Merged A Proof of the Existence of God / Did Someone Create the Universe?

[Buddha]

Great, I consider my existence vindicated....

Now-:



How about backing up this bold claim with this world changing proof rather than blowing smoke?

This proof deserves a separate thread, I promise I will post it soon. Right now I do not even know if I can start a thread because I have not the posting quota yet.

 

[JayUtah]

I think I already defined God the way I see him. To me the word "God" defines somebody who can achieve anything he wants, including creation an universe.

That's not enough of a definition to lead to meaningful empiricism. And it already has a flaw which would make an empirical proof non-deterministic. Further, I asked you if you could prove deductively any of the elements of your definition, partial as it is. You don't seem willing or able.

This is a split thread, I didn't start it. The original thread was about modern atheism, I just replied to it.

Irrelevant. You claimed you had a deductive proof for the existence of God. Now you're being asked to make good on it. You either have the proof or you don't, regardless of what the moderators have done. Do you have it?

 

[JoeMorgue]

At risk of being a killjoy but this thread is supposed to be about Buddha's claim that he can prove the existence of his god. Diverting into discussion of historical attempts by others to do so just lets him wriggle around without providing that proof.

Because that's all they've got. 700 hundred years ago some Priest makes the same bad, circular argument 5 times slightly reworded each time and ever since he's been hailed as some sort of ultimate theological thinker.

Not only cannot they not come up with new apologetics but they still see Aquinuas's nonsense as a mic-drop.

 

[Buddha]

Please just start by defining the concept of "God" that you are talking about when you claim an ability to prove it logically. I simply don't know what you mean. And I would hate for you to, say, prove that the universe was created and claim that you proved that God had a son named Jesus who died for our sins.

Jesus didn't die to redeem "our sins". This nonsense is the result of incorrect translation of biblical texts. Besides, I am not a traditional Christian, I have studied the Buddhist scriptures and came to conclusion that Buddha is what he claims to be.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This proof deserves a separate thread, I promise I will post it soon. Right now I do not even know if I can start a thread because I have not the posting quota yet.

Buddha.

Me, Jay, and a couple others have dealt with a "I'll give you my proof as soon as I get a thread that operates my way" stalling tactic person that I personally guarantee you with a metaphysical certainty can play that game a billion times better then you can play it on your best day.

 

[Pixel42]

Einstein begun his quest with, "What if speed of light doesn't depend on a coordinate system. What kind of experiment I would have to run to prove that?"

News to me. Cite?

I'm pretty sure Einstein's first thought experiment was "what would the world look like if I was travelling on a beam of light?"

 

[Pixel42]

This proof deserves a separate thread.

Indeed, which is why this thread was split off from the one in which you claimed to have such a proof specifically for you to post it. So post it. In this separate thread.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

This proof deserves a separate thread, I promise I will post it soon. Right now I do not even know if I can start a thread because I have not the posting quota yet.

This thread is about your proof of god. It doesn't need a seperate thread so stop dodging, it's transparent and getting embarrassing.

You made the claim, back it up or retract it.

 

[JayUtah]

You could start with "if" if you want. For example, "What if God doesn't exist. Can I prove that?"

No, that's not the form Einstein's thought experiments took. Further, as has already been pointed out, if you're contemplating proving non-existence of something, you're going to have a hard time convincing skeptics that you understand deductive reasoning enough to claim to have a valid deductive proof for God.

Einstein begun his quest with, "What if speed of light doesn't depend on a coordinate system. What kind of experiment I would have to run to prove that?" Later there were experimental confirmations of his idea. But he started with a thought experiment.

And that's not a thought experiment. That's ordinary scientific reasoning in the hypothetico-deductive pattern. The hypothesis is made, and then an if-then construct with the hypothesis as an antecedent gives rise to methods of falsification testing.

You seem to be willing to talk about anything except the proof your supposed to be providing. If your proof is deductive, it fits a certain pattern known as a syllogism of validating form. In that case you should be able to fill in the following without any trouble.

[Major premise].
[Minor premise], therefore
[Conclusion]​

If, as seems to be the case, your proof is more empirical than deductive, then your own statements give an actionable pattern. You should be able to fill in the blank in

If God exists, then _____________________________​

Any chance of any of that sort of thing happening?

 

[Buddha]

The word "omnipotent" means different things to different people, to me it means nothing. I assume that the word "entity" means that he has a physical body. I do not believe in spirits, souls, astral bodies, Holy Spirit, etc. Once these beliefs are discarded, the only remaining possibility that he has a material body. "Purposeful" would mean that he created the universe on purpose. But the purpose is not known to the mankind, so I do not think that this word is applicable to the Creator.
Sorry, I meant to reply to a different post. I still have to figure out how the posting works here.

Einstein called his quest "thought experiments". This is his terminology, not mine. All his biographers use the same.
As I said before, I will post a separate thread containing my proof. Please not that this is a split test, someone split it, which is very helpful, although I was not my intention to present my proof here.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Jesus didn't die to redeem "our sins". This nonsense is the result of incorrect translation of biblical texts. Besides, I am not a traditional Christian, I have studied the Buddhist scriptures and came to conclusion that Buddha is what he claims to be.

Don't give a monkeys, this thread is about your 'proof' of god.

Please stop derailing and dodging, and post this proof for us to evaluate.

 

[JayUtah]

Jesus didn't die to redeem "our sins". This nonsense is the result of incorrect translation of biblical texts.

No one is interested in your prowess at translating ancient texts unless it is part of a deductive proof for the existence of God that you say you have.

Besides, I am not a traditional Christian, I have studied the Buddhist scriptures and came to conclusion that Buddha is what he claims to be.

No one cares what precise religion, if any, you practice except insofar as it informs a testable definition of God and leads to the proof you promised.

You're stalling. Please present your proof.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Because that's all they've got. 700 hundred years ago some Priest makes the same bad, circular argument 5 times slightly reworded each time and ever since he's been hailed as some sort of ultimate theological thinker.

Not only cannot they not come up with new apologetics but they still see Aquinuas's nonsense as a mic-drop.

I agree, but that's no reason for us to let them get away with it by diverting onto every dead end side road they suggest.

Buddha claims to have proof of god, let him post it in this thread, specially created for said proof and stop wasting time. Or admit that he has no such proof and retract the claim.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The word "omnipotent" means different things to different people, to me it means nothing. I assume that the word "entity" means that he has a physical body. I do not believe in spirits, souls, astral bodies, Holy Spirit, etc. Once these beliefs are discarded, the only remaining possibility that he has a material body. "Purposeful" would mean that he created the universe on purpose. But the purpose is not known to the mankind, so I do not think that this word is applicable to the Creator.

More evasion. Your proof please.

 

[Loss Leader]

Jesus didn't die to redeem "our sins". This nonsense is the result of incorrect translation of biblical texts. Besides, I am not a traditional Christian, I have studied the Buddhist scriptures and came to conclusion that Buddha is what he claims to be.

I don't care.

You said you had a proof of the existence of a god. please present it.

 

[JayUtah]

Right now I do not even know if I can start a thread because I have not the posting quota yet.

You could achieve the posting quota by posting your claimed proof for the existence of God and entertaining a discussion on that. Split or not from a different thread, your continued participation in this one suggests you have at least nominal interest in its subject. But so far you're just dodging the issue while insisting your critics continue to be patient for reasons you haven't yet seen fit to justify.

Please present your proof without further distraction.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

There is a minor logical flaw in your reasoning-- you assumed that all miracles are claimed to be caused by God. This is not correct. 15 years ago Russian government released their previously classified files of ESP research (The CIA had done similar research but it is still classified). Some of Russian videotapes were aired on channel 13 in NYC (this is a PBS channel). I saw the woman sitting at a table, the box of matches was floating in the air in front of her, this was a telekinesis session. It looked like a miracle to me although God was not involved in it. Other than saying that the tape is fake, could you provide a reasonable explanation of the telekinesis?

Theorizing about TK is off topic. This thread is about the proof of god you claim to have but keep avoiding posting.

 

[jrhowell]

There is a minor logical flaw in your reasoning-- you assumed that all miracles are claimed to be caused by God. This is not correct. 15 years ago Russian government released their previously classified files of ESP research (The CIA had done similar research but it is still classified). Some of Russian videotapes were aired on channel 13 in NYC (this is a PBS channel). I saw the woman sitting at a table, the box of matches was floating in the air in front of her, this was a telekinesis session. It looked like a miracle to me although God was not involved in it. Other than saying that the tape is fake, could you provide a reasonable explanation of the telekinesis?

I think Buddha has a valid point that even if there was proof of a supernatural miracle (which isn't the case in that video) that would not automatically also prove the existence of God.

Of course that just makes Buddha's task of proving God's existence all the harder. Miracles don't count.

 

[JayUtah]

The word "omnipotent" means different things to different people, to me it means nothing.

It's shorthand for "can do whatever he wants," which was an element in your definition of God.

I assume that the word "entity" means that he has a physical body.

No. It merely stands in contrast to an idea or a res mentis.

Sorry, I meant to reply to a different post. I still have to figure out how the posting works here.

You meant to reply to my post, which asks whether you can prove any of these things deductively as you claimed. In all your nit-picking and dissection, you have failed to do that.

Einstein called his quest "thought experiments". This is his terminology, not mine.

Some of Einstein's work was initiated as a thought experiment, which you have mischaracterized. None of this has the slightest to do with whether you can prove the existence of God.

As I said before, I will post a separate thread containing my proof. Please not that this is a split test, someone split it, which is very helpful, although I was not my intention to present my proof here.

This thread was split off so that you could provide your proof in it. Please do so without further delay. The only thing that is on topic in this thread is your proof for the existence of God. Not Einstein. Not biblical texts. Not general philosophy.

Present your proof here and now, if you please.

 

[phiwum]

You cannot use deductive logic to prove the existence of something that is non falsifiable. Deduction
pertains to that which is definitely true. Definite truth and non falsifiability are mutually incompatible

Huh?

0=0 is definitely true and non-falsifiable. (Usual interpretation of the symbol "=", of course).

Similarly, all bachelors are unmarried is definitely true and non-falsifiable.