My proof for God. Critiques please

[Moonstruck888]

Was Mendeleev being silly when he predicted the characteristics of the undiscovered elements?

By looking at what is logically nessecary, we can infer what it must be, if it fits the position we apply to it. If we have an uncaused cause that created the universe, we can speculate why and how it does that; and by looking at the nature of the universe we can infer what characteristics it has from what it’s effects are.

Mendeleev predicted that characteristics of undiscovered elements using a tried and proven model based on observational data. By predicting the properties of elements that had been discovered and seeing if the predictions were acurate using his model, the periodic table could be tested. What model are you using to predict the properties of whatever is outside the observable Universe, if there is anything there at all?

If we saw the leftovers of an explosion, we could discern what type of explosive caused it by looking at what has happened - movement of particles, radiation, heat, other damage, leftovers and soforth.

That is precisely what we did, and that has told us what the observable Universe was doing from Planck time onwards. What that does not do is tell us what is outside / before the observable Universe.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Not so. There is nothing baseless about saying it could be in the box, which is the believer’s intellectually honest position.

To make atheism intellectually honest, you would have to prove the apple (God) is not inside the box.

No!

You would have to admit, unequviocally, that you have no business being definitive about what is inside the box until the box can be opened.

Do you maintain agnosticism to the tooth fairy? I want this question answered seriously.

 

[JohnDamian]

No!

You would have to admit, unequviocally, that you have no business being definitive about what is inside the box until the box can be opened.

Do you maintain agnosticism to the tooth fairy? I want this question answered seriously.

Well the general notion of the tooth fairy can be doubted because it is logically inconsistent, in that the functions predicated to it are essentially contrary to what appears to be nessecary essentials predicated to all things within the genus of creatures, in that it does not appear to be biologically or evolutionary sound hypothesis. So, the tooth fairy, in terms of it’s general description as a small humanoid with wings that removes teeth does not appear to be a sound hypothesis; in that all creatures within the genus of creatures, or the species(logical species) of humanoid – appear to have self sustaining processes. The notion of a tooth fairy within the genus of creatures appears to not fit. Therefore, if any such creature exists it is essentially different from the posited beast, as that would entail an essential contradiction.

 

[momor]

No!

You would have to admit, unequviocally, that you have no business discussing what is inside the box until the box can be opened.

Do you maintain agnosticism to the tooth fairy? I want this question answered seriously.

Change ‘believer’ to ‘my’ in the prior post. I have never said I have evidence for my belief in God. It is you that states direct evidence is necessary for my belief to be credible and I have just shown it is not necessary. While requiring direct evidence from believers you continue to hold yourself to a lesser standard of evidence - i.e. lack of evidence - and I have just shown that your standard is meaningless to proving anything about reality. You cannot state with any credibility that the apple (God) doesn’t exist. The most you can do is hold a belief that the box may be empty.

So, as someone who seems to value evidence and logic, why do you call yourself an atheist instead of an agnostic?

Of course I am not agnostic to the tooth fairy. My direct experience tells me the tooth fairy exists.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Well the general notion of the tooth fairy can be doubted because it is logically inconsistent, in that the functions predicated to it are essentially contrary to what appears to be nessecary essentials predicated to all things within the genus of creatures, in that it does not appear to be biologically or evolutionary sound hypothesis. So, the tooth fairy, in terms of it’s general description as a small humanoid with wings that removes teeth does not appear to be a sound hypothesis; in that all creatures within the genus of creatures, or the species(logical species) of humanoid – appear to have self sustaining processes. The notion of a tooth fairy within the genus of creatures appears to not fit. Therefore, if any such creature exists it is essentially different from the posited beast, as that would entail an essential contradiction.

Every single thing you stated about the tooth fairy there applies equally well to any supernatural construct endowed with humanoid characteristics. Why do you make a special exception for one?

 

[JohnDamian]

Every single thing you stated about the tooth fairy there applies equally well to any supernatural construct endowed with humanoid characteristics. Why do you make a special exception for one?

You are absolutely correct; if we were to say that God was a little man on a white cloud you could very truthfully say what I just said about fairies to God.

