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

[halleyscomet]

Any proofs of the existence of God yet?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Any proofs of the existence of God yet?

Yeah he's undefined and can't be disproven to 100% metaphysical certainty, therefore he exists. Or might as well since that's how we have to phrase it.

 

[JayUtah]

It's a matter of actual evidence (not ever, unattainable, “proof”).

"Proof" and "burden of proof" are not the same thing.

 

[The Norseman]

Sorry, I was referring to all the digressions and arguments in the thread, but my apologies if you felt singled out.

Hey, it's all good; I appreciate you taking the time to say so.

Your point that no proof of god can be valid without a valid definition of god is a good one. I don't disagree, but this thread was about Buddha's proof, not the general case, it would have been nice to have kept the focus on that, or on Buddha's reluctance to back up his claims in this thread at least.

Alright. I can certainly refrain from posting if you think that might help but it's probably too late.

But if you're willing, I would like to ask you what kind of proof could be given at this point, as we can accept for the sake of argument his definition of 'god' as "someone who can do whatever he wants"?

Or maybe a better question is what would a well-formed proof look like in this instance?

ETA: Okay, sorry if I sound snippy. I was genuinely interested to see what his 'proof' was, I expected it to be badly thought out, riddled with unsupported assumptions, and unoriginal and I was looking forward to grabbing some popcorn and watching it being comprehensively dismantled by those, yourself included, with a better grounding in philosophy and logic than I. The fact that this guy claims to be the author of a book arguing against evolution made me particularly anticipate his role as a chew toy. Hence my attempts to keep tye thread focussed on Buddha's claims and my frustration at it's many derails.

Thank you for the clarification and yes, I can feel the frustration because I feel it too, here and there. I dunno. I guess for me it's been different because I rarely feel justified in contributing to a thread such as this, in any capacity; now that my interest is piqued, I'm pushing hard for my own small contributions to be put to the fore. It's selfish of me, true.

Still, I don't mind refraining from commenting for a while until or when OP decides to post again.

Because it's the same thing. Making it so the God discussion and only the God discussion has to be worded a certain so it's actually to go anywhere.

No, it isn't the same thing, though I can now see how it may seem that way. Again, 'discussing' something irrational is fine and definitions don't have to be an important part of the process.

I'm saying that any term which can mean pretty much anything is useless in trying to determine the things existence. Defining and understanding terms is important and I agree with you that, especially here, there is way way way way too much emphasis on ultra-fine, molecule-thin differences or shades of meaning, carved so as to maximize Winning! or Pwnage! on your opponents.

I'm not trying to do that here even if there are some similarities to this approach versus ALL the other duplicitous approaches.

If your big "gotcha" is later you're gonna come along and go "Aha! Fooled you! When I said Flozznoss I really meant a 20mm socket for an impact driver! And those totally exist! Ha I've caught you in my elaborate web!" then... I don't care. That's just stupid argumentative word games.

I don't have 'gotchas' and I try very hard not to post only to score internet points. If I'm wrong, I admit it. If I am rude, I apologize. If I'm misunderstanding, I clarify. I try very hard to shove my ego out the friggin' back door.

It's been like... since the start of civilization. If the God Botherers were going to define God, they would have done it by now.

You're playing into their hand, the exact same way the people who can talk about God in groveling apologetics are, by letting them dictate the discussion.

I'm not understanding. Here and there, a god-botherer does bother to provide some sort of definition and I think a lot of theists do earnestly try to make sense of their beliefs (but not a whole lot); but I'm not sure why holding firm to some sort of rational, meaningful, and comprehensive definition at the outset, before the proofs and evidences can commence is allowing a theist to "dictate" the discussion. I kinda actually feel like I am the one doing the dictating, as I'm saying, in effect, "we can't start discussing until you jump this hurdle. Until then, I'll leave you to wallow in your beliefs."

Sure if you say so. Where else are we gonna find someone who wants to argue definitions on the internet. You're like the last white unicorn.

