Post Any Evidence For God Here

[oss spy]

Oh...so that's the angle that they're playing at? If this is the case, then I'm just going to leave this thread for fifty pages like I did last time.

[chang50]

Oh...so that's the angle that they're playing at? If this is the case, then I'm just going to leave this thread for fifty pages like I did last time.

It's the angle they've used,among others,for a long time.'His ways are not our ways".Checkmate silly atheists.

[MeDeFe]

What is logic Mets? (serious question though it may seem spurious - I would say that just like causality all those pages back logic cannot be said to be definitely true outside of a logical universe - supernatural things could easily be entirely illogical)

That's a very steep claim you're making. Given the nature of logic, the burden of argumentation is squarely on your shoulders there. You'd essentially have to show that there's no such thing as a necessary truth, not even in tautologies. Managing that would cement your place in history as one of the greatest thinkers of all time.

To answer your question of what logic is, Wikipedia is actually not a bad place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_World
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth

[Gillipig]

I present to you evidence of our lord and saviors existence! Just look at this tortilla bread:

[crispybits]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Holy-Miracle- ... vi-content

(I'll come back to the logic point when I have more time after work)

[jonesthecurl]

I present to you evidence of our lord and saviors existence! Just look at this tortilla bread:

Well, that's a wrap.

[Gillipig]

I present to you evidence of our lord and saviors existence! Just look at this tortilla bread:

Well, that's a wrap.

Can you not see his holyness in this miracle of a tortilla? Clearly god has sent us a message. He did this to prove his own existence. He needs us to believe in him otherwise he'll start to doubt his own existence.

[crispybits]

What is logic Mets? (serious question though it may seem spurious - I would say that just like causality all those pages back logic cannot be said to be definitely true outside of a logical universe - supernatural things could easily be entirely illogical)

That's a very steep claim you're making. Given the nature of logic, the burden of argumentation is squarely on your shoulders there. You'd essentially have to show that there's no such thing as a necessary truth, not even in tautologies. Managing that would cement your place in history as one of the greatest thinkers of all time.

To answer your question of what logic is, Wikipedia is actually not a bad place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_World
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth

OK lets give this a stab, and bear with me because I'm thinkng as I type and I'm not even sure I have the language necessary to properly define the answer yet.

Logic in every place I've looked for a definition is, roughly speaking, a system of reasoning that allows us to better predict objective reality by identifying and highlighting unsound arguments. It is not any sort of measure of objective truth in and of itself. It simply works by saying that "in a logically sound argument if the premises are true the conclusion must be true".

It can also play tricks on us. Many logical paradoxes have been pointed out which mean that technically sound arguments with true premises do not lead to a true conslusion. But we don't view these as being indicative of objective reality containing natural paradoxes, we simply view these as either having flawed premises or flawed reasoning.

Therefore the truth value of any logical statement is not based on it's soundness or it's unsoundness (unsound arguments can also sometimes provide true conclusions), but on the reality it is describing.

To argue that because something is logically sound it must also be objectively true, or to turn it around to argue that if something is logically unsound it is objectively false, you first have to find a way of linking the soundness with the truth. And logic itself doesn't claim that sort of power. Not one logician, in the entire history of mankind, will look at you with a straight face and tell you that a logically sound argument is always true.

Now, necessary truths are things that are always true no matter how you conceive of any possible universe. But we don't know, and we can never know, the limits of all of the different types of universe, or indeed if there is anything non-natural beyond the bounds of the natural universe(s). We don't even KNOW that this universe exists. There is no way to prove the statement "this universe exists" logically without either committing a logical fallacy or causing a logical paradox by doing so. So when speaking metaphysically on that scale, there is no such thing as a necessary truth that limits absolutely everything. There are natural necessary truths that limit everything natural, and would work in any type of universe with the same natural qualities as ours. But that doesn't mean that there are necessary truths that limit everything including the non-natural.

I can't describe a non-natural dimension or universe or whatever to you, because it's like asking me to describe how God is possible. It's a badly formed question that cannot ever be answered. But the fact that the question is badly formed doesn't prove that there is no non-natural dimension or there is no God, it just means that natural reasoning and logic performed by a natural being in a natural universe cannot describe or quantify or ever give any rational answer. The question itself is at fault, not the objective truth needed to properly answer it.

By trying to disprove an illogical God using logic, you're doing the same as trying to argue using baseball rules why a player in a golf match has committed an offence. It just doesn't work. Those rules are simply not relevant. And you don't have to say that the baseball rules are flawed because they can't apply to golfers, because for understanding and regulating baseball games they are still fully consistent and absolutely sound. You just have to keep in mind the limits to which they can be applied.

[john9blue]

Oh...so that's the angle that they're playing at? If this is the case, then I'm just going to leave this thread for fifty pages like I did last time.

they are on your side now, you can safely retreat

[jonesthecurl]

I present to you evidence of our lord and saviors existence! Just look at this tortilla bread:

Well, that's a wrap.

Can you not see his holyness in this miracle of a tortilla? Clearly god has sent us a message. He did this to prove his own existence. He needs us to believe in him otherwise he'll start to doubt his own existence.

And can it be coincidence...
TORT illa
GOD zilla?

[oss spy]

Oh...so that's the angle that they're playing at? If this is the case, then I'm just going to leave this thread for fifty pages like I did last time.

they are on your side now, you can safely retreat

I don't want anyone on my side if they have to change the rules to win. That's like asking me to build a barn but not allowing me to use any building materials.

[crispybits]

When it turns out the rules aren't what you assumed they were, it doesn't mean anyone changed them, maybe you just assumed wrong.

[Gillipig]

I present to you evidence of our lord and saviors existence! Just look at this tortilla bread:

Well, that's a wrap.

Can you not see his holyness in this miracle of a tortilla? Clearly god has sent us a message. He did this to prove his own existence. He needs us to believe in him otherwise he'll start to doubt his own existence.

And can it be coincidence...
TORT illa
GOD zilla?

Definitely not! There are no coincidences, only God's will! If I see a butterfly while crapping, that's God's way of telling me something.

[AAFitz]

Oh...so that's the angle that they're playing at? If this is the case, then I'm just going to leave this thread for fifty pages like I did last time.

Well, that was his answer to it, not mine. I'm merely pointing out that its silly to say

God knows what is going to happen, therefore no free will. Because, God is simultaneously omnipotent, therefore he can make freewill.

My point is not that any of that is logical, only that it certainly cannot be dismissed with simple logic as you tried to do.

Its as silly as what they are arguing, which is that, well, God must exist, because, someone told me he did.

It is complexity that wins this argument, which actually cannot be won, not simplicity.

[Dukasaur]

I can't believe this thread has spurted forward 30 pages in one month.

Or that the limerick fight vanished.

The Rise of Ignorance indeed.

[Dukasaur]

P.S. whihc secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?

Earl, You should look into things like that for yourself. I could be lying to you. anyone can. Don't take my word for it or anyone's for that matter. Don't even take the Bible's word for it (If you ever manage to read it and see for yourself), Just Google search it... Historians, Judas, 30 pieces of silver... And see what pops up?

Am I reading this correctly? Is a Google search expected to reveal primary evidence?

[jonesthecurl]

I present to you evidence of our lord and saviors existence! Just look at this tortilla bread:

Well, that's a wrap.

Can you not see his holyness in this miracle of a tortilla? Clearly god has sent us a message. He did this to prove his own existence. He needs us to believe in him otherwise he'll start to doubt his own existence.

And can it be coincidence...
TORT illa
GOD zilla?

Definitely not! There are no coincidences, only God's will! If I see a butterfly while crapping, that's God's way of telling me something.

Wipe your behind with the butterfly?

[oss spy]

When it turns out the rules aren't what you assumed they were, it doesn't mean anyone changed them, maybe you just assumed wrong.

You don't think it's intellectually dishonest to say, "He is supernatural, therefore what you say can't apply."? That's unscientific; it cannot possibly be disproven. Therefore, we are able to toss that argument out of the window.

Oh...so that's the angle that they're playing at? If this is the case, then I'm just going to leave this thread for fifty pages like I did last time.

Well, that was his answer to it, not mine. I'm merely pointing out that its silly to say

God knows what is going to happen, therefore no free will. Because, God is simultaneously omnipotent, therefore he can make freewill.

My point is not that any of that is logical, only that it certainly cannot be dismissed with simple logic as you tried to do.

Its as silly as what they are arguing, which is that, well, God must exist, because, someone told me he did.

It is complexity that wins this argument, which actually cannot be won, not simplicity.

Why does God have to be omnipotent in order to be omniscient? The fact remains that, even if he does create freewill, he still knows what our actions will inevitably be. That isn't really free will and is, as I said earlier, the illusion of it.

[tzor]

I still don't see why that has anything to do with omniscience removing free will.

Well it does, but it requires a number of assumptions that are not required. It has to do with actions done under omniscience and it also assumes that actions retain omniscience.

Assume Free Will. Person A is free to choose between option 1 and option 2. Person A can only make one choice, from a static universe point of view that choice is known.

Let's call Omniscient Being OB.

OB therefore knows what option would be chosen given no interference. OB then places an event before the choice that changes the probabilities. OB then knows the resulting choice.
OB then continues to do this until the event changes the result of the choice is the opposite of the choice without the interference.
Is this still Free Will or is this an illusion of Free Will.

Note the assumption; it assumes that all changes are made with the explicit understanding of using omniscience. It is clearly possible to make all actions without using the omniscience you already have. It is also possible that you can impose the notion of singular interference, so that at the point of interference you don't know what the result would be because it has not happened yet and thus cannot be observed.

So the straw men (in other words the hidden false assumptions) are easily revealed.

[crispybits]

When it turns out the rules aren't what you assumed they were, it doesn't mean anyone changed them, maybe you just assumed wrong.

You don't think it's intellectually dishonest to say, "He is supernatural, therefore what you say can't apply."? That's unscientific; it cannot possibly be disproven. Therefore, we are able to toss that argument out of the window.

NOW you're using a stronger argument. Once you've said that, then you don't need all the omnscience logical fallacy rubbish.

Religious (read: christian) people don't claim that their God is a natural being inside the natural universe, they claim he is an external supernatural being, and that we have a spark of the supernatural inside us too called an immortal soul and that this is how we relate to him and he relates to us (except in the very rare cases of interventionist miracles where he influences actual natural reality). You can never touch, see, hear, smell or taste God in any empirical sense. That is why religious faith stands apart epistimologically from other forms of belief about things inside the universe.

So now you can just say "your God is not provable" and toss God out of the window. I fully agree witht he statement "God is not provable". Except people will still believe, because you haven't disproven him either.

Just like when MeDeFe said I'd be one of the worlds greatest thinkers of all time if I could disprove necessary truths (which it turns out is not what I needed to do, I just needed to contextualise them properly within a debate of this scale), you would be one of the greatest thinkers of all time if you can figure out an argument why there absolutely definitely cannot be some sort of supernatural being beyond the realms of our posssible perception. You have to prove an infinite negative (already an impossible task), and worse you have to prove that negative based on no evidence of the realm the thing may or may not exist within. Good luck with that.

[Gillipig]

I present to you evidence of our lord and saviors existence! Just look at this tortilla bread:

Well, that's a wrap.

Can you not see his holyness in this miracle of a tortilla? Clearly god has sent us a message. He did this to prove his own existence. He needs us to believe in him otherwise he'll start to doubt his own existence.

