Proof of God

[Herzblut]

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

You need to include service elements like:

A Warm Welcome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJA9RPX9mRY



Herzblut

 

[BillyJoe]

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

Yeah, maybe I should quit.

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.

I was thinking more along the lines of "Existence of G is not verifiable" and "Non-existence of G is not falsifiable"

BillyJoe:
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.

Not sure how this relates to the naturalistic fallacy.
But, god is certainly important to those who believe in him - and even to those who don't - even if he doesn't exist.
However, I was talking about relevant in the specific sense of being relevant for the existence of the universe. If the only way the universe could have existed is if god exists (to create it), then god is relevant to the fact that we are here. If there is a natural explanation for the creation of the universe, god is not relevant (in this sense).

 

[BillyJoe]

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.

I quit.

 

[Herzblut]

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

Wrong, the opposite is true. In simple words, space and time are downright created by matter.

But if you refuse the General Theory of Relativity, well, go ahead...

Herzblut

 

[BillyJoe]

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

BillyJoe:
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.

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

Spot the logical error.

 

[BillyJoe]

Originally Posted by Belz...
Not necessarily. There could always have been nothing except time and space.

Wrong, the opposite is true. In simple words, space and time are downright created by matter.

But if you refuse the General Theory of Relativity, well, go ahead...

Yes, that's a better way to put it.
Thanks.

 

[volatile]

Are you still pushing the Argument from Incredulity?

I don't quite believe it myself...

 

[BillyJoe]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe
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

Yes, welcome.
I'm glad you spotted the joke and responded in kind.

 

[BillyJoe]

Are you still pushing the Argument from Incredulity?

I don't quite believe it myself...

No, I never started, but, if you still think so, I quit.

 

[Paulhoff]

The need for a creator is nothing but an illusion of the brain. The brain looks around and sees what it has made and therefore it comes to conclusion that all things must have a creator. Some people look at a river and see the work of a so-called god cutting a cannel with its hand to the ocean to make a river. I see at a river and know that is just the water going to a lower energy level and in the process it takes along with it sediment to the ocean, I also know that the whole thing can take tens of thousands or more years to become a river and that no thought behind it is needed to make it happen. One is pretty and one is the truth.

Inspired by Richard Dawkins.

Paul

 

[volatile]

No, I never started, but, if you still think so, I quit.

Oh, reeeaaallllyyy.... I guess it wasn't you who just used the following as an argument, then:

If there was never nothing, explain how there was always something (time without beginning)

I'd have a word with whoever's using your account without your permission, if I were you.

 

[Belz...]

And how will physicists know they have exhausted natural explanations for the creation of the universe/something from nothing.

That's a completely different question.

In fact, they will keep looking for a natural explanation - because that is what science does (look for natural explanations).

If god exists, then he IS a natural explanation.

I said "alternate" explanations, not natural ones.

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.

I see you have trouble understanding the nature of a logical argument. I suggest you take courses in boolean algebra or something similar before you continue to post on this topic.

The statement "the existence of god can not be demonstrated", means "there is no proof for the existence of god".

Absolutely false. The statement "the existence of god CANNOT be demonstrated" means that there IS NO forseeable way to demonstrate it, and evidence for it could not even be construed. It is false, of course, as there are many forms of evidence that would do. The existence of god surely CAN be demonstrated.

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.

Again. Courses.

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.

The flatness of the Earth is the claim, not the existence of the Earth. You're either being obtuse on purpose or you're really ignorant of how these things work.

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

Proof that he doesn't exist ? I believe we were clear about that.

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.

How so ? Why could time not begin at some point but space have existed "prior" to it ?

Define space without reference to material objects.
You can't do it.

Of course I can. Space is a thing. It needs no objects to exist.

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)

It seems a course in physics would also be useful to you.

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.

See above.

You must have forgotten that gravity is negative energy.

No, I haven't.

In any case, if this is true, explain how it is possible there was always something - explain time without beginning!

Why do you need me to explain it ?

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?

I repeat my question: why do you need it to arise. You're ASSUMING that there was nothing at some point.

If there was never nothing, explain how there was always something (time without beginning)

I need to explain that ? Why ?

 

[BillyJoe]

Oh, reeeaaallllyyy.... I guess it wasn't you who just used the following as an argument, then:

Originally Posted by BillyJoe
If there was never nothing, explain how there was always something (time without beginning)

Please finish what you were going to say, otherwise, short of reading your mind, I have no way of responding.
Show me how this is an "Argument from Incredulity".
And try to do this without attributing to me something I have not said.

 

[FSM]

You need to include service elements like:

A Warm Welcome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJA9RPX9mRY



Herzblut

Hey Herz!

You know, I think I've just added to my list:

1. Heat
2. Smelliness
3. Emotional Suffering (Being forced to watch Mr. Bean repeatedly for all eternity.)
4. Physical Suffering

I like Rowan, but thought the Bean movie a hideous mess.

ETA: And Billy, you might have been joking, but our resident dowser certainly was not. Ask him- Watch: Hey Edge? Do you think I'm damned to excrutiatingly painful hellfire for all eternity since I don't believe in God? (Wait for it-)

 

[BillyJoe]

Belz,

I may have one more go, but your arguments are getting more and more....well, there are many adjectives.

In the mean time please reply to Herzblut's answer to your space, time and matter argument.

In simple words, space and time are downright created by matter.

There is no space or time without physical events, and no physical events without material objects.

 

[kurious_kathy]

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

Darwinism is a farce, I feel sorry for people who believe in the theory of evolution. It's only a theory and a bad one at that!

Like I said before I feel sorry for Mr. Darwin on judgement day boy is he gona get it for misleading so many people. Wake up guys God is there and he isn't mocked!!

 

[Mobyseven]

Dear kurious kathy:

Please don't breed.

Love, Mobyseven

 

[kurious_kathy]

Dear kurious kathy:

Please don't breed.

Love, Mobyseven

Too late. God has blessed me with 4 beautiful children and one is already married. I look forward to raising Godly children and grandchildren. Now there's a legacy someone can be happy about!

I don't know why anyone would choose to live ungodly when Godliness is way better! It's Christ righteousness, not mine!! Christ in me, my hope of glory!

 

[edge]

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?

Why not?
I think you become light and all will be self-sustained.
I think we will be able to sit down and eat if we chose to do so too.
I know this that there will be no limit to where you can go and all the laws that hold us in respect to travel become unbound.
If you think it, it will be done.
The Main thing I think we will be doing is, sharing with many new creations and ministering to them as they grow.

 

[edge]

The need for a creator is nothing but an illusion of the brain. The brain looks around and sees what it has made and therefore it comes to conclusion that all things must have a creator. Some people look at a river and see the work of a so-called god cutting a cannel with its hand to the ocean to make a river. I see at a river and know that is just the water going to a lower energy level and in the process it takes along with it sediment to the ocean, I also know that the whole thing can take tens of thousands or more years to become a river and that no thought behind it is needed to make it happen. One is pretty and one is the truth.

Inspired by Richard Dawkins.

Paul

Gods water, gods laws at work, his science working in gods good green earth.

Paul science can't even name all the animals that are on this planet they don't even know how many plant species are on the planet.
But god created it all.
It's been what 100,000 years or so and we can't record this simple task.

Though humans have shared the planet with millions of other creatures for thousands of years, we know surprisingly little about our neighbors—we don’t even know exactly how many flora and fauna call Earth home.

The National Science Foundation’s “Tree of Life” project estimates that there could be anywhere from 5 million to 100 million species on the planet, but science has only identified about 2 million.

“We’ve only touched the surface of understanding animal life,” said entomologist Brian Fisher of the California Academy of Sciences. “We’ve discovered just 10 percent of all living things on this planet.”

Environmental index

Taking an exact count of Earth’s creatures may not seem like the most important task, but taxonomy, the science of discovering, describing and categorizing living things, is “the foundation for understanding life on this planet,” Fisher said.
Though taxonomists have been cataloguing plants and animals for more than 250 years, they still have no exact answer to the question, “How many species are on Earth?”

“It’s a very simple question, but we have no simple answer,” Fisher said.
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070803_gm_numberspecies.html