Proof of God

PixyMisa said:
Well, yeah. He's a Bible scholar. That's his field of interest.
Click to expand...

It also makes him qualified to respond on the subject.

I would assume someone who has studied the Bible for the past 20 years knows what he is talking about.

And no, he is NOT Christian.
 
Azure said:
The Bible is an amazing piece of work from a literature standpoint...so no, it is not silly.

What it means might be silly to you. But calling it silly is not exactly holding it up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

One can scrutinize something that a good people are claiming to be non-fiction and determine it is silly.

Flat earth
Stars in firmament
The earth does not move
Six day creation
God as strong as a unicorn. C'mon, that's TEH ROFLCOPTERS SILLY!
Giants
Talking serpents
Virgin birth
Resurrection
False prophecy
Global flood and Noah's ark
Human Sacrifice
Everyone speaking the same language at 2400 BCE....WHOOPSIE. Those silly Babylonians!

Oh, and that's a very short list. A short list of things that are positively silly notions when held up to scrutiny.

And as for literature, let's tighten up those plot holes and continuity errors.
 
I'm going to be unforgivably pretentious and transcribe some philosophy that I think nicely encapsulates the OP.

No discourse whatsoever can end in absolute knowledge of fact, past or to come. For as the knowledge of fact, it is originally sense, and ever after, memory. And for the knowledge of consequence, which I have said before is called science, it is not absolute, but conditional. No man can know by discourse that this is, has been, or will be, which is to know absolutely, but only that if this be, that is, if this has been, that has been, if this shall be, that shall be, which is to know conditionally; and that not the consequence of one thing to another, but of one name of a thing to another name of the same thing.

And therefore, when the discourse is put into speech, and begins with the definitions of words, and proceeds by connexion of the same into general affirmations, and of these again into syllogisms, the end or last sum is called the conclusion, and the thought of the mind by it signified is that conditional knowledge, or knowledge of the consequence of words, which is commonly called Science. But if the first ground of such discourse be not definitions, or if the definitions be not rightly joined together into syllogisms, the the end or conclusion is again Opinion, namely of the truth of somewhat said, though sometimes in absurd and senseless words, without possibility of being understood.

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1668
Click to expand...
To sum up: Logical discourse is at best, conditional knowledge, and at worst, senseless opinion.
 
Azure said:
It also makes him qualified to respond on the subject.
Click to expand...
No, not really.

I would assume someone who has studied the Bible for the past 20 years knows what he is talking about.
Click to expand...
That depends on what he is talking about.

He seems to be talking about the anthropological value of the Bible, and I fully agree with him there. Its value as literature is another subject entirely.
 
I just want to interject, that most translations of the Rg Veda I've read have been barely tolerable on any level, literarily speaking.

The Bible definitely has it beat there.

Alternately, the Tao Te Ching, while not technically a religious work, is a much more fascinating and compelling read than the Bible.... if you get a good translation. Anything prior to 1970 is crap, though - unless it's in Chinese.
 
I'm just waiting for someone to post something concerning my OP that hasn't already been posted so I don't have to keep repeating myself.
 
Z said:
I just want to interject, that most translations of the Rg Veda I've read have been barely tolerable on any level, literarily speaking.

The Bible definitely has it beat there.

Alternately, the Tao Te Ching, while not technically a religious work, is a much more fascinating and compelling read than the Bible.... if you get a good translation. Anything prior to 1970 is crap, though - unless it's in Chinese.
Click to expand...


Tao Te Ching is a bit dry and pedantic. Try Chuang Tzu for a more refreshing take on Taoism. I'm not really thrilled with the Penguin translation by Palmer, it seems to have lost some of the liveliness, but it may be the easiest one to find. Just for fun, here is a quote from the end of Chapter 17 where Chuang Tzu is making fun of semantic twits:

Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu were walking beside the weir on the River Hao, when Chuang Tzu said, "Do you see how the fish are coming to the surface, and swimming around as they please? That's what fish really enjoy."

"You are not a fish," replied Hui Tzu, "so how can you say you know what fish enjoy?"

Chuang Tzu said: "You are not me, so how can you know I don't know what fish enjoy?"

Hui Tzu said: "I am not you, so I definitely don't know what it is you know. However, you are most definitely not a fish and that proves you don't know what fish really enjoy."

Chuang Tzu said: "Ah, but let's return to the original question you raised, if you don't mind. You asked me how I could know what it is that fish really enjoy. Therefore, you already knew I knew it when you asked the question. And I know it by being here on the edge of the River Hao."
Click to expand...
 
PixyMisa said:
Dustin, your entire argument has been refuted. There isn't anything left to say about it.
Click to expand...


I'd ask for specifics and then you'll evade and say "The whole thread". I'll ask again for specific posts and you'll evade again and say "the whole thread". I'll ask one more last time for the specific posts and segments of those posts where my argument has been refuted and you'll repeat "The whole thread, all posts". Of course this will lead nowhere because you know my argument hasn't been refuted in any post and any relevant arguments have already been replied to several times over.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
I'm just waiting for someone to post something concerning my OP that hasn't already been posted so I don't have to keep repeating myself.
Click to expand...

here we go. The best you've been able to come with so far is "Try reading it with the monitor switched on" and "No that's not what I meant!"

Neither were particularly satisfactory. Try again.


dustin said:
‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the OP. I said ’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. I do not mean ’positive’ to be any sort of moral aesthetic definition. This means that God can't exist unless his existence is explicitly stated in the initial premise, obviously admitting of no question in that context.
Click to expand...
.

right - I'm accepting your premise the "positive properties" are a necessary and sufficient quality for God - just to see where you take it
those positive properties boil down to omni-ness. Okaykokey. No proof yet.



dustin said:
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.
This means that since ‘N’ is positive it’s negation would not be positive but negative. 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’. This means that if God is a positive being necessarily God is thus positive and if God is God-like then the property of being God-like is an essence of God. Which is to say, If God is by definition positive then a necessary component of God which would be “Godlike” is thus necessarily positive as well.
Click to expand...
.
In your logical analysis all you're saying is that set membership of N implies a given attribute, and that a given attribute implies membership of set N. This is not a proof - but restating your premise in a rather convoluted and horribly written way

you assume N is positive
Therefore its negation would be negative
Therefore God has positive property

This is just restating your premise. You've already said that a necessary and sufficient condition for N is that it has positive property. Now, you assume N has positive property - and guess what, conclude that N has positive property!

dustin said:
N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world.
Click to expand...

If God is omnipresent then he exists somewhere.
Therefore God is omnipresent
Therefore God exists


dustin said:
the premise and conclusions themselves are adequately valid which show that it would be logically impossible if a God could not or did not exist and the only conclusion we are left with is that a God does exist and must exist.
Click to expand...

Let's read that again - this proof concludes that God does exist and must exist? Staggering.

dustin said:
You're extracting the end of the argument as it's own argument. This is just the last premise ending in the conclusion. An argument will obviously be fallacious if you cut the first 90% out of it and then examine it.
Click to expand...


So this last bit of logic re omnipresence makes no sense? But when added to a "proof" of positive property it does? And suddenly we have a magical proof of God?


Assume God exists.
Assume "positive property" [ie omni-ness] is necessary and sufficient for God
Assume God has positive property
Therefore God does not have negative property
Therefore positive property is a property of God
Assume God is omnipresent
Therefore God exists somewhere
Therefore God exists everywhere
Therefore God possesses positive property
Therefore God exists.

please explain why you think this is a proof of god and not some tragic post hoc delusional "rationalisation."
 
Last edited:
Azure said:
The Bible is an amazing piece of work from a literature standpoint...so no, it is not silly.
Click to expand...


The Bible? You're talking about a book where the protagonist wanders through the narative like he's suffered a traumatic head wound. "Where's your brother? What happened? It's raining. You're slaves now?" And that's just the part where he speaks out loud. Shortly after that he just starts appearing in people's dreams. Then he stops talking to anyone at all and people just sit around talking about him like we did in the last days in the hospital before my grandfather passed away.
 
andyandy said:
right - I'm accepting your premise the "positive properties" are a necessary and sufficient quality for God - just to see where you take it
those positive properties boil down to omni-ness. Okaykokey. No proof yet.




