Proofs for the Existence of God (Updated)

[swarm]

How could it know that "You" were also the platelets and red blood cells floating past (with very different markers), the source of a change in glucose levels and a macrophage bearing down on it?

The same way my macrophages know what is officially part of me and what is invasive substance. Markers, different or otherwise, they are still recognizable.

Actually I'm a panentheist!

So all you have to do is drop the superstitiousness and you're home free.
Seriously, why even bother positing a "god" which adds nothing?

There is equally no need to step beyond a sequence of notes to hear a tune.

Nothing about tunes, notes or music requires anything supernatural.

accurate? Accurate about what?

Describing the thing in question.

Everything we describe is a concept.

While everything we describe uses a concept, not every concept actually describes something. The concepts which do describe something can be accurate in how they describe that something. The concepts which don't can't. God as a concept doesn't describe something and isn't therefor accurate as a description.

P4. God is 'Being'.

OK, first. Since "God is 'Being'" is not manifestly obvious and accepted you can't make the assertion and have it fly unsupported.

Also, you are trying too hard to get the word into play and in doing so are defining god out of existence as anything, per se.

While "god" as just the class of "beings" is a pretty non standard definition, moving it from an undefined concept to one which we both know what it is and one which is just a simple collection without any innate collective nature seems futile at best.

You might as well say god is marbles. In addition to engendering a colossal "so what?" one is left wondering why add this burdensome extra term which adds nothing to the concepts already in play?

God is piles of stuff...surely you can do better?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

The same way my macrophages know what is officially part of me and what is invasive substance. Markers, different or otherwise, they are still recognizable.

Only if you have been 'educated' by prior exposure as to what is 'you' and what is not, as your immune system has. As a humble bacterial visitor, I don't think you will have that information! All you will respond to, are the surface proteins to which you can bind!

To keep to the metaphor, we as individuals may not easily identify ourselves as part of the Whole to which we belong.

So all you have to do is drop the superstitiousness and you're home free.
Seriously, why even bother positing a "god" which adds nothing?

It doesn't add nothing, and there is no superstition involved. It's about our relationship to the whole, not just the parts.

Nothing about tunes, notes or music requires anything supernatural.

True, but irrelevant. The point you are avoiding is that reductive science cannot tell the difference between a work of genius and any other complex sequence of sound frequencies. Science gives a reduced description of the world which avoids any 'meaning'.

While everything we describe uses a concept, not every concept actually describes something. The concepts which do describe something can be accurate in how they describe that something. The concepts which don't can't. God as a concept doesn't describe something and isn't therefor accurate as a description.

"God" is just a label, for that which is beyond concepts. Many people cannot cope with that.

OK, first. Since "God is 'Being'" is not manifestly obvious and accepted you can't make the assertion and have it fly unsupported.

Also, you are trying too hard to get the word into play and in doing so are defining god out of existence as anything, per se.

While "god" as just the class of "beings" is a pretty non standard definition, moving it from an undefined concept to one which we both know what it is and one which is just a simple collection without any innate collective nature seems futile at best.

God as just a class of all beings doesn't really mean much. It is the intuition that lies behind it - of all individual beings being part of something greater that makes it potent - like all your cells being parts of an entity called you.

 

[(Q)]

The following proofs therefore are updated versions of some of the traditional ones, to reflect our modern assumptions. How convincing they are, is left to you to judge!

Proofs? That's a laugh. Where do you come off labeling these proofs?

Ontological Argument
1. God is the Supreme Being.

Well, that wasn't interesting, and it ended right there. What god? Where is this god? You fallaciously make a claim for a being that hasn't even been shown to exist in any way and then assigned it as the "Supreme Being."

It appears you failed miserably from the get go. No need to go on until you demonstrate your claim.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Proofs? That's a laugh. Where do you come off labeling these proofs?

Your brain has obviously been in that jar too long (Q).
These are traditional 'proofs', by people like Tomas Aquinas etc. updated.

Well, that wasn't interesting, and it ended right there. What god? Where is this god? You fallaciously make a claim for a being that hasn't even been shown to exist in any way and then assigned it as the "Supreme Being."

It's a definition (Q). It doesn't pre-suppose anything actually existing. It's standard practice to define your terms - like...

All batchelors are unmarried.
Socrates was a batchelor
Therefore Socrates was unmarried.

It appears you failed miserably from the get go. No need to go on until you demonstrate your claim.

No, I think you just had a failure of comprehension.... never mind.

 

[(Q)]

Your brain has obviously been in that jar too long (Q).
These are traditional 'proofs', by people like Tomas Aquinas etc. updated.

Clearly, you don't know what a 'proof' is, I direct you to the nearest dictionary for clarity and retraction of your statement.

It's a definition (Q). It doesn't pre-suppose anything actually existing. It's standard practice to define your terms - like...

No, it automatically assumes your god exists. Since there is no evidence whatsoever or any observations you can provide, you cannot define your god as anything other than "undefined concept."

Based on your logic, I can also "define" a purple fire-breathing dragon as the Supreme Being. It's just as nonsensical as your definition.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Clearly, you don't know what a 'proof' is, I direct you to the nearest dictionary for clarity and retraction of your statement.

<Deep sigh>
Perhaps this will help... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

No, it automatically assumes your god exists. Since there is no evidence whatsoever or any observations you can provide, you cannot define your god as anything other than "undefined concept.

Based on your logic, I can also "define" a purple fire-breathing dragon as the Supreme Being. It's just as nonsensical as your definition.

<Even deeper sigh>
My definition?

From Collins Essential English Dictionary (online at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/God )
God (Noun)
the sole Supreme Being, Creator and ruler of all, in religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam

The argument would work just fine of course if you defined God as the "Supreme Purple Fire-Breathing Dragon", of which all purple fire eating dragons were a manifestation. You might find it hard to demonstrate that a single example existed later on in the argument. However, that's not a problem with the definition.

I understand your annoyance, but perhaps you should choose your arguments more carefully next time!

 

[(Q)]

<Deep sigh>
Perhaps this will help... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God


<Even deeper sigh>

<Banging head on wall> See definition in your dictionary regarding proofs and then you can retract your statement. Thanks muchly. Thanks for the link, did you miss this part below?

"Each of the following arguments aims at showing either that a particular subset of gods do not exist (by showing them as inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts) or that there is insufficient reason to believe in them."

My definition?

You conveniently forgot the rest of the definitions for god and you'll notice the mostly have little to do with your particular god.

"2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7. (lowercase) any deified person or object."

The argument would work just fine of course if you defined God as the "Supreme Purple Fire-Breathing Dragon", of which all purple fire eating dragons were a manifestation. You might find it hard to demonstrate that a single example existed later on in the argument. However, that's not a problem with the definition.

I find it just as easy to demonstrate purple fire-breathing dragons exist just as much as you can demonstrate your god exists. You'll find that it is indeed a huge problem, for you, of course, since you are the one making the claims.

I understand your annoyance, but perhaps you should choose your arguments more carefully next time!

It's far more than an annoyance, it is an abomination to the intellect to read such insulting nonsense from another human being. Perhaps, if you actually had a claim worthy of argument rather than you just making nonsense up as you go along.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

The Mythological Argument: Ancient people made their own gods and modern people don't. Since ancient man was wrong and modern man is right then God is real.

*************
M*W: Point made. Modern people make their own gods too. Ultimately, religion is simply an addiction. Every age has its idol worship.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

<Banging head on wall> See definition in your dictionary regarding proofs and then you can retract your statement.

Keep banging (Q) - it works with the telly!

Thanks muchly. Thanks for the link, did you miss this part below? "Each of the following arguments aims at showing either that a particular subset of gods do not exist (by showing them as inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts) or that there is insufficient reason to believe in them."

No, I'm fine that there's also a whole other set of 'proofs' of the non-existence of God. I just thought the 'existence' proofs needed updating.

You conveniently forgot the rest of the definitions for god and you'll notice the mostly have little to do with your particular god.

It doesn't have to be an exhaustive list of every possible definition - for the purpose of the argument! Just one normally suffices!

I find it just as easy to demonstrate purple fire-breathing dragons exist just as much as you can demonstrate your god exists. You'll find that it is indeed a huge problem, for you, of course, since you are the one making the claims.

Not a problem! The demonstration is in the proof.

It's far more than an annoyance, it is an abomination to the intellect to read such insulting nonsense from another human being. Perhaps, if you actually had a claim worthy of argument rather than you just making nonsense up as you go along.

Argument by insult. It's not very intelligent (Q)! Try engaging with it and say WHY it's insulting nonsense. that's what clever people do.

 

[swarm]

Only if you have been 'educated' by prior exposure as to what is 'you' and what is not, as your immune system has.

Since we are a large colony of cloned cells, that is usually not a problem.

As a humble bacterial visitor, I don't think you will have that information!

I think you are underestimating bacterial sophistication.

we as individuals may not easily identify ourselves as part of the Whole to which we belong.

We seem to do ok with families, formal and informal social groups, political groups and other actual organizations.

It's about our relationship to the whole, not just the parts.

You still have yet to so any whole which is not just an arbitrary designation of parts. Your claim so far is empty. Once you get started on that there is stillt he issue of whether or not some arbitrary grouping of beings is a god. Most you godders want god top have preceded us.

True, but irrelevant.

Since you are using it to try and imply the supernatural, I would say it is highly relevant and damning.

The point you are avoiding is that reductive science cannot tell the difference between a work of genius and any other complex sequence of sound frequencies.

That is just not true. Antd what's this "reductive science" strawman anyway?

"God" is just a label, for that which is beyond concepts.

Your god seems to be on a diet, it keeps getting thinner and thinner.

Now we are so vague I have to wonder how you think you know this since it is "beyond concepts?" That sounds like the pure brown stuff.

all individual beings being part of something greater that makes it potent - like all your cells being parts of an entity called you.

Sure, its called an ecosystem.