Proof of God

Individual · Jun 3, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
You did write this, which prompted this line of discussion:

I don't recall writing that. Are you sure it wasn't an assertion made by Angel?

Sherlock Holmes said:
but never mind, lets press on...

As usual, my questions are ignored.

Sherlock Holmes said:
Premises are regarded as true because it is rational and reasonable to do so, if they lead to a conclusion then that's to be expected; the fact that some premises leads to a conclusion you do not approve of is simply because you assume the premises are not true.

That's the most absurd claim you've made to date, a True conclusion is dependent on the premises being True.
The OP is based on Angels definition of the word "God" as a being/entity who created the Universe, life, etc. as being True, which is what is set upon to be proven. Therefore, the conclusion has been drawn before any premises have been presented.

Basically, Angel seems to agree that the Universe was created by something which He claims We call God. Are you incapable of recognizing the logical fallacy of that line of reasoning?
Basically what I find in the OP is misapplication of the LEM and to say it in Angels native language, circulus in probando.
And that is why the question below has been asked numerous times and been avoided answering.

And that question, now for the 31st time:

The existence of the Universe, Life on Earth, and Consciousness, are self evident.
Can you show any evidence, proving that each, or any of them were created by a supernatural being/entity you call God?

devildavid · Jun 4, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
FFS are you serious? David "term" is a made up f*****g term, as are "self" and "evident" and "proof" and "made up term".

Here's a set of definitions of self-evident David:

It seems to me that you've made up your own definition of the term "has nothing to do with" and that it differs from the meaning every other person on earth associates with it!

:doh

Thank you for backing what I said. Self-evident is made up to fit whatever someone wants others to accept as true. Jefferson asserted certain things as self-evident to justify what he wanted the King to accept as true so that he could break away from England. He made it up, because it served his self interest. Yet he had no problem owning slaves even though it was self evident that all men are created equal and all have inalienable rights. Go figure.

Angel · Jun 4, 2020

zyzygy said:
Still no proof of a god.

Did you look hard or hardly look, pilgrim?

Angel said:
GOD IS REAL

A Note on the Thread
Contrary to 2500 years of philosophy and natural philosophy and 400 years of modern science, as well as the last 15 years of militant atheism, the existence of God is not something to be known; it is not a matter of knowledge, the existence of God. No, the existence of God (to be distinguished conceptually from the nature of God, which is the province of religion and properly so) -- the existence of God is a matter of judgment, of discernment. The existence of God is a value, a value discovered in and through the things of the world. God, the existence of God, is the value discovered in the world by unclouded percipience.

The Argument

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
The eye of the beholder sees Beauty in a thing.

The eye of a second beholder may miss seeing the Beauty in the thing that the first beholder sees,
but sees Beauty in another thing.

Both see the Beauty of things, but in and through different things.

The eye of a third beholder may miss the Beauty of the things seen as Beautiful by the first and second beholders,
and yet see Beauty in a third thing.

All three see the Beauty of things in different things.
The Beauty they see is as Real as the things they see Beauty in.

A fourth beholder sees Beauty in nothing.
His eye is deficient: his eye is purblind.

Beauty is as Real as the world in which Beauty is seen.

Do you have an eye for Beauty?

God is in the eye of the beholder.
The eye of the beholder sees God in a thing.

The eye of a second beholder may miss God in that thing
and see God in another thing.

Both see God in things but in different things.

The eye of a third beholder may miss God in the two things
and see God in a third thing.

All three see God in different things.
God is as Real as the things they see God in.

A fourth beholder sees God in nothing.
His eye is deficient: his eye is purblind.

God is as Real as the world in which God is seen.

Do you have an eye for God?

Sherlock Holmes · Jun 4, 2020

Individual said:
I don't recall writing that. Are you sure it wasn't an assertion made by Angel?

You said it here:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/373366-proof-god-625.html#post1071985949

Individual said:
As usual, my questions are ignored.

?

Individual said:
That's the most absurd claim you've made to date, a True conclusion is dependent on the premises being True.

A premise is an assumption that may or may not actually be true, if it is known to be true we have a sound argument, if we do not know it is true we have a valid argument.

I have never contested that a true conclusion only follows from true premises, so why you accuse me of such is not clear.

Individual said:
The OP is based on Angels definition of the word "God" as a being/entity who created the Universe, life, etc. as being True, which is what is set upon to be proven. Therefore, the conclusion has been drawn before any premises have been presented.

This is ridiculous, just because someone begins a thesis with a statement of a conclusion and then follows that by an elaboration of the reasoning supporting it does not mean that conclusion is wrong!

No, does the argument and its premises lead to the conclusion - that's what you should be asking here, not where in the text he introduces the conclusion!

"Charles Hangford killed Mary Waters as sure as the sun rises, the prosecution have today shown this and the witness testimony from...." etc etc - why is it "wrong" to speak like that?

Individual said:
Basically, Angel seems to agree that the Universe was created by something which He claims We call God. Are you incapable of recognizing the logical fallacy of that line of reasoning?

I do not see any fallacy, please explain.

Individual said:
Basically what I find in the OP is misapplication of the LEM and to say it in Angels native language, circulus in probando.
And that is why the question below has been asked numerous times and been avoided answering.

And that question, now for the 31st time:

The existence of the Universe, Life on Earth, and Consciousness, are self evident.

Can you show any evidence, proving that each, or any of them were created by a supernatural being/entity you call God?

Yes there's evidence, the presence of the universe is evidence of a supernatural God.

This has therefore been answered now 31 times.

Sherlock Holmes · Jun 4, 2020

devildavid said:
Thank you for backing what I said. Self-evident is made up to fit whatever someone wants others to accept as true. Jefferson asserted certain things as self-evident to justify what he wanted the King to accept as true so that he could break away from England. He made it up, because it served his self interest. Yet he had no problem owning slaves even though it was self evident that all men are created equal and all have inalienable rights. Go figure.

Your making stuff up again.

devildavid · Jun 4, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
Your making stuff up again.

And you still don't have any valid examples of things that are self evident.

Individual · Jun 4, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
You said it here:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/373366-proof-god-625.html#post1071985949

Referring to my question, "What better way exists of acquiring useful knowledge about the world we live in than science? "?

Sherlock Holmes said:
?

Referenced above!

Sherlock Holmes said:
A premise is an assumption that may or may not actually be true, if it is known to be true we have a sound argument, if we do not know it is true we have a valid argument.

I have never contested that a true conclusion only follows from true premises, so why you accuse me of such is not clear.

And if we do not know the premise to be true, should the conclusion drawn be accepted as unquestionably true?

Sherlock Holmes said:
This is ridiculous, just because someone begins a thesis with a statement of a conclusion and then follows that by an elaboration of the reasoning supporting it does not mean that conclusion is wrong!

No, does the argument and its premises lead to the conclusion - that's what you should be asking here, not where in the text he introduces the conclusion!

Go back to my post #6326 and read it more carefully and the threads OP as well.

Sherlock Holmes said:
"Charles Hangford killed Mary Waters as sure as the sun rises, the prosecution have today shown this and the witness testimony from...." etc etc - why is it "wrong" to speak like that?

I'm not familiar with that case, but "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit." Premises often may lead to a believed to be true conclusion, only later to be found a wrong conclusion.

Sherlock Holmes said:
I do not see any fallacy, please explain.

Of course you wouldn't, you represent a member of the choir in this thread.

Sherlock Holmes said:
Yes there's evidence, the presence of the universe is evidence of a supernatural God.

This has therefore been answered now 31 times.

Only as a result of defining God as believed to be the creator of the Universe.

Angel · Jun 5, 2020

zyzygy said:
Still no proof of a god.

Chew on this, pally.

Angel said:
Meaning & Mystery: Anniversary Thread

"All things point to God."

Thesis

1. Meaning is the key to understanding. This is self-evident. If you don't understand the meaning of something, you don't understand it.

2. Mystery is understanding deferred. This also is self-evident.

3. The universe, life on Earth, and consciousness are the fundamental existential mysteries of the World. The World Riddle. Also self-evident.

4. What is the deferred meaning of the the World Riddle?

5, Answer: God.

Argument

6. A sign is something that indicates or points to the existence of something else which is the meaning of the sign.

7. A sign is meaning deferred -- one must recognize the sign as sign and understand its meaning.

8. A sign means something, and the meaning of a sign is that which the sign indicates or points to.

8a. Do you understand the meaning of the following signs?

अति सर्वत्र वर्जयेत्

9. Probably not. And yet these signs possess a meaning.

10. And that meaning exists in and through those signs whether or not you understand the signs or their meaning.

11. The meaning lies hidden in the signs and only those who recognize and understand the signs are able to read the signs for meaning.

12. The universe is a sign.
13. Life is a sign.
14. Consciousness is a sign.

15. Can you recognize and understand the deferred meaning of the universe, as sign?
16. Can you recognize and understand the deferred meaning of life on Earth, as sign?
17. Can you recognize and understand the deferred meaning of consciousness, as sign?

18. Question: What do these mysterious signs indicate? What do they point to?

19. Answer: God exists.

20. To understand the deferred meaning of the World Riddle is to understand that God exists.

Conclusions

21. The mystery of the World has a meaning and that meaning is God.
22. The World means God.
23. God is the meaning of the World.
24. Atheism is symptomatic of not being able to "read" the World for meaning.

Marrybore · Jun 5, 2020

Angel said:
Chew on this, pally.

I have to say, Angel, that unlike your various other posts, that make impressive attempts to demonstrate God's existence with logic, this one still just doesn't seem to click with me.
"The Universe is a sign, Life is a sign. What do these signs point to? God."
That's basically the argument.
I mean, you first have to establish whether Life and the Universe are "signs". And then you suddenly come to a conclusion with no logical train of thought: "the answer is God".
I'd abandon this one if I were you.

Marrybore · Jun 5, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
Yes there's evidence, the presence of the universe is evidence of a supernatural God.

This has therefore been answered now 31 times.

This is the problem, as much as you try to prove God's existence with science or logic, it always comes down to this, doesn't it?
It's something which is difficult to debate, it's fairly subjective. You either believe it or you don't.

zyzygy · Jun 5, 2020

So that's why Lord Krishna exists.

Angel · Jun 5, 2020

zyzygy said:
So that's why Lord Krishna exists.

"The cream of the crap! I'm beside myself with pride!"

Triton · Jun 5, 2020

I still don't understand the necessity of a God rather than an inregressible Prime Mover.

Marrybore · Jun 5, 2020

Angel said:
"The cream of the crap! I'm beside myself with pride!"

Allow me to reiterate, Angel, if you didn't refer to whatever supreme being's existence you are trying to prove as "God", you would get less people assuming you belonged to a particular sect or religion.

Quag · Jun 5, 2020

Angel said:
Another nitwit post about claims neither understood nor engaged.

Ad hom from the master

Quag · Jun 5, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
There's no evidence that laws of nature have never changed, there's no evidence that the laws of nature are the same all over the universe.

This is assumed (as are many things in the sciences) and on the basis of these assumptions theories are devised that fit the observations but creating a theory that fits observations based on assumptions does not serve as evidence for the assumption, this is where you err.

I have explained my assumption here, it is very reasonable, its: things happen for a reason, this is what scientists believe and this is how we devise theories, there's a reason the moon orbits the earth, there's a reason spiral galaxies have the shape they do, there's a reason the rotational behavior of these galaxies is not as expected using general relativity and so dark matter is inferred.

Dark matter is an inferred reason for what we observe because scientists believe everything that we see has a reason for it.

You and I both accept this as a very reasonable thing to believe so by extension there's a reason the universe, matter, energy, laws of nature exists but we cannot infer a physical reason for this existence because something cannot be the reason for itself, so there simply must be a non-physical reason.

So what is your problem with this line of reasoning?

Which assumption do you not share?

1. Things happen for a reason.
2. A reason cannot be used as the reason for itself.

If you deny either of these then you are no longer applying the scientific method.

Where is the logical flaw in the chain of inferences?

But everything is belief, it is not "highly philosophical" at all it is self evident.

The world is spherical so what? I have no problem with material explanations for material observations, I do have a problem when it becomes self-evident to me that it is logically impossible to have a material explanation as the reason there is material.

We have evidence of many thigns what we dotn hbave is any evidence of God or the supernatural.
As this
1. Things happen for a reason.
2. A reason cannot be used as the reason for itself.
There is so much wrong with that
First of lets use the word cause not reason because it implies reasoning which is not of necessity involved.
1. A claim you cannot support and fails with the exact same logic you use in the opening line.
2. A person can cause themselves to do something thus disproving the claim

Now this line of argument is usually used to try and "prove" god but fails because it assumes God is not created meaning the first line is in fact false. Basically as many have pointed out before you are merely moving back the unknown one more step then declaring aha everything explained but nothing actually has been explained.

Quag · Jun 5, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
No I do not do that, I have said repeatedly that one should have evidence, justifications for one's beliefs.

You have justifications for your beliefs and I have justifications for my beliefs - what makes your position here "stronger" than mine?

I did not pick some random claim "God created the universe" and simply say "Hmm, that sounds neat, I'm going to believe that" so please don't try to characterize this as if I did, I believe things for reasons.

I have no doubt you have your reasons to believe in God and the specific one you believe in particular but you have no evidence of God just faith

Sherlock Holmes · Jun 5, 2020

devildavid said:
And you still don't have any valid examples of things that are self evident.

How do I test if an example is valid, before I show it to you?

Sherlock Holmes · Jun 5, 2020

Quag said:
We have evidence of many things what we don't have is any evidence of God or the supernatural.

As this

1. Things happen for a reason.
2. A reason cannot be used as the reason for itself.
There is so much wrong with that
First of lets use the word cause not reason because it implies reasoning which is not of necessity involved.
1. A claim you cannot support and fails with the exact same logic you use in the opening line.
2. A person can cause themselves to do something thus disproving the claim

Now this line of argument is usually used to try and "prove" god but fails because it assumes God is not created meaning the first line is in fact false. Basically as many have pointed out before you are merely moving back the unknown one more step then declaring aha everything explained but nothing actually has been explained.

1. Experience teaches us that there is cause and effect, this is what scientific theories articulate - relationships - if temperature rises so does pressure, if current increases so does temperature, this is a characteristic of the universe that enables us to exert some control over nature.
2. Experience teaches that causes and their resulting effects are related but not identical, temperature is related to pressure - they are not the same - temperature is related to current - they are not the same.

These are frankly not controversial, science proceeds with these concepts as bedrock concepts, too obvious to need stating in all but the most abstract theoretical treaties, if you disagree with either of these (and you are entitled to) then you'll need to explain why we must abandon what are commonly regarded as self evident truths by most scientists.

Sherlock Holmes · Jun 5, 2020

Quag said:
I have no doubt you have your reasons to believe in God and the specific one you believe in particular but you have no evidence of God just faith

Yes I accept that, but I also recognize (I never used to) that everything I believe about the world around me is based on faith in some way.

Some atheists make the error of thinking faith is only used when discussing God and belief in God and so on, they seem to think that "science" deals only with "facts" and that therefore science is intellectually more sound than "religion".

The fact is we rely on faith whichever world view we adopt, for me this was key discovering that science too rests upon faith and that ultimately there's no conflict whatsoever between "science" and "God".

devildavid · Jun 5, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
Yes I accept that, but I also recognize (I never used to) that everything I believe about the world around me is based on faith in some way.

Some atheists make the error of thinking faith is only used when discussing God and belief in God and so on, they seem to think that "science" deals only with "facts" and that therefore science is intellectually more sound than "religion".

The fact is we rely on faith whichever world view we adopt, for me this was key discovering that science too rests upon faith and that ultimately there's no conflict whatsoever between "science" and "God".

No, everything is not based on faith in some way. Some things are based on knowledge. The things based to some degree on faith have to do with human behavior and relationships. Most of what we rely on to stay alive and function every day is based on knowledge we gain in various ways through our physical and sensory experiences.

devildavid · Jun 5, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
How do I test if an example is valid, before I show it to you?

Come up with the example first, and we'll go from there.

Demoness · Jun 6, 2020

Sherlock Holmes said:
Some atheists make the error of thinking faith is only used when discussing God and belief in God and so on, they seem to think that "science" deals only with "facts" and that therefore science is intellectually more sound than "religion".

The fact is we rely on faith whichever world view we adopt, for me this was key discovering that science too rests upon faith and that ultimately there's no conflict whatsoever between "science" and "God".

Incorrect. To quote Matt Dillahunty, "Faith is the excuse people give for believing when they don't have a good reason." If you have a good reason to be convinced of something, you give that reason. There's no need to appeal to faith when your belief is backed by evidence.

Unlike theism, science does not make proclamations of truth, it creates models that explain our current best understanding of the universe based on empirical evidence. Take the Big Bang Theory, for example. It doesn't claim to know what prompted the beginning of the universe, that the cause was or was not a god or even that there was a cause at all. It simply explains that, according to the evidence we've observed thus far, this is what happened. It could be (& likely is, in some way) wrong & is open to revision, but only in light of evidence that throws a wrench in the current model.

Nice scare quotes, by the way.

Angel · Jun 6, 2020

Triton said:
I still don't understand the necessity of a God rather than an inregressible Prime Mover.

Marrybore said:
Allow me to reiterate, Angel, if you didn't refer to whatever supreme being's existence you are trying to prove as "God", you would get less people assuming you belonged to a particular sect or religion.

You think? You think had I called It the "Ineffable Prime Mover" there would have been more of a good-faith response from the usual suspects?

Angel · Jun 6, 2020

Demoness said:
Incorrect. To quote Matt Dillahunty, "Faith is the excuse people give for believing when they don't have a good reason." If you have a good reason to be convinced of something, you give that reason. There's no need to appeal to faith when your belief is backed by evidence.

Unlike theism, science does not make proclamations of truth, it creates models that explain our current best understanding of the universe based on empirical evidence. Take the Big Bang Theory, for example. It doesn't claim to know what prompted the beginning of the universe, that the cause was or was not a god or even that there was a cause at all. It simply explains that, according to the evidence we've observed thus far, this is what happened. It could be (& likely is, in some way) wrong & is open to revision, but only in light of evidence that throws a wrench in the current model.

Nice scare quotes, by the way.

Your expression of faith in science is noted. Welcome to the forum. Hope to hear a lot from you.

Proof of God

Individual

devildavid

Phlegmatic

Angel

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes

devildavid

Phlegmatic

Individual

Angel

Marrybore

Marrybore

zyzygy

Angel

Triton

Marrybore

Quag

Quag

Quag

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes

devildavid

Phlegmatic

devildavid

Phlegmatic

Demoness

New member

Angel

Angel

Proof of God

Phlegmatic

Phlegmatic

Phlegmatic

Phlegmatic

New member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency