.

He's trying to do a derivation to show not-God in order to derive a contradiction (thus showing not-God to be logically impossible). Therefore the first line of his derivation is legitimately an assumption, God.

Unfortunately, he fundamentally misunderstands this whole process in the same way that he can't seem to grasp the difference between truth, validity and soundness.

[Z]

Let's assume a scenario.

Premise1-All A's are N's.

Premise2-Here is an A.

Conclusion-Here is an N.


I've proven that there is an 'N' in this scenario. No material evidence needed.

But this proof is also irrelevant, as it has no applicability in the real world, and uses completely undefined and unproven terms as its basis.

When you're trying to prove something like God, material evidence is clearly needed. There is no logical proof that can prove that God exists in the real world.

It's dumb to believe the only proof or evidence must be empirical or material.

"It's dumb"? That's not a rebuttal. That's an emotional response.

Rebut or retract.

"Flying Spaghetti Monster". He flies? He's made of Spaghetti? I'm assuming. How do you know he flies and is made of spaghetti? I can prove my God given his specific attributes. Can you prove yours given his different attributes?

Are you saying, you can write an internally consistant but irrelevant proof of a god that could exist given his specific attributes within a given scenario, or are you saying you can prove that a real God exists in the real world, given his specific attributes?