Proof of God

D'rok the Lacone said:
No. I meant equivocate:
Defn: To use equivocal language intentionally.

Equivocal:
Defn: Allowing the possibility of several different meanings, as a word or phrase, esp. with intent to deceive or misguide; susceptible of double interpretation; deliberately ambiguous

Here's the wikipedia defn of equivocation:
Equivocation is the misleading use of a word with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).


He's not exactly equating proof with evidence. He admits the difference, he just insists on picking the context that suits him.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see what you're saying, I was just thrown because equivocate is intransitive, so you can't really use it as you did.

ETA: Sorry, I'm not really a member of the grammar police, but as it stood, I didn't understand what you were saying, and just wanted to clarify. "Equate" worked both logically and grammatically.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Ok, I see what you're saying, I was just thrown because equivocate is intransitive, so you can't really use it as you did.

ETA: Sorry, I'm not really a member of the grammar police, but as it stood, I didn't understand what you were saying, and just wanted to clarify. "Equate" worked both logically and grammatically.
Click to expand...

I probably am guilty of some faulty "verbification".;) I should have said Dustin is guilty of equivocation and then explained why.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
1. I compiled that argument so obviously I know the notation.
Click to expand...


I doubt very much that you know the notation, but doubt even more if you understand the ideas behind the notation.

For a start, explain what is meant by 'consequence' and 'derivability' in the context of formal logic?

Why is the difference between these concepts important?

How do 'consequence' and 'derivability' relate to Godel's proof of the completeness of the first-order predicate calculus?

How do 'consequence' and 'derivability' relate to Godel's proof of the incompleteness of the second-order predicate calculus?

What do 'soundness' and 'completeness' mean in the context of formal logic and what do they have to do with the previous two questions?
 
Last edited:
Put the Ontological Arguments in a pan and they all cook down to
God exists by definition; therefore God exists.
There is a great knight jump on the board to get from an abstract concept to an empirical reality. The platonic worldview accommodated such pieces making such moves, as the world of intellectual concepts was the Reality.
That worldview has disintegrated. That underpinning is gone. Instead our intellectual culture now seeks empirical evidence for assertions about reality.
To us going from a abstract concept to an empirical assertion is, as AndyAndy put it, "tosh." Proof is for Mathematics. And though the structures of math often find great relevance to the natural. empirical world, they don't always, and they don't simply.

For the Ontological Argument to be as robust as it would like, we must first provide an underpinning or structure that connects concepts and perception in such a way what we can imagine has a say in what can and does exist.
That's why Theists often find the Idealist Worldview more user-friendly.
But worldviews aren’t based on proofs. They boil down to have cultures and individual persons relate to their environment. It’s all very messy, and people inevitably disagree.

Bottom-line, there's a lot of unseen premise going on in the Ontological "proofs." Because of that, you can't do Theology by Mathematics.
And if you are an Evangelical, it's not at base about intellectual argument. That's fine for persuasion, but in the end it's about the Divine Encounter. And if all you depend upon are just some "proofs," you are "most miserable."
 
Since we are picking apart Dustin's pathetic OP I'll add another fallacy he used.

Dustin Kesselberg said:
As I present my proofs with as much brevity as I possibly can and I want you to remember that these arguments have been invented by men much more intelligent than yourselves and denying them on a whim without proper investigation would not only be ignorant and impractical but also potentially dangerous due to their prodigious implications.
Click to expand...

Dustin is appealing to authority to prove his point, an obvious logical fallacy. I wonder how many fallacies there are in Dustin's OP?
 
Last edited:
Dustin Kesselberg said:
Logically whatever has the property N, exists. That is to say, whatever has any property by definition must exist or it couldn‘t have a property. This means that if anything has anything then that thing must exist.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the logical proof that fairies, unicorns, vampires and gargoyles, Zeus, Neptune, the square root of -1 and the FSM all exist along with your god. They all have properties.
 
Bob Klase said:
Thank you for the logical proof that fairies, unicorns, vampires and gargoyles, Zeus, Neptune, the square root of -1 and the FSM all exist along with your god. They all have properties.
Click to expand...

hey! You leave imaginary numbers out of this....

[latex]$\sqrt{-1}= i $[/latex] is very happy existing thank you :)
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
For instance, a religious belief that "works" would, to me, mean that prayers come true. As I am not currently dating Natalie Portman, we know for a fact that prayers do not come true.
Click to expand...
It could also mean Gael García Bernal has been praying a lot harder than you or me.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Do you mean that you are constructing a framework to "relieve without curing" or, more likely, "To cloak or conceal"?
Click to expand...
I suspect he meant neither.

Dustin Obfuscatersberg said:
I am writing up this short post concerning theism though not necessarily Christianity itself and the credence in theism and or deism in order to provide an efficacious and determinative composition concerning the beliefs thereof and the extenuation or apologia in a palliative framework based upon dialectic syllogistics in coherence which will in my assessment be unambiguously irrefrangible. I want to stress that the following post was condensed into a breviloquent and concise framework who’s aim is sheer simplicity and practicality. Furthermore much of what I wrote in this post was removed due to conservation of space.
Click to expand...
I think he was pulling everyone's chain by throwing every $64 word he could into one run on sentence, and two OK sentences, in order to craft a single, self-contradictory paragraph, and then see who bit. :p

Prolix and ponderous, thy name is Dustin. :p

On the other hand, it might just be a bad case of Sesquipedalian Chimerical Juju. :cool: )


DR
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom