Show me your proof

[The Grand Nudger]

That was pretty horrid...... was it supposed to be poetry-or a response or explanation of something?

[purplepurpose]

That was pretty horrid...... was it supposed to be poetry-or a response or explanation of something?

I was responding. Poetry was unintential.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and not present...lol.

Responding to what?

[Cyberman]

Consciosness is like a sparkl.
This sparkl has souce - fire.
Source cant be denied of something its creations have.
Darvins theorie is wrong.
Dead rock cant give life to consciosness that generates endless stream of toughts, desiers. Has ability to feel pain and happines. And hope that
someday it will he happy.
Consciosness created rock.
Consciosness - life. Rock- death.
Death cant lead to life its opposite.

Nurse - he's out of bed again...

[Tex]

Oh, and please try not to tell me what to do and say. That's not nice.

You might not like it, but it doesn't make it "not nice". However, if you'd like, you may ignore my posts.

By the same criteria, the existence of this god of which you speak would be...what, exactly? The existence of all that "other stuff" is proof of the existence of other stuff. Not exactly groundbreaking - and certanly not proof of any god.

We know of a hot pockets' existence by our senses. We know of existence by commonality. I can draw a bunch of different looking triangles on a white board, and you will find that common to them all is "triangle". Similarly, common to everything is "existence". This is the epistemology on the premise "stuff exists" for the necessary being proof.

I don't want to talk about the proof of necessary being though. I want to talk statistics.

God is evident from the fact there is something outside of me. I exist. Other stuff exists. Where did the existence comes from? If they were just simply here, what allows them to do that?

This is nothing but simple shifting of the burden of proof. A common and familiar creature, easily recognised by its distinctive wailing cry and unkempt plumage. Traditionally regarded as a bird of ill omen, as its appearance in a discussion often signifies approaching defeat.

This is not intended to be a shifting of the burden of proof. These are intended to be rhetorical questions that are only answerable through a deity. However, I don't want to talk about the proof by necessary being. I want to talk statistics.

Where did the existence comes from?

I can understand your inability to accept that the universe has possibly always existed, and that earth was created as a result of a Big Bang, but claiming that a deity is the creator that always existed would also contradict your claim that the existence around us could not have always existed. Just because science does not yet have all the answers does not mean that a deity is the answer. Choosing the deity route with no evidence to back up the claim is pure laziness.

Do you not read? I'm claiming that God literally is "the existence around us [that] always existed". The only difference between your claim and mine is that I see the necessity of that Existence to be a being.

But never mind that. I am not trying to argue by contingency. I know that works. I'm trying to see what responses against my statistics argument. Please critique my argument by statistics. I do not know if it works or if I messed up. In giving it to the atheist audience, I'm hoping that any flaw will be revealed. Thank you for your assistance.

God is evident from the fact there is something outside of me. I exist. Other stuff exists. Where did the existence comes from? If they were just simply here, what allows them to do that?

That is an infinite argument that would apply to god and his creator and his creator and his creator and his creator and his creator and his creator and so on infinitely.

In a non-deistic universe, yes, and ad infinitum. This is not the argument I am making.

So what does explain this reality of ours?

Existence itself is a being.

The truth is, I don't know the answer. The truth is, you don't know the answer.

Answer is above.

I do know what the answer isn't, however, and that is religion.

Religion is the organization of a belief. You're correct, no existence of an organization proves a god. Reasoning from effects to the cause (logic) or the experience of the direct cause itself (God literally shows up and says hi) are the only ways to have complete certainty. If one has divine revelation, that is probably a very bad way to convince people. Logic should be the only route of teaching there is a God.

It's also safe to say that, whatever is responsible for the existence of the universe, isn't something that is, at all, invested in the human struggle and doesn't really meet the most accepted definition of a god.

This is baseless. Perhaps there are reasons for not interfering often, even if heavily concerned. For analogy, the government does not force business deals, even if it is beneficial to everyone.

The same way that it is impossible to truly grasp the infinite size of the universe or time, our existence and everything around us is probably even more difficult to grasp.

The universe is not infinitely large. The last estimate I heard is that there are 10^80 atoms.

Doesn't stop us from making shit up to explain it. However, we should have enough sense to reject those fairy tales.

Dogma. You sound like a catholic.

And, by the way, I hardly consider scientific theories to be the same thing as man made inventions about god. Theories are man's attempts to put the pieces together and gain a better understanding, which is pursuit important to evolution and the survival of our species.

But you accept philosophical and theological that presuppose your theories! What scientific data says that gaining more scientific data is better? What science experiment says that the survival of our species is good? Some questions are not answered with physics and chemistry.

God is evident from the fact there is something outside of me. I exist. Other stuff exists. Where did the existence comes from? If they were just simply here, what allows them to do that?

Well, I see you've got your religious affiliations as Christian up here... that's an additional claim, isn't it? Because "stuff exists" can only get you to a creator, not specifically the christian god. Even if we're charitable and accept your reasoning here exactly as it is, it's obviously not the end of the story. Either something additional happened to you to get you to christianity, or this is a post hoc rationalization that you mistakenly believe extends further than it does.

Finally, some reason! You're correct, no proof I've submitted or anyone has submitted (that I've seen) on this site proves their own specific God. I can get close to the Christian God with logic (I've yet to post any such thing), but it is impossible to get everything that incorporates the Christian God. The thing I'm nearly certain that can never be proven is the Christian concept of Grace. Grace is "the unmerited favor of God". Because it is unmerited, there isn't really a cause-effect relationship. I doubt that "God sent a Messiah to redeem us" will ever be proven logically.

The reason I fall towards Christianity is because it is closest to what I can prove (the next closest is Taoism, fyi). Also, the teachings I cannot prove do not contradict each other and mesh quite nicely with what can be proven. Truly, I have no complaints with Christianity (the only complaint I have with Taoism is the lack of an efficient cause).

[The Grand Nudger]

You can prove something Tex?

[Cyberman]

Oh, and please try not to tell me what to do and say. That's not nice.

You might not like it, but it doesn't make it "not nice". However, if you'd like, you may ignore my posts.

Not liking something is the very definition of "not nice". What I'm objecting to is being told to "work on" something other than what I want to talk about simply because you didn't want me to talk about it.

As for ignoring your posts: first, as a moderator I'm not allowed to do that - I'm cursed with having to sift through all the crap - and second, why are you apparently so opposed to discussion? Are you only here to proselytise?

By the same criteria, the existence of this god of which you speak would be...what, exactly? The existence of all that "other stuff" is proof of the existence of other stuff. Not exactly groundbreaking - and certanly not proof of any god.

We know of a hot pockets' existence by our senses. We know of existence by commonality. I can draw a bunch of different looking triangles on a white board, and you will find that common to them all is "triangle". Similarly, common to everything is "existence". This is the epistemology on the premise "stuff exists" for the necessary being proof.

Fine, so you've demonstrated that "stuff" which we can agree exists, exists. Congratulations; you've constructed what Daniel Dennett termed a "deepity". I'd still like to know how you get from there to a god of any description, because from what I've seen you haven't even come close to showing that. Merely asserting that it must exist simply because other things do is just silly. Or if not, I want my Martian Cheese Bicycle.

I don't want to talk about the proof of necessary being though. I want to talk statistics.

If you don't want to talk about something, may I suggest you don't bring it up in the first place?

This is nothing but simple shifting of the burden of proof. A common and familiar creature, easily recognised by its distinctive wailing cry and unkempt plumage. Traditionally regarded as a bird of ill omen, as its appearance in a discussion often signifies approaching defeat.

This is not intended to be a shifting of the burden of proof.

Whether you intended it or not is irrelevant; it is what it is and I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

These are intended to be rhetorical questions that are only answerable through a deity.

In other words, Magician's Choice. Or if you prefer, "You can have any colour you like, so long as it's black". You intended to define your deity of choice into existence via semantics and rhetoric and we're meant to be impressed by that? You do realise, don't you, that many of us here are so long in the tooth that we can eat six linguistic contortionists before breakfast?

However, I don't want to talk about the proof by necessary being. I want to talk statistics.

I'm trying to coin the term "dolphinetics", to describe the actions of (usually) theists when they leap, dolphin-like, from one argument as soon as it becomes uncomfortable and then dive headlong into relatively safer waters.

[Tex]

You might not like it, but it doesn't make it "not nice". However, if you'd like, you may ignore my posts.

Not liking something is the very definition of "not nice". What I'm objecting to is being told to "work on" something other than what I want to talk about simply because you didn't want me to talk about it.

No, I don't like paying taxes, but the government isn't mean in demanding I pay taxes. You're wrong. Telling you that your wrong is something you probably dislike, but it isn't mean either. Maybe you just need thicker skin. I'm regularly told on this site that I'm a lesser being than yall because we have different thoughts.

As for ignoring your posts: first, as a moderator I'm not allowed to do that - I'm cursed with having to sift through all the crap - and second, why are you apparently so opposed to discussion? Are you only here to proselytise?

I want refinement of the statistics proof. I brought up that "God is Existence" as a refutation to "Your God uses magic" by Pocaracas. It is not nor has ever been my desire to discuss this here (although I've discussed it with FallentoReason before on a different thread).

We know of a hot pockets' existence by our senses. We know of existence by commonality. I can draw a bunch of different looking triangles on a white board, and you will find that common to them all is "triangle". Similarly, common to everything is "existence". This is the epistemology on the premise "stuff exists" for the necessary being proof.

Fine, so you've demonstrated that "stuff" which we can agree exists, exists. Congratulations; you've constructed what Daniel Dennett termed a "deepity". I'd still like to know how you get from there to a god of any description, because from what I've seen you haven't even come close to showing that. Merely asserting that it must exist simply because other things do is just silly. Or if not, I want my Martian Cheese Bicycle.

This isn't what I wish to discuss, but fine. And yes, "stuff exists" is a deepity. I'm not trying to prove that. That is simply the only thing needed to prove God.

Since stuff exists, we know that all stuff is similar so far as "they exist". All stuff includes this similarity "existence". Existence is not the stuff, but is recognized within the stuff. Existence then is it's own thing, separate from the other stuff that is. Existence also acts like an entity, causing the stuff to "exist" in the first place. This is what I call God.

This is not intended to be a shifting of the burden of proof.

Whether you intended it or not is irrelevant; it is what it is and I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

You sees it wrong.

These are intended to be rhetorical questions that are only answerable through a deity.

In other words, Magician's Choice. Or if you prefer, "You can have any colour you like, so long as it's black". You intended to define your deity of choice into existence via semantics and rhetoric and we're meant to be impressed by that? You do realise, don't you, that many of us here are so long in the tooth that we can eat six linguistic contortionists before breakfast?

No. Not the Magician's Choice. It's much more like "A color blind person may have any color he like, so long as it is a shade of grey". You deny the color blindness. I say Existence itself exists and you don't. It's really that simple. With the arguments I've seen refuting me, its that "things just simply exist", but that is literally "unreasonable".

However, I don't want to talk about the proof by necessary being. I want to talk statistics.

I'm trying to coin the term "dolphinetics", to describe the actions of (usually) theists when they leap, dolphin-like, from one argument as soon as it becomes uncomfortable and then dive headlong into relatively safer waters.

Go read the last 5 pages of the forum. I brought up a proof that I made up and wanted evaluation from yall. I don't even know if it is valid. You all have seen the necessary being proof and probably write it off because of this or that. You're wrong (it's also my favorite proof!), but I know its valid already. I want to test the proof I ORIGINALLY BROUGHT UP. Perhaps you guys are jumping into friendly waters and not I?

[The Grand Nudger]

Existence is what you call god? Then what's all this christ nonsense? If it's all the same, I think I'll go ahead and continue calling "existence"..well......"existence".

Do you also believe in fire imps? By fire imps, of course, I mean gym socks.

[Esquilax]

Finally, some reason! You're correct, no proof I've submitted or anyone has submitted (that I've seen) on this site proves their own specific God. I can get close to the Christian God with logic (I've yet to post any such thing), but it is impossible to get everything that incorporates the Christian God. The thing I'm nearly certain that can never be proven is the Christian concept of Grace. Grace is "the unmerited favor of God". Because it is unmerited, there isn't really a cause-effect relationship. I doubt that "God sent a Messiah to redeem us" will ever be proven logically.

The reason I fall towards Christianity is because it is closest to what I can prove (the next closest is Taoism, fyi). Also, the teachings I cannot prove do not contradict each other and mesh quite nicely with what can be proven. Truly, I have no complaints with Christianity (the only complaint I have with Taoism is the lack of an efficient cause).

I think the problem, here, is that your initial logic is somewhat faulty. It's very easy to reason yourself into a wrong conclusion, especially if you start with an incorrect premise, and "existence is present, therefore it must have a creator" has a terrible latter half. The first part of that statement is absolutely true (unless you're a solipsist, but seriously, fuck solipsists) but it quickly becomes a non sequitur. There may or may not be a creator, but that fact does not follow simply from the idea that there is something that might have been created.

Now, in any other circumstance I would use this as a grave insult to your intelligence, so forgive me, but this feels like Ray Comfort logic to me: "creation needs a creator." Simply doesn't follow. Now, you've clearly got a host of secondary and tertiary reasons for believing as you do, but since they've come out of an initial premise that the existence we see must have a creator, they're necessarily biased toward a possibly incorrect answer.

I dunno, maybe your additional reasons are actually super convincing. You would be the first theist I've talked to that has that. Mostly it's all just riddled with pressuppositions and confirmation bias, but it's up to you if you feel like unpacking that.