Proof of the existence of God

[Sarkus]

A universe that is caused by God, does not necessarily mean God has to be factually apparent, it is obviously not designed for that.

Then you're not answering his thought experiment: "Imagine a world in which it is a fact that there is no God"
How are we to judge what is a fact without it being factually apparent?

Again it requires comprehension of who and what God is, to gain any insight into whether or not God caused the universe, or whether He even exists. Science alone cannot do that, unless the definition of God is changed to suit it's conclusions.

If you are anything to go by it simply requires circular reasoning and an inability to recognise it.

How would you discern that the laws of physics aren't that way because of God' will?

FFS! Because in the thought experiment it is "a world in which it is a fact that there is no God"!
Outside of the experiment, you can't. You must rely on your ability to think rationally to inform your worldview.

You assume that they are the way they are simply because of your worldview, and have scientific basis in them, any than someone who believes that God caused them to be the way the are. You are simply using science to back your worldview, a view that does accept not God.

I simply don't start with the a priori assumption that God exists. As and when I need to make that assumption, I will do so. But not until then, not while there is simply no need to.

It's not a red-herring, Sarkus. Get over it.

Wow - thanks for that insightful rebuttal.

''Initial cause'' differs from ''original cause''.
You'd be a natural at neurolinguistic programming.

First, they have overlapping meanings that are synonymous, and secondly it is irrelevant what definition is being used as long as it is the same. And it is. So enough with the red-herring, please.

Do you follow me so far...

So you admit that you have claimed, albeit implicitly, that God exists? And in doing so you accept that this admission is contrary to your previous denials?

So with this understanding of God (which Seattle mentioned), I cannot get passed the notion that if God is origin of this universe, then if God does not exist, His effects do not exist. Human beings, being one of those, leads me to the conclusion that if God does not exist in this imaginary world, then nothing can exist.

Which is all because you have this a priori assumption of God's existence; hence the circular reasoning.
It's not rocket science, Jan.

If I relax the notion of God's attributes, and imagine a world where God doesn't have them. It becomes a pointless exercise, pretty much like celestial dancing iron boards. Because I'm not imagining God as He is defined, but as I define Him.

It's not a matter of imagining a world where God doesn't have the attributes you have defined, but in imagining a world where God HAS the attributes you have defined but simply DOES NOT EXIST. I.e. imagine God is a fiction.
Are you incapable of doing that? Are you incapable of imagining anything as a fiction? Well, yes, you are, because you clearly don't imagine you use logical fallacies in your arguments.

 

[Jan Ardena]

There is no issue - it is a thought experiment.
Let me remind you of it: "Imagine a world in which it is a fact that there is no God. Now look at our world and it looks the same as that world you just imagined."

The conclusion shows that it is not just a thought experiment. It assumes that God does not exist, and the conclusion is the same as the premise (fallacy). It appears that his summary is a trojan horse, bursting to the rafters with atheism.

Noone has established that God does not exist; it is a question of whether you can imagine it or not.

Firstly, his conclusion attempts to establish that God does not exist, and his premise, by default, is God does not exist.
How is it possible to imagine that it is a fact that God does not exist, to the point that you are able to visualize it, without having some idea of what God is? And if you have some idea of what God is, then how can you take your own existence out of the equation, unless you accept that God does not exist is already a fact. Lastly how could it be factually known that God does not exist? What would be the criteria?

It's not possible, and I don't conclude the non-existence of God. Nor has the comment to which you responded with your circular argument.

Not true. He basically equated the two positions and concluded that the world where it is a fact there is no God, is the world we live in today. In other words, the reality is God does not exist, because if He did the world would look differently today.
It's a backdoor way of asserting God does not exist.

...''JBrendonK, Imagine a world in which it is a fact that there is no God. Now look at our world and it looks the same as that world you just imagined.
Imagine a world in which it is a fact that there is a God. That world would look nothing like our world.
If nothing else, it should show you that your statement is merely aCLAIM.

I have laid out the circularity of your reasoning, numerous times, and I find it insulting for you to dismiss it without reference to the content. Your dismissal of it thus appears unwarranted and unsupported.

You find it insulting? Well excuse me for being alive your snootiness.
I have explained to you numerous times the reason why your little logical flurry with my reasoning doesn't apply to it.
You're way off the mark, and the more frustrated you get, further you fly away.
Change the record, use your logic in discussion to illuminate my so called illogic, because your equation are completely wrong. That is a fact.

Well done. Now then, if God is fictional (the way Superman is fictional), then without using an a priori assumption that God exists as anything other than as a fiction, what would the world around you look like?

Already covered this. Superman's attribute would still be in effect, in any discussion. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing Superman. It is the same with God. An imaginary world where God exists, is still a world with the attributes of God. Do you comprehend this, or do you still require me to break it down more?

It is irrelevant whose perspective it is.

No it's not irrelevant. Because if a theist had tried that kind of backdoor propaganda, on this site, he/she would have been called out on it. I've seen it done numerous times. The fact is this indoctrination is purely an atheist perspective.

And you could only respond with a logically fallacious argument, as explained seemingly ad infinitum. Had you started "I believe God exists so am unable to imagine a world without God..." then we would at least know your limitations and this whole debacle could have ended early.

I didn't present an argument, I simply shed light on his comprehension of God.
I accept that he believes that God doesn't exist. I'm done with arguing the existence or non existence of God.

He didn't start with that conclusion. It started with a simple thought experiment - to imagine what the world would look like if God does not exist / was not real / is a fiction / etc. Where is the conclusion that God is a fictional character in that?

It appeared that way, until he wrote his conclusion.
You can't imagine God, without imagining His character, ability, and attributes. He completely missed that part.
It's like saying ''imagine a race in which Usain Bolt loses. It has no relevance unless you have some idea of who Usain Bolt is.
In that way it is easy. But if I don't know who he is, and I just imagine anyone losing a race, and call that person Usain Bolt, it is like I said, a pointless exercise.

The conclusion that the world would be the same? It is simple logic: when two competing theories lead to the same result, it is not possible to conclude which theory is correct by reference to the result.

This is where you keep going wrong. God isn't just a theory, God is the original cause everything, if you read up about Him (note I'm not claiming that as fact)
That means He operates outside, as well as inside the material world. So to get a whole understanding of God, you have to accept that. If you don't, then you'll have a poor fund of knowledge on the subject matter, and get frustrated every time some easily defeats you in argument.

The "result" is this world. The competing theories are "God exists and is the cause of all", and "God does not exist, and something else led to this exact same result".

They're not really competing theories, because science can only claim what is fact, as fact. Unless someone was at time when all this came into being, it is only guesswork. IMO, the scientific method cannot know the truth of how the universe got started, without speculation. So what we have is either God is the source, nature is the source, or there is no source, and the last two are fundamentally absurd (not so much the last one). It boils down to what you are prepared to accept.

By reference to the result we can thus not conclude which theory is correct. Anyone who does can only do so through circular reasoning from their a priori assumption of existence or non-existence of God.

The notion of God is beyond science, and people only regard it as a competing theory when they try to prove God' existence using science. One does not need modern science to decide whether or not they believe God exists, but one may base their atheism on modern science. Ultimately it all boils down to what we can, and/or prepared to accept.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Then you're not answering his thought experiment: "Imagine a world in which it is a fact that there is no God"
How are we to judge what is a fact without it being factually apparent?

See my Usain Bolt analogy.

If you are anything to go by it simply requires circular reasoning and an inability to recognise it.

You're being willfully ignorant again.

FFS! Because in the thought experiment it is "a world in which it is a fact that there is no God"!
Outside of the experiment, you can't. You must rely on your ability to think rationally to inform your worldview.

So why didn't he stipulate that when we imagine God, we mustn't associate Him with any of His attributes?
He asked us to imagine a world where it is a fact that God does not exist. How can that be if God is the cause of us? Are we supposed to pretend that God isn't the cause of us? Then how can we imagine God without that attribute? It is basis of our belief and non belief.

First, they have overlapping meanings that are synonymous, and secondly it is irrelevant what definition is being used as long as it is the same. And it is. So enough with the red-herring, please.

Maybe so, but that is not the word I used. So you are misquoting me, something you do all the time, and then somewhere down the line I realise you've been arguing from your own misunderstanding of my points because you misquoted me.

A) Imagination exists claimed fact). Heck, let's just agree that it is a fact.
B) A world where imagination exists is a world with God claimed fact). This is you claiming something as true - i.e. claiming something as fact
From A and B: God exists claimed fact).
The logic is inescapable. Deal with it.

A is correct, but B is a non-sequitor.
Imagination is linked to our existence. No existence, no imgination.
The trojan horse instruction asked us to imagine ''God'' not existing, not just anyone.
Without God, there is no existence.
If I imagine God, I can only do so based on what I understand of God. It is clearly the same with you and Seattle.
Like I said, we approach God from our personal pov.

Which is all because you have this a priori assumption of God's existence; hence the circular reasoning.
It's not rocket science, Jan.

I know about the character and attributes of God (at least some of them). He asked me to imagine God as not existing. What? Do you want me to abandon what I comprehend about God, and just pretend God can be anything we want Him to be. Is that what you do?

It's not a matter of imagining a world where God doesn't have the attributes you have defined, but in imagining a world where God HAS the attributes you have defined but simply DOES NOT EXIST.

Imagine a world where it is a fact that air does not exist? I can't, because I wouldn't exist, unless you added imagine that you do not need air to breath. Then that's a whole different ball game. We would be no longer talking about air. Personally I have no time for that kind of speculation.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Then we should assume nothing until circumstances teach us otherwise. Circumstances have not yet taught us otherwise.

You mean they have not taught you as yet. Don't you?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

You mean they have not taught you as yet. Don't you?

jan.

No because valid arguments should be universal. Otherwise it might be termed special pleading (I'm special because I have knowledge you can't have).

 

[Jan Ardena]

From a baby`s perspective, there`s no such thing as a creator.

Because in reality there is no need to know. The baby simply accepts.
In time the baby comes to know that things are created, and begins to be able to discriminate between that which is created, and that which is not created.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No because valid arguments should be universal. Otherwise it might be termed special pleading (I'm special because I have knowledge you can't have).

Truth doesn't require a valid explanation. It is entirely possible that someone has had direct experience with God, and knows the truth, unless you have a reason to doubt it.
The reality is, truth can only be known fully through experience, and experience just happens.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Double.

 

[spidergoat]

Truth doesn't require a valid explanation. It is entirely possible that someone has had direct experience with God, and knows the truth, unless you have a reason to doubt it.
The reality is, truth can only be known fully through experience, and experience just happens.

jan.

How can that person be sure it was God they experienced, and nothing else could be responsible for that experience? Belief doesn't require valid explanation, obviously, but the standard for objective truth is higher.

 

[Jan Ardena]

How can that person be sure it was God they experienced, and nothing else could be responsible for that experience? Belief doesn't require valid explanation, obviously, but the standard for objective truth is higher.

If you experience God, then you know.
If you say you experience God, but you really haven't. Then you're lying to yourself.
My point is if you have the experience, then you have it. It doesn't matter if you're the only one who knows.

jan.

 

[Daecon]

Which God?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Which God?

I don't know you'd have to ask that individual.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

If you experience God, then you know.
If you say you experience God, but you really haven't. Then you're lying to yourself.
My point is if you have the experience, then you have it. It doesn't matter if you're the only one who knows.

jan.

How do you know if you experience God? What characterizes the experience such that doubt is removed?

 

[Jan Ardena]

How do you know if you experience God? What characterizes the experience such that doubt is removed?

How is it possible to know anything beyond doubt?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

How is it possible to know anything beyond doubt?

jan.

You could be omniscient.

So, only a God could know another God?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You could be omniscient.

So, only a God could know another God?

You don't think it is possible for a human to know something beyond doubt?

jan.

 

[Daecon]

I don't know you'd have to ask that individual.

jan.

Well I'm asking YOU.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well I'm asking YOU.

Can't you read?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

The conclusion shows that it is not just a thought experiment. It assumes that God does not exist, and the conclusion is the same as the premise (fallacy). It appears that his summary is a trojan horse, bursting to the rafters with atheism.

So you recognise that the thought experiments leads to the conclusion that is circular depending upon the a priori assumption one takes! This was the purpose of the thought experiment, to show how such circular arguments that use such a priori assumptions lead to the conclusion of the truth of the assumption! You recognise it in the counter example presented as a thought experiment yet you fail to see it in your own argument! Are you being deliberately dishonest, Jan? Perhaps you really are that blinkered and simply incapable of comprehending it.

Firstly, his conclusion attempts to establish that God does not exist, and his premise, by default, is God does not exist.

Well done, you have spotted the circular argument he employed. My bet is that you don't see how it mirrors your own. You conclude that God does exist and your premise is that God does exist. Go figure.
Are you now going to claim that his argument is circular while yours is not, or, having identified the deliberately circular argument (presented as a thought experiment) are you yet ready to acknowledge the same in your own?

How is it possible to imagine that it is a fact that God does not exist, to the point that you are able to visualize it, without having some idea of what God is?

Because it doesn't ultimately matter what God is if the purpose is to imagine that it does not exist. One only struggles if one starts with the a priori assumption of God's existence. And not all of them struggle. Yet you do.

And if you have some idea of what God is, then how can you take your own existence out of the equation, unless you accept that God does not exist is already a fact.

You don't have to accept that God does not exist - you simply don't start with an a priori assumption. Try it one day.

Lastly how could it be factually known that God does not exist? What would be the criteria?

Irrelevant to the thought experiment that merely asks to you accept that it is factually known.
All your questions simply appear to be to obfuscate, delay, deflect and avoid answering the question in a manner that is logical.

Not true. He basically equated the two positions and concluded that the world where it is a fact there is no God, is the world we live in today.

No, he said that if it is a fact that God does not exist then the world would be as it is today. He did not conclude that since this is the world we live in today then therefore there is no God. That is your misunderstanding.
He has effectively said "If P then Q". You have taken him to also be arguing "Q, therefore P". This is a fallacy on your part, assuming that he is affirming the consequent (modus ponens).

In other words, the reality is God does not exist, because if He did the world would look differently today.
It's a backdoor way of asserting God does not exist.

Only if you interpret it with bias, make unwarranted assumptions and thus jump to incorrect conclusions.
For example, here you are erroneously assuming he is arguing "If P then Q; not Q therefore not P" (affirming the consequent - modus tollens).

You find it insulting? Well excuse me for being alive your snootiness.

It's called having manners, Jan. That's all.

I have explained to you numerous times the reason why your little logical flurry with my reasoning doesn't apply to it.
You're way off the mark, and the more frustrated you get, further you fly away.
Change the record, use your logic in discussion to illuminate my so called illogic, because your equation are completely wrong. That is a fact.

The only frustrating thing (other than your inability to argue logically) is your constant inability to say anything more than "you're wrong" (or equivalent) with no explanation of why. Care to do so?

Already covered this. Superman's attribute would still be in effect, in any discussion. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing Superman. It is the same with God. An imaginary world where God exists, is still a world with the attributes of God. Do you comprehend this, or do you still require me to break it down more?

I didn't ask about an imaginary world where God exists. I asked you to imagine a world where God does NOT exist. Are you so keen to avoid answering that you'd rather make up your own questions?

No it's not irrelevant. Because if a theist had tried that kind of backdoor propaganda, on this site, he/she would have been called out on it. I've seen it done numerous times. The fact is this indoctrination is purely an atheist perspective.

Yet more evasion, and the more you realise you have nowhere to run on the subject the more you have to raise such ridiculous appeals using emotive language.

I didn't present an argument, I simply shed light on his comprehension of God.

By presenting an argument. A fallacious one, but an argument nonetheless.

I accept that he believes that God doesn't exist. I'm done with arguing the existence or non existence of God.

Bye, then.

It appeared that way, until he wrote his conclusion.
You can't imagine God, without imagining His character, ability, and attributes. He completely missed that part.

Yet it is simple to imagine something that doesn't exist. Why do you struggle with that?

It's like saying ''imagine a race in which Usain Bolt loses. It has no relevance unless you have some idea of who Usain Bolt is.
In that way it is easy. But if I don't know who he is, and I just imagine anyone losing a race, and call that person Usain Bolt, it is like I said, a pointless exercise.

Okay - let's use the name Jack Todd. I give him the attribute of world's fastest man. Now imagine someone else winning the race.
Instead I give him the attribute of world's fattest man. Now imagine someone else winning the race.
I give him the attribute of world's shortest man... or bald... or wearing glasses. Still struggling to see someone else winning the race? No, I suspect you're not. It ultimately doesn't matter what his attribute is if you're being asked to imagine someone else winning the race.
Thus it is with imagining something not existing... simple... irrespective of what attributes that thing might be adorned with. Still struggling?

This is where you keep going wrong. God isn't just a theory, God is the original cause everything, if you read up about Him (note I'm not claiming that as fact)
That means He operates outside, as well as inside the material world. So to get a whole understanding of God, you have to accept that. If you don't, then you'll have a poor fund of knowledge on the subject matter, and get frustrated every time some easily defeats you in argument.

And now we come back to the cycle of believing to believe!
It is quite simple, Jan, that your belief precludes you from contemplating, imagining, even for a simple thought experiment, the non-existence of God.
You are a believer, but seemingly a blinkered one, lacking the intellectual capacity (or maybe just honesty) to consider thought experiments for their intended purpose. This entire waste of time in this thread has adequately demonstrated that.

They're not really competing theories, because science can only claim what is fact, as fact. Unless someone was at time when all this came into being, it is only guesswork. IMO, the scientific method cannot know the truth of how the universe got started, without speculation. So what we have is either God is the source, nature is the source, or there is no source, and the last two are fundamentally absurd (not so much the last one). It boils down to what you are prepared to accept.

Right, who had Argument from Personal Incredulity on their Jan Fallacy Bingo card? And I wasn't referring to them being a scientific theory - but rather theory in the colloquial sense - as in "notion"; I am fully aware that God is generally considered outside the purview of science.

 

[spidergoat]

You don't think it is possible for a human to know something beyond doubt?

jan.

I think experiences are especially suspect as evidence, but some evidence can be very compelling. For instance, a God relating to you something you could not have known or guessed, that was confirmed by reality. For instance, God explains how a nuclear bomb works, then you build one and it works.

What about this God experience could fall under that category?