A new proof for the existence of God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2014, 05:35 PM
A new proof for the existence of God
Duh. It's just funny to see Christians who do not believe Allah and Jehovah are the same God using an argument designed to "prove" the existence of a different God. Even if the argument weren't entirely circular, it was still designed to argue the existence of an entirely different creator.

β€œIt is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 05:50 PM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 01:47 PM)rmberwin Wrote:  2) God is by definition self-existent.
Just because you think something exists because of it's definition does not make it so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like donotwant's post
17-02-2014, 05:53 PM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 05:14 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  If you are referring to a specific individual, a definitive source, then Creator and God would be capitalized (regardless of one's beliefs).
Let's make a statement
Stevil often makes beautiful music.
We cannot then write the sentence "Stevil is the Creator of beautiful music".
If we make a premise that "Stevil is the only creator of beautiful music"
Would it be good grammar to say "The Creator's music is not only beautiful but is also heartfelt"?
In terms of the noun god, it has a definition (loosely defined mind you) but is akin to "human". It is not the name of an individual but instead denotes what type of creature the individual belongs to.
Let's say all human's die out except one lonely person.
Would aliens then say "The human is lonely" or would they say "The Human is lonely"?
But yeah, really in context. It seems to me that the OP is trying to inject the Christian god as Christians generally refer to their god simply as "God" rather than by name and they capitalise it. So if he is trying to do that then it is significant that he is injecting a lot of baggage into his argument without having to go through the effort of arguing why this specific god is the Christian god and why what he calls a god has a mind and knowledge and is able to make decisions and choose to create the universe.
Lot's of steps are being missed in the argument. Lots of assumptions made, lots of unsupported baggage.
(17-02-2014 05:14 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Edit: Sorry, the insult was a mistake, as I thought it was the OP who said this. Accept my apologies. It appears I'm the dunce. Sad
Thanks for the appology, I read through comments that other people made about you and it doesn't seem that you are abrasive. I'm not sure why the OP person would be deserving of insults either, but hey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 06:11 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2014 06:39 PM by WillHopp.)
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
I'll put it another way. Let's say you are chatting with a young ball player and you say, "How did you know to run home on that play?" And the boy says, "I looked up and saw Coach waving me in, so I went for it." You would capitalize "Coach" there because the noun becomes proper through the speaker's intent and the coach's title.

So, if you were to substitute "god" there in a conversation with an altar boy, it might go something like this: "So, what made you become an altar boy?" And he might say, "I felt that God told me to serve the church."

When the term is substituting for an actual entity, a definitive reference or title, then it is capitalized. I believe "human" could be capitalized and/or left lowercase in your example because we don't know the intent of the aliens. If they are referring to human as a title, then it would be capitalized, but if they were referring to the human as a class, regardless of their being just one human left, then it would be lowercase. If they said, "I don't know about you, but Human looks to be upset," then it would be capitalized because it's a title or proper name for the person.

I'm sure Vosur can refine this for me.

I also agree with your argument about the OP's intent.

And thanks for accepting my apology, I was just in a bad mood. I'm usually quite patient on here but I'm tiring of people being so closed-minded.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 06:30 PM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 02:26 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  You need to redefine your idea of "proof" Drinking Beverage


Hmm but surely doesnt insufficient proof for one argument make the other argument a concrete case? While also as a by product it smashes down any other possible explanations that doesn't fit your bias?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheStraightener's post
17-02-2014, 06:46 PM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 06:11 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I'll put it another way. Let's say you are chatting with a young ball player and you say, "How did you know to run home on that play?" And the boy says, "I looked up and saw Coach waving me in, so I went for it." You would capitalize "Coach" there because the noun becomes proper through the speaker's intent and title.
OK, cool, I have learned something today.
It seems for a person to capitalise god they would need to be conversing with people belonging to the same team that recognise the same individual god and accept that this god has a title of "God".
For people belonging to a different team aka atheist, or hindu etc then it gets confusing unless we are willing to grant the view to be used is that of the speaker's viewpoint. This assumes that the speaker's viewpoint is well known.
If we are to accept the OP it needs to be modified to remove the title "God" as it is inappropriate when the audience is predominantly atheist and when the speaker's viewpoint isn't explicitly documented and tied into the argument.
(17-02-2014 06:11 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  ...but I'm tiring of people being so closed-minded.
Yes it is common, not much you can do about that except just realise that is the way many people are. Open-mindedness is a special skill/trait.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 06:58 PM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 06:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It seems for a person to capitalise god they would need to be conversing with people belonging to the same team that recognise the same individual god and accept that this god has a title of "God".

I don't think that's necessarily true. If you use my precious baseball example, the person asking the question could be anyone and doesn't necessarily have to know the coach of the team or anything about sports, or even that he is a coach. But the ball player still refers to his coach as "Coach" and it would be written capitalized.

So, conversations between believers and nonbelievers change nothing when it comes to grammar. If a believer says to an atheist, "I believe God works in mysterious ways," it remains capitalized because that believer is referring to a very specific someone, even if the atheist doesn't believe that god exists.

Make sense?

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 07:48 PM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
1) I think you are lying when you claim that you are a "skeptic". I think you are a shit-and-run pigeon.

2) There is nothing new at all about your semantic prestidigitations.

3) Arguments are not proof of anything.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
17-02-2014, 11:33 PM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 06:58 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  So, conversations between believers and nonbelievers change nothing when it comes to grammar. If a believer says to an atheist, "I believe God works in mysterious ways," it remains capitalized because that believer is referring to a very specific someone, even if the atheist doesn't believe that god exists.

Make sense?
Yeah, but...

The "I" in "I believe God..." means that the sentence is to be taken from the speaker's perspective. So that's fine, God is what the speaker believes God to be.

However, given the OP here, it is a logic argument, meant to make sense to all and not just from the speaker's perspective.
It is actually supposed to be a persuasive argument that a logical and reasonable atheist is expected to adhere to unless they find some flaw with the argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 11:50 PM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
But see, to me, the OP is specifically naming this being God, so it would be capitalized.

Quote: which we will call God

He is saying right there, this creator will be called God for this argument. I fail to see how logic plays with the grammar at all.

If I said, "The Earth rests on the back of a turtle, which we will call Ralph," I wouldn't write it ralph, because I'm giving it a name for the purposes of communication.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: