can you proove there isn't a deity?

[1robin]

Still awaiting all this business showing how the cosmological argument for the existence is logically valid/sound... Just sayin'. You're welcome to post it to a more relevant thread, but you should put a note on this thread if you do that, 1robin.

Thanks for reminding me but I thought that was cancelled days ago. I guess not. I will try and remember my books that I had looked it up in and post it in this thread.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Well that was strange. Are you attempting to suggest that the violence done against religions, is the fault of the religions for existing. If so that is an absurd argument. Religions as created out of thin air by men would be an abomination and the Bible makes that very clear. Religion as the practice of revealed truth would be the greatest possible good and it is the fault of atheistic tyrants (not faith) responsible for histories greatest genocides.

Religion is not what God wanted for us. Religions and books are all manmade. Nature is not manmade. Within nature (through God's own creations) is the only place you will find the true word of God revealed. I know who my God is... His words cannot be spoken in any human tongue, but they are known and understood by all the animals of the wild. God never kicked the animals out of that Garden of Eden. Funny how it is only us humans that think we need religion to connect with God.

 

[outhouse]

I have no idea what your talking about. The majority view is in my corner. BTW Traditional authorship is always retained until a significant reason is found to deny it. That is textual criticism 101.

The reason you don't know what I am talking about is because your ignorant to the real history of the world, in favor of a apologetic mythology.


You are also in serious error since I have flat posted the known knowledge showing you are in FACT not in the majority, YOU are in the minority for those who understand REAL history.

 

[1robin]

Religion is not what God wanted for us. Religions and books are all manmade. Nature is not manmade. Within nature (through God's own creations) is the only place you will find the true word of God revealed. I know who my God is... His words cannot be spoken in any human tongue, but they are known and understood by all the animals of the wild. God never kicked the animals out of that Garden of Eden. Funny how it is only us humans that think we need religion to connect with God.

Religion can certainly be man made. I think most probably are. However I also believe that God sent down accurate revelation that must be followed. He intended this to be both an individuals responsibility and the Church's. You are making sweeping judgments that do not necessarily apply across the board.

Here is the "official definition of religion;

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group


All three can be the greatest of goods or if untrue the worst of all evils. So the issue is not the practice of religion but which religion is true and which are false.

The animals are not nephish creatures. They have no souls nor do they have external moral demands or judgment. They are not free moral agents in the way humans are. So what he did with them is irrelevant. It was our sin and our punishment. I think you are trying to set up a definition for our duties toward God that is so ambiguous that it will allow you to do as you wish and believe whatever you wish. I do not have that luxury. I have and will determine to the best of my ability what the truth is and will consider myself accountable to the truth regardless what form it comes in. I believe the bible accurately records my duties and relationship to God and I accept my accountability to what it claims.

 

[1robin]

The reason you don't know what I am talking about is because your ignorant to the real history of the world, in favor of a apologetic mythology.


You are also in serious error since I have flat posted the known knowledge showing you are in FACT not in the majority, YOU are in the minority for those who understand REAL history.

I am competent in a few areas. The one I have spent more time on (by far) is military history and general history. I had a mature understanding about history long before I ever adopted faith. My historical conclusions are not affected what so ever by my faith. It was the fact the Bible lined up so closely with what I had already learned about history that was among the reason I adopted it. I am more loyal to truth than God. I find them to be one in the same. Now if your done making ignorant claims about the level of ignorance (to which you are completely ignorant by necessity) in my historical background, please actually post reasons for claiming that instead of attempting to assert reality into being.

The majority of mainstream scholarship credits Luke with authoring acts. Unlike most other areas of academics they are honest enough to admit it is not a certainty. It is simply the best candidate we have by far. Instead of amplifying this small uncertainty into the mountain of doubt you have (so as to justify what you went into the subject trying to do anyway), try and give me a better candidate for Acts. I gave you my reasons for thinking Luke almost certainly the author. You dismissed that based on the presenters occupation, even though it was perfectly appropriate. Until you counter it or until you give a better case for another author Luke stands as the best candidate by far.

That last sentence seemed to be an attempt to suggest whatever group I am in (and you have no way of knowing what group that is) is wrong if they disagree with your group. I take it we are in some kind of scholarship war. Ok then.

The Church Fathers, witnessed by the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus (c. 170), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian, held that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke.[50] The oldest manuscript of the gospel P75 (circa 200) carries the attribution “the Gospel according to Luke”.[51][52] however another manuscript P4 from about the same time period[53][54] has no such (surviving) attribution.
Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That represents two things. 1. The status of textual scholarship (righty or wrong) of the majority of those involved and qualified for well over 1500 years. 2. It also represents by far the earliest sources on authorship. In textual scholarship the earliest source is always the best unless persuasive reasons exist to dismiss them. This is the case for historical studies as well. So I have almost every single early source, and I have the vast majority of scholarship between 100AD and 1600AD and even far latter.

I actually could rest my argument on that because the modern direction concerning Biblical authorship is not based on some new discovery, on some new type of science or evidence. It represents only the current tends. IOW a modern scholar is in no better (and all things being equal a far worse) position to judge textual authorship without any of those things I mentioned than the earlier scholars much closer to the time of the writing of the document. I do not think it is the case but even if modern opinions and trends were predominantly against Luke they would not have any superiority over he traditional sources and many more weaknesses.

One thing I found common in modern scholarship is the belief Luke and acts were written by the same person. This is very interesting. Luke is always cited as the source for Luke by the earliest sources possible.
I. Authenticity. The authenticity of the Third Gospel has not been successfully challenged. References are frequent in the second century a.d. (Justin, Polycarp, Papias, Hegesippus, Marcion, Heracleon, the Clementine Homilies, Theophilus of Antioch). It is probable that Clement alludes to it (95). It is mentioned as the work of Luke by the Muratorian Fragment (170) and by Irenaeus (180). Such testimony continues into the third century (Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen). Such a mass of evidence is quite decisive.

II. Date. Although uncertain, the date can be confined to fairly narrow limits. The abrupt termination of the Acts of the Apostles suggests that the author did not long survive his friend and associate Paul. Nor is it likely to have been written after the fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. The period of Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea saw Luke in Palestine, and this period (conjecturally 58-59) would presumably give abundant opportunity for the research that is evident in the record. Luke’s Gospel is thus the latest of the Synoptic Gospels.

III. Historiography. W. M. Ramsay’s work on the Acts of the Apostles has established the right of Luke to rank as a first-rate historian in his own capacity. He was demonstrated to have maintained a consistent level of accuracy wherever detail could be objectively tested, and the vividness of narration so evident in the second work is visible also in the Gospel.
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/gospel-luke

1. If invented why pick a non-eyewitness friend to an apostle. That seems the unlikeliest of lies. Why not stick it in Peter's mouth, or James'. If you posit a less than optimal source it almost always means you are sincere.
2. Paul and Luke according to every known record jealously guarded truth. Yet gospels were written about Paul and credited to Luke which are untrustworthy and neither writes a single line about it? Hardly.
3. Not to mention no one has produced anything by anyone claiming to be the real author.
4. Scholarship runs in cycles. Today it happened to be in a German inspired hyper critical cycle. Even if you have a majority of todays scholars (something I seriously doubt or you could possibly know even if true, where is the survey?) you certainly do not have the over all majority or the majority of the earliest and best conclusions. So I do not think your Wikipedia source will cut it, alone anyway.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Religion is not what God wanted for us. Religions and books are all manmade. Nature is not manmade. Within nature (through God's own creations) is the only place you will find the true word of God revealed. I know who my God is... His words cannot be spoken in any human tongue, but they are known and understood by all the animals of the wild. God never kicked the animals out of that Garden of Eden. Funny how it is only us humans that think we need religion to connect with God.

I'm a Christian and I agree with you more than with 1robin (I disagree with him on almost everything, funny how that happens).

Here's an interesting article on Christian animism: http://www.jesusradicals.com/on-christian-animism/

 

[1robin]

Still awaiting all this business showing how the cosmological argument for the existence is logically valid/sound... Just sayin'. You're welcome to post it to a more relevant thread, but you should put a note on this thread if you do that, 1robin.

Ok, I have brought in my resources but before I get into what will be a long and meaningless discussion let me ask you if it is worth it. My claim is this:

1. Your technical objection is based purely on opinion. It is common knowledge that that specific criteria makes it easy to construct a known to be wrong argument that would be valid, and a known to be true argument that is invalid. What is the point?
2. Your criteria is one among many that can be used to justify a claim. There exist dozens or more criteria by which an argument is considered valid. My efforts will be to validate the argument by other criteria than only your narrow and meaningless requirement.
3. An informal argument, or even a formal one that takes place outside of a philosophical think tank has very different standards that within it. For example anything that is the best solution regardless of uncertainty would be a valid conclusion unless someone uses exotic standards like you have done to disqualify the best conclusions available based on preference through technical objection.
4. I will show the argument has official sanction for each of it's steps but even having done so I would feel I have wasted my time. Anyone can see that the argument is rational and cogent, who cares what someone's opinion produced concerning one criteria among many that arguments may be justified under.
5. Just as a procedural technicality in a court case has nothing to do with guilt or innocence in truth, these technical objections or justifications have little to do with whether an arguments conclusion is reasonable in truth.


I ask again what is the point or justifiable reason fro me to have to spend hours countering a technicality under which wrong arguments are more easy to validate, especially since many other criteria are available to justify the argument with? It appears your client is guilty and your only recourse to get a man you know is guilty off by a procedural violation. I care about reason and truth not argumentative tactics. I am looking to be reasonable or right not to win a word fight. If you can give me a good reason to do this it will be done, as I have promised to do so. It sure seems pointless however.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I'm a Christian and I agree with you more than with 1robin (I disagree with him on almost everything, funny how that happens).

Here's an interesting article on Christian animism: On Christian Animism

Christian animism.... I like it! Thanks for the link.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Ok, I have brought in my resources but before I get into what will be a long and meaningless discussion let me ask you if it is worth it. My claim is this:

1. Your technical objection is based purely on opinion.

This is vague at best, false at worst; the definition of validity is no more a matter of opinion than the definition of a triangle, of a cell, or of a particle- that is to say they are conventions: definitions are commonly agreed upon ways of using words.

It is common knowledge that that specific criteria makes it easy to construct a known to be wrong argument that would be valid

Yes, we've been over this ad naseum, but you're doing your avoidance thing again- validity is basically a necessary but not sufficient condition for a good deductive argument.

and a known to be true argument that is invalid.

No. You keep asserting this, but I've asked you several times for an example and so far you've produced none; an invalid deductive argument cannot be said to be a good, sound, or "true" argument (leaving aside the fact that, as I pointed out, calling an argument "true" or "false" is basically a category mistake).

What is the point?

If a deductive argument is not valid, it cannot be sound (once again, a valid argument may be unsound, but an invalid argument may never be sound). And if it is not sound, then what's the point?

2. Your criteria is one among many that can be used to justify a claim.

Again, vague. Yes, there are several properties of a deductive argument that are relevant to its overall quality as an argument- an argument may be valid, but unsound. It may be sound, but trivial or impertinent. But as I've said numerous times, a deductive argument that is not even valid is almost certainly a bad argument, because its premises could be true, and the conclusion nevertheless false.

There exist dozens or more criteria by which an argument is considered valid.

No, unless you mean "valid" in the vague colloquial sense that basically just means legitimate, reasonable, or something like this. But the cosmological argument isn't that either, so its the same result either way.

My efforts will be to validate the argument by other criteria than only your narrow and meaningless requirement.

That's fine, but if I am correct (and I am) about the cosmological argument being deductively invalid, whatever other merits it may have are ultimately moot. An argument can be bad despite being valid, but it cannot be good despite being invalid.

4. I will show the argument has official sanction for each of it's steps

What does "official sanction" mean? Does this mean divine sanction, by any chance?

I ask again what is the point or justifiable reason fro me to have to spend hours countering a technicality under which wrong arguments are more easy to validate, especially since many other criteria are available to justify the argument with? It appears your client is guilty and your only recourse to get a man you know is guilty off by a procedural violation.

Yeah, nice try, but logical validity isn't some minor, obscure, irrelevant "procedural violation"- its the property of having the conclusion follow from the premises. Which is a prerequisite, but not a guarantee, of a good deductive argument.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Religion can certainly be man made. I think most probably are. However I also believe that God sent down accurate revelation that must be followed. He intended this to be both an individuals responsibility and the Church's. You are making sweeping judgments that do not necessarily apply across the board.

Here is the "official definition of religion;

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group


All three can be the greatest of goods or if untrue the worst of all evils. So the issue is not the practice of religion but which religion is true and which are false.

The animals are not nephish creatures. They have no souls nor do they have external moral demands or judgment. They are not free moral agents in the way humans are. So what he did with them is irrelevant. It was our sin and our punishment. I think you are trying to set up a definition for our duties toward God that is so ambiguous that it will allow you to do as you wish and believe whatever you wish. I do not have that luxury. I have and will determine to the best of my ability what the truth is and will consider myself accountable to the truth regardless what form it comes in. I believe the bible accurately records my duties and relationship to God and I accept my accountability to what it claims.

Animals do have that "breath of life" or nephesh. Humans ARE animals. We evolved from animals and that has been clearly validated through science. My God is the animate forces of nature. Those same naturally existing forces or "spirit" that "breathes" life into all creatures and animates all of existence.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Christian animism.... I like it! Thanks for the link.

No problem! It's a cool Christian anarchist site.

I have a lot in common with animists. I believe that animals, plants, the planet, stars, etc. all have souls and are living beings on their own journey through life. I think they probably have an afterlife to go to. I don't think humans beings are really all that special. I think the vocation of humans is to nurture life, not act like we're above all other lifeforms. To me, God is the animating principle underlying all reality. I'm a panentheist.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No problem! It's a cool Christian anarchist site.

I have a lot in common with animists. I believe that animals, plants, the planet, stars, etc. all have souls and are living beings on their own journey through life. I think they probably have an afterlife to go to. I don't think humans beings are really all that special. I think the vocation of humans is to nurture life, not act like we're above all other lifeforms. To me, God is the animating principle underlying all reality. I'm a panentheist.

The part you mention about our purpose of nurturing life greatly reminds me of a post I wrote not too long ago in the thread "What is Buddhism's end goal?"

Here is that post...

Perhaps to simply “nourish” is what is meant by the ancient Chinese proverb…”Do without doing and everything get’s done.”
Like a tree whose leaves fall to the ground and nourish the soil to give way to new life. The tree does this (nourishes) without thought, ego, or desire for some type of reward. It is not looking for enlightenment or happiness. It gives itself freely back to the Earth selflessly and in that way does without doing.
And so, we too must nourish the Earth and give back to it freely, and in our own way do without doing, like the ebb and flow of a tide.
I am not fully convinced there is some greater “purpose” to all this either. I believe it is just a simple process of coming and going…like the tides. When you think about it, there is no real final “enlightening” purpose or ultimate plan for the tides. Our planet would still exist and function just fine without ocean tides…but as the tides come and go, they in fact do something very special for this Earth. They nourish the land with nutrients for new life to grow and to evolve. So even though the tides are not really needed for the Earth or the Universe to exist, they still hold a very special place in this Universe.
What this says about animal or human life is that we too must hold a very special place in this Universe, but it is not the personal or spiritual gain or what we attain from all this that matters, it is what we give back that matters the most.

Seek not enlightenment, but provide nourishment.

That is how new things are formed, new life, new beginnings. That is why we are here and that is our goal…to simply nourish the Earth and this Universe. To selflessly (without desire for anything in return) give back to it what it has so generously given us.

And from another thread I posted titled "My take on Quantum Animism."...

I guess if I were to describe my beliefs, I would say that I have a modern animistic world view. I believe similarly to what our primitive ancestors believed in that we live in a fully animate world where “spirits” are present in all things that exist. That includes all animate life-forms, but also so-called “inanimate” forms such as rocks, trees, rivers, lakes, moons, planets, and even stars like our own Sun. I believe that everything is animate down to its core…animated by a conscious energy or force. The way I see it “inanimate” objects or things simply do not exist. ALL of existence is like a "ghost" or "spirit", and material objects are that ghost as it were in a sense manifesting itself.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The part you mention about our purpose of nurturing life greatly reminds me of a post I wrote not too long ago in the thread "What is Buddhism's end goal?"

