Can this win God-proofs contest?

[PureX]

Slight miscommunication - I didn't say god doesn't exist. I maintain the position that no one (alive at least) could ever know of the existence of god. Your "all-knowing being" as introduced in your earlier post is specifically what I was referring to.

Your error is in the assertion that the physical world exists in response to our mind's interpretation of it. The physical world does exist, with or without us here. We can only experience it through our senses, and as such we may have individual perceptions of it, but the variable there is us - not reality.

We don't know what exists and what doesn't apart from what we imagine to exist in response to our sensory input. All we really know is that this sensory input is not being generated internally. And that is not much to go on.

 

[Agnostic Christian]

We don't know what exists and what doesn't apart from what we imagine to exist in response to our sensory input. All we really know is that this sensory input is not being generated internally. And that is not much to go on.

"...and that is not much to go on", as opposed to what?

I'll play devil's advocate and say that you really don't know that your sensory input is not being generated internally. So where do we go from here? Solipsism is a fun idea but the practicality of it being used to understand the world is basically... nonexistent.

At some point we have to agree on there being a separation between the abstract and physical reality in order to function. So you can play these games if you'd like, but you're still going to eat food, and drink water, and stop at red lights, and go to work, and pay your bills, because you still accept and obey a physical reality apart from your imagination.

 

[izzy88]

Despite the fact that this makes no sense, paradoxes don't prove anything. Take for example Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox. If you were to walk from point A to point B, you must first walk halfway between the two. Then you must walk halfway between those two points - and then halfway between those two, and those next two, etc. ad infinitum. Thus never actually being able to reach point B. This obviously isn't true.

That's because we don't walk half way to our destination and then stop and then walk half way from where we are and so on; we simply walk all the way to the destination the first time. It's not that the paradox doesn't prove anything, or that it's wrong, it's that the proposed paradox doesn't even exist; it's based on a false premise.

 

[blü 2]

All-knowing Being [if He exists] must know, that All-Knowing Being exists.
Thus, among the hidden knowledge must be the knowledge
of the existence of All-knowing Being.

The All-Knowing Tin of Spaghetti [if It exists] must know, that the All-Knowing Tin of Spaghetti exists. Thus among the hidden knowledge must be the knowledge of the existence of the All-Knowing Tin of Spaghetti.

If All-knowing Being does not exist, then the following would be true to say:
"All-knowing Being does not know anything." [As example: Dead bodies do not know math.]
We came to contradiction, because such Being is not All-knowing.
Thus, the All-knowing Being exists.

If the All-Knowing Tin of Spaghetti does not exist then the following would be true to say:
"The All-Knowing Tin of Spaghetti does not know anything. We come to a contradiction, because the All-Knowing Tin of Spaghetti is not all-knowing."

No, I don't think that quite works.

 

[questfortruth]

That's because we don't walk half way to our destination and then stop and then walk half way from where we are and so on; we simply walk all the way to the destination the first time. It's not that the paradox doesn't prove anything, or that it's wrong, it's that the proposed paradox doesn't even exist; it's based on a false premise.

If a being knows everything, then He knows that Omniscient Being exists as well. Thus, Omniscient Being exists.

 

[stvdv]

First Proof:
If a being knows everything, then He knows that Omniscient Being exists as well. Thus, Omniscient Being exists.

Second Proof:

If All-knowing Being does not exist, then the following would be true to say:
"All-knowing Being does not know anything." [As example: Dead bodies do not know math.]
We came to contradiction, because such Being is not All-knowing.
Thus, the All-knowing Being exists.

I tried it this way:

First = Proof:
If a being knows everything, then He does know, if an Omniscient Being exists as well (as he is Omniscient himself). Thus, Omniscient Being exists.

Second = Belief:
If a being does NOT know everything, then He does NOT know if an Omniscient Being exists (as one needs to be Omniscient to really know this ***). Thus, Omniscient Being might exists.

*** Reading a book with Einstein's formulas does not mean "you know" the formulas (just try to do an exams with the question to give proof). BUT you can decide if you believe them or NOT.

IF you believe they are true, then you can decide to study very hard AND practice it, until you finally know.

 

[questfortruth]

I tried it this way:

First = Proof:
If a being knows everything, then He does know, if an Omniscient Being exists as well (as he is Omniscient himself). Thus, Omniscient Being exists.

Second = Belief:
If a being does NOT know everything, then He does NOT know if an Omniscient Being exists (as one needs to be Omniscient to really know this ***). Thus, Omniscient Being might exists.

*** Reading a book with Einstein's formulas does not mean "you know" the formulas (just try to do an exams with the question to give proof). BUT you can decide if you believe them or NOT.

IF you believe they are true, then you can decide to study very hard AND practice it, until you finally know.

Do not corrupt my proofs. Use the original text, not your insertions.

 

[N K Tawakley]

First Proof:
If a being knows everything, then He knows that Omniscient Being exists as well. Thus, Omniscient Being exists.

Second Proof:

If All-knowing Being does not exist, then the following would be true to say:
"All-knowing Being does not know anything." [As example: Dead bodies do not know math.]
We came to contradiction, because such Being is not All-knowing.
Thus, the All-knowing Being exists.

The biggest proof of the existence of God is the CONSCIOUSNESS present in all the living beings. This consciousness is the spark of God within each and every one of us. Without the consciousness all living beings are dead combination of chemicals.

 

[questfortruth]

The biggest proof of the existence of God is the CONSCIOUSNESS present in all the living beings. This consciousness is the spark of God within each and every one of us. Without the consciousness all living beings are dead combination of chemicals.

