|
|
|
|
|
| Proof for the existence of God [Thread Closed]
Posted: 6/7/2008 7:22:06 PM | Descartes: "I think, therefore I am." It is the one irrefutable truth each of us has access to, immediately evident and self-affirming. Put another way, it is illogical to claim, "I am not", because one must first BE in order to BE MAKING THE STATEMENT! Thus "I am" is the one undeniable truth.
Exodus 3:14 : And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO AM". God claims to be all that is; whatever is (ie. has being), that is God.
So the syllogism runs thus;
I am, therefore God is. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/7/2008 7:53:59 PM | "I am" is irrefutable. "I think, therefore I am" is refutable. One can simply point out that "you are" even when you are not thinking. In other words, it's quite easy to show that being and thinking are not related. Some people are brain-dead, but still "are". A person in comma is an example.
It follows that "I am, there God is" is a false conclusion given the premises. Sorry. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/7/2008 8:07:37 PM |
A person in comma is an example
What about a person in a question mark?
On track - the syllogism is a logical fallacy by itself, compounded by the further logical fallacies associated with "I am who I am". That is, my saying "I think, therefore I am God" is equally valid. Yet I make no claim to being godlike, nor would anyone else. My saying it does not make it so. In this case, *I* am saying it, and it isn't so. In the Biblical case, there is no evidence of any entity actually making the statement. We have only a filial statement derived from a third-person [at best] account of what an unverifiable entity is reputed to have said. This is not proof. This is a variation on in circulum demonstrando, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, argumentum ad antiquitatem, non sequitur and MORE logical fallacies. One plus one still does not equal three, no matter HOW you spin the argument. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/7/2008 8:36:08 PM | FrogO_Oeyes, my bad. Honest mistake. I meant to say "coma".
OP, please ignore my previous post. The examples I gave do not refute "I think, therefore I am".
In order to refute a statement of the form "if A then B", one must show that it is possible for A to be true, and at the same time B to be false. I didn't do that. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/7/2008 9:13:30 PM | | Actually, I don't think that's quite the situation. All you have to do is refute "then". If the op has not shown a causal link between A and B, then his claim is a logical fallacy. To refute it, all you need is to point out the fallacy. Done. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/7/2008 9:13:43 PM | Maybe I'm unpopular in saying this, but the statement "I am, therefore God is" doesn't define god in anyway that any religion can claim accuracy nor infallibility in their entrenched beliefs.
I have a hard time swallowing any belief still relying on Anthropomorphism to define a god.
Hardly anything in existence revolves around humanity. It's too proud and naive to live deluding ourselves in that way.
There is no inherent compassion for us over all the rest. We need to earn our place here.
And that means first accepting the truth of what we really are and how we can fit in. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/8/2008 6:56:26 AM | This makes you wonder how long the 'proving god' thing will go on. Probably as long as someone is around the think. There should at least be one simple conclusion people of each stripe can agree on; if there is no god, the net effect is identical as if there is a god, since he or she is completely passive. No wrongs are ever righted, no tragedies are ever prevented. Survivors will claim god saved them and whoever scores the winning shot will say the same thing but they always fail to mention who was behind the demise of the other person or the other team. If god gets the credit for success he should also get the blame for being passive in defeat.
 | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/8/2008 7:51:13 AM | | These statements are nothing more than grandious Solipsism. Actually that is a criticism that can be levelled at all religious belief. No amount of Philosophical contortions can prove or disprove the existence of God. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/9/2008 5:48:25 AM | Sorry dude....
I am, therefore God is.
That's the shallowest argument for the existence of a god i've read for a while.
Who wrote Exodus?
Was it god himself or was it meant to be Moses?
Seeing that it was a person, (it had to be) could they not have been lying/delusional/having a laugh? | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/9/2008 6:24:55 AM |
Exodus 3:14 : And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO AM". God claims to be all that is; whatever is (ie. has being), that is God.
That's a coincidence, because the Flying Spaghetti Monster said to me just the other day "I AM WHO AM". FSM thus claims to be all that is; whatever is (i.e. has being), that is FSM
I am, therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/9/2008 8:49:58 AM |
These statements are nothing more than grandious Solipsism. Actually that is a criticism that can be levelled at all religious belief. No amount of Philosophical contortions can prove or disprove the existence of God.
