Proof of God argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

coolduude

Guest
Hello everyone,

Basically, my question is:

Has anyone ever heard of the theory out there that says if we humans are smart enough to think of, or “invent” God, that that proves His existence? Anyone else heard of that?

If you get confused, don’t worry 😛

Ask, and I’ll try to explain myself better, but this is the best I can do for now.

Thanks,
coolduude:cool:
 
coolduude said:
Hello everyone,

Basically, my question is:

Has anyone ever heard of the theory out there that says if we humans are smart enough to think of, or “invent” God, that that proves His existence? Anyone else heard of that?

If you get confused, don’t worry 😛

Ask, and I’ll try to explain myself better, but this is the best I can do for now.

Thanks,
coolduude:cool:
Click to expand...
Sure, but it’s non sequitur. If a computer can simulate transformers in a movie, do they really exist? Not the same thing of course, but I think it illustrates my point.
 
Good point.

Check this site out and tell me what you think-

godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Obviously the first are the best, and there are some wacky ones in there.

However the point stands.

I was going for the Ontological Argument.
 
I’m pretty sure sooner or later this thread is going to turn into a “Prove your God exists” and “Disprove He exists,” so I’ll just throw this out there:

Science studies the natural world, it cannot tell us whether or not supernatural things (God, angels, demons, etc.) exists. The best it can do is tell us whether or not something is inexplicable (for example, miracles). Hence, athests’ disbelief of God is based on faith, just as believers’ belief in God is based on faith.
 
coolduude said:
Good point.

Check this site out and tell me what you think-

godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Obviously the first are the best, and there are some wacky ones in there.

However the point stands.

I was going for the Ontological Argument.
Click to expand...
Those “proofs” are satirical.
Eucharisted said:
I’m pretty sure sooner or later this thread is going to turn into a “Prove your God exists” and “Disprove He exists,” so I’ll just throw this out there:

Science studies the natural world, it cannot tell us whether or not supernatural things (God, angels, demons, etc.) exists. The best it can do is tell us whether or not something is inexplicable (for example, miracles). Hence, athests’ disbelief of God is based on faith, just as believers’ belief in God is based on faith.
Click to expand...
Science can study the natural world, and if the supernatural world interacts with the natural world, then its effects should be, in principle, detectable. NOMA is nonsense.

Atheism isn’t faith-based, since atheism is usually “not believing in God”, the same way you might not believe in fairies, monsters, etc.
 
coolduude said:
Oh wow yeah my mistake.

Sorry guys 😦

I have to be more careful out there 😦
Click to expand...
Hahahaha… sorry, but that is just too funny. Ever been to landover baptist church forums? It’s really real. I promise. 😉
 
Eucharisted said:
I’m pretty sure sooner or later this thread is going to turn into a “Prove your God exists” and “Disprove He exists,” so I’ll just throw this out there:

Science studies the natural world, it cannot tell us whether or not supernatural things (God, angels, demons, etc.) exists. The best it can do is tell us whether or not something is inexplicable (for example, miracles). Hence, athests’ disbelief of God is based on faith, just as believers’ belief in God is based on faith.
Click to expand...
Since you list your religion as Catholic, I just wanted to point out that the fact that God’s existence can be proven by reason alone is a de fide teaching of the Catholic faith and not something Catholic are free to disagree with. It was defined by the First Vatican Council.
 
Eucharisted said:
I’m pretty sure sooner or later this thread is going to turn into a “Prove your God exists” and “Disprove He exists,” so I’ll just throw this out there:

Science studies the natural world, it cannot tell us whether or not supernatural things (God, angels, demons, etc.) exists. The best it can do is tell us whether or not something is inexplicable (for example, miracles). Hence, athests’ disbelief of God is based on faith, just as believers’ belief in God is based on faith.
Click to expand...
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
Katholish said:
Since you list your religion as Catholic, I just wanted to point out that the fact that God’s existence can be proven by reason alone is a de fide teaching of the Catholic faith and not something Catholic are free to disagree with. It was defined by the First Vatican Council.
Click to expand...
haha… for very loose definitions of “prove” I guess. :rolleyes:
 
tonyrey said:
Three repetitions do not alter the fact that the atheist’s disbelief in God is based on faith in his own judgenent - which of course is fallible…
Click to expand...
If I may be the language nag that I am for a moment…there were only two repetitions in the post. The initial iteration cannot be considered repetitive. 😃
 
Oreoracle said:
If I may be the language nag that I am for a moment…there were only two repetitions in the post. The initial iteration cannot be considered repetitive. 😃
Click to expand...
There went any serious mode I was entertaining. 🤓:yukonjoe:
 
These “proofs” are the worst arguments I have ever seen in my life (That do not have fallacies). I think that it is an atheist site – is that what the athiest thinks our arguments are?
 
Matthias123 said:
These “proofs” are the worst arguments I have ever seen in my life (That do not have fallacies). I think that it is an atheist site – is that what the athiest thinks our arguments are?
Click to expand...
Ummmmm yeah…

Well you know another poster already pointed it out and I apologized for my foolishness. So just ignore that site 🙂
 
in regards to the existence of God, what is the difference between saying:
  • the ontological argument is proof
  • the ontological argument is rational
thank you and explain s-l-o-w-l-y. i love the philosophy section, but most of the time youse guys make me go :hypno:
 
The distinction between logic and rationale is that rationale refers to a logical path to a goal, whereas logic merely addresses the validity of each step being taken.

“Proof” is a bit of a confused word but in logic discussions, it merely means that “assuming that my premises are correct, then my conclusion must be correct.”

To say that a proof is rational would mean that it is not only logically correct, but also it leads to a significant or priority conclusion. It emphasizes that the proof is relevant, not merely correct. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top