Proof of God

[Paulhoff]

No so-called god and no so-called switch.

Paul

 

[BillyJoe]

I can't make out what your avatar even is.
...but at least it doesn't spin.

 

[Paulhoff]

I still have the one BJ.

Paul



Pencils and bad places for them.

 

[Mobyseven]

BillyJoe:

As for your first post, nice try but I directly translated your argument. If something has been negated, it is '~p', not 'p'. Basically, you're wrong: It isn't a case of modus ponens, it is still denying the antecedent.

As for your second post, neither you nor Herzblut ever used the biconditional in your argument up until this point, so I don't see how I'm being 'tricky' by not including it. Also, your claim that the biconditional is a 'special case' where denying the antecedent is not a logical fallacy is a ridiculous claim. Denying the antecedent is always a logical fallacy. If the connective is a biconditional then there is no antecedent to deny!

Beyond that, you would still need to address the issue that if god is completely unobservable, then either god did not create the universe or god is unnecessary for the universe to exist anyway, and that the universe can be entirely explained without invoking god in any way.

Here's a challenge for you: Without assuming the existence of god, prove that god is more important than any other being or effect that we have no existence for. The atom-fairy would be a start - prove that god is more important than the atom-fairy, without assuming the existence of god.

 

[BillyJoe]

As for your first post, nice try but I directly translated your argument. If something has been negated, it is '~p', not 'p'.

Bu!!$#!+

The following is legitimate:

..p: The existence of god can not be demonstrated
~P: The existence of god can be demonstrated

As for your first post, nice try but I directly translated your argument. If something has been negated, it is '~p', not 'p'. Basically, you're wrong: It isn't a case of modus ponens, it is still denying the antecedent.

It works just as well when P and Q are negative statements:


P: Today is not Saturday
Q: I will not be going for a walk today


Template for modus ponens :

If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q

Translated:

If today is not Saturday, then I will not be going for a walk today
Today is not Saturday
Therefore, I will not be going for a walk today


Similarly, the following is an example of modus ponens:

P: the existence of god can not be demonstrated
Q: "there is no god" can not be falsified

If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q

If the existence of god can not be demonstrated, then "there is no god" is not falsifiable
The existence of god can not be demonstrated
Therefore, "there is no god" is not falsifiable

As for your second post, neither you nor Herzblut ever used the biconditional in your argument up until this point...

The biconditional is implied.

Also, your claim that the biconditional is a 'special case' where denying the antecedent is not a logical fallacy is a ridiculous claim. Denying the antecedent is always a logical fallacy. If the connective is a biconditional then there is no antecedent to deny!

That is strictly correct.
Which is why I used the modus ponens version initially.


The second version, as it stands, is still correct though:

If and only if the existence of god can be demonstrated, then "there is no god" can be falsified"
Not [The existence of god can be demonstrated]
Therefore not ["There is no god" can be falsified"]

Or, more simply

If and only if the existence of god can be demonstrated, then "there is no god" can be falsified"
The existence of god can not be demonstrated
Therefore "There is no god" can not be falsified"

Beyond that, you would still need to address the issue that if god is completely unobservable, then either god did not create the universe or god is unnecessary for the universe to exist anyway, and that the universe can be entirely explained without invoking god in any way.

I have already done so.

If god is the reason why there is quantum physics and hence the reason why there is the possiblility of quantum fluctuation, then god is not unnecessary, he is essential for the universe to exist. If he did not interfere in any other way in the universe after its creation, then he would be also be unobservable.

Here's a challenge for you: Without assuming the existence of god, prove that god is more important than any other being or effect that we have no existence for. The atom-fairy would be a start - prove that god is more important than the atom-fairy, without assuming the existence of god.

If god and the tooth faerie do not exist, obviously neither god nor the tooth faerie are important.
If they both exist as defined, then, obviously, god would be a helluva lot more important that the friggin' tooth faerie.
Apart from saying that you cannot prove god does not exist, that is all I have claimed in this thread.

 

[Paulhoff]

If god and the tooth faerie do not exist, obviously neither god nor the tooth faerie are important.
If they both exist as defined, then, obviously, god would be a helluva lot more important that the friggin' tooth faerie.
Apart from saying that you cannot prove god does not exist, that is all I have claimed in this thread.

It there is a so-called god and it is unknowable, then it is as good as being a no-so-called god.

Paul



No-so-called-god

 

[edge]

It there is a so-called god and it is unknowable, then it is as good as being a no-so-called god.

Paul



No-so-called-god

It you tried it it would be knowable, it you not try it be not knowable.
There I fixed what it you said! u know it.
Damn things ssspinning tooo fast.

 

[Paulhoff]

It you tried it it would be knowable, it you not try it be not knowable.
There I fixed what it you said! u know it.
Damn things ssspinning tooo fast.

Go on edge, tell me about so-called god, oh please do, I know your idea must be the right one.

Paul



Oh and throw the Jesus guy in there too along with the un-holy ghost.

 

[BillyJoe]

It there is a so-called god and it is unknowable, then it is as good as being a no-so-called god.

Except that you wouldn't be here to deny him.
And a helluva big surprise for you at the end if he'd decided to have a hell after all.

 

[Paulhoff]

Except that you wouldn't be here to deny him.
And a helluva big surprise for you at the end if he'd decided to have a hell after all.

There is nothing to deny, nothing and if you didn't understand that, nothing.

Paul

 

[edge]

Except that you wouldn't be here to deny him.
And a helluva big surprise for you at the end if he'd decided to have a hell after all.

L.o.L. Better watch your Ps And Qs.
Its gonna get you if you don't.

 

[FSM]

Except that you wouldn't be here to deny him.
And a helluva big surprise for you at the end if he'd decided to have a hell after all.

I think I've just been frightened into faith.

God/Boogeyman... same difference.

Wait a minute, though, which faith should I believe in if indeed my faith is based upon my fear of an eternal punishment for non-belief?

I will commence the comparison shopping. Does anyone have suggestions?

I will peruse all faiths, determine which one has the most brutal and horrendously threatening afterlife and pick that one. If my decision is to be made based upon fear, then I must choose the religion that inspires the greatest amount of fear in me, one that espouses the most hideous afterlife, because that one MUST be the one that is most true.

Help me, JREF! Help me find my religion. I'm hoping to compile a Consumer Report-esque article on the different aspects of hell. Here are a few of the general categories that I will be examining:

1. Heat
2. Smelliness
3. Physical suffering
4. Emotional suffering

 

[Mobyseven]

BillyJoe:

First, take a lesson on logic. I mean an actual class, because the informal education I have been trying to give you is clearly not working.

Second, you cannot just 'decide' that your argument is not a case of denying the antecedent. It is, whether you like it or not, a clear cut case of such, and your attempts to turn it into a modus ponens argument are incorrect - anyone with a basic understanding of logic can see as such, and your crying foul of the reasons why does not make your attempt any more correct.

Third, the biconditional was not 'implied'. Ever. If you wish to imply a biconditional, you use 'if and only if'. Use of 'if...then...', '...if...', '...only if...', and so on imply the material conditional, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to make anyone see a biconditional in a clear cut 'if...then...' statement.

Fourth, you have just admitted that if god does not exist, then god is of no importance. How then can you continue to make the argument that we may not say, "There is no god," in the absence of any evidence for god? If you wish to use the argument you have been using (that god has a 'special property') then you must first assume the existence of god! Especially, how can you argue like this and still claim to be an athiest? Do you not realise the implications of your own argument: That for what you are saying to be true we must accept god as being real?

Fifth, for the love of Ed, please stay away from quantum mechanics, period. It is simply an argument from ignorance and has absolutely no bearing on the question of god's existence. Your oft repeated mantra that god is necessary for our existence but is entirely unobservable is both a contradiction and a very old and often debunked argument - similar (if not identical) to Aquinas' 'first cause'. If there is a theological argument that has been ripped to shreds more than that argument I feel deep, deep pity for its original author.

When one posits the unfalsifiable, one has defined a creature that does not exist.

 

[kurious_kathy]

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered.
Point taken. God still flipped a switch on or off.
Either way it's still compelling.

Edge your insights are unique but I find them interesting. It often intrigues me to wonder just how the fall changed everyone and everything including the animals. God promises to make a new heaven and earth where the lion will lay down with the lamb so obviously even the animals instincts to kill for food will be changed. Just think of it no body will want to eat meat including those carnivorous animals friends of ours.
Do you think people will still crave chocolate like we do now?

 

[Belz...]

What an utterly ridicules statement.

What causes the break down of our structures that we build?

Earthquakes, sometimes. I thought everything was attributable to God. What happened ? Did he just get tired of it and quit ?

I believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics went into effect at the time of the Fall and was probably not a feature of the original creation.

Why not ? Seems logical enough to be in effect all the time.

We do not observe God at work in the everyday world of nature because He almost always works within the framework of His own Laws.

Almost ? And from where did you get that piece of wisdom ?

How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

Of course. That allows you to cop-out of any argument you don't like.

Men caused this to happen by not doing their jobs.

Even assuming that you are correct, we are free, are we not ? Why not simply reap the consequences of our actions, not also the consequences of God's fickle nature ?

We choose death over life it started with the original sin and continues today. We took the risk and still do and people have to die every day.

So something that some idiot did thousands of years ago makes people die today ? No, God's a jerk. That's why people die.

 

[Belz...]

Here we are considering the case of the deistic god.
The deistic god is, by definition, unobservable.

And is therefore useless. This has been explained to you. If there was an act of creation, at some point there should be evidence of this, if only by the lack of evidence for an alternative theory.

The Earth, on the other hand, is not flat, so the analogy fails.

Irrelevant. You CANNOT demonstrate that the Earth is flat. Therefore "the earth is round-ish" is unfalsifiable by your reasoning, which is of course wrong. IN PRINCIPLE, it can be falsified, and that's all that matters. Otherwise every true statement would be unfalsifiable.

In a universe in which there was a beginning to time, there would be a beginning to space and a beginning to the appearance of material objects.

Possibly, anyway.

In a universe in which there was no beginning to time, there would always have been space and there would always have been material objects.

Not necessarily. There could always have been nothing except time and space.

Therefore you cannot deny the concept of nothing.

Non sequitur.

If time has a beginning, there is nothing before time (and space and material objects) came into existence.

Actually, there is no "before", and therefore no nothing. Also, assuming the first law holds, there CANNOT have been nothing.

If time has no beginning, there is never nothing, and there is never a coming into existence of space and material objects.

Again, not necessarily. Assuming the first law DOESN'T hold, things and even space could have come into existence "later".

But first there has to be quantum physics.
First there has to be the possibility of quantum fluctuation.
How does quantum physics and hence the possibility of quantum fluctuation arise from nothing?

Why would they need to arise from anything ?

 

[Belz...]

These two examples are proof of the devil so why do you need proof of God?

How is anything proof of the devil unless you already believe he exists ?

You know I thought the same thing.

Gosh, you really think you're clever, don't you ?

anarchy,without authority, and in your case without the authority of God

No, there's plenty of order without God.

Evil is a principality Paul and God created Satan who exposed us to the principality he created. Satan wasn’t like that to begin with and neither were we.

Claim without evidence.

It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered.

Why would god need to continuously counter something he created ?

You're losing it, buster.

 

[Paulhoff]

Edge your insights are unique but I find them interesting. It often intrigues me to wonder just how the fall changed everyone and everything including the animals. God promises to make a new heaven and earth where the lion will lay down with the lamb so obviously even the animals instincts to kill for food will be changed. Just think of it no body will want to eat meat including those carnivorous animals friends of ours.
Do you think people will still crave chocolate like we do now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg&NR=1

I wonder if kurious_kathy and edge can wrap their brains around this.

