Proof that God exists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-04-2012, 09:29 PM
RE: Proof that God exists
(21-04-2012 09:26 PM)Logisch Wrote:  Am I the only one who thinks that Sye sounds like a broken record both on the TTA video and the above video?

Broken record, -great analogy! Thumbsup
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grassy Knoll's post
21-04-2012, 10:03 PM
RE: Proof that God exists
(21-04-2012 09:29 PM)Grassy Knoll Wrote:  
(21-04-2012 09:26 PM)Logisch Wrote:  Am I the only one who thinks that Sye sounds like a broken record both on the TTA video and the above video?

Broken record, -great analogy! Thumbsup
All I hear from him is - "blah blah blah word game. Blah blah blah assumption." and then he circles back to the same argument over and over again. Then if someone calls him on something... he circles back again.. and again... then tells everyone else they are in a "vicious circle"... lol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
22-04-2012, 03:24 AM
RE: Proof that God exists
(21-04-2012 10:03 PM)Logisch Wrote:  
(21-04-2012 09:29 PM)Grassy Knoll Wrote:  Broken record, -great analogy! Thumbsup
All I hear from him is - "blah blah blah word game. Blah blah blah assumption." and then he circles back to the same argument over and over again. Then if someone calls him on something... he circles back again.. and again... then tells everyone else they are in a "vicious circle"... lol.


Agreed.

On Seth's podcast I noticed the trick.

A caller played the game and was asked, "do you believe there is absolute truth?" to which the answer from an atheist is likely to be "no".

The follow up question was something like "do you believe that absolutely?"

To which the answer is "No, I believe it completely"

It's simply a play on the strict definition of absolutely (an extreme end of a scale) vs the general use definition (totally)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
22-04-2012, 06:48 AM
RE: Proof that God exists
(18-04-2012 07:35 PM)Grassy Knoll Wrote:  This is like asking the question; What's more important, my perception of reality or the reality of my perception? It's the kind of circular logic that can mean everything and nothing at the same time... Tongue

(17-04-2012 10:40 AM)Ianke64 Wrote:  Has anyone nailed that guy yet??

I think C0nc0rdance nailed him pretty good on the Magic Sandwich Show, see @16:09





Personally, I think using word conundrums is such a silly argument for proving anything and this Sye guy shouldn't even be taken seriously. Laughat
Thanks for the link. Just watched the first 6 parts and gave up. I think aaron Ra wants to punch Sye. Circular and as Seth said its a parlour trick. Nothing new just the same old stuff. Could I be wrong about everything? No. Why he God of the bible and not some other god...no good reason. Is this the best defence god has in his arsenal?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ianke64's post
23-04-2012, 11:53 PM
RE: Proof that God exists
One other thought occurs to me. When Sye asks is child abuse absolutely wrong, we ought to be saying yes of course and thus the trap is set...so you believe in absolutes etc etc. But, and someone said this one Seth's podcast, is it absolutely wrong? Before we proceed down that slippery slope, put it like this, is murder always absolutely wrong? My answer is no (e.g. had I found Osama and known his plans I might have taken his life if there were no other options and with intent) Does saying no make me a murderer? Of course not. I can't think of any time when child abuse could be the thing to do but that does not make me an abuser or give licence to anyone to commit such awful things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2012, 05:58 AM
RE: Proof that God exists
It's interesting to see the actual proof at the end of the series of questions. It is:
"The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything."

However, this is incorrectly formed. Correctly formed the statement would be:
If an all-knowing god exists within an absolute reference frame and communicates knowledge from that reference frame then we can know things relative to that absolute reference frame".

Or to put it in Sye's preferred ordering:
One way that we could possibly know things relative to an absolute reference frame would be if such a reference frame exists and an all knowing being within that reference frame communicated knowledge to us.

So this is the proof? What if no such reference frame exists? What if no such creature exists? What if the creature exists but does not know everything? What if the creature we are communicating with is actually in a relative reference frame also? What if the creature is lying to us? What if there are other ways to reach the absolute reference frame, other than to go via this creature? Why do we think it either possible or important to know things in relation to the absolute reference frame, even if one does exist? Isn't it sufficient for now to know things in relation to our own frame of reference?

It's an exercise in word games with a fruitless conclusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2013, 06:31 PM
RE: Proof that God exists
Oh darn. I posted my big, ranty response in the wrong place.
I put it in the PODCAST forum thread instead of the CASUAL COFFEEHOUSE forum thread. Clear newbie mistake. Terribly sorry.

If you're interested in a takedown and a bit of a rant, see my original post in:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...God-Exists

Briefly, it goes like this:
1. Sye claims to prove that a "God who is unchanging", must necessarily exist to permit the existence of "universal, immaterial, unchanging logic".
2. Sye's entire argument relies on statements in the text of Romans 1.
3. The text of Romans 1 was written by a person (notionally the apostle Paul) at some point in the past, not earlier than the year ~30C.E.
4. So, there was clearly a time in human history before Romans 1 was written.
5. Sye asserts his that "proof" is true today.
6. Before the writing of Romans 1, there would be no foundation for the proof.
7. At earlier times, the proof would not be possible. It would not work. At all.
8. Within Sye's own logical framework, there was a time in the past when the set of propositions provable by logic was smaller, by at least one proposition (his own).
So, something must have changed.
9. Thus the set of logic and available truths is not unchanging.
10. And the "God who is unchanging" is not necessitated, even within Sye's own logical framework.

Q.E.D.


You don't even need to question the interpretation of Romans, or the connection between the existence of God and the possibility of logic.
The argument fails purely on its own terms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2013, 02:48 AM
RE: Proof that God exists
lol you heathens are blind, here are a few arguments which proof that god exists ! Repent !!

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN, a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
(2) Only God could have made them so beautiful.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I)
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

MORAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Person X, a well-known atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

MORAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
(2) That all changed once I became religious.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

if you are still not convinced go to this site: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

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