Proof of God

Post Reply New Topic

Life is wankery.

Only the most profound wankery imaginable.

Life is masturbating to Jesus?

No.

But observations don't reveal mathematical truths to us.

What kind of observations? What kind of mathematical truths? And finally who is observering these mathematical truths? Someone with math on the brain wil find mathematical truth everywhere, but those rest of us who never got past basic arithmetic do not see the world in that way.

Those of you without math on the brain do not see the world for what it is period.

/snobbery

By you. Deemed insufficient by you.

You're too bitter to meet God.

That is quite possible, but what's also possible is that you like to make douchey statements.

Oh, that's absolutely certain.

We all believe in the same thing, but have different vocabularies for it. The concept of God is sometimes expressed as just an Essence or Master Equation or Ultimate Reality. The God some people believe in is a purely scientific one. And I'm cool with that.

We do NOT all believe the same thing. Which is why we have horse races and betting pools.

ruveyn

No, but they do confirm mathematical truths. I gave an example of a creature with a NS capable of mathematical computation WITHOUT subject awareness of it! Are you going to try to tell me that those roundworms came up with/discovered the usefulness of mathematics? You CLAIM that mathematics logic is are byproducts of the human mind; and yet logic is intimately related to the principles of computation which DO exist outside of the human mind as revealed through comparative neuroscience. After all:

"Logic is a human invention" if and only if I exist therefore I am!

Last edited by Haliphron on 17 Feb 2009, 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Huh?

Sorry folks, been kinda busy, and I’ve taken on a new project so I won’t be able to post here anymore. I will make my last response, but please feel free to e-mail me with any questions or comments you may have. My e-mail address can be gotten through my website (once you get all the answers right)

Fill your boots, please post them, and tell us how you know that these attributes are from a ‘deistic’ god.

Again, fill your boots. Please tell us which revelations are absolutely fallacious, and how you know this. Again, there can be no absolute fallacies without absolute laws of logic, which you have yet to account for.

Sure you do. How can you know if my system is inconsistent, if you can’t account for logic, or anything for that matter?

How do you know that they are ‘true’ and not just beneficial, and again, how do you know that survival is the proper goal? Is the proper goal survival at all costs, or justice, altruism aesthetics? Absent an absolute standard you simply beg the question.

Again, you are begging the very question of whether or not nature is uniform by suggesting that past success is an indicator of future success. How do you know what will, or even probably will, happen in the future?
And how do you know which things will change and which will stay the same? Surely you can see the problem of stating “It will (or even probably will) because it has???
Oh wait, you do just that here:

Yikes, so if someone wins the lottery ten times in a row they will continue to win the lottery because they have won the lottery? Don’t tell me, you would think the lottery was rigged. Problem is, who rigged nature?
Here is where the rubber hits the road, I state that no other worldview can account for logic, and ask you to account for logic according to your worldview and your responses are: Thanks for making my point.

Cause you have no revelation to justify your guess, while I have revealtion to justify my certainty. Surely you would admit that it would be intellectually dishonest to say that an omnipotent, omniscient God could not reveal some things to us, such that we could know them for certain.

Like I said, try driving your car with an inconsistent set of propositions, and invoke each at random, and see how you do.

Alright, show us the logical formula which leads one to the conclusion that the law of non-contradiction is universally valid.

Oh, so the lack of the law of non-contradiction means that all must contradict eh? Again, if the law of non-contradiction does not necessarily apply, you should have no problem with that contradcition.

Now you’re getting it! Valid memory presupposes uniformity, and valid reasoning, neither of which you can account for apart from God.

And how exactly do you know that? If evolution were true, you would just be saying that because it helped you survive, not because it was true.

And BINGO was his name-o! You have admitted that there is no way to know if you are right about anything, which has basically been my claim all along.

Thanks for the interesting exchange.

Cheers folks.

(and yes, my Dad is doing better, thanks Orwell)

Because I have revelations, but beyond that there are no miracles.

I don't have to prove "absolute" fallacy, I have to show that based upon my limited array of knowledge, fallacy is likely.

Because, your system assumes logic. I don't have to account for logic, if you already accept it. I mean, I can just use your acceptance of logic to found my own rejection of your ideas. Heck, the very notion of conversation, debate, etc, already presupposes common ground. You can say that common ground does not exist, however, if common ground did not exist, then your efforts would be pointless. Common ground obviously exists, and logic is part of this common ground, and based upon this, I can assume logic to argue against your belief system as not being most reflective of this logic. Not only that, but if I cannot criticize your beliefs for inconsistency based upon a lack of foundations, then holding to the same metrics, then you should prove that your own system is consistent, outlining the entire epistemology. You haven't done so though.

How do you know that your beliefs are true? I mean, it could just be a divine lie, couldn't it? If the Bible is God's word, then you are taking his word as valid, because his word tells you to do so. Remarkably circular. If you say I do not have foundations, then I will counter-argue that you have no basis to argue against me either.
Not really, if I have memory, then I know that past success has been an indicator of future success. No, I do not know what the future will hold, but a best guess is exactly that, a best guess, and uniformity has historically proven to be a good guess, and no other better looking guess emerges.


You haven't actually shown a problem, only the fact that you are somewhat intellectually dishonest. I have historically also mentioned the likelihood of change. This likelihood is also based upon other information, for instance, with the lottery example, it has also held in the past, that the likelihood of winning a lotto is supremely unlikely. In any case, if someone wins the lotto 10 times in a row, they are likely to keep on playing so long with some expectation of winning. The issue with nature is that nature isn't a lotto, there is no reason to think people guess wrong about nature if they act in certain manners.

In any case, you have pulled those quotes out of context. Those quotes were against your more specific criticism that I cannot talk without accounting for logic, the issue is that I have previously argued that I can presuppose logic because the conversation is predicated upon this presupposition.


Yes, but surely you would admit it to be intellectually dishonest to say that people can deceive themselves to an amazing ability. Your argument is that I have done this. I can just as legitimately counter-argue that you could be doing the same thing. After all, you have not made a positive case for this omnipotent, omniscient God to exist, as even if this God is an epistemic necessity, this does not prove this God to exist. Proving that would be an ontological argument, and given that you have denied the existence of a shared epistemic state, by your own claims, you cannot prove that God exists other than as your bluff as you could easily just say "The Easter Bunny" instead of "The Christian God".

Well, obviously you are invoking something I know to threaten my survival. Thus evolution would tell me that this kind of inconsistency isn't tolerable.

Not exactly what I was trying to say. It is difficult to prove universals, but easy to shed doubt upon universals or reject them. However, if I have never experienced non-contradiction, and generations of people have not, there is a good reason to think that contradictions exist. Obviously when one is found, opinions can change.

SyeTenB, fact X cannot be contradicted, facts A-W can be. The law of non-contradiction does not hold, BUT X still cannot be contradicted. This view avoids your stated problem, however, it rejects the law of non-contradiction. You can argue that the statement that the law of non-contradiction does not universally hold can be contradicted, but I can declare that such a fact is non-contradictable without violating the system. You can argue that these exclusions are arbitrary, however, arbitrariness is not the problem that is trying to be avoid.

You mean absolutely valid memory. I do not have to argue that universal validity has to be accepted, and memories are often wrong and can easily be manipulated. To say that memories CAN BE valid is possible though under my system.

But, if evolution were true, then you would be promoting your religion because it helped you survive, but not necessarily because it were true.

Ok.... so I cannot absolutely know things, ergo you win? Um.... ok? You haven't proved anything through this at all. Like, literally, the possibility of no knowledge, does not mean the actuality thereof. HA HA HA HA!! ! This is apologetics. No wonder they're apologizing.