Can you challenge this "social proof of God"?

joinfree · Oct 28, 2017

1) believers say that they have scientifically proven God. How come? By simple confession, that they are theists. Look: there is Church Dogma of the Existence of God. A dogma is, by definition, is the absolute true knowledge. It can never be changed or destroyed, as the indestructible is God.

2) According to believers, the critics have not destroyed any of these proofs.
3) Therefore, in the believing community, God is proved objectively and scientifically.
4) Believers are forbidden to lie. False believers do lie, thus they are not believers. The proof deals only with believers and their critics.
5) Therefore, the critics are not fair.

Presumption of Innocence: nobody is wrong, nobody is delusional, sick, criminal, liar and unrepentant sinner, until opposite would be proven. But in the proof is proven, that critics of God-proofs are not fair, it means that they are unfair liars, trolls, and mockers of the proofs. Consciously or subconsciously they are doing the works of their father - satan. The satan is father of lie.
believers say that they have scientifically proven God. How come? By simple confession, that they are theists. Look: there is Church Dogma of the Existence of God. A dogma is, by definition, is the absolute true knowledge. It can never be changed or destroyed, as the indestructible is God.

Subduction Zone · Oct 28, 2017

joinfree said:
1) Often believers say that they have scientifically proven God.

Yes, that is a common error among a few believers.

2) According to believers, the critics have not destroyed any of these proofs.

Just because they cannot understand how their arguments have been refuted does not make it so.

3) Therefore, in the believing community, God is proved objectively and scientifically.

All this tells us that the "believing community" has a very very poor understanding of logic.

4) Believers are forbidden to lie.

And yet they do so quite often.

5) Therefore, the critics are not fair.

As I already pointed out, this only indicates very poor logical skills on the part of the "believing community".

Monna · Oct 28, 2017

joinfree said:
1) Often believers say that they have scientifically proven God.

Personally I hold to the argument that the scientific endeavour is limited to what we as humans can perceive objectively through our senses, and through instruments that directly extend the range of those senses. "Objectivity" is more or less bound by what anybody can perceive (and measure) using the same processes and methods that the first claimant of a discovery has used. Science cannot prove or disprove God objectively. Science has tried unsuccessfully to measure objectively a lot of so-called extra-sensory phenomena. So I disagree with this first statement.

joinfree said:
Believers are forbidden to lie.

Being forbidden to lie does not mean that they don't do so. So this link in the argument or logic is also flawed.

joinfree said:
the critics are not fair

We all have our own individual idea of what is fair or unfair. We all, IMHO, ultimately believe what we want to believe.

joinfree said:
in the believing community, God is proved objectively and scientifically

I claim to be a member of the "believing community", I do not think that God has been proven objectively or scientifically. I believe I had a very powerful encounter with God that convinced me that He exists. This was entirely subjective, even if some other people have been affected by my relating the event. So, either I am in fact not in the "believing community" or "it" does not entirely and uniformally claim that God is proved objectively and scientifically.

I remain uncertain as to why you call it a "social proof." Just what do you mean by "social proof" when in the body of the text you do not use this term?

A_Thinker · Oct 28, 2017

joinfree said:
2) According to believers, the critics have not destroyed any of these proofs.

The believers may be mistaken about the irrefutability of their proofs ...

FrumiousBandersnatch · Oct 28, 2017

joinfree said:
1) Often believers say that they have scientifically proven God.
2) According to believers, the critics have not destroyed any of these proofs.
3) Therefore, in the believing community, God is proved objectively and scientifically.
4) Believers are forbidden to lie.
5) Therefore, the critics are not fair.

Well that's neither a valid syllogism nor a proof of God (even allowing that it's possible to have a proof of synthetic claims). It's a claim about critics that doesn't follow from the premises.

That aside, I can accept that 1, 2, 3 and 4 may well be the case. But none of 1-4 implies 5 - and attempting to 'destroy' (disprove?) a proof is not unfair, it's how we establish the validity of a proof.

Also (4) All people, including believers, can be honestly mistaken about the truth of things; further, forbidding people to lie does not guarantee that they will not lie.

All-in-all, it's not a valid argument, it's not sound, and it contains both an explicit and an implicit non-sequitur.

Just sayin'.

xianghua · Oct 28, 2017

Monna said:
Science cannot prove or disprove God objectively.

why not? we know that complex things like a watch or a car are evidence for design (even if they were self replicating). this conclusion isnt objective?

Strathos · Oct 28, 2017

We should try to avoid lying, but no one on earth can avoid it completely.

quatona · Oct 28, 2017

joinfree said:
1) Often believers say that they have scientifically proven God.
2) According to believers, the critics have not destroyed any of these proofs.
3) Therefore, in the believing community, God is proved objectively and scientifically.
4) Believers are forbidden to lie.
5) Therefore, the critics are not fair.

Ah, it´s proven because people claim to haven proven it. Excellent, creative, irrefutible.

joinfree · Oct 28, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
.......
And yet they do so quite often.
......

The proof speaks about TRUE believers - the fundamentalists, thus, they can not lie. They are like a Holy angels. Otherwise they are false believers, the false believers are not believers, because they are false.

Subduction Zone · Oct 28, 2017

joinfree said:
The proof speaks about TRUE believers - the fundamentalists, thus, they can not lie. They are like a Holy angels. Otherwise they are false believers, the false believers are not believers, because they are false.

Fundamentalists are hardly "true believers". And I have yet to see a fundamentalist that does not lie regularly.

joinfree · Oct 28, 2017

quatona said:
Ah, it´s proven because people claim to haven proven it. Excellent, creative, irrefutible.

Presumption of Innocence: nobody is wrong, nobody is delusional, sick, criminal, liar and unrepentant sinner, until opposite would be proven.

Monna said:
Personally I hold to the argument that the scientific endeavour is limited to what we as humans can perceive objectively through our senses, and through instruments .....

There are objective theoretical proofs, what need not be confirmed by experiment to have the status: "proof". Math proofs are, also proofs of Hawking Radiation via laws of Quantum Mechanics, not the observation (we are too far away from Black Hole).

A_Thinker said:
The believers may be mistaken about the irrefutability of their proofs ...

Presumption of Innocence: nobody is wrong, nobody is delusional, sick, criminal, liar and unrepentant sinner, until opposite would be proven.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
.....
That aside, I can accept that 1, 2, 3 and 4 may well be the case. But none of 1-4 implies 5 - and attempting to 'destroy' (disprove?) a proof is not unfair, it's how we establish the validity of a proof.
.......

Presumption of Innocence: nobody is wrong, nobody is delusional, sick, criminal, liar and unrepentant sinner, until opposite would be proven. But in the proof is proven, that critics of God-proofs are not fair, it means that they are unfair liars, trolls, and mockers of the proofs. Consciously or subconsciously they are doing the works of their father - satan. The satan is father of lie.

joinfree · Oct 28, 2017

Please reread the thread, there is video now.

Subduction Zone · Oct 29, 2017

joinfree said:
Please reread the thread, there is video now.

By a dishonest and failed physicist? You can do better than that. By the way, what happened to the claim that those on your side cannot lie?

quatona · Oct 29, 2017

joinfree said:
Presumption of Innocence: nobody is wrong, nobody is delusional, sick, criminal, liar and unrepentant sinner, until opposite would be proven.

The Presumption of Innocence is a legal or moral concept, not an epistemological one.
Also, it doesn´t include the presumption that people aren´t stupid, being illogical, delusional or simply mistaken.
In essence: The presumption of innocence isn´t a basis for reversing the burden of proof, and it doesn´t replace an actual proof.

Presumption of Innocence: nobody is wrong, nobody is delusional, sick, criminal, liar and unrepentant sinner, until opposite would be proven. But in the proof is proven, that critics of God-proofs are not fair, it means that they are unfair liars, trolls, and mockers of the proofs. Consciously or subconsciously they are doing the works of their father - satan. The satan is father of lie.

You really need a course in Logic101.

Monna · Oct 29, 2017

xianghua said:
this conclusion isnt objective?

not necessarily. We start from different points of origin (in our logic) and with differences in our underlying assumptions. We are often unaware of our own assumptions - because they seem to us so "obvious" - they are part of the very foundation of our thinking processes. But the sum total of these assumptions (as well as preconceptions and predispositions) differ from person to person.

If you assume there is a higher power, a higher Being, it is not difficult for you to attribute design to that power or being. Indeed if you also believe deep down that that power or Being is the creator, you cannot reach any other conclusion than that it or s/he is responsible for the evidence of design you see.

But if you assume there is no higher power or Being, it goes against your deepest thinking to conclude that it or s/he is behind the design. In fact, if you really really really don't believe that there can be anything outside the material world, I would think it is not possible for you to conclude that such a power or being could be responsible for the design that is apparent. To reach that conclusion you would have to abandon your deepest, most fundamental, starting point ... and that is super difficult.

I would submit that there are very few, if any, totally objective people around.

Monna · Oct 29, 2017

joinfree said:
There are objective theoretical proofs, what need not be confirmed by experiment to have the status: "proof". Math proofs are, also proofs of Hawking Radiation via laws of Quantum Mechanics, not the observation (we are too far away from Black Hole).

These are still extensions of what we have observed. Mathematics is a man-made language for describing what we see ... which has been used to extend our notion of what might be. (And I freely admit this is often successful.) There are different 'dialects' of mathematics so the language is not totally independent of the thinking processes, or of the phenomena it is seeking to describe. Otherwise, there could be no debate amoung physicists or mathematicians. And there is plenty of that. Even mathematics has underlying "assumptions" as do most scientific hypotheses.

Monna · Oct 29, 2017

joinfree said:
There are objective theoretical proofs, what need not be confirmed by experiment to have the status: "proof". Math proofs are, also proofs of Hawking Radiation via laws of Quantum Mechanics, not the observation (we are too far away from Black Hole).

Albert Einstein (1879–1955) stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

(The quote is Einstein's answer to the question: "How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?" This question was inspired by Eugene Wigner's paper "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". - from Wikipedia Mathematics. )

"Proofs" have had to be adjusted or rejected from time to time. So a mathematical "proof," in itself, is no guarantee of truth or correctness.

joinfree · Oct 29, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
By a dishonest and failed physicist? You can do better than that. By the way, what happened to the claim that those on your side cannot lie?

believers say that they have scientifically proven God. How come? By simple confession, that they are theists. Look: there is Church Dogma of the Existence of God. A dogma, by definition, is the absolute true knowledge. It can never be changed or destroyed, as the indestructible is God.

Subduction Zone · Oct 29, 2017

joinfree said:
believers say that they have scientifically proven God. How come? By simple confession, that they are theists. Look: there is Church Dogma of the Existence of God. A dogma, by definition, is the absolute true knowledge. It can never be changed or destroyed, as the indestructible is God.

Only those that do not understand logic make that bogus claim. The claim demonstrates the fact that they have no clue at all as to how either science or logic work. As others have pointed out, you need to take a basic class in both logic and science. And since different Christians churches have different dogmas they obviously cannot all be right. But guess what? They can all be wrong.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Oct 29, 2017

joinfree said:
Presumption of Innocence: nobody is wrong, nobody is delusional, sick, criminal, liar and unrepentant sinner, until opposite would be proven. But in the proof is proven, that critics of God-proofs are not fair, it means that they are unfair liars, trolls, and mockers of the proofs. Consciously or subconsciously they are doing the works of their father - satan. The satan is father of lie.

That may be all fine and dandy in the tangled illogic of your own thoughts, but when you're making a syllogistic argument for public consumption, your premises must contain all the relevant information - they don't have to be true (although if they're not, the argument is easily refuted), but they need to be explicit.

If you want something equivalent to the presumption of innocence, you need to make it explicit in your premises, something like, "Believers don't or can't lie" (which, of course, is false).

If you want the proof to be correct you have to make it explicit in your premises - saying someone says or thinks it's proven isn't sufficient; so, for example, "Believers have scientifically proved the existence of God" (which, of course, is false).

But even if someone has correctly proved something it is quite reasonable for critics to test the proof and attempt to disprove it. This doesn't make them unfair, liars, trolls, or mockers; if the proof is solid it will hold up under scrutiny.

Your argument fails in form, logic, and understanding. If you try to formulate it to give the conclusion you want, the premises will be false and it will be unsound.

To make a valid argument, the conclusions must follow from the premises; for that argument to be sound, the premises must be true.

To make a valid, sound argument about science, you also need to know how science works.

You have some homework to do.

Can you challenge this "social proof of God"?

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

No one important

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency