Proof of God

Post Reply New Topic

Wrong. While you maintain these axioms where defined arbitrarily, but the universality of Logic is evident not only by its astonishing efficacy but the fact that is was invented independently in multiple culture. Furthermore, the axiomatic system we use in mathetmatics has been practically PERFECT at describing physical realtiy. Give me ONE example of some physical phenomenon that defies mathematical principles!

The axioms we have work well at describing physical phenomena, and that's why we use them. But I can define my number system differently if I want to. What I object to is the idea that there are mathematical "laws" that are "universal." Not so! Numbers behave differently depending on if you're dealing with the set of all integers or if you're dealing with the real numbers. And then we can get into complex numbers as well. There already exist, recognized in mathematics, several different sets of numbers which don't always behave in the same manner. How about geometry? We have euclidean geometry, but there's also non-euclidean geometry that has completely different rules!

And I made no reference to logic, so your bringing that up is irrelevant and stupid.

So... you'd be willing to accept proof made to you personally? And if such proof were given, you would believe?

But then what of the others who would say that you must be delusional, and insist that you show them the same proof, personally to them and unwilling to believe your experience?

Now THAT's more like it ! Real numbers DO obey the axioms of the integers but they also have ADDITIONAL rules/operations defined on them because they are extensions of the integers. Mathematics is ultimately rooted in 1st-order logic, bub. Much of non-euclidean geometry has rules that are isomorphic to that of algebra and it is an EXTENSION of euclidean geometry since the parallel postulate is in fact, independent to the Euclidean Axioms.
Lastly, Im STILL waiting on your ass to give me an example of something in physical realty that VIOLATES mathematical reasoning!

Last edited by Haliphron on 12 Feb 2009, 4:10 pm, edited 3 times in total.

it's a dumb website and it proves nothing.

Only if the proof were provided personally by God.


Only if the proof were provided personally by God.


I'd show them the same contempt and condescension currently shown to me by believers in God. After all, that is what God-believers do.

You do realise that Douglas Adams was an atheist and his proof vs faith was taking the piss out of religionists? Thats why I have his quote as my signature, the Awe of understanding refers to evolution and science and the awe of ignorance refers to religion

Im with Fnord. A lot of this religious nonsense is really philosophical wankery . The Only branch of philosophy Im willing to take seriously is formal/predicate logic since it is rigorous.What I would like to see is G-d demonstrate his presence at the behest of a believer in front of a crowd of non-believers, including me.

Yeah, I agree that this site has problems.

For instance, in the introductory part, when it is trying to get you to accept the site's premise of absolute truth, it railroads you into a contradiction, rather than allowing for a more legitimate stance of skepticism.

The laws of logic railroad is also problematic. Can you use logic to argue against the laws of logic? Yes, just as you can use the Bible to argue against the existence of God, based upon the possibility of an internal criticism, as if I believe that upholding the laws of logic is illogical, then the position is not incoherent, but still coherent to affirm. Not only that, but saying that contradiction is possible does not mean it is necessary for all ideas.

The laws of science issue is pretty ridiculous. Physical laws do not have to exist for predictive ability, only data, and sufficient predictive data!=law. I mean, psychology is not usually considered to have perfect laws, but people can be predicted somewhat.

I, of course, see issues with the stand on moral laws.

As for the materiality of these laws, I suppose that is a matter of interpretation. The laws are conceptual, this can be tolerable under certain theories of materialism, and thus you could select "materiality" as to separate this from some Platonic realm.

As for the matter of changing, this is also problematic, because the speed of the change is never given. It could be every 500 years that you think the laws change to a significant, or at least one of the laws, and you think we still have 140 good years left. Thus no inconsistency seems necessary.

As for the argument... well, I suppose it can work, but not *too* well. Like, it can arguably establish that some lawgiver exists, but not that this lawgiver is the Christian God or anything like that.

If one had personal proof of Gods existence, why would one need the approval/conversion of others to validate it?
Yes others could say that one is insane but if God shews himself to you and is omnipotent that what other people think of you really shouldnt matter!

Last edited by Haliphron on 12 Feb 2009, 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ok, let's see where this goes...

- Absolute truth: Yes it exists, but we as biased beings will only ever see relative truth.
Next page...

- "The Bible teaches that..." Already this is built on the assumption that the bible is divinely inspired/a source of truth. I challenge that base assumption.
Next page...

- "Laws of logic exist." Yes.
Next page...

- "Laws of mathematics exist." Yes. No matter what language you speak, 3+4=7.
Next page...

- "Laws of science exist/laws of science do not exist."

Now we are at an impasse. No such term "laws of science" as far as I'm aware. There is scientific method and natural laws of physics. Both have proven certain things - like gravity - beyond reasonable doubt. But there is always an allowance for improvement/modification/radical alteration of those proofs.

E.g.; Science has never argued that natural laws of physics must at some point break down for the creation of the universe: Either time is infinite or matter can be created out of nothing. And this includes the so-called god argument (who or what created god?).

So right here, their argument - whatever it turns out to be - breaks down.

***Edit***
Science has never argued the fact that natural laws of physics must at some point break down...

Just re-read my post and realized I phrased that poorly.

Orwell: No matter HOW you define your number system, you're going to need a set of consistent axioms to start out with, punk! If you define 2+2=5 than the addition operation is clearly NOT a binary operation! The Natural numbers are defined using 2 binary operations. The rationals are an extension of the natural numbers that ensure closure under these operations. You get the idea. Mathematical laws DO exist because math is a formal system that is logically consitent(but NOT complete of course ). I guess the believers in Jeebus Christ think that everything that is nonphysical is relative.....

I would simply like to point out that math doesn't necessarily concern itself with numbers or even particular algebraic systems, but may simply look at general properties of algebraic structures.

What are we even talking about when we say math and mathematical laws?

Haliphron, you seem to be getting a bit too worked up over all of this. Chill out, dude.

Pushing my buttons topic

God must be very annoying to have created a site like this. Advice from Satan?

Seriously, though, this is not going to convince me, anymore than public transit saying god probably does not exist.

Crap.

I will believe when I see God's carbon footprint.

I read in the NIV Bible that Job asks a similar question, "Can you fathom the mysteries of God?" (Job 11:7). In the King James version it reads, "Canst thou by searching find out God?" And I believe that I could research every math and science book on the subject of "Proof of God" and, even after doing all that, I would probably still have to conclude that my research didn't proof anything.

I think that unless God reveals Himself to us, we are left with a great deal of confusion and guesswork. I think that in nature God has revealed Himself in some ways to us, but I think that the best revelation of God to mankind is His invasion into human history in the person of Jesus. In the ways that I understand things, I find it quite logical for God to have lived among us. If I wanted to communicate my fondness for a colony of ants, for example, the best way on earth for me to do that would be to turn myself into an ant. This would certainly be the most effective way. And this is what I believe God did: He took on human form to communicate His love for us. I also think another way that God has made Himself known to us is that He has profoundly changed lives. He certainly has profoundly changed mine.