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
07-11-2013, 04:19 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
Quote:the question he poses is why is it that something doesn't just go poof and cease to exist....why is that thing which exists constant?

Why would it go poof? The question is asinine.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
07-11-2013, 04:25 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
False presumption that you need a law conserving the laws of conservation. His meta -meta - meta concept has no basis in my opinion.

He also has spelling mistakes and makes an unsupported conclusion in the end regarding a god of the gaps.

I think he simply used had a desired outcome and warped a bunch of gobleygook around it to make his point. He may not be a dolt, but his video is not helpful in anyway
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 04:27 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 04:19 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  
Quote:the question he poses is why is it that something doesn't just go poof and cease to exist....why is that thing which exists constant?

Why would it go poof? The question is asinine.

Actually its not.....and Polis takes the time to explain that science often explains why things continue to persist. If it is valid question to ask why the rock does not go poof....and it is...and it is explained by the laws of nature...why is it invalid to ask why the laws of nature themselves just don't go poof?

His question is valid and requires an explanation. The error in his "proof" is a logical one...not some subjective opinion about a particular question he raises.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 04:35 PM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2013 04:43 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 04:25 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  False presumption that you need a law conserving the laws of conservation. His meta -meta - meta concept has no basis in my opinion.

He also has spelling mistakes and makes an unsupported conclusion in the end regarding a god of the gaps.

I think he simply used had a desired outcome and warped a bunch of gobleygook around it to make his point. He may not be a dolt, but his video is not helpful in anyway

Ding...Ding...Ding....Ding....Folks we have a winner.

Polis's error is that he assumes there must be something which conserves laws of conservation and then goes on to conclude that such a thing exists.

His logical error is that he is concluding one of his assumptions.

From a physics stand point, conservation laws are a logical consequence of symmetries....Noethers theorem tells us this(I never understand why atheists don't use Noethers theorem...it really supports their position well). You don't need a law of nature to conserve a logical consequence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 04:35 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 04:27 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 04:19 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  Why would it go poof? The question is asinine.

Actually its not.....and Polis takes the time to explain that science often explains why things continue to persist. If it is valid question to ask why the rock does not go poof....and it is...and it is explained by the laws of nature...why is it invalid to ask why the laws of nature themselves just don't go poof?

His question is valid and requires an explanation. The error in his "proof" is a logical one...not some subjective opinion about a particular question he raises.
You insist on chasing your own tail again. This time I won't take part in that.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 05:05 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
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

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
07-11-2013, 05:07 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 04:02 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  He essentially defines God as that which conserves the laws of nature and also conserves itself. How does this proof not show that his God exists?

Well that's the problem right there, isn't it. One can define anything in a way as to make the definition exist, but that does not mean anything more than that one has redefined something in such a way as to suit one's needs. I can redefine the color blue as red so that I can claim I’m currently wearing a blue shirt and not be lying (the shirt is red, FYI). If everyone in the world defined the color blue as red then we could agree on that term, but it does not actually make the shirt blue. It simply makes it red by another name, but it still retains its properties as the color red regardless of our definition.

I can redefine Gwyneth Paltrow as being my bed, offer proof that I do indeed have my bed, which is indisputable (in this case you will just have to trust me that I do in fact have my bed, but I promise I do), and from that true fact, and the definition of Gwyneth Paltrow as my bed, it is indisputable that I sleep with Gwyneth Paltrow every night.

You can dispute the truth of my claim, as you can say that I am using a nonsensical definition of Gwyneth Paltrow, and it is meaningless to define Gwyneth Paltrow in such a way, but you cannot prove, based on that definition of Gwyneth Paltrow as my bed, that I do not in fact sleep with Gwyneth Paltrow.

Prove me wrong…

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Raptor Jesus's post
07-11-2013, 05:27 PM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2013 05:34 PM by Free.)
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 03:22 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The following is an argument made by a physicist concerning the existence of God.
A couple years back I had a little back and forth exchange with this person where I argued his "proof" was flawed. I'm just curious what you guys think about his proof and if any of you can expose the error in his thinking.

The first 2 and half minutes is a bit cheesy, then the substance of the argument comes.





The fellow in the video is committing a number of logical fallacies in reasoning that are commonly known as:

1. Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

2. Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.

3. Circular reasoning – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

In a nutshell, all this man said was:

"God exists because the rock exists and that is why God exists."

Seriously ...Blink

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
07-11-2013, 05:42 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
I know a large strong guy named Larry. He works on his muscles every day. He goes to strong man competitions and can dead lift quite a bit.
His friend Walt has a small compact car. Larry can and has lifted the back end up and moved it 180 degrees.

One day Walt had a flat tire and opened his truck and got out a jack. He jacked his car up and quickly changed his tire like a pro.
He did it in under 1 minute flat.

Now Larry and the jack can perform the same task. Both are strong and can hold up the car for the time Walt needs to change a tire.
Larry meets the definition of a jack in this case, but Larry isn't stored in the back of Walt's car.
You can refer to Larry as a jack and he doesn't get mad, but in reality he isn't THE jack that Walt uses to jack up his car.

Using a jack to jack up Walt's car doesn't prove that Larry exists.
You have to actually find Larry and then you can take some measurements to show that he's a real individual.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Rahn127's post
07-11-2013, 06:32 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 05:27 PM)Free Wrote:  The fellow in the video is committing a number of logical fallacies in reasoning that are commonly known as:

1. Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

2. Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.

3. Circular reasoning – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

In a nutshell, all this man said was:

"God exists because the rock exists and that is why God exists."

Seriously ...Blink

The following are excerpts from my exchange with him.

Me: "If the stone in you kitchen went poof there would be a reason for it. It seems your argument depends on an implied premise that it is logically possible for the laws of nature to fail without a cause. Otherwise it would seem you are assuming the existence of God to sustain the stone and then concluding God must exist when the stone doesn't go poof. Why should an atheist accept the premise that it is logically possible the laws of nature can fail without a cause"

Him: "It could go poof only if what maintained it ceases operating, as lamps go out when the power fails. I don't see that as a problem. The laws of nature are not logically necessity. It is logically possible for them to cease operating. If they were logically necessary, physics would be a branch of logic, & no experiments would be needed. I assume what science requires: that phenomena are caused. If that fails, so does science. Don't you agree?"


Him: "Events require causes, non-being requires none. There is no cause for Mars having no moon. We can say why we know there is none, but that is not saying what causes this non-fact. Suppose I ask why a lamp is let. A reasonable explanation is it is getting power. Your suggestion is the lamp is lit because there is nothing causing it to be dark. Nothing is not a cause. The fact is the laws persist. That fact requires an active explanation."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: