There is no God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
buffalo:
I believe Tysixtus made the point all religions are equally nonsensical by not answering my post.
Click to expand...
I said all religions were nonsensical; not everything.
So I may well agree that there is no absolute truth. SO all our points are equally valid. 😃
Click to expand...
Once again, this doesn’t follow. Just because all religions are devoid of truth doesn’t mean everything is.

Ty
 
lets stuff everything into some simple variables.

God=true
Nogod = true
proof=NULL

does God exists = god AND proof AND nogod
does God exists = true and NULL and true

until you can find a value for proof this assertion can’t be made.

Even a computer will tell you that.

I wish the Atheists would stop making the assertion that God does not exist. Even basic boolean algrebra can’t make that assertion.

In this world all we can say is that our program requires a value that is missing. It doesn’t mean that the variable “proof” can’t have a value and it doesn’t mean that it won’t ever have a value.

As catholics we have faith that there is proof through jesus christ. We also have faith that he will return and truth will be known. for us Christ=proof=true.

Atheists on the other hand have faith that there is no proof. The strange thing is they call for the existance of proof all the time. In doing so they identify the existance of the equation. With out the existance of this equation atheism would infact not exists.
It is their faith that tells them proof=false

If you don’t believe in christ then proof can only have a value of NULL
 
40.png
TySixtus:
Once again, nonsense. And, once again, nonsense I’ve already addressed.

Ty
Click to expand...
How is that proving it wrong? Is that all you have? Nonsense. I can say the same thing about everything you say. It is all nonsense. Utter nonsense!!!
 
40.png
buffalo:
And I think I challenged are they all equally nonsensical?
Click to expand...
At their core, with the idea of a transcendant being? Sure. Catholics pride themselves on being rational, what with their acceptance of Evolution among other things.

This is deceptive though, because despite all the concessions you guys make to rationality and science, you still believe in an invisible sky man.

Ty
 
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
Is there support for this assertion? And furthermore, does that entail that the statement “there is no circular square” is as valid as “there is a circular square”? Does it mean that the statements “It is reasonable to believe that the sun will come up tomorrow” is as plausible as “The sun will not come up tomorrow”? And moreover, if that statement is true, then certainly “not all truths are equal” is a true statement (if all truths are equal).

This smells like the ontological argument. The classic version:

1-God is perfect
2-A thing which exists is more perfect than one which doesn’t
3-Therefore God exists

The problem with this argument is that existence is not a property of objects. If it were, it would be far too easy to define things into existence (which is essentially what this argument tries to do.). If we want to say that existence is a property, consider the following properties of an object:

X is an island
X has lots of palm trees
I am on X
X exists

Now, it is true that I actually happen to be on an island (not many palm trees though). But it should be clear why existence is not a property of objects.
Click to expand...
Existence is not a property of objects? Please explain that. It is a property of this keyboard that it exists. If you want to deny its existence that is fine.
 
40.png
TySixtus:
At their core, with the idea of a transcendant being? Sure. Catholics pride themselves on being rational, what with their acceptance of Evolution among other things.

This is deceptive though, because despite all the concessions you guys make to rationality and science, you still believe in an invisible sky man.

Ty
Click to expand...
So the truths of these religions that man discovered by reason alone are nonsensical?
 
40.png
jimmy:
Existence is not a property of objects? Please explain that. It is a property of this keyboard that it exists. If you want to deny its existence that is fine.
Click to expand...
Existence is not a property - a predicate. It is true that there exists something which has the property of being a keyboard which is in front of you - but this is not a statement about the keyboard; it is a statement about the world. If existence were a property of objects, I could create things merely by defining them so that they exist. Let me make it more obvious:

X is a statue 1 km tall of a boar
X is in the middle of Manhattan
X exists

The problem is that there clearly is no giant depiction of a boar in the middle of New York City.
 
40.png
TySixtus:
ETA: “Rock music?” What is this, the 70’s? Lemme guess, Dungeons and Dragons is Satanic, too, right?
Click to expand...
John 20:25

BTW-I have a 10th level Fighter called Braddock that can kick the rear of any D&D character you throw my way…
 
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
Existence is not a property - a predicate. It is true that there exists something which has the property of being a keyboard which is in front of you - but this is not a statement about the keyboard; it is a statement about the world. If existence were a property of objects, I could create things merely by defining them so that they exist. Let me make it more obvious:

X is a statue 1 km tall of a boar
X is in the middle of Manhattan
X exists

The problem is that there clearly is no giant depiction of a boar in the middle of New York City.
Click to expand...
Then nothing is a property. It is not a property that a hydrogen atom has 1 proton, it is not a property that it has 1 electron. It is not a property that ice melts at 32 degrees. If it were then it would mean that I could define it into existence. Of course this is by your logic.
 
The statement “all statements are true” entails a contradiction. If that statement is true, then the two statements “New Zealand is north of Antarctica” and “New Zealand is not north of Antarctica” are true. A contradiction. And from a contradiction, everything follows. I can conclude that up is down, that black is white, that God exists, that God does not exist, and everything and anything else that I want. I can conclude that not all statements are true. In other words, the statement “all statements are true” is false.
 
40.png
jimmy:
Then nothing is a property. It is not a property that a hydrogen atom has 1 proton, it is not a property that it has 1 electron. It is not a property that ice melts at 32 degrees. If it were then it would mean that I could define it into existence. Of course this is by your logic.
Click to expand...
This is wrong. I’m just curious what your reasoning is. But believe me when I tell you that if you ask a logician if existence is a predicate, they will tell you, “No.” To say that X exists is to talk about what a logician might call “the universe of discourse.” I am not asserting that there is nothing that exists. There are many things that exist. But no object has the property of existence.
 
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
Existence is not a property - a predicate. It is true that there exists something which has the property of being a keyboard which is in front of you - but this is not a statement about the keyboard; it is a statement about the world. If existence were a property of objects, I could create things merely by defining them so that they exist. Let me make it more obvious:

X is a statue 1 km tall of a boar
X is in the middle of Manhattan
X exists

The problem is that there clearly is no giant depiction of a boar in the middle of New York City.
Click to expand...
I would like to know what philosopher has given this idea to you. Your conclusion is false. When I say water freezes at 0 degrees celcius that does not mean I can define it into existence. I am making an observation that holds about the object; it freezes at 0 degrees. I can’t just say X freezes at 12 degrees, therefore it exists.
 
40.png
jimmy:
I would like to know what philosopher has given this idea to you. Your conclusion is false. When I say water freezes at 0 degrees celcius that does not mean I can define it into existence. I am making an observation that holds about the object; it freezes at 0 degrees. I can’t just say X freezes at 12 degrees, therefore it exists.
Click to expand...
Perhaps its like these particles that suddenly virtually pop up without cause. A virtual universe with virtual particles.
 
40.png
TySixtus:
You’ve yet to make a single contribution of worth to this thread. I’ll just wait.

Oh, I don’t need to point out your bias in listing only christian “thinkers”. It goes along with your whole idea that I have to believe first.

Which, if I haven’t said so already, is total nonsense.

Also, your “Great Thinker” Jesus was apparently too stupid to realize that fig trees out of season don’t produce figs.

Ty

ETA: “Rock music?” What is this, the 70’s? Lemme guess, Dungeons and Dragons is Satanic, too, right?
Click to expand...
Hey, easy on calling Jesus stupid. You are on a Christian Catholic forum. Even if you have abandoned him, most here have not. Have a little respect.
 
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
This is wrong. I’m just curious what your reasoning is. But believe me when I tell you that if you ask a logician if existence is a predicate, they will tell you, “No.” To say that X exists is to talk about what a logician might call “the universe of discourse.” I am not asserting that there is nothing that exists. There are many things that exist. But no object has the property of existence.
Click to expand...
I would agree that no object has the property of existence because it will cease to exist. But this has nothing to do with the arguement. It misses the point. The funny thing is, Catholicism defines humans and God different in this area. God is the only one who is said to absolutely exist. He just is.

I am still unsure of your definition of the property of existence though.
 
40.png
jimmy:
I would like to know what philosopher has given this idea to you. Your conclusion is false. When I say water freezes at 0 degrees celcius that does not mean I can define it into existence. I am making an observation that holds about the object; it freezes at 0 degrees. I can’t just say X freezes at 12 degrees, therefore it exists.
Click to expand...
The philosopher? Immaneul Kant. And more recently? A basic understanding of predicate logic.

And I will agree with you: things have properties. Things exist. But existence is not a predicate. I’ve given you good examples why it is obviously absurd to think that existence could be part of the properties of a thing.
 
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
The philosopher? Immaneul Kant.
Click to expand...
Kant’s philosophical system didn’t survive being thoroughly demolished even within his own life time. It was an ambitious undertaking to save philosophy from Hume, but, ultimately Kant failed because he refused to discard the flawed epistemological premises introduced by Descartes.

The 17th century may started an enlightenment when it came to the hard sciences, but it ushered in a blinding endarkenment in the area of philosophy.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Nevertheless the point stands: existence is not a predicate, unlike, for example, redness.
 
I don’t see how this is an arguement against the ontological arguement though. The simple statement that God exists does not have anything to do with this since you will admit that things exist. The arguement is that it is greater to exist than to not exist, God is that which a greater can not be thought. How does your destinction between existing and the statement that there is no property of existence have to do with this? Anselm and Descartes made the statement that God is so great that He can not be thought to not exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top