A good argument for God's existence (long but worth it)

[The Grand Nudger]

The bit about there being no connection is a problem of condition.  MP/MT are conditional statements that rely on relationships between the propositions themselves.

To use the easy wiki example, being a male sibling is necessary and sufficient condition of being a brother.  It's necessary to be male to be a brother, however, being a male is not sufficient to be a brother.  You must also be a sibling.  

Using the second argument as an example of how a failure of implicational relationship renders a conditional statement invalid....is it necessary for something to exist for you to have reason to believe in it?  Is belief sufficient to reach a conclusion regarding it's existence?  Do I have to shit on your pillow for you to believe that I did?  If I manage to convince you that I shit on your pillow...does that actually mean that I did?

An easy way of demonstrating to the afflicted that they have failed, is to remind them that any necessary and sufficient relationship must hold in both directions.  So, for example, if there were no reason to believe that god exists, then it must mean that god does not exist.  At least, if they wish to maintain the fundamental validity of their premise in a conditional statement.  

-That- claim can be similarly addressed (and rejected) by stating that I have no reason to believe that a pink butterfly is sitting on a windowsill this very moment in china...but that doesn't mean that there isn't one.  The classic black swan example.  

The premise is utterly worthless, as it fails to identify or comment on an adequate relationship between the propositions.

This leaves us with nothing more than the assertion that:  
There's reason to believe in revelation from god.
-AKA; "I have a magic book!".  

This, and not a fundamentally useless premise, is what their conclusion arises from. It's unsurprising that a person who believes in revelations from a god also "concludes" that a god exists. It's similarly unsurprising to find that people who do not find the assertion credible will not find the malformed argument or it's misbegotten conclusion to be compelling. A, no they don't have a magic book..and B, if they did have a magic book all the work to establish that it's from a god would still be ahead of them.

(I had this conversation /w mystic years ago.....I'm kind of disappointed to see that he;s still screwing the pooch in the same way)

[Mystic]

My argument is not unrelated to Quran or holy books but I have not brought them to the equation. Although it does prove holy books with other premises, it proves God regardless.

It proves God by the very definition of morality.

[Mister Agenda]

You keep using this word, 'proof'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Mystic]

You keep using this word, 'proof'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Proof is by which something is proven. It can be a series of reminders that link to one another to form an argument, or in reality, it can be a direct vision to God as is the witness and guide of time who is the means to God by which the personality of God is witnessed as well as the Mathematical principle of his absolute endless oneness. Scientific theory and model comes close to proof but is not actually a proof. My arguments all prove God decisively.

[emjay]

The bit about there being no connection is a problem of condition.  MP/MT are conditional statements that rely on relationships between the propositions themselves.

To use the easy wiki example, being a male sibling is necessary and sufficient condition of being a brother.  It's necessary to be male to be a brother, however, being a male is not sufficient to be a brother.  You must also be a sibling.  

Using the second argument as an example of how a failure of implicational relationship renders a conditional statement invalid....is it necessary for something to exist for you to have reason to believe in it?  Is belief sufficient to reach a conclusion regarding it's existence?  Do I have to shit on your pillow for you to believe that I did?  If I manage to convince you that I shit on your pillow...does that actually mean that I did?

An easy way of demonstrating to the afflicted that they have failed, is to remind them that any necessary and sufficient relationship must hold in both directions.  So, for example, if there were no reason to believe that god exists, then it must mean that god does not exist.  At least, if they wish to maintain the fundamental validity of their premise in a conditional statement.  

-That- claim can be similarly addressed (and rejected) by stating that I have no reason to believe that a pink butterfly is sitting on a windowsill this very moment in china...but that doesn't mean that there isn't one.  The classic black swan example.  

The premise is utterly worthless, as it fails to identify or comment on an adequate relationship between the propositions.

This leaves us with nothing more than the assertion that:  
There's reason to believe in revelation from god.
-AKA; "I have a magic book!".  

This, and not a fundamentally useless premise, is what their conclusion arises from. It's unsurprising that a person who believes in revelations from a god also "concludes" that a god exists. It's similarly unsurprising to find that people who do not find the assertion credible will not find the malformed argument or it's misbegotten conclusion to be compelling. A, no they don't have a magic book..and B, if they did have a magic book all the work to establish that it's from a god would still be ahead of them.

(I had this conversation /w mystic years ago.....I'm kind of disappointed to see that he;s still screwing the pooch in the same way)

Thanks for that, I think I get yer Your examples are memorably eloquent as always... ie please don't shit on my pillow Seriously though, those sort of examples really work for me, and make things sink in much better (just as Benny's contribution will never be forgotten either ), so keep em up

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, oh, a "direct vision" is proof, is it?  I guess everyone who takes shrooms and sees the easter bunny has proof as well. The only thing your "arguments" prove is that you can't manufacture an adequate argument. They're no better than a list of the articles of your faith.

[Mystic]

LOL, oh, a "direct vision" is proof, is it?  I guess everyone who takes shrooms and sees the easter bunny has proof as well.

Nice strawman.... I would say you aren't blameworthy for it where it not that you know the difference already by the numerous times I have explained the vision of the eternal.

[Mister Agenda]

You keep using this word, 'proof'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Proof is by which something is proven. It can be a series of reminders that link to one another to form an argument, or in reality, it can be a direct vision to God as is the witness and guide of time who is the means to God by which the personality of God is witnessed as well as the Mathematical principle of his absolute endless oneness. Scientific theory and model comes close to proof but is not actually a proof. My arguments all prove God decisively.

A sound proof compels acceptance. The proof is in the pudding: does it convince people not inclined at first to believe it? That you even consider that you are in a position to evaluate your own arguments and declare them sound in the face of widespread lack of acceptance misses the point of what makes a proof good. You finding it convincing doesn't make it good. Us finding it convincing would demonstrate that it's a good argument, because we can be counted on to evaluate it critically. And you know that on some level, it's why theists keep trying to convince us, they know if they can, then they're really on to something.

A vision of God can only be proof to the person having the vision, and only if they reject all the possible natural explanations for their experience. It may be the nature of such experiences that they convince the individual who has them. But to anyone besides the experiencer, the experience is a claim, and you have know way of knowing whether it was truly an omnipotent creator of the universe that contacted you, an alien or supernatural trickster, an hallucination, or something better described as 'unexplained'. Just like a leap of faith can let you believe anything, a revelation can reveal anything. It would be something if all religious experiences led to the same religion, but they reliably lead to the one the experiencer is practicing or has been locally exposed to. 'Direct witness to God' isn't evidence, it's just another claim.

[Whateverist]

You keep using this word, 'proof'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Proof is by which something is proven. ... My arguments all prove God decisively.

Some of you may be wondering what it means to say that something "has been proven".  To prove a thing is to engage the proof process with clear intention in which the light seeks the light.  Verily I say to you no one can deny what I say here unless they hate the light.

[drfuzzy]

You keep using this word, 'proof'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Proof is by which something is proven. It can be a series of reminders that link to one another to form an argument, or in reality, it can be a direct vision to God as is the witness and guide of time who is the means to God by which the personality of God is witnessed as well as the Mathematical principle of his absolute endless oneness. Scientific theory and model comes close to proof but is not actually a proof. My arguments all prove God decisively.

Nope.  By your criteria, I could spend 30 minutes and conclusively prove that sparkly vampires exist.  Proof is quantifiable and verifiable by multiple repetitions of the same tests, by unrelated testers, that glean identical, scientifically measurable results from following the same procedure.  You can be absolutely certain that a Hindu Pandit, musing on the nature of a deity and its purpose in our lives (without your books and imams) would not come even close to reaching conclusions that are even vaguely similar to yours.  That's because all of your "proof" is based in fantasy, creating fantasy.