Proof there is a God

Spellbound said:
:) Then you can do better? :biggrin:
Click to expand...
Since I have no interest in "proving god exists" I fail to see why I should bother.
The point is - and you've been told this before (with appropriate supporting links to Langan's own statements) - that the CTMU starts with the assumption that "god" exists. Therefore it's a circular - and thus invalid - argument.
 
Spellbound said:
Reading this made me cry tears of gratitude...

http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe

I felt something that cannot be described.
Click to expand...

Can you explain Langan's "proof" of the existence of God? Can you lay it out, step by step, without any of the incomprehensible pseudo-"mathematical" gibberish? Can you explain what each statement means and what justifies belief in its truth? Can you explain how each step follows logically from what preceeded it?

I don't believe that you can.

If you don't understand it yourself, then my impression is that you are embracing it simply on faith, because Langan's conclusions seem to you to correspond to your own supposed personal mystical revelation.

That may be totally convincing to you, but it does nothing to convince anyone else.
 
Yazata said:
Can you explain Langan's "proof" of the existence of God? Can you lay it out, step by step, without any of the incomprehensible pseudo-"mathematical" gibberish? Can you explain what each statement means and what justifies belief in its truth? Can you explain how each step follows logically from what preceeded it?

I don't believe that you can.

If you don't understand it yourself, then my impression is that you are embracing it simply on faith, because Langan's conclusions seem to you to correspond to your own supposed personal mystical revelation.

That may be totally convincing to you, but it does nothing to convince anyone else.
Click to expand...


My whole existence is dedicated to proving the unseen. See my recent "reality" thread and read Langan's "Teleological Evolution" to see the link.
 
Yazata said:
Can you explain Langan's "proof" of the existence of God? Can you lay it out, step by step, without any of the incomprehensible pseudo-"mathematical" gibberish? Can you explain what each statement means and what justifies belief in its truth? Can you explain how each step follows logically from what preceeded it?

I don't believe that you can.

If you don't understand it yourself, then my impression is that you are embracing it simply on faith, because Langan's conclusions seem to you to correspond to your own supposed personal mystical revelation.

That may be totally convincing to you, but it does nothing to convince anyone else.
Click to expand...
The answer is obviously no he can't.
 
Spellbound said:
And yet I sit here totally confident that the G.O.D. is real.
Click to expand...
Confidence doesn't count.
Many people throughout out history (and even today) have been entirely confident while still being completely wrong.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Confidence doesn't count.
Many people throughout out history (and even today) have been entirely confident while still being completely wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree. I've personally seen the evidence for God.

Hundreds of my threads are dedicated to proving it.
 
Spellbound said:
I agree. I've personally seen the evidence for God.
Hundreds of my threads are dedicated to proving it.
Click to expand...
But, since you cannot provide this "evidence" for anyone else, it's purely subjective. And thus not exactly evidence per se.
Which makes your "proofs" not proof at all.
 
AlexG said:
And Fat Freddy is totally confident that all the moon landings are hoaxes.
I can't decide who's more delusional.
Click to expand...

Certainly not I. Not only have I seen God, I've felt Him. At least 10 times.

You do not know anything about God. Nor have you experienced Him.
 
Spellbound said:
Certainly not I. Not only have I seen God, I've felt Him. At least 10 times.
Click to expand...
Well that definitely establishes FF as the more rational one. Boy that's a really low standard you fail to meet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top