Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Proof for the existence of God [Thread Closed]      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Adam441
Joined: 4/8/2007
Msg: 1
Proof for the existence of God [Thread Closed]Page 1 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
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.
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 2
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.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 3
view profile
History
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.
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 4
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.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 5
view profile
History
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.
 Vancer
Joined: 10/29/2006
Msg: 6
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.
 -=Kalidor=-
Joined: 7/14/2006
Msg: 7
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
 capphil1
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 8
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.

 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 9
view profile
History
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-
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 10
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.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 11
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.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 12
view profile
History
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?
 That_other_dude
Joined: 5/24/2008
Msg: 13
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.
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 14
Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/11/2008 9:12:32 PM
So, we've proven that FSM exists!

Excellent.
 2HEDZ
Joined: 3/16/2005
Msg: 15
view profile
History
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.
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 16
Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/14/2008 8:19:25 AM

If religious people truly believe that we go to heaven after we die, then why aren't they estatic when they receive the news that they are going to die?


I know. I would got further and ask, "If one really believes in God and that they are absolutely going to heaven, then why not commit suicide now? Why wait for going to heaven?" I understand the Bible states that suicide is sin, but God will forgive you. How can God blame or hold responsible a person for wanting to be in heaven sooner?

The pathetic thing thought is, if one is born in a certain place in the world, one might have believed in a different religion, or no religion at all. In other words, one is not born religions, one becomes religions.
 h4rry77
Joined: 5/3/2008
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/14/2008 12:49:41 PM
Besides, what if God is a dude and He LOVES drinking/smoking weed/partying etc etc???
No one knows.
It could all be a test, the people who follow the "rules" might go to Hell as God sees them as too boring to be in Heaven, kickin' ass with all the other bad asses.
On the other hand, Hell might not be as bad as all the texts may lead us to imagine. Its been a few thousand years since that stuff was written now so it might have had a makeover.
Gotta move with the times!!
In all seriousness though, some people truly believe that God exists, others don't. It might take a split second of a life changing event to swing your view, but we can ALWAYS be sure of one thing..... you'll know when you're dead.
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/14/2008 9:50:08 PM
I am, I said.

Neil Diamond, he's not a god but he's damn good
 MattLF
Joined: 10/28/2005
Msg: 19
Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/16/2008 11:06:11 PM
"you'll know when you're dead."


only if there's an afterlife; if not, you won't know anything at all :)
 bluezoot_riot
Joined: 5/21/2007
Msg: 20
Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/18/2008 9:54:00 AM

Brings me to another thought, are people who beleive in god delusional?


If we define delusional as that which is known to be falsifiable, and the person regards it as true, then no, because it has not been proven that G-d doesn't exist.


If i beleived in fairies cause of some fairy book i read, and its all faith based and no facts can support the theory of fairies, people would say im crazy. Why then are religious people considered ok by our social standards when they beleive in something that isnt proveable or tangible in any way?


Provable? By who's definition of "proof" are we going by? Take a look at this forum, believers seem to have a variety of reasons of belief, hence, different proofs.

Tangible? A spiritual experience is certainly tangible.

How exactly would we fit the Creator in a test tube?
 The Artful Codger
Joined: 2/29/2008
Msg: 21
Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/18/2008 11:08:30 AM
This existence of this thread, and others like it, seem to me to be unimpeachable proof of the existence of 'God'.
As concept and contrivance.


I am, I said.
LMAO...
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/18/2008 6:34:11 PM
Actually, I would offer a perspective which indicates that Descartes was actually perfectly correct:

In that a) We define the concept of "I think"

and

b) We define the concept of "I am",

Then our concept of existence is utterly dependant upon our concept of thought - as we define thought, it IS our thoughts which give definition to our existence. Thus the former determines the latter.

Where got is concerned however, it's just logical fallacy, since there is no actual rational link between "I think" and "God is".
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/20/2008 1:11:26 PM

Those who believe in god don't need proof. Those of us who do not believe in god do not accept any "proof" as conclusive. This makes the whole argument moot.


