Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[idkkdi]

Your stupidity is outstanding, did he say prove God exists or Prove that christianity is true per its formulation of God?

so i takw it that you do not believe in a human god but rather some higher existence?

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

so i takw it that you do not believe in a human god but rather some higher existence?

Do I now?

 

[idkkdi]

Do I now?

i dont know. do u want to try proving a human god?

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

i dont know. do u want to try proving a human god?

"so i takw it " assumes my position. Instead I will ask you what your religion is.


I'm a Roman Catholic and I affirm a triune nature of God as well as classical logic.

 

[idkkdi]

"so i takw it " assumes my position. Instead I will ask you what your religion is.


I'm a Roman Catholic and I affirm a triune nature of God as well as classical logic.

idk

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

idk

Don't know what? Your religion?

 

[idkkdi]

Don't know what? Your religion?

ill think about it after u have a go at
proving ur god

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

ill think about it after u have a go at
proving ur god

What? So you don't identify with any currently?

 

[idkkdi]

What? So you don't identify with any currently?

nope

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

nope

Do you believe in a God?

 

[idkkdi]

Do you believe in a God?

not a human god. and if its not a human god then whats the point of thinking about it?

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

not a human god. and if its not a human god then whats the point of thinking about it?

A human God lol. This repetition gives me strong feelings that you are muslim from my personal experience but anyways, what's the objection to Jesus being God?

 

[HazzRat]

It's so amusing when atheists always say this same burden script, hilarious.

Right dickhead let's do this (you can't get offended by me calling you a dickhead, cause you start every message with an ad hominem attack)

Anyways ... Let's do this

P1-A: Some things are in motion.
P2-A: If some things are in motion, then they are put in motion by another.
C-A: Therefore, they are put in motion by another.

P1-B: If they are put in motion by another, then either this goes on to infinity or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.
P2-B: They are put in motion by another. C-B: Therefore, either this goes on to infinity or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other

P1-C: Either this goes on to infinity or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other
P2-C: But this cannot go on to infinity.
C-C: Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.


Superlatively proven:

Premise 1: Amongst existences, there are certain beings that are greater/lesser in respects of being (hot, cold, funny).

Premise 2: Greater and lesser are terms that necessitate superlatives.

Premise 3: Superlatives of the respects are the cause of the gradations of being in said respect (heat energy would be ultimately responsible for the gradation of heat in all things that are hot/cold).

Premise 4: If superlatives do not exist, then there is no objective referent for these degrees. Premise 5: Statements without an objective referent are non-cognitive.

Conclusion 1: Therefore the superlatives of these respects of being objectively exist.

Premise 6: Degrees of certain respects resemble the superlative of that respect. (PPC).
Premise 7: Transcendentals have gradation. (Truth, Goodness, existence, reality, unity)
Conclusion 2: The superlatives of these gradations exist (From P5 and C1)

Premise 8: Existence, Truth, Goodness and unity itself have gradation. (Transcendentals)
Conclusion 3: There is a superlative existence and reality which is the necessary foundation for all other grades of existence, goodness, truth and unity. (P3 and P6)

Conclusion 4: The necessary superlative existence is what is known as God.

If you want the predicate notation tell me, otherwise list the premise which you disagree with and explain why

Your argument combines two separate ideas: the cosmological argument, and the argument from perfection. I'm gonna poke some holes in both of them (to the best of my ability).

Cosmological argument

• As a counterargument to P2-A, it isn't necessarily true that everything needs an external mover. Perhaps the universe is its own source of motion. Or our understanding of causality (cause and effect) breaks down at the origin of the universe.
• Even if you accept the need for a first mover (C-B), it doesn't guarantee that mover is God (C-C). The first mover could be a natural principle or force, not a conscious being.

Argument from perfection

• To challenge Premise 1, the idea of "greater" and "lesser" in being can be subjective. What one person sees as perfect good, another might see as flawed.
• To challenge Premise 6, just because things exhibit degrees of a quality, doesn't mean there must be a "superlative" version of that quality existing outside everything else. I believe your argument commits a fallacy of composition: that if something is true for some part of a whole, then it must be true for the whole. E.g. "This tire is made of rubber; therefore, the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber." (from Wikipedia)

Additionally

• All these arguments offer explanations, not conclusive evidence. If I wanted to test the theory of gravity, I could drop a pen to the floor, and see it being pulled to the Earth. However, you still haven't empirically proven God exists.

 

[idkkdi]

A human God lol. This repetition gives me strong feelings that you are muslim from my personal experience but anyways, what's the objection to Jesus being God?

suppose there is no heaven or hell what is the point of believing in the existence of god

 

[SadCeliac]

suppose there is no heaven or hell what is the point of believing in the existence of god

Judaism has no defined belief in heaven or hell but most Jews still believe in God...

 

[idkkdi]

Judaism has no defined belief in heaven or hell but most Jews still believe in God...

ye sure they can believe but whats the point? u get purpose in your life? is there no purpose in your life without god? that seems rather bleak.

without the afterlife being in the picture it seems like anything faith could bring, similarly a person could get themselves. at that point whats the use in spending energy or time on this at all

 

[SylviaB]

Do you believe in a God?

 

[nitroexcalibur]

It's so amusing when atheists always say this same burden script, hilarious.

Anyways ... Let's do this

P1-A: Some things are in motion.
P2-A: If some things are in motion, then they are put in motion by another.
C-A: Therefore, they are put in motion by another.

P1-B: If they are put in motion by another, then either this goes on to infinity or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.
P2-B: They are put in motion by another. C-B: Therefore, either this goes on to infinity or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other

P1-C: Either this goes on to infinity or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other
P2-C: But this cannot go on to infinity.
C-C: Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.


Superlatively proven:

Premise 1: Amongst existences, there are certain beings that are greater/lesser in respects of being (hot, cold, funny).

Premise 2: Greater and lesser are terms that necessitate superlatives.

Premise 3: Superlatives of the respects are the cause of the gradations of being in said respect (heat energy would be ultimately responsible for the gradation of heat in all things that are hot/cold).

Premise 4: If superlatives do not exist, then there is no objective referent for these degrees. Premise 5: Statements without an objective referent are non-cognitive.

Conclusion 1: Therefore the superlatives of these respects of being objectively exist.

Premise 6: Degrees of certain respects resemble the superlative of that respect. (PPC).
Premise 7: Transcendentals have gradation. (Truth, Goodness, existence, reality, unity)
Conclusion 2: The superlatives of these gradations exist (From P5 and C1)

Premise 8: Existence, Truth, Goodness and unity itself have gradation. (Transcendentals)
Conclusion 3: There is a superlative existence and reality which is the necessary foundation for all other grades of existence, goodness, truth and unity. (P3 and P6)

Conclusion 4: The necessary superlative existence is what is known as God.

If you want the predicate notation tell me, otherwise list the premise which you disagree with and explain why

Those pseudo-intellectual buzzwords do not support your point, much less does it prove the existence of God. “Premise 1” can be defeated as subjectivity; there can be a consensus amongst traits but we tend not to use absolutes for them. You jump to conclusions based on a superfluous point, but trust me jargon doesn’t make you smart. “Premise 3,” heat energy is just the kinetic movement of atoms but can be dependent on other factors such as mass, physical properties so what about the higher qualities of them? Do we then state that there are better atoms than others? Conclusion 1, you reiterate the same statement. Premise 6 and 7, sure, but ‘transcendental’ means a spiritual, superhuman force. So to begin with, you already believed in a God and you worked backwards to use some half-scientific ‘evidence’ to attempt to validate your beliefs. What is a transcendental? Everything is on a spectrum as you said (to which I agree because that is scientific) but does that mean some people are more Godly than others? Could Person A be God relative to Person B for having a greater degree of the traits you outlined? What is existence, as we then delve into philosophy and not science? Goodness and reality? Again, highly subjective, abstract terms although goodness I’d argue we could deconstruct into humility, compassion, kindness. Which, if humility is a factor, why would a God need to express greatness over others? Is that not a given to begin with? Superlative implies degrees and a spectrum, so does that mean there are individuals next to God in terms of power? And if so, does that not diminish God’s power, strength and other extraordinary qualities if there were to be individuals that could rival these traits? Which then could be argued that if these individuals were to develop these traits, unity, harmony and whatever you outlined, do we then have two or three or more Gods? Sounds like you and Epicurean have a lot more in common than you’d want admit.

So, I truly hope you actually do read this all without making an attack on myself or another member, or “haha, typical atheists!” as a whole. These are genuine arguments and questions, and I’d be interested in further deconstructing the fallacies of your points

 

[Squar3root]

So does secular discourse? Is that really your main objection to religion? That actions carried out from self-determined individuals are what the religion entails? Lol please get your head checked.

bro get ur head checked. U believe in god? Suppose U also believe in Easter bunny and Santa

I got some magic beans as well if U want 🫛

It's concerning that you want to engage in debate without utilising appropriate rhetoric, like I don't know spelling words correctly? Firstly, the first claim is flawed by virtue of the fact that people may be raised a certain religion yet have the option to internally change their beliefs as they grow older. Your point is that you just may be born into a religion yet this is digressive after the fact that people grow older, are exposed to different beliefs and positions.



Just a multiplicity of such flawed claims and it's so concerning that people like you, most atheists, try to argue against the theistic worldview with 0 understanding of theology, philosophy, metalogic, epistemology.

Firstly, you just asserted you're a modern empiricist meaning you value what you observe with your five senses opposed to metaphysics and propositional logic. The claim you can prove everything after the big bang is just again a falsehood because you cannot prove and account for any essential universals such as logic, axioms, mathematics. Do you know what axioms are? They're self-evidential dictations of how the universe operates, without any ability to prove them. They're presupposed to be true by all people who accept classical logic, and by virtue of you making that comment one can only assume a rejection of classical logic from this person.

Furthermore, your second claim with you conveniently supplemented with an antecedent correlate "if" would be so nonsensical because physics and sciences are empirically prove, not logical necessities meaning if other possible worlds they could exist otherwise in different ways. This is just a fundamental metalogical proof that follows from a logical system. Math will never be able to explain something in which we can only analogically predicate to yet we can grasp a greater understanding of the creator of this universe through revelatory experiences.

Nigga what r U yappin on about with spelling, r u the grammar popo

I'm not trying to understand theology, philosophy, metalogic or epistemology. Idk what half those words r lul but it has no place in our society. I would go one further and say it's a mental illness to believe in such nonsense.

Before the big bang doesn't need to be explained, scientists one day will figure it out and if it's god in the equation then yea if not then ig the onus is on u

Right dickhead let's do this (you can't get offended by me calling you a dickhead, cause you start every message with an ad hominem attack)



Your argument combines two separate ideas: the cosmological argument, and the argument from perfection. I'm gonna poke some holes in both of them (to the best of my ability).

Cosmological argument

• As a counterargument to P2-A, it isn't necessarily true that everything needs an external mover. Perhaps the universe is its own source of motion. Or our understanding of causality (cause and effect) breaks down at the origin of the universe.
• Even if you accept the need for a first mover (C-B), it doesn't guarantee that mover is God (C-C). The first mover could be a natural principle or force, not a conscious being.

Argument from perfection

• To challenge Premise 1, the idea of "greater" and "lesser" in being can be subjective. What one person sees as perfect good, another might see as flawed.
• To challenge Premise 6, just because things exhibit degrees of a quality, doesn't mean there must be a "superlative" version of that quality existing outside everything else. I believe your argument commits a fallacy of composition: that if something is true for some part of a whole, then it must be true for the whole. E.g. "This tire is made of rubber; therefore, the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber." (from Wikipedia)

Additionally

• All these arguments offer explanations, not conclusive evidence. If I wanted to test the theory of gravity, I could drop a pen to the floor, and see it being pulled to the Earth. However, you still haven't empirically proven God exists.

Those pseudo-intellectual buzzwords do not support your point, much less does it prove the existence of God. “Premise 1” can be defeated as subjectivity; there can be a consensus amongst traits but we tend not to use absolutes for them. You jump to conclusions based on a superfluous point, but trust me jargon doesn’t make you smart. “Premise 3,” heat energy is just the kinetic movement of atoms but can be dependent on other factors such as mass, physical properties so what about the higher qualities of them? Do we then state that there are better atoms than others? Conclusion 1, you reiterate the same statement. Premise 6 and 7, sure, but ‘transcendental’ means a spiritual, superhuman force. So to begin with, you already believed in a God and you worked backwards to use some half-scientific ‘evidence’ to attempt to validate your beliefs. What is a transcendental? Everything is on a spectrum as you said (to which I agree because that is scientific) but does that mean some people are more Godly than others? Could Person A be God relative to Person B for having a greater degree of the traits you outlined? What is existence, as we then delve into philosophy and not science? Goodness and reality? Again, highly subjective, abstract terms although goodness I’d argue we could deconstruct into humility, compassion, kindness. Which, if humility is a factor, why would a God need to express greatness over others? Is that not a given to begin with? Superlative implies degrees and a spectrum, so does that mean there are individuals next to God in terms of power? And if so, does that not diminish God’s power, strength and other extraordinary qualities if there were to be individuals that could rival these traits? Which then could be argued that if these individuals were to develop these traits, unity, harmony and whatever you outlined, do we then have two or three or more Gods? Sounds like you and Epicurean have a lot more in common than you’d want admit.



So, I truly hope you actually do read this all without making an attack on myself or another member, or “haha, typical atheists!” as a whole. These are genuine arguments and questions, and I’d be interested in further deconstructing the fallacies of your points

bro actually got schooled and humbled at the same time

 

[SylviaB]

bro get ur head checked. U believe in god? Suppose U also believe in Easter bunny and Santa

I got some magic beans as well if U want 🫛


Nigga what r U yappin on about with spelling, r u the grammar popo

I'm not trying to understand theology, philosophy, metalogic or epistemology. Idk what half those words r lul but it has no place in our society. I would go one further and say it's a mental illness to believe in such nonsense.

Before the big bang doesn't need to be explained, scientists one day will figure it out and if it's god in the equation then yea if not then ig the onus is on u


bro actually got schooled and humbled at the same time