Proof of God

[Dustin Kesselberg]

As I thought, you don't have an f'ing clue.

Dustin doesn't understand anything about the statements of formal logic that he so blythely throws around. Typical fundy xian apologist.

Learn to spell 'premisses', you fundy troll.

'extrapability'?

How don't I know what I'm saying? I explained clearly and answered your questions. You don't understand my answers and now you're getting overtly aggressive as you always do when you're cornered.

BTW, "Extrapability" is the ability to extrapolate.

 

[zooterkin]

I'm not referring to you but to others in this thread. Especially "ThaiBoxerken"

So, does that mean you're not accusing me of throwing insults either?

So you admit it's an "opinion"? As in unsupported by any evidence?

It's my suspicion from the various threads I've read that you've posted in that you are not entirely open about your motives for posting, and there's something about the wording that you tend to use that gives me the impression that you are advancing positions that you don't believe in in order to get a reaction. I fully admit this is all subjective, but from other posts I've seen, I'm not the only one to hold this opinion.

Thanks for the earlier reply stating that you were positing an omnipresent deistic god (which I would have thought was an odd combination to choose. There is no need for a deistic god to be omnipresent, and your 'proof' appears to depend on the god being omnipresent). You didn't answer the question as to what you meant by a 'Theistic God'.

How about you tell us exactly what it was that converted you in the last week? Was it the process of writing out the proof? Did someone else convince you? Did you have a Damascene experience? Did some final piece of logic just click into place? I find it odd that you are not apparently eager to share the experience here, since it must be such a life-changing experience for you.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's pretty funny stuff. So Dustin, how does this "evidence" which cannot be touched, seen, or measured in any meaningful way differ from "no evidence"??

Let's assume a scenario.

Premise1-All A's are N's.

Premise2-Here is an A.

Conclusion-Here is an N.


I've proven that there is an 'N' in this scenario. No material evidence needed.

It's dumb to believe the only proof or evidence must be empirical or material.

Seems to me that you are the one with "biased devotion" here Dustin. So, can you explain for us how "evidence" for your god differs from, say. evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

"Flying Spaghetti Monster". He flies? He's made of Spaghetti? I'm assuming. How do you know he flies and is made of spaghetti? I can prove my God given his specific attributes. Can you prove yours given his different attributes?

 

[rikzilla]

Proof is often defined as the amount of evidence needed to convince. Which of course varies. Prove that dragons and fairies exist.

Convince who? Just because you believe in something does not make it so Dustin. You cannot change reality by believing real hard. Just because there somewhere exists a fool who believes the earth is flat does not mean the earth has been proved to be flat. Crazy, deluded, or just plain dumb people only prove that there are crazy, deluded, and dumb people.



-z

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So, does that mean you're not accusing me of throwing insults either?

Well you did call me a "Troll" that one time...

It's my suspicion from the various threads I've read that you've posted in that you are not entirely open about your motives for posting, and there's something about the wording that you tend to use that gives me the impression that you are advancing positions that you don't believe in in order to get a reaction. I fully admit this is all subjective, but from other posts I've seen, I'm not the only one to hold this opinion.

Yes. That's nonsense. People on this forum tend to use underhanded tactics to get a point across. If they can't address something outright and clearly then they evade it and make baseless insinuations about the poster of the post in an attempt to discredit him or her since they can't attack their arguments. Take a look at what "Z" just did. You shouldn't go down that road.

Thanks for the earlier reply stating that you were positing an omnipresent deistic god (which I would have thought was an odd combination to choose. There is no need for a deistic god to be omnipresent, and your 'proof' appears to depend on the god being omnipresent). You didn't answer the question as to what you meant by a 'Theistic God'.

My proof doesn't rely on God being omnipresent. Exclude his omnipresence and the proof is still valid.

By "Theistic" I mean pays attention to life and actively makes changes to the universe in a way to alter it.

How about you tell us exactly what it was that converted you in the last week? Was it the process of writing out the proof? Did someone else convince you? Did you have a Damascene experience? Did some final piece of logic just click into place? I find it odd that you are not apparently eager to share the experience here, since it must be such a life-changing experience for you.

