My God proof challenge, it's concise

[Laurens]

Well the universe we live in is clearly and example of design, do you know that the probability that all the 5 constants in the universe all being just right by chance alone is about 10 to the power of 30 to one. Clearly this big number that I got off Answers in Genesis is correct, it was calculated by a doctor in theology and doctors are always right. What would be different? Slime wouldn't turn into fish and then into mermaids and then into humans, without God there would obviously be no universe, there wouldn't even be a chance for evolution to happen, my big number proves that.

Also Jesus was really the son of God, there's some history book or something that proves Jesus rose from the dead I read it on the internet, so that is 100% proof that the Bible is accurate. You atheists just try to be clever, but all you really ever do is sin, that's all you want, to deny Jesus so you don't feel bad about wanking over pictures of horses. I just proved there is a God, if you still don't believe it you are a fool, and a blasphemous homosexual sinner.
[/parody]

 

[kenandkids]

Well the universe we live in is clearly and example of design, do you know that the probability that all the 5 constants in the universe all being just right by chance alone is about 10 to the power of 30 to one. Clearly this big number that I got off Answers in Genesis is correct, it was calculated by a doctor in theology and doctors are always right. What would be different? Slime wouldn't turn into fish and then into mermaids and then into humans, without God there would obviously be no universe, there wouldn't even be a chance for evolution to happen, my big number proves that.

Also Jesus was really the son of God, there's some history book or something that proves Jesus rose from the dead I read it on the internet, so that is 100% proof that the Bible is accurate. You atheists just try to be clever, but all you really ever do is sin, that's all you want, to deny Jesus so you don't feel bad about wanking over pictures of horses. I just proved there is a God, if you still don't believe it you are a fool, and a blasphemous homosexual sinner.
[/parody]

You almost had perfection... you only missed riding dinosaurs to market until that bitch picked her own apple instead of paying the divine grocer...

 

[brewpanda]

I wish believers would actually define what they believe, including what faith is. I think it's the first step to realize the basis of their beliefs are a practice of thinly veiled mysticism; faith.

Let's move one step higher than definition. They should demonstrate/illustrate what faith is. Words don't really mean anything, unless it has an equivalent in perceivable reality or the world we live in.

Ex. Yellow Labrador Retriever

Faith?

I can't imagine what it is, because I have yet to sense it. Hehe. >.<

Why wouldn't they define faith as a strong belief or conviction in something that lacks proof? It is the most basic definition for the word.

The example of yellow lab signifies an observable phenomena. Faith isn't an assignable descriptor in this case, because it is an observable, as relative as the observation may be, entity.
So one can either compare a deity to the abstract concepts of 'Love" or "Justice", or to unprovables in science, or even to the form of the yellow lab itself.

The theist could ultimately turn the question on you and ask simply, how does the world change lacking the existence of objective concepts, DM or the actuality of matter?

Consider a thing or idea you accept that is not provable, something that is virtually independent of empirics. Now consider why you accept it. What is the logic or reasoning for that acceptance of that idea/thing?

Take this example of Yellow Lab. Why does the set of words, Yellow Lab, recall a specific concept of a particular phenomena to the individual and group of individuals? Is it based off experience alone that recalls this?
Now take the notion of Sorrow. Why does the set word, Sorrow, recall specific concepts of particular experience, pathos, sentiments, memories, phenomena to the individual and group of individuals? The group has vastly different experiences that allow them to recall the meaning of that word, certainly they are subjectively defined. But they still are subjectively defined in such a way that causes an objective understanding and empathy. Is this experience alone that defines sorrow?
Let us go further and consider the notion of Compassion. This word recalls specific concepts as to its meaning and understanding on the part of the individual and group of individuals. They have different experiences and knowledge that lead them to the meaning and understanding yet again, they can objectively empathize and communicate the concept. Is this concept a development of experience over time alone?

Does Yellow Lab, Sorrow, Compassion exist without the individual experiencing or defining it? To the first we can say yes, because the phenomena is a representation of an object of matter in the world of forms and actuality. Fantastic, there is a thing in and of itself.
But in the latter two, how can we say yes? If anyone does say yes, they essentially have to go through most of the legwork a theist/deist goes through.

I think the concept most deists or theists have, even if they don't understand it, as to why they believe in that deity, is justifying Objectivism. I think objectivism becomes insanely difficult, and objective morality specifically, without faith in the metaphysical. And once any one individual accepts faith in something that cannot be proven empirically or observably, or even varified, than their position is not so different than a deist.
So ultimately demonstrate what faith, as earlier defined, is?

Hypothetically, it could be exemplified in that there are a set group of objective truths that exist regardless of matter and sentient mind considering or knowing of their existence. Math is often purported to be one; much more abstract philisophical concepts such as the laws of identity, noncontradiction, excluded middle; logic itself; particular principles/theories of QM. Do these exist because we exist or do they exist independently? I would imagine most would say, well these are things that order and describe our world. They are essentially principles to add depth and property to the physical. Ok, so the first level of abstracts we can accept exist because while they aren't of matter themselves, they are broad characteristics of it.

What of the next level of abstracts, platonic forms (though this is variable if it is universally accepted since historically and empirically they aren't!); law- natural or instrinsic rights; morality? Do these have positive existence even though they are abstracts and do not propertize or order matter? We could speculate they exist to order a unified existence, so that the experiences are not chaotic but are they absolute in and of themselves?

If you accept that these things- abstracts exist outside materialism or distinct from matter, what is the justification for it since one can't empirically prove that they exist?
If non physical or material entities exist independently of observation and consideration, the next step for a deist is to justify an order to this set group.
If the non physical abstracts exist independently of matter and observation, and one establishes a further order to this set group by claiming a sentient "body" or "being", the next step is to define this entity and what its meaning means to the person who accepts it. Theists order this deity in relation to the individual and group.

 

[lrkun]

Faith in something that most likely doesn't exist is a waste of time. Unlike faith in the scientific method which demonstrates its reliability, faith in god has no external effect in the real world. I can type here without faith in god. The result is still the text that you are reading. I don't need to add an additional factor where that which I already have is complete.

 

[brewpanda]

Faith in something that most likely doesn't exist is a waste of time. Unlike faith in the scientific method which demonstrates its reliability, faith in god has no external effect in the real world. I can type here without faith in god. The result is still the text that you are reading. I don't need to add an additional factor where that which I already have is complete.

But the test was something demonstrable that one could liken to the concept of a deity.

Yellow Lab has knowable and measurable existence wherein the deity does not.
Therefore, a demonstrable comparison would be to DE or DM, or the concept of natural rights or Love/Justice/Good.

So if one reasons that those things exist, that is the theoretical equivalent to a deity. It was simply a counter to your Yellow Lab example. It doesn't argue a deity, it argues whether we can knowingly demonstrate the equivalent abstract concept of a deity.

 

[lrkun]

But the test was something demonstrable that one could liken to the concept of a deity.

Yellow Lab has knowable and measurable existence wherein the deity does not.
Therefore, a demonstrable comparison would be to DE or DM, or the concept of natural rights or Love/Justice/Good.

So if one reasons that those things exist, that is the theoretical equivalent to a deity. It was simply a counter to your Yellow Lab example. It doesn't argue a deity, it argues whether we can knowingly demonstrate the equivalent abstract concept of a deity.

If you were shot would you pray that god will heal you on the spot or would you allow the doctor to operate on your wound?

Because if it was me, I'd allow the doctor to operate on me for it has been demonstrated time and again that a doctor can cure me, where prayer can't. Therefore, I'll put my faith in a doctor rather than god in this case.

 

[brewpanda]

But the test was something demonstrable that one could liken to the concept of a deity.

Yellow Lab has knowable and measurable existence wherein the deity does not.
Therefore, a demonstrable comparison would be to DE or DM, or the concept of natural rights or Love/Justice/Good.

So if one reasons that those things exist, that is the theoretical equivalent to a deity. It was simply a counter to your Yellow Lab example. It doesn't argue a deity, it argues whether we can knowingly demonstrate the equivalent abstract concept of a deity.

If you were shot would you pray that god will heal you on the spot or would you allow the doctor to operate on your wound?

Because if it was me, I'd allow the doctor to operate on me for it has been demonstrated time and again that a doctor can cure me, where prayer can't. Therefore, I'll put my faith in a doctor rather than god in this case.

Which still doesn't address the issue. . .nor is it of any significance or merit what I would or would not do in that situation. Nor is it of merit what you would or would not do. That is a question you would ask a Christian Scientist by the way, not all deists.

The topical question is whether or not conceptual abstracts are "real" or believable. That is the demonstrable equivalency (on a basic level) to most concepts of a deity.

 

[lrkun]

Which still doesn't address the issue. . .nor is it of any significance or merit what I would or would not do in that situation. Nor is it of merit what you would or would not do. That is a question you would ask a Christian Scientist by the way, not all deists.

The topical question is whether or not conceptual abstracts are "real" or believable. That is the demonstrable equivalency (on a basic level) to most concepts of a deity.

Well, that is what I am talking about. The benefits one can derive from believing in a hypothetical thing or one that actually give results.

---

Believing in something that may or may not exist is a choice. It's like adding an additional word to a sentence or adding an additional part to a machine, even if it wasn't added, a sentence will stay what it means and the machine will still continue to function as it was made.

 

[brewpanda]

Which still doesn't address the issue. . .nor is it of any significance or merit what I would or would not do in that situation. Nor is it of merit what you would or would not do. That is a question you would ask a Christian Scientist by the way, not all deists.

The topical question is whether or not conceptual abstracts are "real" or believable. That is the demonstrable equivalency (on a basic level) to most concepts of a deity.

Well, that is what I am talking about. The benefits one can derive from believing in a hypothetical thing or one that actually give results.

So your position is to abandon all abstracts that aren't empirically demonstrable? Including natural or intrinsic rights, platonic forms, and other concepts that are unprovable?

That is consistent, and I won't argue with it.
I was just stating that believing in a deity is like believing that DE exists, or that Love exists regardless of man or that morality, equality, etc exist regardless of our perception of them.

 

[lrkun]

So your position is to abandon all abstracts that aren't empirically demonstrable? Including natural or intrinsic rights, platonic forms, and other concepts that are unprovable?

That is consistent, and I won't argue with it.
I was just stating that believing in a deity is like believing that DE exists, or that Love exists regardless of man or that morality, equality, etc exist regardless of our perception of them.

Do you mean natural rights or intrinsic rights under the law? If yes, then this is not abstract because it has an external equivalent and will affect a person to whom it is addressed.

Platonic forms, as in platonic love? I like this idea because I do have an appreciation for my professors to whom I've learned a lot. I do love them for their intelligence.

Other concepts that are unprovable? No. I'm just talking about god.

 

[brewpanda]

Do you mean natural rights or intrinsic rights under the law? If yes, then this is not abstract because it has an external equivalent and will affect a person to whom it is addressed.

Platonic forms, as in platonic love? I like this idea because I do have an appreciation for my professors to whom I've learned a lot. I do love them for their intelligence.

Other concepts that are unprovable? No. I'm just talking about god.

But it isn't a concept of whether a thing is affected (which again, to make this claim that one thing directly affects another that we can reasonably know is impossible since we cannot reasonably know causality.)
You can say "I experience love and broseph over there experiences natural human rights of liberty." But that is no different than a deist saying they experience the same thing, only the they suggest that your abstract notions of love and liberty are characteristics or attributes or part of their abstract notion of a deity.

It is the concept of intrinsic rights or natural rights- these are abstract concepts independent of experience. Platonic forms, yes like love, an abstract concept. You can't empirically prove any of them, you can logically argue their existence or suppose their existence. But proving them objectively is impossible. Even subjectively it becomes mired.

However, because we can rationally accept abstract concepts such as these because of any number of reasons we could also liken these abstracts to a deity.
I am not saying I personally am here, but for the sake of demonstration- an abstract concept is closer in relation to a conceptualization of a deity than is a yellow lab.

 

[lrkun]

But it isn't a concept of whether a thing is affected (which again, to make this claim that one thing directly affects another that we can reasonably know is impossible since we cannot reasonably know causality.)
You can say "I experience love and broseph over there experiences natural human rights of liberty." But that is no different than a deist saying they experience the same thing, only the they suggest that your abstract notions of love and liberty are characteristics or attributes or part of their abstract notion of a deity.

It is the concept of intrinsic rights or natural rights- these are abstract concepts independent of experience. Platonic forms, yes like love, an abstract concept. You can't empirically prove any of them, you can logically argue their existence or suppose their existence. But proving them objectively is impossible. Even subjectively it becomes mired.

However, because we can rationally accept abstract concepts such as these because of any number of reasons we could also liken these abstracts to a deity.
I am not saying I personally am here, but for the sake of demonstration- an abstract concept is closer in relation to a conceptualization of a deity than is a yellow lab.

Love and the right to liberty are different. In the case of liberty, it from law. The right to liberty is being deprived in a way that is not true law, there will be sanctions. Love on the otherhand is different for each individual.

I don't disagree with you that abstract concepts is likened to the concept of a god. I'm talking about effects from believing or having faith.

 

[brewpanda]

But they are still abstract concepts that are subjectively demonstrable. You can't measure or produce a quantification of love. Individual experience of that concept is entirely relative. What you define as love another might define as a deity. So if a person accepts abstract concepts exist that can be experienced subjectively- like liberty or love- one cannot determine that deism is any more or less foolish since it is a subjective experience of an abstract.

Obviously people can attempt to alter it into a knowable thing tantamount to science but that is fallacious. It only can rationally survive in a metaphysical or philosophical sense. It could cite science but not use it as an evidentiary means to its end.

 

[lrkun]

But they are still abstract concepts that are subjectively demonstrable. You can't measure or produce a quantification of love. Individual experience of that concept is entirely relative. What you define as love another might define as a deity. So if a person accepts abstract concepts exist that can be experienced subjectively- like liberty or love- one cannot determine that deism is any more or less foolish since it is a subjective experience of an abstract.

Obviously people can attempt to alter it into a knowable thing tantamount to science but that is fallacious. It only can rationally survive in a metaphysical or philosophical sense. It could cite science but not use it as an evidentiary means to its end.

If you believe in god, and you pray for a car, do you get it?

You might by mere chance that someone gives you a car, but that does not reflect reality because more often than not, people who wish for a car don't get it.

If you believe in god, and you pray for a car and you work in order to get that car, do you get it?

Yes, because you worked for it, you made money, and you buy the car with you money. You can then say that because of your belief in god, you got the car. But upon better analysis, you'll realize that you got the car because of having worked for it.

If you don't believe in god, and you work in order to get that car, do you get it?

Yes, because you worked for it, you made money, and you bought the car with that money. You can then say that because of your hard work, you got the car. There is no need for believing in god in order to get your desired result.

 

[brewpanda]

If you believe in god, and you pray for a car, do you get it?

You might by mere chance that someone gives you a car, but that does not reflect reality because more often than not, people who wish for a car don't get it.

If you believe in god, and you pray for a car and you work in order to get that car, do you get it?

Yes, because you worked for it, you made money, and you buy the car with you money. You can then say that because of your belief in god, you got the car. But upon better analysis, you'll realize that you got the car because of having worked for it.

If you don't believe in god, and you work in order to get that car, do you get it?

Yes, because you worked for it, you made money, and you bought the car with that money. You can then say that because of your hard work, you got the car. There is no need for believing in god in order to get your desired result.

You can love a car, you can believe in love, but does that mean you are going to get it because you love the car?
You freely choose a car, you have liberty in your everyday life and you believe in liberty, but does that mean liberty got you that car?

Your later scenarios are dependent on actively achieving what you desire. You then go on and are using monetary systems of exchange for goods and services as a comparison to subjectively experiencing love or a deity? They aren't relational or parallel.


The point was that some things are subjectively experienced. You experience liberty or love (two subjectives given) relative to your own perception. The hypothetical experience of a deity is the equivalent of that. Therefore if you can subjectively comprehend the former abstracts, it isn't irrational to assume another person can subjectively experience something equivalent. Such as a deity.

You can't objectively know love exists. You can't objectively know liberty exists. You can only experience them in a limited way relative to your own existence or from what others give to you to discern.
You can't objectively know a deity exists, it can only be experienced in a limited way relative to the experience of the individual experiencing it.

Thus abstract concepts are the closest thing you have to a deity. We can try to objectively define them, but they can only be subjectively experienced.

Love is Y for you.
Love is X for Shaun.
Love does not exist or is not experienced subjectively by Jim.

Liberty is Z for you.
Liberty is H for Lady Anne.
Liberty does not exist or is not experienced subjectively by Etienne.

Deity is K for Morrison.
Deity is Q for Van.
Deity does not exist or is not experienced subjectively by you.

Love can possess a broad and generalized "objective" definition to help subjective experience define and comprehend it.
Liberty can possess a broad and generalized "objective" definition to help subjective experience define and comprehend it.
Deity can possess a broad and generalized "objective" definition to help subjective experience define and comprehend it.

 

[lrkun]

You can love a car, you can believe in love, but does that mean you are going to get it because you love the car?
You freely choose a car, you have liberty in your everyday life and you believe in liberty, but does that mean liberty got you that car?

Your later scenarios are dependent on actively achieving what you desire. You then go on and are using monetary systems of exchange for goods and services as a comparison to subjectively experiencing love or a deity? They aren't relational or parallel.


The point was that some things are subjectively experienced. You experience liberty or love (two subjectives given) relative to your own perception. The hypothetical experience of a deity is the equivalent of that. Therefore if you can subjectively comprehend the former abstracts, it isn't irrational to assume another person can subjectively experience something equivalent. Such as a deity.

You can't objectively know love exists. You can't objectively know liberty exists. You can only experience them in a limited way relative to your own existence or from what others give to you to discern.
You can't objectively know a deity exists, it can only be experienced in a limited way relative to the experience of the individual experiencing it.

Thus abstract concepts are the closest thing you have to a deity. We can try to objectively define them, but they can only be subjectively experienced.

Love is Y for you.
Love is X for Shaun.
Love does not exist or is not experienced subjectively by Jim.

Liberty is Z for you.
Liberty is H for Lady Anne.
Liberty does not exist or is not experienced subjectively by Etienne.

Deity is K for Morrison.
Deity is Q for Van.
Deity does not exist or is not experienced subjectively by you.

Love can possess a broad and generalized "objective" definition to help subjective experience define and comprehend it.
Liberty can possess a broad and generalized "objective" definition to help subjective experience define and comprehend it.
Deity can possess a broad and generalized "objective" definition to help subjective experience define and comprehend it.

Love and results are two different thinks. I can love a car, but It doesn't mean I'll get it, but if I work for it, I'll get it. I can likewise get a car, not because I love it, but because it is essential to me, therefore I'll work for it.

Love isn't a necessary thing, but it's something nice, then again, love and god are two different things too. Love can be expressed through actions of which can be or won't be reciprocated, while believing in god has never been reciprocated.

 

[brewpanda]

Love and results are two different thinks. I can love a car, but It doesn't mean I'll get it, but if I work for it, I'll get it. I can likewise get a car, not because I love it, but because it is essential to me, therefore I'll work for it.

Indeed. That was the point.

Love isn't a necessary thing, but it's something nice, then again, love and god are two different things too. Love can be expressed through actions of which can be or won't be reciprocated, while believing in god has never been reciprocated.

And the conception or expression of a deity could be a non necessary thing but nice. The deity could be expressed through actions or love can't be expressed through actions, it can just be subjectively thought to be expressed through action. You are supposing that experience can prove a concept of love when all it can do is subjectively relate an abstract nebulous concept to a chemical and biological feeling. But that experience is none the less relative to the individual.

Believing in love isn't reciprocated though. Love doesn't love you back or believe in you back.
One can't know if love is actually ever reciprocated by another entity since the giving or recieving experience of that love is subjective.
To the same end, one can't know believing in a deity has never been reciprocated since that would be subjectively defined too. Some theists would actually try and tell you their deity does believe in them and that they have experienced it. But that isn't any more irrational a concept than experiencing the subjectively expressed concept of love.

 

[lrkun]

And the conception or expression of a deity could be a non necessary thing but nice. The deity could be expressed through actions or love can't be expressed through actions, it can just be subjectively thought to be expressed through action. You are supposing that experience can prove a concept of love when all it can do is subjectively relate an abstract nebulous concept to a chemical and biological feeling. But that experience is none the less relative to the individual.

Believing in love isn't reciprocated though. Love doesn't love you back or believe in you back.
One can't know if love is actually ever reciprocated by another entity since the giving or recieving experience of that love is subjective.
To the same end, one can't know believing in a deity has never been reciprocated since that would be subjectively defined too. Some theists would actually try and tell you their deity does believe in them and that they have experienced it. But that isn't any more irrational a concept than experiencing the subjectively expressed concept of love.

You missed the point. Love can be expressed through actions while god can't. Besides, love isn't synonymous with god.

 

[brewpanda]

You missed the point. Love can be expressed through actions while god can't. Besides, love isn't synonymous with god.

I didn't.
One could easily say that something subjectively experienced can't be expressed through actions or known to be expressed through actions accept in the mind of the actor himself.

I didn't say love was absolutely synonymous with a deity, but some people could define it that way and you couldn't judge what they were experiencing because you can't know their subjective experience.

 

[lrkun]

You missed the point. Love can be expressed through actions while god can't. Besides, love isn't synonymous with god.

I didn't.
One could easily say that something subjectively experienced can't be expressed through actions or known to be expressed through actions accept in the mind of the actor himself.

I didn't say love was absolutely synonymous with a deity, but some people could define it that way and you couldn't judge what they were experiencing because you can't know their subjective experience.

The problem with subjective experience is that it can't be demonstrated. That means the integrity of the person who claims that is in check. Just because someone lives his life as a saint, doesn't mean he talks to god.