14 video series Proving God’s Existence

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m looking forward to it! Thank you for posting it I need to break through the barriers preventing me from believing.
 
lisaandlena said:
This video series does of course begin with a false premise…that it’s possible to prove the existence of God. It is in fact impossible to prove the existence of God. Case in point, I’m quite certain that there a great many atheistic videos on Youtube! purporting to prove that God doesn’t exist, and I’m also certain that you would argue that proving that God doesn’t exist is impossible. And you would of course be right. Despite what some video may claim, it’s impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, it’s also impossible to prove that He does exist.
Click to expand...
The thing is, i cannot determine from anything you wrote that an objective proof of God is impossible, it’s just asserted by you. You certainly didn’t address any of the arguments in the first two videos or any arguments that propose a proof for God. So all you are really doing here is dictating your personal point of view, a point of view that you are of course welcome to. But i see no reason to think that what you’re saying is true, you are just doing a lot of hand waving. So your point is lost on anyone that is actually more interested in the logical consistency of the arguments than someones ideological preference…
lisaandlena said:
Proof…like many things…is relative. Each of us gets to decide for ourselves what constitutes proof, but as for objective proof for the existence of God…there’s no such thing.
Click to expand...
However, truth is not relative, and we don’t get to decide what constitutes reason. If a thing follows necessarily according to the law of non-contradiction then it must be true whether you like it or not, and whether or not you think it constitutes a proof relative to your ideological assertions is irrelevant. Ignoring the truth value of an argument is not the same thing as refuting an argument, that’s just willful ignorance. Besides that you have not demonstrated that it is impossible to prove the existence of God, at most all you can say is that you have yet to find an argument that does prove the existence of God, and i suspect that the only reason you haven’t is because you don’t really understand what it means for something to be true or proven…
 
Last edited:
According to the dictionary proof is, “the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact”.

The proof or evidence for something may be good, even certain. But whether someone accepts it or not may be constricted by that person’s limitations, not necessarily by the validity of the proof. This does not mean the proof itself is less good if they do not accept it, but that the person may have limited ability to for instance understand it, or for perhaps emotional reasons cannot be open to it, or do not want to understand it if they are not open to finding truth that contradicts their beliefs.

I think this can be demonstrated by looking at for instance Edward Feser’s life who as an atheist taught college courses on philosophy including the classical arguments for God’s existence. He thought the arguments could all be easily shot down and taught like this. That is until he actually took the time to understand them from the point of view of their advocates. Eventually he was convinced not just that they were good arguments but that they were valid. Today he is a Catholic philosopher.

So you are right if you are saying how we perceive a proof for God’s existence is subjective. But, that does not make the proof itself subjective. It may only speak of our own limitations to understand or accept it. The proof stands or falls on its own. If all of the premises are true and the conclusion necessarily follows then it must be true. The amount of confidence one has in the premises may be subjective, but as I said before that may be more of a limitation of the person rather than the argument. And the vantage point he is approaching the argument either as a skeptic or as someone open to the argument.
 
lisaandlena said:
When it comes right down to it, I can’t prove anything to you, because you can always counter that it’s simply my opinion.
Click to expand...
No, if you make a logically consistent Argument i can accept it. If you identify the logical contradiction in the argument, i will have no choice but to abandon the argument. The problem here is that you are making no argument at all. You are just dictating your opinion, and making insults, which is not the same thing as refuting an argument. The reason you have done this is probably because you were emotionally offended by the idea that i have certain knowledge of an intelligent first cause because you don’t want that to be true. It cannot be for purely logical reasons because you have provided none.

Until you provide an actual argument that demonstrates the impossibility of a proof, then it is just an assertion. The fact that some people approach the notion of proof with their own subjective preferences and biased ideological preconceptions does not prove that certain knowledge of God cannot be attained. It merely proves that you cannot convince everyone regardless of proof because not everyone understands what that is or respects it.

.
 
Last edited:
So you are just ignoring the possibility that you are wrong while dictating to us that you are right. I’m sorry this is what is called a cop-out. All you have to do is identify the logical inconsistency in the argument. But you can’t because your presence here is dishonest.
lisaandlena said:
So I don’t need to watch the above videos to know that their premise is false. Because it’s simply impossible to prove that God exists.
Click to expand...
You ain’t even bothered to watch the videos, how disrespectful! That,s called willful ignorance. You can disguise it all you want.

This is called the “Philosophy” section of catholic answers. This is not the “assert your favorite biases” forum.
 
Last edited:
lisaandlena said:
Ah, so you’ve investigated every other religion on the planet to assure that none of them meet your rigorous threshold of proof.
Click to expand...
Religion is a matter of faith, and i have personal reasons for being a Christian, reasons that are not satisfied by other religions.

But i do investigate counter arguments to my philosophy, which is a different matter entirely.
 
Last edited:
lisaandlena said:
That’s why my beliefs are far more rational than your beliefs, because my beliefs are based solely on logic, reason and evidence.
Click to expand...
You’re talking to people you claim don’t exist…

Yep, you are far more rational.
 
Last edited:
This reminds me of George Mavrodes, a theistic philosopher who put forward an argument like this:
  1. If there is a world, then God exists.
  2. There is a world.
  3. Therefore, God exists.
His point was that, IF God exists, that argument is as sound as any argument could be. But it’s not convincing. Mavrodes thought that (presuming God’s existence) there are millions of sound arguments that God exists. But he thought that convincing arguments were few and far between, if there are any, and that an argument’s being convincing is not in the hands of the person making the argument.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
This reminds me of George Mavrodes, a theistic philosopher who put forward an argument like this:

If there is a world, then God exists.
There is a world.
Therefore, God exists.
Click to expand...
This is a circular argument.
 
Last edited:
So you have faith that they exist? Outside of your head that is.
 
Last edited:
He asserts the existence of God in relation to the world in the first premise, and then he concludes that God exists because the world exists. And you think that this is just Highly questionable? Loooool

How is this not a circular Argument?

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, “circle in proving”; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion,

 
Last edited:
lisaandlena said:
I’m absolutely certain that they exist, it’s not a matter of faith. The question is, what’s the nature of that existence? Are they objectively real or not? There appears to be no way to know.
Click to expand...
So you have faith that they exist objectively and not just in your mind?
 
IWantGod said:
He asserts the existence of God in relation to the world in the first premise
Click to expand...
He does no such thing. “If the world exists, then God exists” does not assert the existence of God, no more than “If the moon is made of cheese, then there are unicorns” asserts the existence of unicorns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top