Author Topic: Irrefutable proof that a god exists  (Read 9068 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #58 on: December 14, 2011, 06:13:06 AM »

If you modified the idea of “God existing” to “God necessarily existing” you would avoid this ground of objection.


No, because the argument that God is special does not apply to any particular god. Arguing that a god exists does not validate a Christian god, even if the proof was valid. The argument is more absurd, since god would likely be undefinable.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline penfold

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +63/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • ...buzz buzz buzz...
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #59 on: December 14, 2011, 07:14:21 AM »

If you modified the idea of “God existing” to “God necessarily existing” you would avoid this ground of objection.


No, because the argument that God is special does not apply to any particular god. Arguing that a god exists does not validate a Christian god, even if the proof was valid. The argument is more absurd, since god would likely be undefinable.

This is a fair point; all the argument would show is the existence of a necessary being. Anselm argued that this would be what everyone understood as God. However it certainly does not show a particular deity. However, to be fair, nowhere in the OP does it say that the proof is intended to be of an Xian deity...

What the addition of the idea of necessity does do is salvage the ontological argument from being taken to show the existence of things which are contingent. In Gaunilo's example he tries to prove the existence of a 'perfect' lost island. Anselm's response is that an island by its nature (limited) is contingent whereas God would be necessary. This argument is sound, and does exclude the Gaunilo style of objection. However it does not help regarding the deeper flaw in ontological arguments pointed out by Kant

Thanks for the clarification.   :)
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away." - P.K.D.

Offline free

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
  • Darwins +9/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We didn't land on Mt Sinai, Mt Sinai landed on us!
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #60 on: December 14, 2011, 07:27:23 AM »

This is a fair point; all the argument would show is the existence of a necessary being.

The argument doesn't show that at all.  Go back and read all the people who tore holes in the OP's non sequitur. 

This thread should be put to rest.  This is only irrefutable proof of theists inability to hear an argument.  The atheists collectively made a point, that the logic fails.  Where is the response?  There hasn't been one.  Refute us! We welcome it.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #61 on: December 14, 2011, 08:34:41 AM »

This is a fair point; all the argument would show is the existence of a necessary being. Anselm argued that this would be what everyone understood as God. However it certainly does not show a particular deity.


It's worse than that, because we have no idea what a necessary being is. It could be Obama, an atom, or a certain pandimensional mouse. If it's a matter of contingency, it's no more sophisticated than saying that "something must have created the universe".

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1263
  • Darwins +380/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #62 on: December 14, 2011, 08:39:06 AM »
If you modified the idea of “God existing” to “God necessarily existing” you would avoid this ground of objection.

I don't see how this helps at all.  It merely adds another unsubstantiated assertion--that "God" is "necessary" in addition to existing.  Multiplying assertions actually reduces the probability of the entire statement being true.  Consider:

1) Hillary Clinton drove to the airport in a sedan.

2) Hillary Clinton drove to the airport in a red sedan.

Since statement #2 contains statement #1, it can't be more probable than statement #1.  On the other hand, statement #1 can be true if Hillary Clinton drove to the airport in a blue sedan, but that would make statement #2 false.  So, statement #2 must be less probable than statement #1.

Same thing happens to "God."

1) A god exists.

2) A god necessarily exists.

Since statement #2 contains an additional claim (that the god not only exists, but does so necessarily), it is less probable than statement #1.  Merely proclaiming as a premise that a god is "necessary" doesn't make it so.  That's incantatory magic.  Syllogisms can't boss reality around.  One might have thought philosophers would have caught on to this after Kepler.  For centuries, astronomers tried to fit the Solar System into the following "logical" straightjacket:

1) The heavens and heavenly bodies exist at a higher state of perfection than things on Earth.

2) The circle is the "perfect" shape.

3) Therefore, the heavenly bodies move only in circular motions.

Over the centuries, increasingly intricate systems of epicycles, equants and deferants were added to the Ptolmaic model in order to make it match the observed motions of the visible planets.  But, despite the power of the Pure Logictm of the premises of the geocentric model, backed by the full might of the most powerful organization of ritual thaumaturges in world history[1] with actual torture and execution as their final backstop, reality refused to obey their syllogistic commands.  The planets move in...ellipses.

Before Kepler, the philosophers and thaumaturges could be forgiven their errors.  They lacked the tools to check their premises against reality, and their captivation with the power of logic was understandable.  But now?  After centuries of observations by increasingly-refined tools and techniques have shown us over and over again that Universe does not operate on "pure" Aristotelian logic?  No, anyone who attempts to conjure a god, an invisible pink unicorn or anything else into existence by crafting an arrangement of words together, has earned a degree of contempt.
 1. The Roman Catholic Church.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #63 on: December 14, 2011, 10:01:40 AM »

 No, anyone who attempts to conjure a god, an invisible pink unicorn or anything else into existence by crafting an arrangement of words together, has earned a degree of contempt.

Yes, and they must be paid their earnings in full and in haste.

In this the 21st. century, the continued falsification of the god idea is to be no trivial matter. It's an idea whose time to be proved valid and true, has expired. The ontological blitherings of theists such as peterofthecorn have long been refuted, and this tiresome behaviour of theirs must be exposed and put in its rightful place.

Penfold's courteousness is noted, but I for one prefer stridency in these instances when an individual like potc comes in here with a "subtle" and "crafty" version of an old argument that has been thoroughly demolished centuries ago, and expects us to buy into it.

POTC, we've seen all the methods in principle and honest attempts. None have worked to prove the god hypothesis true.... It's time to show us cold hard cash--or show yourself the door.

 

"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #64 on: December 14, 2011, 11:31:00 AM »
This broad objection to ontological argument was first raised by Gaunilo in response to Anselm’s ontological argument. Anselm’s response is on point; God is a special case. The reason being that if God exists then he exists necessarily; ie he exists in all possible worlds – if God exists then it is impossible for God not to exist.  (Whereas we can clearly conceive of a possible world without unicorns - in fact I am pretty sure this world is such a place!)

I have a confession to make.  I have never understood the idea of "necessary existence".  I cannot fathom how it changes anything.  I'm not even sure if I have a handle on what it is supposed to mean. 

If a moose exists, then it is impossible for it to not exist.  You know, until someone shoots it and makes it into moose steaks, moose burgers, and eventually, moose soup.  Why would that not apply to god?  If a god exists, then it exists.  If it is not omnipotent, then perhaps it could die, a la Chronos or a plethora of other gods.  If it is omnipotent, then why could it not cease its own existence? 

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11903
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #65 on: December 14, 2011, 11:42:46 AM »
Hey penfold,

Sorry all of us can't be professors.  Some of us are just uneducated twats who use our own skills in debating others.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #66 on: December 14, 2011, 11:53:04 AM »
I have a confession to make.  I have never understood the idea of "necessary existence".  I cannot fathom how it changes anything.  I'm not even sure if I have a handle on what it is supposed to mean. 

If a moose exists, then it is impossible for it to not exist.  You know, until someone shoots it and makes it into moose steaks, moose burgers, and eventually, moose soup.  Why would that not apply to god?  If a god exists, then it exists.  If it is not omnipotent, then perhaps it could die, a la Chronos or a plethora of other gods.  If it is omnipotent, then why could it not cease its own existence?

glad you posted this.  I have no idea what it means either.  how is it necessary?  What requires it?  why is it required?   

I'm guessing that theists are just playing with word necessary. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #67 on: December 14, 2011, 12:49:58 PM »
I have a confession to make.  I have never understood the idea of "necessary existence".  I cannot fathom how it changes anything.  I'm not even sure if I have a handle on what it is supposed to mean. 

If a moose exists, then it is impossible for it to not exist.  You know, until someone shoots it and makes it into moose steaks, moose burgers, and eventually, moose soup.  Why would that not apply to god?  If a god exists, then it exists.  If it is not omnipotent, then perhaps it could die, a la Chronos or a plethora of other gods.  If it is omnipotent, then why could it not cease its own existence?

glad you posted this.  I have no idea what it means either.  how is it necessary?  What requires it?  why is it required?   

I'm guessing that theists are just playing with word necessary.

The existence of "God" is only "necessary" to believers. Without it, their whole worldview crumbles. It is also "necessary" for humans to take steps to reduce civilizations negative impact on the global environment in order to avoid jeopardizing our own existence. Just because it is necessary does not mean that it has, or will, ever happen. Ironically, a lot of the most vocal opponents of this idea are.....drum roll...... theists.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline riley2112

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Darwins +38/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • learn to laugh at yourself. I am.
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #68 on: December 14, 2011, 01:34:29 PM »
existence?

Quote
The existence of "God" is only "necessary" to believers. Without it, their whole worldview crumbles. It is also "necessary" for humans to take steps to reduce civilizations negative impact on the global environment in order to avoid jeopardizing our own existence. Just because it is necessary does not mean that it has, or will, ever happen. Ironically, a lot of the most vocal opponents of this idea are.....drum roll...... theists.
You evidence for that statement is what? Would just like to know.
Most people think they know what they know. The problem starts by not knowing what you don't know. You know?  (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)   (Albert Einstein)One fool can ask more questions in a minute than twelve wise men can answer in an hour.
--Nikolai Lenin

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #69 on: December 14, 2011, 02:37:45 PM »
existence?

Quote
The existence of "God" is only "necessary" to believers. Without it, their whole worldview crumbles. It is also "necessary" for humans to take steps to reduce civilizations negative impact on the global environment in order to avoid jeopardizing our own existence. Just because it is necessary does not mean that it has, or will, ever happen. Ironically, a lot of the most vocal opponents of this idea are.....drum roll...... theists.
You evidence for that statement is what? Would just like to know.

Ask and ye shall receive: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/09/08/global-warming-bandwagon, http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Science-in-America-Religious-Belief-and-Public-Attitudes.aspx, http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-launch-campaign-against-global-warming-hype-32396/. See also Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum.

Or, perhaps you were questioning the necessity of curbing human's destructive nature towards the environment. Here are the google search results for "Scholarly articles for human contributions to global climate change". http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=human+contributions+to+global+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart. There's 785,000 results. Have fun.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline riley2112

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Darwins +38/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • learn to laugh at yourself. I am.
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #70 on: December 14, 2011, 03:03:02 PM »
thank you , I will go over these, Maybe I will learn something. ;) thank you again
Most people think they know what they know. The problem starts by not knowing what you don't know. You know?  (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)   (Albert Einstein)One fool can ask more questions in a minute than twelve wise men can answer in an hour.
--Nikolai Lenin

Offline Petey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 882
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #71 on: December 14, 2011, 04:09:54 PM »
I know I'm not the only one who had this pop in their head while reading the OP's posts.

Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait till I get going! Now, where was I?
Man in Black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!
Man in Black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?
Man in Black: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]
Man in Black: What? Where? I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.
Man in Black, Vizzini: [Vizzini and the Man in Black drink]
Man in Black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly, his smile frozen on his face and falls to the ground dead]
Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.
He never pays attention, he always knows the answer, and he can never tell you how he knows. We can't keep thrashing him. He is a bad example to the other pupils. There's no educating a smart boy.
-– Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #72 on: December 14, 2011, 04:36:51 PM »
thank you , I will go over these, Maybe I will learn something. ;) thank you again

You're welcome.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1263
  • Darwins +380/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #73 on: December 14, 2011, 06:37:28 PM »
I have a confession to make.  I have never understood the idea of "necessary existence".  I cannot fathom how it changes anything.  I'm not even sure if I have a handle on what it is supposed to mean.

The idea is that a "Necessary Being" is one that has to exist, because its non-existence would entail a logical contradiction, like "square circle" or "non-existent existence."  The real purpose of this concept as employed in ontological arguments (better term: antilogical arguments :) ) is to serve as the conceptual handkerchief in a slight-of-mind trick.  First we can notice things such as the assumption of the singular (i.e., not "Necessary Beings"), and the use of the term Being, which smuggles in connotations of personhood, as silently steering away from other possibilities like Necessary Force or Necessary Principle, or the plurals thereof.  The goal is to sneak the following equation into the mark's mind:

[(God[1]) + (Has to exist!)] = Yahweh


On the left side of the equation, the trick is to smuggle "existence" into the definition of (generic) "God."  Once the mark swallows that package-deal, they will be compelled to accept the claim that "God does not exist" is a logical contradiction.  The beauty of this trick is that it spares the theist from ever having to actually demonstrate that a god (generic or otherwise) exists.  Then, moving across the equal sign to the right, the "prestige" of the trick is completed: a bait-and-switch where the generic placeholder is changed into Yahweh from the Bible.  Watch how Anselm does it:

1) We shall define "God" to be a "being than which no greater can be conceived"[2] (I'll abbreviate this to "GCB")

2) We can have an understanding of such a GCB in our minds, so it exists in our understanding.

3) The concept must exist either only in our understanding, or in our understanding and reality.

4) If it existed only in our understanding, it would be less Great than it would be if it existed in our understanding and in reality.

5) A GCB that existed only in our understanding would not be a GCB (since an existing GCB would be Greater).

6) Therefore, a GCB must exist in our understanding and in reality, or there would be a logical contradiction.

The whole trick depends on the definition.  If we were to use a more honest definition, such as "We shall define 'God' as 'A triune Being Whose members are Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as portrayed in the Bible,'" the argument could never get off the ground.  There is no reason a priori to equate the Biblical deity with a "Greatest Conceivable Being."  It would be very easy for someone to say, "Hang on!  I can conceive of a Being greater than that!"  That equation is never actually justified by the theist.  Instead, the theist counts on the mark's own cultural biases in favor of One Big Christian Mono-God to perform the transformation.  It would never fly in a culture where, say, a "Pleroma" ("fullness") of plural divinity, a Pantheon, was assumed to be Greater than any single deity alone, or where a male-only concept of divinity was felt to be inferior to one that incorporated the Divine Feminine in some way to form a balance.   

Peterofthecorn's trick is basically the same thing, only clumsier, as he forgot to use a handkerchief.  His argument tries to attach the modifier "existing" onto "God" so the two words form a single definitional unit, a package-deal.  Lacking Anselm's devious subtlety, POTC got caught by the audience because the definitional trick was too obvious, hanging out in plain view as the modifier "existing" instead of being slipped into the definition of "God" before executing his syllogism.
 1. Used here as a generic placeholder.  "Necessary Being," "Greatest Conceivable Being," "Creator" or some other seemingly generic term can be used, but the Capital Letters the assumption of singularity, and perhaps male pronouns trigger latent Christian social conditioning, subtly prejudicing the inquiry at the outset.
 2. Here, the generic GCB is identified with "God" (which automatically conjures the association with the Biblical deity for an audience living in a Christian culture.  "GCB" is used for the rest of the argument, creating an impression of unbiased inquiry, but the hook is already set.  This can also be done at the end, e.g.: "And this Greatest Conceivable Being we define as God."
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #74 on: December 15, 2011, 12:52:01 AM »
4) If it existed only in our understanding, it would be less Great than it would be if it existed in our understanding and in reality.

I find flaw in this portion of the argument. There is a subtle but significant assumption: that existance makes something better. Many writers, directors, and other creative people can point out that this is not true; the more perfect form often exists only in the imagination.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1263
  • Darwins +380/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #75 on: December 15, 2011, 01:28:45 AM »
4) If it existed only in our understanding, it would be less Great than it would be if it existed in our understanding and in reality.

I find flaw in this portion of the argument. There is a subtle but significant assumption: that existance makes something better. Many writers, directors, and other creative people can point out that this is not true; the more perfect form often exists only in the imagination.

Yes, a "Greatest Conceivable Being" is "greatest"--by what standard?  Also, a Greatest Inconceivable Being would be greater still, since a GCB's greatness is limited by the bounds of what a mere human can conceive of.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #76 on: December 16, 2011, 12:55:01 PM »
I see that Peter came back to the thread merely to give Penfold a +1, which was basically a dig at the rest of us:
Quote
Finally! Somebody actually knows what's going on.

But he makes no response to the arguments presented.

And he also ignores the fact that Penfold still rejected his 'irrefutable proof':
Quote
So I’m afraid despite the admittedly engaging effort I, for one, will not be accepting this as a proof for God.

Offline rickymooston

Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #77 on: December 25, 2011, 11:52:40 PM »
I think we can all agree that if an existing god exists, then a god exists. (And by "an existing god", I mean, "a god that exists"). So, to prove that a god exists, I merely need to prove that an existing god exists, which is simple enough.

What is the definition of an "existing" God?

Is the sun an existing God?

Is evolution an existing God?

Is the universe an existing God?

Quote
I think we can also all agree that for any proposition P, either P or not P must be true (this is a basic logical tenet called the law of excluded middle.

Let P be the following proposition: "This sentence is false". Is P true or is it false?  :police:

Let Q be the following proposition: "The set of all sets contains itself." Is Q true or is Q false. This statement is a trick question because in fact, the set of all sets has been shown not to exist.


Quote
Anyway, back to existence of a god. The proposition I am trying to prove is "an existing god exists". Given this proposition, from the law of excluded middle we can conclude that exactly one of these two possibilities has to be true.

If an existing god is not well defined, counter to your intuition, it may not exist. Of course, the real problem is God isn't defined.

Quote
Look carefully at the second possibility: it's a contradiction in terms!

As others point out above, an existing Santa would by your definition exist as well.  :)
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline rickymooston

Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #78 on: December 26, 2011, 12:02:58 AM »
Code: [Select]
If B then A.
Not(Not(B))
Therefore, A

You failed to prove (Not(Not(B))).

That is your flaw.

You basically defined A in way to make it seem defined to be true.
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline Joe Blow

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Darwins +1/-5
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #79 on: December 26, 2011, 01:53:37 PM »
I came on this chat to say one thing-I think all of you who do not believe in God are sick individuals and I feel so sorry for you.
You cannot prove he does not exist.  I cannot prove he does.  I believe in the afterlife.  I cannot prove there is one.  You cannot prove there is not.  I am happy with my beliefs and am not afraid to die.  I will find out if what I believe is true once I take my last breath.  You, on the other hand are secretly uneasy with the concept that there MAY, in fact, be a God, and you MAY, in fact, have to answer to him once you die. You, believing as you do, have no comfort in the fact that there is a God to pray to, or that there is an afterlife where your loved ones are waiting for you and where you will spend eternity.  I am looking forward to being there with my beloved husband who went before me.....if I am wrong, I am wrong but at least I have a more pleasant outlook toward death than you poor souls.  May God bless....even you.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10849
  • Darwins +280/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #80 on: December 26, 2011, 02:00:23 PM »
Pascal's Wager on the first post, as well as threats of hell and insults.
I think I just went to heaven, guys! ;D[1]
 1. In the sense that that post proves just how delusional and arrogant theists are.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online rev45

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1206
  • Darwins +37/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Did your parents raise you to be an idiot?
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #81 on: December 26, 2011, 02:02:34 PM »
I came on this chat to say one thing-I think all of you who do not believe in God are sick individuals and I feel so sorry for you.
I do have a bit of a cold.  Thank you for your concern.
Here read a book.  It's free.
http://www.literatureproject.com/

Could a being create the fifty billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh?   Ron Patterson

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10849
  • Darwins +280/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #82 on: December 26, 2011, 02:05:26 PM »
I came on this chat to say one thing-I think all of you who do not believe in God are sick individuals and I feel so sorry for you.
I do have a bit of a cold.  Thank you for your concern.

Poor rev45. I'll pray to Odin on your behalf. When the all-father blesses you with a miracle, these heathens will finally see who the one true God is.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5663
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #83 on: December 26, 2011, 02:12:19 PM »
I came on this chat to say one thing-I think all of you who do not believe in God are sick individuals and I feel so sorry for you.
You cannot prove he does not exist.  I cannot prove he does.  I believe in the afterlife.  I cannot prove there is one.  You cannot prove there is not.  I am happy with my beliefs and am not afraid to die.  I will find out if what I believe is true once I take my last breath.  You, on the other hand are secretly uneasy with the concept that there MAY, in fact, be a God, and you MAY, in fact, have to answer to him once you die. You, believing as you do, have no comfort in the fact that there is a God to pray to, or that there is an afterlife where your loved ones are waiting for you and where you will spend eternity.  I am looking forward to being there with my beloved husband who went before mte.....if I am wrong, I am wrong but at least I have a more pleasant outlook toward death than you poor souls.  May God bless....even you.

I do wish there would be an afterlife. I really do because I have lost some dear friends. But if the christians are having their way my friends are burning in hell. It would be nice to have drinks with them at the Pearly Gate Pub for all of eternity. But in reality, right now all that remains of them are bones in a cemetery plot. That's the truth. That's reality. Get used to it.

While it is not possible to prove that god doesn't exist it's easy to prove certain gods don't exist. All that's needed to reading about that gods nature written in that gods holy book and comparing with what that holy book says regarding reality and noticing how it contradicts with what we truly know regarding how the world truly works.

And no, your ourlook isn't better than ours. You're a tool. You're a slave. You've given up to freedom of thought and expression for fear that god will hunt you down because you think or do something that goes against his commandments, so you praise him blindly. Even you said you don't know if he's real. It's all your belief. But your belief is a waste of time and is getting you nowhere.

And please, don't call us poor souls. And don't call us sick. And don't ask your god to bless me. I find it offensive for you to ask him to bless me on your behalf. 
« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 02:38:37 PM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #84 on: December 26, 2011, 02:13:29 PM »
Mmm.  Well, this one is probably a drive-by, but I'll respond anyway.

I came on this chat to say one thing-I think all of you who do not believe in God are sick individuals and I feel so sorry for you.

How is it "sick" to not adhere to a particular mythology?  Is it also "sick" to reject Odin?  Astral projection?

Quote
You cannot prove he does not exist.

Most atheists don't say that they can.  What they do say is that there is no evidence for its existence.

Quote
I cannot prove he does.

That's correct.

Quote
I believe in the afterlife.  I cannot prove there is one.  You cannot prove there is not.

We're quite a bit more certain about this one than we are about the existence of any deities.  All of the evidence in this department points in one direction, and one direction only: that death is a state of complete unconsciousness.  Believing otherwise is wishful thinking.

Quote
I am happy with my beliefs

People adhering to comforting fantasy usually are.  If I believed that Adriana Lima was in love with me, I'd probably be happy about that, too.

Quote
and am not afraid to die.

Is it that you're not afraid to die, or that you're not afraid of being dead?  The latter makes perfect sense.  The former does not.  There are quite a few ways to die, and many of them are unpleasant.

Quote
I will find out if what I believe is true once I take my last breath.

Yeah.  See, here's the problem I have with that: why does this deity only give you the proof whether you're right or wrong about his existence after you've drawn your conclusion and can't change your mind?

Quote
You, on the other hand are secretly uneasy with the concept that there MAY, in fact, be a God, and you MAY, in fact, have to answer to him once you die.

If you're claiming to be able to read minds, you should take Randi's Million Dollar Challenge.  (And in my case, at least, you're simply wrong.  I am not the least bit concerned about whether any deities exist.)

Quote
You, believing as you do, have no comfort in the fact that there is a God to pray to, or that there is an afterlife where your loved ones are waiting for you and where you will spend eternity.

I prefer unpleasant truth to pleasant fiction.  It can be unpleasant sometimes, but it's a much more practical way to live life.  If I'm ever in a bank when a bunch of gunmen storm in to commit a robbery, I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that I'm bulletproof and go attack them.

Quote
I am looking forward to being there with my beloved husband who went before me....

And I'm looking forward to my wedding day with Adriana Lima.  So what?

Quote
if I am wrong, I am wrong but at least I have a more pleasant outlook toward death than you poor souls.

Are there any other realities of life that you choose to disregard because you find them unpleasant?

Quote
May God bless....even you.

We get that a lot.  It's really obnoxious, but I haven't been able to figure out a decent response to it other than to point that out.  I'll keep working on it, I guess.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Joe Blow

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Darwins +1/-5
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #85 on: December 26, 2011, 02:22:38 PM »
One question-if you all have the balls to answer-how old are you?

Offline Joe Blow

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Darwins +1/-5
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Irrefutable proof that a god exists
« Reply #86 on: December 26, 2011, 02:24:16 PM »
How old are all-ALL- of you who responded, not just one of you?