This is actually what came to my mind to when I first read the statement. The existence of "God" (That is a "self aware cause of all causes that is itself uncaused") is not self evident - And this particular reasoning came across as a form of grandious solipsism. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/9/2008 3:49:07 PM |
Exodus 3:14 : And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO AM". God claims to be all that is; whatever is (ie. has being), that is God.
I'm pretty sure that's what Popeye said to Bluto in Episodes 2:21 | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/9/2008 6:51:27 PM | Recent science has prove the existence of what has become know as the quantum field. This quantum field shares the exact same three qualities of GOD that every theology teaches. Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent. Does anyone understand the meaning of these three words? OK well let me explain...
Omniscient - means infinite intelligence...all knowing - there is nothing that GOD doesn't know, can't know or won't know.
Omnipotent - means all powerful...the source of all creation - there is nothing that GOD can't do, or won't do.
Omnipresent - means that the totality of the first two qualities are located at every point, around every point and between every point. There is no place where GOD is not! Think about that...
This quantum field that recent science has proven is Omniscient b/c it is an alive, pulsating, breathing presence that is holding everything together. It is Omnipotent b/c it is the source of all creation. This field is also Omnipresent b/c there is absolutely no place in this Universe or anyother for that matter where this field is NOT!
If you think about that long enough - you will come to the conclusion that by the very definition of GOD there can not be a place of eternal damnation b/c that would imply that GOD does not reside there and we already proved that GOD exist EVERYWHERE! Do you understand? Good.
 | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/9/2008 7:37:42 PM | B.S.
THAT is a clear case of changing the definitions so they agree with your agenda. In fact, you've had to play with the definitions of "god", "omniscient", "omnipresent", "omnipotent", AND "quantum"-anything. The next time you come onto the ice, wear skates, not a catcher's glove.
Fallacies 101: B- | |
|
Epopt
|
Joined: 6/7/2008
Msg: 15 | |
| |
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/11/2008 6:31:54 AM | There are a number of objections to your argument, which have already been well raised. Another problem is Descartes's argument for God's existence is far more subtle and complex than the one presented here, and is also presented in a somewhat different form (based on his concept of perfection). Medieval philosophers did try to argue from that statement that God's existence and essence are so closely connected that a good logical argument can be made God's actual existence is logically necessary, though these arguments have been strongly questioned and criticised since they were posed.
Even Descartes's arguments, based on his theory of the cogito (which itself has many problems) and his ontological argument, were not accepted by later brilliant thinkers such as Hume and Kant. Many philosophers still reject these arguments today, and for good reasons which would be too technical to explain here. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/11/2008 7:45:59 AM | Descartes: "I think, therefore I am." It is the one irrefutable truth each of us has access to, immediately evident and self-affirming.
"I think, therefore I am" is a circular argument. The premise assumes that "I" exists and then concludes that "I" exist. Consider the following: The Flying Spaghetti Monster thinks, therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. I like this one better:
I think, therefore I'm an Atheist. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/11/2008 7:54:56 AM | Recent science has prove the existence of what has become know as the quantum field. This quantum field shares the exact same three qualities of GOD that every theology teaches. Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent.
I don't think the QF has any of these properties. The QF only provides probabilities for events happening, so it knows nothing. The QF isn't sentient. The QF is not omnipotent because it's constrained by the laws of physics. I don't even think it's omnipresent because the QF isn't a physical thing, it's a probability distribution. Of course I'm assuming you mean the quantum wave-function when you say quantum field. It's possible that you mean the vacuum instead. In that case the vacuum is still neither sentient nor omnipotent. Nor is it omnipresent since the vacuum doesn't exist wherever matter exists. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/11/2008 9:43:32 AM | Quantum theory is the red-headed stepchild of scientific disciplines, constantly being used and abused by hacks who use misrepresentation to try to make their lies appear scientific. Sad, really.
Have we run out of fallacies to support the big guy's existence yet? | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/11/2008 9:59:01 AM | I feel that the other responses have done a fine job of disproving the initial question. But I do want to clarify some of the arguments made against the Descartes logic.
"I am" is irrefutable. "I think, therefore I am" is refutable. One can simply point out that "you are" even when you are not thinking. In other words, it's quite easy to show that being and thinking are not related. Some people are brain-dead, but still "are". A person in comma is an example.
The logic "I think, therefore I am" is a classic "If P, then Q" logic statement. What you are proposing is that "If not P, then not Q" ("If I don't think, I cannot exist") would have to be held true for the logic to work, and since people don't have to think in order to exist, it is proven false. But Descartes' logic does not necessitate this. The only other interpretation of an "If P, then Q" statement that must be true is "If not Q, then not P." In other words, if you can find someone who does not exist but is thinking anyway, THEN you can disprove Descartes.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Descartes logic says only that thinking is proof of existing. It says nothing at all about people who cannot or do not think, and should not be treated as an argument for such a scenario.
P.S. Oops! Sorry, x_file, I just read your response to your own post. It looks like you're way ahead of me on this. I'll leave this part of my post up here anyway, in case it's useful to anyone else.
"I think, therefore I am" is a circular argument. The premise assumes that "I" exists and then concludes that "I" exist. Consider the following: The Flying Spaghetti Monster thinks, therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
If the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, in fact, think, then I would have to say that yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, in fact, exist. Can you or I prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster thinks? Of course not. But every individual can prove to him/herself that he/she thinks.
I do see what you're saying, and it's an interesting point. But I suspect that the point of the Descartes argument is less to prove that a thinker is also an exister, which is kind of obvious, but more to say that a thinker can ONLY be proven to be an exister. Anything beyond that... the world around me, the things I see and feel... any of these things could potentially be false, a la "The Matrix" (or the "Evil Genius" as Descartes called it). Our own existence is the only thing we can always know absolutely to be true.
To answer you more directly: I would say that the first half of the logic, "I think," is not an assumption but an observation. The argument is not assuming that "I" exists, it is observing that "I" is thinking, and then concluding that "I" exists. I simply cannot deny that I am thinking; there is no assumption there at all. Anyway that's the best answer I can give... you do raise a strong point. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/11/2008 10:08:29 AM | | You're using the bible as proof of existence of god. That's like saying Stephen King's book IT is proof there are killer clowns in the sewers who harass little boys with asthma. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/11/2008 10:28:41 AM | - Recent science has prove the existence of what has become know as the quantum field.
Correct
-This quantum field shares the exact same three qualities of GOD that every theology teaches.
Does it also share his other traits like jealousy, capriciousness, pettiness, unjust, control freak, a vindictive blood thirsty ethnic cleanser, a masoginistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, sadomasochistic, and malicious bully?
-Omniscient - means infinite intelligence...all knowing - there is nothing that GOD doesn't know, can't know or won't know.
While this is the definition of Omniscient it certainly does not apply to a "thing" that is the quantum field. That would be like saying the ocean is omniscient because it swells (like it's breathing) and water holds everything on our planet together. You're only grasping for an answer which will uphold your pre-determined outcome.
-Omnipotent - means all powerful...the source of all creation - there is nothing that GOD can't do, or won't do.
I am amazed that you can make this claim that scientists, who discovered the quantum field and are far more intelligent than you, cannot. Again, you are search for an answer to a pre-determined opinion/outcome as opposed to letting the facts/proof dictate what the answer truly is. Once scientists figure it out, then maybe you might be right. Until then, you cannot make these grand claims without equally grand proof. And just because there is a quantum field, does not mean it does what you think it does.
-Omnipresent - means that the totality of the first two qualities are located at every point, around every point and between every point. There is no place where GOD is not! Think about that...
Hurray! You got one right. But so are atoms....... so could you not say the same thing for atoms?
-If you think about that long enough - you will come to the conclusion that by the very definition of GOD there can not be a place of eternal damnation b/c that would imply that GOD does not reside there and we already proved that GOD exist EVERYWHERE! Do you understand? Good.
Simply astounding the amount of reaching and bending and twisting you need to do in order to come up with this. You know, if you think about it long enough, you can rationalize anything. Like how mormons believe dinosaur bones were planted in the earth by the government to try and test their faith in god. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/11/2008 4:20:17 PM |
Descartes: "I think, therefore I am."
This is also known as Descartes error. He made a fundamental flaw in that statement. Thinking isn't being. His statement should have been "I feel, therefore I am". We are feeling machines that think, not thinking machines that feel.
To be is being present. Feeling not thinking is being present. | |
|
| |
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/11/2008 10:16:39 PM | | this is ridiculous. god didnt say "i am who i am". someone wrote that passage and claimed that god said it and you chose to believe it. | |
|
|
| Page 1 of 19
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 |
|
Home
login 
