Who is God?

[Josephhasfun01]

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.

However, your premises are wrong, therefore your conclusion is wrong. "Laws" in science are not immaterial fabrications, they are refined observations

You fail to understand I am not talking about laws in science. I am talking about the laws of the universe. You know...the laws are discovered by observing how the physical universe works. There are these things called laws of inertia. We discovered them by observing objects in motion. I know...crazy right? Well these laws have no physical attributes but yet they exist! So if only material exist then how do you explain the existence of immaterial?

 

[Josephhasfun01]

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.

However, your premises are wrong, therefore your conclusion is wrong. "Laws" in science are not immaterial fabrications, they are refined observations

Seriously, quit making us religious people look like tools brah

Oh! Your religious? Huston we have a problem! It was the religious who plotted to kill Jesus.

 

[forgotten observer]

God is defined as omniscient, omnipresent, benevalent and all powerful. god is an infite spirit.

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.

How could i ever do battlewith such an intellectual heavy wieght. :lol:

Oh my you failed to spell several words, use the quote system, and completely ignore all the important part of my refutation and insult my intelligence. You are a complete tool, all your points have been completely refuted and you just straw-man our arguments or make ad-hominem attacks.
But don't worry I'm not running away, I'll destroy any possible attempts you have to prove your god, come at me bro.

Oh and here's what you ignored below

Immaterial exist. God is immaterial. Therefore God exist.

I have never seen anyone successfully debunk this:
Premise #1 The natural laws in which the physical universe follows are immaterial.
Premise #2 God is by nature 'unmade' so He is immaterial.
Conclusion: God exist.

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

 

[IBSpify]

I knew I'd get to use this eventually

this has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen

Instead of just calling it stupid why don't you address the arguments points, if your god is all powerful, all knowing, and benevolent , why is there evil in the world?

If he is unable to stop it, then he is not all powerful, if he doesn't know about it, then he is not all knowing, and if he is able to stop it but unwilling, then he is not benevolent.

 

[australopithecus]

Joseph, shit or get off the pot. You've posted 3 threads of weak sauce fuzzy wuzzy non-logic, and nothing of any substance whatsoever. Actually provide something that isn't an appeal to ignorance gleaned from spending 5 minutes misunderstanding Philosophy for Dummies.

At this point you're just a poor excuse for a Poe.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

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.

:facepalm: If the pink unicorn is invisible then how do you it's a unicorn? How do know it's pink? F A I L

Something immaterial cannot be seen directly. Take for instance = the laws of motion. We can describe the laws of motion by observing objects in motion.

BTW telling me that I am not allowed to use philosophy to prove the existence of something is....well..... :lol: Love these emotioncons!

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Instead of just calling it stupid why don't you address the arguments points, if your god is all powerful, all knowing, and benevolent , why is there evil in the world?

If he is unable to stop it, then he is not all powerful, if he doesn't know about it, then he is not all knowing, and if he is able to stop it but unwilling, then he is not benevolent.[/quote]

Straw-man in diagram form? Wow! Y'all getting very creative with your strawmans' these days! :lol:

Is the clay complaining to the potter about how it was made?

well i never!

I suppose you'd prefer God made things differently. But here's the thing...you're not God! I suppose you would prefer to not exist?

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Me?

Nope. I don't have all the skillz required.

:x

 

[IBSpify]

I suppose you'd prefer God made things differently. But here's the thing...you're not God!

Your correct I'm not god, if I had the power to stop a child molester from molesting a child, I would.

But you are still skirting the argument, and begging the question at the same time. Your claiming we don't like the way god created the universe, when you haven't even convinced anyone that said god exists.

Secondly the conclusion that you are drawing does not follow from the premises, even if we were to grant you every single premise that you made, it does nothing to describe any of the properties that you are attributing to your god aside from immaterial.

If you spent less time trying to define your god into existence, and more time actually explaining why you believe what you believe you would probably gain more ground and people would take you more seriously.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Define "God" Joseph.

God is defined as omniscient, omnipresent, benevalent and all powerful. god is an infite spirit.

Wow.

My Creator Deity is all of those, except benevolent - he's more of a scientist himself, really. He doesn't answer prayers nor does he interfere.

So, I have an omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful deity that is beyond the Universe. But you seem to have assigned specific characteristics to him - things he certainly didn't ask you for. So, how did a simple man come to these conclusions?

 

[Frenger]

So by definition "atheism" does not exist

So by definition, you have no idea what you're on about. Once I saw another person make an error as stupid as this when they tried to take their trousers off up, over their head.

Atheism is simply the disagreement with the claim that there is a god. This is a vague definition because there are literally thousands of different gods and definitions as to what a god is, what attributes they have and their role in reality.

You'll usually find people define god by the role they want god to play, which means there are as many definitions of god as there are people who believe in one. This is why the definition of atheism is vague and non-committal, there is no way to judge what it is we are actually disagreeing with.

We can absolutely show (and have after reading this thread) that the god you believe in cannot exist "by definition" because you have attributed absolutes that do not agree with what we see in reality. In other words an all powerful, all loving god would not allow evil. And we only have to look as far as Tim Allen to see that true evil exists.

Here is a thread about what atheism is should you wish to learn something.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

:facepalm: If the pink unicorn is invisible then how do you it's a unicorn? How do know it's pink? F A I L

If you have never seen God, how do you know it exists?

Something immaterial cannot be seen directly.

Can, "what you call immaterial", be observed indirectly? If so, which sensors and experiments would you suggest to observe God?

Take for instance = the laws of motion. We can describe the laws of motion by observing objects in motion.

The "laws of motion" are concepts, they are something that we think things do, they are not things themselves.

BTW telling me that I am not allowed to use philosophy to prove the existence of something is....well..... :lol: Love these emotioncons!

You can find it laughable all you like, that will not change the fact that this is a limitation of philosophy. What I find funny is that people actually try that with a serious face. What makes it even more funny is that at the same time they try to do that, they call themselves educated philosophers while making invalid arguments that the most basic philosophic educations could teach you to spot.

 

[televator]

Why, thank you. *Puts on 3d glasses*

So by definition "atheism" does not exist

Wut? Oh, you're probably referring to my signature in a manner that you sadly felt was clever. Actually, all you did was demonstrate your own selective reading problem. Keep trying.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Immaterial exist. God is immaterial. Therefore God exist.

I have never seen anyone successfully debunk this:
Premise #1 The natural laws in which the physical universe follows are immaterial.
Premise #2 God is by nature 'unmade' so He is immaterial.
Conclusion: God exist.

:lol: My anus comes up with better arguments than that.

How does it follow that if the immaterial exists, God exists?

Why could we not have something immaterial, say a soul and not have God?

Please explain how the laws of the universe are immaterial. If you were to ask me, the laws of the universe follow very much from matter and the way that it behaves.

You must be one of the backwards thinkers. :lol: An observation of how matter behaves is how we are able to determine what the immaterial laws of the universe are! :facepalm: Matter follows the laws of the universe not vice versa! How could matter behave the way it does without the immaterial laws in place?

 

[australopithecus]

And yet you've still failed to provide any evidence that your specific God exists. That abstract concepts are immaterial, in this instance the laws that govern how physic processes of reality work, doesn't prove God, immaterial or otherwise.

Oh, and just so you know, I'll be making sure you can't retroactively edit post days after you make them. Don't want to make people think you're being dishonest now, do we?

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Joseph, I won't comment much because I'm not qualified to do it. However, neither are you, obviously.

 

[forgotten observer]

Dear josephasfun01
You have continually ignored my refutations ,and only straw-manned my position by treating my little joke as a serious position.I request you re-read my previous post carefully and address it otherwise I take it as unconditional-surrender

 

[Josephhasfun01]

I HAVE POSTED MY REFUTATION TWICE AND DON'T APPRECIATE BEING IGNORED. I WILL ACCEPT LACK OF REFUTATION AS UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER

Sorry but altering the narrative with a fiction character does not stand as a refutation.

My desicion to not respond to ridiculous arguments is not surrender.

Thanks for reading and the correction. I'd hate to look as dumb as some people up in heiyur. And wave em like you just don't kaiyir

 

[forgotten observer]

I HAVE POSTED MY REFUTATION TWICE AND DON'T APPRECIATE BEING IGNORED. I WILL ACCEPT LACK OF REFUTATION AS UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER

Sorry but altering the narrative with a fiction character does stand as a refutation.

My desicion to not respond to ridiculous arguments is not surrender.

I edited this post to clarify, please read it again, I apologise

 

[forgotten observer]

Sorry but altering the narrative with a fiction character does stand as a refutation.

My desicion to not respond to ridiculous arguments is not surrender.

I assume you meant does not stand as a refutation?