The problem with this, is that there is no proof beyond faith and I don't except faith as proof of anything. So while yes, it's pretty much a moot point, there has yet to be any scientific proof of any gods...or Superman for that matter, darn it, so it's not the non-accepting of proof it's the lack of any solid evidence of proof.

Think about how easy life could be if there was a God who ruled the world and gave out a book of rules and all you had to do was follow it and be thankful for it. That's it, that's all one has to do in a religion (and yet 99% of them make it seem like a trick that's not attainable) and they would reap all the rewards. So why wouldn't people really want to believe in this stuff if they really really, in their hearts and minds, thought any of it was true??? Nope, the religious themselves prove there is no god(s) by their own lack of following what they say they believe in.
 bluezoot_riot
Joined: 5/21/2007
Msg: 24
Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/23/2008 1:39:29 AM

This = your flawed mental construct to support your delusions. Just because you 'believe' it buddy does not make it true.


The most sensible definition of delusion is -- that which something someone holds to be true which is known to be false. Do you have logical proof G-d doesn't exist? No. So it's not a delusion.

As for you're argument, yes, the burden of proof rests on believers to non-believers, if the believer is asserting to the non-believer why he should believe, because it is not the non-believers duty to believe any claim. Likewise, it is not the believer's duty to accept any claim of the non-believer, the burden would lay on the non-believer.


"I could say that I believe there is a pink elephant is on mars. Is the statement inherently correct/not wrong because it cannot be disproven? NO. Yes there could be a minute chance of a pink elephant is on mars, but without any proof of any kind at all you should disregard the statement entirely.


Pink elephant =/= G-d. The rest of the argument is non-sequitur.

It seems like you've spent a lot of time disproving you're own straw men arguments.


There are two brothers, A owns a digital camera and the other B does not.

A goes to the pawn shop to sell his digital camera, he hands it over to the pawnbroker and receives £50.

B goes to the pawn shop and claims to the pawnbroker that in his opinion he has a digital camera in his hands and wants £50 for it.

B states that he believes it exists.

The pawnbroker looks at B’s hands and sees that they are empty.

Would you buy B’s supposed faith camera?"


You're conflating faith, which the Bible says is "Evidence of the unseen" with the "accepted" definition of faith, which is belief without evidence.

There is obviously no evidence of the camera being there. So under you're definition of faith, perhaps there is. Under the Bible's definition, well, there would still be no evidence of the invisible camera. As faith is experienced, and therefore proof in-itself. Given that someone else can't experience what a believer experiences, well, there can be no adequate proof for that other person, at least, the kind of proof it seems like you're looking for.

Faith is awesome.
 bluezoot_riot
Joined: 5/21/2007
Msg: 25
Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/23/2008 8:54:37 AM

I agree that the believer does not NEED to accept the non-believers viewpoint, did I say otherwise? My original point was that the title of this thread says "Proof for the existence of God" - I want proof, convice me using logic, ration and reason. Not "faith" = supsend all forms of empirical logic and accept any answer I so chose to give you, because I say so as I've used the word "faith" you have to believe me.


I was not giving you a rational argument. You want one of those? Read some of the theologians, St. Aquinas had 4 or 5 or so.


My argument still remains strong for the sake of deducing something logically the pink elephant or flying spaghetti monster hold all of the same status/power as your god in my eyes, or in my "faith", therefore the argument can be applied. If you really want to have something to sink your teeth into, what then of other religious deities?


All that really is doing is ascribing an absurd title and image to G-d. And saying "Wow! Isn't that silly? I can't take Him seriously now! Look what I've done!" That's not much of an argument. I don't look at the Sunday comics and read about Bush and assume the lampooning is true. That a caricature of Bush is the real thing. Do you?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Proof for the existence of God [Thread Closed]