RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
November 9, 2016 at 6:27 pm
(This post was last modified: November 9, 2016 at 6:44 pm by Simon Moon.)
Quote:
I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
24th October 2016, 17:27
This is my proof for God existing.
1. Formulate the information of the concept of God, thus:
"God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."
2. Look for instances of causation in reality outside of concepts in our mind.
3. We find countless examples of causation in reality outside of concepts in our mind.
4. From the countless instances of causation in reality, we infer to the existence of a first and ultimate cause.
5. We find that the first and ultimate cause of all instances of causation in reality corresponds to our information on the concept of God, namely, the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
6. Conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
What do you think about my proof for the existence of God?
Do you think that by posting your 'proof' continually will magically cause it to no longer be loaded with flaws?
Maybe you do, since you believe that a god magically spoke the universe into existence.
I feel justified in reiterating the flaws in your argument, since you won't stop posting it:
1. Affirming the consequent - one of your premises is also your conclusion.
2. Fallacy of composition - just because the parts of the universe we observe exhibits cause and effect, does not mean it applies to the universe itself.
3. Equivocation - you are using the phrase "instances of causation" with 2 different meanings. One refers to the type of causation we observe within the universe, which is ex material causation. The second meaning you are using refers to a god causing the universe ex nihilo.
I know you don't understand any of these fallacies, nor why they invalidate your argument. But rest assured, they do. Any book on basic logic will explain why.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
