• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Buddha said:
Archbishop Berkeley was the first Western philosopher who provided a correct proof that the Creator exists.
Click to expand...

I looked it up. His "proof" is bland rhetorical garbage. He assumes there must be a causative force but ultimately offers no evidence for this beyond his own wishful thinking. You've put a lot of faith in a man who essentially used a lot of words to say he believes a god exists because he wants to.
 
halleyscomet said:
I looked it up. His "proof" is bland rhetorical garbage. He assumes there must be a causative force but ultimately offers no evidence for this beyond his own wishful thinking. You've put a lot of faith in a man who essentially used a lot of words to say he believes a god exists because he wants to.
Click to expand...

And yet again it's the same nonsense that theologians have been creaming themselves over in regards to Aquinas.

"Define God as the only thing that can solve problem X."
"Say 'Lookit that God has solved problem X.'"
20 Goto 10.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
Except in the case of a limited and accessible group of elements ("complete inducción") or flagrant contradiction you cannot prove that X does not exist. This is so because of the incomplete nature of all induction.
Click to expand...

"Cannot prove" and "has no burden to prove" are not the same concept. Hence why I said it is important what you affirm. If you affirm what, due to imperfect induction, you cannot prove, then that is a foolish affirmation because it incurs a burden you cannot carry.
 
Buddha said:
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?
Click to expand...

Before we can exclude a faked tape, we must first examine the tape itself. Captain Disillusion takes on a few such videos.





Your acceptance of the tape at face value is, to be kind, naive. Is this the woman of whom you speak?

https://timeline.com/nina-kulagina-spy-psychic-5644ac54066d

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Kulagina
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Utter nonsense.

But as noted this is a hijack, one we always allow to take over the God discussion.
Click to expand...


It's "utter nonsense" that the last couple of centuries of science have now provided overwhelming evidence of why ancient biblical beliefs about gods, are almost certainly wrong? ...

... where did you get that idea?
 
IanS said:
It's "utter nonsense" that the last couple of centuries of science have now provided overwhelming evidence of why ancient biblical beliefs about gods, are almost certainly wrong? ...

... where did you get that idea?
Click to expand...

No it's utter nonsense that it has to be phrased in that wishy-washy, apologetic, groveling, milquetoast way.
 
David Mo said:
And even more: an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and good god is incompatible with the real state of the world.

A drunkard god is not. Or an absent-minded god. Or a sleeping god... Etc.
Click to expand...

How is such god incompatible ? Yeah, he would be kind of evil god, but you didn't include any such condition.
 
JoeMorgue said:
No it's utter nonsense that it has to be phrased in that wishy-washy, apologetic, groveling, milquetoast way.
Click to expand...


OK, well then your previous post was completely misleading when you wrote as if to complain it was untrue "nonsense" to point out that the real reason why we should believe that the claimed God probably does not exist, is because we have now discovered a whole mass of evidence against that belief.

But it's also very far from being "wishy-washy, apologetic, groveling, milquetoast" to understand that we should not be talking about anything so certain and final as a "proof", and that what we are really dealing with is only ever evidence in one direction or the other ... in this case, overwhelming evidence from modern science (and from studies of history) that clearly shows the God claims to be almost certainly wrong ("almost", but not ever a "proof of total certainty").

The point is - it certainly does not help any atheist case if atheists (inc. me) go around claiming to know as matter of absolute certainty that the God does not exist. If you do that, then you are really making a religious type of claim based on "faith" rather than upon genuine evidence. And that just gives theists a genuine reason for making a serious complaint against the very basis of your entire argument/position.
 
JayUtah said:
"Cannot prove" and "has no burden to prove" are not the same concept. Hence why I said it is important what you affirm. If you affirm what, due to imperfect induction, you cannot prove, then that is a foolish affirmation because it incurs a burden you cannot carry.
Click to expand...

It's the same thing. You can't prove that there are no green aliens with trumpets in their heads somewhere in space because after a million solar systems have been analyzed, more are always left unexamined. Therefore, whoever claims they exist must prove it. Faced with the failure of the test I am entitled to affirm that there are no green aliens or invisible dragons. It's not that I'm agnostic about it, but I say that they are fantasies of some people. The same with God.
Instead, you can show that Joseph is not in the room, if you can examine all the items in that room (complete induction).
 
Dr.Sid said:
How is such god incompatible ? Yeah, he would be kind of evil god, but you didn't include any such condition.
Click to expand...

I had referred to a god similar to the Christian or Muslim god. If you want to introduce an evil god , my argument is another: he is a superfluous entity. Like a drunkarrd god. Everything is explained without needing it, then we can reject it as we would reject the hypothesis of a purulent black matter.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
It's the same thing.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

You can't prove that there are no green aliens with trumpets in their heads somewhere in space because after a million solar systems have been analyzed, more are always left unexamined.
Click to expand...

That's why it's wise to avoid affirming, "There are no green aliens with trumpets in their heads." It would be wiser to hold it as a presumption that you concede could be overturned with evidence, or a conclusion incorporating an inductive leap that concedes incompleteness.

Instead, you can show that Joseph is not in the room, if you can examine all the items in that room (complete induction).
Click to expand...

Yes, but you're still conflating the limited ability to prove something with logical responsibility to do so.
 
Last edited:
IanS said:
The point is - it certainly does not help any atheist case if atheists (inc. me) go around claiming to know as matter of absolute certainty that the God does not exist.
Click to expand...

That's really all Phiwum was trying to say.

If you do that, then you are really making a religious type of claim based on "faith" rather than upon genuine evidence. And that just gives theists a genuine reason for making a serious complaint against the very basis of your entire argument/position.
Click to expand...

Yes. It allows them to legitimately ask, "Why do I have a burden of proof and you not?" Affirming that there is no god (as opposed to, "I don't believe in one because I see no evidence for one") incurs a burden of proof. The unassailable fact that it would be an extremely difficult burden to carry does not eliminate the connection between an affirmation and a burden of proof. It merely suggests a rational practical approach to the empiricism of studying it. Nor is there anything magical about existential affirmations that dissolves that connection. There is no difference, logically speaking, between asserting that something exists and asserting that it does not.

That's what Phiwum was trying to say.
 
Last edited:
P.J. Denyer said:
And a completely derailed thread....
Click to expand...

Conceded, but at this point does there really remain any reasonable hope that Buddha actually has the proof he claims to have? All the evidence I've seen seems consistent with the standard pattern of evasion that is shown never to arrive at the promised land.
 
JayUtah said:
That's really all Phiwum was trying to say.



Yes. It allows them to legitimately ask, "Why do I have a burden of proof and you not?" Affirming that there is no god (as opposed to, "I don't believe in one because I see no evidence for one") incurs a burden of proof. The unassailable fact that it would be an extremely difficult burden to carry does not eliminate the connection between an affirmation and a burden of proof. It merely suggests a rational practical approach to the empiricism of studying it. Nor is there anything magical about existential affirmations that dissolves that connection. There is no difference, logically speaking, between asserting that something exists and asserting that it does not.

That's what Phiwum was trying to say.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your explanation of my point.
 
Last edited:
Buddha said:
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.
Click to expand...
Since you have the proof already, why not just post it, and let the discussion proceed from there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom