Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[Mister Agenda]

Can anyone think of an example of an object or entity that has actually been proven to exist by argument alone, no evidence, besides a deity? If that could be done, it would prove that at least it's possible for something to be proven to exist by argument alone.

Arguments make use of premises.  Doing with what we observe in ourselves, we can use it to derive God. If those signs of God in us didn't exist, and we didn't know what we knew about ourselves with respect to the creator, we would not be able to prove God.

And all arguments from God make use to pointing to that connection that is a living thing, a connection that not only connects us to God, but connects us to one another, and all relationships make use of its judgment and perception and truths and it gives us our rights that no person or group of people can take away from us.

Atheists constantly make use of this connection in there living, in their relationships, etc, but are antagonistic towards what is in essence.  

Quran says (this is me paraphrasing the wage verses) love those who are that very connection to God so as to take a way to your Lord and be reminded of his light, and love them so as to properly love God and his creation, and love them as to gain eyes by which you can see and scent the holy scent.

The proof of God is with us, it not only proves God, it proves itself and what we are, and what everything is in truth.

Your reply seems to have no relationship whatsoever to my question.

[Mystic]

Arguments make use of premises.  Doing with what we observe in ourselves, we can use it to derive God. If those signs of God in us didn't exist, and we didn't know what we knew about ourselves with respect to the creator, we would not be able to prove God.

And all arguments from God make use to pointing to that connection that is a living thing, a connection that not only connects us to God, but connects us to one another, and all relationships make use of its judgment and perception and truths and it gives us our rights that no person or group of people can take away from us.

Atheists constantly make use of this connection in there living, in their relationships, etc, but are antagonistic towards what is in essence.  

Quran says (this is me paraphrasing the wage verses) love those who are that very connection to God so as to take a way to your Lord and be reminded of his light, and love them so as to properly love God and his creation, and love them as to gain eyes by which you can see and scent the holy scent.

The proof of God is with us, it not only proves God, it proves itself and what we are, and what everything is in truth.

Your reply seems to have no relationship whatsoever to my question.

All arguments from God don't prove things from purely abstract, but from what we observe in the signs in ourselves, and in things we acknowledge.

In fact, your phrase "argument alone" is confusing the issue of what arguments are. Arguments make use of facts we know.

For example the argument of ultimate value and the signs in ourselves, makes use that we see ourselves to have inherent objective value even if we aren't sure of what that is and what our measurement is.

I went into elaboration.

You show one argument for God that doesn't make use of observations or facts we know.

[Mister Agenda]

Can anyone think of an example of an object or entity that has actually been proven to exist by argument alone, no evidence, besides a deity? If that could be done, it would prove that at least it's possible for something to be proven to exist by argument alone.

Like all abstract objects, ever. 

https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/a...t-objects/

Cool, God exists as an abstract object, the same way faeries do, as an idea. I already knew that. So you had no inkling that by 'exist' I meant actually exist independently in reality, not just in people's heads? Didn't even cross your mind?

[Amarok]

Abstract entities are not proven by argument alone . They have empirical backing . Unlike your sky daddy.

[Cyberman]

Your reply seems to have no relationship whatsoever to my question.

You're surprised?

[Mister Agenda]

Your reply seems to have no relationship whatsoever to my question.

All arguments from God don't prove things from purely abstract, but from what we observe in the signs in ourselves, and in things we acknowledge.

In fact, your phrase "argument alone" is confusing the issue of what arguments are. Arguments make use of facts we know.

For example the argument of ultimate value and the signs in ourselves, makes use that we see ourselves to have inherent objective value even if we aren't sure of what that is and what our measurement is.

I went into elaboration.

You show one argument for God that doesn't make use of observations or facts we know.

If the word 'evidence' that's giving you trouble, evidences are facts that inferentially support or undermine a proposition. Evidence is used in an inferential argument, not a deductive one, and is probabilistic, never necessarily true.

Bob is dead.
Bob was killed with a weapon that made a particular type of a wound.
I have a weapon that would make a wound like that.
I am more likely to have killed Bob than someone without a weapon like that.

As you can see, that's slim pickings to hang someone on. That's why it almost always takes multiple lines of evidence to reach near certainty, although inferring from evidence can never take us to absolute certainty. That's reserved for deductive arguments, when we accept the premises are true and the conclusion is properly arrived at (non-fallacious).

[Mystic]

All arguments from God don't prove things from purely abstract, but from what we observe in the signs in ourselves, and in things we acknowledge.

In fact, your phrase "argument alone" is confusing the issue of what arguments are. Arguments make use of facts we know.

For example the argument of ultimate value and the signs in ourselves, makes use that we see ourselves to have inherent objective value even if we aren't sure of what that is and what our measurement is.

I went into elaboration.

You show one argument for God that doesn't make use of observations or facts we know.

If the word 'evidence' that's giving you trouble, evidences are facts that inferentially support or undermine a proposition. Evidence is used in an inferential argument, not a deductive one, and is probabilistic, never necessarily true.

Bob is dead.
Bob was killed with a weapon that made a particular type of a wound.
I have a weapon that would make a wound like that.
I am more likely to have killed Bob than someone without a weapon like that.

As you can see, that's slim pickings to hang someone on. That's why it almost always takes multiple lines of evidence to reach near certainty, although inferring from evidence can never take us to absolute certainty. That's reserved for deductive arguments, when we accept the premises are true and the conclusion is properly arrived at (non-fallacious).

Do you know somethings are mutually exclusive while somethings are more comprehensive?

Evidence can make things appear highly unlikely to be not true.  We make use of this in court.

It is used to support the case.

However, sometimes evidence with proper analysis can reach certainty.

And sometimes you can be certain even by evidence you have not thought about.

For example, I never been to China, but I am sure the country exists.

And I was sure of this even before being introduced to philosophy.

There are different type proofs. As a baby I had to rely on instinct. I had to trust parents. 

But the loving nature parents act upon is not only evidence, their actions are evidence, the baby grows psychologically and physically different (I mean the brain get's wired differently) depending on how they act.

What was your evidence as a child that your parents were truly your biological parents? 

Sure you are not certain, but you didn't know your evidence, but you had plenty, and believed in it due to that.


I feel in case of God evidence exists for sure and we always had it. It's propaganda that has made them less evident.

There are so many features that point to God. But with reflection, we will see we always knew God due to abundance of evidence and signs, and we can even be helped by God and Prophets and leaders from, as well as great philosophers, to reflect on things that will decisively remind us on how we know God exists.

But if someone comes to someone and tells him, the earth is flat and it's control mechanism to make us believe it's round,  it would be foolish for him to throw out all the knowledge he has of the earth being round. 

Sure he may not know all the evidence he knows for that, in that sense, he has not reflect about it. But if he doubts it, he should try to analyse what he knows for certain instead of brainlessly demanding for evidence for the earth being round, when there is plenty of evidence the earth is not flat, to the extent of certainty.

[Cyberman]

While you're enjoying your little semantics game, I hope you keep in mind that "highly unlikely to be not true" does not necessarily equate to "highly likely to be true". Doing otherwise is a transparent attempt to smuggle one set of conclusions alongside another.

Also do watch that qualifier "appears". It can turn on you and bite your arse unless you pin it down with corroborative evidence.

[SteveII]

Like all abstract objects, ever. 

https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/a...t-objects/

Cool, God exists as an abstract object, the same way faeries do, as an idea. I already knew that. So you had no inkling that by 'exist' I meant actually exist independently in reality, not just in people's heads? Didn't even cross your mind?

What are you talking about? You asked: "Can anyone think of an example of an object or entity that has actually been proven to exist by argument alone, no evidence, besides a deity?"

I answered: Abstract objects. I never commented on whether God was an abstract object or why you think that any deity has ever been proven to exist by argument alone. 

Do you think the concept of 7 or [p then q; p therefore q] is just in people's head or is an aspect of reality independent of the our minds? 

[Mystic]

While you're enjoying your little semantics game, I hope you keep in mind that "highly unlikely to be not true" does not necessarily equate to "highly likely to be true". Doing otherwise is a transparent attempt to smuggle one set of conclusions alongside another.

Also do watch that qualifier "appears". It can turn on you and bite your arse unless you pin it down with corroborative evidence.

It does equate in exact meaning by rule of double negation.  But it has nothing to do with this subject except that you guys have a hard time digesting phrases for what they are.


For example to say God is not not All-knowing, is the same as saying God is all knowing. Believe it or not, some Islamic philosophers went out their way of saying God's Names are all negations, that is they just negate the opposite, but don't affirm anything. Just to emphasize on God not having positive attributes.

They blurted none-sense and didn't understand basics of human language and logic,  and didn't even understand double negation rule.