I was hiking outdoors when it happened a few days ago. All of a sudden the horizon became bright and I felt an extreme sense of well being and comfort, that changed to understanding of the entire universe as a whole. All of a sudden I understood how wrong I had previously been. I feel to my knees and suddenly everything clicked. It was like suddenly walking out of the fog and seeing the clear landscape in it's pristine beauty and a breath of fresh air suddenly entering my lungs that have long been deprived of oxygen and I knew that Jesus existed. All of the reasoning behind it came to me suddenly and I stopped being an Atheist and converted to Christianity.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Convince who? Just because you believe in something does not make it so Dustin. You cannot change reality by believing real hard. Just because there somewhere exists a fool who believes the earth is flat does not mean the earth has been proved to be flat. Crazy, deluded, or just plain dumb people only prove that there are crazy, deluded, and dumb people.



-z

I'm just saying that's how "evidence" is defined. Proof sufficient enough to convince.

 

[andyandy]

People on this forum tend to use underhanded tactics to get a point across. If they can't address something outright and clearly then they evade it and make baseless insinuations about the poster of the post in an attempt to discredit him or her since they can't attack their arguments. .

Dustin gets sanctimonous....

Take a look at what "Z" just did. You shouldn't go down that road

next sentence

 

[rikzilla]

Let's assume a scenario.

Premise1-All A's are N's.

Premise2-Here is an A.

Conclusion-Here is an N.


I've proven that there is an 'N' in this scenario. No material evidence needed.

That's not a proof Dustin, it's NONSENSE. You make no sense because you cannot seem to tell the difference between sense and nonsense. Your "proof" is nonsense, your "evidence" is similarly nonsense.

It's dumb to believe the only proof or evidence must be empirical or material.

It's simply deluded to believe otherwise.

"Flying Spaghetti Monster". He flies? He's made of Spaghetti? I'm assuming. How do you know he flies and is made of spaghetti?

Well I have seen much non-empirical evidence for the FSM, since this "evidence" (which BTW cannot be seen, felt, or tested in any meaningful way) has convinced me of the FSM's reality it is now a proof.

I can prove my God given his specific attributes. Can you prove yours given his different attributes?

Just as easily as you can...care to try?

-z

 

[rikzilla]

I'm just saying that's how "evidence" is defined. Proof sufficient enough to convince.

Okay then, I'm convinced the FSM can fly...there's your proof.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Hey, this is fun! Dustin, you are going to burn in hell man! I can even prove it! See, Usama Bin Laden is a man of God, and he believes all "kufir" are going to hell. He is convinced by his knowledge of much non-empirical evidence...therefore this is proof that all kufir are going to hell.

Since you and I Dustin are kufir, I'll see you in hell.

It's true!

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Wow Dustin, you have single-handedly made 2 very useful english words disappear into meaninglessness!

• Proof
• Evidence

These words now mean nothing. Congratulations! I'm sure we are all better, more enlightened people now that those pesky terms are gone forever!

Dark Ages anyone??

-z

 

[PixyMisa]

You're confused yet again though. I said now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails 'B' necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'. Initial premise.

Dustin, Dustin my lad.

What is B?

It's never defined... And it's appears nowhere in the symbolic version of the quote proof unquote.

 

[D'rok]

I've provided evidence already. The fact that you can't touch or smell it doesn't negate the fact it's evidence none the less. Not all evidence is material or can be measured and weighed. It's very chauvinistic and narrow minded of you to believe so. Logically it's just as valid as 1+1=2.

Oops, you did it again.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2681222#post2681222

Prove red=blue using valid philosophical arguments.

P: This thread is amusing
Q: Red is blue

If P then Q
P
Therefore Q

Perfectly valid argument. Proof and evidence, in your world.


I think in Dustin we have a new subspecies of woo. Some conspiracy theorists are after "da twoof" and are thus "twoofers", but Dustin is a philosopher after "da pwoof". Ladies and gents, I give you Dustin Kesselberg, "Pwoofer"

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's not a proof Dustin, it's NONSENSE. You make no sense because you cannot seem to tell the difference between sense and nonsense. Your "proof" is nonsense, your "evidence" is similarly nonsense.

Just because you don't understand basic logical statements doesn't mean it's "nonsense". In that sentence I showed a sound logical proof.

It's simply deluded to believe otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Well I have seen much non-empirical evidence for the FSM, since this "evidence" (which BTW cannot be seen, felt, or tested in any meaningful way) has convinced me of the FSM's reality it is now a proof.

Show me the evidence.


Show me the evidence!

Just as easily as you can...care to try?

-z

I did in the OP.

Okay then, I'm convinced the FSM can fly...there's your proof.

-z

Explain how this is a proof. What form of logic are you using? Where's the premise?

Dustin, Dustin my lad.

What is B?

It's never defined... And it's appears nowhere in the symbolic version of the quote proof unquote.

I used it to to set the ground for my initial premise. It's just a variable.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

P: This thread is amusing
Q: Red is blue

If P then Q
P
Therefore Q

Perfectly valid argument. Proof and evidence, in your world.

Not a sound argument. Your begging the question. You assume the fact you're trying to prove in the first place.

 

[D'rok]

Just because you don't understand basic logical statements doesn't mean it's "nonsense". In that sentence I showed a sound logical proof.

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. In one sentence you scold for lack of understanding, and in the next you demonstrate your own. You should win some kind of award for unintentional irony.

You showed a valid logical proof. We can't even evaluate its soundness because you didn't define A or N.

You are still fundamentally confused about truth, validity, and soundness.


Oh...and arguments are still not evidence.

 

[Complexity]

How don't I know what I'm saying? I explained clearly and answered your questions. You don't understand my answers and now you're getting overtly aggressive as you always do when you're cornered.

BTW, "Extrapability" is the ability to extrapolate.

Dustin, you didn't answer any of my questions correctly or even close to half-right. You are ignorant of the concepts that I challenged you on.

'extrapability' wasn't in the dictionaries that I checked.

Are you going to spend the rest of your time on this board trying to convert us?

 

[D'rok]

Not a sound argument. Your begging the question. You assume the fact you're trying to prove in the first place.

Wrong yet again. You are so bad at this, I'm beginning to wonder if this is all an elaborate piece of performance art.

I assumed that this thread is amusing and concluded that red is blue. I did so validly given the form of the argument. The argument is unsound because its conclusion is false, not because of fallacious reasoning.

Here is begging the question:

P: This thread is amusing
Q: Red is blue

If P then Q
Q
Therefore Q

Recognize that form from yesterday? And this is still a valid argument so it meets your challenge to "prove red=blue using valid philosophical arguments."

 

[Apathia]

I was hiking outdoors when it happened a few days ago. All of a sudden the horizon became bright and I felt an extreme sense of well being and comfort, that changed to understanding of the entire universe as a whole. All of a sudden I understood how wrong I had previously been. I feel to my knees and suddenly everything clicked. It was like suddenly walking out of the fog and seeing the clear landscape in it's pristine beauty and a breath of fresh air suddenly entering my lungs that have long been deprived of oxygen and I knew that Jesus existed. All of the reasoning behind it came to me suddenly and I stopped being an Atheist and converted to Christianity.

I can relate to that and don't mean to belittle it. I remember one evening back in the dark ages of the 70's, when I had the same experience on understanding Paul's teaching in the NT that we are "not under the law, but under grace." The mythology and theology I packaged that in at the time has changed over the years. But the Acceptance and Affirmation remain with me.

This is a matter of the heart. Philosophical "proof" will only give you a dead husk. Contemplate before you cogitate yourself into corners.

I see no point to argue you back to Atheism but to encourage your examination and contemplation of your experience.
So I'll recommend I couple of, in my opinion great modern Christian authors whose content is way deeper than C.S. Lewis.

Paul Tillich
Soren Kierkegaard

Both of these helped put my head in perspective along my heart journey.
Oh, one more:
Martin Buber. He wasn't a Christian theolog but a Jewish mystic. But he ranks high in 20th Century Christian Theology.

I don't recommend these as content to tell you are wrong. That's not what they are about. And I have no theology I expect you to get upon reading them. They are deeply devotional and contemplative in their direction and content. They will broaden your perspective, so that you might just find out why Thomas Aquinas never finished his Summa Theologica.

 

[PixyMisa]

You said you were a priest! Are you an atheist priest?

Don't see why not. I am. I think Beleth is too. Possibly some of the other people here.