Argument for God's existence.

[createdtoworship]

The main problem I see with your "known scientific law" is that it operates on the physical plane of existence, not on the phenomenological plan.

ok, so you admit that you are rejecting a known scientific law for your version of metaphysics. I agree that metaphysics can be confusing to physical laws and can bend them. But I don't make a habit of negating known science, for the metaphysical. I usually look for similarities, not dissimilarities. Simply because we deal in logic in the physical universe. And rationality. So all comments that are not logical or rational are tossed to the side, in debate.

 

[createdtoworship]

I am not trying to prove that any given perception you have that you interpret as “mirage” isn’t actually a “hallucination” with this line of reasoning. I already took care of that on another line. I am explaining to you that the words “mirage” and “hallucination” have entirely different definitions. One is literally not the other, no matter what similarities you can point out between the two. You’re just being difficult because it causes you physical pain to agree with me.

so you have personally studied the definitions of both mirage and hallucination, and with your degree in related field of expertise, you have concluded they are different? Not relying on any external dictionaries as that would be having faith in said editors and contributors that they in fact are being honest and unbiased?

Anything I provided you, even if I did it myself, would be secondhand evidence to you. You understand that, right?

and now you fully understand that nothing is provable. That is exactly why I believe that. Math may be the one exception.

Science is not in the business of logical proofs. It is in the business of evidence. When scientists do use logical proofs, the premises include well-evidenced facts that were discovered scientifically. It’s meaningless to complain that the facts themselves aren’t “proven.”

yet you use the scientific consensus as your proof of evolution and mirages, even though scientists admit that they cannot prove most of what they do?

You never refuted it, you kicked and screamed and plugged your ears. But saying you can see no evil, nor hear nor evil, does not prevent you from committing that evil all the time.

just realize that your the only one here that believes what you are saying "that you proved it wrong." If you wish to refute this, by all means post it again. The fact that you don't post it all the time is evidence to me that it was never a really clear and coherent argument to begin with. But please prove me wrong.

How do you know your basic observation of a weakness isn’t a hallucination?

funny, but you prove my point rather than your own here. The fact you know I cannot prove it either way, that I am or I am not having a hallucination, reveals that you have refuted your claim that all mirages are real.

 

[createdtoworship]

I am not trying to prove that any given perception you have that you interpret as “mirage” isn’t actually a “hallucination” with this line of reasoning. I already took care of that on another line. I am explaining to you that the words “mirage” and “hallucination” have entirely different definitions. One is literally not the other, no matter what similarities you can point out between the two. You’re just being difficult because it causes you physical pain to agree with me.

so you have personally studied the definitions of both mirage and hallucination, and with your degree in related field of expertise, you have concluded they are different? Not relying on any external dictionaries as that would be having faith in said editors and contributors that they in fact are being hon

Anything I provided you, even if I did it myself, would be secondhand evidence to you. You understand that, right?


Science is not in the business of logical proofs. It is in the business of evidence. When scientists do use logical proofs, the premises include well-evidenced facts that were discovered scientifically. It’s meaningless to complain that the facts themselves aren’t “proven.”


You never refuted it, you kicked and screamed and plugged your ears. But saying you can see no evil, nor hear nor evil, does not prevent you from committing that evil all the time.


How do you know your basic observation of a weakness isn’t a hallucination?[/QUOTE]

I'm specifically addressing your main point, with the painter analogy. So let's try this yet again.

Both painted pictures on man made canvases (and) chiseled faces on mountains are presumed done by humans. The crux of this matter is nature vs super-nature.

Erosion is deemed a natural process, right? What about the mountain in which the faces were carved upon? Is the mountain from God (or) completely natural based processes????? The reason I ask, is because I would presume the erosion upon the chiseled faces were not aided by God.

Recap:

painted pictures - made by humans
canvas - made by humans
faded paint 100 years later - natural processes

chiseled faces - made by humans
mountain - ???
erosion - natural processes
_________

Another recap... Anything deemed natural is either accounted for in 'nature' (i.e.) made by humans, animals, and/or occurs as natural processes.

How do you determine if the product/object/etc in question was conducted by 'intelligent design'?

this argument is absolutely incoherent. Are you saying that because erosion on the mountain was natural, that the mountain thus could not be created by God? I really don't understand, even after you have reposted this argument three times. Maybe try emailing this or messaging this argument to another skeptic on this forum, and maybe they can help you word this in a coherent fashion. I believe you believe your argument is valid, but what actually appears on the thread to me, is incoherent.

 

[cvanwey]

this argument is absolutely incoherent. Are you saying that because erosion on the mountain was natural, that the mountain thus could not be created by God? I really don't understand, even after you have reposted this argument three times. Maybe try emailing this or messaging this argument to another skeptic on this forum, and maybe they can help you word this in a coherent fashion. I believe you believe your argument is valid, but what actually appears on the thread to me, is incoherent.

Let me simplify it even further for you.

Your painter analogy fails.... Why?

We already know humans exist. We already know humans make paintings.

Just like we know Mt Rushmore exists, and humans chiseled the faces. But WHO or WHAT made the mountain for which the faces are upon????

So answer me, who or what?

*******

Your entire argument is that when something appears complex, it could have only been 'made.'

When you look at other items, like Mt. Rushmore, how are you able to determine which of such items were 'made', and which ones were from nature - (not constructed specifically by God, but instead by humans, animals, or any other natural process)?

Again, take the chiseled faces, the mountain, and the erosion for example...

 

[Yttrium]

Your entire argument is that when something appears complex, it could have only been 'made.'

When you look at other items, like Mt. Rushmore, how are you able to determine which of such items were 'made', and which ones were from nature - (not constructed specifically by God, but instead by humans, animals, or any other natural process)?

Again, take the chiseled faces, the mountain, and the erosion for example...

A mountain is a big pile of dirt and rock. Most people aren't going to look at that and say it's very complex. Consequently, it makes a confusing example. I can see why gradyll is having a hard time following what you're asking.

 

[ananda]

ok, so you admit that you are rejecting a known scientific law for your version of metaphysics. I agree that metaphysics can be confusing to physical laws and can bend them. But I don't make a habit of negating known science, for the metaphysical. I usually look for similarities, not dissimilarities. Simply because we deal in logic in the physical universe. And rationality. So all comments that are not logical or rational are tossed to the side, in debate.

Is personal, conscious (phenomenological) experience "metaphysical"?

When it comes to questions regarding the highest good, personal, conscious experience is far more important (or fundamental) towards addressing it than the laws governing the physical universe. That is my personal standard; I understand it is different for you.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Y
Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, just because there are some things we dont know does not change the fact that a specific Cause is needed for a specific effect. And the Christian God fits the best for the cause of this universe.

mo: You didn't merely state that we don't know what the material cause was, you proposed that it is possible that Material Causes are unnecessary:

I said APPEARS TO US, IOW, not detectable by humans read the verse in Hebrews. But it is POSSIBLE that if the Cause is omnipotent, then He may not need a material cause.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
To us it appears the universe was made from nothing. Which is also what the bible teaches in Hebrews 11:3.

mo: Aristotle says that they are necessary, so you're proposing we violate what you called "The Law of Causality".

No, you need to reread Aristotle. He lists different types of causes, material cause is just one type of cause. It has nothing to do with the Efficient and Sufficient causes.

mo: I'm okay with that, but now I need you to go back and explain this to me:
Ed1wolf said: ↑
First, according to the law of causality, the cause of an effect cannot be part of the effect, therefore whatever caused the universe, cannot be part of the universe, ie "outside" space time and matter or transcendent to it.

mo: Since the "Law of Causality" can be violated, what makes you think any of this is true?

No, see above, the law of causality is not violated because it has to do with the Efficient and sufficient causes, not the material cause.

 

[createdtoworship]

Let me simplify it even further for you.

Your painter analogy fails.... Why?

We already know humans exist. We already know humans make paintings.

Just like we know Mt Rushmore exists, and humans chiseled the faces. But WHO or WHAT made the mountain for which the faces are upon????

So answer me, who or what?

*******

Your entire argument is that when something appears complex, it could have only been 'made.'

When you look at other items, like Mt. Rushmore, how are you able to determine which of such items were 'made', and which ones were from nature - (not constructed specifically by God, but instead by humans, animals, or any other natural process)?

Again, take the chiseled faces, the mountain, and the erosion for example...

I believe what you are asking for is my definition of specified complex information, but I am not sure you are ready for it. Creationists and ID advocates believe in something called specificity of complex information. I resort to biology to show this: Specified Information is Shannon Information with meaning/ function.


Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL

In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information.

In the paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", Stephen C. Meyer wrote:
Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity.

so how does that apply to mountains? It doesn't. Mountains may have specified complexity but I have not studied it in detail to know what that information is. My illustration is that we know if there is a painting that it was painted. I was not focused on the presence of humans as you say but on the cause and effect involved. Same with a baker. You see something baked, you know there was a baker. The universe was made (most scientists agree the universe had a beginning and was created by something else), so if we know the universe was made, then we also know for a fact that it had a maker. This is simple logic, and cause and affect. If there is no cause to the universe as some scientists believe, then the rules of cause and effect fail, and we can further believe that pink elephants can pop into existence out of nowhere and further disappear without notice. All causation is skeptic at that point. Theism is consistent with cause and effect. God being without mass is outside of time, and thus did not have a beginning or cause. Furthermore God is not an effect, God is the cause due to being the only being that never had a beginning, by nature of the definition of God= all powerful, all knowing, everywhere at once, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

 

[createdtoworship]

Is personal, conscious (phenomenological) experience "metaphysical"?

When it comes to questions regarding the highest good, personal, conscious experience is far more important (or fundamental) towards addressing it than the laws governing the physical universe. That is my personal standard; I understand it is different for you.

this section may be helpful to you I posted it below on the differences of christianity and buddhism as it relates to the world. Also I have an article on Buddhism and Christianity that may interest you: Buddhism and Christianity -Isamu Yamamoto.docx

"rational religion is an attempt to find a permanent, intelligible interpretation of experience. Buddhism and Christianity differ in that the latter is metaphysics seeking a religion, whereas the latter is religion seeking a metaphysics. In Buddhism (see Zen Buddhism), evil is necessary, but in Christianity it is only contingent. While Buddhists seek relief from the world, Christians seek to change the world. Buddha gave doctrine to enlighten, but Christ gave his life to save. Buddhism begins from general principles, but Christianity begins with facts and generalizes on them.

Metaphysics. According to Whitehead, both process and permanence interplay as aspects of reality. Permanence is a potential element of reality. Temporal (time) permanence is found in eternal objects. Nontemporal permanence is found in God (or at least in God’s primordial nature, as noted below).

A bit of reality is the actual element or entity. Being is the potential for becoming. This is the principle of relativity. How a thing becomes is what a thing is. This is the principle of progress. Actual entities are real occasions, events, or drops of experience. As in Plato’s Sophist, they are becoming but never really finish the journey. With each passing moment of process, old dies and new is born. They pass from subjectivity to objectivity (immortality). This they do by final causality—namely, by their subjective aim. Once they are objectified, then they can act by efficient causality on others from past to present."

Geisler- Encyclopedia of christian apologetics page 1287

 

[Moral Orel]

I said APPEARS TO US, IOW, not detectable by humans read the verse in Hebrews. But it is POSSIBLE that if the Cause is omnipotent, then He may not need a material cause.

Right, you're still saying that it is POSSIBLE for nothing to become something. That's what you're saying if you're claiming a material cause isn't necessary. Saying that the cause needs to be omnipotent in order to do without a material cause is just special pleading.

No, you need to reread Aristotle. He lists different types of causes, material cause is just one type of cause. It has nothing to do with the Efficient and Sufficient causes.

The Efficient Cause is the agent that acts on the Material Cause. There is a different dichotomy between Sufficient Causes and Necessary Causes. The Efficient Cause is one of the four causes, the Sufficient Cause is not. As far as I can tell, Aristotle didn't talk about Sufficient Causes. Are you sure about that? Can you cite something for me?

 

[gaara4158]

so you have personally studied the definitions of both mirage and hallucination, and with your degree in related field of expertise, you have concluded they are different? Not relying on any external dictionaries as that would be having faith in said editors and contributors that they in fact are being honest and unbiased?

No, I used a dictionary. Stop being obtuse.

and now you fully understand that nothing is provable. That is exactly why I believe that. Math may be the one exception.

And yet we still believe things with good reason and evidence. We still accept things and understand how things work, all without mathematical proof. So it doesn’t matter.

yet you use the scientific consensus as your proof of evolution and mirages, even though scientists admit that they cannot prove most of what they do?

Again, yes. Not mathematical or logical proof, but proof in the sense that if the axioms and premises (read: facts) are true, then the scientific findings are sound. This is not complicated.

just realize that your the only one here that believes what you are saying "that you proved it wrong." If you wish to refute this, by all means post it again. The fact that you don't post it all the time is evidence to me that it was never a really clear and coherent argument to begin with. But please prove me wrong.

You can tell yourself whatever you like. You resort to questioning dictionaries and reality itself in order to squirm out of the corners I trap you in. Doesn’t change the fact that the scientific consensus constitutes valid evidence that whatever they agree on is probably the best available model of reality due to their valid authority on the subject matter. You always strawman it to say “so you’re saying because scientists believe it that makes it true?” which is of course not what it means. All I can do is advise you to read with a little more care this time. I am not capable of dumbing things down any further.

funny, but you prove my point rather than your own here. The fact you know I cannot prove it either way, that I am or I am not having a hallucination, reveals that you have refuted your claim that all mirages are real.

I am using your nonsensical point against you in the hopes that you’d realize we really do have a non-mathematical epistemology that we use every day, but instead you just gave away the farm to avoid learning anything. Ok, so you just admitted you can’t even prove or disprove things with logic because you never know if you’re delusional about the premises or rules. Congratulations, you just rendered the entire concept of proof completely useless, and with it you just gave up on the entire goal of your thread.

Cheers.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, I used a dictionary. Stop being obtuse.

a dictionary written by external sources of information that can have political or religious bias, or atheistic bias. So basically you cannot prove what you said you can. There are all sorts of conflicting dictionaries in the world. And I rest my case.

And yet we still believe things with good reason and evidence. We still accept things and understand how things work, all without mathematical proof. So it doesn’t matter.


Again, yes. Not mathematical or logical proof, but proof in the sense that if the axioms and premises (read: facts) are true, then the scientific findings are sound. This is not complicated.

proof is proof. It has nothing to do with mathmatic proofs, those are actually quite different. The definition of proof is that a said statement is factual and true. And we can't know that. All we can know is if there is evidence for it or not. Evidence and proof are totally different. I hope you see this now.

You can tell yourself whatever you like. You resort to questioning dictionaries and reality itself in order to squirm out of the corners I trap you in.

that is funny because to me, you are the one trapped. Because every post you dig yourself deeper into a false premise.

Doesn’t change the fact that the scientific consensus constitutes valid evidence that whatever they agree on is probably the best available model of reality due to their valid authority on the subject matter.

no you never said this. You have stated repeatedly that evolution is fact because all the scientists believe it.

You always strawman it to say “so you’re saying because scientists believe it that makes it true?” which is of course not what it means. All I can do is advise you to read with a little more care this time. I am not capable of dumbing things down any further.

again the majority of scientists believed in God a few hundred years ago, does that make it true? No it doesn't. A group of people can be wrong on a host of things, and a single person who happens to know the argument better can be correct. It's all about the information, not who believes it. I really am disappointed that you still are trying to make this work for you after pages and pages of refutations of it.

I am using your nonsensical point against you in the hopes that you’d realize we really do have a non-mathematical epistemology that we use every day, but instead you just gave away the farm to avoid learning anything. Ok, so you just admitted you can’t even prove or disprove things with logic because you never know if you’re delusional about the premises or rules. Congratulations, you just rendered the entire concept of proof completely useless, and with it you just gave up on the entire goal of your thread.

See the arguments in the OP are solid logic. And logic that anyone can use. They do not reference any scientific study or observation by external sources. It's all internal logic. That is why God did it this way, and why it is one of the few things that can be proven. So thank you, for making that point for me. See if you see things made (the universe), you know there was a maker. Someone or something made it. And since there is intelligence and love in the universe, the maker of the universe must have intelligence and love. For example you don't bake a cake with ingredients that don't exist in the world. So I hope this proof of God falls upon listening ears and not deaf ears.

 

[Moral Orel]

and now you fully understand that nothing is provable.

That is why God did it this way, and why it is one of the few things that can be proven.

Quit contradicting yourself. Just kidding, I know you can't quit.

 

[createdtoworship]

Quit contradicting yourself. Just kidding, I know you can't quit.

it is the repeated off topic posts that Got you blocked to begin with. Also simply trying to trip me up and not looking at the context of what was posted. Try replying to the OP for once. I just proved God's existence in my last post. You think you would be more excited. I mean you don't have to believe you evolved from a gob of primordial ooze. You don't have to believe in contradictory stellar evolutionary theories, like a multiverse that traverses through an infinity of time moments to get to the present time, to create the physical universe. Or a multiverse that lacks causation and is timeless, which contradicts cause and effect. God doesn't have to do all that. I cannot emphasize enough how powerful God is. Not only in the case of the creating the universe. But in my own personal life. He has allowed me to conquer several addictive bondages on my life. One was homosexuality, one was inappropriate contentography as well as a few others. I can attest that the same power that created the universe resides in us and will resurrect me one day. ( I cannot prove those things, no more than you can prove most facts). I have faith that such is true, just like you have faith in mirages and other said facts are true.

 

[gaara4158]

a dictionary written by external sources of information that can have political or religious bias, or atheistic bias. So basically you cannot prove what you said you can. There are all sorts of conflicting dictionaries in the world. And I rest my case.

If you want to believe that mirage and hallucination are synonyms just to avoid conceding my point, be my guest. All words are made-up anyway. Just don’t expect anyone to know what you’re saying, ever.

proof is proof. It has nothing to do with mathmatic proofs, those are actually quite different. The definition of proof is that a said statement is factual and true. And we can't know that. All we can know is if there is evidence for it or not. Evidence and proof are totally different. I hope you see this now.

Wow, this whole time you haven’t even been using the formal logical definition of the word “proof” that I thought you were, where proof is a set of premises that, if true, lead to a valid and sound conclusion that must by logical necessity be true. You’re using a completely unique, utterly nonsensical definition. The definition of proof you’re using is “a said statement is factual and true.” So as long as something is true, you have proof? But then how do you prove something is true? You’d have to presuppose it to be true before you could say there is proof, which is the exact opposite of how logic works. This is day 1, introduction to basic logic for dummies 101 material, Gradyll. You are in no sense anything remotely close to a logical debater.

Further, if you admit we can have knowledge of evidence, how do we happen upon that knowledge? Are the pieces of evidence themselves not “proven” in your view? It’s very difficult to follow your thought process because you contradict yourself at every turn.

In my opinion, your entire vocabulary needs a complete overhaul. I’d start with a dictionary if I were you.

no you never said this. You have stated repeatedly that evolution is fact because all the scientists believe it.

I know you think this, but it’s because you either willingly or unwillingly misinterpret my words every single time. At some point it’s no longer my problem. Please quote an instance of me saying that because scientists believe something it is a fact. I’ll wait.

again the majority of scientists believed in God a few hundred years ago, does that make it true? No it doesn't. A group of people can be wrong on a host of things, and a single person who happens to know the argument better can be correct. It's all about the information, not who believes it. I really am disappointed that you still are trying to make this work for you after pages and pages of refutations of it.

I already told you why this isn’t a valid objection. In fact, I predicted that you would raise it, and like clockwork, you did. Again, scientists are authoritative on what the best available model of reality is. That model changes as more information is discovered. They are not authoritative on what is true in the metaphysical sense, but they are authoritative on what is most reasonable to believe in matters of science. Theism was never a matter of science, so your objection not only fundamentally misunderstands the role of science in truth but doesn’t even apply.

See the arguments in the OP are solid logic. And logic that anyone can use. They do not reference any scientific study or observation by external sources. It's all internal logic. That is why God did it this way, and why it is one of the few things that can be proven. So thank you, for making that point for me. See if you see things made (the universe), you know there was a maker. Someone or something made it. And since there is intelligence and love in the universe, the maker of the universe must have intelligence and love. For example you don't bake a cake with ingredients that don't exist in the world. So I hope this proof of God falls upon listening ears and not deaf ears.

You don’t understand. Proof is integral to logic, so if you give up the concept of proof you give up the entire function of logic. You’re lost, my friend.

 

[createdtoworship]

If you want to believe that mirage and hallucination are synonyms just to avoid conceding my point, be my guest. All words are made-up anyway. Just don’t expect anyone to know what you’re saying, ever.

did I say they were synonyms? Because I believe you can't prove without using external biased sources that they are distinct, you assume I think they are synonyms? I made no positive statements at all regarding their definition. Just because you can't prove they are different, doesn't mean that I think they are the same. I may in fact believe they are different. But I cannot prove that to you, because at that point I would be using opinion and interpretation of external sources. You must get a degree in related field, and study it yourself. Writing your own dictionary if you will simply to prove your single fact. And then when you verbalize it, it is lost. The audience will have to do the same. And even then it's not proof, because you could have made a mistake. IF you are at all being intellectually honest, you will admit defeat and realize that you cannot prove nearly anything that you have said in this thread. IF you disagree, please prove one thing you have said. And link to it. I however have proven God's existence as an intellectual and loving creator. I cannot prove it is a christian God, but I can provide evidence that christianity caters to that type of God the most accurately.

Wow, this whole time you haven’t even been using the formal logical definition of the word “proof” that I thought you were, where proof is a set of premises that, if true, lead to a valid and sound conclusion that must by logical necessity be true. You’re using a completely unique, utterly nonsensical definition. The definition of proof you’re using is “a said statement is factual and true.” So as long as something is true, you have proof? But then how do you prove something is true? You’d have to presuppose it to be true before you could say there is proof, which is the exact opposite of how logic works. This is day 1, introduction to basic logic for dummies 101 material, Gradyll. You are in no sense anything remotely close to a logical debater.

Yes I said the definition of proof is that a said statement is factual and true, that means that because it is factual it is true. It's simpler than you define it. Something can be true without premises, it's just that it cannot be proven to you and me as true. So you don't need premises for it to be true. Most facts cannot be proven, I was just watching a video on electricity and they assume the bohr model of the atom (planetary model), yet I did a quick search and there apparently are alot of problems with it, and problems that physicists are aware of. We can see atoms allegedly, but not inside them they say. So we don't really know how the atom looks, yet their are pictures of the atom all over the internet in all sorts of scientific articles. Yet it is all hearsay. No one has actually seen it. Here are some of the problems allegedly with that model of the atom: Problems with Bohr's model of the atom

Further, if you admit we can have knowledge of evidence, how do we happen upon that knowledge? Are the pieces of evidence themselves not “proven” in your view? It’s very difficult to follow your thought process because you contradict yourself at every turn.

no evidence is not proof, as you already know. At least you should by now, know the basics.

In my opinion, your entire vocabulary needs a complete overhaul. I’d start with a dictionary if I were you.

a dictionary you cannot prove is true. You are not so good at debate are you?

I know you think this, but it’s because you either willingly or unwillingly misinterpret my words every single time. At some point it’s no longer my problem. Please quote an instance of me saying that because scientists believe something it is a fact. I’ll wait.

here is one of dozens of times you said it: Argument for God's existence.

I already told you why this isn’t a valid objection. In fact, I predicted that you would raise it, and like clockwork, you did. Again, scientists are authoritative on what the best available model of reality is. That model changes as more information is discovered. They are not authoritative on what is true in the metaphysical sense, but they are authoritative on what is most reasonable to believe in matters of science.

that is not what you said in the post above that I linked, also here you say "the scientific consensus is good evidence"
Argument for God's existence.

Theism was never a matter of science, so your objection not only fundamentally misunderstands the role of science in truth but doesn’t even apply.

can you prove that science never incorporated any type of theism, and still does not? I await your reply.

You don’t understand. Proof is integral to logic, so if you give up the concept of proof you give up the entire function of logic. You’re lost, my friend.

logic is based on proof. But not necessarily external sourced truth, like you use. You can have internally based proof that does not rely on external sources. So, no I have not lost. But thanks for confirming yet another win for the theists.

 

[gaara4158]

did I say they were synonyms? Because I believe you can't prove without using external biased sources that they are distinct, you assume I think they are synonyms? I made no positive statements at all regarding their definition. Just because you can't prove they are different, doesn't mean that I think they are the same. I may in fact believe they are different. But I cannot prove that to you, because at that point I would be using opinion and interpretation of external sources. You must get a degree in related field, and study it yourself. Writing your own dictionary if you will simply to prove your single fact. And then when you verbalize it, it is lost. The audience will have to do the same. And even then it's not proof, because you could have made a mistake. IF you are at all being intellectually honest, you will admit defeat and realize that you cannot prove nearly anything that you have said in this thread. IF you disagree, please prove one thing you have said. And link to it. I however have proven God's existence as an intellectual and loving creator. I cannot prove it is a christian God, but I can provide evidence that christianity caters to that type of God the most accurately.

Definitions are ultimately arbitrary, Gradyll. There’s no “proving” that x is defined as this or that, it is simply accepted as a provisional given for the purpose of formulating and communicating ideas. Dictionaries report the most common uses of different words as comprehensively as possible. But here’s the logical syllogism, just for you, because you’re committed to being wrong, obtuse, and disingenuous:

Mirage is defined as the phenomenon wherein light refracting due to atmospheric conditions creates the illusion of water or a reflective surface in the distance.

Hallucination is defined as sensory perception projected by the mind which does not correlate to any external stimulus, which the subject is not able to distinguish from perceptions that do correlate to external stimuli.

Therefore, if we accept these two definitions, mirages and hallucinations are two different things. You can bleat all day about how you might hallucinate something that looks exactly what a mirage looks like, but they are by definition two different things because of their causes.

Yes I said the definition of proof is that a said statement is factual and true, that means that because it is factual it is true. It's simpler than you define it. Something can be true without premises, it's just that it cannot be proven to you and me as true. So you don't need premises for it to be true.

You’re not really explaining anything, you’re just creating a meaningless tautology. You’re saying fact is synonymous with truth, which is synonymous with proof. You haven’t defined any path to truth, facts, or proof, and yet you say that we can have proof without facts, facts without proof, and truth without either one. You’re not wrong that we’re not able to have perfect certainty of anything in the outside world, but your explanation of why that is is incoherent. You need to stick with the formal definitions used in philosophy if you’re going to try to make logical arguments. Otherwise any meaningful conversation with you is impossible.

no evidence is not proof, as you already know. At least you should by now, know the basics.

That’s not what I asked. Are the “facts” used as “evidence” in your world “proven?”

a dictionary you cannot prove is true. You are not so good at debate are you?

See above, definitions are provisional, not proven.

here is one of dozens of times you said it: Argument for God's existence.

Please quote and highlight it. You can’t because I never said it. Your poor reading comprehension is not my problem.

that is not what you said in the post above that I linked, also here you say "the scientific consensus is good evidence"
Argument for God's existence.

A scientific consensus is good evidence that whatever they’re agreeing on is likely the best available model of reality, whether it’s metaphysically true or not.

can you prove that science never incorporated any type of theism, and still does not? I await your reply.

If it did in the past, even that was the best available model of reality. Now, science operates on methodological naturalism, which by definition is not theistic.

logic is based on proof. But not necessarily external sourced truth, like you use. You can have internally based proof that does not rely on external sources. So, no I have not lost. But thanks for confirming yet another win for the theists.

What you’re describing is the difference between synthetic and analytical propositions, but I’m not convinced you actually understand it. You’re so invested in being able to say things like “evolution isn’t proven” truthfully that you’ve had to tailor your definitions such that the sentence itself is meaningless. That’s what I mean when I say you’re lost.

 

[cvanwey]

I believe what you are asking for is my definition of specified complex information, but I am not sure you are ready for it. Creationists and ID advocates believe in something called specificity of complex information. I resort to biology to show this: Specified Information is Shannon Information with meaning/ function.


Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL

In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information.

In the paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", Stephen C. Meyer wrote:
Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity.

Oh, I'm all too 'ready for it' sir

It is no secret that people like Stephen Meyer - (head of the 'Discovery Institute'), and Michael Behe - (author of 'Darwin Devolved'), are on the forefront of their assertions. (I.E.) they assert 'intelligent design'.

The Discovery Institute is nothing more than 'pseudoscience', and wants to 'teach the controversy'. Well, the only ones which think there exists a controversy, are the ones whom wish to instead interject their own beliefs in a specific path of 'creationism'.

I trust you've seen the results of the Dover trial? If not, here you go: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial

A matter of fact, this trial stars two of the people you mentioned - (Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe).

Spoiler alert, your given proponents loose miserably.

To recap, your assertions appear to be based upon individuals whom simply assert that complexity must come from their chosen believed God. They use fallacious reasoning to assert this. Again, simply look at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial.

so how does that apply to mountains? It doesn't. Mountains may have specified complexity but I have not studied it in detail to know what that information is. My illustration is that we know if there is a painting that it was painted. I was not focused on the presence of humans as you say but on the cause and effect involved. Same with a baker. You see something baked, you know there was a baker.

You stated it's simple. That all we need is cause/effect, and painters. Well, mountains fall under cause/effect. Painters paint. So was this 'cause' for mountains natural or supernatural? 'Complexity' seems to derived from the 'eye of the beholder.' My point being it seems we can tell if a mountain has been made/altered, verses when no human or natural process has 'intervened' - (i.e.) Mt. Rushmore, the Grand Canyon, or even a human formed pile of dirt. My question to you is.... Are all un-tampered-with mountains instead God's creation???? I would assume your answer is yes, as I would assume you assert God created the earth - which includes the formation of mountains.

The universe was made (most scientists agree the universe had a beginning and was created by something else), so if we know the universe was made, then we also know for a fact that it had a maker.

Above is where fallacious reasoning is demonstrated. What you state is not only unfounded, but it would not even matter. Why? There still exists much unknown discovery.

1). We are not sure if the 'universe' is finite or eternal?

2.) Even IF everything you stated were true, you would be appealing to scientific hypothesis alone.

This is simple logic, and cause and affect. If there is no cause to the universe as some scientists believe, then the rules of cause and effect fail, and we can further believe that pink elephants can pop into existence out of nowhere and further disappear without notice. All causation is skeptic at that point. Theism is consistent with cause and effect.

Again, I would assume you assert God created the earth. Which would mean God created the mountains? Because we surely know humans did not do it..?

God being without mass is outside of time, and thus did not have a beginning or cause.

If it turns out the universe is eternal, then this again points to post #1410, in which you have yet to address of my second original question... Which is, if the universe has eternally existed, then what be the 'need for a creator?'

And even IF everything you stated were true, you would still need to account for what 'space/area/etc' God dwelled upon prior to 'creating anything at all? Otherwise, at some point in the 'past', God was the only 'thing' in existence. God would have needed to create a realm to 'move around.' Unless you now want to modify your assertion in that God encompasses some sort of eternal space for God to move around.?.?.?

Furthermore God is not an effect, God is the cause due to being the only being that never had a beginning, by nature of the definition of God= all powerful, all knowing, everywhere at once, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

You are placing the cart before the horse. Please address everything above before you can begin to assert

 

[ananda]

this section may be helpful to you I posted it below on the differences of christianity and buddhism as it relates to the world. Also I have an article on Buddhism and Christianity that may interest you: Buddhism and Christianity -Isamu Yamamoto.docx

Thanks, I concur with most of the article, but there are significant portions of it that I do not find in early Buddhism (Nagarjuna, "OM", "all life is one", etc.)

"rational religion is an attempt to find a permanent, intelligible interpretation of experience. Buddhism and Christianity differ in that the latter is metaphysics seeking a religion, whereas the latter is religion seeking a metaphysics. In Buddhism (see Zen Buddhism), evil is necessary, but in Christianity it is only contingent. While Buddhists seek relief from the world, Christians seek to change the world. Buddha gave doctrine to enlighten, but Christ gave his life to save. Buddhism begins from general principles, but Christianity begins with facts and generalizes on them.

Metaphysics. According to Whitehead, both process and permanence interplay as aspects of reality. Permanence is a potential element of reality. Temporal (time) permanence is found in eternal objects. Nontemporal permanence is found in God (or at least in God’s primordial nature, as noted below).

A bit of reality is the actual element or entity. Being is the potential for becoming. This is the principle of relativity. How a thing becomes is what a thing is. This is the principle of progress. Actual entities are real occasions, events, or drops of experience. As in Plato’s Sophist, they are becoming but never really finish the journey. With each passing moment of process, old dies and new is born. They pass from subjectivity to objectivity (immortality). This they do by final causality—namely, by their subjective aim. Once they are objectified, then they can act by efficient causality on others from past to present."

Geisler- Encyclopedia of christian apologetics page 1287

I agree that "Buddhism begins from general principles, but Christianity begins with facts and generalizes on them". It is another way of saying that the structure of Buddhism is built upon from observable, universal principles & that the structure of Christianity is built upon supposed allegations that must be believed on faith.

 

[Moral Orel]

I just proved God's existence in my last post.

So then you were wrong when you said this:

and now you fully understand that nothing is provable.

Right?