Paul



Off in the distance we hear................... chrip chrip chrip................

No you think first, no you, no you, no you....... chrip chrip chrip

 

[Herzblut]

If and only if the existence of god can be demonstrated, then "there is no god" can be falsified"
The existence of god can not be demonstrated
Therefore "There is no god" can not be falsified"

Hey, you are still discussing these simplistic truisms! Why's that?

The two statements "Existence of G is verifiable" and "Non-existence of G if falsifiable" are logically aquivalent, that's what you say? Well, then, it's quite self-evident.

If god and the tooth faerie do not exist, obviously neither god nor the tooth faerie are important.

I don't fully understand. "G exists" is a descriptive statement whereas "G is relevant" is normative. It's a well-known flaw to assume descriptions imply any norms, see "is-ought problem" or "Naturalistic Fallacy". Thus, the relevance of G is not strongly related to its existence.

Herzblut

 

[BillyJoe]

And is therefore useless. This has been explained to you. If there was an act of creation, at some point there should be evidence of this, if only by the lack of evidence for an alternative theory.

And how will physicists know they have exhausted natural explanations for the creation of the universe/something from nothing.
In fact, they will keep looking for a natural explanation - because that is what science does (look for natural explanations).
And I have explained that before.

Irrelevant. You CANNOT demonstrate that the Earth is flat. Therefore "the earth is round-ish" is unfalsifiable by your reasoning, which is of course wrong. IN PRINCIPLE, it can be falsified, and that's all that matters. Otherwise every true statement would be unfalsifiable.

The question of the existence of something is in no way analogous to the question of a characteristic of something that is known to exist.
The statement "the existence of god can not be demonstrated", means "there is no proof for the existence of god". Since the only way to disprove the statement "there is no god" is to prove there is a god, "there is no god" is not falsifiable.
This hardly applies to the flat Earth. The Earth is known to exist and, therefore, it is easy to prove that flatness is not one of its characteristics.


If you still can't see the difference, try this:

You CANNOT demonstrate that the Earth is flat - because, in fact, it is round and here is the proof.....
You cannot demonstrate that god exists - because, in fact, god does not exist and here is the proof....

BillyJoe:
In a universe in which there was a beginning to time, there would be a beginning to space and a beginning to the appearance of material objects.

Possibly, anyway.

No, definitely.

BillyJoe:
In a universe in which there was no beginning to time, there would always have been space and there would always have been material objects.

Not necessarily. There could always have been nothing except time and space.

Define space without reference to material objects.
You can't do it.
Define time without reference to material objects.
You can't do it.
Without material objects there is no space and no time (or, more accurately no spacetime)

Non sequitur.

Nice explanation.

If there was a begining to time and space and material objects, then there was nothing at the instant of creation out of which time. space, and material objects arose.

Explain why this does not follow (or not, as you please)

BillyJoe:
If time has a beginning, there is nothing before time (and space and material objects) came into existence

Actually, there is no "before", and therefore no nothing.

See above.

Also, assuming the first law holds, there CANNOT have been nothing.

You must have forgotten that gravity is negative energy.
In any case, if this is true, explain how it is possible there was always something - explain time without beginning!

BillyJoe:
If time has no beginning, there is never nothing, and there is never a coming into existence of space and material objects.

Again, not necessarily. Assuming the first law DOESN'T hold, things and even space could have come into existence "later".

Define time without reference to space and material objects.

BillyJoe:
But first there has to be quantum physics.
First there has to be the possibility of quantum fluctuation.
How does quantum physics and hence the possibility of quantum fluctuation arise from nothing?

Why would they need to arise from anything ?

There cannot be a quantum fluctuation [to create the universe], without a quantum fluctuation being possible. How does the possibility of a quantum fluctuation arise from nothing?
If there was never nothing, explain how there was always something (time without beginning)