Proof for God's existence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2017, 08:26 PM
RE: Proof for God's existence
AquinASS, such a special pleading guy. Surely a creation as wonderful as god couldn't exist without a creator.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2017, 11:13 PM
RE: Proof for God's existence
(03-03-2017 05:02 PM)ProudCatholic Wrote:  You want it, you've got it!

Feast your eyes on the proof for God (more specifically the Catholic God's) existence!

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/we...alysis.htm

Again, not going to bother to look at your "proof". All proofs of god suffer from the same fallacy: the stolen concept fallacy. The do this by attempting to use logic to prove the primacy of consciousness. But logic rests exclusively on the primacy of existence. So it's using logic to negate logic. Very invalid.

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
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
03-03-2017, 11:29 PM
RE: Proof for God's existence
(03-03-2017 05:02 PM)ProudCatholic Wrote:  You want it, you've got it!

Feast your eyes on the proof for God (more specifically the Catholic God's) existence!

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/we...alysis.htm

It actually says nothing about the "Catholic god". Nothing.
The fact that Aquinas happened to be a Catholic, and was making up his arguments in no way proves the "Catholic god". They could be arguments for ANY god, and certainly are not arguments for a Trinity.

"1. Unmoved mover.
* Assumes there actually is a state of absolute "motionlessness". In this universe, that is never observed, as absolute 0 temperature has a measure, (2.00 Kelvin).
Aquinas had no detection equipment.
* Assumes structure of rest / motion was already caused.
* Is argument for "proximate" mover, not ("first") Unmoved mover. The Unmoved mover, if he really is god, could have created a non-god, unmoved mover.
* Assumes linear time, and, that linear time is (already) in place.
* Assumes causality, and that causality is (already) in place. If the god "caused" causality, it assumes causality (already) in place. (Infinite Regression). Explains nothing. * Aquinas did not know about Relativity. ((There is no absolute (linear) time)). (A cause, with a different direction/position/speed in space-time, ie in the future of the object moved, could be the cause of motion, in it's relative past), and vice versa. * Assumes the universe is intuitive. (We know from Einstein, Heisenberg, and Dirac, that it is not). * Assumes ALL things in motion could not have always been in, or possessed, motion, without having established that that is not possible. States something with no proof. What he really should have said is "acceleration requires energy". We know from physics it is acceleration which requires input of energy, not motion. Aquinas did not know about "increasing rate(s) of motion", (acceleration). Physics tells us "things in motion stay in motion". The input of energy into a system to initiate an increase in motion can arise from many sources, including the conversion of matter to energy, and chemical energy to motion, not just "motion". Thus motion's origin/transfer is not really the question here. (The question here is really the origins of energy. Since this question is not addressed in Aquinas' argument, I am not required to address it, either, as my purpose here is simply to show his arguments are fallacious.) Aquinas did not know matter and energy are interchangeable. (E=mc2).
* #5 is not the ONLY possible conclusion from 1-4. No proof.
* #7 stated, not proven
* #8 stated, not proven as the ONLY possible conclusion
* First and foremost, assumes an object which "appears" at rest, really IS (completely) at rest, and that we have the ability to determine that.
a. Particle Physics knows that is fundamentally false, (Aquinas did not know about atoms, their components, and their properties).
b. Uncertainty has shown us that there is no way to determine the absolute position of anything, thus absolute rest, cannnot be proven, and in fact, from the particle/wave duality, we know it never will be.
c. A particle with absolutley no energy, (motion), has never been observed, or detected. Thus there is no way to test this proposition, and no reason to.
d. Assumes principle of transfer of energy of motion from one object to another object is, effective and efficient. Where did the principle come from ? If the transfer is not 100 % efficient, (which it is not, as some energy is dissipated as friction, and some as radiant energy), why did the god create a less than perfect transfer system ? What is a "perfect" transfer system. If there is one, who made the system ? Who set up the perfect standard ? (See perfection below).

2. First Cause
* Assumes linnear time, and causality (already) in place. (Aquinas did not know about Relativity).

3. Contingent Being.
* No. Essentially god of the gaps. Also assumes linnear time and causality, (already) in place.

4. Perfection.
* Perfection is a relative perception. What I perceive as perfect is not what you perceive as perfect.
* Perfection's definition is not established.
* Assumes there is only one "perfect standard". Has not established the standard. Has not established only one standard possible and/or necessary.
* States a creature is not as perfect as the idea of itself in mind of god. Not proven.
((Is actually a proof of NO god, and it makes her a non-perfect, (non-efficient, or less than perfect), creator)).
* A perfect, omnipotent god could/would translate a perfect idea, into a perfect creature.
* Assumes the god is subject to a structure of some sort, (already) in place, in the fabric of of the universe.

Did god have a reason for creating the universe ?
If god did not have a reason, god is not rational, and is capricious.
If not, god could either not do it, or create something else.
If god could not create something else, then there is a standard, apart from god, and god is not god.

Thank you Plato, for Euthyphro's Dillema, (written for "morality", but works here) :
* If the god made something perfect, did it have a reason ? If it was not perfect, how could it be a product of a perfect god ?
If the god had no reason, for the state (of perfection and/or imperfection) of the creature, then it could have made something else, and there is no standard of perfection, (in the mind of the god).
If it could NOT have made something else, and still be god, then a standard exists, apart from god. If there is a good reason, that reason exists, apart from god.

Could he have made something else ?
If he could not create something else, then perfection exists apart from god.
Is something not perfect, because god says it's not perfect, or is it not perfect, because it's objectively not perfect , and god had to say that ?
Would something imperfect, be perfect, if god says it's perfect ?

Conclusions:
If god could not have made something which is imperfect, and still be god, then the source of the perfection is not god.
If it would still be perfect , even if god says it's not perfect, then the source of perfection is not god.
If the source of perfection is not god, then we must look elsewhere for guidance, on what is perfect.

(BTW, this proof, is also valid for "causality", ie debunking "First Cause", and is also proof of god's non-existence, and non-contingent nature.)

5. Anthropic Principle.
* Refuted so many times, not worth discussion.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-03-2017, 12:09 AM
RE: Proof for God's existence
The only thing that I would consider to be evidence for a god -- that is, a first-hand encounter in the real world -- never seems to be on the menu. Sad

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Astreja's post
04-03-2017, 12:57 AM
RE: Proof for God's existence
[Image: 67584104.jpg]


nice try but all you've presented were fallacies and nonsense

The more one asserts their own unquestioned preconceived beliefs, the more demanding I will be for empirical evidence for I will accept nothing else in place of it
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ace's post
04-03-2017, 01:06 AM
RE: Proof for God's existence
(04-03-2017 12:09 AM)Astreja Wrote:  The only thing that I would consider to be evidence for a god -- that is, a first-hand encounter in the real world -- never seems to be on the menu. Sad

I'm not even sure I would consider that evidence. Given what I know about human perception and how flawed it can be, from the intake of sensory perception through it's transmission, interpretation, and remembrance of it. Even if I had a 'transcendent' experience that I might attribute to something supernatural, I know enough to doubt my own perceptions.

So I'm not sure if I could ever collect enough evidence to overcome my very reasonable and well justified doubt.

But anything worthy of the label 'god' should know what it would take to convince me or any other skeptic unconditionally. Forum surfing, junior-pastor wannabe, solider for Christ jack-offs hardly come close.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
04-03-2017, 02:03 AM
RE: Proof for God's existence
Not Aquaman again. Someone on a previous forum was utterly obsessed with him, and parroted the 5 ways nonsense every chance he got. I endlessly pointed out all the problems with it, but he couldn't/wouldn't understand.

Most of all, he didn't understand that arguments are not evidence. Proofs are for abstract systems.




I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Robvalue's post
04-03-2017, 02:23 AM
RE: Proof for God's existence
(03-03-2017 05:02 PM)ProudCatholic Wrote:  You want it, you've got it!

Feast your eyes on the proof for God (more specifically the Catholic God's) existence!

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/we...alysis.htm

Wow. We haven't seen this one before :|

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1065959

Xtian-standard 'proof' that God cannot exist using Acquinas

(27-09-2016 11:01 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  The First Way: Argument from Motion
  • Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
  • Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
    Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
  • Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
  • Therefore nothing can move itself.
  • Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
  • The sequence of motion extends ad infinitum because things change over time, actual motion stops and can increase in potential motion. Motion is performed by energy and energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
  • Therefore there cannot be a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands would be God.
  • Therefore God cannot exist.



The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
  • We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
  • Nothing exists prior to itself.
  • Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
  • If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
  • Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
  • If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
  • That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes)
  • This shows that the concept of efficient cause is flawed and relies on equivocation. Instead matter and energy has just been rearranged in different forms.
  • Therefore there cannot have been a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.



The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
  • We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
  • Assume that every being is a contingent being.
  • For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
  • Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
  • Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
  • Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
  • Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
  • We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
  • Yet to argue that only one being is not contingent is special pleading.
  • Therefore there cannot have been an initial being caused by something else. This all men speak of as God, which cannot exist.



The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
  • There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
  • Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
  • The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
  • A maximum is a limit of a particular value.
  • Therefore something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection which we call God cannot exist because it would be limited by having a maximum.



The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
  • We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
  • Most natural things lack knowledge.
  • But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
  • But some natural bodies such as humans and animals, have intelligence and are directing other natural bodies that lack natural intelligence.
  • This means that there cannot exist a single intelligent being, which we call God, that directs everything.
  • Therefore if anything is directing natural bodies that lack intelligence, it is merely another being and not God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
04-03-2017, 02:31 AM
RE: Proof for God's existence
(03-03-2017 06:51 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  Well that's it. We lost. How can we come back from that?

Recent footage of atheists destroyed by theists sprouting Acquinas ...




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
04-03-2017, 02:31 AM
RE: Proof for God's existence
Nice!

Let's just call the results of each way "God" and assume it's all the same thing. No equivocation there.

Anyone want to tell me why I should care? A lot of time spent trying to prove existence. Very little on why it matters.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: