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, 02:56 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 02:05 AM)Chippy Wrote:  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.

I agree with this critique. I think it farfetched that these laws he speaks of (most of which are logical consequences of symmetries - noethers theorem) have to be conserved by something god-like. It may be true these laws need to be conserved by something god-like, I just don't see why that has to be the case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 02:58 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
Chippy is a paradox.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 03:08 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 02:58 AM)sporehux Wrote:  Chippy is a paradox.

He is an autodidact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 03:24 AM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2013 07:39 AM by sporehux.)
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 03:08 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 02:58 AM)sporehux Wrote:  Chippy is a paradox.

He is an autodidact.

Thats not the problem. Most if his arguments echo my own.
Its just he delivers them inside a flaming paper bag with dog poop

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like sporehux's post
08-11-2013, 07:27 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
The problem with all these things is that god is a conclusion, not a hypothesis. It is like god is a light bulb hanging from the ceiling to which the apologist has built a ladder and calls it proof. Of course, I don't agree, but in the apologetic's frame of reference, the ladder exists.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
08-11-2013, 08:09 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 10:30 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 09:55 PM)Free Wrote:  Regardless, his entire point was to prove the existence of God, and all his smoke and mirrors miserably failed to conceal the fact that his argument is fundamentally flawed by some very obvious series of logical fallacies.

None of what he said has any merit whatsoever, and he can be dismissed.

He's actually a very smart person who holds and argues quit well a view contrary to yours.

What do you mean "a view contrary to yours?" I never posited a view, and merely only demonstrated that his view is fundamentally flawed because it utterly fails the logic and reasoning acid test.


Quote:You shouldn't just dismiss him as this is the kind of guy you want to mentally exercise with.

Not only am I dismissing him, but so is everyone else here on this topic, except you. How can you not see the fallacies of his arguments? They are so blatantly obvious it's impossible to miss them.

You appear to be enchanted by the philosophy he uses and seem to be missing the point that his argument is fallacious on numerous levels.

Quote: It is true his "proof" of God's existence was hardly that because it is fatally flawed. But just because his argument contains logical fallacies doesn't mean his conclusion was false.

Oh yes it absolutely does make his conclusion false! It's like saying the following:

101 + Peanut Butter + 102 = 347(Apple Sauce).

Because his argument is fallacious, his conclusion is also fallacious. The entire position is fallacious from start to finish.

His conclusion makes his entire argument frivolous. He's a waste of time on anyone with a brain.

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
[+] 2 users Like Free's post
08-11-2013, 08:29 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
I've always found the "You can't disprove God's existence" to be an incredibly weak argument. I could make up anything and claim that it exists and you couldn't disprove me. I could say that I was visited by 3 gods last night who told me that they were the creators of the universe, and you couldn't disprove me.

The fact that you can't disprove something doesn't mean you can simply put it up next to things that have been proven true by science and claim that it has the same credibility. It's as ridiculous as saying "You can't prove that fairies don't exist, therefor fairies have just as much credibility as anything else."

Just out of curiosity, can you disprove that the countless other gods that have been claimed to exist by other cultures in human history do not exist? Please, creationists, show me how you can prove that Thor, Zeus, Huitzilopochtli, Ra, Lú, or any god from any other culture does not exist. You can't. Your god has no more credibility than theirs - and you don't get to point to some book that you claim to be the word of God when it has already been proven to have an incredible amount of lies in it.

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WindyCityJazz's post
08-11-2013, 08:43 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 08:29 AM)WindyCityJazz Wrote:  Just out of curiosity, can you disprove that the countless other gods that have been claimed to exist by other cultures in human history do not exist?

I've tried that argument, the answer you get is. " none of them are in the bible, so that proves they are false, Duhh!"

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
08-11-2013, 08:43 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(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

Here is an argument for God's The Witch of Endor's existence.
1. A spiral looney called Egor would prove the witch's existence.
2. A spiral looney called Egor can't be modeled by physics.
3. Blowjob took Egor's place.
4. Blowjob is an event that can't be modeled by physics.

Conclusion: Blowjob is the Witch of Endor.

Oh wait.

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
08-11-2013, 09:31 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
Ok so this guy didn't define what his god is at the beginning. Instead he uses the outcome of his example with the rock as the definition of his god. Circular reasoning. He found a stone and then said it was the evidence for the existence of god. This is a non sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow logically. Also how do we know that it isn't proof of the existence of Zeus, Apollo, Ra, Horus, Isis, Osiris or Guan Yu? These are but a few of many god options. He would have to show us how it is not any of them but his god.

Many fallacies were made here. Argument from ignorance being one. We don't know what the law that conserves others is therefore god. False dichotomy was another. Why does that thing have to be god that conserves the other laws? Why can't it be a black swan for example?

How was his example falsifiable? For those that don't know, I'll attempt to explain falsifiability. Only evidence that is falsifiable can be passed off as scientific. This is best explained by way of example. Consider an HIV/AIDS test that can only give a positive reading. It will give a positive reading whether you are free of the disease or not. This is a bullshit test. It is not falsifiable. It only gives one result.

NEXT!! Drinking Beverage

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BlackMason's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: