Re: Logical Proof of God? -- SPEAK UP

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:51:10 06/16/02 Sun
Author: Patrick
Author Host/IP: adialup81.logn.uswest.net / 207.108.168.145
Subject:

Re: Logical Proof of God?
In reply to: Michael 's message, "Re: Logical Proof of God?" on 19:00:02 06/16/02 Sun

"see you now are not only using your words out of context but now you are putting my words out of context..."

Yeah, you hit the nail on head. Why would I take my own words out of context? In what ways have I taken your words out of context?

"if you cut and paste my words to use against me you are admitting i am right and you can not prove otherwise we will not have slate here or i was lied to about the groups goals.... i can cut and paste your post to make you say my points to..."

What? It is very hard to see you coherent thoughts when you don't you basic English. Start by capitalizing the beginning of your sentences and ending them in periods NOT continuation marks. They're annoying.

I see you have resorted to the cut and paste accusations now. Still no logic in site.

"you are still saying i must prove my facts when you are the one who posted well worded lies and enuendo to prove a point which you only have empirical evidence or religious dogma as your proof..."

Oh, so now their lies eh!? You made a claim that my use of science were assumptions only. So back up your claims! I'm still waiting for logic. And yeah, the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong. That's how science works buddy.

"godels theory which you are harping as evidence is a theory which has not been scientifically proven to be based on any factual information...."

Lol. It doesn't have to be. Godel's incompleteness theorem is based on logic and reasoning. Can you objectively hold "reason" or "logic" in your hands??? Does a fact have to be concrete in order for it to be a fact? No! Its an abstract concept, but its true all the same. Godel's proof HAS been scientifically proven, and it's a fact. Look it up! He "showed" how it works.

"i do not have to see the beginning of the universe to know it exsits i just have to open my eyes and see it...."

Yeah, but according to you, if it's a fact, if must be observed? Am I wrong? Care to recant your words? I can give you another direct quote from your own words if you like? Would you like that?

"i dont have to see all 6-8 billion people to know there are lots and lots of people i have seen and met lots and lots of people in 8 countries...."

If you think its a fact you have to see the "proof" which you claimed must be observed.

"your syntax is a insult to science because you are using words like choice when the fact does not prove there is a choice... a explanation of how something is does not mean that is how it was created...."

You're still making little sense and I laugh at your statement. My English is an insult to science because I use words like "choice"? How do you even begin to say that when you don't seen to know how to capitalize words and end you sentences in real punctuation marks?

Why does that insult science? I did not say that subatomic particle have choices. However, science itself even says that subatomic particles have truth values. Truth values are conditional (e.g. "if/then structures"), and it is that which I have allude to when I invoke the word "choice". Regardless, you have misinterpreted me. They do not make "conscious" choices because they do not have consciousness. They do not make choices like we make choices. I find it interesting that you attack a possible something that you can latch onto when you have no sure ground. I'm not trying to prove at all that everything has a conscious choice (lol). The only insult of science here is your insistent banter based on pseudologic. This "choice" thing has nothing to do with my proof. It was merely an attempt to explain something to you. However, even instead of attempting to use logic to back up your claim, you offer no logical reason why it is an insult to science, or even why subatomic particle don't have choices. Once again, I see no logic in site from you.

"you are making assumptions because the wording you are using implies forthought when random chance is just a reasonable explanation..."

I guess you really don't understand my proof do you? The proof allows for randomness. It is an inherit structure of the universe. God plays dice with the universe but it is statistically loaded. I find in mildly interesting (but annoying) that you base your claim on my English as if that were supposed to be logic. What's even more interesting is that you make such a claim and then appeal to science without realizing that all things in science are given first a priori. What do you think a theory is? Evolution is still a fact even though we haven't "observed" the birth of any new species or "shown" anything similar. I find it hard to believe that you really know what you are talking about. Many things in science are unobserved facts.

"as for what you are presenting is it facts or assumptions i do not know because your choice of syntax presents it as assumptions with no or little evidence of fact but your wording i find hard to agree with because of the forthought implications.."

Listen to yourself dude: "I don't know if they are facts or assumptions because you present them as assumptions." Lol. The very "sentence" structure (if you can call it that) is inconsistent. You're not making any sense dude.

"oh and god is not the simplist explanation but the hardest or we would not need to have this discussion..."

No, it very simple actually as far as explanation's go. Which is more simple? To come up with the theory of relativity (i.e. gravity) or to say that the earth flies on wings of angels to keep it moving around the earth? You just made another claim, and yet, like the rest of your unfounded accusations, your use of logic is practically non-existent. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though. Perhaps you have misinterpreted me? Perhaps you thought I had equated "explanation" with "proof" or "theory", but I haven't. If so, you have erred.

"i can show you evidence of the universe that you can see and touch i can show you lots and lots of people that you can meet and talk to and i offer these two pieces of evidence a fact...."

Huh!??? You lost me bud.

"show me real tangable evidence of god and i mean evidence that is incontrivertable such as show me god"

There you have it folks! MICHAEL IS A SIGN SEEKER!!! My proof is not based on tangible evidence, its based on abstract evidence that isn't concrete (e.g. math is abstract, so are the production of theories). (Even if you saw a concrete God, you would still deny it. According to the bible, God doesn't make a habit of showing himself to sign seekers.)

Just because we don't have tangible evidence for gravity, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Based on abstract reasoning, we know it exists, and it is an unobservable fact.

"introduce me and let him tell me he exsists but do not use well written assumptions with no real evidence and then tell me i must prove my case when your post was full of falisies and incomplete facts and theories and your choice of syntax does not make for real discussion but instead is you trying to force your views without real proof{a very religious tactic}"

Lol. "Show me a tangle God, but don't show me abstract evidence...Show me tangle gravity, but don't show me abstract evidence". If haven't shown any real evidence, then prove it. Still no logic in site...

"your post was titled logical proof of god and your proof is assumptions without evidence..."

Stop beating around the bush and show us then! I'm getting tired our your naysay and accusations. In order to refute logic, you must first use a little. All you're doing is pouting.

"a theory is not evidence a theory is a idea of what may be not of what is..."

So, are you saying that the theory of relativity offers no evidence for gravity??? You defy reason sometimes.

"a theory with no or incomplete evidence is not even a idea but a fantasy..."

Math is incomplete, is it therefore a fantasy? Oh, I'm itching to prove you wrong. Just give me the word, and I'll show you the inconsistency of math. Math is incomplete, and yet it is not a fantasy. We don't have all the evidence for how the sun works, and yet we know it is a star.

"your points to prove me wrong are also incorrect i have seen scientific proof that the earth revolves around the sun and what i learned in my philosphy class taught me what you are saying is not truth but ambiguous and incomplete statements of ideas that could be facts..."

Your philosophy class lied. The earth revolves around the sun. It's a fact. Furthermore, how does your philosophy class make my points wrong? Let's here the logical reason your philosophy class had to reject the notion that the earth revolves around the sun.

"real truth is something that is always the truth no matter who explains it..."

Funny. That sounds in sharp contrast with what your philosophy class was trying to say.

"the truth is neither one of us has real truth proving that the other is wrong we both know of evidence to support both our assumptions but neither one of us has had god over for BBQ in the flesh recently"

How do you know that neither one of us has "real truth"? Your very statement is self-referrential which renders it false. In other words, if you don't have the truth, then "neither one of us has real truth" cannot possibly be true. "We both know of evidence to support both our assumptions?" You are being, SO, inconsistent. First you accuse me of having no evidence, then you turn right around and say I have some evidence after all. What's more, I have not seen any logical evidence from you whatsoever to support your claim. With that said, let's say that person A never knew or even seen his father. The fact that person A's father wasn't over for the BBQ doesn't mean he doesn't exist. You use logic to make that assessment. Do you not? Or is that another "assumption" (lol)?

"and yes i know i am making assumptions myself"

So, you're being double standard then. You admit a lack of logic from yourself.

"i have taken what i consider facts along with a few real truths about myself and i made a personal judgement about the exsistance of god and that judgement is he doesnt exsist"

Fine. It's your choice.

"while you are trying to prove gods exsistance is logical your syntax makes implications that are not nessaccarily true...."

Another accusation from yourself without the logic to back it up. I grow weary of this banter.

"a theory or hypothosis is not fact but a idea of what may be true but it could just as easily be untrue...."

No it couldn't. What other explanations do you have to the contrary then if it's so easy?

"i dont have to prove anything i made a informed descision using the facts that to me have been proven"

Do you know what "burden of proof" is? In a court of law, I produce evidence. Then, it's your job then, "as a laywer" to come up with a justifiable cause to reject that evidence. Once again, all you say is "your proof is based on assumptions". You have to prove that they are assumptions or else the court will dismiss your case. Since you haven't come up with a shread of justifiable counterlogic, by a basic rule of a priori evidence (as used in reality; i.e. correct until proven wrong), I'm right (even though I don't think I need it)!

"and if you changed your syntax i might even agree with some of your ideas but your syntax choice forbades that option...."

Once again, no suggestions, and no logical reason why the English doesn't work. Why doesn't the English work? All you say is "Well, the English/syntax doesn't work", and you offer NO EXPLANATION as to why it doesn't. Again the court would dismiss your case.

"look at that night sky only a god could have arranged the stars so prettily{no proof}"

Did I ever say that? No. Its a false comparison. You have to show the fallacies of my proof. Instead all you can do is offer shadow fallacies which have nothing to do with it. At least you're starting to use logic now I guess. Not to be snide, but now try to put some of that to use in my proof.

"my money is missing and i know a hundred people where here but its obvious you stole it because your not religious"

Again you demonstrate the ability to reason, but so far you have offered none to my proof. Look. All I want is for someone to point out why something isn't logical in my proof and you can't do that by merely saying its based on assumptions. You have to use logic to refute logic.

"real truth does not need assumptions to prove its real truth..."

And yet, you base your accusations on the very thing you accuse me of. Not very consistent of you.

"real truth is obvious to whomever sees it..."

No it's not. The mind can play tricks on you. Seeing is not believing. If you think you say the devil, you could be hallucinating. If you think you see a pond, it could just be a mirage, and so on. (That's one of the reason's why logic is important.)

"real truth does not need syntax trickery to prove its real truth it proves its real truth on its own merits..."

Lol. Then why didn't the solar system prove itself to Copernicus, Galileo, and the others if it had it's own merits as truth? You accuse me of using "tricky syntax/English"? You're one to speak. I noticed your lack of proper English sentence structure. If truth supposedly proves itself by it's own merits, then why do we have to dig it out of the universe. What good is the tool of science then if truth "proves itself"? Your a wonder.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Logical Proof of God? -- Geoff, 10:57:06 10/22/02 Tue
- Re: Logical Proof of God? -- Katherine, 15:29:41 06/26/03 Thu
Re: Logical Proof of God? -- dustin mckenzie, 12:09:38 01/31/04 Sat
- Re: Logical Proof of God? -- Patrick, 17:19:46 04/11/04 Sun