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

[Buddha]

Then your premise in starting this thread was fraudulent. If your proof for the existence of God depends on reincarnation being proven, and you decline to prove reincarnation until after discussion of your proof of the existence of God is concluded, then you've made it clear that you want the discussion of your proof of the existence of God to go on for ever without reaching a conclusion.

Dave

Wow! Can't you see that there are several independent proofs of God's existence?

 

[Buddha]

Blatantly circular.



You postulate the existence of a creator because your desired proof requires one, not because there is one.

It looks to me that you don't know what the word "postulate" means. Postulates are used in natural sciences, not in logical systems. The word "postulate" is an equivalent of the phrase "Law of nature"

 

[JayUtah]

1. Popper would not accept them as true...

I've highlighted the words you've added to your quote from Popper, which changes the meaning. Popper means he doesn't accept them as sciences within the meaning of his axioms. It doesn't mean he asserts their conclusions must be false.

I am sure that you haven't read Popper's book, which is a sign of ignorance on your part.

Do you have any argument that doesn't boil down to calling your critics stupid? Of course I've read Popper -- several of his books, whereas it appears you've only read one. And you don't understand it. I've written quite extensively here in this thread on Popper's approach to science and philosophy. Why is it you don't seem to respond meaningfully to those meatier posts?

 

[JayUtah]

It looks to me that you don't know what the word "postulate" means. Postulates are used in natural sciences, not in logical systems. The word "postulate" is an equivalent of the phrase "Law of nature"

It appears you don't know the difference between a noun and a verb.

postulate
[verb pos-chuh-leyt; noun pos-chuh-lit, -leyt]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object), pos·tu·lat·ed, pos·tu·lat·ing.

to ask, demand, or claim.
to claim or assume the existence or truth of, especially as a basis for reasoning or arguing.
to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.

Also, the main point in that post was the obvious circularity in your reasoning, which several others have noted. Why is it that you chose the irrelevant, nit-picky thing to address and ignored the glaring error in your proof? Yesterday you told us that simply harping at your critics was beneath you. Where is the evidence of that in your posts?

 

[Buddha]

What you can't get rid of, however, is the underlying circularity of the argument. Your starting axiom, though you may try to obscure this, is that only events that have been observed have actually occurred, including events that occurred prior to the emergence of an observer. This axiom demands the existence of a universal observer, which you call "God." Your proof therefore boils down to: If we start from the premise that God exists, then God exists.

Dave

To the contrary, I assume that these events have not occurred.

 

[Buddha]

In order for this to be the proof that you believe it to be, you will have to define "observer", prove the axiom that an observer must be present for it to be valid to say that an event happened (or at least make a cogent argument for it), and prove how these are the only three possible options.



This is an argument from incredulity/ignorance. This is a logical fallacy, and not a proof of or cogent argument for your axiom.

Well, you do not have to require presence of an observer if you are a follower of scientific realism. Everything depends on person's philosophical views.

 

[Buddha]

Your proof is a load of crap.

Just because one does not know all of the natural details of how the universe came into existence, that does not automatically mean that the universe was created by some sort of supernatural force (such as this "Creator" or "Creators" that you so often speak of).

As I have told you before, humans been trying to objectively prove the existence of some sort of supernatural being, or supernatural beings, ever since there were humans; and yet in spite all of this tremendous effort over several millennia, no such objective proof has ever been demonstrated.

Therefore, your work is a failure just like all of the preceding works on this subject have been a failure.

If you don't know what you call "natural details" you cannot chose a correct hypothesis among the competing ones. If you are a scientific realist, this situation is totally acceptable to you. As I said in the beginning, not everyone will accept my proof.

 

[SOdhner]

which is a sign of ignorance on your part.

Oh, we're pointing out signs of ignorance in people's posts now? You're sure this is what you want to do?

 

[theprestige]

Wow! Can't you see that there are several independent proofs of God's existence?

Give two independent proofs of the same god, then.

 

[Dave Rogers]

As I wrote before, the Popper doctrine fails when it is applied to the control systems that my colleagues and I have developed.

No, it doesn't; it correctly declines to attribute the status of scientific law to what is, by your own admission, an ad hoc engineering approximation that hasn't failed yet.

Wow! Can't you see that there are several independent proofs of God's existence?

Irrelevant and nonsensical; this thread is about your claimed proof, and your apparent disinclination to defend it effectively.

To the contrary, I assume that these events have not occurred.

Re-read the post you just replied to. Try to understand it this time.

Dave

 

[Buddha]

Just because a claim cannot be verified, does not mean that claim is false. This has been explained to you in several different ways. Please stop being wrong on purpose.

It depends on the nature of a claim. Some claims cannot be verified right away, but it might be possible to verify them in a future. Some claims cannot be verified in principle. An example of unverifiable claims is the one put forward by some superstring theorists who suggested that when our universe was produced, an infinite number of other, unreachable universes, were also produced.

 

[JayUtah]

As I said in the beginning, not everyone will accept my proof.

The reason no one accepts your proof is that it's obviously in error. You are trying to gaslight people into believing no one accepts your proof because they're ignorant and you're so much smarter and well-read than they. Every single fringe claimant tries to come up with alternate reasons why his arguments fail -- the audience doesn't understand, the audience is biased, etc. This is no different. You've been shown at length what's wrong with your proof, and they are basic errors in reasoning. Your primary rejoinder is, "No, you're just ignorant." See how hollow that rings?

 

[Buddha]

-The universe started when god committed suicide. It's not its creation but its cadaver.

-The universe was born when good and evil dissociated.

There are lots of mythologies that can be used to satisfy the "logical necessity" of a crappy explanation in your style.

You cherry-picked your three options and failed to made a valid argument of them. And that basically summarizes all your work in this thread so far, once one gets rid of all the self-referential and off-topical padding you pumped in.

You have a morbid imagination that has nothing to do with science. Define what God's suicide means for starters.

 

[halleyscomet]

Wow! Can't you see that there are several independent proofs of God's existence?

Such as?

If you have access to any, you haven't posted them yet.

It looks to me that you don't know what the word "postulate" means. Postulates are used in natural sciences, not in logical systems. The word "postulate" is an equivalent of the phrase "Law of nature"

I think "pustule" is a better term to describe the ignorant tripe you've posted so far. I've quite literally seen better arguments for the existence of God from stoned pre-seminary students on a bender.

No, that is not an exaggeration or hyperbole. I went to a religious university with an excellent pre-seminary curriculum. The religion classes that were part of the required gen-ed curriculum were also part of the pre-seminary curriculum.

Well, you do not have to require presence of an observer if you are a follower of scientific realism. Everything depends on person's philosophical views.

Well, at least you admit your mangled embarrassment only works within your franken-philosophy that nobody else on the planet uses.

 

[Dave Rogers]

An example of unverifiable claims is the one put forward by some superstring theorists who suggested that when our universe was produced, an infinite number of other, unreachable universes, were also produced.

Another is the one put forward by Christianity that a God exists who is omnipotent and chooses not to provide evidence of his existence.

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

Wow! Can't you see that there are several independent proofs of God's existence?

Irrelevant. This thread is about your proof for the existence of God. You've provided no proofs of that. You've posted only an obviously circular exercise where you deduce the proposition that the universe was created. That doesn't fit the bill for the reasons already given at length.

 

[I Am The Scum]

It appears you don't know the difference between a noun and a verb.

He can't even nitpick correctly.

 

[JayUtah]

It depends on the nature of a claim.

No, it doesn't. He's not talking about the mechanics and calculus of empiricism. He's talking about the very basic error you keep repeating: unfalsifiable does not mean false. This is fundamental.

 

[Buddha]

No, it is not surprising to anyone that you know nothing of sciency stuff like palaeontology. (Although, you know, you could at least google it).

Unlike your failed "proof" of god(s) we actually have proof that you know nothing of (among other things) palaeontology, since you have your 'Theory of Anti-evolution' book for everyone to laugh about see.

If you know palaeontology as you claim, you should know that initially the scientists thought that the dinosaurs were grey, but now they think that these animals come in bright colors.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I expected your response, so I am going to quote Popper' book , The Logic of Scientific Discovery (I call it LSD)

"But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is available of being tasted by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the testability but the falsifiability of a system is to taken as a condition of demarcation"
Popper, LSD pg 40

"The theory of natural science , and especially what we call natural laws, have the form of strictly universal statements, thus they can be expressed of negations of strictly existential statements '''
For example, the laws of conservation of energy can be expressed in the form: 'There is no perpetual motion machines' or the hypothesis of the elementary charge in the form: 'There is no electrical charge other than multiple of the electrical elementary charge"
Popper, LSD pg 68-69

As I wrote before, the Popper doctrine fails when it is applied to the control systems that my colleagues and I have developed. This is why:

1. Popper would not accept them as true because they are based on an inductive method of taking few measurements and building more or less complete model of a technological process.

2. Popper demands that all scientific theories should be based on strictly universal statements while almost all control systems theories are based on strictly existential statements.

I am sure that you haven't read Popper's book, which is a sign of ignorance on your part.

Look buddy, this piece of gaslighting barely refers to what JayUtah was saying.

You even changed Popper words to fit your whims

"But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is availablecapable of being tastedtested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the testability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a conditioncriterion of demarcation"

Your are simply trying to cheat your way here. I wonder if you even understand what "demarcation" means in this context. Popper wrote himself the English version of his book, so don't try to blame it on the translator.

Should we continue to dig in your trash?

English is not your first language, isn't it? At first I thought you were Jamaican or something like that, because of the way you said some things.