Posts: 508
Threads: 17
Joined: February 25, 2013
Reputation:
3
RE: What is a proof?
March 6, 2013 at 1:53 am
(This post was last modified: March 6, 2013 at 2:05 am by Muslim Scholar.)
(March 5, 2013 at 4:22 pm)EGross Wrote: So when I say you are a slave to God, I include that you are also a slave to the religious structure that defines your life (and your god)for you. As I said before it is almost like scientific research
Muslim (should not) follow scholars or Fatwa directly
They follow what they think it is more close to Quran & Sunnah
Like what you do in all of your life, how do you take a political position? you read what experts says about economy, politics, etc. then analyze it and select what do you think is the best for you.
I think we discussed some good points in this thread
Inductive proof
Deductive proof
Paradox Vs. contradictions
We also got some conclusions, like if a religion, statement or a proof has a paradox then it is false
but if it has a contradiction it may be false or true
I would like to emphasis on this
As God (if exists) is outside the universe, it will be very difficult to prove him by referring to him directly
Can we refute (identify) a false God by this mean?
I think yes,
If a description of God is paradoxical then this God is a false god, do you agree?
This is very close to " Proof by contradiction"
Posts: 508
Threads: 17
Joined: February 25, 2013
Reputation:
3
RE: What is a proof?
March 11, 2013 at 2:18 am
Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
155
RE: What is a proof?
March 11, 2013 at 2:25 am
I'm informed that the 'correct' answer to that is: yes - and then lift it. Make of that what you will.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 508
Threads: 17
Joined: February 25, 2013
Reputation:
3
RE: What is a proof?
March 11, 2013 at 3:08 am
(March 11, 2013 at 2:25 am)Stimbo Wrote: I'm informed that the 'correct' answer to that is: yes - and then lift it. Make of that what you will. The correct answer is NO
Because the statement is a PARADOX
It is contradicting with itself, i.e. it is = NOTHING
A God that can do everything cannot co-exist with a rock that he cannot lift
It is the same like saying can god create a square with non-equal sides
Those statements are describing nothing and cannot describe a real object
Because they are based on our definitions of terms (Axioms)
Posts: 30406
Threads: 116
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
158
RE: What is a proof?
March 11, 2013 at 3:54 am
(This post was last modified: March 11, 2013 at 3:58 am by Angrboda.)
(March 6, 2013 at 12:24 am)Stimbo Wrote: Newton's laws are not wrong, merely incomplete and also inaccurate when dealing with situations involving extremes of gravity and speeds close to that of light.
I respectfully disagree and suggest that in an important sense, Newton's laws are wrong. Ignoring for the moment that Newtonian and relativistic gravity are not the same beast, there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. It's commonly maintained that if you restrict yourself to non-relativistic speeds, then Newton's laws provide a reasonably accurate approximation of the relativistic calculations. This ignores the elephant in the room, gravity herself, which travels at relativistic speeds (thus the phenomena of gravitational waves).
As to epistemology, the problem is less that different belief communities have differing epistemologies as it is that certain belief communities want to use some core of epistemological assumptions inconsistently depending on whether the subject of concern is their beliefs, other people's beliefs, and non-belief matters. For example, if I were to say that I experience the existence of my god directly, but that god is not the Christian god, or related in any way to Yahweh, I predict that you, jstrodel, would discount that as evidence for the existence of my god (call this god Brahma). Yet, in the same breath, you see nothing wrong with claiming this is sufficient evidence of the existence of your god. You have a double standard, and engage in special pleading, though you wouldn't argue that such special pleading is valid in other contexts. It isn't the epistemological differences which are the problem; it's inconsistent application of the shared core.
(And now I'm going to duck before the shit starts to fly.)
Posts: 508
Threads: 17
Joined: February 25, 2013
Reputation:
3
RE: What is a proof?
March 11, 2013 at 4:18 am
(March 11, 2013 at 3:54 am)apophenia Wrote: As to epistemology, the problem is less that different belief communities have differing epistemologies as it is that certain belief communities want to use some core of epistemological assumptions inconsistently depending on whether the subject of concern is their beliefs, other people's beliefs, and non-belief matters. For example, if I were to say that I experience the existence of my god directly, but that god is not the Christian god, or related in any way to Yahweh, I predict that you, jstrodel, would discount that as evidence for the existence of my god (call this god Brahma). Yet, in the same breath, you see nothing wrong with claiming this is sufficient evidence of the existence of your god. You have a double standard, and engage in special pleading, though you wouldn't argue that such special pleading is valid in other contexts. It isn't the epistemological differences which are the problem; it's inconsistent application of the shared core. I agree with your words
But let me emphasis about something
Scientific proofs are not as strong as logical proofs
That's why a proof of God should be logical not scientific
A logical proof "If Valid" cannot be refuted based on new data
On the other hand scientific ones can be refuted or restricted based on new data
Posts: 508
Threads: 17
Joined: February 25, 2013
Reputation:
3
RE: What is a proof?
March 12, 2013 at 1:53 am
(This post was last modified: March 12, 2013 at 1:55 am by Muslim Scholar.)
One last comment before the proof
What to proof about God
In Islam God has many names, each name is reflecting a characteristic about God, those names can be categorized into:
1- Assigned names
Which are names that God asked us to call him by, (e.g. Allah)
These names cannot be proved they are just assigned by God
2-Defining names
Which are names that define God himself, even God doesn't have a choice about them, they are the same as God himself
for example "The only God", "The First", "The Eternal"
Those names can be proved by Logic
3- Action Names
Those names are assigned to God because of his actions (e.g. merciful, creator, Justice, etc.)
Those names reflect God's actions in the Universe
You can agree or disagree with them based on your understanding
So proving God, means proving the existence of a being that has type 2 of the names above.
I hope that I explained it well for you.
Posts: 5170
Threads: 364
Joined: September 25, 2012
Reputation:
61
RE: What is a proof?
March 12, 2013 at 2:15 am
(March 12, 2013 at 1:53 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: One last comment before the proof
What to proof about God
In Islam God has many names, each name is reflecting a characteristic about God, those names can be categorized into:
1- Assigned names
Which are names that God asked us to call him by, (e.g. Allah)
These names cannot be proved they are just assigned by God
what the? How is this of even the slightest significants?
Quote:2-Defining names
Which are names that define God himself, even God doesn't have a choice about them, they are the same as God himself
for example "The only God", "The First", "The Eternal"
Those names can be proved by Logic
what the....
Do you even know what logic means? What do the names have to do with this anyway?
Quote:3- Action Names
Those names are assigned to God because of his actions (e.g. merciful, creator, Justice, etc.)
Those names reflect God's actions in the Universe
You can agree or disagree with them based on your understanding
And what the....
What do these names have to do with proving your god?
Quote:So proving God, means proving the existence of a being that has type 2 of the names above.
I hope that I explained it well for you.
Nope.
It doesnt explain anything.
If anything it is the mindless dribble of someone who doesnt understand the concept of proof!
What kind of idiotic nonstanderd are you setting here?!
That by proving a name or that something has a name or that someone deserves a name one proves the existance of that thing?
Ever heard of empirism or rational critizism?
Honestly, you should stop posting unless it is your intention to further imbaresse yourself
Posts: 508
Threads: 17
Joined: February 25, 2013
Reputation:
3
RE: What is a proof?
March 12, 2013 at 3:40 am
(March 12, 2013 at 2:15 am)The Germans are coming Wrote: That by proving a name or that something has a name or that someone deserves a name one proves the existance of that thing?
Ever heard of empirism or rational critizism? I'm suspicious if you ever went to school
Proving God doesn't prove his names, but prove the meaning behind some of his names
for example I can prove the existence of a Creator
Then prove that this creator must be eternal
At the end, it is your choice to call what I proved "God/Allah" or not
That is what I meant for less fortunate people who don't have a fully developed brain like yours.
Posts: 5170
Threads: 364
Joined: September 25, 2012
Reputation:
61
RE: What is a proof?
March 12, 2013 at 3:50 am
(March 12, 2013 at 3:40 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: I'm suspicious if you ever went to school data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a2aa6/a2aa66093ecfc1c3c26bb3c612ee94a63c8e7ac9" alt="Thinking Thinking"
a statement by the person who doesnt understand the concept of gender and species.
Quote:Proving God doesn't prove his names, but prove the meaning behind some of his names
Allah doesnt have names. Allah has titles, given to him by his followers.
And these titles do not prove anything, they are simply glorifying adjectives and PPA forms which were attributed as a form of worship.
Just like North Koreans call Kim "the great leader"
These titles dont prove anything, except that if your god exists he is a narcessist - Kim Jong Il style - or that his followers simply wanted him to be a dictator - Kim Jong Il style.
Quote:for example I can prove the existence of a Creator
Then prove that this creator must be eternal
No you cant. Because the title is simply a word, it doesnt bring any other substancial evidence with it. Names are lingual constructs, created by humans and not natural phenomena out of which one could make scientific conclusions about the existance of god!!!
Only linguists may be interested in the words and their pronaunciations to compare them with other languages - find pre forms of these words in other cultures and then determin the words origin.
Quote:At the end, it is your choice to call what I proved "God/Allah" or not
That is what I meant for less fortunate people who don't have a fully developed brain like yours. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9f98d/9f98d84371547acaaa513cf72fe5d0aee1aa3793" alt="Wink Shades Wink Shades"
This statement is the most laughtable of all, considering that you dont even understand the concepts of gender and spieces and openly confess to being a fashist.
But anyway, you just dont care about what people give as counter arguments. Which means that you are essentialy not interested in debate but interested in spreading your bullshit which is the scientific term for preaching
|