Proof that God exists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2014, 01:10 PM
RE: Proof that God exists
I'd ask which god he's referring to but I think it would be some simulation of god of his own development. The idea of god really differs from person to person. That's the problem isn't it? You could say you believe the Christian god but which version? There are thousands of different denominations, all varying in who goes to heaven, who goes to hell, do all go to heaven, salvation even encourage different societal issues. I'd re-frame further questioning until the issue is settled, but yeah that's just meTongue

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: Proof that God exists
(02-10-2014 07:20 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Premise one: Something exists if it exists. (law of non contradiction)
Premise two: God exists. (Trancendental argument for the existence of God.)
Conclusion: God exists

You can't honestly expect anyone, anywhere, to be convinced by this argument, presented in this form. You would, at the very least, need to expand on premise 2. I cannot help but think that your only purpose in presenting it to this audience in this form is to aggravate and attention-whore.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
02-10-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: Proof that God exists
What a load of shit....

Diddo, you gotta do way better than that pal.

Since you constantly spout the same circular shite, I very much doubt you have anything better... Save yourself the hassle and find something else to do.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: Proof that God exists
(02-10-2014 07:20 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Premise one: Something exists if it exists. (law of non contradiction)
Premise two: God exists. (Trancendental argument for the existence of God.)
Conclusion: God exists

You logic, broken down deductively, is the following:

If A therefore A
X is A
Therefore A

The relationship between existence and existence is obvious. That is not a premise. The existence or none existence of god has not been proven. Asserting that god exists is a conclusion it is not a premise. Following that up with "therefore god exists" is likewise not a conclusion, it is a restating of your unsubstantiated claim. If the logical device you used where valid, you could prove literally anything.

However, you knew all of this before you posted. You were trying to accomplish two things with this thread; get attention, and further argue the transcendental argument.

Seeing as how you have already succeeded in the first, let's tackle the second.

The transcendental argument goes as follows:

transcedental argument Wrote:1. If there is no god (most often the entity God, defined as the god of the Christian Bible, Yahweh), knowledge is not possible.
2. Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).
3. Therefore a god exists.

There are subtle variations on this argument, but the following core components are always there. Note: The TAG argument is also used to argue for an objective morality, however, sense this requires proving the existence of an objective morality in order to prove the veracity of its first premise (which has many obvious problems), this is the weaker of the two TAG arguments. I will be referring to the knowledge from god argument.

There are subtle variation of this argument, but the all contain the same basic components:

1) An acknowledgement of solipsism.

solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. (More importantly, the theory that nothing can be known except that existence of the self. )

Background information for solipsism
Solipsism has it roots in the works of Des Cartes. In Des Cartes' dream and the deceiving god arguments, he argues that perception of reality and objective reality are not the same thing. In a dream you a very certain, at the time, that whilst you are dreaming what you perceive to be real in the dream is real. You know after awakening from the dream it was not, but the important implication is that anything you think is true, at any time, could in actuality be a dream (or a delusion of some kind). Des Cartes would go on to make rather confusing arguments for how come we can in fact distinguish reality from perception. Solipsists believe that dream argument to be superseding; that is it is always true that you can never be entirely certain of anything, because all of the measures we use to perceive reality (our senses) can at any time be fooled or deceived. A person making the transcendental argument acknowledges solipsism. If they didn't we could garner knowledge by ourselves and the first premise would be false.

Proponents of TAG argue that you cannot know anything without God, however we appear to know things, therefore God must exist.

There are several flaws in this argument. If the skeptic argues that true knowledge does not in fact exist than the second premise is false; ie if you claim that you don't have true knowledge and neither does anybody else, then God didn't give us true knowledge and therefore absence of true knowledge does not prove or disprove the existence of God. This is self evident; the existence of god would not change the fact that our senses are sometimes unreliable and therefore not objective.

Proponents of TAG might further argue that yes, while general experience does not constitute true knowledge, knowledge that is acquired from God is objective because god is the sole possessor of true knowledge. The only things that can be truly known are those that are revealed to people by god through divine revelation. Sense God has revealed things to people before (ie bible), we can know with certainty all things which were revealed by God or necessarily follow from revelations given by God.

There are problems with this argument as well. Namely, it is not made clear how divine revelation, as an experience, is practically any different than ordinary revelation. How does one experience a divine revelation if not through sight, smell, taste, ect (ie our fallible and deceivable senses)? How is it possible for an individual to discern a divine revelation from a dream, hallucination, or an imagined experience? If it is not possible to demonstrate that a divine revelation is fundamentally different than an ordinary revelation, that you cannot successfully argue that God gives us true knowledge, or that knowledge attributed to God is any more or less true than knowledge not attributed to God, because even if divine revelation did exist, the divinely inspired could never be truly certain of gods message. They might be correct (ie the knowledge given to them is 'true') but they could never be certain of it, which by the assumed definition that this argument operates under is insufficient of true knowledge. If being very, very sure of something constituted true knowledge, then by a similar transcendental argument, we already have that, and we don't need God.

Another problem with divine revelation is that only the person who was divinely inspired can be certain of the truth of said experience. People can only communicate experience to other people through sensory communication; pictures and sounds primarily. This sensory communication is just as falsifiable and unreliable as always, and therefore while it may be possible for an individual to experience divine revelation and be certain of the authenticity of that experience, it is impossible to convey that knowledge to other people in such a way that they can be certain of the authenticity of that individual's experience. In short, even if we agreed that divine revelation is possible and is some how different than ordinary revelation, I as the person who did not experience the revelation can never be truly certain that you did, or never be truly certain that I understood it correctly or the same was as you did, and therefore all knowledge acquired from that revelation and passed to myself is subject to the same solipsistic traps as anything else. YOU have undeniable proof of the existence of god (via the TAG argument) but I do not and cannot without my own divine revelation (again assuming that divine revelations where in fact different than normal revelation).

So you arrive at much the same place; how does god give us true knowledge, and how can I know that the knowledge claimed for god was in fact given by god? You can't. You have to presuppose that there is a God and that God give undeniable revelations to people in order to support that "true knowledge" clause of the argument. Seeing as how these presupposed assumptions ARE the conclusion, and IS the thing under question, this constitutes a circular reasoning. The logic is flawed, or in the very least not definitively provable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
02-10-2014, 02:28 PM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2014 09:18 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Proof that God exists
(02-10-2014 07:20 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Premise one: Something exists if it exists. (law of non contradiction)
Premise two: God exists. (Trancendental argument for the existence of God.)
Conclusion: God exists

If you are gonna troll at least have the fucking self respect to do better then this shit. "The proof for God is that I'm going to rabidly assert his existence until people believe it."

Oh by the way I noticed you avoided the hell out of this thread you chicken shit.

Dude you HAVE to do better then this or even the few people who think you're serious are gonna figure out the game. Or you could just fucking wank like a normal kid and stop polluting our forum. Step up your game either way.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
02-10-2014, 02:53 PM
RE: Proof that God exists
(02-10-2014 07:20 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Premise one: Something exists if it exists. (law of non contradiction)
Premise two: God exists. (Trancendental argument for the existence of God.)
Conclusion: God exists
Wait, I'm new here.

Is this satire?
This has to be satire.

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”

― Gordon R. Dickson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Winterwolf00's post
02-10-2014, 02:58 PM
RE: Proof that God exists
(02-10-2014 02:53 PM)Winterwolf00 Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 07:20 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Premise one: Something exists if it exists. (law of non contradiction)
Premise two: God exists. (Trancendental argument for the existence of God.)
Conclusion: God exists
Wait, I'm new here.

Is this satire?
This has to be satire.

Any sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from sincerity.

... and vice versa.

But no, ol' diddo here is only the most tedious sort of troll.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
02-10-2014, 03:57 PM
RE: Proof that God exists
(02-10-2014 07:20 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Premise one: Something exists if it exists. (law of non contradiction)
Premise two: God exists. (Trancendental argument for the existence of God.)
Conclusion: God exists

Let's see if your logic holds up.

Premise 1: Something doesn't exist if it doesn't exist.
Premise 2: God doesn't exist
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

Yeah. That works fine
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheStraightener's post
02-10-2014, 05:13 PM
RE: Proof that God exists
(02-10-2014 07:20 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Premise one: Something exists if it exists. (law of non contradiction)
Premise two: God exists. (Trancendental argument for the existence of God.)
Conclusion: God exists

Premise one: Something exists if it exists. (law of non contradiction)
Premise two: The Invisible Pink Elephant riding a unicorn name fred that lives in my back pocket exists. (Trancendental argument for the existence of that elephent and unicorn.)
Conclusion: The elephant exists


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Shadow Fox's post
02-10-2014, 05:41 PM
RE: Proof that God exists
(02-10-2014 05:13 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 07:20 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Premise one: Something exists if it exists. (law of non contradiction)
Premise two: God exists. (Trancendental argument for the existence of God.)
Conclusion: God exists

Premise one: Something exists if it exists. (law of non contradiction)
Premise two: The Invisible Pink Elephant riding a unicorn name fred that lives in my back pocket exists. (Trancendental argument for the existence of that elephent and unicorn.)
Conclusion: The elephant exists

The "invisible pink elephant riding a unicorn named Fred" is not an ultimate being.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: