• 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?

No.

God cannot be his own answer. If "What created the Universe?" needs an answer you can't answer it with "God" without asking what created God or explaining why the Universe requires a creator but God doesn't in a way that isn't just 'Because I say so.'

You will do none of those things.
 
That's it? We wait 10 days for the promised proof and that's it? The very best you've got?

:dl:
 
Your evidence for the existence of a Creator is
Everything depends on the individual's personal views.
Click to expand...
?
That's not how evidence works.

And why do options 1 and 2 require an infinite library of video tapes, but option 3 is just accepted on its face with nothing but bare assertion to support it?
 
Buddha said:
As I promised, I am going to present a proof that someone created the Universe.
Click to expand...

No, you promised a deductive proof of the existence of God. You didn't say anything about that God being the creator of the universe. The two concepts are not synonymous. This is a bait and switch.

There is also another positivist assertion that not everyone accepts. Suppose you have three contradictory explanations of an event. If you can prove that the first two are false this automatically implies that the third one is true, you do not have to prove it.
Click to expand...

No, this is the same stunt everyone pulls who can't actually prove his proposition. "Here, I've disproved one or more competing straw men via some flimsy contrivance, therefore [fill in blank]." It's especially hilarious that your contrived system conveniently requires two of your assumed-sufficient hypotheses to be falsifiable, but your desired belief ends up not being. So you have no way of proving that your system is sufficient, which is the primary requirement of any indirect proof.

I have said nothing about the Creator's identity. He (they) could be god of the Bible, god Brahma, Adi-Buddha, Oden, etc.
Click to expand...

...or Micky Mouse, or the gray alien from Close Encounters, or whatever you want to fill in the blank with. It's a purely attributional proof. It's not deduction. It's a tautology. Very disappointing, but certainly not unexpected. As I said early on, people who claim they have logical proofs for such things as their supernatural beliefs generally end up proving only that they don't understand logic.
 
Dude, that was awful. Your conclusions do not follow from your premises, and for that matter your premises are ridiculously limited.
 
Argument by fairytale. Fine. Actually, not fine, complete load of rubbish but....

Mods, this should probably be merged with the original thread intended for this proof "A Proof of the Existence of God".
 
Seriously, the falsity of your first proposition rests on the assumption of a theoretical videotape being unviewable due to its length. This is absurd.
 
Thermal said:
Dude, that was awful. Your conclusions do not follow from your premises, and for that matter your premises are ridiculously limited.
Click to expand...

Straw men, as I put them. He doesn't deal with the actual evidence: namely, that showing the universe to be of finite age. His "falsification" of that hypotheses comes down merely to limitations endemic to the thought experiment he uses. And then he admits that if you don't already follow his brand of thought, it's not actually falsified and you can end up believing whatever you want.
 
JayUtah said:
Straw men, as I put them. He doesn't deal with the actual evidence: namely, that showing the universe to be of finite age. His "falsification" of that hypotheses comes down merely to limitations endemic to the thought experiment he uses. And then he admits that if you don't already follow his brand of thought, it's not actually falsified and you can end up believing whatever you want.
Click to expand...

Well, the quality is apparently consistent with his arguments against evolution. Horse apples all the way.
 
Buddha said:
As I promised, I am going to present a proof that someone created the Universe. But before doing that I am going to state my philosophical position.
Click to expand...
No, you are not. As usual, it is all promise and no delivery.

Buddha said:
<gibbersnip>
I have said nothing about the Creator's identity. He (they) could be god of the Bible, god Brahma, Adi-Buddha, Oden, etc.
Click to expand...
What a great steaming pile of useless notions. May we take it that you have abandoned your "Proof of god" thread for lack of any proof at all?
 
Just awful and disappointing! This "proof" is lacking in all ways possible - as formal logic, as science, as philosophy, and even as an informal fairly tale.

I had hoped for something a little novel to think about, but I would have even settled for a variation of one of the old-time apologists' arguments. This is just so weak, meaningless, and absurd at all levels.
 
Wow. I'm not sure if philosophy is supposed to have logical rigour, but that argument sure doesn't.
 
Buddha: take a run at some other arguments before posting. There are at least some more sophisticated propositions that would engage debate, which you would surely find here. These teenager-musings-while-high are going to leave you with me instead of the more eloquent posters. Up your game, scooter.
 
I bet that God could create an infinitely long video cassette.
Or a laserdisk of infinite diameter.
Or even a little hand drawn flip book of infinitely many pages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom