Proof of God

Tell me how the OP is wrong. Quote each argument I make and explain how it's wrong in detail.

There is no point to doing that as you keep ignoring anyone else that's done this.

I used to be an Atheist.

During the time you've been posting on this board? I doubt it.

How would that work?

"Hey guys, I'm an atheist, but check out this proof of a god. Hey guys, this proof of a god has just convinced me. Hey guys, I can prove the christian god exists." I didn't say it would work, but it is the tactic you're using.

You've yet to show how any of my arguments are "garbage". I'm not trying to trick anyone. I'm trying to reveal to them the truth.

I don't have to, many others have shown your arguments to be garbage. You haven't impressed one god damned soul in this thread. Your "truth" is anything but. Your god doesn't exist. Your jesus was a mythological hero. Your religion is a sham.

I didn't compose my arguments to be used for any journals, I wrote them up for this forum. My arguments are metaphysical and philosophical religious arguments, at most they could go into some philosophy journal but it's too much trouble introducing them to such a thing.

Your arguments wouldn't qualify for any mathematical or scientific journal because they are GARBAGE. You are deluded to think that there is any validity to your arguments.
 
Why would one not be published if it's invalid when multitudes of others are published and are invalid?

Because your arguments are so illogical and glaring invalid that any paper you submitted on this particular subject would find it's way to the circular file.
 
There is no point to doing that as you keep ignoring anyone else that's done this.

This thread wouldn't be 10 pages long if I ignored everyones comments. :rolleyes:



During the time you've been posting on this board? I doubt it.

Until about a week ago.



I don't have to, many others have shown your arguments to be garbage.

I've addressed them.

You haven't impressed one god damned soul in this thread.

Are you frustrated? Perhaps Jesus can help.

Your "truth" is anything but. Your god doesn't exist. Your jesus was a mythological hero. Your religion is a sham.

I've already proven God exists.



Your arguments wouldn't qualify for any mathematical or scientific journal because they are GARBAGE. You are deluded to think that there is any validity to your arguments.

Except journals don't distinguish between scientifically valid and invalid papers as far as I can tell. So many of them published being invalid.

Because your arguments are so illogical and glaring invalid that any paper you submitted on this particular subject would find it's way to the circular file.


So illogical and glaringly invalid yet you can't address them? You just point to other people having addressed them which I throughly replied to and repudiated? Hmm.
 
This thread wouldn't be 10 pages long if I ignored everyones comments.

You use ad-nauseum tactics to effectively ignore criticism.

Until about a week ago.

I find that very hard to believe. I think you were a christian all along.

I've addressed them.

Not really.

Are you frustrated? Perhaps Jesus can help.

Bull. Even if your jesus existed, he's still dead.

I've already proven God exists.

Only in your own feeble mind. If you really had proof, you could publish it in a scientific journal. Somehow, my psychic powers tell me that this will never happen. I'm pretty sure you'll never even try to get it published because you know, as well as everyone else, that there is no scientific or logical basis to your proof.

Except journals don't distinguish between scientifically valid and invalid papers as far as I can tell. So many of them published being invalid.

Ahh, the classic attack on science by the believer. A few invalid papers have been published, but they are usually found by other scientists and retracted. That's why the journal is there.

So illogical and glaringly invalid yet you can't address them? You just point to other people having addressed them which I throughly replied to and repudiated?

You only claim to repudiate them.
 
Sorry, it's hard to concentrate with this loud ringing noise... ah, it's coming from this box by my computer, marked 'Troll detector'. Does anyone else have one of these, and has it just gone off, or is mine broken?


I'M SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER MY IRONY DETECTOR!!!

:D :p

Cheers,
TGHO
 
I find that very hard to believe. I think you were a christian all along.

I've posted here 2 1/2 years. I've been pretending to be an atheist all that time? :rolleyes:



Only in your own feeble mind. If you really had proof, you could publish it in a scientific journal. Somehow, my psychic powers tell me that this will never happen. I'm pretty sure you'll never even try to get it published because you know, as well as everyone else, that there is no scientific or logical basis to your proof.

Ok. Ignore my proof of God because I haven't posted it in a "scientific journal". Right.

Ahh, the classic attack on science by the believer. A few invalid papers have been published, but they are usually found by other scientists and retracted. That's why the journal is there.

There's no one standing around looking at papers deciding whether or not they are "valid" and warrant being published. As you say, papers are published and then invalidated not the other way around.


Sorry, it's hard to concentrate with this loud ringing noise... ah, it's coming from this box by my computer, marked 'Troll detector'. Does anyone else have one of these, and has it just gone off, or is mine broken?

I've been here almost 3 years. You've been for 3 months. I think you need to re-evaluate what the word "troll" means. Who's the one throwing insults and using profanity in this thread? Definitely not me. I'm simply discussing my religious beliefs and my proofs for God. I'm doing so in a friendly and adult manner. The vast majority of my over 4,000 post over the past almost 3 years have been friendly unless provoked.

Yet I suddenly decide to change my religious beliefs and I get called a "troll" by someone who hasn't even been here for 3 months? :nope:
 
oh this is shaping up to be a classic thread :D

Dustin your rebuttal of the criticism of your ontological argument "read it again with your monitor switched on" is pretty weak - even by your own standards....have another go. What do you disagree with?


dustin said:
This means that ‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the previous paragraph. Now I will make the first postulation which is ’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.


So N is God. For some reason we assume that both a necessary and sufficient condition for "God" is that N has "positive propertythat means we assume that if we prove "positive property" we prove "God." A bizare notion, but let's see where this is going.

dustin 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'. 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.

An attempt to prove "postive property" by first assuming that God is positive

N is positive
Therefore its negation would be negative
Therefore God 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.


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.


In summary;

"positive property" is necessary and sufficient for "God"
We assume God is positive, therefore God has positive property
We assume God is omnipresent therefore God exists.

Therefore God does exist and must exist.

utter tosh. It is isn't it? Either you've copy and pasted that argument from somewhere else without really understanding it - but were hoping people would be impressed by some logical analysis, or you wrote it yourself and misunderstand even basic requirements for proof. It is laughable. Truly i would expect better from junior school kids.
 
Last edited:
Dustin, you haven't answered my questions - Try #2

The only "proof" so presented is this

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

without further expansion. Considering your difficultly with

If P then Q
Q
then P

only yesterday, i am, shall we say sceptical that you fully understand the notation. Perhaps you could explain how this amounts to a proof.


1. I compiled that argument so obviously I know the notation.


I doubt very much that you know the notation, but doubt even more if you understand the ideas behind the notation.

For a start, explain what is meant by 'consequence' and 'derivability' in the context of formal logic?

Why is the difference between these concepts important?

How do 'consequence' and 'derivability' relate to Godel's proof of the completeness of the first-order predicate calculus?

How do 'consequence' and 'derivability' relate to Godel's proof of the incompleteness of the second-order predicate calculus?

What do 'soundness' and 'completeness' mean in the context of formal logic and what do they have to do with the previous two questions?
 
So N is God. For some reason we assume that both a necessary and sufficient condition for "God" is that N has "positive propertythat means we assume that if we prove "positive property" we prove "God." A bizare notion, but let's see where this is going.

Wrong. ‘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.



An attempt to prove "postive property" by first assuming that God is positive

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

Positive*

You're confused yet again though. 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.




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

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.


In summary;

"positive property" is necessary and sufficient for "God"
We assume God is positive, therefore God has positive property
We assume God is omnipresent therefore God exists.

Therefore God does exist and must exist.

utter tosh. It is isn't it? Either you've copy and pasted that argument from somewhere else without really understanding it - but were hoping people would be impressed by some logical analysis, or you wrote it yourself and misunderstand even basic requirements for proof. It is laughable. Truly i would expect better from junior school kids.


You've ignored 90% of the argument.
 
I've been here almost 3 years. You've been for 3 months. I think you need to re-evaluate what the word "troll" means. Who's the one throwing insults and using profanity in this thread? Definitely not me.

The implication is that I'm using profanity. Care to indicate exactly where I've done that?

I'm simply discussing my religious beliefs and my proofs for God. I'm doing so in a friendly and adult manner. The vast majority of my over 4,000 post over the past almost 3 years have been friendly unless provoked.

Yet I suddenly decide to change my religious beliefs and I get called a "troll" by someone who hasn't even been here for 3 months? :nope:

Sorry, I must have mis-read the membership agreements, or something. How long must I be a member before I can express an opinion?
 
For a start, explain what is meant by 'consequence' and 'derivability' in the context of formal logic?

Firstly, As I mentioned earlier it's a modal not formal argument. A consequence is the same as a conclusion of a set of premises or postulates. Derivations are sequences formulas given extrapability of the initial consequence from the previous formula.

How do 'consequence' and 'derivability' relate to Godel's proof of the completeness of the first-order predicate calculus?

The same way they do for any modal formula.

How do 'consequence' and 'derivability' relate to Godel's proof of the incompleteness of the second-order predicate calculus?

See above.

What do 'soundness' and 'completeness' mean in the context of formal logic and what do they have to do with the previous two questions?

Soundness means that the argument's logic is valid and the premises are true. "Completeness" has no relevancy to my argument since it's already functionally valid in it's premises.
 
The implication is that I'm using profanity. Care to indicate exactly where I've done that?

I'm not referring to you but to others in this thread. Especially "ThaiBoxerken"

Sorry, I must have mis-read the membership agreements, or something. How long must I be a member before I can express an opinion?

So you admit it's an "opinion"? As in unsupported by any evidence?
 
All this discussion on philosophy and semantics is all fine and good, however it really doesn't get us anywhere.

I'd like to see some actual hard evidence. Something I can put under a microscope, or measure with a voltmeter, or pour some ammonium nitrate on and get a reaction.

Using philosophical arguments one can prove that red is blue, night is day and three legged chairs have a right to exist. None of that adds up to empirical evidence, ladies and gentlemen!

Cheers,
TGHO
 
Wrong. ‘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.

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.

You're confused yet again though. 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.

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!


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.

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

Dustin you are an absolute waste of time.
 
Last edited:
Is that how you interpreted my post? I think you need to re-read it, this time with your monitor turned on...




Deistic Gods aren't necessarily omnipresent though I defined mine as being so.




You said you believed in God. That's enough.




You must have missed my whole OP...



This question makes no sense. If I'm only a "thinking being" then I as a whole am that being not a portion of it.



None of which has evidence to back up? Try again?




The dictionary disagrees.




When I say "Conscious being" I mean our consciousness is all we're aware of. The Cartesian self. Anything other than that either exists outside of ourselves or inside. I've shown how if we're only "thinking beings" then it can't exist inside therefore our perceptions are coming from outside of ourselves.




Example?





Huh?



If we're our physical selves then any experiences we have come(or are based on) from the outside world through our senses. You've yet to give an example otherwise.





Because our unconsciousness controlling our consciousness would mix together resulting in a non-thinking thing.

You are making no sense. When you graduate junior high school, come back and we'll talk junior.

Our unconsciousness DOES control our consciousness, nitwit. All the scientific evidence has demonstrated this quite clearly. EVERY conscious thought or action is preceeded by unconsious mental activity.

Thus, you're wrong.

And show me where I said I believe in God. Further, show me where you've shown evidence for believing in the Bible, in being an evangelical Christian, etc.

And, no, a proof is not evidence. Nor is evidence proof. Otherwise, I could prove that dragons and faeries exist, and are far more powerful than the Christian God.

But all of this is clearly lost on you. You still think your conscious self is somehow primary to your being. Welcome to the real world, Dustin - your conscious awareness is an afterthought, and not much more than that.

From all the evidence, that which is 'you' is a small portion of that which is your biological self. Your conscious awareness is part of the brain which reflects on things that have happened, rather than deciding what things should happen. Decisions occur on the unconscious level and are reported to the conscious mind. Movements are originated in non-conscious areas and reported to the conscious mind.

The evidence is pretty damning for your point of view, Dusty.

However, none of this matters. You believe in Christianity, so your only hope of killing the monster of guilt you're feeling now is to try to rationalize it after the fact and come up with some logical gymnastics to justify your faith.

You're pretty sad. As a skeptic, you're clearly a failure, since your attempts at rationalizing faith have more fallacies and logical holes than the Bible itself, pound-for-pound. And as a believer, you're clearly a failure, since you simply can't accept faith alone, and must try to justify your faith.

Pathetic.

When you get an education, please return here and perhaps we can continue our discussion. Until then, I don't feel like wasting my time on the pseudo-philosophical rationalizations of a brainwashing victim.

Oh, and one more thing: Eschew obfuscation. This, most of all, you need to learn.
 
All this discussion on philosophy and semantics is all fine and good, however it really doesn't get us anywhere.

I'd like to see some actual hard evidence. Something I can put under a microscope, or measure with a voltmeter, or pour some ammonium nitrate on and get a reaction.

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. Logically it's just as valid as 1+1=2.


Using philosophical arguments one can prove that red is blue, night is day and three legged chairs have a right to exist. None of that adds up to empirical evidence, ladies and gentlemen!

Cheers,
TGHO

Prove red=blue using valid philosophical arguments.
 
Firstly, As I mentioned earlier it's a modal not formal argument. A consequence is the same as a conclusion of a set of premises or postulates. Derivations are sequences formulas given extrapability of the initial consequence from the previous formula.

The same way they do for any modal formula.

See above.

Soundness means that the argument's logic is valid and the premises are true. "Completeness" has no relevancy to my argument since it's already functionally valid in it's premises.


As I thought, you don't have an f'ing clue.

Dustin doesn't understand anything about the statements of formal logic that he so blythely throws around. Typical fundy xian apologist.

Learn to spell 'premisses', you fundy troll.

'extrapability'?
 
You are making no sense. When you graduate junior high school, come back and we'll talk junior.

You're obviously not a man of God.

Our unconsciousness DOES control our consciousness, nitwit. All the scientific evidence has demonstrated this quite clearly. EVERY conscious thought or action is preceeded by unconsious mental activity.

I know.

Thus, you're wrong.

About?


And show me where I said I believe in God. Further, show me where you've shown evidence for believing in the Bible, in being an evangelical Christian, etc.

You said you were a priest! Are you an atheist priest?

:rolleyes:

And, no, a proof is not evidence. Nor is evidence proof. Otherwise, I could prove that dragons and faeries exist, and are far more powerful than the Christian God.

Proof is often defined as the amount of evidence needed to convince. Which of course varies. Prove that dragons and fairies exist.

But all of this is clearly lost on you. You still think your conscious self is somehow primary to your being. Welcome to the real world, Dustin - your conscious awareness is an afterthought, and not much more than that.

No I don't. You need to update yourself on Cartesian philosophy. It's a form of argumentation used in epistemology.


From all the evidence, that which is 'you' is a small portion of that which is your biological self. Your conscious awareness is part of the brain which reflects on things that have happened, rather than deciding what things should happen. Decisions occur on the unconscious level and are reported to the conscious mind. Movements are originated in non-conscious areas and reported to the conscious mind.

Define "You". Am you only your conscious self or are you your entire body?


However, none of this matters. You believe in Christianity, so your only hope of killing the monster of guilt you're feeling now is to try to rationalize it after the fact and come up with some logical gymnastics to justify your faith.

Only a man who is logically fit can perform logical gymnastics.


You're pretty sad. As a skeptic, you're clearly a failure, since your attempts at rationalizing faith have more fallacies and logical holes than the Bible itself, pound-for-pound. And as a believer, you're clearly a failure, since you simply can't accept faith alone, and must try to justify your faith.

You've failed to point out any of my "fallacies".

Some priest...Calling your fellow man a 'failure'? Go copulate with an adolescent, "father".



Pathetic.

:)


When you get an education, please return here and perhaps we can continue our discussion. Until then, I don't feel like wasting my time on the pseudo-philosophical rationalizations of a brainwashing victim.

You sure do take a logical butt whooping hard don't you? Resorting to childish insults and taunts as a result? THAT is pathetic.
 
I've provided evidence already.
No you haven't.
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.

That's pretty funny stuff. So Dustin, how does this "evidence" which cannot be touched, seen, or measured in any meaningful way differ from "no evidence"??
It's very chauvinistic and narrow minded of you to believe so.

:confused:

chau·vin·ism
–noun 1. zealous and aggressive patriotism or blind enthusiasm for military glory.
2. biased devotion to any group, attitude, or cause.

Seems to me that you are the one with "biased devotion" here Dustin. So, can you explain for us how "evidence" for your god differs from, say. evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Logically it's just as valid as 1+1=2.
No. It's not.

-z
 

Back
Top Bottom