Here is that post...

And from another thread I posted titled "My take on Quantum Animism."...

Thank you for the posts.

You and I have similar thoughts. The only real way I think we're different from the other creatures on this planet is what I see as our purpose as a species. I think we're here to explore, to protect and create life. Even now, we are working on creating artificial life with AI and robotics. Much like the One Who created us, we wish to share ourselves with a creation of our own design. In the future, this creative impulse may include terraforming and bringing life to "dead" planets such as Mars. This way, we may encourage the expansion of life throughout the universe.

Gardeners of the Stars | Micah Redding

I've always viewed the Cosmos as being inherently a living thing. I think trees, forests, groves, oceans, beaches, lakes, rivers, etc. have spirits of their own. It's like what cultures like the Greeks called nymphs and such. The idea that life emerged from "dead" or "inanimate" things doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, there is a Pagan part of me that I'll never be able to banish.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Thank you for the posts.

You and I have similar thoughts. The only real way I think we're different from the other creatures on this planet is what I see as our purpose as a species. I think we're here to explore, to protect and create life. Even now, we are working on creating artificial life with AI and robotics. Much like the One Who created us, we wish to share ourselves with a creation of our own design. In the future, this creative impulse may include terraforming and bringing life to "dead" planets such as Mars. This way, we may encourage the expansion of life throughout the universe.

Gardeners of the Stars | Micah Redding

I've always viewed the Cosmos as being inherently a living thing. I think trees, forests, groves, oceans, beaches, lakes, rivers, etc. have spirits of their own. It's like what cultures like the Greeks called nymphs and such. The idea that life emerged from "dead" or "inanimate" things doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, there is a Pagan part of me that I'll never be able to banish.

Yes. Humans have the capacity to nourish in so many different ways. As much a we are here to nourish, we are also here to protect. We are the custodians of this Earth.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes. Humans have the capacity to nourish in so many different ways. As much a we are here to nourish, we are also here to protect. We are the custodians of this Earth.

Precisely.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Precisely.

It is just unfortunate that not everyone understands this. Humans tend to let ego and greed get in the way. As an intelligent species we must ensure that the balance within nature is never thrown out of balance.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It is just unfortunate that not everyone understands this. Humans tend to let ego and greed get in the way. As an intelligent species we must ensure that the balance within nature is never thrown out of balance.

We are a young species with a lot of growing up left to do. Sadly, I think we're going to have to learn this lesson the hard way. I hope we don't ruin the planet too much in the process.

 

[ruffen]

Here is a proof that God does not exist, which I read somewhere.

Somewhere in Antarctica there is a God-eating penguin named Fred. This penguin is not a God, but it eats every God that might appear within 3 seconds.

If you say that Fred does not exist, you cannot disprove Fred's existence any more than I can disprove God, so Fred must be assumed to exist just as much as God.

If Fred does not exist, we can just as well assume that God does not exist.
If God (and Fred) exist, Fred will have eaten God, so God does not exist.

Conclusion: either God does not exist, or God does not exist.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Here is a proof that God does not exist, which I read somewhere.

Somewhere in Antarctica there is a God-eating penguin named Fred. This penguin is not a God, but it eats every God that might appear within 3 seconds.

If you say that Fred does not exist, you cannot disprove Fred's existence any more than I can disprove God, so Fred must be assumed to exist just as much as God.

If Fred does not exist, we can just as well assume that God does not exist.
If God (and Fred) exist, Fred will have eaten God, so God does not exist.

Conclusion: either God does not exist, or God does not exist.

Hopefully this is intended in a spirit of humor...

 

[ruffen]

Hopefully this is intended in a spirit of humor...

Mmm a bit.

But it does raise a good point, philosophically speaking - what makes the God-exists-but-Fred-doesn't-hypothesis more likely than the God-has-been-eaten-by-Fred-hypothesis, or the neither-God-nor-Fred-has-ever-existed-hypothesis?