However, we do not say that God is a little man on a cloud; but we do say that Jesus Christ is both man and God, in the Hypostatic union; but that is a matter of substance, not form.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Change ‘believer’ to ‘my’ in the prior post. I have never said I have evidence for my belief in God. It is you that states direct evidence is necessary for my belief to be credible and I have just shown it is not necessary. While requiring direct evidence from believers you continue to hold yourself to a lesser standard of evidence - i.e. lack of evidence - and I have just shown that your standard is meaningless to proving anything about reality. You cannot state with any credibility that the apple (God) doesn’t exist. The most you can do is hold a belief that the box may be empty.

You have shown that is its not necessary to you.

And no, I do not hold myself to a lesser standard of evidence. If I made a positive claim in the absence of evidence, I would expect you to respond with the same incredulity as I do when you talk about God and imaginary apples.

The problem here is that you think that making a positive claim and being skeptical of a claim are the same thing. They are not.

If I told you there was a tea pot in orbit around Neptune, or that the tooth fairy takes your broken teeth away in the night, you’d quite rightly hold me to ridicule. You would not be agnostic about those claims because they are extraordinary claims that are not backed up by any evidence.

The idea of a divine invigilator is an equally extraordinary claim that is not backed up by any evidence. I reject that claim. It has no support.

So, as someone who seems to value evidence and logic, why do you call yourself an atheist instead of an agnostic?

Because atheist better defines my position. I am not agnostic.

 

[Moonstruck888]

we do say that Jesus Christ is both man and God, in the Hypostatic union; but that is a matter of substance, not form.

Which is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence to support it. Evidence that you are incapable of providing.

 

[davidv]

Which is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence to support it. Evidence that you are incapable of providing.

Correction. There is evidence. You are unwilling to accept it, but it is evidence none-the-less.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Correction. There is evidence. You are unwilling to accept it, but it is evidence none-the-less.

Present it.

 

[davidv]

Present it.

Jesus, the son of the Living God, the Word made flesh, who dwelt among us.

 

[momor]

Present it.

Present yours. Direct evidence is your own standard of proof after all.

 

[wheels10]

I don’t claim God does not exist. I do not believe that God exists because none of the arguments for the existence of God meet my criteria for belief.

I do not believe in God, ergo I am an atheist. a - without, theos - God.

Because they are making a positive claim for one thing, and worse, they are telling other people to come to their used car lot or suffer the consequences.

In the absence of proof, I am basing my atheism on common sense.

What seems a more sensible approach to understanding the fundamentals of the Universe?

a) The proposition that God created the Universe in six days, found he’d made a big mistake when he did so and had to kill everyone but two people, whereupon he found that he still hadn’t quite managed to put things right and had to take human form for 33 years before sacrificing himself to himself.

b) The proposition that the Univerese has emergent physical properties that can be studied and learned from.

Because I lack belief in deities.

God does not make mistakes. God is perfect. Human beings make mistakes. God gave us free will. We make mistakes when we decide not to follow God’s will. So one might say, well then isn’t this free will that God gave us a mistake? No. God does not want robots that are programmed or forced to do His will. He wants us to freely make the decision of choosing good over evil and to Love our neighbour under all conditions. Without free will, one could not have the ability to Love.

Jesus came into this world to show us what True, Pure, Holy Love is in action. During every moment of His suffering He could have destroyed His enemies, with the blink of an eye! But no, He Loves His Father and He Loves us. In the face of all this evil, His Love stood firm. Jesus showed us how to defeat evil with True Love.

Everything in this world, ie. all of our worldly possessions, our friends, our family, our very own lives belong to God. He can call these things back at any time. The only thing that we own is our free will. He won’t touch our free will. And it is through our free will that we can decide to share the Love that God gives each one of us. When we share God’s Love, we are following Jesus and doing God’s will.

 

[bonzerdad]

Coolduude,
No problem. Philosophical discussion demands real thinking and consideration of a problem from different angles.
. Among the more ridiculous things about philosophical blogs like this is witnessing people who try a sort of instant messaging approach to complicated issues. They usually wind up venting spleens name calling or almost anything BUT doing philosophy.
I’m sorry. I don’t have a quick link to the New Oxford English dictionary. The complete Oxford English Dictionary is available online (for paid subscriptions only, and really very expensive) thru the Oxford University Press website. Easily searchable as OUP.com. It is the acknowledged arbiter of English English and International English. It is continually (not continuously) updated with new words as they crop up. There is a very good article about it on Wikipedia. It is universally known simply as the OED and that’s all you need to look it up on Wikipedia. Three quick letters: OED and you’re there.

I used one of the abridged versions mentioned under the heading Electronic Editions. Specifically: The Pop-up New Oxford Dictionary of English. Copyright 2001 by OUP and iFinger (sic) Limited. iFinger I expect designed the interface with internet browsers which is how the search and links apparatus works. Licenced 2002 to SelectSoft Publishing. Their site may still give you the opportunity to search a few definition of your choice for free. A good public library should have a hard copy of all 16,000 plus pages of the whole 2nd edition plus supplements as well as a subscription to theOnline version which is updated 4 times a year.

But I wouldn’t sweat it because the space/time continuum is not our topic and it really isn’t relevant, and as as I have said you can still discuss time without reference to space and vice versa.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Jesus, the son of the Living God, the Word made flesh, who dwelt among us.

That isn’t evidence, that’s a non sequitir that doesn’t even make grammatical sense.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Present yours. Direct evidence is your own standard of proof after all.

Okay, since you clearly do not understand what observational evidence actually means nor how it is used, I’ll play it your way and pretend to be a philosopher for a second.

God cannot be seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled or detected in any way. No one has ever come back from the dead to confirm that there is an afterlife, and the spirits of dead people cannot be detected in any way.

Therefore God either dies not exist, or it’s existence is irrelevant.

Now, present your evidence that God exists.

 

[momor]

Okay, since you clearly do not understand what observational evidence actually means nor how it is used, I’ll play it your way and pretend to be a philosopher for a second.

 

[davidv]

That isn’t evidence, that’s a non sequitir that doesn’t even make grammatical sense.

Proving my point. You won’t accept the evidence of a historically real person, who proved to those around Him that He was God.

 

[Ed_CA]

A hypothesis can be elevated to the lofty status of theory after it has been demonstrated that it accounts the for observable phenomena and predicts new observations. In other words, it has a definite utilitarian function.
The “string hypothesis” predicts there are at least 1e+500 multi-verses, and since there are so many dimensions, we can never know them or interact with them. This string hypothesis is a leap of faith and is an alternative to the God hypothesis. So far, no verifiable predictions have yet to be made from the “string hypothesis” , and the only justification of it is the “beauty of its mathematics”. The extraordinary claim of 1e+500 multi-verses has yet to produce any extraordinary proof.
David Deutsch made an extraordinary claim for the 2 slit experiment of quantum mechanics by postulating that in a different multiverse, somebody else simultaneously conducted the same experiment causing a particle to be deterministically forced to go into a particular slit. Sorry, David Deutsch should have flunked; this is just wacko physics.
I only have circumstantial evidence and good plausible reasons for the existence of God; one still needs to make a leap of faith that God’s existence is reasonable. I cannot make the leap of faith that the string hypothesis without extraordinary evidence is reasonable.

 

[curtish1947]

A hypothesis can be elevated to the lofty status of theory after it has been demonstrated that it accounts the for observable phenomena and predicts new observations. In other words, it has a definite utilitarian function.
The “string hypothesis” predicts there are at least 1e+500 multi-verses, and since there are so many dimensions, we can never know them or interact with them. This string hypothesis is a leap of faith and is an alternative to the God hypothesis. So far, no verifiable predictions have yet to be made from the “string hypothesis” , and the only justification of it is the “beauty of its mathematics”. The extraordinary claim of 1e+500 multi-verses has yet to produce any extraordinary proof.
David Deutsch made an extraordinary claim for the 2 slit experiment of quantum mechanics by postulating that in a different multiverse, somebody else simultaneously conducted the same experiment causing a particle to be deterministically forced to go into a particular slit. Sorry, David Deutsch should have flunked; this is just wacko physics.
I only have circumstantial evidence and good plausible reasons for the existence of God; one still needs to make a leap of faith that God’s existence is reasonable. I cannot make the leap of faith that the string hypothesis without extraordinary evidence is reasonable.

I have always maintained your position, that without proof, God and Religion do not exist, in a real or sustainable way.
That if it were applied to everyone, would be disingenuous. The reason for that, is due to the variability in all of us, and that, truth preceeding scientific discovery has taken place, occasionally, in the Liberal Arts sector, of endeavor and training.
So if you have a proof, and I do, it should predict unknown future events mine does. It accounts for every conceivable observed phenomenon.
Why is a real proof, not understood as such? Is my ““emperical”” approach not valid? I caution you not. I do not. Yes, I have been in industry, and the burden of proof was substantial. If you could not prove your view there, you were asked not even to present it. That same burden of proof is in my words. What I say, I can prove.