-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Who is God?
- Thread starter Josephhasfun01
- Start date
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
I have never seen anyone successfully debunk this:
Premise #1 The natural laws in which the physical universe follows are immaterial.
Premise #2 Invisible pink unicorn is immaterial.
Conclusion: The invisible pink unicorn exist.
As I have stated before in some other post. No philosophical argument can be used to prove the existence of anything whatsoever, let alone God.
If you start with "I have an argument for the existence of..." even before I hear anything else I'm sure that you are wrong.
Even if your logic was sound (something that never is from someone trying to prove God) you need true premises, at least one about something which exists, and one about a relation of what you are trying to prove exists and the thing which exists. They can not be the one and the same, because then you are assuming as true the conclusion of what you are trying to access if it is true or not, and thus the premise is not necessarily true and the all argument fails. You can not get a true premise about something which exists, because if you do not assume anything A priori, it means that the existence of that thing needs to be demonstrated before you can use it and therefore falling in exactly the same problem as before, the only difference being that now you are missing a premise and therefore it could never be proven. Even if this wasn't a problem You need the other premise that relates the thing which you are trying to prove exist with the thing which exist, and the only way to do that is to observe that such relation actually exists, and to do that you need to use empirical evidence which we all know not to be reliable. To top it all, the very notion of things which exists it is not really so well defined, its notion is bound to things being in this thing we call physical reality which is only accessible trough empirical means (which again empirical evidence shows empirical evidence is at least not 100% reliable). The best you can hope for is to use a methodic acessment of reality and hope that you were not terribly misled, and the best means to do that is science. So if you want to prove God to me you better have scientific evidence, and you better bring it in a form of a measurement. Unfortunately Science response to the existence of God is a resounding NO!
So in reality, you have no cards to play.
If my powers of foresight are correct, you will now try to forward the argument that God is outside the Universe and therefore out of reach of science. Which then I have to ask "How then can you be so sure that she exists?", secondly you just admitted that she doesn't exist. Because:
1. The universe is define be the collection of everything which exists.
2. Things that are outside of the group of everything which exists, do not exist.
3. God is outside the universe.
C: God does not exist.
good luck.
Premise #1 The natural laws in which the physical universe follows are immaterial.
Premise #2 Invisible pink unicorn is immaterial.
Conclusion: The invisible pink unicorn exist.
As I have stated before in some other post. No philosophical argument can be used to prove the existence of anything whatsoever, let alone God.
If you start with "I have an argument for the existence of..." even before I hear anything else I'm sure that you are wrong.
Even if your logic was sound (something that never is from someone trying to prove God) you need true premises, at least one about something which exists, and one about a relation of what you are trying to prove exists and the thing which exists. They can not be the one and the same, because then you are assuming as true the conclusion of what you are trying to access if it is true or not, and thus the premise is not necessarily true and the all argument fails. You can not get a true premise about something which exists, because if you do not assume anything A priori, it means that the existence of that thing needs to be demonstrated before you can use it and therefore falling in exactly the same problem as before, the only difference being that now you are missing a premise and therefore it could never be proven. Even if this wasn't a problem You need the other premise that relates the thing which you are trying to prove exist with the thing which exist, and the only way to do that is to observe that such relation actually exists, and to do that you need to use empirical evidence which we all know not to be reliable. To top it all, the very notion of things which exists it is not really so well defined, its notion is bound to things being in this thing we call physical reality which is only accessible trough empirical means (which again empirical evidence shows empirical evidence is at least not 100% reliable). The best you can hope for is to use a methodic acessment of reality and hope that you were not terribly misled, and the best means to do that is science. So if you want to prove God to me you better have scientific evidence, and you better bring it in a form of a measurement. Unfortunately Science response to the existence of God is a resounding NO!
So in reality, you have no cards to play.
If my powers of foresight are correct, you will now try to forward the argument that God is outside the Universe and therefore out of reach of science. Which then I have to ask "How then can you be so sure that she exists?", secondly you just admitted that she doesn't exist. Because:
1. The universe is define be the collection of everything which exists.
2. Things that are outside of the group of everything which exists, do not exist.
3. God is outside the universe.
C: God does not exist.
good luck.
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
I have never seen anyone successfully debunk this:
Premise #1 The natural laws in which the physical universe follows are immaterial.
Premise #2 Wodin is by nature 'unmade' so He is immaterial.
Conclusion: Wodin, Norse deity of Wisdom, and his 11-legged magical horse, exist.
I'm sorry. I just wanted a laugh for a moment.
However, your premises are wrong, therefore your conclusion is wrong. "Laws" in science are not immaterial fabrications, they are refined observations.
If I were to throw a baseball in the sky, it would not fly off into the stars and, instead, would most likely slow, and then come crashing down into some lad's glove (or his head. It depends on how bad of a pitcher you are). However, if I were to throw a Baseball in open space, that ball would fly on seemingly undeterred until it was met with a mass that caused it to fall on.
This observation, gravity, is just that. We know that masses attract.
So, we've developed a reason - since all physicists can really do is goad an approximate out of infinity - this is called a Theory (spoiler: Mass bends spacetime around it with both it's motion and it's mere existence as matter, forming pits in which things must escape).
This relies on several, long-worded and tested lines of reasoning:
Premise 1) Objects with mass attract each other
Premise 2) Light has (for all intents and purposes) no mass.
Premise 3) Light is affected by mass, bending in proportion to it's speed around large masses
Conclusion: Light is travelling on a straight path like matter that has been bent in the same proportions, by a mass, in variation with it's speed - this is the warping of "Spacetime" around the mass.
If we find out that there are invisible dragons or spaghetti monster tendrils bending all things towards mass, then we'll definitely change and refine our statements until then. However, until such a time comes, we can only stick with that evidence (actual evidence, based on testing and conclusions) does, indeed, draw.
Your premise fails on the mere fact that you have:
1) Failed to define "God"
2) I can use it to prove anything from an invisible dragon in my closet to an invisible cheeseburger in my hand right now.
Seriously, quit making us religious people look like tools brah.
Premise #1 The natural laws in which the physical universe follows are immaterial.
Premise #2 Wodin is by nature 'unmade' so He is immaterial.
Conclusion: Wodin, Norse deity of Wisdom, and his 11-legged magical horse, exist.
I'm sorry. I just wanted a laugh for a moment.
However, your premises are wrong, therefore your conclusion is wrong. "Laws" in science are not immaterial fabrications, they are refined observations.
If I were to throw a baseball in the sky, it would not fly off into the stars and, instead, would most likely slow, and then come crashing down into some lad's glove (or his head. It depends on how bad of a pitcher you are). However, if I were to throw a Baseball in open space, that ball would fly on seemingly undeterred until it was met with a mass that caused it to fall on.
This observation, gravity, is just that. We know that masses attract.
So, we've developed a reason - since all physicists can really do is goad an approximate out of infinity - this is called a Theory (spoiler: Mass bends spacetime around it with both it's motion and it's mere existence as matter, forming pits in which things must escape).
This relies on several, long-worded and tested lines of reasoning:
Premise 1) Objects with mass attract each other
Premise 2) Light has (for all intents and purposes) no mass.
Premise 3) Light is affected by mass, bending in proportion to it's speed around large masses
Conclusion: Light is travelling on a straight path like matter that has been bent in the same proportions, by a mass, in variation with it's speed - this is the warping of "Spacetime" around the mass.
If we find out that there are invisible dragons or spaghetti monster tendrils bending all things towards mass, then we'll definitely change and refine our statements until then. However, until such a time comes, we can only stick with that evidence (actual evidence, based on testing and conclusions) does, indeed, draw.
Your premise fails on the mere fact that you have:
1) Failed to define "God"
2) I can use it to prove anything from an invisible dragon in my closet to an invisible cheeseburger in my hand right now.
Seriously, quit making us religious people look like tools brah.
Josephhasfun01
New Member
Laurens said:
[quoteEvidence please.][/quote]
You need evidence? Google: laws of the universe or the laws of physics. The laws in which the universe follows the are indeed immaterial by definition. I should not need to prove on this point as it is already common knowledge.
Souls are immaterial and are a part of God therefore the souls of people came from God and thus are independent of anything outside of God.
I watched you pull apart your stawman and remain critical of your posit that Souls are not independent. :roll:
The immaterial laws of the universe exist indepently of material. That is what immaterial is. :facepalm:
None of these are immaterial. Don't make me facepalm you again! :roll:
bluejatheist
New Member
My schadenfreude will enjoy what's coming in this thread.
forgotten observer
New Member
Josephhasfun01 said:
Premise one is questionable the natural laws of the universe are an inherent part of it, they are essentially qualities, are qualities physical or immaterial? They are a perceived description of an observable entity, the foundations of the quality are physical and as such the abstract interpretations are as well.
premise two: circular reasoning, you could name any hypothetical being, say Haruhi Suzumiya and make this claim, but it still relies upon the idea they exist in the first place, unless the you mean there is a CONCEPT with the quality of immateriality. Not to nit-pick but this conflation causes horrendous conclusions, I.E. the ontological argument, which requires solely this conflation to work
premise 3. Failed grammar and even more failed reasoning, simply because a quality can be observed in physical reality and a hypothetical being has this quality ascribed to it does not prove it's existence.
Premise 1.Haruhi Suzamiya is a hypothetical being with the concept of being eccentric and beautiful
Premise 2. there are laws defining how beauty and eccentricity are perceived in nature through the human mind
Conclusion Haruhi Suzumiya exists
Now as much as I would like this to be the case sadly it isn't and I hope you can see why.
I feel this argument isn't quite as stupid as you word it and in fact you are really leading on to this-
--->www.proofthatgodexists.org/
If that's what you wish me to refute I will very happily.
Thanks for reading, forgotten observer
australopithecus
Active Member
Clue is in the name, people.
Laurens
New Member
Josephhasfun01 said:
:lol:
I'm not going to entertain arguments about souls as its about as worthwhile as arguing about the colour of unicorns...
However you did say that the immaterial does not depend on anything to exist. If the laws of the universe are immaterial then they do not depend on anything to exist ergo they do not depend on God to exist - i.e. God did not create them.
I'm sorry but your argument was that God has affected lives through history. My refutation was that things don't need to exist in order to affect history.
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
Define "God" Joseph.
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
WarK said:
Funny.
But, seriously. This is the question you ask when you want to know if the armchair "I read this on the internet" philosopher is worth wasting time over. You can't have a discussion on an ambiguous topic.
If he said that God was an unknowable deity that had no connection nor contact with the world, then his posit could be dealt in the realm of slightly-less-dishonest.
Josephhasfun01
New Member
televator said:
So by definition "atheism" does not exist
Josephhasfun01
New Member
)O( Hytegia )O( said:
God is defined as omniscient, omnipresent, benevalent and all powerful. god is an infite spirit.
forgotten observer
New Member
Josephhasfun01 said:
This is unbelievable arrogance
bluejatheist
New Member
I knew I'd get to use this eventually
forgotten observer
New Member
Josephhasfun01 said:
A picture says a thousand words, so here's my alternative
Why should any argument prove your god over mine, as a proud haruhiist I contend my god is superior in virtually everyway.
Josephhasfun01
New Member
forgotten observer said:
tell me how can anyone be an atheist? By definition Atheism doe not exist! Your answer is an appeal to ignorance when answering the question of the origin of the universe.
Atheism assumes that the answer is, "we don't know". But yet you do know something. It isn't that you don't anything. You know that chance is not a causation. The only logical explanation is God created the universe. Or you could posit "luck" as being causal like dawkins.
Josephhasfun01
New Member
[
God is defined as omniscient, omnipresent, benevalent and all powerful. god is an infite spirit.[/quote]
A picture says a thousand words, so here's my alternative
Why should any argument prove your god over mine, as a proud haruhiist I contend my god is superior in virtually everyway.[/quote]
How could i ever do battlewith such an intellectual heavy wieght. :lol:
God is defined as omniscient, omnipresent, benevalent and all powerful. god is an infite spirit.[/quote]
A picture says a thousand words, so here's my alternative
Why should any argument prove your god over mine, as a proud haruhiist I contend my god is superior in virtually everyway.[/quote]
How could i ever do battlewith such an intellectual heavy wieght. :lol:
Josephhasfun01
New Member
bluejatheist said:
I knew I'd get to use this eventually
this has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen
forgotten observer
New Member
Josephhasfun01 said:bluejatheist said:
I knew I'd get to use this eventually
this has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen
Ad hominem attack, refute this or admit defeat, this totally disproves the god you claim to believe in, but Haruhi on the other hand doesn't have these qualities so try harder next time.