Does God exist? (4 Viewers)

[veterandoggy]

i am not going to look at it again unless there is some english translation next to it. its driving me nuts.

 

[withoutaface]

i am not going to look at it again unless there is some english translation next to it. its driving me nuts.

It probably extends to third/fourth year logic and set theory, so we've all got SFA chance of comprehending it.

 

[veterandoggy]

It probably extends to third/fourth year logic and set theory, so we've all got SFA chance of comprehending it.

yeah true that. i think this is their yearly examination lmao.

 

[withoutaface]

Godellian logic is, this isn't. The proof as far as I can see just shows that it's not self contradictory for a being with entirely positive attributes to exist.

 

[veterandoggy]

you can see that?!?! or you're guessing?

 

[withoutaface]

I looked it up.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yea wikipedia provides a good explanation...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof

Axiom 3 assumes that a conjunction of positive properties is also a positive property, but some positive properties may be incompatible with others. For example mercy may be incompatible with justice. In that case the conjunction would be an impossible property and G(x) would be false of every x. Ted Drange has made this objection to the coherence of attributing all positive properties to God - see this article for Drange's list of incompatible properties and some counter arguments.

So there is definately some debate about this.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html - for more.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I was watching a show on the discovery channel about UFO's and they interviewed someone who was the leader of a religion that believed aliens were god. The reasons he gave in 20 seconds made more sense than anything I have ever been told by a christian and I went to a christian school for 9 years and had to listen to that shit constantly.

It just goes to show you can interpret the so called proof any way you like.

 

[SashatheMan]

i forgot all my math. i remember doing some of that stuff in three unit

 

[MoonlightSonata]

"Quran the word of God"

I was merely stating my belief and opinion, and I dont think anyone has successfully been able to prove that the Quran is the word of Man, and not God! Thus theres no room for someone to make such a statement, like that of HotShot! The statement that I initially responded to!

What you have attempted to do is to fallaciously shift the burden of proof. The onus is not on us to prove that the Quran is not the word of God. The onus is on you to prove that it is the word of God.

It is like saying "I believe that you are an alien in very convincing disguise, and I should believe that unless you can prove to me you are not". We don't start with assuming that proposition. The default position is that you are not an alien.

[Additionally, by saying that "There is no evidence that the Quran is not the word of God, therefore it is the word of God", I think that you make a clear fallacious appeal to ignorance. Even if it was the word of God, we would not have any clear evidence of this.]


Attacking religion with courtesy

I'm tired of being expected to tip toe around religious people's delicate sensibilities. Why should I respect something that I believe to be absurd and illogical? Many people also believe they've been abducted by aliens, but does that mean I should respect them?

Well you don't have to accept them. But it is sort of nice not to be too harsh on those who are reasonable in return. Remember, most religious people have been brought up with their beliefs, and a great number are heavily influenced in their whole lifestyle by such beliefs. To challenge their religion, while perfectly valid and justified, is very confronting for them. Many have built their whole mindset and moral values on it. To confront it is to pull psychological and social foundations from them.

Basically what I'm saying is, when dismantling religious arguments, I think it pays to be polite. I can't help getting worked up on the odd occasion, but when you consider that the person has so much invested in their religion, if there is no harm to your argument then it makes sense to tread lightly, where possible.

Also, though probably 95% of religious types won't change their view, you can be much more persuasive being nice than being angry. (Even if it is hard not to get frustrated when people ignore your arguments, which happens a lot.)

Just my two cents.

lol you werent meant to know, cos it wasnt aimed at you. i was making fun of how your name was typed.

Ah yes, I see now

 

[MoonlightSonata]

has anyone seen godels god proof?

Hehe. Godel's argument is a modal version of the ontological argument. There are numerous modern versions of the modal ontological argument. I described one that I liked some time ago:

Yes, please.

Alritey. Before I begin let me say that this is NOT the normal ontological argument. It is a modal version of the ontological argument which does not contain the same question-begging fallacies.

(This argument entails some knowledge of possible world theory).

1. A perfect being (a being possessing all perfections essentially) is not impossible.
2. Necessary existence is a perfection.
:: A perfect being exists.

To expound:

Poss (a perfect being)
= In possible world (W), there is a perfect being (G)

In W, G is necessary
= G is in all worlds

:: G exists here.

I don't necessarily approve of this argument. But it does show that you can use reason, reasonably, to attempt to show the existence of God.

 

[withoutaface]

It just shows that something with entirely positive attributes is possible, but the problem is that noone knows what positive and negative are with respect to any given attribute.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I would like to point out that so far the best argument for the existance of god in this thread has been presented by atheists...

ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS

(1) Ask Atheists what caused the Big Bang.
(2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.
(3) Continue process until the Atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions.
(4) You win!
(5) Therefore, God exists.

lolz.

Allow me to post this up as a great / funny debate that downloads fast...

http://drdino.activeforjesus.com/debates/shermer_Large.zip

http://www.thewilsonshouse.com/guest/Ali_G_vs_Kent_Hovind.wmv

Ali G lol

A brillian molecular biologist vs kent hovind... hillarious.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=&sermonID=112302144513
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonssource&sermonID=11240204031

You have to put in a email... but it's worth it, I laughed for hours. I also suggest getting together with your pals and taking a shot every time kent hovind makes a logical fallacy.

 

[Salima]

Originally Posted by HotShot
on the other hand, there is little evidence to suggest god exists. Bible, quran etc are evidence because they were written by humans, and conjured up humans. After all humans tend to make up things, eg ghosts, spirits etc.

So I'm taking it you don't believe in anything unseen? Then you wouldn't like the idea of muslim jinn. They are spirits I guess, but must more also. Created by god yes. All things living were. There are good and bad, and neutral jinn. Bad are called shaiyton. They work for the devil. You probably think that's bollucks. But hey I don't see how you could not believe in spirits. Then what about people who have seen things of that sort or felt them? Does that mean they're just crazy?

 

[Salima]

"Quran the word of God"
What you have attempted to do is to fallaciously shift the burden of proof. The onus is not on us to prove that the Quran is not the word of God. The onus is on you to prove that it is the word of God.


[

Why do we always have to prove? Why not you? Does that not mean that you are infact saying that it could be the word of god?

But to muslims you see we don't have ot prove anything. For if someone is to be muslim wethr they decide at the age of 2, 18, 45, or 90, they were meant to be muslim at exactly that moment. IT is their destiny you see. God decides. So count your blessings if you do realise god. So basically I', saying that it does not need to be proven to non-muslims because either
a) you'll never believe no matter how much proof is given and we're not here ot satisfy your needs.
b) you will realise on your own without anyone else to give you a helping hand anyway. because it has been written down as your destiny.

 

[davo_]

This thread is just giving people an excuse to act philosophical and pretend they are clever...

 

[Ilija]

If religion has made her a better person and has made her happy then how is that wasting her life?

There are two possible scenarios.

Scenario 1: Some people believe in God, others don't. They die. There was no God. Nothing happens.

Scenario 2: Some people believe in God, others don't. They die. There was a God. Those who believed in God go to heaven and those who didn't get eternal damnation.

Now tell me, using logic, what do you think would be the wiser thing to do?

What happens to the people that didn't believe in the "right God"?
Then you have wasted your life devoting your self to a God, and still burn in hell.

Also to any Theist. Who would have more a right to go to "heaven" a thiest who has sinned and disregarded the word of "God" yet still believes in him OR an agnostic person who is not sure about the after life and about a higher being but yet still lives a moral life.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

"Quran the word of God"

I was merely stating my belief and opinion, and I dont think anyone has successfully been able to prove that the Quran is the word of Man, and not God! Thus theres no room for someone to make such a statement, like that of HotShot! The statement that I initially responded to!

What you have attempted to do is to fallaciously shift the burden of proof. The onus is not on us to prove that the Quran is not the word of God. The onus is on you to prove that it is the word of God.

It is like saying "I believe that you are an alien in very convincing disguise, and I should believe that unless you can prove to me you are not". We don't start with assuming that proposition. The default position is that you are not an alien.

[Additionally, by saying that "There is no evidence that the Quran is not the word of God, therefore it is the word of God", I think that you make a clear fallacious appeal to ignorance. Even if it was the word of God, we would not have any clear evidence of this.]

Why do we always have to prove? Why not you? Does that not mean that you are infact saying that it could be the word of god?

Did you even read my post? Perhaps you did not understand it. I explained to you why you have to prove it. I stated that you are making a fallacious shift of the burden of proof. The person who argues for the more surprising, counter-intuitive claim carries the burden of proof. It is up to him/her to show that she has evidence for their proposition being true. Now, at the absolute least, the burden of proof is in the middle (ie. withholding judment because it is unclear). But it is in fact far more accurate to say that the default position is that the book is not the word of God.

I further said that you make a fallacious appeal to ignorance. I gave clear reasons for that. As I stated at the beginning of this thread, I strongly suggest that you have a read the fallacies section before participating in the discussion. If you take the time to understand them, it will strengthen your argument greatly.

But to muslims you see we don't have ot prove anything. For if someone is to be muslim wethr they decide at the age of 2, 18, 45, or 90, they were meant to be muslim at exactly that moment. IT is their destiny you see. God decides. So count your blessings if you do realise god.

No, you can't start your argument to prove God by assuming that God already exists. That is obvious circular reasoning.

So basically I', saying that it does not need to be proven to non-muslims because either
a) you'll never believe no matter how much proof is given and we're not here ot satisfy your needs.
b) you will realise on your own without anyone else to give you a helping hand anyway. because it has been written down as your destiny.

No, again it is circular reasoning. Additionally, all you are essentially saying is that Muslims will not question the foundations of their beliefs. They assume their beliefs to be true without ever questioning them. I doubt that that is true of all Muslims, but for the ones who do, that is highly dangerous, irrational and illogical.

You could apply the same ridiculous argument to people of any religion. "They don't have to be proven it to be true." You may not have to prove it to them to change their beliefs, but it does not in any way make their belief true. Just because people believe something does not make it true.

 

[ur_inner_child]

I believe in God, but through logic and proof, there is a possibility that God does not exist.

none of this claptrap where its "your destiny" etc. through LOGIC, religious arguments for the existance of God, they are more or less invalid.

This thread seems to be just a circular attack for religious types to stumble in, only to get slammed in the face for things they cannot prove, most of the time where their traditional evidence cannot be used (eg the bible) and where things like "you do not need to prove the existance of God if you believe" sounds like airy fairy crap; irrelevant to the argument proposed, and open to attack.

when it comes to respect... i may agree with some of the points about whether to respect a belief of being abducted by aliens etc. Can I point out that these beliefs are aged centuries? it may not be good enough to start respecting these beliefs, one thing that moonlight didnt mention, besides the personal attack on someone's social, moral foundations etc, is that its become a "tradition", usually something that is passed down from family.

Yes its fine to challenge and criticise these "traditions", religion is after all a construct. But the mere challenge of a construct is a complicated enough. Its the same with a family experiencing a culture clash between the children and the parents. Its fine to challenge existing traditions, but to disrespect them is highly inappropriate, and participants would probably ignore any of the reasoning and logic involved. That's what this thread is trying to do right? Knock some sense into religious types?

No religious type will come in and give you any proof that God exists. I believe in God and there is no proof of it. There is also no hard ground proof that God DEFINATLEY does not exist, although there is much to safely say God probably doesn't. Logic aside, this thread wouldn't do very much to sway the spiritually based believers. You can tell most can't handle logic on its own. Most of them even embarrass me that they cannot see this thread is working on logical processes. When they do, they have nothing.

Then, why is this thread not closed?

 

[insert-username]

I believe in God, but through logic and proof, there is a possibility that God does not exist.

none of this claptrap where its "your destiny" etc. through LOGIC, religious arguments for the existance of God, they are more or less invalid.

This thread seems to be just a circular attack for religious types to stumble in, only to get slammed in the face for things they cannot prove, most of the time where their traditional evidence cannot be used (eg the bible) and where things like "you do not need to prove the existance of God if you believe" sounds like airy fairy crap; irrelevant to the argument proposed, and open to attack.

when it comes to respect... i may agree with some of the points about whether to respect a belief of being abducted by aliens etc. Can I point out that these beliefs are aged centuries? it may not be good enough to start respecting these beliefs, one thing that moonlight didnt mention, besides the personal attack on someone's social, moral foundations etc, is that its become a "tradition", usually something that is passed down from family.

Yes its fine to challenge and criticise these "traditions", religion is after all a construct. But the mere challenge of a construct is a complicated enough. Its the same with a family experiencing a culture clash between the children and the parents. Its fine to challenge existing traditions, but to disrespect them is highly inappropriate, and participants would probably ignore any of the reasoning and logic involved. That's what this thread is trying to do right? Knock some sense into religious types?

No religious type will come in and give you any proof that God exists. I believe in God and there is no proof of it. There is also no hard ground proof that God DEFINATLEY does not exist, although there is much to safely say God probably doesn't. Logic aside, this thread wouldn't do very much to sway the spiritually based believers. You can tell most can't handle logic on its own. Most of them even embarrass me that they cannot see this thread is working on logical processes. When they do, they have nothing.

Then, why is this thread not closed?

Perhaps because no one has yet come forward and said "Belief in God is unprovable - it is fundamentally the acceptance of a being whom no one can comprehend, understand, or know to exist". I guess the best conclusion that can come out of this thread is that a God may or may not exist, and that we have no way of knowing, proving, or discovering whether this is true or not.


I_F