Ok, then as the only person here seeing my contradictions and illogical statements, please save me from the approaching trouble by pointing out what exactly I've done wrong.Eaglerising wrote:It is revealed by what you say. You are going to have trouble with it if you cannot see that you make illogical statements and contract yourself.
Proof of God
-
- Posts: 447
- Joined: July 14th, 2014, 11:59 pm
Re: Proof of God
-
- Posts: 231
- Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
- Contact:
Re: Proof of God
-
- Posts: 447
- Joined: July 14th, 2014, 11:59 pm
Re: Proof of God
I like to think we all learn from each other on these forums, isn't that the purpose of discussion? But perhaps you're not interested in discussion.Eaglerising wrote:Socrontine – I am not responsible for educating you, that's your responsibility.
-
- Posts: 231
- Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
- Contact:
Re: Proof of God
-
- Posts: 447
- Joined: July 14th, 2014, 11:59 pm
Re: Proof of God
What is there for me to examine? What objections are you raising?Eaglerising wrote:If I wasn't interested I would have not commented on it. I have pointed out to you what you can either examine, ignore or reject. Thus, the ball is in your court, not mine.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7990
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Proof of God
Sorry, I guess some folk are shy about pointing out inconsistencies (or at minimum incomplete analyses). While your conclusion that observations are consistent with an omnipotent (and apparently quite shy) god, they are also completely consistent with an absence of a god.Sacrontine wrote:I can't see to point in looking for proof of God. Either he wants to be found or he doesn't. If he wanted to be found, he'd just make himself known, so there'd be no need for proof. But it's obvious he doesn't want to be found, and if that's the case we'll never find him no matter what, since he is omnipotent and has perfect hiding skills.
-
- Posts: 447
- Joined: July 14th, 2014, 11:59 pm
Re: Proof of God
That's true, either he doesn't exist, or he doesn't want to be found. I'm just saying either way we're not gonna find him.LuckyR wrote:Sorry, I guess some folk are shy about pointing out inconsistencies (or at minimum incomplete analyses). While your conclusion that observations are consistent with an omnipotent (and apparently quite shy) god, they are also completely consistent with an absence of a god.Sacrontine wrote:I can't see to point in looking for proof of God. Either he wants to be found or he doesn't. If he wanted to be found, he'd just make himself known, so there'd be no need for proof. But it's obvious he doesn't want to be found, and if that's the case we'll never find him no matter what, since he is omnipotent and has perfect hiding skills.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7990
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Proof of God
Exactly. That's why this topic (and thread) and of minimal importance/interest.Sacrontine wrote:That's true, either he doesn't exist, or he doesn't want to be found. I'm just saying either way we're not gonna find him.LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Sorry, I guess some folk are shy about pointing out inconsistencies (or at minimum incomplete analyses). While your conclusion that observations are consistent with an omnipotent (and apparently quite shy) god, they are also completely consistent with an absence of a god.
- Joustos
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: June 10th, 2017, 2:19 pm
Re: Proof of God
The form is correct, but the content is not, because there is no such a thing as Love (unless you wish to introduce Venus as the Love-goddess). The truth is that love occurs or is done (by somebody or other). This is an activity that may or may not occur; it is not a substance. In order for you to infer that there is a Lover, you must have evidence that loving is being done. There is no evidence that that there is a god who does any loving (which defeats the need for a demonstrative argument that a loving god exists).Jaded Sage wrote:1 John 4:8 defines God as love, so God is love.
If love exists, then God exists. Love exists, therefore God exists.
Love ≡ God Love ∴ God
Is the form correct? It's been a long time since I have done logical proofs.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Proof of God
Besides, other organisms, such as ourselves, can also 'do' love. So the existence of one possible attribute of God proves nothing, when that same attribute can be said to be the property of many advanced animals, such as dogs or monkeys. And we see no general and pervasive property of 'love' existing throughout the Cosmos, which could be attributed to a omniscience 'God'. In fact, what we do see is general harshness, ruthless, and a desperate struggle to survive which inevitable ends in death. So using the OP's logic we would ordinarily conclude that either God does not exist, or else He exists but is apparently not very active throughout the Universe, only manifesting Himself in fairly rare circumstances.
- Sam26
- Posts: 99
- Joined: March 8th, 2012, 1:23 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Ludwig Wittgenstein
Re: Proof of God
Yes, the form is correct. It's called modus ponens in logic, i.e., "If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q.Jaded Sage wrote:1 John 4:8 defines God as love, so God is love.
If love exists, then God exists. Love exists, therefore God exists.
Love ≡ God Love ∴ God
Is the form correct? It's been a long time since I have done logical proofs.
So your argument is valid, but the real question is not whether it's valid, but whether it's sound. If it's sound, then it's both valid and the premises are true. However, many would say that the first premise is doubtful. It doesn't necessarily follow that because there is love, therefore God exists. What you're saying is that it's necessarily the case that if there is love, then God necessarily exists. How can you prove that a concept (God) has an instance in reality by pointing to another concept (love). If that were the case, then you could prove just about anything. While it's true that your argument is a deductive proof, it doesn't follow from the premise.
- Newme
- Posts: 1401
- Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am
Re: Proof of God
Another common idea is that sensing God occurs within each person individually... “the kingdom (realm) of God is within you.”Newme wrote:God is love and what is love and how do you prove love? What constitutes as proof of such subjective experiences? Only subjectivity.
Paul Tillech defined God as "one's ultimate concern" - what they love or worship above all. Moses defined God as "I AM that I AM" - consciousness. Jesus (& Buddha who likely influenced Jesus) taught, "The kingdom of God is within you." Gotftried Lebneiz theorized that the essence of everything is the monad - based on perception, indestructible - pops into and out of existence based on internal principles and all monads are interconnected - expressing a mirror of the universe.
So, defining God is more appropriate than dysfunctional but traditional concepts of some finite tyranical grandpa that is projected from man in the image of man.
Before anyone freaks out about quoted scripture, keep in mind the reverse of appeal to authority: if a scripture author wrote 2+2=4, would it make it wrong just because it was scripture? Can you experience God - or anything else - anywhere but within you? No. The nature of experience is personal.
So, I cannot give you proof of God - nor can you give it to me. We each experience it within us.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Proof of God
- Albert Tatlock
- Posts: 183
- Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm
Re: Proof of God
Calling it "scripture" doesn't change what it is: just words on paper. There are those who would be biased against anything just because it's written in the Bible but that's no worse than being biased for it just because it's written in the Bible.Newme wrote:if a scripture author wrote 2+2=4, would it make it wrong just because it was scripture?
Or not.So, I cannot give you proof of God - nor can you give it to me. We each experience it within us.
- Scribbler60
- Posts: 177
- Joined: December 17th, 2015, 11:48 am
Re: Proof of God
Nailed it. Thousands of years of trying have been unable to prove the theist assertion. It's unlikely to happen on a message board.LuckyR wrote:Exactly. That's why this topic (and thread) and of minimal importance/interest.
From What Is Post-Theism?
Seems that "atheism" is now an outmoded concept, in preference to "post-theism," which is usually defined as:The atheist label no longer makes sense because the question of god is a settled fact; a god doesn’t exist and never did, so one doesn’t lack belief, but rather proceeds with the knowledge that there’s no god and conducts their life as such.
Post-theism is a variant of nontheism that proposes that the division of theism vs. atheism is obsolete, that God belongs to a stage of human development now past.
Source: What is Post-Theism?
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023