Proof of God

alfaniner said:
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.
Click to expand...

... And here we are at Page 11 (by my display), already.

I will admit that this thread has been a fascinating study.

Dustin Kesselberg said:
I type incredibly fast, probably around 120-140 words per minute on average. However you're right about that time estimate of mine, I was estimating how long it took me to type it up and it seemed like 20 minutes. It was probably more than twice that.
Click to expand...

... and I'd like to at least acknowledge that Dustin can spell and punctuate very well.
 
The Cuttlefish And The Flying Pig: An Aureate Amphigory

By way of prologema, I should explain to the less erudite of the maculate multitude the appearance of order Sepiida in the rubric of these dithyrambic versicles. It is an allegorical figure, signifying those sophistical sciolists who, like the cuttlefish, expend superfluous quantities of tenebrous fluid in order to obscure their own position.

I'll not obnubilate my views by waxing metaphorical;
eschewing all hyperbole, I'll state as categorical:
a supermundane altitude's a feat that's quite prosaic for
domestic Ungulata deemed uncleanly by Mosaic law.

When acephalic aolists aver that I'm erroneous
I'll ply my polysyllables and won't be parsimonious.
My argument's bromidical, that just as every pigeon is
the genus Sus is volant and ascends to heights vertiginous.

When hireophants of orthodoxy preach that I'm heretical
I postulate a syllogism wholly anthetical;
with words sesquipedalian and vatic as a Druid I
explain the airy element's not alien to Suidae.

When obscurantists obfuscate, whatever my opponent says
I'll get quite logorrheic and in sundry altitonant ways
point out the airborne habits and the aviform taxonomy
of suiforms explicitly condemned in Deuteronomy.

I'll answer every eroteme with marvels of magniloquence:
mellifluously Latinate, I corruscate with brilliance.
With plethorae of syllables and logic that is Boolean
I'll prove that porcine genera inhabit the cerulean.
 
:wave1


Thank you, Dr. Adequate.

I'm in awe. It scans quite well and means something.

Reminds me of Gilbert and Sullivan, not to mention Dr. Seuss.

Dustin will be kept quite busy with his dictionary.
 
Dr Adequate said:
The Cuttlefish And The Flying Pig: An Aureate Amphigory
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm hearing echos of Gilbert & Sullivan too: "I am the very model of a modern Major-General" from Pirates of Penzance... :)
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay, I had a go at formalising this...I hope no one minds, but I included an enthymematic premise that was hinted at in the argument (that Omnipresences is a positive property).

g: God
Px: x is a positive property
Nx: x is a negative property
Rxy: x is a property of y
Ox: x is omnipresent
Lx: x is a place
Axy: x exists at y

E!g
(∀x)(Px ≡ Rxg)
(Ix)(Ox,Px)
(∃x)(Px & Rxg)
∴ (∀x)(Nx ⊃ ~Rxg)
∴ (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rxg)
Og
∴ (∃x)(Lx & Agx)
∴ (∀x)(Lx ⊃ Agx)
∴ (∃x)(Px & Rxg)
∴ E!g​

I haven't tested this yet, because I don't need to: It's an argument from E!g, to E!g. Of course it's bleeding valid - in fact, I can simplify it and remove all the unnecessary premises - watch:

g: God

E!g
∴ E!g​

In short, this argument is valid and completely useless. Thankyou for your time.
 
Dr Adequate said:
porcine genera inhabit the cerulean.
Click to expand...


That pigs can fly? Is that what that means? Man, you are smart. I mean, I'm pretty smart but you are, like, really smart.


But, I will tell you that if I had been so lucky as to have a steady brother who could talk to me as we are talking now to one another, my existence would have made a rather interesting idylland I might have lived and died a very decent individual.
 
l0rca said:
Is anyone else here exhausted when it comes to reading 'fresh' theistic arguments? Theists: if you want to debate God, and remain somewhat respectable, you've got to put it into the context of past philosophy and arguments. 'Inventing' worn out philosophical proofs bothers us. We don't want to read very long essays, to only half-way through realize that the arguments are entirely old. It's even worse when the writer doesn't acknowledge this. It makes that writer seem uneducated on the subject.

If we're going to look at the history of this and judge where the next reply comes from, it is the theist who must reply, in regards to Popper, Hume, Kant, etc. I'm not going to waste my time (and evidently neither are most of us, at least seriously) in argument with someone who's reinventing old arguments. Will any of you realize empiricism is the dominating strategy for understanding and rationalizing the universe? Will any of you stop ignoring this, and finally try to confront it?

I'll take you seriously when you confront the flaws, confront our counter-arguments, and give us a good reply, not asking is to presuppose wild axioms. This is the 21st century, and philosophy has been around for a very long time. We'e all sort of yawning about this God thing right about now.
Click to expand...

Very well said...you took the words right out of my mouth!!!!!!!!
 
Dr Adequate said:
The Cuttlefish And The Flying Pig: An Aureate Amphigory

By way of prologema, I should explain to the less erudite of the maculate multitude the appearance of order Sepiida in the rubric of these dithyrambic versicles. It is an allegorical figure, signifying those sophistical sciolists who, like the cuttlefish, expend superfluous quantities of tenebrous fluid in order to obscure their own position.

I'll not obnubilate my views by waxing metaphorical;
eschewing all hyperbole, I'll state as categorical:
a supermundane altitude's a feat that's quite prosaic for
domestic Ungulata deemed uncleanly by Mosaic law.

When acephalic aolists aver that I'm erroneous
I'll ply my polysyllables and won't be parsimonious.
My argument's bromidical, that just as every pigeon is
the genus Sus is volant and ascends to heights vertiginous.

When hireophants of orthodoxy preach that I'm heretical
I postulate a syllogism wholly anthetical;
with words sesquipedalian and vatic as a Druid I
explain the airy element's not alien to Suidae.

When obscurantists obfuscate, whatever my opponent says
I'll get quite logorrheic and in sundry altitonant ways
point out the airborne habits and the aviform taxonomy
of suiforms explicitly condemned in Deuteronomy.

I'll answer every eroteme with marvels of magniloquence:
mellifluously Latinate, I corruscate with brilliance.
With plethorae of syllables and logic that is Boolean
I'll prove that porcine genera inhabit the cerulean.
Click to expand...

Pure genius!!! I don't guess the spell checker was much good :D

I hope you don't mind it being translated for Dustin.

Dr Adequate (translated) said:
I'll not "muddy my views by being" metaphorical;
"To avoid" all "figures of speach", I'll state as categorical:
a "high above the world" altitude's a feat that's quite "easy" for
domestic "pig" deemed uncleanly by "the bible".

When "mindless zealots declare" that I'm "wrong"
I'll "speak big words" and won't be "sparing".
My argument's "acidic", that just as every pigeon is
the genus Sus is "capable of flight" and ascends to heights "that are scary".

When "priest" of orthodoxy preach that I'm heretical
I postulate a "logic" wholly "in my mind";
with "long words" and "prophetic" as a "priest" I
explain "that flight is" not alien to "pigs".

When "opponents distort", whatever my opponent says
I'll get quite "excessive with words" and in "various pompous" ways
point out the "flight" and the "wings"
of "pigs" explicitly condemned in "the bible".

I'll answer every "interrogation" with marvels of "extravagant speech":
"sweet sounding latin", I "sparkle" with brilliance.
With "plenty" of syllables and logic that is Boolean
I'll prove that "pig kind" inhabit the "blue sky".
Click to expand...

I like your version better :blush:
 
Mobyseven said:
Okay, I had a go at formalising this...I hope no one minds, but I included an enthymematic premise that was hinted at in the argument (that Omnipresences is a positive property).

g: God
Px: x is a positive property
Nx: x is a negative property
Rxy: x is a property of y
Ox: x is omnipresent
Lx: x is a place
Axy: x exists at y

E!g
(∀x)(Px ≡ Rxg)
(Ix)(Ox,Px)
(∃x)(Px & Rxg)
∴ (∀x)(Nx ⊃ ~Rxg)
∴ (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rxg)
Og
∴ (∃x)(Lx & Agx)
∴ (∀x)(Lx ⊃ Agx)
∴ (∃x)(Px & Rxg)
∴ E!g​

I haven't tested this yet, because I don't need to: It's an argument from E!g, to E!g. Of course it's bleeding valid - in fact, I can simplify it and remove all the unnecessary premises - watch:

g: God

E!g
∴ E!g​

In short, this argument is valid and completely useless. Thankyou for your time.
Click to expand...

very nice :) I've got a fat analysis and integration theory text sat on my bookshelf that i keep putting off reading - i generally get half way through the first chapter and put it to one side for later. Must try harder....then i'll be able to prove God :D
 
my_wan said:
Pure genius!!! I don't guess the spell checker was much good :D

I hope you don't mind it being translated for Dustin.



I like your version better :blush:
Click to expand...

many thanks for the translation - our language has far to many words :)
 
Here I was, all ready to debate actual logic with Dustin, but it turns out he just begged the question. Oh well.
 
Taffer said:
Here I was, all ready to debate actual logic with Dustin, but it turns out he just begged the question. Oh well.
Click to expand...

hi taffer - see you've got a new avater......the kanji look similar [although it's been a while so i could be mistaken :)] to the japanese for "before god(s) "......do they have a similar meaning in Chinese?
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
hi taffer - see you've got a new avater......the kanji look similar [although it's been a while so i could be mistaken :)] to the japanese for "before god(s) "......do they have a similar meaning in Chinese?
Click to expand...

Hiya andyandy! :D

My title is the pinyin reading of the characters (Shén Tōu). The meaning is essentially "Master Thief", in a similar fashion to "Sword Master". The lit. translation is "god steals".

ETA: Although, that being said, I do like the idea of "before god". :D

ETA2: I think that would be "之神" (zhī shén), but let's just say that my confidence in this answer is about as strong as my confidence that Dustin can make a logically sound argument. ;)

ETA3: Or possibly "在神之" (zài zhī shén). Perhaps I should stop speculating and go to sleep.
 
Last edited:
Taffer said:
Hiya andyandy! :D

My title is the pinyin reading of the characters (Shén Tōu). The meaning is essentially "Master Thief", in a similar fashion to "Sword Master". The lit. translation is "God steals".
Click to expand...

1 out of 2 :D

one of the (few) benefits of kanji is the pictorial crossover [to some extent at least] between Chinese and Japanese...

still I think the Romans were onto a better system :)
 
andyandy said:
1 out of 2 :D

one of the (few) benefits of kanji is the pictorial crossover [to some extent at least] between Chinese and Japanese...

still I think the Romans were onto a better system :)
Click to expand...

Aye, it does make things easier, to be sure. Of course, it takes us that much more space to write. ;)

Although learning Chinese is hard, for exactly that reason. So I'll have to agree. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom