Proving God in 20 statements

[Mudhammam]

Nestor: I'm not really sure what you're asking me. I agree there are axiomatic assumptions that cannot be tested. Hopefully, everyone agrees on these when the debate begins, and they should be as few as possible.

OK... So if God is not a physical being, and one believes that's its existence can be demonstrated through syllogism, starting only with the axiomatic assumptions that you are willing to grant, what's the problem? I mean, isn't it enough that one argues for the validity and consistency of their worldview when both sides have admitted that not every true proposition can be expected to have the support of evidence?

[Losty]

Nestor: I'm not really sure what you're asking me. I agree there are axiomatic assumptions that cannot be tested. Hopefully, everyone agrees on these when the debate begins, and they should be as few as possible.

OK... So if God is not a physical being, and one believes that's its existence can be demonstrated through syllogism, starting only with the axiomatic assumptions that you are willing to grant, what's the problem? I mean, isn't it enough that one argues for the validity and consistency of their worldview when both sides have admitted that not every true proposition can be expected to have the support of evidence?

Omg you changed your name. Again! D:

And all this time I've been wondering why you seem so familiar.

[smfortune]

Ummm, the police have real authority. You're kind of getting off on mall cop authority. Why are you making this an issue anyway?

"Getting off on mall cop authority". LOL, if you say so, scrub.

Why am I making an issue of this?  Because telling you you've stepped over a line and giving you an opportunity to sort your own shit out saves us a bunch of paperwork, that's why.

To be clear - there's a reason we don't let new members link to outside content.  Copypasting that same content isn't an acceptable workaround.  There is no acceptable workaround.  You get to wait your 30 days and 30 posts just like everyone else, snowflake.

I'll leave you to your unevidenced, unsound wankfest now.

Here's the verbal (sic) warning that I received from Atheistforums.org on trying to copy and paste the link: "You have received a verbal warning from the staff of Atheist Forums. We do not allow new users to post links to outside content until they have reached both 30 days of membership and accrued 30 points. This is clearly highlighted in the rules. (link provided) Please review our rules and refrain from posting links until you have fulfilled these criteria. If you'd like to discuss your 'proof', you may post the text in a regular post. Thanks for your cooperation." So tell me again, how did I step over a line? Look, I've been called a clown, silly and now a scrub by the gentle folk on this forum and I've been reticent about it for the sake of the discussion and frankly, I've been brought up better than retaliating with like. I've posted on theistic forums and the level of class and respect is far and away superior to what is meted out here. But I've dealt with you enough. Have a good day, sir.

[The Grand Nudger]

OK... So if God is not a physical being, and one believes that's its existence can be demonstrated through syllogism, starting only with the axiomatic assumptions that you are willing to grant, what's the problem?

If by syllogism, you mean an argument that meets the requirements of reason...you still can't get around the requirement of sound propositions.

I mean, isn't it enough that one argues for the validity and consistency of their worldview when both sides have admitted that not every true proposition can be expected to have the support of evidence?

No. Unless one is arguing only for the validity and consistency of their argument for their worldview...rather than their worldviews truth. Validity and consistency will not demonstrate existence or truth..or book editors would be wizards capable of conjuring dragons. Do you, personally, feel that defining something into existence works? Is that a power that a syllogism possesses?

[Nay_Sayer]

I still haven't seen an explanation why the first premise is justified. Just reiterating the rough everyday notion of causation isn't doing it.

Well I don't know how to help you understand further. Horse to water kind of thing. Perhaps you could justify to yourself your continued discomfort with the premise by thinking of an uncaused thing? Good luck.

---

Sure, You guys have this great one about an invisible sky daddy, Cracks me and FSM up every time.

Hmmm, the miscommunication must work both ways. I don't find you funny.

Nor was my intention that you do so, Enjoy being wrong amigo.

FSM Bless you.

[smfortune]

PROOF >>>

There are no uncaused things. : From Cosmological Arguments

The Universe is a thing.

The Universe is caused (be it internally [self-caused] or externally).

∀x[Tx → Cx], Tu: Cu
1. ∀x[Tx → Cx]                 P (Premise)
2. Tu                                  P
Proof:
3. Tu → Cu                        1 UI (Universal Instantiation)
4. Cu                                  2, 3 MP (Modus Ponens)

You forgot to name what God does this supposedly proves? Hercules? Hanuman? Xenu?

But this is actually based on a very old joke dating back to the year 1773 when a Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler called French encyclopedist Denis Diderot to a duel of arguments for existence of God. Denis Diderot was against and Leonhard Euler was for. This was all happening in Russian court and when Diderot accepted the challenge Euler said, "Sir, [something like] (a+b.) * n=x, therefore God exists. Refute that!" Diderot, who knew no mathematics, had no answer, retired in confusion and asked permission to return to France. Euler's argument was, of course, nonsense. It was nothing but a practical joke. To this day, there is no mathematical proof of God's existence that anyone of importance accepts.

And this is also called the judo argument because judo is the art of using the opponent's own strength against him because God's existence is a matter that lies fundamentally beyond the ability of man to observe, measure, and reason out; and must be based on revelation and faith alone. This, in fact, is the attitude of almost all the Believers in our Western culture. They wave the Bible (or some equivalent authority) and that ends the argument.
There's no point in arguing with that, of course. You cannot very well reason with someone whose basic line of argument is that reason doesn't count. So when believers resort to arguments in favor of the existence of God that are based on scientific findings then we call them "judo arguments."

I've dealt with this earlier! The proof isn't for a specific god. It's just for God, a supreme being who created the Universe. If you want to argue that this is Yahweh or Allah or Zeus or Brahman, then that's your own folly.

[Jackalope]

"Getting off on mall cop authority". LOL, if you say so, scrub.

Why am I making an issue of this?  Because telling you you've stepped over a line and giving you an opportunity to sort your own shit out saves us a bunch of paperwork, that's why.

To be clear - there's a reason we don't let new members link to outside content.  Copypasting that same content isn't an acceptable workaround.  There is no acceptable workaround.  You get to wait your 30 days and 30 posts just like everyone else, snowflake.

I'll leave you to your unevidenced, unsound wankfest now.

Here's the verbal (sic) warning that I received from Atheistforums.org on trying to copy and paste the link: "You have received a verbal warning from the staff of Atheist Forums. We do not allow new users to post links to outside content until they have reached both 30 days of membership and accrued 30 points. This is clearly highlighted in the rules. (link provided) Please review our rules and refrain from posting links until you have fulfilled these criteria. If you'd like to discuss your 'proof', you may post the text in a regular post. Thanks for your cooperation." So tell me again, how did I step over a line? Look, I've been called a clown, silly and now a scrub by the gentle folk on this forum and I've been reticent about it for the sake of the discussion and frankly, I've been brought up better than retaliating with like. I've posted on theistic forums and the level of class and respect is far and away superior to what is meted out here. But I've dealt with you enough. Have a good day, sir.

*emphasis added*

If you had done the first, you wouldn't have to ask the second. Furthermore, you'd also know that posting private correspondence is not allowed.

What kind of scofflaw are you, anyway?

[Time Traveler]

There are no uncaused things.
God is not a “thing” (otherwise, God would need a cause)
That which is not a thing is no thing.
Therefore, God is nothing.

Proving God doesn’t exist in only 4 statements! (These proofs are a hoot, aren't they!)

[LastPoet]

"Getting off on mall cop authority". LOL, if you say so, scrub.

Why am I making an issue of this?  Because telling you you've stepped over a line and giving you an opportunity to sort your own shit out saves us a bunch of paperwork, that's why.

To be clear - there's a reason we don't let new members link to outside content.  Copypasting that same content isn't an acceptable workaround.  There is no acceptable workaround.  You get to wait your 30 days and 30 posts just like everyone else, snowflake.

I'll leave you to your unevidenced, unsound wankfest now.

Here's the verbal (sic) warning that I received from Atheistforums.org on trying to copy and paste the link: "You have received a verbal warning from the staff of Atheist Forums. We do not allow new users to post links to outside content until they have reached both 30 days of membership and accrued 30 points. This is clearly highlighted in the rules. (link provided) Please review our rules and refrain from posting links until you have fulfilled these criteria. If you'd like to discuss your 'proof', you may post the text in a regular post. Thanks for your cooperation." So tell me again, how did I step over a line? Look, I've been called a clown, silly and now a scrub by the gentle folk on this forum and I've been reticent about it for the sake of the discussion and frankly, I've been brought up better than retaliating with like. I've posted on theistic forums and the level of class and respect is far and away superior to what is meted out here. But I've dealt with you enough. Have a good day, sir.

Dude? Seriously? That was a private message by the staff kinda automated whenever a new user posts links. Forum spam is a thing, believe it or not. You chose to bring it up to public scrutiny:

But then why are you here?

[LastPoet]

Here's the verbal (sic) warning that I received from Atheistforums.org on trying to copy and paste the link: "You have received a verbal warning from the staff of Atheist Forums. We do not allow new users to post links to outside content until they have reached both 30 days of membership and accrued 30 points. This is clearly highlighted in the rules. (link provided) Please review our rules and refrain from posting links until you have fulfilled these criteria. If you'd like to discuss your 'proof', you may post the text in a regular post. Thanks for your cooperation." So tell me again, how did I step over a line? Look, I've been called a clown, silly and now a scrub by the gentle folk on this forum and I've been reticent about it for the sake of the discussion and frankly, I've been brought up better than retaliating with like. I've posted on theistic forums and the level of class and respect is far and away superior to what is meted out here. But I've dealt with you enough. Have a good day, sir.

*emphasis added*

If you had done the first, you wouldn't have to ask the second.  Furthermore, you'd also know that posting private correspondence is not allowed.

What kind of scofflaw are you, anyway?

You bunch have seriously grown soft on the community. I knew Tibs would amp up the hookers and blow once I left. Damn. In my day....

We would keep little rik. He only exists while people respond to him. Toxic he is not, he has the decency to keep it in ita own thread.