And can it be coincidence...
TORT illa
GOD zilla?

Definitely not! There are no coincidences, only God's will! If I see a butterfly while crapping, that's God's way of telling me something.

Wipe your behind with the butterfly?

I've always interpreted it as, put the butterfly in your butthole. But I suppose depending on which religion ou believe in, different courses of action will be recomended. We all claim to have different holy books and so on.

[tzor]

Religious (read: christian) people don't claim that their God is a natural being inside the natural universe, they claim he is an external supernatural being, and that we have a spark of the supernatural inside us too called an immortal soul and that this is how we relate to him and he relates to us (except in the very rare cases of interventionist miracles where he influences actual natural reality). You can never touch, see, hear, smell or taste God in any empirical sense. That is why religious faith stands apart epistemologically from other forms of belief about things inside the universe.

First of all you need to break that down somewhat or else you start talking above yourself. Religious people say a lot of things. Sometimes, other people read those things and sometimes they read those things out of context. So to say a specific thing that religious people claim is creating a straw man. Even to use the term "supernatural" is a straw man of sorts. You seem to assume that anything in the universe is "natural" and anything outside of the universe is above (or super) natural. That tends to imply that anything outside of the space time universe is strange, odd, of just plain weird.

Thus we get to the complex relation between those areas that are based on "observation" and those areas that cannot be based on "observation." The physics of a back hole can not, in general, be observed. Clearly we cannot observe inside the black hole (and come back to tell about it) but also there are no good easy examples of black holes growing, or shrinking, or vanishing all together. We can speculate, but not directly observe and verify. On the opposite scale it took us this long to find the Higgs particle for the standard model; finding the necessary particles in the Super Symmetric Standard Model probably won't be done in this century, but it's absolutely needed if we ever really want to explain gravity.

People love to live in a black and white world, but the real world is fuzzy. People tend to make a science out of religion and a religion out of science.

[crispybits]

Christian theology (which I specified - and which I tried to check that oss was talking about and given the lack of denial assume he is) says that God existed and created the universe. Now I fall to my own argument in that in a supernatural sense God can break the rules and he can be both "natural" (and I mean that in a "part of the universe/multiverse/whatever" way) and supernatural. But I havent given him any qualities other than existence beyond the scope of our reality with my argument, be they strange, odd, weird, normal, rational or anything else.

In shorthand what I've basically said is "You can't know ANYTHING about the nature or the possible powers or limits of God, because you cannot gain any evidence of anything that exists outside of the limits or our perception." That doesn't mean I think everything in that realm is weird or odd, just that I reject the proposition that anything out there can be proven or disproven from where we sit right now. It may be that this realm is entirely logical, rational, and consistent with our reality, or it may be that it's odd and strange and weird and illogical and irrational. I don't know, and I don't claim to.

[Metsfanmax]

You can never touch, see, hear, smell or taste God in any empirical sense. That is why religious faith stands apart epistimologically from other forms of belief about things inside the universe.

A deeply religious person might take exception to that. They might say that their sense of God is just as real as their sense of smell. What makes religious faith stand apart is that you can't explain the sensation to someone else, or tell them how they too could could experience the sensation, as religious faith is a deeply personal experience.

[crispybits]

And I'd say fair enough, but before they can use that sensation to prove anything about reality (either natural or supernatural) they would have to prove that it's a sensation caused by something external rather than a purely internal psychological state.

I don't get why this is a difficult thing to understand. What you cannot possibly prove or disprove is inadmissable as objective evidence, and that limits both sides of the debate to the extent that trying to have the debate along objective (absolute) truth terms is meaningless. If you want to defend/attack a God concept, you have to defend/attack it based on it's purely internal consistency rather than it's objective reality or consistency with nature. Therefore as there are a very large number of internally consistent possible God models, anyone telling you they know the objective truth about God, while it's technically possible that they are right, is very unlikely to have accurate objective revelation.