Total Posts:135|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Proving God's existance or non-existance

Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 3:20:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I see that arguments for or against the existence of God never get anywhere. So I wanted to try something new.

For this forum, in proving or disproving God, ONLY use deductive arguments (preferably in deductive form). I want to try this so a discussion will be less emotionally charged, and be more certain.

I hope this makes things more of an intellectual dispute, rather then people throwing ideas everywhere. Please, keep the discussion civil, and I hope to learn something new. Suggestions are welcomed, so if this forum just goes nowhere, I can do it better next time.
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 3:49:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
First, a clear definition of "God" is required to formulate deductive arguments about such an entity's existence. Under a common definition of God (e.g. creator, sentient, etc.), I doubt there are any strong *deductive* arguments for/against God's existence. Strong theism or strong atheism is nearly impossible to affirm deductively or inductively, especially under presence of Munchaussen trilemma, Hume's problem of induction, epistemological regress, and other such basic problems of epistemology. Only abductive reasoning can soundly claim that God *probably* does/doesn't exist.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2015 2:59:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 3:20:30 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I see that arguments for or against the existence of God never get anywhere. So I wanted to try something new.

For this forum, in proving or disproving God, ONLY use deductive arguments (preferably in deductive form). I want to try this so a discussion will be less emotionally charged, and be more certain.

I hope this makes things more of an intellectual dispute, rather then people throwing ideas everywhere. Please, keep the discussion civil, and I hope to learn something new. Suggestions are welcomed, so if this forum just goes nowhere, I can do it better next time.
Humans tend to conceive of what they see or derive ideas from what they see. "The perfect being" has never been observed by collective humanity but some say they have witnessed such.
People were threatened with either death or deny what they claim they witnessed Jesus doing. None would lie and were put to death. Most psychologists will tell you people will not die for something they know is a lie. From a standpoint of averages, there is far more words for existing things. Even if you take known nonexistent characters like Superman, he is still comprised of things that exist. The ability to fly, xray technology, the ability to come from another planet. The actual superman doesn't exist but his attributes do. Personification of a perfect being from observing humans isn't a stretch but its safe to say someone didn't conceive of a perfect being by observing humans, if we even know what perfection entails. The idea of God is an argument some use as a logical inference that there is a God. Lets look at another "thing" that doesn't exist, leprechauns. If you've ever seen a little person its safe to assume they inspired, probably, leprechauns in literature.. The wheel wasn't an invention per say, just look up at a full moon. Get my point yet? Does this mean that it is an argument that it is more popular to construct a word as a need to describe something that exists, therefore it seems safe to assume the odds are the word God was a necessity for something that exists, of course not. But from a statistical standpoint the averages are in favor of it being more likely than not in the world of language.
arnold_torsen
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 3:17:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/16/2015 2:59:10 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/15/2015 3:20:30 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I see that arguments for or against the existence of God never get anywhere. So I wanted to try something new.

For this forum, in proving or disproving God, ONLY use deductive arguments (preferably in deductive form). I want to try this so a discussion will be less emotionally charged, and be more certain.

I hope this makes things more of an intellectual dispute, rather then people throwing ideas everywhere. Please, keep the discussion civil, and I hope to learn something new. Suggestions are welcomed, so if this forum just goes nowhere, I can do it better next time.
Humans tend to conceive of what they see or derive ideas from what they see. "The perfect being" has never been observed by collective humanity but some say they have witnessed such.
People were threatened with either death or deny what they claim they witnessed Jesus doing. None would lie and were put to death. Most psychologists will tell you people will not die for something they know is a lie. From a standpoint of averages, there is far more words for existing things. Even if you take known nonexistent characters like Superman, he is still comprised of things that exist. The ability to fly, xray technology, the ability to come from another planet. The actual superman doesn't exist but his attributes do. Personification of a perfect being from observing humans isn't a stretch but its safe to say someone didn't conceive of a perfect being by observing humans, if we even know what perfection entails. The idea of God is an argument some use as a logical inference that there is a God. Lets look at another "thing" that doesn't exist, leprechauns. If you've ever seen a little person its safe to assume they inspired, probably, leprechauns in literature.. The wheel wasn't an invention per say, just look up at a full moon. Get my point yet? Does this mean that it is an argument that it is more popular to construct a word as a need to describe something that exists, therefore it seems safe to assume the odds are the word God was a necessity for something that exists, of course not. But from a statistical standpoint the averages are in favor of it being more likely than not in the world of language. : :

How do you know that Superman doesn't exist?
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 3:26:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 3:20:30 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I see that arguments for or against the existence of God never get anywhere. So I wanted to try something new.

For this forum, in proving or disproving God, ONLY use deductive arguments (preferably in deductive form). I want to try this so a discussion will be less emotionally charged, and be more certain.

I hope this makes things more of an intellectual dispute, rather then people throwing ideas everywhere. Please, keep the discussion civil, and I hope to learn something new. Suggestions are welcomed, so if this forum just goes nowhere, I can do it better next time.

To take this approach you would need to begin with a definition.

A god would need to be something with immortality and creational abilities.

But in defining such a creature you would be affirming the consequent, therefore it is impossible to prove deductively that a god exists, because deductively you would not be allowed to affirm the consequent by defining a god.

Only from personal experience which is inductive would you be able to validly state that a god exists, and even then you could not prove it to anyone else.

If the god exists and if the god introduces himself/herself/themselves to you and yet the god does not want to be known by others, you cannot prove the god(s) exist.

You further cannot prove the god(s) do/does NOT exist.

There is nothing you can prove.

Even a photograph or video of the god(s) would be unconvincing to others.

Only a personal theophany can prove to someone that God(s) exist(s).

The God(s) must know and understand this, and therefor He/She/They have limited the number of humans through history that He/She/They have introduced themselves to -- perhaps Moses, perhaps St. Peter, perhaps St. Paul, and/or perhaps Muhammad.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 3:55:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 3:20:30 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I see that arguments for or against the existence of God never get anywhere. So I wanted to try something new.

For this forum, in proving or disproving God, ONLY use deductive arguments (preferably in deductive form). I want to try this so a discussion will be less emotionally charged, and be more certain.

I hope this makes things more of an intellectual dispute, rather then people throwing ideas everywhere. Please, keep the discussion civil, and I hope to learn something new. Suggestions are welcomed, so if this forum just goes nowhere, I can do it better next time.

Definition: Deductive - characterized by the inference of particular instances from a general law.

By which law do we judge God? I think the very definition of God defies deductive reasoning that isn't plagued pre-conclusive bias.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 6:25:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I hope this makes things more of an intellectual dispute, rather then people throwing ideas everywhere.

No chance.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 7:10:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 3:17:53 AM, arnold_torsen wrote:
At 8/16/2015 2:59:10 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/15/2015 3:20:30 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I see that arguments for or against the existence of God never get anywhere. So I wanted to try something new.

For this forum, in proving or disproving God, ONLY use deductive arguments (preferably in deductive form). I want to try this so a discussion will be less emotionally charged, and be more certain.

I hope this makes things more of an intellectual dispute, rather then people throwing ideas everywhere. Please, keep the discussion civil, and I hope to learn something new. Suggestions are welcomed, so if this forum just goes nowhere, I can do it better next time.
Humans tend to conceive of what they see or derive ideas from what they see. "The perfect being" has never been observed by collective humanity but some say they have witnessed such.
People were threatened with either death or deny what they claim they witnessed Jesus doing. None would lie and were put to death. Most psychologists will tell you people will not die for something they know is a lie. From a standpoint of averages, there is far more words for existing things. Even if you take known nonexistent characters like Superman, he is still comprised of things that exist. The ability to fly, xray technology, the ability to come from another planet. The actual superman doesn't exist but his attributes do. Personification of a perfect being from observing humans isn't a stretch but its safe to say someone didn't conceive of a perfect being by observing humans, if we even know what perfection entails. The idea of God is an argument some use as a logical inference that there is a God. Lets look at another "thing" that doesn't exist, leprechauns. If you've ever seen a little person its safe to assume they inspired, probably, leprechauns in literature.. The wheel wasn't an invention per say, just look up at a full moon. Get my point yet? Does this mean that it is an argument that it is more popular to construct a word as a need to describe something that exists, therefore it seems safe to assume the odds are the word God was a necessity for something that exists, of course not. But from a statistical standpoint the averages are in favor of it being more likely than not in the world of language. : :

How do you know that Superman doesn't exist?
Because of the origin and what the writers say. You do know when superman was written about and the people who did it , correct? Not that great a leap. They never claimed he was real.
arnold_torsen
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 7:13:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 7:10:39 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/17/2015 3:17:53 AM, arnold_torsen wrote:
At 8/16/2015 2:59:10 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/15/2015 3:20:30 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I see that arguments for or against the existence of God never get anywhere. So I wanted to try something new.

For this forum, in proving or disproving God, ONLY use deductive arguments (preferably in deductive form). I want to try this so a discussion will be less emotionally charged, and be more certain.

I hope this makes things more of an intellectual dispute, rather then people throwing ideas everywhere. Please, keep the discussion civil, and I hope to learn something new. Suggestions are welcomed, so if this forum just goes nowhere, I can do it better next time.
Humans tend to conceive of what they see or derive ideas from what they see. "The perfect being" has never been observed by collective humanity but some say they have witnessed such.
People were threatened with either death or deny what they claim they witnessed Jesus doing. None would lie and were put to death. Most psychologists will tell you people will not die for something they know is a lie. From a standpoint of averages, there is far more words for existing things. Even if you take known nonexistent characters like Superman, he is still comprised of things that exist. The ability to fly, xray technology, the ability to come from another planet. The actual superman doesn't exist but his attributes do. Personification of a perfect being from observing humans isn't a stretch but its safe to say someone didn't conceive of a perfect being by observing humans, if we even know what perfection entails. The idea of God is an argument some use as a logical inference that there is a God. Lets look at another "thing" that doesn't exist, leprechauns. If you've ever seen a little person its safe to assume they inspired, probably, leprechauns in literature.. The wheel wasn't an invention per say, just look up at a full moon. Get my point yet? Does this mean that it is an argument that it is more popular to construct a word as a need to describe something that exists, therefore it seems safe to assume the odds are the word God was a necessity for something that exists, of course not. But from a statistical standpoint the averages are in favor of it being more likely than not in the world of language. : :

How do you know that Superman doesn't exist?
Because of the origin and what the writers say. You do know when superman was written about and the people who did it , correct? Not that great a leap. They never claimed he was real. : :

Can you prove that Superman is not real?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 7:55:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think arguments about the existence of a deity or deities is pointless. I have a question for all: why does this argument matter? From a neutral view, no belief in a certain god/gods is necessarily more credible than others. So how can you actually address the problem? There's no reason to believe one religion, from a purely rational view, over another - and the same applies to denial. If you can't know or come to a rational conclusion in the terms of a hard position - either purely theistic or atheistic - how can the argument even be conducted? A deductive argument is impossible, because it must lead to a certain conclusion.

Therefore, why should we care? How does it affect us?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 10:23:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 7:55:24 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I think arguments about the existence of a deity or deities is pointless. I have a question for all: why does this argument matter? From a neutral view, no belief in a certain god/gods is necessarily more credible than others. So how can you actually address the problem? There's no reason to believe one religion, from a purely rational view, over another - and the same applies to denial. If you can't know or come to a rational conclusion in the terms of a hard position - either purely theistic or atheistic - how can the argument even be conducted? A deductive argument is impossible, because it must lead to a certain conclusion.

Therefore, why should we care? How does it affect us?

To answer your query, I believe most philosophical people view it as their own Mount Everest to try and rationally prove or disprove that God(s) exist or do not exist.

I believe they endeavor upon it depending on their faith in theism or atheism.

Either way they cannot know. The atheists certainly can never know because it is logically impossible to prove a negative.

The theists are quite unlikely to ever know because the God(s) have chosen so few people throughout history to make the face to face acquaintance of -- maybe only 3 or 4 that we have heard of.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 10:45:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 10:23:52 AM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/17/2015 7:55:24 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I think arguments about the existence of a deity or deities is pointless. I have a question for all: why does this argument matter? From a neutral view, no belief in a certain god/gods is necessarily more credible than others. So how can you actually address the problem? There's no reason to believe one religion, from a purely rational view, over another - and the same applies to denial. If you can't know or come to a rational conclusion in the terms of a hard position - either purely theistic or atheistic - how can the argument even be conducted? A deductive argument is impossible, because it must lead to a certain conclusion.

Therefore, why should we care? How does it affect us?

To answer your query, I believe most philosophical people view it as their own Mount Everest to try and rationally prove or disprove that God(s) exist or do not exist.

That's a fool's errand.

I believe they endeavor upon it depending on their faith in theism or atheism.

That is rather problematic for their argument. They expect a clear answer when there is none by default when going about an inner rational discourse on the matter. It's pointless if they don't approach it in as neutral a manner as possible.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 10:48:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 10:45:47 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/17/2015 10:23:52 AM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/17/2015 7:55:24 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I think arguments about the existence of a deity or deities is pointless. I have a question for all: why does this argument matter? From a neutral view, no belief in a certain god/gods is necessarily more credible than others. So how can you actually address the problem? There's no reason to believe one religion, from a purely rational view, over another - and the same applies to denial. If you can't know or come to a rational conclusion in the terms of a hard position - either purely theistic or atheistic - how can the argument even be conducted? A deductive argument is impossible, because it must lead to a certain conclusion.

Therefore, why should we care? How does it affect us?

To answer your query, I believe most philosophical people view it as their own Mount Everest to try and rationally prove or disprove that God(s) exist or do not exist.

That's a fool's errand.

I believe they endeavor upon it depending on their faith in theism or atheism.

That is rather problematic for their argument. They expect a clear answer when there is none by default when going about an inner rational discourse on the matter. It's pointless if they don't approach it in as neutral a manner as possible.

Correct.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 12:49:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 10:23:52 AM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/17/2015 7:55:24 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I think arguments about the existence of a deity or deities is pointless. I have a question for all: why does this argument matter? From a neutral view, no belief in a certain god/gods is necessarily more credible than others. So how can you actually address the problem? There's no reason to believe one religion, from a purely rational view, over another - and the same applies to denial. If you can't know or come to a rational conclusion in the terms of a hard position - either purely theistic or atheistic - how can the argument even be conducted? A deductive argument is impossible, because it must lead to a certain conclusion.

Therefore, why should we care? How does it affect us?

To answer your query, I believe most philosophical people view it as their own Mount Everest to try and rationally prove or disprove that God(s) exist or do not exist.

I believe they endeavor upon it depending on their faith in theism or atheism.

Either way they cannot know. The atheists certainly can never know because it is logically impossible to prove a negative.

The theists are quite unlikely to ever know because the God(s) have chosen so few people throughout history to make the face to face acquaintance of -- maybe only 3 or 4 that we have heard of.

"Either way they cannot know. The atheists certainly can never know because it is logically impossible to prove a negative."

It's not logically impossible to prove a negative. If it were it would be true that "you CANNOT PROVE a negative". Which would be self defeating because the statement itself is A NEGATIVE. Hence your claiming it is true makes it false. A rule of logic is a negative btw, the law of non-contradiction. And do to the rule of double negation you can just as much prove a negative as you can prove anything else logically. I can prove that I am not non existent, at least to myself as far as what I think I am. Here's a link written by a doctorate in philosophy who also studied logic. Its an interesting read. Its something you actually learn when taking a logic class.
http://departments.bloomu.edu...
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 1:11:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 12:49:01 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/17/2015 10:23:52 AM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/17/2015 7:55:24 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I think arguments about the existence of a deity or deities is pointless. I have a question for all: why does this argument matter? From a neutral view, no belief in a certain god/gods is necessarily more credible than others. So how can you actually address the problem? There's no reason to believe one religion, from a purely rational view, over another - and the same applies to denial. If you can't know or come to a rational conclusion in the terms of a hard position - either purely theistic or atheistic - how can the argument even be conducted? A deductive argument is impossible, because it must lead to a certain conclusion.

Therefore, why should we care? How does it affect us?

To answer your query, I believe most philosophical people view it as their own Mount Everest to try and rationally prove or disprove that God(s) exist or do not exist.

I believe they endeavor upon it depending on their faith in theism or atheism.

Either way they cannot know. The atheists certainly can never know because it is logically impossible to prove a negative.

The theists are quite unlikely to ever know because the God(s) have chosen so few people throughout history to make the face to face acquaintance of -- maybe only 3 or 4 that we have heard of.

"Either way they cannot know. The atheists certainly can never know because it is logically impossible to prove a negative."

It's not logically impossible to prove a negative. If it were it would be true that "you CANNOT PROVE a negative". Which would be self defeating because the statement itself is A NEGATIVE. Hence your claiming it is true makes it false. A rule of logic is a negative btw, the law of non-contradiction. And do to the rule of double negation you can just as much prove a negative as you can prove anything else logically. I can prove that I am not non existent, at least to myself as far as what I think I am. Here's a link written by a doctorate in philosophy who also studied logic. Its an interesting read. Its something you actually learn when taking a logic class.
http://departments.bloomu.edu...

Thanks for the link! That's a very useful article!
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 1:55:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How about this?

P1) Anything which exists must have a cause.
P2) God does not have a cause.
C) God doesn't exist.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 5:20:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 1:55:34 PM, sdavio wrote:
How about this?

P1) Anything which exists must have a cause.
P2) God does not have a cause.
C) God doesn't exist.

All false assumptions.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 5:33:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 5:20:07 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/17/2015 1:55:34 PM, sdavio wrote:
How about this?

P1) Anything which exists must have a cause.
P2) God does not have a cause.
C) God doesn't exist.

All false assumptions.

God has a cause? Which God are you talking about?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 5:38:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 5:33:25 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/17/2015 5:20:07 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/17/2015 1:55:34 PM, sdavio wrote:
How about this?

P1) Anything which exists must have a cause.
P2) God does not have a cause.
C) God doesn't exist.

All false assumptions.

God has a cause? Which God are you talking about?

You are trying to philosophize about Something we simply have very little if any knowledge about.

You are talking about Something that you know nothing about.

You have not even performed survey of the data available on the topic nor presented or alluded to it.

Thus your statements are completely invalid and unsupported.

Thus your statements are useless.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 9:04:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 6:19:16 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Anyone else going to give one?

oh, God is real allright. but there's a problem in explaining Him and proving HIm. what is that? LOL. its a paradox, that as soon as we try to define Him exactly and stick lables on Him, try to measure Him like in a science lab, well the more we do that the further we get from knowing His true Nature. In knowing Him. His nature and explanation just goes beyond human words and ideas. its not like explaining Boyle's Law, fer chrissakes. LOL.
On other words, He needs to be Experienced. When you have done that, by His Grace, you'll see what I mean. Words fail., my brother. try to explain the color "magenta" TO A BLIND PERSON. SAME DEAL!
God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 4:32:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 1:55:34 PM, sdavio wrote:
How about this?

P1) Anything which exists must have a cause.
P2) God does not have a cause.
C) God doesn't exist.
Davio, to properly understand the use of scientific theory the position is
Everything that BEGINS to exist...It's merely an appeal to the scientific idea of cause and effect. God as defined didn't BEGIN to exist, there is a difference.
Its just like the exploitation of the scientific definition of what is necessary for a SOUND to exist. Science says the following....
A transmitter (tree falling in the forest)
A medium for a sound to travel (the air)
A receiver of said sound (in this case it is qualified as "and nothing there to hear it", so the conclusion by the scientific definition, the tree that fell in the scenario didn't make a sound.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 4:33:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 7:13:51 AM, arnold_torsen wrote:
At 8/17/2015 7:10:39 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/17/2015 3:17:53 AM, arnold_torsen wrote:
At 8/16/2015 2:59:10 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/15/2015 3:20:30 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I see that arguments for or against the existence of God never get anywhere. So I wanted to try something new.

For this forum, in proving or disproving God, ONLY use deductive arguments (preferably in deductive form). I want to try this so a discussion will be less emotionally charged, and be more certain.

I hope this makes things more of an intellectual dispute, rather then people throwing ideas everywhere. Please, keep the discussion civil, and I hope to learn something new. Suggestions are welcomed, so if this forum just goes nowhere, I can do it better next time.
Humans tend to conceive of what they see or derive ideas from what they see. "The perfect being" has never been observed by collective humanity but some say they have witnessed such.
People were threatened with either death or deny what they claim they witnessed Jesus doing. None would lie and were put to death. Most psychologists will tell you people will not die for something they know is a lie. From a standpoint of averages, there is far more words for existing things. Even if you take known nonexistent characters like Superman, he is still comprised of things that exist. The ability to fly, xray technology, the ability to come from another planet. The actual superman doesn't exist but his attributes do. Personification of a perfect being from observing humans isn't a stretch but its safe to say someone didn't conceive of a perfect being by observing humans, if we even know what perfection entails. The idea of God is an argument some use as a logical inference that there is a God. Lets look at another "thing" that doesn't exist, leprechauns. If you've ever seen a little person its safe to assume they inspired, probably, leprechauns in literature.. The wheel wasn't an invention per say, just look up at a full moon. Get my point yet? Does this mean that it is an argument that it is more popular to construct a word as a need to describe something that exists, therefore it seems safe to assume the odds are the word God was a necessity for something that exists, of course not. But from a statistical standpoint the averages are in favor of it being more likely than not in the world of language. : :

How do you know that Superman doesn't exist?
Because of the origin and what the writers say. You do know when superman was written about and the people who did it , correct? Not that great a leap. They never claimed he was real. : :

Can you prove that Superman is not real?
Can I prove that superman is not real, yes...why? Are you afraid of the boogeyman in the dark?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 5:35:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 5:38:19 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/17/2015 5:33:25 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/17/2015 5:20:07 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/17/2015 1:55:34 PM, sdavio wrote:
How about this?

P1) Anything which exists must have a cause.
P2) God does not have a cause.
C) God doesn't exist.

All false assumptions.

God has a cause? Which God are you talking about?

You are trying to philosophize about Something we simply have very little if any knowledge about.

You are talking about Something that you know nothing about.

You have not even performed survey of the data available on the topic nor presented or alluded to it.

Thus your statements are completely invalid and unsupported.

Thus your statements are useless.

Well, let me know if you ever feel like responding to my post.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 10:54:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 5:33:25 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/17/2015 5:20:07 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/17/2015 1:55:34 PM, sdavio wrote:
How about this?

P1) Anything which exists must have a cause.
P2) God does not have a cause.
C) God doesn't exist.

All false assumptions.

God has a cause? Which God are you talking about?

This is an equivocation fallacy, cause in the sense it was first used was in regards to what "caused" God to exist, not does God have a cause as in cause and effect.
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 5:59:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 5:35:10 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/17/2015 5:38:19 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/17/2015 5:33:25 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/17/2015 5:20:07 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/17/2015 1:55:34 PM, sdavio wrote:
How about this?

P1) Anything which exists must have a cause.
P2) God does not have a cause.
C) God doesn't exist.

All false assumptions.

God has a cause? Which God are you talking about?

You are trying to philosophize about Something we simply have very little if any knowledge about.

You are talking about Something that you know nothing about.

You have not even performed survey of the data available on the topic nor presented or alluded to it.

Thus your statements are completely invalid and unsupported.

Thus your statements are useless.

Well, let me know if you ever feel like responding to my post.

I already did.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 1:32:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 9:04:26 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:19:16 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Anyone else going to give one?

oh, God is real allright. but there's a problem in explaining Him and proving HIm. what is that? LOL. its a paradox, that as soon as we try to define Him exactly and stick lables on Him, try to measure Him like in a science lab, well the more we do that the further we get from knowing His true Nature. In knowing Him. His nature and explanation just goes beyond human words and ideas. its not like explaining Boyle's Law, fer chrissakes. LOL.
On other words, He needs to be Experienced. When you have done that, by His Grace, you'll see what I mean. Words fail., my brother. try to explain the color "magenta" TO A BLIND PERSON. SAME DEAL!
God Bless.

Much in the same vein, what need of magenta does a blind person have?

Ergo, what need of God would we have, should your analogy hold?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 2:05:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 10:23:52 AM, riveroaks wrote:
The atheists certainly can never know because it is logically impossible to prove a negative.
lol
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 2:16:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 7:55:24 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I think arguments about the existence of a deity or deities is pointless. I have a question for all: why does this argument matter? From a neutral view, no belief in a certain god/gods is necessarily more credible than others. So how can you actually address the problem? There's no reason to believe one religion, from a purely rational view, over another - and the same applies to denial. If you can't know or come to a rational conclusion in the terms of a hard position - either purely theistic or atheistic - how can the argument even be conducted? A deductive argument is impossible, because it must lead to a certain conclusion.

Therefore, why should we care? How does it affect us?

The concept of God is another ontological hypothesis. But this particular ontological hypothesis deals with the formation of the universe, thus poses a new cosmological model compatible with the Big Bang. To be apathetic about this hypothesis is to be apathetic about any such hypothesis that deals with interaction with reality, or reality itself (e.g. all of science). God is another scientific hypothesis that attempts to satiate human curiosity and seeks advancement in science. It's that simple. There are inductive arguments over God, whether or not a deductive proof exists -- just as science is predicated on a posteriori induction and a priori abduction.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 8:35:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 1:32:29 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:04:26 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:19:16 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Anyone else going to give one?

oh, God is real allright. but there's a problem in explaining Him and proving HIm. what is that? LOL. its a paradox, that as soon as we try to define Him exactly and stick lables on Him, try to measure Him like in a science lab, well the more we do that the further we get from knowing His true Nature. In knowing Him. His nature and explanation just goes beyond human words and ideas. its not like explaining Boyle's Law, fer chrissakes. LOL.
On other words, He needs to be Experienced. When you have done that, by His Grace, you'll see what I mean. Words fail., my brother. try to explain the color "magenta" TO A BLIND PERSON. SAME DEAL!
God Bless.

Much in the same vein, what need of magenta does a blind person have?

Ergo, what need of God would we have, should your analogy hold?

Oh you don't need God, man. You can go ahead and live your life as an atheist. there's no problem there. God's not gonna send you to Hell or anything. Unbless of course you believe like many people do that Hell is not a physical place but its "the absence of God." Then, yeah, you're in THAT kind of Hell. I think Hell is too strong a word for that though. If you're satisfied with the physical world and the insane shortness of life and the insane way in which as soon as we desire something and then get it the shine wears off it so quick--we move on to another "want" to make a vicious circle-----if that's all you want out of life, then cool. Go for it. Just know you're severely short-changing yourself. Missing out. Of course you'll never know what you missed, so its easy to dismiss. Like the blind person not missing magenta. BUT: give that blind person a glimpse of Magenta for a few minutes then make him blind again. Wow! He will never forget it and yearn for it forever. This is how it is with us Christians who have been lucky enough for God to Touch. Can't get enough of it and when I look back on my PS days--pre-salvation it seems like a black and white existence vs. this color-filled one--to keep on with your color anology.

And dont get me wron: you dont have to have God Touch you or give you a burning bush experience. these are rare. You can get a relationship with Him just as Enriching by Seeking and Connecting with Him on your own. You begin this with simple prayer. And then watch for the signs. They will come, and you will wonder what the Hell took you so long to Go to Him! LOL>

God speed my brother.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!