Posts: 1164
Threads: 7
Joined: January 1, 2014
Reputation:
23
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
April 2, 2016 at 9:59 am
(This post was last modified: April 2, 2016 at 10:00 am by JuliaL.)
(April 2, 2016 at 9:49 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I think also the word "greatest" means different things in the different premises. For example, to say the greatest explanation as in the most explanatory statement is one thing, to say "greatest" as in the most greatest possible existence is another thing.
So we can't use the former to prove the latter.
![[Image: muhammad-ali-31.jpg]](https://dedetillmanblogs.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/muhammad-ali-31.jpg)
The greatest
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? 
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
April 2, 2016 at 10:16 am
(April 2, 2016 at 2:43 am)Losty Wrote: (April 2, 2016 at 1:57 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Ok so write down the "if and only if" statement which would be the double implication. Or right the two separate implications. I'm not contesting the theory, I believe in God and believe there are various sound arguments point to her existence, I just want to see how this argument is both valid (valid seems alright) and sound. Sound is my main contention, I don't know why these double implications are evident, unless you can explain exactly what they are saying (if and only if type statement in English or show the two separate implied statements).
Allah is a girl!?!?!? D:
I never knew D: God does not have gender of course, but metaphorically I would say God is a woman in the following sense:
1. We are born from her spirit, her light, and take existence from her existence, and are constantly maintained by it.
2. The compassion she has for all creatures is more closer to the type a mother has for it's child.
3. She veils it's beauty except for those it chooses specially for her intimacy in the same way a Muslim woman is to wear the Hijab and veil herself.
I do not know if other Muslims will see what I just said as heretical or not.
Posts: 30977
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
April 2, 2016 at 10:59 am
(April 1, 2016 at 10:44 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Insulting the Staff over points of forum rules. I can see this ending well.
I have to wonder if the OP, having been stopped by a policeman for a blatant traffic violation but let off with a stern warning, would respond by insulting the policeman.
Intelligent, that.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
April 2, 2016 at 11:01 am
Why are people so obsessed with wanting a god? Is it like a really great toy or something?
I used to love transformers.
Posts: 105
Threads: 5
Joined: March 28, 2016
Reputation:
5
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
April 2, 2016 at 11:12 am
(April 1, 2016 at 8:07 pm)Time Traveler Wrote: Perhaps that's why scientists actually attempt to test and prove their hypotheses rather than just build logical syllogisms all day.
(April 1, 2016 at 10:30 pm)smfortune Wrote: Lol. You guys are becoming hilarious. The scientific framework is falsification not proof. You look to FALSIFY your null hypothesis.
Okay, you win. Please show peer-reviewed empirical evidence (not logical syllogisms) that you have indeed falsified your null hypothesis concerning the existence of God.
Posts: 5356
Threads: 178
Joined: June 28, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
April 2, 2016 at 11:40 am
I think it's time to unleash my algebraic powers to disprove his algebra.
Don't make me.
Don't. Fucking. Make. Me.
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
April 2, 2016 at 12:00 pm
(April 2, 2016 at 11:12 am)Time Traveler Wrote: (April 1, 2016 at 8:07 pm)Time Traveler Wrote: Perhaps that's why scientists actually attempt to test and prove their hypotheses rather than just build logical syllogisms all day.
(April 1, 2016 at 10:30 pm)smfortune Wrote: Lol. You guys are becoming hilarious. The scientific framework is falsification not proof. You look to FALSIFY your null hypothesis.
Okay, you win. Please show peer-reviewed empirical evidence (not logical syllogisms) that you have indeed falsified your null hypothesis concerning the existence of God.
There are already far too many logical silly jisms in the pool if you ask me.
Posts: 34
Threads: 1
Joined: March 28, 2016
Reputation:
0
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
April 2, 2016 at 12:26 pm
(This post was last modified: April 2, 2016 at 12:44 pm by smfortune.)
(April 2, 2016 at 10:59 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: (April 1, 2016 at 10:44 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Insulting the Staff over points of forum rules. I can see this ending well.
I have to wonder if the OP, having been stopped by a policeman for a blatant traffic violation but let off with a stern warning, would respond by insulting the policeman.
Intelligent, that.
Ummm, the police have real authority. You're kind of getting off on mall cop authority. Why are you making this an issue anyway?
(April 2, 2016 at 9:35 am)MysticKnight Wrote: (April 2, 2016 at 2:52 am)smfortune Wrote: (1) Eu iff Ku - the Universe is only explained if and only if there is a complete and consistent explanation of the Universe. This is true or else it would only be partially or imperfectly explained. (2) For all x, x is complete and consistent only if x is infinite. This is from Gödel's incompleteness theorem. (3) Ix iff Gx. An infinite explanation of the Universe is logically equivalent with the greatest explanation of the Universe. It must be infinite to include all true statements and thus be the greatest explantion imaginable. If it can be improved on, it is not the greatest or infinite. and (4) For all x, if x is the greatest, x refers to God. This is by definition true.
Oh ok, but that doesn't have to be necessarily true. This is assuming first that there is only one greatest explanation of the universe, while an Atheist can argue, from all we know perspective, there maybe many possible greatest explanations. Some that we theory about and some that we don't. 2nd the greatest explanation may the true one or it maybe a false one from a logical stand point. Greatest is necessarily singular. St. Anslem in the 11th century first presented the ontological argument with the rationale that if anything greater could be conceived then it was not the greatest. The greatest belongs to only God. For 10 centuries this hasn't (to my knowledge) been contentious. It is definitionally true. Recall that even Bertrand Russell conceded that the ontological argument was sound and only later retract by saying it may be unsound (because it felt fallacious) without being able to precisely identify the fallacy.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
April 2, 2016 at 12:50 pm
(April 2, 2016 at 12:26 pm)smfortune Wrote: (April 2, 2016 at 10:59 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I have to wonder if the OP, having been stopped by a policeman for a blatant traffic violation but let off with a stern warning, would respond by insulting the policeman.
Intelligent, that.
Ummm, the police have real authority. You're kind of getting off on mall cop authority. Why are you making this an issue anyway?
(April 2, 2016 at 9:35 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Oh ok, but that doesn't have to be necessarily true. This is assuming first that there is only one greatest explanation of the universe, while an Atheist can argue, from all we know perspective, there maybe many possible greatest explanations. Some that we theory about and some that we don't. 2nd the greatest explanation may the true one or it maybe a false one from a logical stand point. Greatest is necessarily singular. St. Anslem in the 11th century first presented the ontological argument with the rationale that if anything greater could be conceived then it was not the greatest. The greatest belongs to only God. For 10 centuries this hasn't (to my knowledge) been contentious. It is definitionally true. Recall that even Bertrand Russell conceded that the ontological argument was sound and only later retract by saying it may be unsound (because it felt fallacious) without being able to precisely identify the fallacy.
You are using "greatest explanation" in a different sense of the word though. If you mean the explanation has to be the greatest being, then this is circular, it's asserting the conclusion. If you assert that greatest explanation is most great in term of explanatory power, then again, there can be more then one greatest explanation or even if there is one, you haven't proved that it must be God. Or even one explain things best, it not necessarily the truth, it maybe the truth it may not be.
Posts: 34
Threads: 1
Joined: March 28, 2016
Reputation:
0
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
April 2, 2016 at 12:50 pm
(April 2, 2016 at 9:59 am)JuliaL Wrote: (April 2, 2016 at 9:49 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I think also the word "greatest" means different things in the different premises. For example, to say the greatest explanation as in the most explanatory statement is one thing, to say "greatest" as in the most greatest possible existence is another thing.
So we can't use the former to prove the latter.
The greatest
God refers to the greatest possible, not the greatest in experience or existence. God is the greatest possible is definitionally true.
|
