Proving God in 20 statements

[downbeatplumb]

OK. Then I'll go with the positions stated here.

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2010/05...dont-know/

BTW, no amount of arguing, with math or anything else, can ever make a fantasy real.

Well then, there's no convincing you. Good day.

Why good day? an argument is nothing without evidence to back it up and the god hypothesis has zero evidence for it. For example you can make a cogent argument for any position you care to take. But without any evidence to back the argument up you have zip.

[RozKek]

Ok. Last time. 1) There is no gap because I'm claiming that science builds itself up to reveal God. 2) A gap would be if there was an unknown portion. I'm saying that there is no "Uhh, what goes here?". I'm saying that unequivocally, what science points to is not a gap in our knowledge with God as a placeholder, but it points to God directly. Btw, god of gaps is thrown around by atheists as if it was their own invention, it is actually derived from theists, did you know that?

*Quote edited by me*

1) You can go ahead and make that claim when our scientific knowledge about the universe is complete (or enough to support your claim with solid evidence)

2) The unknown portion is (A.K.A THE GAP): We don't know an exact cause of the universe, we don't have an explanation or reason for the universe. And you fill in that unknown portion (the cause of the universe) with god, without any evidence.

Accept that there is a gap before you continue. The gap doesn't dissapear because you say it isn't there.

I honestly don't care who invented god of the gaps, I don't see why it matters who invented it. And maybe atheists are throwing it around because you keep filling gaps with god.

But yet again at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I said because you only have arguments and no evidence. Come back when you form a hypothesis based on your arguments, make experiments, test your hypothesis and come back with a scientific conclusion/with evidence.

If you do, I hope your evidence points towards 

[LastPoet]

The funny thing is that "Logical salad" can be used to argue the existence of anything. Theist apologists favourite sport: long winded logical and philosophical redundancies that do not prove anything they want to prove, but makes them, feel smart.

[Mystic]

Peace be upon you smforture, I'm not asking how you derive those statements from double implications. I'm asking why you are stating those double implications are true in the first place.

(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.

[JuliaL]

Using my own definition of Truth:
Truth is a property which propositions contain in direct proportion to which they correctly predict future events.

Could the OP's formal argumentation be used to predict future events?
If so then it could be possibly said to be True and at some point to have been proven to have been True.

Otherwise
Meh.

[Cyberman]

Additionally, he's playing fast-and-loose with the term "God" and shoehorning that character into the argument, whether he realises it or not.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Additionally, he's playing fast-and-loose with the term "God" and shoehorning that character into the argument, whether he realises it or not.

Exactly. He keeps getting to a point where he says, "And that thing, by definition, must be God," but I have yet to see a justification for why it has to be God, or why it couldn't be something else. He's essentially defining God as "The Ultimate Greatest Thing Ever," then trying to argue that the Universe requires the Ultimate Greatest Thing Ever to exist, and that thing must be God because that's God's definition. It's complete nonsense.

[Mystic]

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.

[robvalue]

Yes, it's another equivocation.

You can't poof a god into existence with linguistic trickery. Well, I'm sure it would have happened by now if you could. People have been trying long enough.

[Cyberman]

@MK
It's similar to the misused phrase "survival of the fittest", where fittest doesn't necessarily (and almost never does) have to mean most powerful or most efficient at doing away with the competition, but that which is most fit for its niche. Using a vague and ill-defined term is a convenient way to fudge your argument to suit, but also an obvious one.