Proof of God

[Mid]

I was going to post a comment comparing the op to something that Sir Humphrey Appleby would come out with, but then I realised I was probably being unfair (and probably obscure to non UK people)

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Now that I am done reading the thread, I will read the OP.

Will be back in three hours or so .

 

[CapelDodger]

I was going to post a comment comparing the op to something that Sir Humphrey Appleby would come out with, but then I realised I was probably being unfair (and probably obscure to non UK people)

Unfair to Sir Humphrey, you mean? An Oxford man would eschew such prolixity.

 

[CapelDodger]

Double post.

 

[Loss Leader]

no it's not!

How do you know in my reality it isn't? Perhaps sufficiently advanced aliens have hidden my first post from you or you are in a coma dreaming this conversation and it never really happened?

 

[CapelDodger]

For all the lurkers, I'd just like to point out Dustin's fundamental assumption which is also his fundamental error.

Dustin must (and does) equivocate proof with evidence. If he does not, then even if he is successful in constructing a deductively valid proof of god, it has no bearing on the reality of god. But if a logical proof is the same thing as observational evidence, then he succeeds.

This is why he will consistently and fervently maintain that he can interchange the two terms at will, and he will use the prosaic dictionary definition to back this up.

His entire house of cards is constructed on this single assumption.

I'm OK with that, reading "equivocate" as "confuse".

The fundie error that he makes is to think that he should even be trying to prove his belief. Sartre brought up the "god-shaped hole" in modern Western society, which fundies attempt to fill by the very methods that created the hole in the first place. Missing the point of religion entirely.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Per the blind man talk. What's your point? Would it be proper for the blind man to accept whatever you tell him is there? What if you told the blind man that there is a purple pikachu? Should he believe in its exustence.

As for "it works." What do you mean by "it works?" What if a atheistic view "works" for me in my life? I can still function perfectly well, no matter which view I take. I even save time and money being an atheist.

As for your antenna-mind argument, it doesn't work. Sure, messing with the antenna would disrupt what we see on the television, but it would not disrupt the signal itself.

 

[D'rok]

How do you know in my reality it isn't? Perhaps sufficiently advanced aliens have hidden my first post from you or you are in a coma dreaming this conversation and it never really happened?

Premise 1-If we see transitional posts showing a gradual phylogeny in the thread record from earlier posts to later posts then Loss Leader double posted.

Premise 2-We see Premise 1 as being true.

Conclusion- Loss Leader double posted.

Dusti-llogism in action.

 

[The Atheist]

Hey, Dustin.

Just to save everyone's time and sanity, I suggest the following plan:

You have just proved god.

Piggy and EGarrett have just disproved god here.

Why don't you three all trot off for a week's camping and sort it out.

Cheers.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Hello All,

Well, I take a weekend off and Dustin posts his Proof! Teach me to relax, won't it.

I've read through the OP, and the thread. And I have to say that I am disappointed. I've been an "arguing atheist" for almost 20 years (I started posting on alt.atheism in 1989), and Dustin's argument is not new. It's far from new. It's about as old as religion itself.

Basically, it can be boiled down to "god exists because I think god exists". The rest is just semantics and fancy talk. The philosophical equivalent of the ball & three cups trick. There is no proof, and certainly no evidence, present in the OP.

Sorry, Dustin, but you'll have to do better than that mate.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[D'rok]

I'm OK with that, reading "equivocate" as "confuse".

The fundie error that he makes is to think that he should even be trying to prove his belief. Sartre brought up the "god-shaped hole" in modern Western society, which fundies attempt to fill by the very methods that created the hole in the first place. Missing the point of religion entirely.

Good point. I can actually respect someone who fills their god-shaped hole using faith as long as they are intellectually honest about it. I get the sense that Azure is one of those people, although who knows....on teh Internetz you can be whoever you want to be.

 

[Kariboo]

Ah, the thesaurus tactic, unfortunately already disclosed in a Friends episode in 2003. Late and unoriginal

Joey: (using a laptop) Oh, Monica and Chandler's recommendation. I want it to sound smart but.. I don't know any big words or anything, so...

Ross: Why don't you use your Thesaurus?

Joey: What did I just say?

Ross: Watch. (he takes the laptop) Here, you ehm... You highlight the word you want to change.Go under Tools and the Thesaurus generates... 'gives'... 'gives' a whole list of choices. You can pick the word that sounds smartest.

Joey: Oh my God, that's great! I'm smart!! No, no, I'm... "brainy, bright, clever", I love this thing! Look out ladies, Joey Tribbiani's got the whole package!!

Joey: Hey, finished my recommendation. And I think you’ll be very, very happy. It’s the longest I ever spent on a computer without looking at porn.

Chandler: I don’t... uh... understand.

Joey: Some of the words are a little too sophisticated for ya?

Monica: It doesn’t make any sense.

Joey: Of course it does! It’s smart! I used the the-saurus!

Chandler: On every word?

Joey: Yep!

Monica: Alright, what was this sentence originally?

Joey: Oh, ‘They are warm, nice, people with big hearts’.

Chandler: And that became ‘they are humid prepossessing Homo Sapiens with full sized aortic pumps...?

Joey: Yeah, yeah and hey, I really mean it, dude.
http://livesinabox.com/friends/1005.shtml

Now excuse me while I go shower, a the-saurus just threw up on me

 

[Azure]

"Affairs of state must take precedence over ... afairs of state."

Lmao...I just saw that movie today.

 

[Azure]

Good point. I can actually respect someone who fills their god-shaped hole using faith as long as they are intellectually honest about it. I get the sense that Azure is one of those people, although who knows....on teh Internetz you can be whoever you want to be.

I think you have sensed right.

If Dustin can 'prove' that God exists....whatever God that may be....there is no more room for faith.

I think a lot of theists will agree with me.

 

[blobru]

o the modality!

I liked the modal part of Dustin's blockbuster proof to end all proofs (coming soon to a theatre near you).
And if you strip if of its jargon, I think the OP (Merv) of the thread ("I think I've heard evert theistic argument...") that started this thread might not have heard it before.
IMO <big gulp>:

Godel's modal proof really claims God is provable (Godel's life work, distinguishing between provable and unprovable statements) without providing the proof directly.
The modal proof of God is not saying
This is a proof that God exists (not directly, anyway), but rather
There is a proof that God exists, and
This is a proof that there is a proof that God exists, because
God is "proof" (the laws of logic, like Spinoza identified God with the laws of nature), so
The concept of "God" is a kind of proof (even if only God understands it), thus
"God" is the proof that there is a proof that God exists.

Pretty ingenious, and a little bit batty maybe, "proving" the proof exists without showing it to us; in short: "God" is proof is "proof" of God.
Most logicians seem to agree that like the ontological argument it relies on circular reaoning, here with an appeal to transcendental logic.

I share the opinion of posters like Azure who say God can't be proven or disproven; but it's darn tempting, even fun, to try!
Kudos to Dustin for introducing the modal proof in his essay on God. As god-proofs go, it certainly is... ummm... different (kinda cool too).

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

to recap - your proof through ontological argument...

"positive property" is necessary and sufficient for "God"
We assume God is positive, therefore God has positive property
We assume God is omnipresent therefore God exists.

Therefore God does exist and must exist.


It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. No, wait, it still is pretty funny

Is that how you interpreted my post? I think you need to re-read it, this time with your monitor turned on...

So, what do you mean by 'Theistic God'? That's surely just tautological, since 'theism' is just belief in god or gods?

Anyway, is a deistic god necessarily omnipresent?

Deistic Gods aren't necessarily omnipresent though I defined mine as being so.

Yes, I know you have no evidence of the assertion that my world view is based upon nothing, since I've never described to you either my worldview nor its basis. I also never explained what I have faith in, nor what reason I give to accept faith (belief without proof), nor on what subjects.

You said you believed in God. That's enough.

Do you accept that your senses are telling you the truth? That's faith.

You must have missed my whole OP...

Do you believe that you exist (as opposed to being only a small portion of a larger thinking being)? That's faith.

This question makes no sense. If I'm only a "thinking being" then I as a whole am that being not a portion of it.

And you've already admitted (elsewhere) to being an Evangelical Christian, who believes in the Bible and God (as Trinity) - none of which with any evidence to back it up. So you, too, are a man of faith.

None of which has evidence to back up? Try again?

And 'proofs' do not constitute evidence, nor proof in the common-usage sense.

The dictionary disagrees.

It's time for you to define what we are then. As near as I can tell, we consist of both conscious and unconscious components, all internal to us.

If you're limitiing us to only 'conscious beings', then you're reducing what we are to one small section of the brain - and not even the most important part, either. And by this, then memory, most thoughts, decision, senses, beliefs, hopes, fears, etc. are ALL external to us. NOTHING AT ALL is internal, except the processing of awareness itself, and even that is partially external to us!

Your definition - if it is 'a conscious being' - is useless in any practical sense.

When I say "Conscious being" I mean our consciousness is all we're aware of. The Cartesian self. Anything other than that either exists outside of ourselves or inside. I've shown how if we're only "thinking beings" then it can't exist inside therefore our perceptions are coming from outside of ourselves.

Then you have a poor sense of abstraction and imagination.

Example?

I disagree, though I think their thoughts would be entirely alien to us. But in a meaningful sense, I would tenetively agree.

Huh?

However, that's following the causal chain past the necessities of reason in order to stretch a point beyond credulity. You're saying that the causes of thoughts have to be external to us - sure, ultimately, all causation could be traced back to the Big Bang, at least, so every thought, imagining, etc. can be said to have its cause (ultimately) being external to us. EVERYTHING including us had its cause external to us, regardless of what you believe (solipsists and acosmists notwithstanding).

However, your argument is resting on the idea that experiences - all experiences - begin outside of us. What I'm challenging is mainly your definition of what 'we' are. If we are our physical selves, including the flesh and bone and blood and brain, then many experiences are initiated within ourselves, rather than without. However, you seem to be using an extremely limited version of what 'we' are.

This demonstrates the absolute importance of pre-defining your terms.

Maybe we can move past this paragraph if you re-write it with properly defined terms?

If we're our physical selves then any experiences we have come(or are based on) from the outside world through our senses. You've yet to give an example otherwise.

Why? Explain.

Because our unconsciousness controlling our consciousness would mix together resulting in a non-thinking thing.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

OK

What's this? What's that first thing? What's that last thing? Are they changing? Why are they changing? How long did it take to change? Will they keep changing?

Since we are picking apart Dustin's pathetic OP I'll add another fallacy he used.



Dustin is appealing to authority to prove his point, an obvious logical fallacy. I wonder how many fallacies there are in Dustin's OP?

Nonsense, I'm saying they should not be dismissed on a whim due to that, not that they should be accepted due to that.

Hey, Dustin.

Just to save everyone's time and sanity, I suggest the following plan:

You have just proved god.

Piggy and EGarrett have just disproved god here.

Why don't you three all trot off for a week's camping and sort it out.

Cheers.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2678154&postcount=474

Hello All,

Well, I take a weekend off and Dustin posts his Proof! Teach me to relax, won't it.

I've read through the OP, and the thread. And I have to say that I am disappointed. I've been an "arguing atheist" for almost 20 years (I started posting on alt.atheism in 1989), and Dustin's argument is not new. It's far from new. It's about as old as religion itself.

Basically, it can be boiled down to "god exists because I think god exists". The rest is just semantics and fancy talk. The philosophical equivalent of the ball & three cups trick. There is no proof, and certainly no evidence, present in the OP.

Sorry, Dustin, but you'll have to do better than that mate.

Cheers,
TGHO

You didn't read the OP, If you did you wouldn't claim it was an argument opposed to multiple arguments, nor would you have claimed my argument boils down to "god exists because I think god exists".

I think you have sensed right.

If Dustin can 'prove' that God exists....whatever God that may be....there is no more room for faith.

I think a lot of theists will agree with me.

Depends on how one defines "faith". If faith is defined as belief without evidence, who would want that?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So, right there Dustin "proves" the existence of God by assuming the existence of God. Oh, he dressed it up all fancy-like but acalling something a Chilean sea bass doesn't change the fact that it's still just a Patagonian toothfish.

There's nothing wrong with that. I assumed God existed to see if his non-existence was more or less consistent. Then I showed that he couldn't possibly not exist therefore he must exist.

This is an argument from ... guessing. It's just guessing. There is no reason why a biological disposition towards religion necessarily indicates that religion is correct. Any claim that it does is just an argument from ignorance or incredulity.

There would be no reason for the deaf, blind man to assume that he was without obvious perception either.

A particularly disgusting little logical trick, Dustin has in this sentence shifted the burden of proof from the proponent ("there IS a fire truck") to the opponent ("there is not"). That's not the way things work. If he wants to prove the existence of God, he has the burden of proof. The blind man is perfectly justified in stating, "I will not believe in fire trucks until you show me evidence of them."

I've already proven it. However in the fire truck example, The blind man isn't justified in denying the fire trucks existence due to his biological impairment anymore than the nonbeliever is justified in denying the creator.

Assuming that all of Dustin's facts are right, his logical error here is a non-sequitor. This is his argument:

1. Belief in God makes people happy.
2. Being happy "works".
3. Thus, God exists.

But 1 and 2 don't necessarily lead to 3. If they are both true, 1 and 2 lead to the conclusion: "People should believe in God." There's just no reason why believing in God necessarily equals the existence of God.

I never said it did.

And, in fact, we can take issue with whether being happy is a good thing, whether "happiness" equates with a religion "working" and all sorts of other problems with the truthfulness of these things. 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.

"Working" and "Being happy" aren't synonymous. Belief in God "works" in the lives of billions and that doesn't always equate to making them 'happy' simply allowing them to live.

A non-sequitor. He has perhaps shown that "religion" fits into our worldview, not "God."

To billions it's "God", thus God fits into their world views.

I am skeptical that Dustin hoped this would be simple and clear. He has hidden his logical errors in a wall of meaningless text and I, at least, believe he has done so on purpose.

Nonsense. I simply use words that convey the most meaning. My OP was as short as I could possibly make it and I had to use specific words opposed to full sentences that would convey the same meaning. My post would have been 20 times longer had I not condensed long sentences into single words to save space.

 

[PixyMisa]

There's nothing wrong with that. I assumed God existed to see if his non-existence was more or less consistent. Then I showed that he couldn't possibly not exist therefore he must exist.

Where was this, Dustin? Everyone who has read your post somehow missed it.

"Working" and "Being happy" aren't synonymous. Belief in God "works" in the lives of billions and that doesn't always equate to making them 'happy' simply allowing them to live.

In what way does it work, such that it can be distinguished from not working?

Nonsense. I simply use words that convey the most meaning. My OP was as short as I could possibly make it and I had to use specific words opposed to full sentences that would convey the same meaning. My post would have been 20 times longer had I not condensed long sentences into single words to save space.

Yet somehow your post is strewn liberally with logical fallacies. How did that happen?

 

[The Great Hairy One]

You didn't read the OP, If you did you wouldn't claim it was an argument opposed to multiple arguments, nor would you have claimed my argument boils down to "god exists because I think god exists".

I did read it, Dustin, and that's exactly what you are saying.

Cheers,
TGHO