Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).

Gawdzilla Sama

Gawdzilla Sama

Valued Senior Member
Faith is not a response to that, it's a dodge. We've had several thousand years for such proof to be found and so far, nada.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
And that's THEIR problem. I've never cashed a check backed by "faith".
Click to expand...
The word faith means trust. The Latin word credit means believer. Have you ever used that? Credentials, credible, creed, credo, accreditation, discredit, incredible, incredulous. You ever cash a check back with "science," which means knowledge? If you don't know anything about god or gods I can't prove anything to you about it because you already think you know it. From the Latin scientia meaning knowledge, awareness. Your estimation of faith isn't very scientific, is it.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Faith is not a response to that, it's a dodge. We've had several thousand years for such proof to be found and so far, nada.
Click to expand...
If faith is not a response neither is proof. Proof is defined as "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." Truth is defined as "a fact or belief that is accepted as true." There is more faith than proof for or against God. But first you have to define what a god is. I can do that, in fact if memory serves, I have done that here, but it remains problematic due to preconceived biases and ignorance of the fundamentalist military atheistic paradigm.
 
DLH said:
The word faith means trust. The Latin word credit means believer. Have you ever used that? Credentials, credible, creed, credo, accreditation, discredit, incredible, incredulous. You ever cash a check back with "science," which means knowledge? If you don't know anything about god or gods I can't prove anything to you about it because you already think you know it. From the Latin scientia meaning knowledge, awareness. Your estimation of faith isn't very scientific, is it.
Click to expand...
Your estimation of "proof" is laughable.
 
DLH said:
If faith is not a response neither is proof. Proof is defined as "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." Truth is defined as "a fact or belief that is accepted as true." There is more faith than proof for or against God. But first you have to define what a god is. I can do that, in fact if memory serves, I have done that here, but it remains problematic due to preconceived biases and ignorance of the fundamentalist military atheistic paradigm.
Click to expand...
Like I said.
 
If we follow the tradition of natural theology and simply define God is as whatever the answer is to a set of seemingly ultimate metaphysical questions (first cause, source of cosmic order, ground of being etc.) and if we accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason as a premise, then it's trivial to construct a logical proof of the existence of God.

1. The universe exists. (seemingly self-evident)

2. For every x, if x exists, then a sufficient reason exists for why x exists (Principle of Sufficient Reason.)

3. God is the universe's sufficient reason (it's how natural theology defines their concept of 'God')

4. A sufficient reason for the universe exists (from 1 and 2)

5. God exists (from 3 and 4)
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Saturday Morning Logic. 3. is a bald assertion.
Click to expand...
The truth of the conclusion in any logical proof is dependent on the truth of its premises.

In this case, the truth of 5. is a logical function of the truth of 1., 2. and 3.

Nevertheless, it's a proof, which is what you demanded.

3. would seem to be true simply by definition, descriptively from how natural theology uses the word 'God'.

I think that 2. is arguably the most questionable premise.

But the practice of science seems to assume it. If a physical observation is made, science doesn't just accept the observation as a given (as your dog might). For science, reality isn't just a succession of random, inexplicable events. Science looks for explanations, for accounts for why observations are as they appear to be.

If a bird is observed to fly, scientists don't just say "It's simply the nature of birds to fly". Scientists want to know how birds do it, in terms of what appear to them to be more fundamental principles.
 
Last edited:
"3. would seem to be true simply by definition, descriptively from how natural theology uses the word 'God'."

NOT a proof.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
"3. would seem to be true simply by definition, descriptively from how natural theology uses the word 'God'."

NOT a proof.
Click to expand...
3. is just a clarification of how natural theology has used the word 'God' since the time of the ancient Greeks.

It only becomes a proof in conjunction with 1. and 2.

It's saying that if we accept the existence of reality as a whole, and if we accept the principle of sufficient reason, then if we define 'God' in that traditional way as the ultimate explanation for all that is, then it's trivial to prove that God (defined in that particular way) exists.
 
DLH said:
No, like you didn't say. A god is anything or anyone that is venerated. There are as many gods as there are stars, metaphorically speaking, and a god doesn't have to literally exist to be a god anyway. Frodo Baggins, for example, Amaterasu the Shinto goddess.
Click to expand...
Congrats on the dumbing-down win. My cats are gods. Just ask them.
 
exchemist said:
I don’t think any religious person imagines they can “prove” their beliefs. We can’t even prove the theories of science, let alone religious ideas.
Click to expand...
No but we can falsify them or test them in different ways. We cannot do that with gods but we can look at claims made in scripture then pitch those against what we know about the universe now.
So if we look at a six day creation, the order of that creation, a "firmament," a first couple in Adam and Eve, a global flood, an Exodus have all been proven to be completely false.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Congrats on the dumbing-down win. My cats are gods. Just ask them.
Click to expand...
The Hebrew word El (God) and variations like the plural Elohim, comes from a root word meaning "mighty; strong one." The English word God means to pour, libate. The English word was used by pagans before the Christian missionaries adopted it due to its association with sacrifice, lofty height. They sacrificed by pouring (libate) to their sky gods. So, the creator of the universe (heavens and earth) wasn't a god until there were other beings to attribute to him a might greater than their own. If no one worshipped anything or anyone there would be no gods. In the Bible Moses, the judges, Jesus, Satan, Jehovah, Dagon, Molech, Baal, etc. were called gods. Paul said one's own belly were some people's gods.

Eric Clapton is a God, Frodo, Kim Jong-un. The Roman phallic symbol the cross is a god. I've just proved gods to you. You are just too ignorant to accept or acknowledge that. Your cats could be your gods if you worship (venerate, respect) them more than anything else. For example, if they saved you from a house fire or you were impressed with their ability to lick their own assholes.
 
DLH said:
Eric Clapton is a God, Frodo, Kim Jong-un. The Roman phallic symbol the cross is a god. I've just proved gods to you.
Click to expand...
We are talking about creator gods wrt our world religions. That is what I assume from the thread.
I don't think anyone would disagree that Buddy Rich is a god.
 
Yazata said:
If we follow the tradition of natural theology and simply define God is as whatever the answer is to a set of seemingly ultimate metaphysical questions (first cause, source of cosmic order, ground of being etc.) and if we accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason as a premise, then it's trivial to construct a logical proof of the existence of God.

1. The universe exists. (seemingly self-evident)

2. For every x, if x exists, then a sufficient reason exists for why x exists (Principle of Sufficient Reason.)

3. God is the universe's sufficient reason (it's how natural theology defines their concept of 'God')

4. A sufficient reason for the universe exists (from 1 and 2)

5. God exists (from 3 and 4)
Click to expand...

Yah, there is "proof" as in what falls of out some formal game of symbol or concept manipulation (according to strict rules and meanings) that doesn't have to have anything to do with the empirical world.[1]

"Universe" as a floating idea can be defined in an abstract manner, "God" as a floating idea can defined in an abstract manner, etc -- just be consistent at maintaining the pre-established properties slash identities of the applicable concepts and values throughout the formulaic process.

Presumably "proof" in this thread is more along the line of "any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something", or "facts" that are tangible as possible rather than descriptive.

But even "evidence" like the physical presence of a god and a display of its powers always has the possibility of being bogus.

God might be super-advanced space alien stuff rather than the supernatural (i.e., something from outside the universe simulation). Akin to Lovecraft's "Great Old Ones" who were extraterrestrial in origin rather than like the traditional Platonism-modified Abrahamic deity. Pagan and Greco-Roman gods (as understood by their worshipers) may have been full-time corporeal beings -- not avatars of immaterial entities, and thereby ironically in the same camp as Lovecraftian deities like Cthulhu.

- - - footnote - - -

[1] Stephen J. Gould: Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. --Evolution as Fact and Theory ... "Discover", May 1981
_
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top