There are many 'Proof of God' websites. Some notable ones are:
In addition to siting these sites, I will also site, as rebuttals:
I was drawn to make this post due to the long winded commentary of one of these site's administrators (Proof That God Exists's Sye Ten Bruggencate).
Here, we will take a brief review of the 'staple' arguments of each of these sites.
Proof God Exists and All About Creation are Intelligent Design Websites:
A summation of the intelligent design argument is:
Intelligent design (ID) is an anti-evolution belief that asserts that naturalistic explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by intelligent causes. Essentially that many organisms, including humans and animals, are too complex in nature to have come to be by chance mutation.
This argument's strong points against evolution are two-fold:
They assert that evolution can only make small changes on single components at a time.
They assert that the essential nature and complexity of the design leave no room for randomness or error.
The rebuttal to intelligent design (from the Skeptic):
The multiple parts of complex, interlocking biological systems do not evolve as individual parts. They evolve together, as systems that are gradually expanded, enlarged, and adapted to new purposes.The assertation that the nature and complexity of the design of man would leave no room for randomness or error seem to disintegrate when you consider the presence of the appendix, and the relatively poor designs of the spine, birth canal, and the prostate. (Summation from the Skeptic, multiple contributors)
My Opinion: If God really did design us, we should sue him for poor quality control.
Third Site, Proof that God Exists's Argument (summation):
"To reach this page you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature...Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. We use rational thinking to prove things."
My rebuttal here is simple:
1.) Morals are taught - a trained function. This is not to be confused with instincts which are inherent in virtually all life on this planet. I can teach a dog to attack people on sight, and likewise I can teach a child the same. This has been proven numerous times in psychological analysis.
2.) This argument is simpler to refute. There is no evidence supplied, either on this site or anywhere else to my knowledge to support this assertion that abstract ideas can not exist without God. He makes the assumption of God to explain the known of abstractions existing. There is no additional evidence supplied outside of quotes from the Bible. This is not how theories are proven in the scientific world.
I post this thread here due to the lengthy and cyclic commentary on some earlier posts. In an effort to lay this out succinctly and clearly, I made the entire discussion it's own topic.
*Minor edit on April 1, 2008 to fix formatting
*Minor edit on April 1, 2008 to fix formatting
60 comments:
There's also http://tinyurl.com/34kx99
This argument is simpler to refute.
Then why don't you? How do you account for universal, abstract, unchanging laws according to YOUR worldview?
Cheers,
Sye
"universal, abstract, unchanging laws"
Like? (I'll admit, I've not been here for the whole discussion.)
Are you talking about gravity, stuff like that?
Curious...
sye - "Then why don't you? How do you account for universal, abstract, unchanging laws according to YOUR worldview?"
sye,
I posted the rebuttal in the original topic post. It's in yellow, to draw attention to it.
:)
Sacrilege
Are you talking about gravity, stuff like that?
Any universal, abstract, unchanging law, such as a law of logic. Do you see where Sacrilege has accounted for them in his post? I sure don't. Don't expect a good discussion between me and him here though, we tried that in another thread, and he just locked it so I could no longer respond.
Cheers,
Sye
I locked it because we were going in circles and we were completely off-topic. I made a new post just for this discussion.
Likewise, I addressed your rationale in this post. You say 'Abstract laws can exist because God exists. Abstract laws would be unable to exist without God.' - more or less.
if you read the yellow text, I addressed that. Just because one thing exists, it does not justify the existance of another thing. That would be like saying because dogs exist, there are cats. It does not add up.
Have a nice night, Rob/Sye
I say that universal, abstract laws, such as mathematics, exist because relationships have been identified in the Universe. These relationships in no way justify the existance of God, however.
I hope that clarifies it.
PS: And as you know, I don't believe Morality is even absolute - which I also address in this post.
So...Sye, you're saying that logic only exists because of some deity?
Interesting...
You may have covered this in the other thread/threads you mention, but just for the sake of fun, care to attempt to prove that statement?
If, logically, a "God" exists, and if "He" created things like logic, shouldn't we be able to, logically, prove "His" existence? (This is really starting to sound like a Spock discussion, but I digress).
And just for the sake of curiosity, what are the 'Laws of Logic' (drumroll)
-Sacrilege
Alright, lets recap. I asked you how you account for universal, abstract, invariant laws according to your worldview. You answered: “Just because one thing exists, it does not justify the existance of another thing” and ”I say that universal, abstract laws, such as mathematics, exist because relationships have been identified in the Universe.” Not only does this NOT tell us how abstract laws are possible according to your worldview, it does not even address the point of their universality or invariance. You say that our arguments go in circles, that is simply because I keep asking questions, and you keep aoiding them.
And just for the sake of curiosity, what are the 'Laws of Logic'
Google it.
Cheers,
Sye
You may have covered this in the other thread/threads you mention, but just for the sake of fun, care to attempt to prove that statement?
God is universal, not made of matter, and He does not change. I am saying that universal, abstract, invariants, such as the laws of logic are accounted for in the nature of God, and nowhere else. The existence of God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. If God did not exist, there would be no justification for the very reasoning we would use to prove, or disprove ANYTHING, such as His existence. That is why I am asking Sacrilege to tell me how he accounts for universal, abstract, invariants accordig to his worldview - he can’t. He has already admitted in another thread that he cannot know anything according to his worldview, so his 'justification' for logic would be interesting if it ever came.
If, logically, a "God" exists, and if "He" created things like logic, shouldn't we be able to, logically, prove "His" existence?
God did not ‘create’ logic, it is a reflection of His nature. Yes, we can prove the existence of God logically, by the impossibility of the contrary. But, proof does not equal persuasion, that is not my department.
Cheers,
Sye
Not only does this NOT tell us how abstract laws are possible according to your worldview, it does not even address the point of their universality or invariance.
The existance of abstract laws is possible because they identify relationships of physical matter. The association of matter to an abstraction gives it 'substance' or the reference in which to exist.
For example, 1 + 1 = 2 is only true when a person knows what the symbols 1,+,=, and 2 mean. They have assigned a meaning to these symbols in terms of physical items, or 'knowns.' So, in essence, abstract and immaterial laws take substance in the form of the physical examples our brains have used to identify them.
Without these physical examples, the symbols, and the laws they express, mean nothing.
This is how these laws exist in my worldview.
I realise, I should address 'universality' and 'invariance'
For 'invariance':
1.)The entire lifetime of the earth is a blink of an eye in relation to the lifespan of the cosmos. We have no idea what is constant and what isn't on that kind of time line. Calling something 'constant' from this point of view would be like a microbe observing that the sun never sets in his lifetime and saying 'The Sun never sets.' No, it does actually, but his brief glimpse of time is too small to truly observe that.
2.) Just because something does not appear to change really doesn't mean anything. OK, it's not changing - so what? How do you know that some fundamental physical laws of the universe haven't always been? Maybe THEY are eternal! Maybe they aren't. It does not prove anything either way as the changing or unchanging status of the universe doesn't prove anything about god.
About 'universal':
1.) Mankind has accurately observed a miniscule amount about our own galaxy. We haven't even thoroughly explored our own oceans - let alone those of other planets. How do you know what is universal (applying to the whole universe) and what isn't WHEN NO ONE ELSE DOES.
2.) And if these abstract and physical laws are universal, then they are universal. They simply are. They do not require any gods or kings to justify them. They exist because men saw a relationship and gave it a name.
3.) Even if our physical laws ARE universal, how does this prove that God exists? How does the fact that men have seen orderly relationships in the world around them equate to god existing. I argue there is an orderly universe, but no god.
4.) I argue men created gods the same time they started naming these relationships to explain things they did not understand. I argue that gods were invented to explain why the world seemed so cruel and unfair. I argue that gods became the scapegoats of men, they became the place to point the finger of blame - because the idea that random events caused so much strife was too much for superstitious cavemen to grasp.
'Your son died because it was god's plan that he die. You can not know god's plan, as he works in mysterious ways. Don't worry though, he's in a better place.'
It all sounds like an excuse to me. Blame god for your son's death.
The existance of abstract laws is possible because they identify relationships of physical matter. The association of matter to an abstraction gives it 'substance' or the reference in which to exist.
You are attempting to describe what abstractions are, NOT how it is possible that they exist. Where are these abstractions, and where did they come from?
For example, 1 + 1 = 2 is only true when a person knows what the symbols 1,+,=, and 2 mean.
So, if a person does not know that 1 + 1 = 2 it doesn’t????
They have assigned a meaning to these symbols in terms of physical items, or 'knowns.'
How odd, you told me in that other thread that you don’t know anything? How can something be ‘known’ to someone who can’t know anything?
So, in essence, abstract and immaterial laws take substance in the form of the physical examples our brains have used to identify them.
What form of ‘substance’ do these immaterial laws take? Where are they?
Without these physical examples, the symbols, and the laws they express, mean nothing.
How do you know?
For 'invariance':
1.)The entire lifetime of the earth is a blink of an eye in relation to the lifespan of the cosmos. We have no idea what is constant and what isn't on that kind of time line.
Is that timeline true, and if so, is that truth constant?
2.) Just because something does not appear to change really doesn't mean anything. OK, it's not changing - so what? How do you know that some fundamental physical laws of the universe haven't always been?
Hey, you are the one that needs to explain invariance according to your worldview. Wild specualtion amounts to blind faith. What is your account for invariance? You still haven’t provided one.
About 'universal':
1.) Mankind has accurately observed a miniscule amount about our own galaxy. We haven't even thoroughly explored our own oceans - let alone those of other planets. How do you know what is universal (applying to the whole universe) and what isn't WHEN NO ONE ELSE DOES.
I know it through revelation from someone who IS universal, I’m asking how YOU account for universals.
2.) And if these abstract and physical laws are universal, then they are universal. They simply are.
Um, God simply is. How do you like your argument now?
They do not require any gods or kings to justify them. They exist because men saw a relationship and gave it a name.
How can men see universals?
3.) Even if our physical laws ARE universal, how does this prove that God exists?
Any universal proves that God exists, as without Him, we could not justify ANY of them.
How does the fact that men have seen orderly relationships in the world around them equate to god existing. I argue there is an orderly universe, but no god.
And I am asking how you account for an orderly universe apart from God, and on what basis you assume that it will be orderly 5 seconds from now?
I argue that gods were invented to explain why the world seemed so cruel and unfair.
But ‘cruelty’ and ‘unfairness’ assumes an absolute standard, which YOU do not have.
'Your son died because it was god's plan that he die. You can not know god's plan, as he works in mysterious ways. Don't worry though, he's in a better place.'
I think that those words are often misplaced, but tell me, what does an atheist tell the person who has lost a child?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
1.) I answered your questions. The 'nothing can be known' from the previous post was using the nihilist logic you insisted on going into.
I don't believe that. As I have explained now, really, several times.
2.) "Any universal proves that God exists, as without Him, we could not justify ANY of them."
Yes, I can. There are observations in the universe that exist. They are observed relationships in the world around us.
I just justified them without God.
If you're saying they exist because God made them exist, we're done - because you can't prove that nor can I disprove it.
No one can prove - with evidence - why these particular laws are existant in our universe.
And, of course, THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT TO THE POST FAITH-BASED BLOC.
I think that those words are often misplaced, but tell me, what does an atheist tell the person who has lost a child?
I am sorry for your loss.
So, if a person does not know that 1 + 1 = 2 it doesn’t????
Not to them, no. 1 + 1 = 2 is non-sense to them.
God simply is. How do you like your argument now?
I see the relationships that form these laws around me - therefore, they are.
I see them in the fact that when I hold two apples, my brain relates these two objects and calls them 'two.' When I see something, and I know what it is, I recall it's name. When I see something I don't know - I assign it a name. These are the laws you talk about. They exist to relate what I perceive to what I remember. They are utterly perception dependent.
I don't perceive any gods. Therefore, they are not.
1.) I answered your questions. The 'nothing can be known' from the previous post was using the nihilist logic you insisted on going into.
And I have REPEATEDLY asked how it is possible for you to know anything according to YOUR worldview, yet you continue to insist that I am asking how it is possible for you to know anything according to what you SAY is mine.
Yes, I can. There are observations in the universe that exist. They are observed relationships in the world around us.
I just justified them without God.
Perhaps you could tell us then, how it is possible to observe a ‘universal?’
If you're saying they exist because God made them exist, we're done - because you can't prove that nor can I disprove it.
Well, you can’t even account for the concept of ‘proof’ so we were done a long time ago. You are just helping me to show this to whoever happens to read this. Thanks.
No one can prove - with evidence - why these particular laws are existant in our universe.
How do you know? One would have to have universal knowledge to support such a claim, yet another one of your inconsistencies.
Cheers,
Sye
I am sorry for your loss.
Wasn’t your fault.
Not to them, no. 1 + 1 = 2 is non-sense to them.
But does 1 + 1 cease to equal 2?
I see the relationships that form these laws around me - therefore, they are.
I see God in everything around me – therefore He is. How do you like your argument now?
I see them in the fact that when I hold two apples, my brain relates these two objects and calls them 'two.'
And when you eat the apples, does the concept of ‘twoness’ cease to exist?
When I see something, and I know what it is, I recall it's name.
You have yet to account for your ability to know anything according to your worldview.
These are the laws you talk about. They exist to relate what I perceive to what I remember. They are utterly perception dependent.
So if two people perceive the laws of logic differently, then they are both right???
I don't perceive any gods. Therefore, they are not.
That’s just like the kid who pulls his sheets over his head when he is angry at his father and says: ‘I can’t see you, so you don’t exist.’
Cheers,
Sye
But does 1 + 1 cease to equal 2?
Yes, to that person, it does.
I see God in everything around me – therefore He is. How do you like your argument now?
Then, for you, god exists. For me, he does not.
And when you eat the apples, does the concept of ‘twoness’ cease to exist?
No, my brain has stored the relationship as a memory.
You have yet to account for your ability to know anything according to your worldview.
I know what I perceive. I draw relationships based on my memories of perceptions and their comparison to the ones I currently see.
So if two people perceive the laws of logic differently, then they are both right???
Precisely! You're learning.
That’s just like the kid who pulls his sheets over his head when he is angry at his father and says: ‘I can’t see you, so you don’t exist.’
Ahh, but the child does not truly believe that. He knows when he pulls his sheet down, his father would be there. The real question is - if the child truly and completely believe his father was no longer there, would he see him when he pulled the sheet down?
I think he would not. The brain will generate delusions to support its beliefs. To the child, however, it would be reality that his father was gone, even though to his father, that would not be true.
And, now Sye, you see our difference.
I believe perception IS reality for the person perceiving it.
I also believe, as I said before, it is utterly futile to argue the existance of god as a christian has ingrained into their psyche that god exists - it is part of their identity and their brain WILL see evidence of it because they believe it.
I see no evidence, because I do not believe.
Therefore, you will never prove god exists to me and I will never prove he doesn't to you.
And that, I believe, ends this discussion. But, by all means, surprise me, Sye...
Good night.
I forgot to answer this one, so many questions:
And I have REPEATEDLY asked how it is possible for you to know anything according to YOUR worldview
My quotes from earlier about the question 'I refuse to answer':
quote:
So, in essence, abstract and immaterial laws take substance in the form of the physical examples our brains have used to identify them.
Without these physical examples, the symbols, and the laws they express, mean nothing.
This is how these laws exist in my worldview.
Quote:
My reasoning is derived from my observations and colored by my experience. I accept my own reasoning as reliable as, if I did not, it would be illogical.
Perception feeds observation. Observation feeds experience. Experience feeds reason, expectation, and, in the end, perception.
Such is the loop of all human minds.
I have made assumptions, simple ones.
1.) I do exist
2.) The world I perceive is real
3.) I can think and reason
From these assumptions, we have studied and developed laws based on the behavior of our environment.
These are laws inherent to matter as it is constructed in this universe, such as gravity, the constant of the speed of light, the conservation of energy, etc. There may be laws we are not yet aware of, and our current laws may be flawed.
We will revise them when evidence collected using the first 3 assumptions dictate the necessity to.
Now you see - my perceptions are my evidence. I assume my perceptions are accurate as they ARE reality.
This is my worldview and you have heard it before.
You will now dutifully question 'How do you know your perception is reliable?'
To which I respond:
My perception is reliable as it has no reference. If it changes, my reality changes to suit it. Therefore, even if it is not constant, I would be completely unable to tell as my reality would change with it.
Therefore, my perception is always reliable to me. It will always appear to be accurate. And since it appears accurate, it is - even if only to me.
So, can we move on to my questions now?
Sacrilege
Sye,
God is universal, not made of matter, and He does not change. I am saying that universal, abstract, invariants, such as the laws of logic are accounted for in the nature of God, and nowhere else. The existence of God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary.
So you are basically "proving" the existence of "God" by saying that since it's impossible to prove his non-existence then...viola...he MUST exist.
You are obviously not a scientifically trained individual. Inability to disprove something does not magically make it fact, law, or certainty. What you describe is faith...a religious viewpoint. Nothing wrong with it, except by it's very nature it cannot be proven. You accept the existence of "God" because you believe he's there and because you cannot prove he's not there (and don't believe anyone else can). Not scientific at all.
I can't prove definitively that aliens don't exist...yet I see the effects of their "existence" all around me (Roswell, Area 51, UFOs, the pyramids, Easter Island, our fascination with science fiction). By your logic this is ironclad proof that extraterrestrials exist.
I can't prove definitively that the sun will come up tomorrow. I have evidence that it always has before, but I can't PROVE it will...so by your logic I must believe it will not.
Not to be insulting, but your logic is anything but logical.
Your first statement above (God is universal, not made of matter, and He does not change.)...is hardly even true. There are millions of people in this world that have either never heard of your "God" or if they have still believe otherwise...this hardly makes him "universal". As to change, I'm not a Biblical scholar but the "God" of the Old Testament and the "God" of the New Testament seem quite different.
And impossibility of the contrary...very, very limited viewpoint. You are saying with 100% certainty that the Hindus, Bhuddists, Shintoists, Taoists, Native Americans, African tribes, and a host of others could not possibly be right...but you somehow are. That Christians are the only ones that could POSSIBLY be correct. That is not proof...it's faith. Just because you believe it's so does not PROVE it. Any scientist (or even any student in a junior high science class) knows this. You express belief (and are welcome to it), but offer as proof only statements that boil down to "I believe, therefore it is so"...faith.
Not a logical argument.
Rob,
So you are basically "proving" the existence of "God" by saying that since it's impossible to prove his non-existence then...viola...he MUST exist.
No, that is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that it is impossible that God does not exist. You see Rob, God is the precondition to intelligibility, if there were no God, you could not make sense out of anything, let alone your argument against Him.
I can't prove definitively that the sun will come up tomorrow. I have evidence that it always has before, but I can't PROVE it will...so by your logic I must believe it will not.
Again, no. It is when you proceed with the assumption that the sun WILL come up tomorrow, you borrow the ‘uniformity of nature’ assumption from MY worldview. Saying that something will happen in the future because it has happened in the past, is question begging.
Not a logical argument.
That statement illustrates my point. What IS a logical argument, and why am I subject to logic? You see, you too believe in the universality of logic, you believe that logic is abstract, and you believe that it is invariant, yet you cannot account for ANY of these characteristics without God. You may try if you wish, but you see how Sacrilege is doing.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
I am saying that it is impossible that God does not exist. You see Rob, God is the precondition to intelligibility, if there were no God, you could not make sense out of anything, let alone your argument against Him.
I disagree completely. I say intelligence exists without god.
I told you before, do not come here stating 'X' exists because 'Y' exists. Reason existing does not prove god exists.
Again, no. It is when you proceed with the assumption that the sun WILL come up tomorrow, you borrow the ‘uniformity of nature’ assumption from MY worldview.
Or maybe it's not that 'nature is uniform' - since it isn't -and maybe it's that he expects events that have been cyclical in the past to be cyclical in the future. His experience has taught him what to expect. This does not make nature uniform at all...
Sye,
In total honesty, you know how this whole exchange is going to end already. You are attempting to 'reason proof' god's existence. We do not see your reasoning as accurate, and therefore - will never agree with you on this topic.
You are not going to change your mind. We are not going to change ours.
Am I correct?
Yes, to that person, it does.
And is the person to whom 1 + 1 does not equal 2 correct?
Then, for you, god exists. For me, he does not.
Truth is not arbitrary. Something either exists or it does not, unless you’d like to prove otherwise.
No, my brain has stored the relationship as a memory.
So, when you die, ‘twoness’ ceases to exist? Did the concept of ‘two’ exist before man walked the earth? Could a person with a different concept of ‘twoness’ be correct, if not, why not?
I know what I perceive. I draw relationships based on my memories of perceptions and their comparison to the ones I currently see.
As I have repeatedly asked, how do you know that your perceptions and the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid?
I said: “So if two people perceive the laws of logic differently, then they are both right???”
You answered: Precisely! You're learning.
Yikes. So, if you walk into a bank and ask a teller to change one hundred dollars for you, and she hands you back 3 cents, saying that this is his/her logical interpretation of mathematics, he/she would have to be right, and you would be fine with that??? Stop kidding yourself.
Ahh, but the child does not truly believe that.
And Bingo was his name-o :-)
The brain will generate delusions to support its beliefs.
And Bing-o was his name-o X2
I see no evidence, because I do not believe.
This is precisely my argument! You deny God based on your PRESUPPOSITION that he does not exist. Problem is, your presuppositions cannot account for intelligibility.
Therefore, you will never prove god exists to me and I will never prove he doesn't to you.
No, I have proven that God exists. Proof does not, however, equal persausion.
I have made assumptions, simple ones.
I am not asking what you ASSUME, I am asking what you KNOW. It would appear that you are also not willing to see that you are not talking about what you KNOW, you are trying to tell me what you believe, and frankly, why should I care what you believe?
The crux of your claimed ability to know rests on the reliability of your perceptions and the reasoning with which you interpret them. Again I ask, not that I expect an answer, how do you know that your perceptions and the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid? The reason that you refuse to answer this question, is that when you finally admit that you CANNOT know that your perceptions and reasoning are valid, you would be forced to admit, that according to your worldview, you can in fact know NOTHING.
Cheers,
Sye
You are attempting to 'reason proof' god's existence. We do not see your reasoning as accurate, and therefore - will never agree with you on this topic.
But, according to your logic, I would have to be right. I am merely pointing out your blatant contradictions.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
I answered your questions, all of them. Your insistance that I haven't is the kind of blatant disregard for what I am trying to say that really annoys me with you.
You aren't preaching to choir here. My intelligence DOES exist. My perception IS valid. I have stated why I believe so.
I may not agree with what you spout out here, but at least I acknowledge when you answer a question.
Sacrilege
The existence of God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. If God did not exist, there would be no justification for the very reasoning we would use to prove, or disprove ANYTHING, such as His existence.
The inability to prove anything does not exist DOES NOT prove that it does exist.
You see, Darth Vader IS my Lord (Sith Lord) and savior. Someday, I may travel there using the TIE Fighter plans he sent to me telepathically. He exists in a galaxy far, far away. And he's pissed because George Lucas FALSELY portrayed him as going back to the light-side of the Force. The reality is Darth Vader killed his master and rules that galaxy. Someday, when I kill him, as is my destiny, I will become the Lord. Maybe you can be my apprentice?
When we start saying silly things like 'you can't prove he/she/it doesn't exist, so it does' we start having silly arguments that prove nothing save the fact that we aren't really serious here.
God doesn't exist because you can't prove he does.
And this:
The existence of God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. - Means absolutely nothing. You have repeated it several times but have not justified it.
My perception yields its own evidence for reliability. I perceived a car, I stepped out of its path, and I perceive I was not hit by the car.
Now - are we going to continue having a 'silly' discussion, where I worship a Sith Lord and you continue spouting that which can not be disproven is therefore real?
(It is worth noting that you can not COMPLETELY PROVE anything, but you can prove it's extremely probable. So, for all intents and purposes, just showing an reasonable probability that God exists would be sufficient.)
Have a nice day, Sye
No, that is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that it is impossible that God does not exist. You see Rob, God is the precondition to intelligibility, if there were no God, you could not make sense out of anything, let alone your argument against Him.
So you cannot prove the existence of "God" (thus by definition you take his alleged existence on faith). So you argue that it's somehow impossible for God not to exist...
Are you a used car salesman?
You believe "God" exists...good on you. But your BELIEF does not by any stretch of imagination make "God's" non-existence impossible. If I have to explain that simple concept, this entire argument is a waste of time.
So... since you've realised the truth about god, rob, are you ready to accept Darth Vader and your Lord!
The price of not believing is Death!
I find your lack of faith... disturbing. - Lord Vader
*Darth Vader as your Lord.
I believe Sye may have finally conceded that the argument of God's existence is one that can not be truly debated.
I stated this, albeit for different reasons then his, in the 'Faith Based Bloc'. There I postulated that since a true Christian builds their identity around their god, it becomes an attack on their very identity to challenge the existence of god.
Sye says he can't reason without god, and I believe him. He can't. I can. His 'reality' is built around a god, it's the foundation of his world view. My world view is built on my perception of the world. I reason through perception. It is my foundation. Just as his god requires no justifications, either do my perceptions.
I believe we have finally put this topic to bed. *applause*
I answered your questions, all of them. Your insistance that I haven't is the kind of blatant disregard for what I am trying to say that really annoys me with you.
You may think that you have answered my questions, but, as with your worldview, you are only fooling yourself. I asked how you know that your perceptions and the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid, what you fail to realise is that ANY answer that uses your autonomous sense perception, and reasoning to derive it, is visciously circular and therefore invalid. You talk about your assumptions, NOT about knowledge. I can ask you how it is possible for you to know anything time and time again, and you might as well answer “penguin” cause it has just about as much validity as the ‘answers’ you have been giving.
My intelligence DOES exist. My perception IS valid. I have stated why I believe so.
And as I have stated, I am not interested in what you believe, I want to know what you KNOW.
The inability to prove anything does not exist DOES NOT prove that it does exist.
No kidding, but that is NOT my argument.
God doesn't exist because you can't prove he does.
Riiiiiiiight. Don’t forget, you have admitted that you are ‘pulling the sheets over your head,’ with your presuppositons.
The existence of God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. - Means absolutely nothing. You have repeated it several times but have not justified it.
Sure I have, intelligibility requires the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, all of which are accounted for in that nature of God, and nowhere else. You have no basis for any argumentation against God. I ask how you account for these laws apart from God, and you keep saying ‘penguin.’
My perception yields its own evidence for reliability. I perceived a car, I stepped out of its path, and I perceive I was not hit by the car.
And how do you know that your perceptions and the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid? (For the umpteenth time).
Now - are we going to continue having a 'silly' discussion, where I worship a Sith Lord and you continue spouting that which can not be disproven is therefore real?
Well, at least you have admitted that a deity is necessary for universal, abstract, invariant laws. Now we can compare claims. How does your ‘Sith Lord’ account for universal, abstract, invariant laws (or do you need to wait for the next episode to figure that out?)
It is worth noting that you can not COMPLETELY PROVE anything, but you can prove it's extremely probable.
Prove that that statement is even ‘probable.’
So, for all intents and purposes, just showing an reasonable probability that God exists would be sufficient.
I have, God is the precondition to intelligibility. Intelligibilty exists, therefore God exists.
I believe Sye may have finally conceded that the argument of God's existence is one that can not be truly debated.
Hardly, I didn’t have the time yesterday to respond to your silly arguments, and I will not have the time this evening to respond to more of your silly arguments.
I stated this, albeit for different reasons then his, in the 'Faith Based Bloc'. There I postulated that since a true Christian builds their identity around their god, it becomes an attack on their very identity to challenge the existence of god.
You are forgetting that you are the one who said “I see no evidence, because I do not believe.” Your refusal to see evidence is not based on the evidence, but on your presupposition that God does not exist.
Sye says he can't reason without god, and I believe him. He can't. I can.
You have yet to tell us how, apart from your visciously circular blatherings. Basically you say: “I sense that my senses are valid, and I reason that my reasoning is valid.” That is why this argument is going nowhere because you cannot see the ridiculousness of your position.
My world view is built on my perception of the world. I reason through perception. It is my foundation.
Exacly, you are what is known as a ‘perceptual foundationalist,’ and like all ‘perceptual foundationalists’ fail to ‘see’ that you have ZERO justification for the validity of your perceptions, and that when you do ASSUME that your perceptions are valid, you do so on BLIND FAITH.
Just as his god requires no justifications, either do my perceptions.
The difference is, you would be forced to admit that God could reveal some things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them, whereas you have YET to tell us how it is possible for you to KNOW anything. As I said, I won’t hold my breath.
Cheers,
Sye
Rob,
So you cannot prove the existence of "God" (thus by definition you take his alleged existence on faith).
Do you and Sacrilege go to the same high school? As I said, I have proven the existence of God, you simply claim not to be persuaded by it. Proof does not equal persuasion. What you also fail to realize is that ALL proof, in fact ALL reasoning BEGINS with faith. I have faith in God for the validity of my reasoning, you have blind, visciously circular, faith in your reasoing for the validity of your reasoning.
But your BELIEF does not by any stretch of imagination make "God's" non-existence impossible. If I have to explain that simple concept, this entire argument is a waste of time.
That is not my argument. My belief has nothing to do with the existence of God. God exists whether anyone professes to believe in Him or not. Look, my argument should be simple for you to disprove, just tell us how you account for intelligibility, and the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, apart from God. Anyone reading this thread will see that I have asked this question before (many times) and it has yet to be answered. (And it won’t be).
Cheers,
Sye
'Intelligence exists, therefore god exists.'
How is god a precursor for intelligence.
I argue perception is the rpecursor of intelligence, not god.
I argue that perception is the basis of reason.
I argue that perception produces its own evidence, and even if it is flawed, it shapes reality, and therefore reality would be flawed, so the 'perceiver' would never know the difference.
Abstract laws (that we already stated probably aren't universal, absolute, or unchanging) can exist because perception and memory produce reason. The relationships of what is perceived, the prediction of what will be perceived, these things all feed into the identification of relationships in nature.
The relationships become laws if strong evidence for their existence is found and they can not be disproven.
Perception does not require a foundation.
Perception IS - period. You said 'God just is, how do you like your rationale now?' My rationale did not change. Perception is. Our argument was over back then.
I haven't said anything new here.... just repeating my answers...
How is god a precursor for intelligence.
Intelligibility requires the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which are accounted for in the nature of God, ad nowhere else.
I argue that perception is the basis of reason.
I know you do. Not only does ‘perception’ NOT give us a foundation for universal, absract, invariants, you cannot know whether your perceptions, or the reasoning with which you interpret them, are valid.
I argue that perception produces its own evidence, and even if it is flawed, it shapes reality
How do you know?
and therefore reality would be flawed, so the 'perceiver' would never know the difference
Problem is, you are assuming the validity of your reasoning in order to come to this conclusion. If your reasoning is not valid, all bets are off.
Perception does not require a foundation.
And what if 2 people perceive the same thing differently?
Perception IS - period. You said 'God just is, how do you like your rationale now?'
That’s right, I was showing you how ridiculous you argument is.
I haven't said anything new here.... just repeating my answers...
No kidding.
Cheers,
Sye
You are flawlessly illustrating why this argument is moot. No matter what I say, your opinion will not change. Unless you produce perceptible evidence of god, which you do not have, my opinion will not change.
If you and another man perceive the same thing differently, you are living in separate realities - like someone who is color blind to someone who is not.
I know that perception is reality because it is what my memories are based on. My memories develop my reason. Therefore, reason is the foundation.
Perception is. It's not a ridiculous argument. It simply is.
As to your argument on intelligence:
Intelligibility requires the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which are accounted for in the nature of God, ad nowhere else.
Prove this. I say it does not. I say that monkeys, dolphins, dogs, and cats all have intelligence - yet they know nothing of these 'laws.'
I also say that god is not the precursor of intelligence, perception is.
Do you and Sacrilege go to the same high school?
Resorting to high school level insults? In fact, I'm pushing 40, have a degree, and have 2 decades of military service behind me.
As I said, I have proven the existence of God, you simply claim not to be persuaded by it. Proof does not equal persuasion. What you also fail to realize is that ALL proof, in fact ALL reasoning BEGINS with faith.
How have you proven anything? You have stated some pretty firm beliefs, and some (in my opinion blind) faith, but outside of stating that you have strong faith in God's existence you have scientifically proven nothing.
I said: But your BELIEF does not by any stretch of imagination make "God's" non-existence impossible. If I have to explain that simple concept, this entire argument is a waste of time.
You responded: That is not my argument. My belief has nothing to do with the existence of God. God exists whether anyone professes to believe in Him or not.
OK, give me one shred of proof in a higher being. One besides circular arguments, one that is scientifically verifiable, and one that can be solidly proven to be the result of "God". Not a "it can't be anything else" argument. I want to see you take just ONE thing allegedly created by "God" and PROVE that it was. Key word here is "PROVE".
Look, my argument should be simple for you to disprove, just tell us how you account for intelligibility, and the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, apart from God.
I never claimed I could. People have been trying to figure out where things of that nature originated for centuries. I'd be worth a whole lot more money if I had the answer. But simply claiming it's some mysterious "God" is a cop-out. It proves nothing, just relegates it to the mysterious.
Intelligibility requires the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which are accounted for in the nature of God, ad nowhere else.
It's worth noting that this argument is the poster child of circular logic.
Reason and intelligence is valid because god exists. God exists because intelligence and reason couldn't exist without god. Because intelligence exists god exists because intelligence exists god exists.... on goes the loop.
I say perception is. Reality is perception. I say reason is perception + memory. That's my argument.
If the perception is invalid, so is reality as reality only reflects perception.
You ask - how do you know your perception is valid. My perception is always valid, because anything I do not perceive is not real.
That's the end. If you disagree with that, then we'll disagree. I am atheist. What I do not perceive does not exist until I do perceive it.
That's not to say I don't believe in the possibility of aliens, distant planets, new physical constants. I believe firmly in the possibility. I do not embrace the the 'actuality' of it until I see it myself or at least the evidence of it - physical evidence.
--Good response rob,n I'm sure Sye's superior education ad astounding measure of logical aptitude warrants his dismissive remarks towards our education. As mine is similar to that which rob posted. And, I have no doubt his PhD in theology probably makes him an expert here...
Rob,
Resorting to high school level insults?
Sorry, my mistake.
I want to see you take just ONE thing allegedly created by "God" and PROVE that it was. Key word here is "PROVE".
Alright, this is the crux of our disagreement. It is my claim that the very concept of proof is impossible without God. In order to prove ANYTHING, one must first know it to be true. In order to know whether ANYTHING is true, one must know EVERYTHING, or have revelation from someone (God) who does. Now, it is obvious that you believe in the concept of ‘proof’ or you would not be able to know whether or not I have provided any. As I say on the website “The proof that God exists, is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.” Should be simple for you to refute, just tell me how it is possible for you to know ANYTHING to be true without God?
I never claimed I could. People have been trying to figure out where things of that nature originated for centuries.
But, when you assume that proof of anything is possible, you either do so on blind faith, or you borrow the foundations from my worldview.
But simply claiming it's some mysterious "God" is a cop-out. It proves nothing, just relegates it to the mysterious.
I guess we can determine that once we find out how it is possible for you to know anything to be true without God.
Cheers,
Sye
If you and another man perceive the same thing differently, you are living in separate realities - like someone who is color blind to someone who is not.
Um, no, in your example, only the perception would be different, the colour of the object would not change. So, again, I ask, if 2 people perceive something differently, how do you know who is right?
I know that perception is reality because it is what my memories are based on. My memories develop my reason. Therefore, reason is the foundation.
Yikes. And once again, how do you know that your perceptions, your memory, and the reasoning with which you interpret your perceptions and memory are valid?
Perception is. It's not a ridiculous argument. It simply is.
Um, God is. It’s not a ridiculous argument. God simply is. (Puhlease).
Prove this.
Well, you, like Rob, believe that proof is possible. Please tell me how proof of anything is possible according to your worldview.
I say that monkeys, dolphins, dogs, and cats all have intelligence
Prove THAT :-)
yet they know nothing of these 'laws.'
Prove THAT :-) Still though, one does not need to know which laws are involved for intelligence to be possible, but that does not mean that those laws are not necessary.
I also say that god is not the precursor of intelligence, perception is.
And where did you perceive THAT? Perhaps you could tell me, so I could have a look too?
It's worth noting that this argument is the poster child of circular logic.
Um, I perceive that my perceptions are valid??? THAT is a circular argument!!!
I say perception is. Reality is perception. I say reason is perception + memory. That's my argument.
I know, and if it wasn’t so sad, it would be hillarious.
If the perception is invalid, so is reality as reality only reflects perception.
So, if you perceive that a car is not heading towards you, and it in fact is, then the reality is affected by your perception??? You have go to be kidding. (I wouldn’t suggest that you try that by the way).
You ask - how do you know your perception is valid. My perception is always valid, because anything I do not perceive is not real.
How do you know? How do you know what you DO perceive, or the reasoning with which you interpret what you DO perceive is valid?
That's the end. If you disagree with that, then we'll disagree. I am atheist. What I do not perceive does not exist until I do perceive it.
As I said, you sound like the kid who pulls the sheets over his head. To somehow believe that something does not exist until you perceive that is does is ludicrous. The thing is, THAT, is not even my argument. My argument is that God is evident in every one of your thoughts and experiences, and you are simply suppressing the truth. You claim that proof is possible, but cannot account for it apart from God. Your head is in the sand.
And, I have no doubt his PhD in theology probably makes him an expert here
Nope, I’m just an average guy, pointing out the flaws in your juvenile arguments.
Cheers,
Sye
In order to prove ANYTHING, one must first know it to be true.
This debate is futile...not to be insulting, but you have literally no concept of the scientific method. The above statement shows it.
You stick to "God must exist because he cannot be disproven"...by that logic, I could make an argument that ANYTHING exists.
You cannot prove God's existence...nor can I disprove it. That is FAITH (or lack of), not proof.
More simply put...the inability to prove something does not mean it does not exist, nor does the inability to disprove something mean it does exist.
I state that God cannot be taken as absolute, because there is no proof. I concede that he MAY exist, and no, I can't prove he does not. That by no means shows that he does.
If you interpret this as a victory to your cause, and "proof" that God must exist, well it's your fantasy...enjoy it. Don't call it science, though...I wouldn't want you laughed out of whatever learning institution you choose to attend...
So, ignoring your circular logic of god is the foundation for reason and reason is the proof of god... what exactly have you illustrated of your point?
Well, you, like Rob, believe that proof is possible. Please tell me how proof of anything is possible according to your worldview.
Proof is demonstration of evidence, based on perceptions or derived from perceptions that show that something is, based on experience of those perceptions, consistent and true in specified circumstances.
My argument is that God is evident in every one of your thoughts and experiences, and you are simply suppressing the truth. You claim that proof is possible, but cannot account for it apart from God. Your head is in the sand.
Yes, I can, my perception is real. It is based on nothing. It requires no 'proof' or validity. It is. And, just because I can't explain the mechanics of my perception does not mean that god is the explanation. People once said that the sun revolved around the earth, because no one could prove what was going on either way so they just 'accepted' a wrong guess as to what was occurring. Likewise, you say I can't account for perception without god, I say I can not account for perception.
Just because I can not account for it does not mean the god is the answer.
It only means that I do not know the answer.
You say you do know the answer, but then spout circular logic to prove it.
You have a 'belief' of the answer, but no evidence to support it. You have faith in the absence of evidence.
If I see anymore insults thrown about, I'll never let another one of your posts stand here. Keep the discussions above simple insults.
Cheers, Sye
I said: “In order to prove ANYTHING, one must first know it to be true.”
You replied: ”This debate is futile...not to be insulting, but you have literally no concept of the scientific method. The above statement shows it.”
Put your money where your mouth is, please demonstrate how it is possible to prove that which one does not know to be true. By the way, the ‘scientific method’ is yet another thing YOU accept on blind faith. Science is dependent on the uniformity of nature, which you have ZERO justification for. I would ask how you know that the scientific method is valid, but I can’t stomach much more dodging and weaving.
You stick to "God must exist because he cannot be disproven"
You are simply being intellectualy dishonest. THAT is not my argument. My argument is that God is the precondition to intelligibility. Intelligibilty exists, therefore God exists.
You cannot prove God's existence.
I can, and I have. The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything. I have asked you to posit how proof of anything is possible without God, and you have yet to do so. (And you won’t).
More simply put...the inability to prove something does not mean it does not exist, nor does the inability to disprove something mean it does exist.
I agree, and AGAIN, THAT is NOT my argument.
I state that God cannot be taken as absolute, because there is no proof.
And I ask how you know this? You would have to be omniscient, and omnipresent to know that ‘there is no proof.’ You would have to possess the qualities which you say do not exist in order to justify your absolute negative. Totally self-refuting (Not to mention the fact that you have YET to tell us how proof of ANYTHING is possible according to your worldview)(And you won’t).
Cheers,
Sye
My argument is that God is the precondition to intelligibility. Intelligibilty exists, therefore God exists.
I say you're wrong. You see I believe I will use my 'magic circular logic wand' and say Dogs are the precursor of my being god. Dogs exist, therefore I am god.
This argument is baseless and silly. God is the foundation of logic and God exists because logic exists is circular logic. It is an invalid argument outright.
Do you have a better argument or are these the laurels you rest on?
Cheers, Sye
Proof is demonstration of evidence, based on perceptions or derived from perceptions that show that something is, based on experience of those perceptions, consistent and true in specified circumstances.
Yawn, and how do you know that your perceptions, and the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid?
Yes, I can, my perception is real. It is based on nothing. It requires no 'proof' or validity. It is. And, just because I can't explain the mechanics of my perception does not mean that god is the explanation.
I am not asking you to explain the mechanics, I am simply asking you how you know that your perceptions and the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid? If you do not, or cannot know that they are, you cannot justify ANY knowledge claim.
Likewise, you say I can't account for perception without god, I say I can not account for perception.
Actually, I say that you cannot account for the validity of your perceptions and therefore have zero justification for ANYTHING you claim to know. I am happy to leave it there.
Just because I can not account for it does not mean the god is the answer.
Problem is, when you assume that your perceptions ARE valid you do so on….drumroll….BLIND FAITH, or you borrow the justification from MY worldview.
You say you do know the answer, but then spout circular logic to prove it.
I asked this once before and it went unanswered, let me try again. Is it possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being (God), could reveal things to us in such a way that we could know them for certain?
You have a 'belief' of the answer, but no evidence to support it. You have faith in the absence of evidence.
How do you know? How is it possible for you to know anything? You have already so much as admitted that you have zero justification for the validity of your perceptions.
If I see anymore insults thrown about, I'll never let another one of your posts stand here. Keep the discussions above simple insults.
Methinks thou dost protest too much :-)
Cheers, Sye
This argument is baseless and silly. God is the foundation of logic and God exists because logic exists is circular logic.
That is not my argument. I do not say that God exists BECAUSE logic exists. I say that logic exists, and that logic is impossible without God. You have yet to demonstrate how the universal, anstract, invariant laws of logic make sense, without God.
It is an invalid argument outright.
How do you know? Even so, why can invalid arguments not be 'true' according to your worldview??? You are appealing to standards of logic which you CANNOT acount for, again showing the inconsistency of your worldview.
Cheers,
Sye
Methinks thou dost protest too much :-)
This is not a protest, it is a reality.
As far as the validity of my perception - they are. And you bet, I accept them on blind faith - blind faith in my perception.
Now, as to your argument that 'god is the precursor of intelligence. Intelligence is valid because god is it's foundation.'
This is circular logic. Is this the sum of your argument, because it proves nothing save that it is an invalid argument.
I say that logic exists, and that logic is impossible without God.
Intelligibilty exists, therefore God exists.
Using the intelligence that you say can't exist without god as evidence that god exists is not proof.
I can not prove anything WILL be. I can PROVE many things though.
I can prove that the keyboard I am typing on is white. I can prove that the message I am typing is in English.
As far as what will be, I can only state something will 'more then likely happen.' This is based on my experience of my perceptions.
The sun will more then likely rise tomorrow.
You have yet to demonstrate how the universal, anstract, invariant laws of logic make sense, without God.
Matter is eternal. With it, the physical laws that govern it are eternal as well - as far as I can tell anyway.
As far as immaterial, universal, unchanging laws - I know of none.
Morality - subject to interpretation.
Mathematics - only universal if everyone agrees to abide by the same mathematical rules.
Laws of logic - only universal in our accepted definition of them, and based completely on the principle that perception requires no evidence or justification.
As far as the validity of my perception - they are. And you bet, I accept them on blind faith - blind faith in my perception.
‘nuff said.
”This is circular logic. Is this the sum of your argument, because it proves nothing save that it is an invalid argument.”
How do you know? The basis of your reasonig rests on blind faith.
Using the intelligence that you say can't exist without god as evidence that god exists is not proof.
How do you know? The basis of your reasonig rests on blind faith.
I can prove that the keyboard I am typing on is white. I can prove that the message I am typing is in English.
The floor is yours.
As far as what will be, I can only state something will 'more then likely happen.' This is based on my experience of my perceptions.
Which you accept on blind faith don’t forget. Your assumption that the future will be like the past is also based on blind faith.
The sun will more then likely rise tomorrow.
How do you know? Saying the future will be like the past, because the future has been like the past, in the past, is question begging. How do you know ANYTHING about the future?
Matter is eternal.
Really? How do you know? Did you perceive the eternality of matter?!?
With it, the physical laws that govern it are eternal as well - as far as I can tell anyway.
How far can you tell, with the perceptions whose validity you accept on blind faith?
As far as immaterial, universal, unchanging laws - I know of none.
How about the laws of logic? (You know, the ones that you were trying to say that my arguments violate).
Morality - subject to interpretation.
Personal interpretation of morality has exactly nothing to do with the existence of absolute moral laws.
Mathematics - only universal if everyone agrees to abide by the same mathematical rules.
You have got to be kidding?!? So if a kindergarten kid says 2 + 2 = 9, then it no longer equals 4 because not everyone agrees to abide by the rules???
Laws of logic - only universal in our accepted definition of them, and based completely on the principle that perception requires no evidence or justification.
Please don’t take this as an insult, but, do you drink?
Cheers,
Sye
I have 'blind' faith in my perception, which yields its own evidence, as I argued many times.
Your logic is circular, the argument is its own support - that is dysfunctional on a good day.
As to the other arguments against 'absolutes' you always post as though surprised by a response I have repeated several times.
This topic is dead. Wish it well.
We've discussed every plausible point on it. I'm more then happy to introduce new material to the discussion, current material is completed.
Perception is. It provides it's own evidence. Perception is reality.
Period. If you wnt to call my 'faith' in my perception blind faith, which what you were calling the very point I stated above SOOOO many times, then fine, it's blind faith. But it is real.
How do you know? The basis of your reasonig rests on blind faith.
This is your sad way of not even attempting to defend your argument - which is circular logic and fails. It fails to prove anything. You say it proves the existence of god and the validity of your reason, I say it proves neither. Reason does not exist without perception.
The only 'absolute' laws of math are the ones based on perception - and even then they only exist when the perceiver understands those laws. Perception is reality, again. However, many mathematical 'laws' fail to exist altogether if everyone doesn't agree on them - like imaginary numbers and many of the more complex theorems.
Morals are not absolute. I'm not arguing this anymore. I've stated my point, Sye refuses to acknowledge it.
Sye, address the point - you said your proof that god exists is in the existance of intelligence. And your intelligence is founded by god's existance.
This is circular - it proves nothing.
If I say 'Sentient flowers are the foundation of intelligence. I can prove flowers are sentient by the existance of intelligence.' My argument is EQUALLY valid when compared to yours.
It shows no evidence. Therefore, it fails.
Sye, come forward with a working logical argument - not this circular logic crap or leave this thread.
I am getting tired of arguing against a point that is invalid in statement at it's onset.
I said SO clearly, that arguing the existence of god with a christian is a moot point because they did not require evidence to back up their argument. You, as I suspected, have none. You have a broken circular argument.
If you had a working argument, I'd profess my wayward ways right now, but instead you inundate this blog with broken logical arguments.
Come forward with something new, or don't come forward at all. Period.
I have 'blind' faith in my perception, which yields its own evidence, as I argued many times.
What you fail to realize, or admit, is that if the foundation for your reasoning is blind faith, then you cannot KNOW what it yields, you simply believe it, and as I have stated many times, for the purposes of this discussion, I am not interested in your beliefs.
Your logic is circular, the argument is its own support - that is dysfunctional on a good day.
Problem is, you trying to hold my arguments to the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which you cannot account for. When you assume that they exist, and that they are valid, you do so on blind faith, or you borrow their foundation from MY worldview.
As to the other arguments against 'absolutes' you always post as though surprised by a response I have repeated several times.
I would also be surpised if someone kept hitting themselves in the head with a hammer.
This topic is dead. Wish it well.
The stop posting.
We've discussed every plausible point on it. I'm more then happy to introduce new material to the discussion, current material is completed.
Problem is, any new material you introduce will have the same foundation, i.e. blind faith.
Perception is. It provides it's own evidence. Perception is reality.
God is. God provides His own evidence. God is reality. (How do you like your argument now?) Your statement that ‘perception is reality’ has me dumbfounded. I pointed out in your ‘colour blind’ argument that if you and a colour blind person perceive the same thing as being a different colour, that in no way changes the real colour of the thing. Just as if two people perceive logic differently, that in no way changes the reality of logic. If a blind man cannot see a building, does that mean it is not there???
If you wnt to call my 'faith' in my perception blind faith, which what you were calling the very point I stated above SOOOO many times, then fine, it's blind faith.
Um, you admitted that it was. (Which is amazingly revealing considering what you wrote in your ‘Faith-Based Bloc’ thread.
But it is real.
You mean “But I belive that it is real.”
Sye, address the point - you said your proof that god exists is in the existance of intelligence. And your intelligence is founded by god's existance.
That’s right, and I asked you if it is possible that God could reveal things to us in such a way that we could be certain of them. If you ever answer that question, you will see the resolution to the accusation of circularity.
If I say 'Sentient flowers are the foundation of intelligence. I can prove flowers are sentient by the existance of intelligence.' My argument is EQUALLY valid when compared to yours.
Flowers are not universal, they are not abstract, and they are not invariant, and therefore cannot justify the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic. You can believe that they do if you like, but I prefer not to base my reasoning on blind faith.
Sye, come forward with a working logical argument - not this circular logic crap or leave this thread.
Would you prefer it if I argued like this: “God is. God provides His own evidence. God is reality.”
I am getting tired of arguing against a point that is invalid in statement at it's onset.
Except according to your worldview, you cannot know that my argument is invalid. Still though, if you are tired of arguing, just stop. (Unless of course you are hinting that you are going to lock this thread as well, so that I can no longer respond).
I said SO clearly, that arguing the existence of god with a christian is a moot point because they did not require evidence to back up their argument.
This from a person who admits that the basis of his reasoning is NOT evidence, but BLIND FAITH. I say that your ability to reason is in fact evidence that God exists, you just choose not to accept it.
You have a broken circular argument.
I disagree, but why can circular arguments not be ‘true’ according to YOUR worldview?
If you had a working argument, I'd profess my wayward ways right now, but instead you inundate this blog with broken logical arguments.
I simply respond to your posts.
Come forward with something new, or don't come forward at all. Period.
That would be like coming into a fight without any weapon, and asking the person you are fighting with to “put down your gun, and come with something else, or I’m not going to fight.” Stop posting, and I’ll stop, it’s really quite simple.
Cheers,
Sye
You have missed the point.
Perception exists. Every sentient being perceives. Perception produces its own evidence in the form of what is perceived. These things perceived, the behaviors they exhibit, and the memory of those behaviors, become the foundation for reason.
You call accepting the above statement blind faith, and I can see that point. I do not however, concur with your logic.
Using circular logic I can prove anything. Because not everything is true, circular logic is false.
Your argument, therefore, is also false.
And that, Sye, is the end.
The beauty of being the administrator - I decide when discussion ends. I do not like to see the clutter of illogical arguments repeated and perpetuated throughout my blog.
“God is. God provides His own evidence. God is reality.”
My perception produces evidence continually. I see, I hear, I feel. This is the evidence of perception.
The evidence of god is apparently limited to a circular logic argument that lacks reason, let alone evidence.
Perception exists. Every sentient being perceives.
How do you know? Did you perceive that 'EVERY sentient being perceives?'
Perception produces its own evidence in the form of what is perceived.
Don't you feel ashamed calling MY argument circular?
These things perceived, the behaviors they exhibit, and the memory of those behaviors, become the foundation for reason.
And, for the umpteenth time, how do you know that your perceptions and the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid?
Your argument, therefore, is also false.
By what absolute standard do you call my argument 'false' and why is my argument subject to that standard? Did you perceive the absolute standard to which you are trying to subject my argument?
My perception produces evidence continually. I see, I hear, I feel. This is the evidence of perception.
How do you know that you are actually seeing, hearing, or feeling? How do you know that your perceptions, and the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid?
The beauty of being the administrator - I decide when discussion ends.
That's like taking your ball and going home when you are losing the game.
I do not like to see the clutter of illogical arguments repeated and perpetuated throughout my blog.
Then stop making them.
Cheers,
Sye
How do you know that you are actually seeing, hearing, or feeling? How do you know that your perceptions, and the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid?
Because my perception is my reality. It does not have to be the same as yours. In fact, it is more then likely that it is not.
As to the difference between, X can not exist without Y, and since X exists, so does Y and 'Perception.'
I stated a LONG time ago and many times since, that 'Perception is reality.' I told you that regardless of the accuracy of my perception, it is what is real to me.
You see, the HUGE difference though, between you, Sye, and me. I can easily debate REAL issues with REAL evidence. You drudge some banter about the impossibility of intelligence without god and support it with nothing at all.
I am ending this discussion here. Flame some other blog with this non-sense. It has no place here anymore.
Post a Comment