On Proving God

Post Reply New Topic

'Being sure' is not demonstration of these fallacies.

Perhaps you have created your own personal laws of logic.If you did,then these could be applied only in dialog of you with yourself.



Yes,and I accepted your critics,and used your own interpretation of statement as just P.
I said that's irrelevant since in both formulations you get fallacy 'denying the antecedent'.

If you either formulate antecedent as P and then deny it with ~P,or ~P with P this is denying the antecedent,which is in turn formal logical fallacy.
This simply cannot be done.



You attempted to formulate your own statements into formal logic as well,like "Iff P then Q" and you said that was valid.
This is not just invalid,but idiotic as well.I have provided links with the meaning and formulations of "Iff'.
Your own personal formulations were even more fallacious then your claims in ordinary language.
I have just followed your own formulas,for example:


This is your own formulation,not mine.



Compare this,with this:



Are you sure that 'we can work out' anything?


Illiterate person could wrote gibberish,and then protest about misunderstanding if someone is pointing that is gibberish.
Same goes with logically illiterate person.
You can always say that I misinterpret you,whenever I demonstrate that you are wrong.


You have joined this thread to debate me,although I have started to debate with other person.
I personally have no obligation to consider you as some kind of person that deserves special treatment,since I didn't started this debate with you.
I have already stated my reasons,and I believe I was clear enough.
If you disagree with that that's fine with me,since it's not my intention to convince you in anything.




I didn't say that you said that.This was my statement.



Well,no you cannot say that.
Necessary element of greatness is extension(or perhaps even magnitude),not deed.
Greater set of numbers is great,yet it does nothing.
Greatest something can do greatest deed,besides other 'greatest things' but it could do also no deed whatsoever.

Deed can be greatest,but greatest something could or could not do any deed(greatest or whatever).Doing is not a priori necessary conclusion from greatest.

If something is able to do greatest deed,then it does not mean that it have obligation to do that.

You can only do something towards something.If something is greatest,then its highly unlikely that it can do any deed towards something else,since this something else would be separate thing from greatest being.And if there something else besides greatest being,then this greatest being would be limited,not greatest.



And how can you be sure that you're not making fallacies?
I'm not sure how can you believe that parody of ontological argument is valid disproving of it?


Well,why do you debating with me if you believe that?
I personally now think that you are much more uneducated then I previously believed.

Not even radical atheists like Dawkins took Gasking's parody as a serious argument against Ontological proof,while you have defended it as valid claim,although this is intended to be a joke.




Who's expectations?




Again,this is denying of antecedent 'since denying of proof'(antecedent) does not lead to denying the consequent 'reason to believe'.
You have misinterpreting me,since I have said nothing about 'nonexistence of God' but about belief in him:



This what you have said:


Really...




If God exists within the confines of this universe,then he would be confined by this universe,and therefore he would not be God.



Absurdity does not comes from Anselm's argument,but from Gasking's.





Exactly!


Greatest non-existing being is self contradiction,and therefore is not alternative to greatest existing being.

The 'should is in the proving' topic

Should the proof be in the pudding?!

I have been reading all these posts, some very philosphical, some very mathematical. I suppose it would be simpler if there was a ready answer for the original thread: Should Christians attempt to prove the existence of God?

They "should... attempt" it all they want. I am not sure all the posters in this forum are Christian, but the forum did not limit input to only Christians, as far as I can tell.

I do not think all the "should...attempt(s)" are l or valid, or whether this is possible. I am writing from an existential viewpoint, so from my spot I can only surmise my own self, from my own belief in myself. I suppose this is or would seem to be a choice. In the same way, my beliefs are also my choice. I would see "should...attempt(s)" as beliefs as well. To me, beliefs are chosen, my choice. I believe we all have the right to choose. I am not sure how mathematically logical this is but it is a system that has worked for me. (I am in awe of all what I believe to be Wittgensteinian logic posited here. Fascinating.)

Should I convince others that my choice is valid for them? Should I attempt to do this? Again, this is my choice. Should the person I try to convince accept this? Again, this is his or her choice. I do not try to force my choices, and no one has to accept them, at least in a culture/society that values freedom of choice and human rights.

I am not sure if this is of any assistance to posters in this forum, but I thought I would have my say. Thank you.

Christians shouldnt "prove" God, for the same reason God doesnt prove himself, every selfish person would claim to worship God if he flew across the sky for us all.

The way it is at the moment, those who think Gods rulership a good idea and have a humble heart will look for God, and after a while, he lets himself be found by them.

Acts 17

" 26 And he made out of one [man] every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of the dwelling of [men], 27 for them to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us."

So, if you have a heart inclined towards God, you will grope for him and he will let himself be found by you.

If you want there to be no God, so that you are free to do whatever you want, its easy to convince yourself God doenst exist, and there are plenty of people willing to help you.



Heres something else from Daniel 12

9 And he went on to say: “Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of [the] end. 10 Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will certainly act wickedly, and no wicked ones at all will understand; but the ones having insight will understand.

I voted yes because many upon many Christians enter into religious debates with the spectrum of non-theists. When you make the positive assertion of something unobservable, you bear the burden of proof. When I make the negative assertion of something unobservable, I am using common sense.

The danger lies not in the incompleteness or crudeness (or even fallacy) of a statement, but in that of, upon discovering it's incompleteness, not altering or discarding the statement, but instead sublimating it, making it vague.
The danger lies not in saying that "My soul is inside my head", but in saying "My mind is inside my soul".
So, I think that the christians should strive to achieve some kind of definite idea about their God - rather than resolving to the "I just know"-routine.