(June 6, 2025 at 4:26 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 6, 2025 at 12:37 am)Astreja Wrote: "Proofs" are useless to me.  Show. Me. The. Actual. God.

If I showed you the actual God... that would be observational proof.

here I will show you

open your eyes

look all around

there you have it!

If God, then the universe.
The universe, therefore God.

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Here is the same 'logic' used to prove something different.

If I am Elijah Wood, I am 5'6" tall.
I am 5'6" tall. Therefore I am Elijah Wood.

The problem with my use of this form of argument is that although it's remotely possible that am actually Elijah Wood, there are many other possible explanations for me being 5'6". Same with your argument of 'look all around' and God.

(June 8, 2025 at 9:35 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 10:22 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:  Then study more.

feel free to teach me or link to a site that actually teaches it

Well you could start by answering a simple question. 

Why should anyone believe you know better than the entire scientific world?

(June 9, 2025 at 12:51 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(June 6, 2025 at 4:29 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: (10) F; "energy exists"
(11) F; "every experiment ever constructed shows that everything is made of energy"
(12) (10,11) C; "monism exists"


12 is a natural deduction from 10 and 11

The reason I prove monism... is to demonstrate there is but one supreme God.

Mentioning monism isn't the same thing as proving it. Wait, was 'monism exists' supposed to be the conclusion of 'energy exists' and 'every experiment, etc.'?

I wonder if Edward Jenner’s experiments that led to the smallpox vaccine proved that everything is made of energy. Or Archimedes’ experiment with the crown. Or the Stanford prison experiment. Or the Pavlov dog-torturing experiment. Or…nah, that’s enough to be going on with.

Boru

(June 9, 2025 at 1:08 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(June 6, 2025 at 4:26 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: If I showed you the actual God... that would be observational proof.

here I will show you

open your eyes

look all around

there you have it!

If God, then the universe.
The universe, therefore God.

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Here is the same 'logic' used to prove something different.

If I am Elijah Wood, I am 5'6" tall.
I am 5'6" tall. Therefore I am Elijah Wood.

The problem with my use of this form of argument is that although it's remotely possible that am actually Elijah Wood, there are many other possible explanations for me being 5'6". Same with your argument of 'look all around' and God.

(Bold mind)

Cool! Can I remotely have your possible autograph?

Boru

(June 6, 2025 at 4:29 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 6, 2025 at 12:22 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If this is regarding your proof from observation, it seems to be a string of assertions followed by a loosely-connected conclusion. You should get rid of any premises not needed to reach the conclusion.

For instance 'monism exists' doesn't seem to add anything to the argument. If you were trying to assert that monism is the case and dualism is not, that ought to be the conclusion of a different argument. And I say that as a monist.

(10) F; "energy exists"
(11) F; "every experiment ever constructed shows that everything is made of energy"
(12) (10,11) C; "monism exists"


12 is a natural deduction from 10 and 11

The reason I prove monism... is to demonstrate there is but one supreme God.

A dualist might say that because spirit can't be detected by experimentation because it is completely invisible and intangible, your argument for monism doesn't defeat dualism. I think monism is the case, but I don't believe it can be proven.

(June 6, 2025 at 5:46 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 6, 2025 at 5:36 pm)Alan V Wrote: Lots of different people believe lots of different things.  Belief, even strong belief, is not proof.

Scientists wait and see when they don't know.  They may speculate, but they try to avoid jumping to conclusions.

You claimed that I believed the universe was deterministic.

You were mistaken.

byw, I did prove that the universe is self-deterministic.

What is the difference between deterministic and self-deterministic that makes self-deterministic not determistic?

(June 6, 2025 at 5:55 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 6, 2025 at 5:51 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Spinoza agrees with you?  Isn't he a bit dead to be agreeing with anyone at this late date?

You need to take your meds.

sorry, I am in agreement with him; monism pantheism is proven!

Spinoza never claimed it was proven.

(June 7, 2025 at 5:17 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 6, 2025 at 7:18 pm)Angrboda Wrote: @SubtleVirtue

If I may ask, which came first, your belief in a god, or your proofs of the existence of a god?

I spoke to God when I was one and a half years old. He told me not to kill my brother and to go and tell my mother.

How do you know that what you spoke to was God?

(June 7, 2025 at 10:10 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 8:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'm arguing that this has not been shown, hence, "not in evidence".

determinism is cause and effect or causation

did that help?

According to the Oxford Dictionary, determism is 'the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions'.

No judgment, but is English your native language?

(June 8, 2025 at 9:34 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 10:06 pm)Silver Wrote: Theists confuse obedience for love. Thus, they don't always love either.

I agree.

When God tells me to do something... I always question him... as to why, and if I can improve the commission.

I don't blindly obey God.

Have you ever not done what God told you to do? Have you ever been able to improve on God's commands?