• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof of God

Angel said:
Is it possible you don't agree with my definition of God because you don't understand it?
Is it possible you don't agree with my definition of God because you can't dismiss it, as you can your preferred definition -- "supernatural being"?
Is it possible Angel doesn't given a tinker's damn what anyone else believes or disbelieves in this matter and is merely post, like you, as amusement?
Is it possible for an Internet Skeptic to understand that God exists or God doesn't exist regardless of what anyone believes of disbelieves?

Anyway, my definition is so good, it bears repeating.

Definition of God:

Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi
(roughly the necessary ground of all that exists)​
Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:
That's your subjective definition of god, there are 7 billion other people with their own subjective definitions, most of which contradict yours. You spend every waking moment you're on this forum attacking people who don't believe like you and trying to get them to believe exactly what you do because you have a deep seeded need to be validated.

Otherwise you wouldn't be so hostile to everyone for not believing what you want them to and wouldn't create countless threads attacking and insulting them. The real question is WHY is it so important that everyone believes what you do?
Click to expand...
Does your response mean you do understand my definition?
And have I been "hostile" to you in our exchange of posts?

As for your psychological profile of me, all I can say, again, is that we're both posting for the same reason: amusement. I have no more interest in winning you over to belief than you have in winning me over to disbelief. I for my part am offering reasons to believe. And you?

As for the definition of God and the 7 million, the 7 million by and large accept their religious beliefs about God. I'm doing philosophy.
 
Angel said:
What evidence are you referring to? That one scientist a hundred years ago questioned the prevailing theory?
What recourse you find in your closed mind is your business.
Click to expand...

Actually I provided at least half a dozen. Which of course you did not read.

But the bottom line is no proof for can can ever exist in science. Science does not offer proofs. To use science to bolster your argument for proof fails on the face of it
 
Angel said:
This is even more hopeless than I predicted. You don't even seem to understand your own question, let alone my answer to your question.

Your question was what practical (useful) difference the existence of God made.
My answer was that it meant the difference between hope and despair, meaning and unmeaning.
Does that ring a bell?

The reason you don't remember either your own question or my answer to your question is that you're really not paying attention in our exchanges of posts. This accounts for your unresponsiveness to my posts, something I've repeatedly complained about.
And the reason you're not paying attention is that your mind is closed to any real discussion of the matter. You're simply waiting for your turn to ignore what I've posted and put forward again your own thesis that Nature accounts for everything.

On that last point, you've ignored repeated posts pointing out that Nature cannot account for Nature, that according to one of the main doctrines of your religious belief, the doctrines of natural science or scientific naturalism, Nature had a beginning and one cannot reasonably rely on what only began X number of years ago to explain the beginning of what only began X number of years ago.
Click to expand...

I agree, this IS hopeless.

Yes, I recall that, but it doesn't help prove the existence of God.

The topic is "Proof of God" so why would you want me to present a thesis on Nature. Either you can or you cannot provide Proof of God.
Again, I'm NOT trying to prove God does not exist, simply that I've seen no evidence presented to the contrary.

You've neither proven that Nature cannot account or Nature.

But still, why are you so obsessed with a need for others to believe in the existence of God?

IF your belief gives you hope and meaning, I accept that. I find hope and meaning without need of a God. You seem unable to accept that. WHY?
 
Angel said:
And your criticism of the argument "suffers from the same problem as the rest of your worthless" criticisms -- they're all unsupported dismissals.
#1 is a conditional based on a scientific theory. Cut the crap.
Click to expand...

Still no attempt to support you claims just diversions and insults.
 
Angel said:
You don't know what you're talking about. But you insist on talking. Fine. That's your right. You have a right to be wrong, and a right to insist that you're right even when wrong. Enjoy the empowerment. It doesn't alter the state of affairs one iota.
Click to expand...

The irony
 
vegas giants said:
Actually I provided at least half a dozen. Which of course you did not read.

