They've finally figured it out. Pretty soon they'll be teaching this stuff in Universities. Proof of God's existence!
1) Run a website that links Science to God.
2) Discuss Aristotle's Comsmological argument:
*Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
*Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
*A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
*Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.
3) Conclude that the first cause is God because God is infinite and not contingent.
4) Respond to statements that one can't simply create rules that the universe must follow and then simply state that God exists outside of those rules by stating:
"Where have I violated the rules of logic?"
The statements had nothing to do with logic, but his question can't be refuted so it can have the appearance of being a valid retort.
5) Respond to a clarification that one can't simply assign qualities that the universe must follow yet assign different qualities to God that allows him to exist outside of the bounds of the cosmological argument by stating:
"what justification is there for believing our senses are giving us a correct view of reality?"
ie..just because God is invisible doesn't mean that he isn't there.
6) Assign new rules to God explaining that he has the ability to transcend time, however the universe doesn't. If someone challenges this position, tell them that you know a lot about the subject but don't want to waste time discussing it with someone who is clearly not educated on the subject.
dahhh!!!
How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
This is very vague. Could you elaborate?*A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
Are you refering to your quoted extract from Aristotle's argument? If so, it needs to be understood in context.
You could say that the god squad, like Aristotle believe that 'the causal chain cannot be of infinite length' therefore god must exist as a first cause, for which they offer no proof, beyond its appeal to reason. But looked at a little closer, their appeal to reason is itself based on a myth: god...you can prove cause and effect, but you can' t prove god...
Ciao
Z
You could say that the god squad, like Aristotle believe that 'the causal chain cannot be of infinite length' therefore god must exist as a first cause, for which they offer no proof, beyond its appeal to reason. But looked at a little closer, their appeal to reason is itself based on a myth: god...you can prove cause and effect, but you can' t prove god...
Ciao
Z
-
HUNTEDvsINVIS
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:55 pm
- Location: some hot place near sea
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
I think it is obvious that there is a god, he just isn't the way we expect him to be, and most arguments around are not satisfactorily worked out to prove his existence. I smashed the ontological proof for the existence of God ( Anselm ) a while ago in class. It was another petitio principi. Apparently the argument is still a work of genius, though.
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
.
It is interesting, to say the least, that the 'logical' processes of rational man lead him to dissatisfaction with infinite regress. His very logic tells him that all things are caused, and when he ranges his mind in this way, he seems bound by those very processes to seek backward ever and anon until he can rest his ranging in an item called the First Cause.
Now look what happens to his logic when he arrives to this: it falls apart, and all the 'laws' of cause and effect that got him there have to be abandoned. For if he is done asking, "but what caused that; and then what caused that?" - if he is well and truly done regressing, he is left with a thing (First Cause) that escapes all the features of causality itself. This thing, this First Cause, now can only exist in one of two ways: it is either eternal in itself; or it is self-causing - both items of which refute everything that rational man knows of the world and its workings of cause and effect.
Now, we have an item (First Cause) that does not exist in the world as he knows it, by his own understanding of cause and effect. It is anti-rational, and thus, he concludes must be Divine - for what other word will rational man use now? Nothing that he knows of the phenomenal world exists eternally, and nothing that he knows of the world springs forth from no cause whatsoever - or more, springs forth entirely from itself. He is stuck, this rational man - led by the very mechanism he assumes to use to find the truth of things - into a truth that escapes all phenomenal laws.
Round and round he goes, certain of causality only to abandon it in this scheme, for his own logic leads him to some sense of final satisfaction this way.
Others, whose logic does not abandon cause and effect to arrive to a first cause, then simply make their final resting place in causality itself - as eternal, as self-causing - perhaps even as Divine. There is no need for this second rational man to be niggled by his own logic and forced to conclude a First Cause. He is not forced to conclude a First Cause, but he is backed by his own logic into accepting a description of the Divine - that which is eternal and self-causing, or something in-itself.
The first rational man - and pay close attention here - resolves his quest for a permanency to his knowledge in a divine entity - and he calls it God and he calls it a "He." Telling, that.
The second rational man resolves his quest for a permanency to his knowledge in a process - and he calls it Causality.
Both rational men seek a permanent resting place for their knowledge. A permanent resting place in a phenomenal world that does not support anything in permanency.
rational man :)
.
It is interesting, to say the least, that the 'logical' processes of rational man lead him to dissatisfaction with infinite regress. His very logic tells him that all things are caused, and when he ranges his mind in this way, he seems bound by those very processes to seek backward ever and anon until he can rest his ranging in an item called the First Cause.
Now look what happens to his logic when he arrives to this: it falls apart, and all the 'laws' of cause and effect that got him there have to be abandoned. For if he is done asking, "but what caused that; and then what caused that?" - if he is well and truly done regressing, he is left with a thing (First Cause) that escapes all the features of causality itself. This thing, this First Cause, now can only exist in one of two ways: it is either eternal in itself; or it is self-causing - both items of which refute everything that rational man knows of the world and its workings of cause and effect.
Now, we have an item (First Cause) that does not exist in the world as he knows it, by his own understanding of cause and effect. It is anti-rational, and thus, he concludes must be Divine - for what other word will rational man use now? Nothing that he knows of the phenomenal world exists eternally, and nothing that he knows of the world springs forth from no cause whatsoever - or more, springs forth entirely from itself. He is stuck, this rational man - led by the very mechanism he assumes to use to find the truth of things - into a truth that escapes all phenomenal laws.
Round and round he goes, certain of causality only to abandon it in this scheme, for his own logic leads him to some sense of final satisfaction this way.
Others, whose logic does not abandon cause and effect to arrive to a first cause, then simply make their final resting place in causality itself - as eternal, as self-causing - perhaps even as Divine. There is no need for this second rational man to be niggled by his own logic and forced to conclude a First Cause. He is not forced to conclude a First Cause, but he is backed by his own logic into accepting a description of the Divine - that which is eternal and self-causing, or something in-itself.
The first rational man - and pay close attention here - resolves his quest for a permanency to his knowledge in a divine entity - and he calls it God and he calls it a "He." Telling, that.
The second rational man resolves his quest for a permanency to his knowledge in a process - and he calls it Causality.
Both rational men seek a permanent resting place for their knowledge. A permanent resting place in a phenomenal world that does not support anything in permanency.
rational man :)
.
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
.
Rational man . . . discovers that the use of rationality brings him many comforts and securities: for, with knowledge of cause-and-effect, he can warm himself by a fire; hunt for his food and mating desires more effectively; build ever more cause-and-effect pleasures in the cornerstones of his temples; the height of his palaces; the complexity of his computers; the variation of his entertainment - and most especially in the confusion of his ever-moving mind. Rational man can put his rationality to use in order to secure himself in the world and in his mind. This process is so effective to him (just as I am using it now), that he assumes the entire universe to be designed and arranged under these same processes. He assumes the whole of creation to operate under the exact same laws of cause and effect that he experiences in his phenomenal life. He assumes that the World itself is rational in nature and in being.
Who could blame him? For rational man can only perceive the world through his own perceptions; can only assume the world's instrumentation through the instrument that he is. Rationality answers, settles, assuages, secures - it creates the most treasured and most conclusive feeling of all for the human being - to know. And anything else in existence that threatens to topple this certainty threatens to topple him. Rational man can only explain the world as he explains himself to himself.
As Nietzsche points out in his preface to La Gaya Scienza - "conclusions are consolations" - and temporal beings are particularly susceptible to the need to conclude. This secures them in a sense of permanency against the temporal and ephemeral of their very existence. In a sense, this invests them in their own lives, and renders them capable of lasting amidst the ambiguity that nothing that rational man knows of - lasts. His own logic of the movement of causality tells him so.
.
Rational man . . . discovers that the use of rationality brings him many comforts and securities: for, with knowledge of cause-and-effect, he can warm himself by a fire; hunt for his food and mating desires more effectively; build ever more cause-and-effect pleasures in the cornerstones of his temples; the height of his palaces; the complexity of his computers; the variation of his entertainment - and most especially in the confusion of his ever-moving mind. Rational man can put his rationality to use in order to secure himself in the world and in his mind. This process is so effective to him (just as I am using it now), that he assumes the entire universe to be designed and arranged under these same processes. He assumes the whole of creation to operate under the exact same laws of cause and effect that he experiences in his phenomenal life. He assumes that the World itself is rational in nature and in being.
Who could blame him? For rational man can only perceive the world through his own perceptions; can only assume the world's instrumentation through the instrument that he is. Rationality answers, settles, assuages, secures - it creates the most treasured and most conclusive feeling of all for the human being - to know. And anything else in existence that threatens to topple this certainty threatens to topple him. Rational man can only explain the world as he explains himself to himself.
As Nietzsche points out in his preface to La Gaya Scienza - "conclusions are consolations" - and temporal beings are particularly susceptible to the need to conclude. This secures them in a sense of permanency against the temporal and ephemeral of their very existence. In a sense, this invests them in their own lives, and renders them capable of lasting amidst the ambiguity that nothing that rational man knows of - lasts. His own logic of the movement of causality tells him so.
.
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
Reaching back even further....
The first argument shows why the claim "God exists" implicitly affirms the primacy of existence principle:
Premise 1: The action of asserting that something exists in reality, assumes the primacy of existence principle.
Why? Because when one asserts that something exists, he assumes that it exists independent of his consciousness. If he expects others to accept what he claims as a truth corresponding to reality, then he assumes that it exists independent of their consciousness as well. The primacy of existence principle is the recognition that existence exists independent of consciousness, and it is necessarily implied when one asserts anything said to be true of reality.
Premise 2: The claim that god exists asserts that something exists in reality apart from one's consciousness.
Theists who claim that God exists do so with the assumption that God exists independent of their own consciousness, and of the consciousness of other men. The frequently heard "God exists whether anyone likes it or not" conveniently shows us that the primacy of existence principle is more than implicit in the theist's claim that God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, the action of asserting that god exists assumes the primacy of existence principle.
Thus we should recognize that, the assumption that the primacy of existence principle is valid is implicit in any claim that something exists, even in the case of the theist's claim that God exists.
Now we come to the content of the claim that God exists, and here we will see that this claim necessarily affirms the primacy of consciousness view of reality:
Premise 1: Any notion which directly asserts, or entails the assumption that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness or that existence is in some way dependent on a form of consciousness, necessarily commits itself to the primacy of consciousness view of reality. Why? Because the view that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness, or is in any way dependent on a form of consciousness for its existence or identity, necessarily assumes that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over existence, that existence is dependent on consciousness.
Premise 2: The notion of a god asserts that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness, or that existence depends on consciousness for its identity. Why? In the book of Genesis, we find the religious doctrine of creation. This doctrine holds that god commanded - i.e., desired or wished - the world into existence. "God spoke, and the universe came into being," claim theists. The ultimate source is thought to be conscious in nature, namely the omnipotent will of a supernatural universe-creating, reality-ruling conscious being. The universe, that is, the sum total of existence, is thus thought to be a product of a form of consciousness.
Similarly, the religious doctrine of miracles holds that consciousness has the power to alter or revise the identity of that which exists, specifically to turn A into non-A, or to have A act as non-A. In Exodus 3:1-3 we find the miracle of a bush which is burning, but which is "not consumed" (i.e., not destroyed) by the fire which burns it, and it speaks also; in John chap. 2 we find the miracle of Jesus transforming water into wine by an act of will (i.e., by form of consciousness); and Matthew 14:22-33 (and parallels) we find the miracle of a man walking on water. In each of these instances, and in many, many more instances of miracles in the Bible and other "holy" books, the objects in question become something they are not, or behave contrary to their natural identities, and these contradictions are made possible by the overwhelming influence of the ruling consciousness' will.
Conclusion: Therefore, the notion of a god necessarily commits itself to the primacy of consciousness view of reality.
The primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness are contradictory to one another. In other words, they cannot both be true. And here we see precisely how the claim "God exists" is an attempt to integrate both contradictories into a whole.
Thus, while the action of claiming that god exists assumes that the primacy of existence is true (since the believer is not claiming that god is simply a figment of his own imagination - he is saying that god exists as something independent of his mind, "God exists whether I like it or not"), the content of the claim that god exists necessarily expresses the primacy of consciousness view (since god is said to be a conscious being which creates existence and alters the identity of objects by an act of will, i.e., by a form of consciousness).
Thus, the claim that god exists assumes both the primacy of existence (per formatively) and the primacy of consciousness (notionally) at the same time. Since these principles are contradictory to one another (they both cannot be true), the claim 'god exists', since it assumes both, is necessarily self-contradictory
Thus, the theist literally checkmates himself!
The first argument shows why the claim "God exists" implicitly affirms the primacy of existence principle:
Premise 1: The action of asserting that something exists in reality, assumes the primacy of existence principle.
Why? Because when one asserts that something exists, he assumes that it exists independent of his consciousness. If he expects others to accept what he claims as a truth corresponding to reality, then he assumes that it exists independent of their consciousness as well. The primacy of existence principle is the recognition that existence exists independent of consciousness, and it is necessarily implied when one asserts anything said to be true of reality.
Premise 2: The claim that god exists asserts that something exists in reality apart from one's consciousness.
Theists who claim that God exists do so with the assumption that God exists independent of their own consciousness, and of the consciousness of other men. The frequently heard "God exists whether anyone likes it or not" conveniently shows us that the primacy of existence principle is more than implicit in the theist's claim that God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, the action of asserting that god exists assumes the primacy of existence principle.
Thus we should recognize that, the assumption that the primacy of existence principle is valid is implicit in any claim that something exists, even in the case of the theist's claim that God exists.
Now we come to the content of the claim that God exists, and here we will see that this claim necessarily affirms the primacy of consciousness view of reality:
Premise 1: Any notion which directly asserts, or entails the assumption that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness or that existence is in some way dependent on a form of consciousness, necessarily commits itself to the primacy of consciousness view of reality. Why? Because the view that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness, or is in any way dependent on a form of consciousness for its existence or identity, necessarily assumes that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over existence, that existence is dependent on consciousness.
Premise 2: The notion of a god asserts that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness, or that existence depends on consciousness for its identity. Why? In the book of Genesis, we find the religious doctrine of creation. This doctrine holds that god commanded - i.e., desired or wished - the world into existence. "God spoke, and the universe came into being," claim theists. The ultimate source is thought to be conscious in nature, namely the omnipotent will of a supernatural universe-creating, reality-ruling conscious being. The universe, that is, the sum total of existence, is thus thought to be a product of a form of consciousness.
Similarly, the religious doctrine of miracles holds that consciousness has the power to alter or revise the identity of that which exists, specifically to turn A into non-A, or to have A act as non-A. In Exodus 3:1-3 we find the miracle of a bush which is burning, but which is "not consumed" (i.e., not destroyed) by the fire which burns it, and it speaks also; in John chap. 2 we find the miracle of Jesus transforming water into wine by an act of will (i.e., by form of consciousness); and Matthew 14:22-33 (and parallels) we find the miracle of a man walking on water. In each of these instances, and in many, many more instances of miracles in the Bible and other "holy" books, the objects in question become something they are not, or behave contrary to their natural identities, and these contradictions are made possible by the overwhelming influence of the ruling consciousness' will.
Conclusion: Therefore, the notion of a god necessarily commits itself to the primacy of consciousness view of reality.
The primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness are contradictory to one another. In other words, they cannot both be true. And here we see precisely how the claim "God exists" is an attempt to integrate both contradictories into a whole.
Thus, while the action of claiming that god exists assumes that the primacy of existence is true (since the believer is not claiming that god is simply a figment of his own imagination - he is saying that god exists as something independent of his mind, "God exists whether I like it or not"), the content of the claim that god exists necessarily expresses the primacy of consciousness view (since god is said to be a conscious being which creates existence and alters the identity of objects by an act of will, i.e., by a form of consciousness).
Thus, the claim that god exists assumes both the primacy of existence (per formatively) and the primacy of consciousness (notionally) at the same time. Since these principles are contradictory to one another (they both cannot be true), the claim 'god exists', since it assumes both, is necessarily self-contradictory
Thus, the theist literally checkmates himself!
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
We have proven the existence of God many, many times. But we can no more convince a blindman to see God than we can prove to a blindman that the world is round. But that doesn't mean that it can't be proven that the world is round.zarathustra wrote:They've finally figured it out. . . .
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
Who is this we. An army of strawmen? :)Carico wrote: We have proven the existence of God many, many times
That a small group considers it proven does not mean a thing. You can prove the Absolute but nothing beyond that.
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... rain.shtml
God on the Brain
Interesting show on public television last evening regarding the role of electromagnetic fields across the right temporal lobe as stimulus for spiritual experience. My local public television station is rebroadcasting it (in america) on aug. 26, 9 pm (check your local listings :)
You'll get to see Richard Dawkins undergoing the helmet experiment, too.
Most interesting to me was the picture of the brain during meditation. Blood flow to the parietal lobe decreases, and said-lobe is supposed to contain the individual's sense-of-self. As the blood-flow abates, the individual undergoes that sense of expansion and "oneness," with larger things, etc.
I believe this experimenter said he could induce religious experience in 80% of his subjects with the electromagnetic helmet. Persons with lesser temporal lobe sensitivity (like Dawkins) did not tend to feel the "presence" of something larger than themselves, as the other 80% did.
Lots of serious determinism here, but oddly phrased questions at the end. They ask if we have evolved to this (rather than evolving away); asking if perhaps god-"himself" put this little (imperfect; infrequent) antenna in us in order to sense god; asking and assuming that this kind of function is functional; touting all the live-longer, healthier lives for religious/spiritual people; and leaving the electromagnetic fields themselves un-commented upon.
One young women was experiencing frightening-awesome visions in her bedroom at night trying to sleep. They found the same pattern of electromagnetic fields as they use in the helmet, coming from her clock radio. Removed the clock radio, and the experiences went away.
edit misspelling
God on the Brain
Interesting show on public television last evening regarding the role of electromagnetic fields across the right temporal lobe as stimulus for spiritual experience. My local public television station is rebroadcasting it (in america) on aug. 26, 9 pm (check your local listings :)
You'll get to see Richard Dawkins undergoing the helmet experiment, too.
Most interesting to me was the picture of the brain during meditation. Blood flow to the parietal lobe decreases, and said-lobe is supposed to contain the individual's sense-of-self. As the blood-flow abates, the individual undergoes that sense of expansion and "oneness," with larger things, etc.
I believe this experimenter said he could induce religious experience in 80% of his subjects with the electromagnetic helmet. Persons with lesser temporal lobe sensitivity (like Dawkins) did not tend to feel the "presence" of something larger than themselves, as the other 80% did.
Lots of serious determinism here, but oddly phrased questions at the end. They ask if we have evolved to this (rather than evolving away); asking if perhaps god-"himself" put this little (imperfect; infrequent) antenna in us in order to sense god; asking and assuming that this kind of function is functional; touting all the live-longer, healthier lives for religious/spiritual people; and leaving the electromagnetic fields themselves un-commented upon.
One young women was experiencing frightening-awesome visions in her bedroom at night trying to sleep. They found the same pattern of electromagnetic fields as they use in the helmet, coming from her clock radio. Removed the clock radio, and the experiences went away.
edit misspelling
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
I see that there is a lack of philosophical thinking when it comes to this subject. Typical....
z
z
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
A proof that doesn't start off with defining exactly what it is you are trying to prove, is just jacking off. The problem being, the more closely you define "God," the more obvious it gets that you are talking about either something that does not exist, or you are talking about something that is not God, in the sense the term is normally used.zarathustra wrote:Proof of God's existence!
Hence, the usual retreat into God being indefinable, ineffable, infinite, beyond human comprehension, etc. If it is not definable, then it is also not provable (falsifiable).
Many people intuitively believe in "something," but they can't tell you exactly what it is that they believe in. The belief is actually very squishy. It's really more a matter of psychology than philosophy.
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
Any serious pholosophical argument about the existence of god must first consider what is primary in the order of things i.e.EXISTENCE. That's why, in this century, theists can no longer be taken seriously...why they lapse into propaganda or claptrap. I mean, did this god thing they waffle on about exist before existence? dahh?? After all, according to them, he created it - didn't he/it ? End of story...
z
z
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
Unless of course by "God" you mean "Existence" and "God" is just a poetic device we have ceased to understand, and have decided to take literally (with nonsensical results, as you point out).zarathustra wrote:Any serious pholosophical argument about the existence of god must first consider what is primary in the order of things i.e.EXISTENCE. That's why, in this century, theists can no longer be taken seriously...why they lapse into propaganda or claptrap. I mean, did this god thing they waffle on about exist before existence? dahh?? After all, according to them, he created it - didn't he/it ? End of story...
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
Then why not call existence 'chicken soup'...in resemblence it is certainly closer than god or spirit or whatever, and makes more sense.
According to theists, existence IS god's creation and something that exists independent of consciousness as 'out there'...when we are born we become conscious of existence and our consciousness has limitations within that existence. Before our birth and after our death we have NO KNOWLEDGE, we can guess, hope, believe and so on, and that is where religion enters: to cater to our ignorance with more ignorance. Our great liberators in the face of such ignorance are reason and science (both of which are far from perfect ) and it is with these we gradually come to KNOW more about existence. The more this knowledge grows, the less power witchdoctors will have.
z
According to theists, existence IS god's creation and something that exists independent of consciousness as 'out there'...when we are born we become conscious of existence and our consciousness has limitations within that existence. Before our birth and after our death we have NO KNOWLEDGE, we can guess, hope, believe and so on, and that is where religion enters: to cater to our ignorance with more ignorance. Our great liberators in the face of such ignorance are reason and science (both of which are far from perfect ) and it is with these we gradually come to KNOW more about existence. The more this knowledge grows, the less power witchdoctors will have.
z
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
It makes more sense to you, because you are a child of "modernity" and as such you have severed contact with the mythic and the poetic as modes of expressing truth.zarathustra wrote:Then why not call existence 'chicken soup'...in resemblence it is certainly closer than god or spirit or whatever, and makes more sense.
[/quote][/quote]zarathustra wrote: According to theists, existence IS god's creation
Depends on the theist. "Theism" and "non-theism" are, I think, just different ways of talking about the same "thing", although as I've mentioned when people no longer have access to the poetic and start treating poetic metaphor as a "straight-forward" cut and dry picture of reality. That's when you have delusions like fundamentalism, which employs a way of reading that was never intended.
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
The same way that infinite cause and effect violate the rules of logic. Tis true never the less. Logic must have comparisons to be true. The infinite (no matter the application) transcends the rules of logic.zarathustra wrote:They've finally figured it out. Pretty soon they'll be teaching this stuff in Universities. Proof of God's existence!
1) Run a website that links Science to God.
2) Discuss Aristotle's Comsmological argument:
*Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
*Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
*A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
*Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.
3) Conclude that the first cause is God because God is infinite and not contingent.
4) Respond to statements that one can't simply create rules that the universe must follow and then simply state that God exists outside of those rules by stating:
"Where have I violated the rules of logic?"
Same can be said of the Totality containing cause and effect.The statements had nothing to do with logic, but his question can't be refuted so it can have the appearance of being a valid retort.
I scratch my head when some undermine the arguments of others and cannot see how it deflates their own at the same time.
Just because we cannot see that the Totality contains the universe etc. etc. etc.5) Respond to a clarification that one can't simply assign qualities that the universe must follow yet assign different qualities to God that allows him to exist outside of the bounds of the cosmological argument by stating:
"what justification is there for believing our senses are giving us a correct view of reality?"
ie..just because God is invisible doesn't mean that he isn't there.
Assign new rules to the Totality explaining that it has the ability to transcend time, however the universe doesn't. If someone challenges this position, tell them that you know a lot about the subject but don't want to waste time discussing it with someone who is clearly not educated on the subject.6) Assign new rules to God explaining that he has the ability to transcend time, however the universe doesn't. If someone challenges this position, tell them that you know a lot about the subject but don't want to waste time discussing it with someone who is clearly not educated on the subject.
dahhh!!!
dahhh!!
The only way to know God is to understand he cannot possibly exist - you were correct in that argument would checkmate itself. It would make God subject to his creation.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
If I might speculate what this is about. It sounds like an argument that Laird was using recently here on the forum.Trevor Salyzyn wrote:This is very vague. Could you elaborate?*A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
If you travel back along this causal chain, one cause at a time, you will never reach infinitely far along the chain, because there is always another cause beyond where you are. Therefore . . . there is no such thing as an infinite chain.
Hmmm.
Convincing, eh?
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
The academic philosophers say that such arguments are "genius" because they depend on stupid arguments to provide work for themselves. Without stupid arguments, they would be out of a job.HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:I smashed the ontological proof for the existence of God ( Anselm ) a while ago in class. It was another petitio principi. Apparently the argument is still a work of genius, though.
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
It is often claimed by believers, and sometimes by nonbelievers as well, that we can't prove the nonexistence of God. While the inability to disprove a claim is true in some cases, disproof can be achieved by a logical method. For instance, if a claim is specific enough (supplying enough detail), we can examine those details, and we can determine that the claim is false if the description of it contradicts itself.
For example, if someone claimed he had discovered a "square circle", we could examine the claim through logic, without ever having to view the circle. Both circles and squares are well-defined in geometry. We know that it is a tenet of geometry that circles have no angles. Therefore it is clear that there can be no such thing as a square circle, because the description refutes itself.
Any argument for the existance of god, is the same as arguing for a square circle. Through logic, without having to view god we can prove that god doesn't exist, as the concept itself cannot be 'defined', that there is no such thing, and is therefore beyond logic. To argue for the existence of god requires a leap of faith (not logic) which proves nothing. Sometimes logical arguments are given for god's existence but they all have their foundations in faith i.e. believe first, then argue for what you believe, logically...In science, the opposite is true, argue from proof, facts, logic, then you have a reasonable basis for belief...
z
For example, if someone claimed he had discovered a "square circle", we could examine the claim through logic, without ever having to view the circle. Both circles and squares are well-defined in geometry. We know that it is a tenet of geometry that circles have no angles. Therefore it is clear that there can be no such thing as a square circle, because the description refutes itself.
Any argument for the existance of god, is the same as arguing for a square circle. Through logic, without having to view god we can prove that god doesn't exist, as the concept itself cannot be 'defined', that there is no such thing, and is therefore beyond logic. To argue for the existence of god requires a leap of faith (not logic) which proves nothing. Sometimes logical arguments are given for god's existence but they all have their foundations in faith i.e. believe first, then argue for what you believe, logically...In science, the opposite is true, argue from proof, facts, logic, then you have a reasonable basis for belief...
z
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
Kevin wrote
You see, if you empirically chase the causal chain of a particular thing, that thing you are investigating must be continually divided into more and more parts, and as soon as you a divide a thing into parts, it is no longer the same A=A one is listing the causes of. The one thing becomes a multitude of things. In which case is no longer a chain but an infinitely expanding tree of causes. It is the concept of a causal chain itself that ultimately is finite.
Now we might say - OK, every time I break a thing into individual parts, then I’ll determine the causal chain of just one of the parts within a part. So you gradually tunnel down into each successful smaller part, until eventually there are no further divisible parts left (one has to ignore Schrödinger's observational quantum collapse problem). The penultimate part (which would actually be space itself) in the causal chain is still a part, but if you divide it, then you divide it into what is fundamental and infinite, and in doing so both the part and the parts cause would disappear (one cannot observe a single side of that which is fundamental, we can only observe it in unified form).
In both cases the causal chain in an empirical sense, “ceases at infinityâ€. In real terms however, infinity never ceases, so one would be correct if they said that any causal reality is both finite (where one has already placed mental boundaries on an event that limit the scope of what is being observed, ie the finite set of causes in say the finite set of “taking a snooker shotâ€) but without such arbitrary boundaries is otherwise infinite.
I don’t quite see it that way. There is no such a thing as an infinite causal chain, because causes are all that there is. The whole of the totality is just causes.If you travel back along this causal chain, one cause at a time, you will never reach infinitely far along the chain, because there is always another cause beyond where you are. Therefore . . . there is no such thing as an infinite chain.
You see, if you empirically chase the causal chain of a particular thing, that thing you are investigating must be continually divided into more and more parts, and as soon as you a divide a thing into parts, it is no longer the same A=A one is listing the causes of. The one thing becomes a multitude of things. In which case is no longer a chain but an infinitely expanding tree of causes. It is the concept of a causal chain itself that ultimately is finite.
Now we might say - OK, every time I break a thing into individual parts, then I’ll determine the causal chain of just one of the parts within a part. So you gradually tunnel down into each successful smaller part, until eventually there are no further divisible parts left (one has to ignore Schrödinger's observational quantum collapse problem). The penultimate part (which would actually be space itself) in the causal chain is still a part, but if you divide it, then you divide it into what is fundamental and infinite, and in doing so both the part and the parts cause would disappear (one cannot observe a single side of that which is fundamental, we can only observe it in unified form).
In both cases the causal chain in an empirical sense, “ceases at infinityâ€. In real terms however, infinity never ceases, so one would be correct if they said that any causal reality is both finite (where one has already placed mental boundaries on an event that limit the scope of what is being observed, ie the finite set of causes in say the finite set of “taking a snooker shotâ€) but without such arbitrary boundaries is otherwise infinite.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
The main problem with their argument is the idea of "reaching infinity". They say that because you can't "reach" infinity, it doesn't exist. But infinity can't be reached - it's already here.Jamesh wrote:There is no such a thing as an infinite causal chain, because causes are all that there is.
Ironically, their argument for the existence of God is based on a denial of the real God (the Infinite).
-
brokenhead
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
Go for it. Thin ice? There is a veritable Antarctica under your feet. Faith requires no sacrifice.xerox wrote:God needs no introduction. God needs no proof. God is self creating.
Hahaha.
l would have thought that a true believing god botherer would simply say that one cannot prove god does not exist therefore, absence of proof to the contrary proves the assertion. Its obviously illogical but it does follow a reasoning, or at least rationalising process all of its own.
This seems to be satisfactory for the average believer.
Caution, this is a slippery slope, as there is no scientific proof and scant evidence beyond self validating logical constructs, that causation exists, beyond the purely abstract. In that sense, statements as to the absolute existence of causation are skating the thin ice of faith. Thin ice, l might add, that l am currently prepared to traverse. It might be true. There doesnt seem much else capable of satisfying my penchant for logical reasoning, although at times it does appear to eat itself.
-
brokenhead
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?
You can't prove God exists by rational means. If it were possible, it would have been done long ago. Preponderance of evidence strongly suggests He does.