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
08-11-2013, 01:33 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 01:14 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  What would be the point? You'd go on believing as you believe regardless of the refutation.

What then is the point of you saying anything then? Atheist masturbation? Please...take some effort to make comments of substance....nobody wants to see you intellectually jack off.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heywood Jahblome's post
08-11-2013, 01:34 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 01:33 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 01:14 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  What would be the point? You'd go on believing as you believe regardless of the refutation.

What then is the point of you saying anything then? Atheist masturbation? Please...take some effort to make comments of substance....nobody wants to see you intellectually jack off.

Why do you post arguments? Because you can.
Somebody sounds a little upset Tongue

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 01:40 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 01:34 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 01:33 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  What then is the point of you saying anything then? Atheist masturbation? Please...take some effort to make comments of substance....nobody wants to see you intellectually jack off.

Why do you post arguments? Because you can.
Somebody sounds a little upset Tongue

I post arguments so that you or someone else can refute them. Apparently, it seems, you cannot so you resort to just ridiculing them instead.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 01:44 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 01:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 01:34 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  Why do you post arguments? Because you can.
Somebody sounds a little upset Tongue

I post arguments so that you or someone else can refute them. Apparently, it seems, you cannot so you resort to just ridiculing them instead.

Sporehux did a fine job on his own, no need. Present a good argument and it might get more serious attention.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 01:47 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 01:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 01:34 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  Why do you post arguments? Because you can.
Somebody sounds a little upset Tongue

I post arguments so that you or someone else can refute them. Apparently, it seems, you cannot so you resort to just ridiculing them instead.

Perhaps that's because most of your arguments are ridiculous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes englishrose's post
08-11-2013, 02:05 AM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2013 02:19 AM by Chippy.)
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 03:22 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I'm just curious what you guys think about his proof and if any of you can expose the error in his thinking.

HJ, that isn't an original argument. I recognise it from presuppositional apologetics, specifically that of Cornelius Van Til and Gregory Bahnsen. It is Protestant apologetics. The old chap doesn't really give the argument a good presentation but it is recognisable. I no longer have Van Til and Bahnsen's books and they haven't been republished in electronic formats so I haven't purchased them. I do have two books that quote extensively from Van Til and Bahnsen and I'll give you the relevant quotes:

God is the Transcendental Necessity   The sovereign ruling God of scripture, speaking the universe into existence, sustaining and providentially controlling all things in the universe, is the only presupposition that can justify induction and the uniformity of the physical world. Therefore God is the precondition for science and the investigation of the natural world. The true and living God must subsist to account for the intricate, distinct, and interconnection of the particulars in the united cosmos. That is the reason Anslem said, “I believe in order that I may understand.” Van Til uses this illustration:  

We cannot prove the existence of the beams underneath the floor if by proof you mean that they must be ascertainable in a way that we can see the chairs and the tables of the room. But the very idea of the floor as a support for the tables and chairs requires the idea of beams underneath. But there would be no floor if no beams were underneath. Thus there is absolute certain proof for the existence of God… Even non-Christians presuppose its truth while they verbally reject it. They need to presuppose the truth of Christianity to account for their own accomplishments. 10  

No one can make sense of anything in the world without presupposing the existence of God.

(Robinson 2007 God Does Exist! Defending the faith using presuppositional apologetics, evidence, and the impossibility of the contrary p.78)

For coherence and all else: “The best and only possible proof for the existence of such a God is that his existence is required for the uniformity of nature and for the coherence of all things in this world…Thus there is absolute certain proof for the existence of God and the truth of Christian theism.” (Van Til in Greg Bahnsen. Van Til’s Apologetic, p. 78)

“In discounting an absolute mind creating and controlling the universe, in the final analysis he [unbeliever] is committed to chance…a chance-based worldview can have no laws, no necessity, no logical principles, but only randomness…but our very rationality requires laws so that things may be distinguished, classified, organized, and explained.” (Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis, p.152).

(Quotes taken from Hübner (2012) The Portable Presuppositionalist)

If you want to learn more about presuppositional apologetics I recommend Bahnsen's book Pushing the Antithesis. There are also debates on YT with Bahnsen where he uses presuppositional apologetics.

Presuppositionalism doesn't work and that is also the view of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians. There is more to it that the uniformity argument but the rest of it is also flawed. A rough generalisation about its flaws is that it proposes a god of the philosophical gaps. The presuppositionalists have identified some refractory problems in philosophy and stuffed god into those in the same way that god has been stuffed into the scientific gaps by traditional apologists. The old guy's "poof argument" (for the want of a better name) is just a clumsy retelling of the uniformity argument which also imports the problem of induction (which is a legitimate philosophical problem).

The old dudes argument is essentially "the stone doesn't go 'poof' because god sustains it" and that is even weaker than Van Til's original argument. Even if we grant him that the material sustenance of the stone demands an explanation there is no way to unambiguously attribute that to any god let alone the Christian god. The argument makes a little more sense if you accept Protestant doctrine, specifically sola scriptura and the noetic effect of sin but if you accept those doctrinal elements you have no need for an apologetic argument. Why can we not say that it is a demiurge that sustains the stone?

More broadly, the stone is actually changing but we just can't perceive its changes. Also randomness is a real feature of the physical universe, it isn't merely a product of our ignorance. The Reformed/Protestant/presuppositionalist response to that is usually that this irregularity is a feature of this Fallen world. So in effect they are hedging their bets: the uniformity is evidence of God but so too is the absence of uniformity.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chippy's post
08-11-2013, 02:07 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 01:47 AM)englishrose Wrote:  Perhaps that's because most of your arguments are ridiculous.

Then you should be able to easily refute it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 02:13 AM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2013 02:22 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 01:44 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 01:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I post arguments so that you or someone else can refute them. Apparently, it seems, you cannot so you resort to just ridiculing them instead.

Sporehux did a fine job on his own, no need. Present a good argument and it might get more serious attention.

Actually, you know you made a good argument when people like you are struggling to criticize it in a meaningful way. I appreciate Sporehux's critique of the argument....I at least had to think about it. Your comment resulted in a waste of glucose. Anyways I'll be critical of my own argument.

I think all the premises are reasonable. Sure some might claim that since God does not exist there is no such thing as a supernatural event....some people are set in their ways and nothing will convince them otherwise. The weakest premise in my opinion is 4. While the big bang is currently not describable by the laws of physics....some day we might discover a physics which can describe it...and I think good reasons could be given to argue that this will be the case. I gave those reasons in another thread but they were rejected by many of you atheists. It has to do with probability. The more things which are discovered to have a natural explanation, the more likely it becomes all things have a natural explanation would be the jist of it.

That being said, it seems that inorder to reject the argument you have to have faith in some unknown discovery or be so closed minded that you assume any "supernatural event" would have a natural explanation if thoroughly investigated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 02:18 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 01:34 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  Why do you post arguments? Because you can.
Somebody sounds a little upset Tongue

If you don't have anything substantive to offer then don't post.

Dickheads like you deter competent religious people from coming here and arguing a point. We then just end up with simpletons and Bible thumpers. The half-wits here which are their atheistic equivalents bring out their canned arguments in some pointless ritual and then other half-wits give that half-wit "likes" and "reps" for serving up their canned arguments. It's just a circle jerk and I've no interest in watching a circle jerk. If you need that sort of ritual to feel clever then you aren't clever.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 02:28 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 02:18 AM)Chippy Wrote:  If you don't have anything substantive to offer then don't post.

Dickheads like you deter competent religious people from coming here and arguing a point. We then just end up with simpletons and Bible thumpers. The half-wits here which are their atheistic equivalents bring out their canned arguments in some pointless ritual and then other half-wits give that half-wit "likes" and "reps" for serving up their canned arguments. It's just a circle jerk and I've no interest in watching a circle jerk. If you need that sort of ritual to feel clever then you aren't clever.

*emphasis added

This is a prime example of where you come across like a terrible and arrogant lawyer. You might technically be right, but you're still going to lose the jury every time because you come off like an ass in cross examination... Frusty

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: