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

[Buddha]

To requote Sagan.

"In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?” "

"Save a step" in this case is a metaphor for "apply Occam's Razor". He's saying that in both cases, omitting God makes for the easiest solution, the one requiring the least assumptions.

Sagan had better arguments which, he thought, prove that God doesn't exist. This one is not very strong because the phrase "where God comes from' implies that God existed before the universe came to be. But when there is no instruments to measure the time, the concept of time is meaningless.

 

[carlitos]

13.a On this rock I will build my church, and death itself will not have any power over it.

13.33 Therefore, Immortality

 

[Buddha]

Perhaps because...



More than enough time to give us a short overview of the history of deductionism, but no time to actually make a point?
You're not running out of time, you're running out of things to say, and you're stalling.

I am very sorry, I mistyped the word. I meant to say "the methods of inductive logic"

I am trained in inductive logic only. When I was working on my BS in Applied Math, I learned that all theorems in mathematics are based on inductive logic; there is also the method of mathematical induction which is widely used to prove various theorems.
In the beginning of my career I, as a control system engineer, was using inductive methods to analyze technological processes. Currently I work as a data analyst for a consulting company; I do statistical analysis of commercial data for our clients, here I also use inductive methods only.
Five months ago I read Poipper's book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery.In his book Popper presents his version of deductive logic and uses it to criticize inductive logic used by the positivists. To me his deductive logic makes no sense, I see it as a pseudo-scientific crap.

 

[Buddha]

Perhaps because...



More than enough time to give us a short overview of the history of deductionism, but no time to actually make a point?
You're not running out of time, you're running out of things to say, and you're stalling.

Once again, I apologize for using the word "deductive" it was a typo. I meant to write "inductive" . Unlike Trump, I admit that I make mistakes.
Do not worry, I have plenty to say. I am not stalling, I thought that some members might be interested what I am doing here, so I gave a brief overview of my goals.

 

[GDon]

As far as I know Buddha was the first philosopher who proved that the Creator exists (in the Buddhist texts the Creator goes under the title Adi-Buddha). Buddha's proof is based on the concept of reincarnation. To accept it you would have to accept the reincarnation (which I did).

Could you post that proof, or post a link to where that proof is offered please?

Archbishop Berkely was a western philosopher who also proved existence of God. His proof is very complicated and not everyone would understand it. I did, and I didn't find logical mistakes it.

A link to that proof would be interesting, also. I take it that Bishop Berkeley (not an Archbishop AFAICS) didn't believe in reincarnation, so his proof would make a nice contrast to the Buddha's proof which, according to you, does require such a belief.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Archbishop Berkely was a western philosopher who also proved existence of God. His proof is very complicated[...]

No. It's not.

The other proofs that God is real failed due to logical errors, except for mine of course.

That would be interesting to see. Will you post it, please?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Saying "That's not how evidence works" wouldn't be enough at a philosophical conference, you would have to show how it works if they give you the podium.

I'm pretty sure that if you said at a philosophical conference that you had proof of the existence of God that that wouldn't be enough, either. It's certainly not on this board. Will you post your proof, please?

 

[aleCcowaN]

<snow job snipped>


The other proofs that God is real failed due to logical errors, except for mine of course.

We continue to wait for you to grace us by presenting here such wonderful proof

Of course people tried and will try again to use science to prove resolve this topic. But this is akin to attempts to apply quantum mechanics to social sciences because it was not designed for this purpose. All these attempts look like intellectual onanism to me.

You should better mind what your mental hands are doing, not the other's.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Once again, I apologize for using the word "deductive" it was a typo. I meant to write "inductive" . Unlike Trump, I admit that I make mistakes.
Do not worry, I have plenty to say. I am not stalling, I thought that some members might be interested what I am doing here, so I gave a brief overview of my goals.

We're not falling for this. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Post your 'proof' and discuss it, or go try your schtick on a more impressionable audience.

 

[jrhowell]

I'm pretty sure that if you said at a philosophical conference that you had proof of the existence of God that that wouldn't be enough, either. It's certainly not on this board. Will you post your proof, please?

I'm pretty sure that Buddha believes that he has already done that.

He defined God as an entity that could create the universe if he wanted and then presented his proof that the universe was created. Mission accomplished!

(Why should he care if the ignorant, Godless skeptics disagree?)

 

[aleCcowaN]

You excluded all other possibilities. You should have added "Buddha is a cat" along with a few more.

You also excluded other possibilities. That's why you get such fair pieces of criticism.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Sagan had better arguments which, he thought, prove that God doesn't exist. This one is not very strong because the phrase "where God comes from' implies that God existed before the universe came to be. But when there is no instruments to measure the time, the concept of time is meaningless.

You're confounding time with causality.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm pretty sure that Buddha believes that he has already done that.

This appears to be it, yes, pathetic as it is:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12366193#post12366193

 

[aleCcowaN]

I am very sorry, I mistyped the word. I meant to say "the methods of inductive logic"

I am trained in inductive logic only. When I was working on my BS in Applied Math, I learned that all theorems in mathematics are based on inductive logic; there is also the method of mathematical induction which is widely used to prove various theorems.
In the beginning of my career I, as a control system engineer, was using inductive methods to analyze technological processes. Currently I work as a data analyst for a consulting company; I do statistical analysis of commercial data for our clients, here I also use inductive methods only.
Five months ago I read Poipper's book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery.In his book Popper presents his version of deductive logic and uses it to criticize inductive logic used by the positivists. To me his deductive logic makes no sense, I see it as a pseudo-scientific crap.

Once again, I apologize for using the word "deductive" it was a typo. I meant to write "inductive" . Unlike Trump, I admit that I make mistakes.
Do not worry, I have plenty to say. I am not stalling, I thought that some members might be interested what I am doing here, so I gave a brief overview of my goals.

We got it: You used the wrong buzzword and you have lots of narcissistic tedious stories about you to pad what otherwise would be empty posts.

By the way, where's the article you promised?

 

[jrhowell]

Currently I work as a data analyst for a consulting company; I do statistical analysis of commercial data for our clients, here I also use inductive methods only.

I picture the following:

Boss: I need you to prove that cigarette smoking is beneficial to heath. Here is the raw data.

Buddha: No problem. I'll have it ready by lunchtime.


(Or more likely his real work involves proving that global warming is a hoax.)

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm pretty sure that Buddha believes that he has already done that.

This appears to be it, yes, pathetic as it is:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12366193#post12366193

That would be fantastic, if true. It'd mean that we are in the final stages of Buddha's cycle here: he'll remain a short time defending what he did (not), trying to be patronizing and condescending, satisfying his narcissistic needs to finally abandon the place to reincarnate in other place.

Of course such other places don't include an anti-evolution book for a scientific public nor a conference with a scientific public nor anything related to string theory nor any of the other fantasies he briefly brings to life here.

 

[I Am The Scum]

You excluded all other possibilities. You should have added "Buddha is a cat" along with a few more.

But that's not the standard you set. You said that they must merely be "contradictory statements." Would you like to revise your original argument?

 

[Dancing David]

As far as I know Buddha was the first philosopher who proved that the Creator exists (in the Buddhist texts the Creator goes under the title Adi-Buddha). Buddha's proof is based on the concept of reincarnation. To accept it you would have to accept the reincarnation (which I did).

And where pray tell did the alleged historic buddha do that? This proof of diety?

Considering that the AHB taught anatta I find it hard to believe they also taught reincarnation.
No atman no reincarnation.

 

[JayUtah]

This is the most interesting post so far, so I'll take time answering it.

Except you didn't answer it or or answer anything I've said in it or anything else I've said to you. You're just quoting my post and pontificating on irrelevant topics so that you can maintain an illusion you're still actually engaged in this debate and still some sort of teacher. You read a book once on philosophy and now you think you can bamboozle everyone else into accepting you as an expert.

The remark to the math seems strange to me because I haven't used any so far.

And if you had actually read my post, you would have seen that I was referring to another poster who did, a poster to whom you're being compared for similar lackluster ability, hubris, ignorance, and penchant for distraction. Not a very good showing of reading comprehension for someone who below seems to be claiming superior understanding.

Majority of the atheists and creationists make the same mistake -- they try to use natural sciences to prove or disprove that God exists

Except that's not what I did in my post that you quoted, further evidence that you didn't actually read it. My post deals entirely with your ignorance of positivism. You're just repeating yesterday's pivot. No one is interested in listening to you pontificate. You provided your proof and it was shown to be in error under the terms you presented it. You're clearly unable and unwilling to address any of the actual rebuttals.

Your undesired and unnecessary lessons in theological history have nothing to do with you rehabilitating your failed proof for God. Please do that.

Archbishop Berkely was a western philosopher who also proved existence of God...

Asked and answered.

His proof is very complicated and not everyone would understand it. I did...

Yes, we get it. You're ever so much smarter than everyone else. That's been the foundation of your argument since Page 1. No one is buying it.

...and I didn't find logical mistakes it.

Others here did and brought them to your attention. You ignored them. And as we discover blow, you really don't know much about logic so your endorsement doesn't matter.

The other proofs that God is real failed due to logical errors, except for mine of course.

Yours is riddled with logical errors, which I and others have outlined. You simply ignored all that.

 

[JayUtah]

Once again, I apologize for using the word "deductive" it was a typo. I meant to write "inductive" . Unlike Trump, I admit that I make mistakes.

No, I'm calling this a flat-out lie.

You repeated the word "deductive" more than once to describe your proof, as I quoted a few days ago. It's not just a one-time "typo." Further, when I pointed this out to you before, you tried to say that your proof was a hybrid of deduction and induction and that you hoped I could see the difference. In fact I recall you accused me of not being able to. So now you're changing your story. It's either a hybrid proof or it's a "typo." It can't be both. Nor is this the first or only time you've conflated similar-sounding words in logic. For example, you don't seem to know what "falsifiable" really means.

It's high time you stopped pretending you're smarter than everyone else. You're being called out on errors in basic concepts here. And you already led us to the documentary proof elsewhere of your willingness to pontificate on subjects you clearly know nothing about.