LOL Better take a screencap of my presence before I disappear!

 

[JoeMorgue]

I kinda actually feel like I am the one doing the dictating, as I'm saying, in effect, "we can't start discussing until you jump this hurdle. Until then, I'll leave you to wallow in your beliefs."

And here is the core of our disagreement, or differing ways of approaching since I'm not sure if "disagreement" is the right term.

They are perfectly content to wallow in their beliefs... forever. "Until then" might as well have read "Until the heat death of the universe."

 

[jrhowell]

I took a look at the free sample available for the book that Buddha claims to have written disproving evolution. Some of the arguments I saw in that short sample include (paraphrased):

• Evolution incorrectly groups living things together on the basis of resemblance in appearance.
  
• No other science uses the concept of descent. The periodic table of chemistry looks like a chart of descent, but it isn't.
  
• It is not possible to make any inferences using evolutionary theory.
  
• Darwin falsified his data, committing scientific fraud.
  
• Scientists have only observed microevolution, never macroevolution.
  
• Our ancestors could not have domesticated wolves into dogs. If that were possible they would have domesticated bears instead.
  
• Evolution leads to ridiculous conclusions, such as predators and prey evolving to run faster and faster, to supersonic speeds and beyond.
  
• Evolution states that the strongest survive, ignoring other desirable characteristics such as endurance.
  
• Only one random mutation can occur at a time because if more than one happened it would not be random.
  

I anticipate that similar logic will be forthcoming in the proof of God's existence.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Hey, it's all good; I appreciate you taking the time to say so.

Alright. I can certainly refrain from posting if you think that might help but it's probably too late.

But if you're willing, I would like to ask you what kind of proof could be given at this point, as we can accept for the sake of argument his definition of 'god' as "someone who can do whatever he wants"?

Or maybe a better question is what would a well-formed proof look like in this instance?

I'm not the person to ask, I wasn't expecting an acceptable or well formed proof, I don't believe there is one and if there is it isn't coming from Buddha, I was just hoping he might lay out all his cards so his argument could be demolished from bogus definitions to unwarranted conclusions. There's an arrogance in his claims I was looking forward to seeing punctured, I don't claim any moral high ground I was in it for the bloodsport, but I do think there's a greater good in trashing the claims of science deniers, which as an anti evolutionist he obviously is.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Our ancestors could not have domesticated wolves into dogs. If that were possible they would have domesticated bears instead.

There is so much wrong with that sentence.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I took a look at the free sample available for the book that Buddha claims to have written disproving evolution. Some of the arguments I saw in that short sample include (paraphrased):

• Evolution incorrectly groups living things together on the basis of resemblance in appearance.
  
• No other science uses the concept of descent. The periodic table of chemistry looks like a chart of descent, but it isn't.
  
• It is not possible to make any inferences using evolutionary theory.
  
• Darwin falsified his data, committing scientific fraud.
  
• Scientists have only observed microevolution, never macroevolution.
  
• Our ancestors could not have domesticated wolves into dogs. If that were possible they would have domesticated bears instead.
  
• Evolution leads to ridiculous conclusions, such as predators and prey evolving to run faster and faster, to supersonic speeds and beyond.
  
• Evolution states that the strongest survive, ignoring other desirable characteristics such as endurance.
  
• Only one random mutation can occur at a time because if more than one happened it would not be random.
  

I anticipate that similar logic will be forthcoming in the proof of God's existence.

Wow, that's quite the crock.

I don't think the similar logic will be forthcoming now, but hey, ho. I guess we'll have to learn to live with that particular hole in our lives.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I took a look at the free sample available for the book that Buddha claims to have written disproving evolution.

I think I'll wait for the new book he claims to be writing

 

[JayUtah]

Some of the arguments I saw in that short sample include (paraphrased)

[list snipped]

I anticipate that similar logic will be forthcoming in the proof of God's existence.

And it promises to be entertaining.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Evolution incorrectly groups living things together on the basis of resemblance in appearance.

Buddha apparently thinks that science classes dolphins as being closer to sharks than hedgehogs.

I had the urge to go through the list one by one but lets face it, it's redundant.

 

[smartcooky]

• Evolution incorrectly groups living things together on the basis of resemblance in appearance.
  
• No other science uses the concept of descent. The periodic table of chemistry looks like a chart of descent, but it isn't.
  
• It is not possible to make any inferences using evolutionary theory.
  
• Darwin falsified his data, committing scientific fraud.
  
• Scientists have only observed microevolution, never macroevolution.
  
• Our ancestors could not have domesticated wolves into dogs. If that were possible they would have domesticated bears instead.
  
• Evolution leads to ridiculous conclusions, such as predators and prey evolving to run faster and faster, to supersonic speeds and beyond.
  
• Evolution states that the strongest survive, ignoring other desirable characteristics such as endurance.
  
• Only one random mutation can occur at a time because if more than one happened it would not be random.
  

 

[Zivan]

Any proofs of the existence of God yet?

Buddha said we must "be patient"*. This is now page 8 so, aaaannnnyyyy time now.

Or not.

Also, this thread titled "A Proof of the Existence of God" is, according to Buddha, an inappropriate place for him to post A Proof of the Existence of God.

He promised* to give his proof of God but.......everyone has given up hope at this point that he will keep his promise*. We have been patient*.

Very disappointing. I really wanted to know what his proof was.




*not defined.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I took a look at the free sample available for the book that Buddha claims to have written disproving evolution. Some of the arguments I saw in that short sample include (paraphrased):

• Evolution incorrectly groups living things together on the basis of resemblance in appearance.
  
• No other science uses the concept of descent. The periodic table of chemistry looks like a chart of descent, but it isn't.
  
• It is not possible to make any inferences using evolutionary theory.
  
• Darwin falsified his data, committing scientific fraud.
  
• Scientists have only observed microevolution, never macroevolution.
  
• Our ancestors could not have domesticated wolves into dogs. If that were possible they would have domesticated bears instead.
  
• Evolution leads to ridiculous conclusions, such as predators and prey evolving to run faster and faster, to supersonic speeds and beyond.
  
• Evolution states that the strongest survive, ignoring other desirable characteristics such as endurance.
  
• Only one random mutation can occur at a time because if more than one happened it would not be random.
  

I anticipate that similar logic will be forthcoming in the proof of God's existence.

While this list alone is enough to condemn evolution to the dustbin of history, he left out some more evidence:

• No-one has ever seen a giraffe giving birth to a monkey.
• Were you there?
• Where are the half-chihuahua, half-elephant intermediaries?
• The platypus
• The Piltdown man hoax
• The banana

 

[smartcooky]

But in it you have provided a more extant proof for the existence of God than has the OP, so congratulations for that.

 

[Rincewind]

Buddha said we must "be patient"*. This is now page 8 so, aaaannnnyyyy time now.

Or not.

Also, this thread titled "A Proof of the Existence of God" is, according to Buddha, an inappropriate place for him to post A Proof of the Existence of God.

He promised* to give his proof of God but.......everyone has given up hope at this point that he will keep his promise*. We have been patient*.

Very disappointing. I really wanted to know what his proof was.




*not defined.

I agree with you 100%

After getting so excited at the prospect of finally finding out, I'm utterly devastated that apparently no proof is forthcoming.

I'll probably never survive the disappointment.



Is that enough smilies?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I agree with you 100%

After getting so excited at the prospect of finally finding out, I'm utterly devastated that apparently no proof is forthcoming.

I'll probably never survive the disappointment.



Is that enough smilies?

I don know if the world smiley stockpile is sufficient.





But just in case the message hasn't got across.


Buddha, post your proof or withdraw your claim.

 

[Rincewind]

I don know if the world smiley stockpile is sufficient.





But just in case the message hasn't got across.


Buddha, post your proof or withdraw your claim.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Can we get a 'fist bump' emoji?