But the bottom line is no proof for can can ever exist in science. Science does not offer proofs. To use science to bolster your argument for proof fails on the face of it
Click to expand...
Actually you posted none.
The bottom line is I'm doing philosophy, not science, and you're doing neither.
 
Individual said:
I agree, this IS hopeless.

Yes, I recall that, but it doesn't help prove the existence of God....
Click to expand...
It wasn't intended as proof of God; it was in answer to your question. Since you don't answer questions yourself, I'm not surprised that you don't recognize an answer to a question when you see one.
 
Angel said:
Actually you posted none.
The bottom line is I'm doing philosophy, not science, and you're doing neither.
Click to expand...

Yes I did. I gave you their names too. If you are going to make up things then you have conceded.


If you are not doing science.....stop quoting science. Lol
 
Angel said:
Classic Internet Skeptical comeback when speechless. I believe it was invented by zyzygy, who sells irony meters for Internet Skeptics.
Click to expand...

More logic denialism from you
 
vegas giants said:
Yes I did. I gave you their names too. If you are going to make up things then you have conceded.


If you are not doing science.....stop quoting science. Lol
Click to expand...
You gave the names of your evidence? This gets better and better.
 
Angel said:
You gave the names of your evidence? This gets better and better.
Click to expand...

You seem confused. I gave the names of a half dozen scientists that disagree with the heat death theory of the universe
 
vegas giants said:
Yes. Each presents their own case for why you are wrong
Click to expand...
Try to listen for a change. I am not wrong here. The heat death of the universe is not my opinion. It is the prevailing scientific opinion. That opinion was used in a cosmological argument of someone else, not me, and posted with a link originally. I am not doing science; I am doing philosophy. You are doing neither; you're doing Internet Skepticism -- there are two active threads on that if you're interested in self-knowledge.
 
Angel said:
Try to listen for a change. I am not wrong here. The heat death of the universe is not my opinion. It is the prevailing scientific opinion. That opinion was used in a cosmological argument of someone else, not me, and posted with a link originally. I am not doing science; I am doing philosophy. You are doing neither; you're doing Internet Skepticism -- there are two active threads on that if you're interested in self-knowledge.
Click to expand...

You quoted the science. No one else.....you did. You did it to bolster your argument. When that failed you abandoned science. Lol

You are engaging in logic denialism
 
vegas giants said:
You quoted the science. No one else.....you did. You did it to bolster your argument. When that failed you abandoned science. Lol

You are engaging in logic denialism
Click to expand...
Again, try to listen and, if possible think. Heat death is one of the generally accepted theories of the fate of the universe. The argument I cited relies on that scientic theory. I did not abandon science because I was never doing science. You are just doing Internet Skepticism, which at its best is just a pain in the ass for serious posters. But carry on. If you're a Last Wordist, I might even give you that.
 
Angel said:
It wasn't intended as proof of God; it was in answer to your question. Since you don't answer questions yourself, I'm not surprised that you don't recognize an answer to a question when you see one.
Click to expand...

What question would you like me to answer, relative to the threads topic, recognizing the fact that I am not attempting to prove anything at all.
 
Angel said:
Again, try to listen and, if possible think. Heat death is one of the generally accepted theories of the fate of the universe. The argument I cited relies on that scientic theory. I did not abandon science because I was never doing science. You are just doing Internet Skepticism, which at its best is just a pain in the ass for serious posters. But carry on. If you're a Last Wordist, I might even give you that.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing science or are you arguing philosophy? Because one minute its science and the next its philosophy.


Listen closely


You cant prove God with science or philosophy.


I will say that again.


You cant prove God with science or philosophy.



Now ....argue philosophy until your head falls off if you like.


But there is no PROOF of god.
 
For the benefit of Internet Skeptics obsessed with the title of this thread

proof

n.
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.

3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

Proof - definition of proof by The Free Dictionary
 
Angel said:
Classic Internet Skeptical comeback when speechless. I believe it was invented by zyzygy, who sells irony meters for Internet Skeptics.
Click to expand...
Classic attempt by angel to try and insult people rather than support hisi claims
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom