Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-12-2017, 06:32 AM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
There are a number of formal logic systems. All consistent and correct. One problem. Some do not obtain, in reality. As said above, you can't define a god into existence. Logic is necessary, but not sufficient. Evidence is needed. Reality has been proven to not be intuitive, and if he's talking about the Christian god, his theology is wrong :
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, that is to say, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." - Ephesians 2:8

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
12-12-2017, 06:36 AM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
(12-12-2017 01:06 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(11-12-2017 11:49 PM)Renadt Wrote:  ...
proof for the Existence of G.
...

I have my doubts about the significance of g. I veer towards James Flynn's description of intelligence.

Or do you mean G-spot? No, that doesn't exist.

I've spend hours and hours trying to find it.

It's been fun searching though.

Angel

It exists all right....

But, searching by yourself isn't likely to turn anything up bro..


You' ll have more luck if you invite a woman....


Tongue

....

I'm a double atheist. I don't believe in your god or your politician.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
12-12-2017, 07:58 AM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
(12-12-2017 01:55 AM)Renadt Wrote:  https://wiserobbie.blogspot.com/2015/06/...proof.html

https://wiserobbie.blogspot.com/2013/09/...-of-g.html

These links should do. And I will have changed that name. Thank you and I apologize.

When someone works so hard to prove an item of belief, I just assume he's rationalizing rather than reasoning. Reasoning is not that complicated, and doesn't venture so far beyond the information given.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thoreauvian's post
12-12-2017, 08:00 AM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
(12-12-2017 01:55 AM)Renadt Wrote:  https://wiserobbie.blogspot.com/2015/06/...proof.html

https://wiserobbie.blogspot.com/2013/09/...-of-g.html

These links should do. And I will have changed that name. Thank you and I apologize.

There are better things to do with your life than to waste time with this nonsense, but nevertheless, I spent a little bit of time on this, so here is the final premise:

Proposition 4: There exists some G such that G is necessary and G is the sufficient explanation of all contingent facts, W.

Nope, a "g" doesn't explain anything, certainly not all "contingent facts" whatever the hell that means.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
12-12-2017, 08:03 AM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
(12-12-2017 07:58 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 01:55 AM)Renadt Wrote:  https://wiserobbie.blogspot.com/2015/06/...proof.html

https://wiserobbie.blogspot.com/2013/09/...-of-g.html

These links should do. And I will have changed that name. Thank you and I apologize.

When someone works so hard to prove an item of belief, I just assume he's rationalizing rather than reasoning. Reasoning is not that complicated, and doesn't venture so far beyond the information given.

Yeah, being able to see when someone is honestly reasoning through a position or rationalizing a presupposition saves a lot of time. Thumbsup

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
12-12-2017, 08:58 AM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2017 09:04 AM by Cheerful Charlie.)
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
(11-12-2017 11:49 PM)Renadt Wrote:  I do have a question to ask for any logic buffs in here. I have debated this dude named R L, who claims to have a semi-formal proof for the Existence of G. It is quite convoluted in its first iteration, and then released a "slightly less terse" version. I know the first two fallacies he makes, special pleading and circular reasoning, but I wonder if there is a fault in the actual logic. I tried reading this thing 5 times, to refute it, and it made my head hurt. So, I warn you, it might happen to you.


https://wiserobbie.blogspot.com/2015/06/...proof.html

https://wiserobbie.blogspot.com/2013/09/...-of-g.html

Suppose that there is some proposition P such that no proposition G implies it. But POSSIBLY, G is P - that is, G implies P because G = P. Such truths we regard as NECESSARY TRUTHS, contradicting the supposition that P is contingent in our Proposition 2. But since if P and G are identical, if P exists, G exists and therefore our proposition would be fulfilled but by a NECESSARY proposition. But suppose G is not P, then we regard G as P's explanation - why P? G. That is, in every case there exists some G such that G implies P, but in some cases P is not contingent but necessary. That is, Leibniz's law is always true.

----

Argument by definition. G (God) is defined as P. Why should I agree to such a definition? Maybe P is physics. Maybe Easter Bunny. Once you start allowing non sequiturs why allow your non sequiturs and not mine? Definitions are not evidence. Especially if they are not self evident such as 2 + 2 = 4 is self evident as a proposition. Also, this is our old friend immanence. Also omnipresence. All exists because God allows it to as it is. But of course then that means God allows all moral and natural evil to exist. That concept has logical problems. God is everywhere and is in everything and everything exists because wills it so.


Colossians 1:11
17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Acts 17 27-8
Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for ‘In him we live and move and have our being’

“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.”
― Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post
12-12-2017, 09:29 AM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
(12-12-2017 08:00 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  There are better things to do with your life than to waste time with this nonsense, but nevertheless, I spent a little bit of time on this, so here is the final premise:

Proposition 4: There exists some G such that G is necessary and G is the sufficient explanation of all contingent facts, W.

Nope, a "g" doesn't explain anything, certainly not all "contingent facts" whatever the hell that means.

It sounds like they are using the "necessary" vs "contingent" terminology where anything that is 'necessary' must exist and could not have been caused by anything else while anything that is contingent could potentially not have existed so must have been caused. It is an attempt to hide the first cause argument under layers of semantics.

The proposition assumes that things are either necessary or caused and ignores the possibility that something may be uncaused. It takes everyday experience with cause and effect and attempts to extrapolate that into areas where we do not know it applies.

Even if I accepted the proposition, all we are left with is the idea that there is a first cause. We have no basis for applying any attributes to that cause other than it being sufficient to kick off the universe. Everything beyond that is pure speculation and usually an attempt to force a prior god belief into the gap.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like unfogged's post
12-12-2017, 09:51 AM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
(12-12-2017 01:55 AM)Renadt Wrote:  https://wiserobbie.blogspot.com/2015/06/...proof.html

https://wiserobbie.blogspot.com/2013/09/...-of-g.html

These links should do. And I will have changed that name. Thank you and I apologize.

I just skimmed it but I see some problems right off the bat. (1) The failure to recognize the distinction between the metaphysically given and the man made and (2) reliance on the necessary-contingent dichotomy which is false. Of course there is the problem of the fallacy of the stolen concept as there is with any proof of a god's existence. Using logic to try and prove the primacy of consciousness when we know that logic rests exclusively on the the primacy of existence. any one of these is enough to reject the argument along with what you've pointed out.

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
12-12-2017, 09:52 AM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
A "necessary" god is subject to Reality, not it's master, (and is nothing but attempt to define a god into existence).

Come to rounds in the Pediatric Oncology Clinic. I'll prove to you there's no gods.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
12-12-2017, 10:36 AM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
Odd that I read that as "Pediatric Ontology Clinic", but it seems oddly appropriate. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: