Proof of God

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What peer-reviewed scientific journal did you get your OP published in Dustin? Please share that with us....

The fact that it's not published in a scientific journal makes it invalid?

 

[Mashuna]

Absolutely. If you read the OP, the entire OP then you will agree.

Since N=God therefore the property of being God is essentially positive and is thus necessarily positive because as previously explained it’s negation would logically be negative. By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’

So how does this avoid Kant's refutation of the argument from ontology, where he criticises Anselm for misstating existence as a property?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So how does this avoid Kant's refutation of the argument from ontology, where he criticises Anselm for misstating existance as a property?

I never asserted existence is a property.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

No. I base my beliefs on established facts and evidence. See my OP. I've shown that God exists.

I have to remind you of my post from a previous thread:

Unless you provide a time stamped photograph or video to coincide with your post, you did no such thing.

Dustin, unless you provide actual evidence, you've proved exactly nothing.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Mashuna]

I never asserted existence is a property.

In the quote I posted from your OP you defined the property of being God as essentially positive, and defined essentially existing as being positive. Is this not just redefining words to get around explicitly listing existence as a property?

 

[D'rok]

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."

 

[Kahalachan]

OK after reading all of the first post, it's not proof of god. It's a justification for a belief in god.

I don't know why people think they can intellectually prove god. You can't because it lies beyond our scope of understanding. It can't be proven or disproven.

It seems to cheapen faith to try and prove it anyways. Proof and faith are antonymns of each other.

If god is proven then what good is faith?

If faith is a virtue why waste time with proof?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

In the quote I posted from your OP you defined the property of being God as essentially positive, and defined essentially existing as being positive. Is this not just redefining words to get around explicitly listing existence as a property?

Nope.

OK after reading all of the first post, it's not proof of god. It's a justification for a belief in god.

I don't know why people think they can intellectually prove god. You can't because it lies beyond our scope of understanding. It can't be proven or disproven.

It seems to cheapen faith to try and prove it anyways. Proof and faith are antonymns of each other.

If god is proven then what good is faith?

If faith is a virtue why waste time with proof?

What part of my altered Gödel argument isn't a proof?

 

[PixyMisa]

Present the statements one at a time. You'll soon find out.

 

[Mashuna]

Nope.

Thanks for your thorough answer. Allow me to rephrase my question.

In the quote I posted from your OP you defined the property of being God as essentially positive, and defined essentially existing as being positive. This is redefining words to get around explicitly listing existence as a property. Hence your argument fails.

 

[Kahalachan]

"Perhaps religious people have a specific ability to sense the creator the way people with working eyes and ears have a specific ability to sense the fire truck"

This is conjecture and not proof. It's justification for a belief.

Let's take Dr. Persinger's experiment with stimulating the "god experience" in the brain. Atheists can argue that god is merely a delusion or feeling the brain generates and there is no god. Theists can argue god imbued us with an antennae. Are either of these proven? I don't see how either side can prove their case.

With the blind man example who can't see the red fire truck. They can't see red but they could understand it in terms of wavelength. Science has empowered the blind to "see" red in a different way. Just as I can't see infra-red or ultra-violet but I am capable of understanding it and knowing it exists.

But this is because wavelength is measurable. There is someway to quantify this objectively.

God is taken purely on faith. There's ways to justify this faith with arguments. But these arguments alone don't prove god.

I still wonder why the same people who say faith is a good thing, will do the opposite and try to offer up proof?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Thanks for your thorough answer. Allow me to rephrase my question.

In the quote I posted from your OP you defined the property of being God as essentially positive, and defined essentially existing as being positive. This is redefining words to get around explicitly listing existence as a property. Hence your argument fails.

All we have to work with is language. If I'm not listing 'existence' as a property then I'm not listing existence as a property.

"Perhaps religious people have a specific ability to sense the creator the way people with working eyes and ears have a specific ability to sense the fire truck"

This is conjecture and not proof. It's justification for a belief.

This isn't my my altered Gödel argument.

Let's take Dr. Persinger's experiment with stimulating the "god experience" in the brain. Atheists can argue that god is merely a delusion or feeling the brain generates and there is no god. Theists can argue god imbued us with an antennae. Are either of these proven? I don't see how either side can prove their case.

With the blind man example who can't see the red fire truck. They can't see red but they could understand it in terms of wavelength. Science has empowered the blind to "see" red in a different way. Just as I can't see infra-red or ultra-violet but I am capable of understanding it and knowing it exists.

Not unless you know it's there. If it's too far away to touch or feel, you can't see or hear it, you have no way of knowing it even exists. Moreover, Understanding the wavelength of the color read doesn't compare to understanding what it looks like.

But this is because wavelength is measurable. There is someway to quantify this objectively.

God is taken purely on faith. There's ways to justify this faith with arguments. But these arguments alone don't prove god.

I still wonder why the same people who say faith is a good thing, will do the opposite and try to offer up proof?

I don't believe faith is a good thing is it's defined as belief without evidence. I hold no beliefs without evidence.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The fact that it's not published in a scientific journal makes it invalid?

The fact that it's invalid guarantees that it will never be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The fact that it's invalid guarantees that it will never be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

So everything published in a peer-reviewed journal is automatically valid?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't believe faith is a good thing is it's defined as belief without evidence. I hold no beliefs without evidence.

Well, except for the belief that your god exists. You have FAILED to show any valid, credible or scientific evidence that your god exists. I have to wonder, Dustin, why did you lie about being agnostic/atheist on this board? Was it your goal to use guerrilla tactics to try and trick people into believing that your god exists? Why do you use metaphysical, philosophical garbage arguments to try and trick people into believing your god exists? Why haven't you submitted your "proof" that your god exists to any mathematical or scientific journals yet?

 

[thaiboxerken]

So everything published in a peer-reviewed journal is automatically valid?

No, I just stated a fact that your particular "proof" will never be published in a peer-reviewed journal because it is invalid.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Well, except for the belief that your god exists. You have FAILED to show any valid, credible or scientific evidence that your god exists.

Tell me how the OP is wrong. Quote each argument I make and explain how it's wrong in detail.

I have to wonder, Dustin, why did you lie about being agnostic/atheist on this board?

I used to be an Atheist.

Was it your goal to use guerrilla tactics to try and trick people into believing that your god exists?

How would that work?

Why do you use metaphysical, philosophical garbage arguments to try and trick people into believing your god exists?

You've yet to show how any of my arguments are "garbage". I'm not trying to trick anyone. I'm trying to reveal to them the truth.

Why haven't you submitted your "proof" that your god exists to any mathematical or scientific journals yet?

I didn't compose my arguments to be used for any journals, I wrote them up for this forum. My arguments are metaphysical and philosophical religious arguments, at most they could go into some philosophy journal but it's too much trouble introducing them to such a thing.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, I just stated a fact that your particular "proof" will never be published in a peer-reviewed journal because it is invalid.

How do you figure? Scientific journals, peer reviewed reputable scientific journals often have numerous studies that are totally invalid. Why would one not be published if it's invalid when multitudes of others are published and are invalid?

 

[PixyMisa]

Tell me how the OP is wrong. Quote each argument I make and explain how it's wrong in detail.

All of it is wrong, Dustin. Rather, you pick one statement that you stand by, and let us concentrate on that. Then, when we have finished with that, one way or another, we can move on to the next.

You've yet to show how any of my arguments are "garbage". I'm not trying to trick anyone. I'm trying to reveal to them the truth.

Clearly your current methods are failing, then. Time for a fresh approach.

 

[Mashuna]

All we have to work with is language. If I'm not listing 'existence' as a property then I'm not listing existence as a property.

Except that you are, in your OP,

’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context.

Here, you define the essential properties of God as being positive.

By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’.

Here you define existing as being positive.

So by your definition of positive, you have claimed existing as being an essential property of God.