.
In your logical analysis all you're saying is that set membership of N implies a given attribute, and that a given attribute implies membership of set N. This is not a proof - but restating your premise in a rather convoluted and horribly written way

you assume N is positive
Therefore its negation would be negative
Therefore God has positive property

This is just restating your premise. You've already said that a necessary and sufficient condition for N is that it has positive property. Now, you assume N has positive property - and guess what, conclude that N has positive property!



If God is omnipresent then he exists somewhere.
Therefore God is omnipresent
Therefore God exists




Let's read that again - this proof concludes that God does exist and must exist? Staggering.




So this last bit of logic re omnipresence makes no sense? But when added to a "proof" of positive property it does? And suddenly we have a magical proof of God?


Assume God exists.
Assume "positive property" [ie omni-ness] is necessary and sufficient for God
Assume God has positive property
Therefore God does not have negative property
Therefore positive property is a property of God
Assume God is omnipresent
Therefore God exists somewhere
Therefore God exists everywhere
Therefore God possesses positive property
Therefore God exists.

please explain why you think this is a proof of god and not some tragic post hoc delusional "rationalisation."
Click to expand...

Already replied to.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
I'd ask for specifics and then you'll evade and say "The whole thread". I'll ask again for specific posts and you'll evade again and say "the whole thread". I'll ask one more last time for the specific posts and segments of those posts where my argument has been refuted and you'll repeat "The whole thread, all posts". Of course this will lead nowhere because you know my argument hasn't been refuted in any post and any relevant arguments have already been replied to several times over.
Click to expand...
Yes, you have replied to the posts refuting your argument.

Your replies are as flawed as your original argument, and have similarly been refuted.

That's the problem: You have not made a single statement that remains standing. That's why I keep asking you to start again in exactly that way: Make a single statement, one founding statement from your proposed proof, and let us discuss that.

Honestly, Dustin, whether you believe in the validity of your proof or not, it is abundantly clear that no-one else does. If your purpose here is to convince others rather than merely to act as a source of bemusement, then your present approach is an unmitigated failure. Try another approach.
 
Last edited:
Dustin Kesselberg said:
Already replied to.
Click to expand...

yes - and i replied to your reply. You first say

"Try reading it with your monitor switched on"

then....give up on the humour and resort to

"no that's not what i meant"

then you protest

"this is only a little part of the argument!"

that's it.

If you are unable to respond to a level beyond junior high


"i've just proved God"

"how about this bit? This is obviously fallacious"

"You just don't understand"

"Ok - well explain it!"

"I already have - see my previous reply."


then you can't expect people to take you seriously. Indeed, you've gone down in my estimation significantly - which given your initial baseline is something of an achievement.
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
Your replies are as flawed as your original argument, and have similarly been refuted.
Click to expand...

I'd ask for specifics and then you'll evade and say "The whole thread". I'll ask again for specific posts and you'll evade again and say "the whole thread". I'll ask one more last time for the specific posts and segments of those posts where my argument has been refuted and you'll repeat "The whole thread, all posts".

PixyMisa said:
That's the problem: You have not made a single statement that remains standing. That's why I keep asking you to start again in exactly that way: Make a single statement, one founding statement from your proposed proof, and let us discuss that.
Click to expand...

I'd ask for specifics and then you'll evade and say "The whole thread". I'll ask again for specific posts and you'll evade again and say "the whole thread". I'll ask one more last time for the specific posts and segments of those posts where my argument has been refuted and you'll repeat "The whole thread, all posts".

Of course this will lead nowhere because you know my argument hasn't been refuted in any post and any relevant arguments have already been replied to several times over.
 
He's sort of like a little kid running around shouting, "Come see! Come see! IT FLOATS!!!" and not understanding why everyone isn't running to the bathroom.

Does anyone believe that Dustin will come to agree that he hasn't proven the existence of his god?

Does anyone believe that anyone else will be persuaded by Dustin's Truly Amazing Achievement?

All threads die... Few tears for this one.

Will the last one leaving please turn out the light?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom