Proof of God

[BillyJoe]

BTW, I hope everyone has a greater understanding about the god of the gaps fallacy.


To be guilty of the god of the gaps fallacy, one must assert that:

- A better scientific theory can not be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model.
- The only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of God.

 

[volatile]

BTW, I hope everyone has a greater understanding about the god of the gaps fallacy.


To be guilty of the god of the gaps fallacy, one must assert that:

- A better scientific theory can not be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model.
- The only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of God.

So when you said your God was a "god of the ultimate gap", you weren't asserting either of the points above? Cause it sure sounded as if you were, BJ.

 

[Mobyseven]

BTW, I hope everyone has a greater understanding about the god of the gaps fallacy.

Everyone except for you, it would seem.

 

[Belz...]

No, just that something from something else, doesn't solve the problem of origins.

Only, we were talking about the origin of the universe. It doesn't follow that the origin of the universe is also the origin of all in existence.

 

[BillyJoe]

Only, we were talking about the origin of the universe. It doesn't follow that the origin of the universe is also the origin of all in existence.

Yeah right, Belz.

(think back to the phrase "ultimate question of existence")

 

[BillyJoe]

Everyone except for you, it would seem.

It won't do to try to save face by banging it against your desk.


(But, really, I must object to your mischaracterisation of my argument)

 

[BillyJoe]

So when you said your God was a "god of the ultimate gap", you weren't asserting either of the points above? Cause it sure sounded as if you were, BJ.

Well, you are wrong.
How many times have I used the word "posited", as in "god is posited as..."
How many times have I said it is not my god, I am not for god, I am in Dawkin's category 6, and such like?

 

[Belz...]

Yeah right, Belz.

You know, this little juvenile trick of politely ignoring me as though I'm a complete idiot is getting more tiresome by the minute.

(think back to the phrase "ultimate question of existence")

 

[BillyJoe]

You are lucky.

I signed off this thread a while back.
But dutifully here I am still posting on.

...and I don't think your a complete idiot. <-joke


(the "your" is on purpose, btw)

 

[Belz...]

You are lucky.

I signed off this thread a while back.
But dutifully here I am still posting on.

...and I don't think your a complete idiot.[/SIZE]

BillyJoe: "Gee, I'm losing, here. Better take a condescending tone!!"

 

[Paulhoff]

MMMMMM, still no sign of a so-called god.

Paul

 

[BillyJoe]

Well, I'm going to read the rest of "The God Delusion" now.
The first four chapters haven't taught me anything I didn't already know.
So I 'm going to hazard a guess and say that Dawkins is on my side.
At the very least I'm pretty sure he'd understand what I've been saying.

If I find anything he says that I disagree with I'll be back.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Robin]

No, I mean your third option, something from something else, has nothing to do about origins.
...unless you can show me how.

You are serious? The options "something comes from something else" has nothing whatsoever to do with origins?

No, just that something from something else, doesn't solve the problem of origins.

You didn't post a problem of origins. You simply stated an incomplete enumeration and asked if anybody could think of another alternative. I supplied another alternative.

 

[BillyJoe]

It all started about twenty pages back.
Maybe you missed it.

 

[Robin]

It all started about twenty pages back.
Maybe you missed it.

No, you didn't post a problem of origins 20 pages back either.

Here is how this particular exchange started:

I have no trouble in not believing in any of the thousands of so-called gods created by humankind.

What about the ever existing deistic god who created everything else?

I have a great problem with an ever existing so-called god also.

Then you should also have a problem with either time without beginning or, alternatively, something out of nothing.

Unfortunately, one of these has to be true.

As I say, an incomplete enumeration, not a problem of origins.

 

[plumjam]

Dustin,

I admire your persistence and sincerity. I didn't read all the OP, sorry. I just want to offer a quote from Thomas Aquinas who, near the end of his life, having spent decades writing theology and philosophy, had a religious experience while performing mass and said:

"All that I have written seems to me like straw compared to what has now been revealed to me"

He never wrote again. My point is that genuine religion/knowledge of God is not a matter for rationality to decide upon one way or another.

With rationality you start off with one set of concepts, think a bit, rearrange them, add or subtract a few, and end up with another set of concepts.

The greatest genuine figures in religion have always insisted spirituality is an experiential and revelatory phenomenon, and not dependent on ideation.
Some spiritual practices are specifically designed to quieten down our constant ideation (i.e. mantras, yoga, meditation) in order to allow consciousness to direct its attention upon itself, rather than outwardly to ideas, thoughts and the objects of the senses.

William James Varieties of Religious Experience and Evelyn Underhill's Mysticism explain all this superbly

 

[fishkr]

I was asked by KingMerv00 to try and type up some arguments in support of a God or rather in support of Theism in general, so I decided to type this up in defense of God and Theism. This post is a continuance of this post and this post. You should probably read all three posts respectively in order to fully understand this following post.

I hope this following was as simple and clear as I hoped it would be, I did not spend as much time as I should have copy editing it as I typed it up in about 20 minutes. Some of the things I say might not be totally referenced and if that's the case please do not hesitate to ask for sources for it or further explanations of something that isn't totally clear to you.

It isn't simple, it isn't clear, and it isn't right. Don't quit your day job.

M

 

[volatile]

You're about 3 months late, guys!

 

[articulett]

You're about 3 months late, guys!

Well, plumjam could be a sock puppet of Dustin who was chewed up and spit out. Nothing like sock puppet endorsement to keep the illusion alive.

 

[Mobyseven]

My point is that genuine religion/knowledge of God is not a matter for rationality to decide upon one way or another.

Why?