Proof of God

[rikzilla]

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

To loosely paraphrase Penn; "BullFlop"

(snip)

Show me the evidence.


Show me the evidence!

The evidence is non-empirical. It cannot be seen, felt, or tested in any meaningful way, but since you've always been an advocate of such evidential standards, I'm surprised that you'd make such a silly demand! After all you did say:

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg
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.

You also asserted that:

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

How can I "show" you my evidence??? Why do you demand such when you have already laid the ground rules that "it's evidence none the less"???

Will you be redefining these words yet again??
-z

(scrape...scrape...scrape...go the goalposts as they are tugged around the forum)






I

 

[PixyMisa]

I used it to to set the ground for my initial premise.

No you didn't. It's not in your premise. It's not even in the symbolic statement.

It's just a variable.

Representing what? You can't have "just a variable".

Why is it in the informal version of your statement, and not in the symbolic one? This alone is proof the two are not equivalent.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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.

How didn't I answer them right?

Wrong yet again.

No, I'm right.

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.

No. Your initial statement was that "IF this thread is amusing then Red=Blue" That was your first premise.

See..

P: This thread is amusing
Q: Red is blue

If P then Q
P
Therefore Q

My underline. The underline premise equates to "If this thread is amusing then red is blue". That's begging the questing of assuming red is blue in the first place. Ever. Amusing thread or no amusing thread.

Here is begging the question:

P: This thread is amusing
Q: Red is blue

If P then Q
Q
Therefore Q

That's also begging the question.

Recognize that form from yesterday?

Nope.

And this is still a valid argument so it meets your challenge to "prove red=blue using valid philosophical arguments."

It's not a valid argument if you're begging the question. It's a logical fallacy negating the argument all together, petitio principii.

 

[D'rok]

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.

If this is true, then your "proof" is a subjective emotional experience. If you are happy, then who are we to take that from you? Enjoy your peace of mind. But please, please stop trying to pretend that you have arrived at this state through logic and reason.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The evidence is non-empirical. It cannot be seen, felt, or tested in any meaningful way, but since you've always been an advocate of such evidential standards, I'm surprised that you'd make such a silly demand!

When I say "Show me the evidence" I mean provide a sound logical argument proving it exists as I did with God.

How can I "show" you my evidence??? Why do you demand such when you have already laid the ground rules that "it's evidence none the less"???

Because I question whether it's evidence at all.

 

[D'rok]

Dustin you are a hopeless case. Learn the difference between truth, validity and soundness or give up trying to use the concepts.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No you didn't. It's not in your premise. It's not even in the symbolic statement.

It doesn't need to be. It's just a variable elaborating a premise.

Representing what? You can't have "just a variable".

A variable "representing what"?

Why is it in the informal version of your statement, and not in the symbolic one? This alone is proof the two are not equivalent.

Because It doesn't need to be.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If this is true, then your "proof" is a subjective emotional experience. If you are happy, then who are we to take that from you? Enjoy your peace of mind. But please, please stop trying to pretend that you have arrived at this state through logic and reason.

No. I came upon the logic and reason which proves God through my religious epiphany.

 

[andyandy]

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

distinct from your ontological argument....where you assume God exists - and prove.....God exists!

 

[Complexity]

How didn't I answer them right?

Uhh... the answers you gave were wrong?

Want to learn enough logic to understand those questions and their answers?

Pick up a good book on mathematical logic, empty at least half the BS out of your head, and have a good long read. Don't forget to work the problems.

Choose to remain ignorant and you'll remain a joke.

I started learning mathematical logic from Introduction to Mathematical Logic, H. Hermes, Springer-Verlag, 1972, and from a good teacher.

Are you going to keep trying to convert us?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

distinct from your ontological argument....where you assume God exists - and prove.....God exists!

There's a big difference. In my argument I assume God exists to differentiate between the logic of him existing vs not existing and then conclude that it would be impossible for him not to Exist. In D'rok's argument he assumes that Red=blue if this thread is 'amusing', concludes it's amusing and then extrapolates from that "Red=blue".

 

[zooterkin]

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

Ok, but I think that's a non-standard definition.

All of the reasoning behind it came to me suddenly and I stopped being an Atheist and converted to Christianity.

Fascinating. What are your views on Deuteronomy 13:6 now? Do you still view Islam as a barbaric religion?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

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

That's been my belief from the beginning. I think he's playing silly buggers. Nobody who is truly attempting to be breviloquent uses the word. From that, I assumed it was either intended as a clever clue to his insincerity or else he simply had no clue what he was talking about. Either way...

 

[D'rok]

I can't seem to resist. Somebody help me stop. Why am I punishing myself?

Nope

Here ya go:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2678330#post2678330

No. Your initial statement was that "IF this thread is amusing then Red=Blue" That was your first premise.

My underline. The underline premise equates to "If this thread is amusing then red is blue". That's begging the questing of assuming red is blue in the first place. Ever. Amusing thread or no amusing thread.

The assumption is not red is blue, the assumption is if this thread is amusing then red is blue.

It's not a valid argument if you're begging the question. It's a logical fallacy negating the argument all together, petitio principii.

Begging the question is an informal fallacy. It does not affect validity.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Uhh... the answers you gave were wrong?

How? You're obviously the one who doesn't understand basic logic. If you did you would show me how my answers were wrong or you wouldn't continue to assert that they are wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

Dustin, regardless of whether you think your proof is sound, it is completely clear that no-one agrees with you. Insofar as it is a unitary proof, your original post has been rejected; insofar as it is a collection of individual statements, each individual statement has been rejected.

Give it up.

Make one statement. Just one. One foundational statement from your proof. Get that accepted, and build from there.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Ok, but I think that's a non-standard definition.

Well you define it then.

Fascinating. What are your views on Deuteronomy 13:6 now?

It's outdated. Jesus repudiated the Old testament 2,000 years ago.

Do you still view Islam as a barbaric religion?

Yes.

 

[rikzilla]

When I say "Show me the evidence" I mean provide a sound logical argument proving it exists as I did with God.

Since you haven't, I similarly haven't...which means that I have!
My work here is done!

Because I question whether it's evidence at all.

How can you question it? What basis do you use to question evidence which cannot be seen smelt, felt, or measured in any meaningful way? Since I have quoted you directly saying that it is chauvanistic to dismiss such "evidence", isn't it then chauvanistic of you to dismiss mine??

• There is non-empirical evidence for the FSM.
• It has convinced me that the FSM can fly.
• Therefore I have proven that the FSM can fly.

This is your own argument, your own use of the terms:

• Evidence
• Proof
• To convince

-z

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The assumption is not red is blue, the assumption is if this thread is amusing then red is blue.

Same thing. You're assuming that red=blue if this thread is amusing. However you're failing to show how red=blue regardless of this threads amusement..

Begging the question is an informal fallacy. It does not affect validity.

Valid but not sound.

 

[PixyMisa]

It doesn't need to be. It's just a variable elaborating a premise.

What premise? Elaborating it how? This is clearly untrue, since there is no elaboration at all.

A variable "representing what"?

Yes, Dustin. What does the variable represent? Either it represents something you've defined or it renders your entire quote proof unquote unsound.

Because It doesn't need to be.

Then the informal statement of your quote proof unquote is of no value in explaining the formal statement of it. Thank you.