This proof is criticised as badly as my proof:

 

[PureX]

"...and that is not much to go on", as opposed to what?

I'll play devil's advocate and say that you really don't know that your sensory input is not being generated internally. So where do we go from here? Solipsism is a fun idea but the practicality of it being used to understand the world is basically... nonexistent.

At some point we have to agree on there being a separation between the abstract and physical reality in order to function. So you can play these games if you'd like, but you're still going to eat food, and drink water, and stop at red lights, and go to work, and pay your bills, because you still accept and obey a physical reality apart from your imagination.

It's not about solipsism. It's about recognizing that our "reality" is imaginary because we have so little access to whatever reality is. So that when we are spouting off about knowledge and truth and what exists and what doesn't we are basically just blowing smoke up our own @sses. No offense.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The "actual physical world around us" is an ideological concept being generated in our minds in response to sensory input from our bodies, memory, and our exceptionally elaborate imaginations.

Simply not true. And the falsity of this claim can be known by acknowledging the myriad inter-subjective experiences we can all have, and cannot deny, regardless our use of "imagination." For example, the effects of gravity on your body. Would you claim that there are those out there who can make gravity a subjective experience, and can use their imagination to overcome it, or cancel it entirely?

I will agree that we only really get an interpretation of what is truly "real," because such experience is inevitably filtered through our own, individual sensory perceptions. However, all reliable/testable/demonstrable evidence points to the underlying "reality" being the same for all of us, without the insane amounts of deviation we should expect under your assumptions.

 

[PureX]

Simply not true. And the falsity of this claim can be known by acknowledging the myriad inter-subjective experiences we can all have, and cannot deny, regardless our use of "imagination." For example, the effects of gravity on your body. Would you claim that there are those out there who can make gravity a subjective experience, and can use their imagination to overcome it, or cancel it entirely?

I will agree that we only really get an interpretation of what is truly "real," because such experience is inevitably filtered through our own, individual sensory perceptions. However, all reliable/testable/demonstrable evidence points to the underlying "reality" being the same for all of us, without the insane amounts of deviation we should expect under your assumptions.

All the mushrooms in the forest experience life in the forest in more or less the same way. And yet none of them even know that they are living in a forest. They could very easily imagine that they are living on the moon.

The point is that similar sensory systems experience similar sensory input. That's all. The similarities do nothing to ensure the accuracy of the imagined reality that such input generates.

 

[stvdv]

Do not corrupt my proofs. Use the original text, not your insertions.

I quoted your original text exactly, not corrupted
Next I phrased it in a way it makes sense to me

I do not corrupt your proof, it's not even proof IMO
Your proof made totally no sense to me
But I found it a creative thought/idea
I got my eureka and shared it

Using the line: "I tried it this way"
Ending always with "IMHO"

You put it in debate, so I gave my view

BUT if you only want simple yes/no answer
can-this-win-god-proofs-contest?
Then my answer is: NO

 

[night912]

That's because we don't walk half way to our destination and then stop and then walk half way from where we are and so on; we simply walk all the way to the destination the first time. It's not that the paradox doesn't prove anything, or that it's wrong, it's that the proposed paradox doesn't even exist; it's based on a false premise.

Logic says differently. It states that there is always a "middle" between the distance of two points, regardless of you stopping or walk all the way. By walking all the way, you will always have to walk half of the distance in regards to the distance between two points. There will always be a time and place where you are half way to your destination.

 

[questfortruth]

I quoted your original text exactly, not corrupted
Next I phrased it in a way it makes sense to me

I do not corrupt your proof, it's not even proof IMO
Your proof made totally no sense to me
But I found it a creative thought/idea
I got my eureka and shared it

Using the line: "I tried it this way"
Ending always with "IMHO"

You put it in debate, so I gave my view

BUT if you only want simple yes/no answer
can-this-win-god-proofs-contest?
Then my answer is: NO

 

[izzy88]

Logic says differently. It states that there is always a "middle" between the distance of two points, regardless of you stopping or walk all the way. By walking all the way, you will always have to walk half of the distance in regards to the distance between two points. There will always be a time and place where you are half way to your destination.

You've demonstrated both here and in our other conversation that you do not understand logic.

Your are wrong, and I explained quite clearly why you are wrong in the very comment you just responded to. This is essentially a mathematical problem; if you continuously subtract half of a number, no matter where you begin, you will never reach zero. But if you simply subtract the full number from itself, you will reach zero.

Which do we do when we walk from point A to point B?

 

[Thief]

First Proof:
If a being knows everything, then He knows that Omniscient Being exists as well. Thus, Omniscient Being exists.

Second Proof:

If All-knowing Being does not exist, then the following would be true to say:
"All-knowing Being does not know anything." [As example: Dead bodies do not know math.]
We came to contradiction, because such Being is not All-knowing.
Thus, the All-knowing Being exists.

no..... to both

 

[questfortruth]

Your proof made totally no sense to me

The problem is not my proof. The problem is your reception of the Existing God. It makes no sense for an atheist to except Existing God. His imaginable god does not exist.

 

[stvdv]

Thank you for sharing this .pdf

Nice short, and interesting: the Law of Conservation of Information together with the Shakespeare example. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[questfortruth]

Thank you for sharing this .pdf

Nice short, and interesting: the Law of Conservation of Information together with the Shakespeare example. Makes perfect sense to me.

The problem is not my proof. The problem is your reception of the Existing God. It makes no sense for an atheist to except Existing God. His imaginable god does not exist.