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
09-11-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
This is easily refuted. He's making, in essence, the first cause argument.

There must be something sustaining the laws of nature. They can't sustain themselves (how does he know?) We can't have an infinite regress of "sustainers" so there must be a first "sustainer" that doesn't need sustaining which I will call god. Everything needs sustaining except this entity that I am calling god (special pleading). Therefore god exists. It doesn't matter what the details are the argument is invalid. It assumes the very thing that is in question. I think this guy is just a pretend scientist.

No one has proved the existence of god in reason and no one can for a very simple reason: the floating abstraction called God is a contradiction of the laws of Nature which logic rests upon. It contradicts the law if Identity. Ask any questions about what God is and how it operates and you end up at a wall of contradictions. What is God? It is beyond your comprehension. How does it operate? You can't know. It has a plan but you can't understand it. Why does God do what it does? It is beyond your powers to discern. The notion of an unknowable, indescribable, incomprehensible entity is an attack on reason itself.

I always tell people that invoke the supernatural as an explanation that they are not solving any problems by doing that. If God is unexplainable then it can't be an explanation for anything and it puts an end to any further rational inquiry.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
10-11-2013, 01:54 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 10:26 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  Problems with Premise 1

1. Any observed supernatural event could be the effect of any number of supernatural causes (Someone astral projecting, psychics, fairies, ect). I.E. Not necessarily a god.

2. Even if we could agree a god had committed the act, it would be impossible to say which god it was. Unless say the stars aligned to say 'Allah' or 'Yahweh'.

Premise 2...

3. The term supernatural itself has proved to be as useless as magic. There have been many times in the past when we have labelled things supernatural when we simply lacked understanding of the process taking place, like lightning. We also had a tendency to subscribe specific phenomena to a specific god, like Thor.

Premise 3 and (in conflict with what you previously said) premise 4 are fine.

Happy Blowjob? The reason there was no point in me posting a rebuttal was because things simply get reiterated after the first few rebuttals have taken place.

Adicknoseis.....thank you for your response.

I think you criticism on premise 1 is nitty and an attempt to shift the goal post. Lets replace God with "supernatural being" and move on. Also you won't ever see me argue for any particular God so don't assume that I am arguing for an Abrahamic God.

With regard to premise 2, If you are going to have an open mind toward the idea that God exists, you have to settle on some meaning of "supernatural". It seems you are unwilling to accept any definition for "supernatural" and if that is the case, then there is no point in debating the existence of God...a supernatural being....with you. You are just too closed minded to have any meaningful debate.

The weakness of premise 4 is that it is conceivable that with a better understanding of physics, the big bang could be modeled by the laws of physics. It hasn't been shown that the big is something which can't be modeled by the laws of physics and that gives atheists an out(because the argument is valid and the premises other than 4 are really pretty reasonable).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2013, 03:02 AM (This post was last modified: 10-11-2013 03:12 AM by Adenosis.)
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(10-11-2013 01:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Adicknoseis.....thank you for your response.

I think you criticism on premise 1 is nitty and an attempt to shift the goal post. Lets replace God with "supernatural being" and move on. Also you won't ever see me argue for any particular God so don't assume that I am arguing for an Abrahamic God.

I said nothing about your argument concluding a specific god, I merely said that it would be impossible to conclude, based on your argument, which god existed. Regardless of changing 'god' to 'supernatural being', point three still stands for both premise 1 and 2.
(08-11-2013 10:26 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  3. There have been many times in the past when we have labelled things supernatural when we simply lacked understanding of the process taking place, like lightning. We also had a tendency to subscribe specific phenomena to a specific god, like Thor.
*Refined

(10-11-2013 01:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  With regard to premise 2, If you are going to have an open mind toward the idea that God exists, you have to settle on some meaning of "supernatural". It seems you are unwilling to accept any definition for "supernatural" and if that is the case, then there is no point in debating the existence of God...a supernatural being....with you. You are just too closed minded to have any meaningful debate.

Supernatural: Beyond nature.

This is the simple definition most people can agree on and if you don't then please offer your own. It is a useless term because anything we observe in the universe is necessarily part of nature, it may be beyond what we though nature consisted of but a part of nature nonetheless.

(10-11-2013 01:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The weakness of premise 4 is that it is conceivable that with a better understanding of physics, the big bang could be modeled by the laws of physics. It hasn't been shown that the big is something which can't be modeled by the laws of physics and that gives atheists an out(because the argument is valid and the premises other than 4 are really pretty reasonable).

Premise 1: All pussy cats are mammals
Premise 2: Blowjob is a mammal
Conclusion: Blowjob is a pussy cat

This argument is perfectly valid, but guess what? It means nothing for an argument to be valid. To have any hope of convincing anyone it must be sound.

The first two premises in your argument have been shown to be nonsense (the entire argument as a matter of fact) by multiple members, members who's posts you have ignored. You like to pick out the posts in which the least time and effort was given, while ignoring the ones that have well thought out articulate rebuttals. Last I checked this isn't how an argument is won.

Nit-picking who you reply to only goes to show you can't take the heat, so please do us a favor and leave the kitchen.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2013, 03:10 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(10-11-2013 03:02 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  Premise 1: All pussy cats are mammals
Premise 2: Blowjob is a mammal
Conclusion: Blowjob is a pussy cat

This argument is perfectly valid, but guess what? It means nothing for an argument to be valid. To have any hope of convincing anyone it must be sound.

The first two premises in your argument have been shown to be nonsense (the entire argument as a matter of fact) by multiple members, members who's posts you have ignored. You like to pick out the posts in which the least time and effort was given into a rebuttal while ignoring the ones that have well thought out articulate rebuttals.

Nit-picking who you reply to only goes to show you can't take the heat, so please do us a favor and leave the kitchen.


Adicknoseis, you do not know what a valid argument is. Watch this video and learn.





You should subscribe to that channel and watch every video that professor puts out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heywood Jahblome's post
10-11-2013, 03:22 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(10-11-2013 03:10 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You should subscribe to that channel and watch every video that professor puts out.

Great, I may take the advice. It's been awhile.

And you should refrain from nitpicking who you respond to. You don't win an argument by ignoring rebuttals you can't deal with.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2013, 03:32 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(10-11-2013 03:22 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 10:26 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  You should subscribe to that channel and watch every video that professor puts out.

Great, I may take the advice. It's been awhile.

And you should refrain from nitpicking who you respond to. You don't win an argument by ignoring rebuttals you can't deal with.


Adenosis,

If I recall correctly only you and BuckyBallsack responded to the argument I made. Ballsack's response was so childish and nonsensical it deserved to be ignored. He simply made no point to be countered. I responded to you because you made points....they were bad points....but there was something that could be countered.

If there is a particular post you want me to respond too.....let me know the post number and cite what you want me to respond too...I will be happy to you what I think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2013, 07:20 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
*cough*

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
10-11-2013, 08:02 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
Mr. don't pick on/attack people (poor ole Chippy) shows the hypocrite in himself by still calling people names. Seems to be a one of those holier than thou liars. Big shock. Negates pretty much everything else he says.

Way to go Heywood. Thumbsup

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, 08:41 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(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.

Quote:Only evidence that is falsifiable can be passed off as scientific.

The notion of falsifiability pertains to hypotheses not evidence.

Quote: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.

I don't think that is a good illustration of falsifiability, that is just a defective test. Bear in mind that falsifiability relates to the nature of hypotheses and whether they are capable of contradiction. An unfalsifiable hypotheses is always true because it accounts for all data, and because it accounts for all data it says nothing about the world. Good examples are provide by Popper--the philosopher most often associated with the notion of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation between science and pseudoscience--in Conjectures and Refutations. According to Popper Adler's theory of superiority/inferiority complex is pseudoscientific because there exists no data which would contradict it. Popper offers the example of a man that pushes a child into a pool of water with the intention of drowning it--call him A; and another man who sacrifices his life in order to rescue the drowning child--call him B. Popper argues that according to Adler, man A has an inferiority complex and attempts to drown the child to compensate for his feelings of inadequacy; but so too does man B who tries to rescue the child to compensate for his feelings of inadequacy. Thus the idea of inferiority complex can be used to "explain" two very different behaviours. Hence Popper contends that there is no human behaviour that could falsify Adler's theory. (p.35) Popper argues that Freud's psychoanalytic theory is similarly unfalsifiable, e.g. men are sexually atrracted to their mother (as per the Oedipus Complex), but if they say they aren't they are repressing.

Regarding the old dude, he is trying to present a deductive argument rather than a hypothesis that can be subject to empirical test so the notion of falsifiability isn't applicable.

Another point that you should bear in mind is that falsifiability is necessary but not sufficient for scientificity. Astrology, for example, is in many cases falsifiable but it is still pseudoscientific. If an astrologer makes a specific prediction or fact claim about a person's biography it is possible to contradict it but astrology does not become scientific merely because of falsifiable statements. There are other criteria to consider.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chippy's post
10-11-2013, 08:52 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(10-11-2013 08:02 AM)Anjele Wrote:  Mr. don't pick on/attack people (poor ole Chippy) shows the hypocrite in himself by still calling people names. Seems to be a one of those holier than thou liars. Big shock. Negates pretty much everything else he says.

Way to go Heywood. Thumbsup

Your reading comprehension is deficient. Where here is the religious person that I am calling names?

You present an idiotic and pathetic attempt at thinking. Upon your poor reading comprehension you heap some baseless assumptions and from that you draw a conclusion which has no connection with what preceded it.

Explain how the following is "negated":

The penguin is a flightless bird.

What does "pretty much" comprise and how does it relates to the previous statement?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: