Proof of God argument

[Shredderbeam]

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…

That’s sort of misleading. Everybody believes to some extent that their own judgments are valid - so to identify that and pronounce that “atheists have faith” really isn’t fair. I would think that when most reasonable people hear “atheists have faith” they assume that it means that atheists have faith that there is no God, which is not the case.

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?

godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

www.godlessgeeks.com

godlessgeeks

godless

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:

I’m not sure that a proof can be called rational - a person might act in a rational manner, though.

 

[Matthias123]

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.” – Dr. Alexander Vilenkin

 

[jen_fla]

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.

thank you.

i think i read somewhere that the only way one can “disprove” the ont argument is by an irrational statement.

from my very green standpoint on all this it seems as though most posters who disagree are arguing about definitions of terms and whether or not something can even be defined.

and when the word linguistics comes into play then you can hear the crickets and tumbleweeds in my mind.

 

[James_S_Saint]

i think i read somewhere that the only way one can “disprove” the ont argument is by an irrational statement.

Don’t believe everything you read.

from my very green standpoint on all this it seems as though most posters who disagree are arguing about definitions of terms and whether or not something can even be defined.

This occurs because when people don’t agree on what it is that they are really talking about (with clear definition), the arguing continues forever and nothing is accomplished. At times, people use trick definitions in a political ploy and thus others might get a little emm… “passionately negative”.

 

[jen_fla]

That’s sort of misleading. Everybody believes to some extent that their own judgments are valid - so to identify that and pronounce that “atheists have faith” really isn’t fair. I would think that when most reasonable people hear “atheists have faith” they assume that it means that atheists have faith that there is no God, which is not the case.

godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

www.godlessgeeks.com

godlessgeeks

godless



I’m not sure that a proof can be called rational - a person might act in a rational manner, though.

i’m pretty sure you can apply it to nouns other than people as in “those sentences he/she just stated are irrational.”

this just reminded me of that scene in *the wire * where they had to look up if a building could be evacuated or if people were evacuated.

 

[liquidpele]

godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

www.godlessgeeks.com

godlessgeeks

godless

No no! Just say it like this: God, less geeks. See? It’s a pro-god anti-geek site.

 

[Langdell]

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.

K – Would you be able to direct me to a source for this? Thanks!
.

 

[john_doran]

K – Would you be able to direct me to a source for this? Thanks!
.

Section 2, paragraph 1 here:

dailycatholic.org/history/20ecume2.htm

 

[Lethe]

Well this does work for anything fantasy though surely… Many people could imagine and readily accept the Harry Potter world, some even jumped off buildings on broomsticks and ran into the barrier between platforms 9 and 10 so a barrier needed to be put up This does not mean that Harry Potter, Hogwarts or any of this existed, just that people can imagine it. It can exist in their minds.

 

[Katholish]

K – Would you be able to direct me to a source for this? Thanks!
.

First Vatican Council, Session III, Section 2 “On revelation”

The canons from that section begin:

1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

 

[wanstronian]

That’s a little harsh. While I don’t entirely agree with his post, he was *mostly *right.

Quite right - I should have been more specific. What was wrong was the assertion that atheism is a faith.

Apologlies to Eucharisted.

 

[wanstronian]

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…

And which was not Eucharisted’s point. Do you ever address an issue head on, Tony?

 

[wanstronian]

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…

I don’t believe that this was Eucharisted’s point, so I don’t really know why you’re jumping in with a non sequitur.

 

[wanstronian]

K – Would you be able to direct me to a source for this? Thanks!
.

Originally Posted by Katholish
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

Wow - I missed this at first. You guys are not allowed to make up your own minds?

 

[Betterave]

godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

www.godlessgeeks.com

godlessgeeks

godless

 

[Betterave]

Wow - I missed this at first. You guys are not allowed to make up your own minds?

What did you think the Church was? The freethinkers club? If you missed that, I’m guessing you probably didn’t ‘get’ much of anything else either.

 

[wanstronian]

What did you think the Church was? The freethinkers club? If you missed that, I’m guessing you probably didn’t ‘get’ much of anything else either.

I might be missing some heavy irony here… but you seem proud of the fact that you are the victims of dogmatic dictatorship? That you are not permitted to use the free will that you believe God gave you?

 

[Betterave]

I might be missing some heavy irony here… but you seem proud of the fact that you are the victims of dogmatic dictatorship? That you are not permitted to use the free will that you believe God gave you?

Oh do please explain! (On the face of it, this is a frightfully naive non sequitur. Wait - I may have it: you believe that the requirement that the things one says make sense is an infringement of free will?)

 

[wanstronian]

Oh do please explain! (On the face of it, this is a frightfully naive non sequitur. Wait - I may have it: you believe that the requirement that the things one says make sense is an infringement of free will?)

Seems quite straightforward to me! Are you proud of the implied fact that your church dictates what to believe, denying your own choice in the matter?

 

[Betterave]

Seems quite straightforward to me! Are you proud of the implied fact that your church dictates what to believe, denying your own choice in the matter?

Let’s hypothesize a necessary complication: we are always free to choose whether or not we will continue to belong to our church. The Church’s ability to dictate what we ought to believe is conditional on our freely believing that the Church speaks the truth. Make sense?