Proof of God

Dustin Kesselberg said:
There's a big difference. In my argument I assume God exists to differentiate between the logic of him existing vs not existing and then conclude that it would be impossible for him not to Exist. In D'rok's argument he assumes that Red=blue if this thread is 'amusing', concludes it's amusing and then extrapolates from that "Red=blue".
Click to expand...

Dustin stop pretending you've proved god! You assume God exists, and therefore "prove" that he exists.

here is your argument dissected - you keep avoiding addressing it.

dustin said:
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.
.
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:
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 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?


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.

The stupid burns.
 
Last edited:
rikzilla said:
Since you haven't, I similarly haven't...which means that I have!
My work here is done! :)
Click to expand...

Sure I have. See my OP.


rikzilla said:
How can you question it? What basis do you use to question evidence which cannot be seen smelt, felt, or measured in any meaningful way?
Click to expand...

You haven't presented it to me as I have presented my proof to you in the OP.


rikzilla said:
Since I have quoted you directly saying that it is chauvanistic to dismiss such "evidence", isn't it then chauvanistic of you to dismiss mine??
Click to expand...

No. You've seen my arguments. I haven't seen yours.

rikzilla said:
  • There is non-empirical evidence for the FSM.
  • It has convinced me that the FSM can fly.
  • Therefore I have proven that the FSM can fly.
This is your own argument, your own use of the terms:
  • Evidence
  • Proof
  • To convince
-z
Click to expand...

So can you put this evidence in the form of a sound argument establishing the "FSM" to be true as I have God? No? Ok then..
 
Where have you "proven" god? Please repost that bit, (just that bit please), so that we can have a butcher's at it.

The point, however, is that you are using words in ways that make them meaningless.

Sucking the meaning out of clearly useful words does not prove the existence of a god Dustin. All it does is confuse language, and hence confuse people who are trying very hard to understand you.

You are intentionally confusing. This is intellectual dishonesty of a uniquely destructive nature. Basically speaking, and I mean no offense, but when people do such things it usually means they are liars.

-z
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
How? You're obviously the one who doesn't understand basic logic. If you did you would show me how my answers were wrong or you wouldn't continue to assert that they are wrong.
Click to expand...


Dustin, you don't yet have enough background or the mental tools to understand a short answer to your demand, and I have no intention of providing you with enough education to enable you to understand.

You're supposed to be an adult. Behave like one - stop babbling ignorance and learn.

You claimed to understand the notation that you used in your 'proof'.

I challenged your understanding of that notation and the concepts underlying it.

I asked you some questions that anyone with a basic knowledge of mathematical logic would be able to answer.

Your answers to these questions demonstrate your ignorance of the subject.

You demand that I tell you how your answers are wrong.

I suggest that you learn something about the subject.

You say that I must be ignorant of logic because I won't tell you what you did wrong.

I tell you to grow up and do your own work. I owe you nothing.

You claimed knowledge that you don't have. Acquire it or not, as you wish. It really won't make any difference.

Are you going to keep trying to convert us?
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
You're obviously not a man of God.
Click to expand...

You're right.

You said you were a priest! Are you an atheist priest?
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm a Wiccan Priest.

See how your assumptions can come back to bite you in the buttocks?

Proof is often defined as the amount of evidence needed to convince.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you have no proof whatsoever. Got it.

Which of course varies. Prove that dragons and fairies exist.
Click to expand...

Using your definition above - they exist because I say they exist.

Ah, there, see? I'm convinced.

Good definition!

While we're at it, I can prove that you owe me a million dollars.

Dustin owes me a million dollars.

There, I'm convinced.

I love this version of proof! I'll expect payment shortly.

...

Or are we using a more rational version of 'evidence'? Because so far, you've provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever of God. Of ANY god.

And by 'convince' - are you saying, amount of evidence needed to convince YOU, or ME, or CFLarsen... Who are you trying to convince?

So far, there's only one gullible knucklehead who's convinced by your statements.

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

I am a continuous and dynamic system comprised of but not limited to any or all of the following components: my conscious being, my subconscious/unconscious being, the matter of my brain, the matter of my body, my clothing, hairstyle, and general appearance, my possessions, my works, my writings, my artwork, the memory of me in the minds of others, the record of me in the books and computer indices that have recorded my passing, the legend of me when the memory has faded, and my name.

Many thoughts originate, therefore, within me, and are based, therefore, within me.

Now, if you'd like to provide YOUR definition, we can perhaps proceed apace.

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

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

Any illogical fat slob can flop around on the mat of reason and compress his gonads on the balance beam of analysis. You're a prime example, in fact.

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

No, you've failed to acknowledge them. I was one of the first to point out a fallacy, and you have failed to defend your statement even once.

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

Yes, I am a priest. And one of my many duties as a priest is to show people the truth, no matter how ugly that may be.

You're a failure as a skeptic. You're a failure as a believer. And you're a failure as an adolescent.

But I'll be quite happy to copulate with a consenting adolescent non-minor. Something you probably haven't experienced yet.

You sure do take a logical butt whooping hard don't you? Resorting to childish insults and taunts as a result? THAT is pathetic.
Click to expand...

When did I take a logical butt whooping? You're swatting at air and thinking you're Mike Tyson, while we're just laughing at you and sipping our cocktails.

Still... if you have something logical and well-thought-out, please, bring it to the table.

I'm still waiting for you to respond logically and reasonably to my first reply in this thread. Bring it or admit error.
 
andyandy said:
Dustin stop pretending you've proved god! You assume God exists, and therefore "prove" that he exists.
Click to expand...

He's trying to do a derivation to show not-God in order to derive a contradiction (thus showing not-God to be logically impossible). Therefore the first line of his derivation is legitimately an assumption, God.

Unfortunately, he fundamentally misunderstands this whole process in the same way that he can't seem to grasp the difference between truth, validity and soundness.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
Let's assume a scenario.

Premise1-All A's are N's.

Premise2-Here is an A.

Conclusion-Here is an N.


I've proven that there is an 'N' in this scenario. No material evidence needed.
Click to expand...

But this proof is also irrelevant, as it has no applicability in the real world, and uses completely undefined and unproven terms as its basis.

When you're trying to prove something like God, material evidence is clearly needed. There is no logical proof that can prove that God exists in the real world.

It's dumb to believe the only proof or evidence must be empirical or material.
Click to expand...

"It's dumb"? That's not a rebuttal. That's an emotional response.

Rebut or retract.

"Flying Spaghetti Monster". He flies? He's made of Spaghetti? I'm assuming. How do you know he flies and is made of spaghetti? I can prove my God given his specific attributes. Can you prove yours given his different attributes?
Click to expand...

Are you saying, you can write an internally consistant but irrelevant proof of a god that could exist given his specific attributes within a given scenario, or are you saying you can prove that a real God exists in the real world, given his specific attributes?
 
I only had to read the first three paragraphs of the OP to determine:

A. This person has nothing new or informative to say

and

B. He will continue in this thread for at least 10 pages to say it.
 
Wow, this whole "I've proved god" thing seems to be the ultimate in mental masturbation. I love how circular logic just reinforces the believer's contention they are "right" beyond all question. What a wonderful feast for the hungry ego.
 
PixyMisa said:
Also, please tell us what B is.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Dustin is mixing up so many different kinds of formal logic into one mish-mash of nonsense that it's difficult to unravel.

He is not necessarily wrong to use an uninstantiated variable. The problem is how he uses it and the fact that he uses a name letter to refer to a variable.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
Same thing. You're assuming that red=blue if this thread is amusing. However you're failing to show how red=blue regardless of this threads amusement..
Click to expand...

Red=blue is the conclusion. Conclusions are not assumed, they are derived from premises. Given the premises, (neither of which was an assumption that red=blue), the conclusion holds.


Valid but not sound.
Click to expand...
YES! You asked for a valid argument proving that red=blue. Happy to oblige. If it is valid, then the conclusion has been shown. Soundness is not relevant to validity. Don't tell me it's starting to sink in?

Here is another valid argument that red=blue:

P: red is blue.

If P then P
P
Therefore P

Completely unsound and completely valid.

So you have three hurdles for your proof:
1. Validity
2. Soundness
3. Conflation of proof and evidence (legitimately)

Even though I don't think you've achieved 1 or 2, I'm willing to just give them to you because you can never get past 3. Redefining terms at whim to suit context will not achieve 3.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you have crafted a deductively valid argument that shows the conclusion "God exists" and is both valid and sound. You have "proved" that God exists in the context of formal logic. In this context (formal logic), proof has a specific and rigorous meaning that is not equivalent to evidence. To move this proof into empirical reality, you will have to do something besides simply pulling out Merriam-Webster and pronouncing "voila!". That is extraordinarily dishonest.

Enjoy your faith if it makes you happy. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, not the possession of wisdom.
 
D'rok the Lacone said:
Dustin is mixing up so many different kinds of formal logic into one mish-mash of nonsense that it's difficult to unravel.
Click to expand...
A remarkably moderate statement of the situation. ;)

He is not necessarily wrong to use an uninstantiated variable. The problem is how he uses it and the fact that he uses a name letter to refer to a variable.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe. But it's in the written version of his "proof" but not the symbolic version. Where did it come from?
 
Miss Anthrope said:
Wow, this whole "I've proved god" thing seems to be the ultimate in mental masturbation. I love how circular logic just reinforces the believer's contention they are "right" beyond all question. What a wonderful feast for the hungry ego.
Click to expand...


I find it kind of sad. You basically have a person of faith who cannot trust his faith. He has to pretend that his faith is the product of reason or analysis. In so doing, he has to ignore all of the best rules that make reason and analysis so powerful. He can never be happy because the faithful side of him demands reason and the reasonable side of him cannot deliver.

Better to be my grandmother who had unwaivering faith in God and would dismiss all reasonable arguments as irrelevant to the magic of religion. Her beliefs actually provided her strength and comfort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom