Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

prove or disprove

cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:27:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
ok people i want legitimate proof on how god exists or does not exist
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:28:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 10:27:39 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
ok people i want legitimate proof on how god exists or does not exist

You can't prove that God doesn't exist.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:29:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 10:28:15 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:27:39 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
ok people i want legitimate proof on how god exists or does not exist

You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

ok then prove that he does exist
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:32:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 10:29:22 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:28:15 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:27:39 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
ok people i want legitimate proof on how god exists or does not exist

You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

ok then prove that he does exist

I don't believe in God...
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:33:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 10:32:12 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:29:22 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:28:15 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:27:39 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
ok people i want legitimate proof on how god exists or does not exist

You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

ok then prove that he does exist

I don't believe in God...

well that would have been useful with your previous statement
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:44:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 10:33:03 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:32:12 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:29:22 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:28:15 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:27:39 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
ok people i want legitimate proof on how god exists or does not exist

You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

ok then prove that he does exist

I don't believe in God...

well that would have been useful with your previous statement

I didn't exactly expect you to assume that I was a theist...
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:49:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 10:44:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:33:03 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:32:12 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:29:22 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:28:15 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:27:39 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
ok people i want legitimate proof on how god exists or does not exist

You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

ok then prove that he does exist

I don't believe in God...

well that would have been useful with your previous statement

I didn't exactly expect you to assume that I was a theist...

srry i am up later then i should be i am 15
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 11:13:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 10:27:39 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
ok people i want legitimate proof on how god exists or does not exist

God exists: Here's complicated logical proof X that God could likely exist.
God doesn't exist: There is an absence of evidence that god exists. If I told you that there is a bear in your refrigerator, and you checked, finding that there was no bear in your refrigerator, would you be puzzled if I told you, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." Probably, because that's an asinine statement. If there is no evidence that a bear is in your refrigerator, you have sufficient reason for believing that there is no bear in your refrigerator.
God existed (Deist): God likely created the Universe based on the strongest arguments that theists use (e.g. Kalam Cosmological Argument, etc), but he doesn't intervene in human affairs and could no longer exist.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 11:41:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 11:13:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:27:39 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
ok people i want legitimate proof on how god exists or does not exist

God exists: Here's complicated logical proof X that God could likely exist.
God doesn't exist: There is an absence of evidence that god exists. If I told you that there is a bear in your refrigerator, and you checked, finding that there was no bear in your refrigerator, would you be puzzled if I told you, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." Probably, because that's an asinine statement. If there is no evidence that a bear is in your refrigerator, you have sufficient reason for believing that there is no bear in your refrigerator.
God existed (Deist): God likely created the Universe based on the strongest arguments that theists use (e.g. Kalam Cosmological Argument, etc), but he doesn't intervene in human affairs and could no longer exist.

You know the quote is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless we should expect to see something else. If you told me there was a bear in my refrigerator I would expect to see, well, a bear in my refrigerator. The reason we dont believe santa clause exists is not simply because there is a lack of evidence, but because we have good evidence that santa clause does not exist.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 11:56:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 11:13:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:27:39 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
ok people i want legitimate proof on how god exists or does not exist

God exists: Here's complicated logical proof X that God could likely exist.
God doesn't exist: There is an absence of evidence that god exists. If I told you that there is a bear in your refrigerator, and you checked, finding that there was no bear in your refrigerator, would you be puzzled if I told you, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." Probably, because that's an asinine statement. If there is no evidence that a bear is in your refrigerator, you have sufficient reason for believing that there is no bear in your refrigerator.
God existed (Deist): God likely created the Universe based on the strongest arguments that theists use (e.g. Kalam Cosmological Argument, etc), but he doesn't intervene in human affairs and could no longer exist.

If that really was an accurate summing up of the dialectic in the God debate the "God doesn't exist" position could fairly be accused of quite blatantly begging the question.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:05:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Whether a god can be disproved or not depends upon the claimed properties of the god. An Hawaiian Queen disproved the existence of the volcano goddess Pele in 1819: "As Kapiolani stood at the edge of this molten abyss, she declared the superiority of her new faith and (it is said) ate the sacred `ohelo berries without first giving some to goddess. Although she had been told by a kahuna (priest) of Pele that she would die, Kapiolani stood her ground and defied centuries of tradition, to the awe and amazement of the onlookers." http://pacificislandparks.com...

There might be some other volcano god, but the one with the claimed properties of Pele was disproved.

The omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (O3) concept of the Christian God is disproved by the Argument from Evil and also by the Argument from Non-belief, but postulating Satan, for example, resolves the contradiction by slacking off on omnipotence.

I don't see how the Deist god of Jefferson and Madison can be disproved, because the god does nothing after creating the universe until returning in judgment in the indefinite future.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:11:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 11:13:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:27:39 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
ok people i want legitimate proof on how god exists or does not exist

God exists: Here's complicated logical proof X that God could likely exist.
God doesn't exist: There is an absence of evidence that god exists. If I told you that there is a bear in your refrigerator, and you checked, finding that there was no bear in your refrigerator, would you be puzzled if I told you, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." Probably, because that's an asinine statement. If there is no evidence that a bear is in your refrigerator, you have sufficient reason for believing that there is no bear in your refrigerator.

The problem is that God isn't "in this realm" so to speak. As the old saying goes, God works in mysterious ways. He can defy logic because he created logic.
God existed (Deist): God likely created the Universe based on the strongest arguments that theists use (e.g. Kalam Cosmological Argument, etc), but he doesn't intervene in human affairs and could no longer exist.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:14:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:11:53 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/19/2013 11:13:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/19/2013 10:27:39 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
ok people i want legitimate proof on how god exists or does not exist

God exists: Here's complicated logical proof X that God could likely exist.
God doesn't exist: There is an absence of evidence that god exists. If I told you that there is a bear in your refrigerator, and you checked, finding that there was no bear in your refrigerator, would you be puzzled if I told you, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." Probably, because that's an asinine statement. If there is no evidence that a bear is in your refrigerator, you have sufficient reason for believing that there is no bear in your refrigerator.

The problem is that God isn't "in this realm" so to speak. As the old saying goes, God works in mysterious ways. He can defy logic because he created logic.

That's not the only position on Divine omnipotence. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's the minority position.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:17:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:05:57 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Whether a god can be disproved or not depends upon the claimed properties of the god. An Hawaiian Queen disproved the existence of the volcano goddess Pele in 1819: "As Kapiolani stood at the edge of this molten abyss, she declared the superiority of her new faith and (it is said) ate the sacred `ohelo berries without first giving some to goddess. Although she had been told by a kahuna (priest) of Pele that she would die, Kapiolani stood her ground and defied centuries of tradition, to the awe and amazement of the onlookers." http://pacificislandparks.com...

There might be some other volcano god, but the one with the claimed properties of Pele was disproved.

The omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (O3) concept of the Christian God is disproved by the Argument from Evil and also by the Argument from Non-belief, but postulating Satan, for example, resolves the contradiction by slacking off on omnipotence.

I don't see how the Deist god of Jefferson and Madison can be disproved, because the god does nothing after creating the universe until returning in judgment in the indefinite future.

The Argument from Evil has been sufficiently responded to without slacking on God's attribute of all power. I don't know what you mean as omnipotence but here is what most theologians mean:

God is all powerful just if he can actualize any state of affairs that isn"t described by the counterfactuals of the free acts of others and that is broadly logically possible for someone to actualize, given the same hard past and the same true counterfactuals about the free acts of others.

Since God can"t do what"s impossible, then God can"t cause someone to freely do or not do something. This entails that at least immoral choices are compatible with theism given that God created other prime-movers. For example, it"s easily seen that the Nazi's were responsible for the tragic torture and death of the Jewish people, and that God wasn't. The statement,

"God causes the Nazi's to murder."

... makes God, like a puppeteer, act upon the Nazi's, manipulating them to murder. But in this statement,

"God causes Nazis murdering."

... God simply causes the Nazi's themselves (along with the allies who stopped them) in all of their willing and acting, which is consistent with an author-story analogy, if anything. God"s creating and sustaining the Nazi's carries along with it the specific actions in which those Nazi's are engaged. Thus, God merely causes the Nazi's in their willing, but ultimately it was the Nazi"s who were all prime-movers in their own right.

I haven't done much work against the Argument from Non-belief.

There are problems with equating God, a necessary being, with a contingent mythic being in your cool Pacific Islander analogy. These two clearly aren't similar.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:34:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Argument from Evil is roughly) "If an O3 god existed, the world would have incrementally less suffering than it does." For example, an infant suffering for a long time before dying of an illness should be able to suffer less under the auspices of an O3 god. The counterargument is generally along he lines of any change in the world as it is would upset God's plan. Of course believers believe that some escape exists, but I think it is fair to say that most philosophers do not.

The Argument from Non-Belief is that an O3 god would want atheists to be saved, so therefore he would not leave them in doubt.

These arguments are discussed in book length by Theodore Drange in Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God

They are not claimed to disprove any possible god, only certain very specific concepts of a god.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:44:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:34:04 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The Argument from Evil is roughly) "If an O3 god existed, the world would have incrementally less suffering than it does." For example, an infant suffering for a long time before dying of an illness should be able to suffer less under the auspices of an O3 god. The counterargument is generally along he lines of any change in the world as it is would upset God's plan. Of course believers believe that some escape exists, but I think it is fair to say that most philosophers do not.

I'm not concerned with appeals to authority Roy. And what's inherent in your argument above is yet another fallacy; one of false precision. For one presupposition is that God would not worsen a person's condition, relative to some baseline. But here it"s found that you're supposing it is possible to know this minimum threshold of evil that God must permit in order for the greater goods He aims at to be secured, without losing some greater good or permitting some equally bad or worse evil. But why think so? Isn"t it just like supposing if the state knew that if they were to raise the parking tickets one cent higher, than that would be a significant deterrent for those willing to illegally park?

This false precision is like a hastily erected and flimsy bridge to carry our knowledge over from reality into the world of our desire. The load is more than it will bear. Thus supposing an epistemic moral baseline where there is none, remains an inherent fallacy of false precision.

Since God can't logically know what's impossible to know, then if it"s impossible to know the minimum threshold of evil that God is to allow if he is to fulfill both his plan for humanity and to not allow gratuitous pain, then such a threshold can"t be included in God's means of omniscience.

Can the excess of evil, that we can discern, be measurable against a known minimum threshold of evil that God is to allow if he is to fulfill both his plan for humanity and to not allow that excess of evil? In other words, can real qualities of evil can be measured as "better / less than without constructing measurable indices that are merely passed off as the 'real thing"?

It doesn"t seem like it can. Since why think God would create the world as a substance of value in terms of "better / less than"? Clearly God simply creates incommensurately good things for good purposes. We would therefore be mistaken to think that any value whatsoever can be assigned to the totality of things God does. Free agents capable of creating good / bad choices have similar consequences for each. And in a fallen world, incommensurately bad things are expected. How can these be measured?

A & B are "best" actions
B is better than C
It doesn"t follow that A is better than C
A & C, like A & B, may be incommensurable!

IC therefore mistakes that every evil must occur for some "greater good." But maximization ethics are atheistically impersonal in character and thus un-Christian. Such ethics treat individual human beings as mere containers of the stuff that really matters (desire-satisfaction, frustration, etc) ... This profoundly unbiblical perspective has more to do with classical economics and Benthamite psychology than moral theology.

Christian ethics are deontic with a concern for other-centeredness, purity of intention, etc.. This doesn"t translate to a divine obligation to minimize suffering, nor to maximize the totality of happiness.

Merely citing extreme worse / better worlds just to establish the possibility of an epistemic moral baseline won"t do. For the relevant question is not whether there can be best & worst worlds. But rather whether it's knowable the threshold that God mustn't cross to fulfill both his plan for humanity and to not allow his creatures to suffer gratuitously?


The Argument from Non-Belief is that an O3 god would want atheists to be saved, so therefore he would not leave them in doubt.

Thanks for explaining, but as Pascal affirmed, it seems that God has given evidence which is sufficiently clear for those with an open mind and open heart, but sufficiently vague so as not to compel those whose hearts are closed.

I think that those who are seeking for God, who are open to God, will find the evidence satisfactory. In fact the New Testament says that God's existence is evident to all persons through the created order around us and by the moral law that we sense in our hearts.

Moreover, the New Testament says that God hasn't simply left us to work out by evidence whether He exists, His Spirit also speaks to the heart of every person, drawing us to Him. So if we respond to His drawing, I think that we can come to know God in a personal way and have that experience of Him immediately. So this apparent hiddenness, I think, is just God's not being coercive.

Plus it seems to me that the non-believer is imposing her own epistemological expectations on the will of God. Paul Moser calls this cognitive idolatry. If this type of idolatry that makes us commit to something other than God by pursuing a quest for self-realization in our own terms, then this idolatry in our knowing relies on a standard for knowledge that excludes the primacy of the morally self-transforming knowledge of God central to knowing God as Lord. It rests on a contrived epistemological standard that does not let God be Lord.

This idolatry protects a persona's lifestyle from serious divine challenge and precludes knowledge of God as an undemanding object of human knowledge.

And it may even be the case that such divine hiddeness is an essential to soul-making virtue so that if God's existence were revealed in such a way as to remove reasonable non-belief, then any desire that we might have to believe or act in ways contrary to that which has been revealed would be overwhelmed.

In Christianity God has already exposed himself very distinctly and still they reject him, so God knows some people wouldn't believe anyway

Plus this argument of non-belief places a huge BoP on the atheist, for to say that an infinite mind has no reason for not revealing himself more than he does, is to elevate oneself as an all knower thereby proving a god anyhow. ;-)
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:54:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:11:53 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
God works in mysterious ways. He can defy logic because he created logic.

It's clearer if you just say that believing in god is illogical.