Proof of God

[Copernicus]

I understand perfectly what the quote says. You don't. You are unable to separate the question of God's existence from religion, which is about the nature of God. The Lamott quote is about the nature of God, about religious belief; the Angel quote, which you don't understand, is not about religion, but rather about the question of God's existence, about philosophy.

Angel, the problem that I have with your attempts to separate an existence claim from a description of the thing that you claim to exist is inherent in something that you said earlier--that there are all kinds of different ideas about the nature of God. Not all of them are mutually compatible, and many are arguably incoherent. Sometimes, the claim is that God is too inconceivable for a mere finite being to be able to know his nature, so we can only speak in metaphors. To determine the truth of any claim, you simply have to specify the nature of what you claim to exist. Otherwise, your claim is not defeasible. Its existence cannot be established in any meaningful way.

The one hint of God's nature that you will admit to is "God is the one and only inference to the best explanation of all that exists or appears to exist." But what could that possibly mean? An inference is a conclusion of some sort that one has arrived at that is based on logic, but what argument have you made that allows you to draw such an inference? I suspect that you are assuming the existence of some kind of intelligent agency that caused everything to come into existence, but that merely presupposes that everything would not otherwise exist. It is a vacuous claim, because another possible "inference" comes to mind--that everything just always existed in some form. IOW, it is possible to use the claim that nothing was caused to exist or that the cause was not anything like an intelligent agency of some sort.

But you may think that you don't have to claim that God was some kind of intelligent agency, just an agency of some sort. And that would be where you would get into a linguistic argument. Because the proper name "God" is a word of English that speakers of the language use conventionally to describe a lot of different beings that share a common core of understanding. Like any word in a language, the word can be ambiguous and vague, but that does not make it devoid of meaning. Nor does it license you to just make up any meaning you want for it, unless you just want to use it as a word that has no communicative value whatsoever. A community of speakers determines usage, not just an individual who doesn't want to accept the common usage.

 

[Angel]

Nature is God.

There's a great conversation there. Regrettably, given our earlier exchange in this thread, we can't have it.

 

[Angel]

Angel, the problem that I have with your attempts to separate an existence claim from a description of the thing that you claim to exist is inherent in something that you said earlier--that there are all kinds of different ideas about the nature of God. Not all of them are mutually compatible, and many are arguably incoherent. Sometimes, the claim is that God is too inconceivable for a mere finite being to be able to know his nature, so we can only speak in metaphors. To determine the truth of any claim, you simply have to specify the nature of what you claim to exist. Otherwise, your claim is not defeasible. Its existence cannot be established in any meaningful way.

The one hint of God's nature that you will admit to is "God is the one and only inference to the best explanation of all that exists or appears to exist." But what could that possibly mean? An inference is a conclusion of some sort that one has arrived at that is based on logic, but what argument have you made that allows you to draw such an inference? I suspect that you are assuming the existence of some kind of intelligent agency that caused everything to come into existence, but that merely presupposes that everything would not otherwise exist. It is a vacuous claim, because another possible "inference" comes to mind--that everything just always existed in some form. IOW, it is possible to use the claim that nothing was caused to exist or that the cause was not anything like an intelligent agency of some sort.

But you may think that you don't have to claim that God was some kind of intelligent agency, just an agency of some sort. And that would be where you would get into a linguistic argument. Because the proper name "God" is a word of English that speakers of the language use conventionally to describe a lot of different beings that share a common core of understanding. Like any word in a language, the word can be ambiguous and vague, but that does not make it devoid of meaning. Nor does it license you to just make up any meaning you want for it, unless you just want to use it as a word that has no communicative value whatsoever. A community of speakers determines usage, not just an individual who doesn't want to accept the common usage.

Thank God for you!
Simply wonderful post!
I'll reply at length later in the day.
For now let me just say that my intuitions align with those of Aristotle, Kant, and Russell, among others, in this matter: existence is not a predicate.
Therein lies the basis for the distinction I draw between the existence of God and the nature of God.

 

[weaver2]

I understand perfectly what the quote says. You don't. You are unable to separate the question of God's existence from religion, which is about the nature of God. The Lamott quote is about the nature of God, about religious belief; the Angel quote, which you don't understand, is not about religion, but rather about the question of God's existence, about philosophy.

Lamott says, “You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” You say that's about the nature of God, so it’s religion

Angel says, ”God is the one and only inference to the best explanation of all that exists or appears to exist.” That's kind of hard to understand, but I'll take your word for it, it's about the existance of God, so it’s philosophy


So, here we are: it looks like the the nature of God is that He exists. Lamott says He exists because you created Him; furthermore you created Him the way you imagine yourself; “the one and only of all that exists or appears to exist.”

I think Lamott nailed you and God.

 

[Angel]

Lamott says, “You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” You say that's about the nature of God, so it’s religion

Angel says, ”God is the one and only inference to the best explanation of all that exists or appears to exist.” That's kind of hard to understand, but I'll take your word for it, it's about the existance of God, so it’s philosophy


So, here we are: it looks like the the nature of God is that He exists. Lamott says He exists because you created Him; furthermore you created Him the way you imagine yourself; “the one and only of all that exists or appears to exist.”

I think Lamott nailed you and God.

No. Lamott says God hates X because the someone who created God hates X.

The nature of God and the existence of God are separate categories of question.

Your assertion "the nature of God is that He exists" is more or less the ontological proof of God, but it commits a categorical error, according to Kant's famous criticism, by taking existence to be a property.

Lamott does not make this mistake. Your misreading of Lamott makes this mistake.

 

[Individual]

There's a great conversation there. Regrettably, given our earlier exchange in this thread, we can't have it.

God is the one and only inference to the best explanation of all that exists or appears to exist.

There is no proof of "a God", and no need of "a God" in answering any questions we want to gain answers to.
ALL the answers to our questions are found in scientific studies without need of inserting the word God.
No further exchange is necessary, but I am curious as to what earlier exchange we had that you feel offended you.

 

[JustHanging]

God is the one and only inference to the best explanation of all that exists or appears to exist.

Throughout mankind's history, there are thousand upon thousands of cases where a naturalistic explanation replaced a religious explanation. For example at one time lightning was thought to be created by gods, the sun to be pulled across the sky, and the moon created light.

Name me one, just ONE, instance of a naturalistic explanation being replaced by a religious explanation.

 

[Individual]

Proof of Nature

Throughout mankind's history, there are thousand upon thousands of cases where a naturalistic explanation replaced a religious explanation. For example at one time lightning was thought to be created by gods, the sun to be pulled across the sky, and the moon created light.

Name me one, just ONE, instance of a naturalistic explanation being replaced by a religious explanation.

God is the one and only inference to the best explanation of all that exists or appears to exist.

Nature is the one and only inference to the best explanation of all that exists or appears to exist.

The acceptance of proven/provable facts eliminates a need of faith in unproven/unprovable beliefs.

 

[weaver2]

No. Lamott says God hates X because the someone who created God hates X.

The nature of God and the existence of God are separate categories of question.

Your assertion "the nature of God is that He exists" is more or less the ontological proof of God, but it commits a categorical error, according to Kant's famous criticism, by taking existence to be a property.

Lamott does not make this mistake. Your misreading of Lamott makes this mistake.

You're right Lamott doesn't make a mistake. She nailed you and your God.

 

[Angel]

Throughout mankind's history, there are thousand upon thousands of cases where a naturalistic explanation replaced a religious explanation. For example at one time lightning was thought to be created by gods, the sun to be pulled across the sky, and the moon created light.

Name me one, just ONE, instance of a naturalistic explanation being replaced by a religious explanation.

God is the one and only inference to the best explanation of all that exists or appears to exist.

 

[Angel]

You're right Lamott doesn't make a mistake. She nailed you and your God.

Another Pee Wee Herman fan, I see. This routine has been done to death in silly internet chat. This brings you very close to the cold shoulder. Look to it.

 

[Angel]

There is no proof of "a God", and no need of "a God" in answering any questions we want to gain answers to.
ALL the answers to our questions are found in scientific studies without need of inserting the word God.
No further exchange is necessary, but I am curious as to what earlier exchange we had that you feel offended you.

I wasn't offended by anything in our earlier exchange. I was surprised in the end by your close-mindedness. You seemed quite reasonable until then. Your close-mindedness carries on here in the quoted post. Engaging scientism is a mug's game.

 

[Angel]

Throughout mankind's history, there are thousand upon thousands of cases where a naturalistic explanation replaced a religious explanation. For example at one time lightning was thought to be created by gods, the sun to be pulled across the sky, and the moon created light.

Name me one, just ONE, instance of a naturalistic explanation being replaced by a religious explanation.

Only you (and your fellow obsessives) are talking about religion. I'm not. Thus, we cannot be talking to each other.

 

[Individual]

I wasn't offended by anything in our earlier exchange. I was surprised in the end by your close-mindedness. You seemed quite reasonable until then. Your close-mindedness carries on here in the quoted post. Engaging scientism is a mug's game.

As you have admitted an inability to define what "a" God is or "a" God is not, why would you expect me or anyone else to be open minded about the existence of such an entity?
Claiming "Proof of God", IMO, is much more a "mug's game."

 

[JustHanging]

Only you (and your fellow obsessives) are talking about religion. I'm not. Thus, we cannot be talking to each other.

I'm sorry Angel, I forgot how much trouble you have comprehending the English language. I sincerely wasn't trying to embarrass you by using words that were beyond your comprehension. Let me try and reword it for you:

Throughout mankind's history, there are thousand upon thousands of cases where a naturalistic explanation replaced a "god" explanation. For example at one time lightning was thought to be created by gods, the sun to be pulled across the sky by a god, and a god created the moon to shine light at night.

Name me one, just ONE, instance of a naturalistic explanation being replaced by a "god done it" explanation.

 

[calamity]

I'm sorry Angel, I forgot how much trouble you have comprehending the English language. I sincerely wasn't trying to embarrass you by using words that were beyond your comprehension. Let me try and reword it for you:

Throughout mankind's history, there are thousand upon thousands of cases where a naturalistic explanation replaced a "god" explanation. For example at one time lightning was thought to be created by gods, the sun to be pulled across the sky by a god, and a god created the moon to shine light at night.

Name me one, just ONE, instance of a naturalistic explanation being replaced by a "god done it" explanation.

Mic drop

 

[OrphanSlug]

Again, I very much appreciate your commitment to serious good-faith discussion. The thread went off the rails, yes, was driven off the rails by those who do not share our commitment.

As for the OP proof, I concede that it has problems with its semantics, and more or less anticipated these problems when I made the attempt to couch it in plain English instead of the language of modal logic. Even had I used modal language it would have been open to the criticism that it is nothing more than an attempt to define God into existence, as Visbek, Copernicus and a few others charged.

But your criticism is of another sort, if I understand it. If I understand your criticism, it goes to a tension, if not a conflict, between Epistemology and ontology -- specifically my epistemological commitment to the existence of God and my ontological proof of the existence of God. Do I understand you correctly?

You argue that because epistemologically my commitment to the existence of God derives from my belief in the Christian story of God, mt attempt at an ontological proof of an abstract philosophical concept of God is compromised -- yes? Have I fairly represented your point?

Not entirely but getting there (apologies in advance but we have to cover a few things again.)

The whole point of ontology, in philosophical studies, is existence and the nature of being. The idea is to ask the right and/or a new question to advance understanding (meaning rooted in doubt.)

The whole point of epistemology, in philosophical studies, is knowledge and justification. The idea is to ask the right and/or a new question to advance how we justify knowledge because not all knowledge results from systems of process (meaning some of our "knowledge" is based on systems of belief... religion.) In the end with epistemology we have the duty to weigh the rational and justification for the things we believe no matter the source.

My point is still the same about your OP, the method of most ontological arguments as "proof of God" end up being proof of anything.

You continually trying to say that your argument is modal logic does not make it so, we have been through this already on the practical application of modal logic statements (as applied to operators in the areas of science and math.) When you accidentally confuse, or intentionally misuse, what is necessity and what is possibility in a modal logic argument that is referred to as modal *fallacy.*

If I were to argue, as you have done so already, that a necessity based true statement must be true in all possible worlds then it amplifies the fallacy you made. It is not entirely about the semantics of the words picked or even the order of operation (even though both are flawed,) it is the idea of what a modal logic argument really is.

More importantly for this discussion it allows me to use your own logic to say anything I believe in and out of pure necessity for that believe that I alone determine must be defined as "proof" of its existence.

In this case, you admitted that your argument was in reference to the Biblical Christian God (then you kinda waffled on that to be honest.)

In my case, I am saying it can be any God or god-like creation I fathom for any reason as long as the standard is the same - necessity of belief and I get to determine that alone.

So, your own argument leaves you with two options.

1. We are both right and your Biblical Christian God exists *as well* as every other God and god-like creation over all of human history exists
2. Or, none of them do.

What your own argument does *not allow you to do* is pick which God exists in the determination that everyone else is wrong in the past, now, or even in the future. All because your own flawed logic allows anyone, at anytime, and for any "necessity of belief" reason to justify "proof of <insert any God or god-like creation here.>

Which is it?

We all get all of our Gods and god-like creations, or none of us do... decide.

 

[weaver2]

Another Pee Wee Herman fan, I see. This routine has been done to death in silly internet chat. This brings you very close to the cold shoulder. Look to it.

Yup, David Letterman and I are fans. "What makes me laugh*... is that it has the external structure of a bratty little precocious kid, but you know it's being controlled by the incubus*– the manifestation of evil itself".(D. Letterman)

An avatar of the Incubus called down upon skeptics of your proof of God .... how fun is that!!!!

 

[Angel]

...In this case, you admitted that your argument was in reference to the Biblical Christian God (then you kinda waffled on that to be honest.)...

I'll reply to your considered post later, but this assertion set off alarms. Never once, in this thread or in any thread or post of mine in my entire posting history at DP -- never, I say, have I made such an "admission" or claim or anything close to it. Throughout my posting history I have distinguished between religion and philosophy and in all my polemics and arguments have insisted that I am about the abstract philosophical concept of God, and not any religious concept of God.

I dare say I'm somewhat surprised and disappointed by this misunderstanding, which I expect from the New Atheists and anti-theistic skeptics hereabouts, but not from you.

 

[calamity]

I'll reply to your considered post later, but this assertion set off alarms. Never once, in this thread or in any thread or post of mine in my entire posting history at DP -- never, I say, have I made such an "admission" or claim or anything close to it. Throughout my posting history I have distinguished between religion and philosophy and in all my polemics and arguments have insisted that I am about the abstract philosophical concept of God, and not any religious concept of God.

I dare say I'm somewhat surprised and disappointed by this misunderstanding, which I expect from the New Atheists and anti-theistic skeptics hereabouts, but not from you.

God has been reduced to a thought experiment which is rather apt, since a thought is basically all it is.

 

[JustHanging]

Mic drop

Watch, Angel will reprise the role of brave brave Sir Robin.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I'll reply to your considered post later, but this assertion set off alarms. Never once, in this thread or in any thread or post of mine in my entire posting history at DP -- never, I say, have I made such an "admission" or claim or anything close to it. Throughout my posting history I have distinguished between religion and philosophy and in all my polemics and arguments have insisted that I am about the abstract philosophical concept of God, and not any religious concept of God.

I dare say I'm somewhat surprised and disappointed by this misunderstanding, which I expect from the New Atheists and anti-theistic skeptics hereabouts, but not from you.

In the interest of fairness I'll go back through the thread and make sure I did not interpret something the wrong way, could be my bad.

But the point still stands on the overall fallacy of your OP argument.

All of them exist in every context based on the very standards you created, or none of them do.

 

[Individual]

Lacking a clear and concise definition of what God is, IMO, greatly reduces if not totally eliminates any possibility of proving such an existence.
God:
God [singular] (not used with the) (in Christianity, Islam and Judaism) the being or spirit that is worshipped and is believed to have created the universe.
[countable] (in some religions) a being or spirit who is believed to have power over a particular part of nature or who is believed to represent a particular quality.

For the purpose of this thread, is God being defined as a spirit, a being, or something else? If something else, it needs to be clearly and concisely defined.

If we put aside religion, what need is there to apply the word "God" in any discussion of what exists? Again, IMO, Nature alone is where the answers to any and all our questions are to be found.

science:
Antonyms: ignorance, inexperience, unfamiliarity, incomprehension, error, fallacy, empiricism, smattering, sciolism.
Synonyms: knowledge, information, skill, experience, expertness, comprehension, understanding, investigation, truth.

 

[Angel]

Mic drop

God has been reduced to a thought experiment which is rather apt, since a thought is basically all it is.

That's because thought is the only certainty.
You can pick up your mic now and resume the stand-up.

 

[Angel]

Watch, Angel will reprise the role of brave brave Sir Robin.

Credit where credit is due.
In the service of posts with nothing to say, a Monty Python reference has it over the Pee Wee Herman retorts and the stand-up comedy dropped mics of your stymied comperes.