Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-11-2013, 08:56 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
My bad...this was directed at Heywood...course that's in the last line of what I wrote. But rave on Chippy, and check your reading comprehension.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2013, 10:05 AM (This post was last modified: 10-11-2013 01:08 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(10-11-2013 03:32 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If I recall correctly only you and BuckyBallsack responded to the argument I made.

You have a very poor memory. You never responded to the pantheist point, or the evidence for the beginning of the universe, as you found it inconvenient.
Chippy, Free, and many others made perfectly sound arguments. You chose to dismiss them. Then YOU changed the goal posts, and kept redefining what the word "god" means, (which the Catholic Polis wouod NEVER agree with), and actually redefined it in a way no other theist would agree with. You ignored every post you could not deal with. You and Polis have never established why a "supernatural" being *has* to be the ONLY explanation that can be plugged in. A (supposedly) omnipotent being could have created multiple sets of robots who were empowered to make other robot universe makers who were instructed to make universes, and report back after 1 trillion years. There is no evidence for any supernatural realm, beings, omnipotent or otherwise. Thus arguing about this has the equivalent value of asking for a refutation of the existence of invisible green spooky string beans.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-11-2013, 10:17 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(10-11-2013 07:20 AM)Vosur Wrote:  *cough*

Clearly your most excellent point has been selectively ignored for obvious reasons. There is simply no good argument against it.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2013, 12:06 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(10-11-2013 08:41 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 09:31 AM)BlackMason Wrote:  How was his example falsifiable? For those that don't know, I'll attempt to explain falsifiability.

He is trying to present a deductive argument, he isn't making a statement that is subject to empirical test.
That's not true.
The argument appeals to scientific "truths", makes a statement about what it is that "god" does and attempts to reach a deductive conclusion given scientific "truths".

Scientific truths within the premise:
1. There is a rock
2. The rock is unchanging
3. There are physical laws acting on "nature"
4. These laws not only define change but also define "consistency"
5. There must be a law ensuring all other laws remain constant.
6. There must either be an infinite regression of laws ensuring laws remain constant or god must be ensuring laws remain constant
7. It is impossible to have an infinite regression.
Conclusion: Therefore god.

As is often the case with these types of arguments they do not state the nature of "god" within the premises, because then it would "beg the question". How do we know that "god" ensures laws remain constant?

With regards to 2. His scientific "truth" is incorrect, the rock is always in a state of change.
With regards to 5 he is confusing abstract ideas with physical reality.
With 6 he is extending his confusion of abstract ideas and injecting the idea of "god" and the role of "god" without being bothered to show how we know a god exists, and what the role of a god is. This is still "begging the question" it is also a false dichotomy.

If this "scientist" thinks that the god ensures rocks don't change, then it is painfully obvious that since rocks are changing then there does not exist a god which ensures rocks don't change. Thus if he wants to continue to believe, he must change the definition of his god. Which as we know won't be a difficult thing to do because god is a very poorly defined concept.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
10-11-2013, 01:24 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 08:21 PM)Vosur Wrote:  There is no reason to think that the thing which conserves the laws of nature, provided that something like that exists, possesses any of the attributes commonly ascribed to Gods by theists around the world, the most important one of which is sentience.

Sentience, in every instance we know of, requires mechanisms for
1. input and input recognition,
2. organization,
3. assimilation / processing
4. re-organization
5. output
6. output storage,
7. all of which require an absolute time-frame reference.

There is no evidence for, or any logical reason, to think any of those things exist, apart from what we can detect, by all the various methods of detection, we have today. There will no doubt be many far better ones, and since most of what constitutes this universe is at this point unknown, (Dark Energy and Dark Matter), there will be many interesting discoveries. From the little we do know, (interesting we've only known for 20 years there are other habitable planets in this galaxy, not we know there are likely billions), there is not one reason to posit anything that resembles an ancient anthropomorphized god-being. Science as a world-view is VERY VERY young. It's only been around for an instant (on the 24 hour time clock of planet Earth). Human have existed on that time clock for less than five minutes. It's not really surprising they are having a hard time shedding the ancient nonsense, and installing new paradigms.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-11-2013, 06:22 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(10-11-2013 12:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The argument appeals to scientific "truths", makes a statement about what it is that "god" does and attempts to reach a deductive conclusion given scientific "truths".

True but that you are able to contradict what you claim are his fact claims indicates that they are falsifiable. His deductive argument doesn't suffer from unfalsifiability.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2013, 08:02 PM (This post was last modified: 10-11-2013 08:06 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(10-11-2013 06:22 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(10-11-2013 12:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The argument appeals to scientific "truths", makes a statement about what it is that "god" does and attempts to reach a deductive conclusion given scientific "truths".
True but that you are able to contradict what you claim are his fact claims indicates that they are falsifiable. His deductive argument doesn't suffer from unfalsifiability.
I guess a person making this argument could play it safe and say that "God doesn't have to maintain consistency in rocks, but if (without external forces) a rock remains consistent then it could only be the god that could have done it".
This probably applies to all these types of arguments:
- God doesn't have to be the Prime Mover but if there is a need for a Prime Mover, since we can't have an infinite regress then it would have to be the god that did it.
- God doesn't have to be the creator of things that are irreducibly complex but if there exists structures that are irreducibly complex then it would have to be the god that did it.
- God didn't have to create the first life form but if abiogenesis cannot occur via natural causes then it would have been the god that did it.
Although the rock consistency argument does seem considerably weaker than the rest because "rule" is an abstract term.

All these arguments are "God of the gaps" arguments, and thus require further scientific inquiry in order to attempt to fill in the gaps (as is obviously apparent in the way I have formed the arguments). At no point do any of these arguments suggest that it is time to forgo scientific inquiry and discovery.
But the way these arguments are traditionally formed, appeals more to the "already" believers because of their a priori beliefs that God exists, god is supernatural and god is all powerful

As an aside:
Interestingly Michael Behe, the "scientist" that coined the phrase "irreducible complexity" made a claim that this is his falsifiable criteria (during the Dover trial, I think), that Intelligent Design predicts and requires irreducibly complex structures. However, even though the bacteria flagellum and the blood clotting cascade (which were given as evidence of irreducible complexity) where proven to be reducible, Michael continues to believe in his god and in irreducible complexity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 01:47 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(10-11-2013 10:17 AM)Free Wrote:  
(10-11-2013 07:20 AM)Vosur Wrote:  *cough*

Clearly your most excellent point has been selectively ignored for obvious reasons. There is simply no good argument against it.

It was ignored because it was a criticism of Dr Polis's argument...not mine. I presented Polis's argument as invalid and challenged you all to explain why. I have no obligation to defend what Polis said given the context of the way I presented it.

I will however defend my own arguments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 01:54 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 08:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 12:07 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  No there isn't. Our physics breaks down before the planck temperature. We don't have a model of a bang because we don't have a physics capable of supporting such a model. Again the big bang theory states the universe was hotter and more dense in the past. It doesn't say anything about the actual bang itself.

Here is an argument for God's existence.

Premise 1: A supernatural event would prove God's existence.
Premise 2: A supernatural event is one that can't be modeled or described by the laws of physics.
Premise 3: The big bang happened.
Premise 4: The big bang is an event that cannot be described or modeled by the laws of physics.

Conclusion: The big bang is a supernatural event and thus proves the existence of God.

Actually there is.
1. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
2. Star Birth Rates
3. Galaxy Birth Rates
4. Nuclear Chemistry of the Big Bang Theory
5. The Accelerating Universe

Again you are conflating evidence for the big bang theory(which only states the universe was hotter and more dense in the past) and the evidence which supports some notion of a big bang(which no physics can describe).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heywood Jahblome's post
12-11-2013, 02:34 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 05:05 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  He is saying god fits the description of nature - Untrue
Nature is observable.
God is not

God would have to be in another universe for him to be the conserving agent that he asserts that god is.
This universe already has a natural conserving force we refer to as physics.

So to prove god exists, he still needs to find a universe in which god is the conserving force that "holds everything together"
Good luck with that

Interesting. Most people would change your assertions to:

1) Nature is always observable

2) God is claimed to be observable on a limited basis, as well as verifiable/falsifiable on a limited basis
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: