If God existed would there be proof?

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, but if you ask me to decide whether a given animal on an image is a cat or not, I will answer you based on that. And not start answering you left, right or center, that not all animals are cats and therefore... blah blah blah

So again, based on what I asked you, is what I said illogical or not? is what I said wrong? Its not about being right, but I would like to know if you actually have a argument for it, or if it was just slander and whether I should just ignore it?

You don't understand that your rules for correct are in your mind/brain just like all other humans.
A thing is concrete and a rule is not a thing. It is that simple.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Great. What other axioms do you go by?

One and only one. That objective reality is overall epistemologically fair. The rest is not axioms but comparing differents way of thinking and other behaviour.
Remember I am a pragmatic.

 

[ratiocinator]

Please show that its just a random assumption.

I didn't say it was random, but you did say it was an axiom, which would make it a starting assumption. If it's not an assumption, then what is the sufficient reason to accept it?

Please show that its not correct or "true" as you said.

Sorry but you made two definite claims:

IF God exists, there would definitely be proof. There is no question about it.
If God does not exist, there has to be proof that God does not exist. There is no question about it.​

It is therefore your burden of proof, not mine. I asked you a question as to what the reasoning was that got you from the PSR to the truth of your claims. I'm not saying that they aren't true, just that you haven't made a case that they are. So far, they remain nothing more than unsupported assertions.

 

[viole]

If God existed would God provide proof of His existence?

It depends. If He does not care, He might not bother.

Does the fact that there is no proof of God's existence mean that God does not exist?

Of course not. Same with invisible garden fairies, and other entities which share God's evidence (and rationale to believe in them).

In other words, could God exist and not provide proof of His existence?

Absolutely. Which still gives some hope for theists. What else have they got to explain God's defeaning silence?

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

One and only one. That objective reality is overall epistemologically fair. The rest is not axioms but comparing differents way of thinking and other behaviour.
Remember I am a pragmatic.

How does that invalidate the necessity for sufficient reason?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How does that invalidate the necessity for sufficient reason?

Because there has never been made a model of the world of all necessary and sufficient reasons. It is an idea that doesn't hold up, if you are willing to doubt it and then test it.
The strength of philosophy is that you can learn to think. The problem is that you can get caught in ideas that makes sense, but doesn't hold up. Philosophy is the best and worst study there is.

 

[Nimos]

You don't understand that your rules for correct are in your mind/brain just like all other humans.
A thing is concrete and a rule is not a thing. It is that simple.

Just wondering, when you play or if you should play a board game with some friends, do you follow the rules as written in the rulebook or do you just adjust them to whatever each of you feel like, they should be?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just wondering, when you play or if you should play a board game with some friends, do you follow the rules as written in the rulebook or do you just adjust them to whatever each of you feel like, they should be?

Well, all of the world is not a board game, so your example is not relevant for all of the world.
You really have to check for the limits of induction.
As for my world view I follow 3 sets of rules.

1. Objective as for the physical world.
2. Social for the common human world.
3. Individual for me.

That you conflate the 1st and 3rd is not my problem.

 

[firedragon]

I didn't say it was random, but you did say it was an axiom, which would make it a starting assumption. If it's not an assumption, then what is the sufficient reason to accept it?

Its not considered an assumption. An assumption is based on experience. Everyday I throw a stone in the water and it ripples. Thus, I make an assumption that today if I go now and throw a stone in the water it will ripple. This is a principle.

Sorry but you made two definite claims:
IF God exists, there would definitely be proof. There is no question about it.
If God does not exist, there has to be proof that God does not exist. There is no question about it.
It is therefore your burden of proof, not mine. I asked you a question as to what the reasoning was that got you from the PSR to the truth of your claims. I'm not saying that they aren't true, just that you haven't made a case that they are. So far, they remain nothing more than unsupported assertions.

Right. So could give me what you accept as "Proof"?

 

[firedragon]

Because there has never been made a model of the world of all necessary and sufficient reasons.

Is that pragmatism?

You really have to check for the limits of induction.
As for my world view I follow 3 sets of rules.

1. Objective as for the physical world.
2. Social for the common human world.
3. Individual for me.

That you conflate the 1st and 3rd is not my problem.

I think you should open a thread and teach logic because you really seem to want to do that.

This is irrelevant mikkel. And anything I said is not about the physical world, or social, individual for me or anything of the sort. And as a pragmatist, I cant understand why you would disregard everything has sufficient reason with rationalism.

 

[Kfox]

My premise is that if God existed God would have to provide the proof because there is no way we could ever get to where God exists and get the proof ourselves.

If God existed would there be proof?

I am not asking if there could be proof or if there should be proof, I am asking if there would be proof.

• If God existed would God provide proof of His existence?
• Does the fact that there is no proof of God's existence mean that God does not exist?
• In other words, could God exist and not provide proof of His existence?

Thanks, Trailblazer

I think it depends on the God you are referring to. If (for example) the God described in the Bible existed, I believe there would be proof because according to the bible God wants us to know him.

 

[EtuMalku]

If God exists, the "why" question is irrelevant to something that exists

I never mentioned the 'why' part.

Gods interests if existing is unavailable unless you can speak directly to God.

How would you know that? Isn't that convenient You would think that a god could convey itself to anyone and everyone.

 

[EtuMalku]

God would be whatever God is. I do not believe that God exists in a form we can observe but some people tell me that they experience God.

Why do you think it would be in God's best interest? Do you think that God would need our belief?

You just said two things.
Obviously if God does not exist there would not be any proof of God's existence....
My question was If God existed would there be proof?

Apparently this god does need followers, why else would he go to such extremes throughout history to gain followers?
If something exists then there is proof.

 

[ratiocinator]

Its not considered an assumption. An assumption is based on experience. Everyday I throw a stone in the water and it ripples. Thus, I make an assumption that today if I go now and throw a stone in the water it will ripple. This is a principle.

Now you've run into the problem of induction. Because you observe causality in everyday life, you assume that there will always be sufficient reason for everything. However, not only do we see everyday causality break down at the quantum level, this will inevitably run into an infinite regress of reasons (or, strictly speaking, some sort of cyclic set of reasons).

Right. So could give me what you accept as "Proof"?

Strictly speaking a logicically valid argument based on clearly true premises. However, I'm happy to accept evidence that makes the conclusion true beyond reasonable doubt (although I can't quite see how you'd do that for your specific claims, but perhaps you can).

 

[firedragon]

I never mentioned the 'why' part.

Apologies if I misread your post.

How would you know that?

Very good. I wouldn't know that. Thats the point. To know what Gods interest is I have to speak to God directly. I cant. So I dont know.

 

[firedragon]

Now you've run into the problem of induction. Because you observe causality in everyday life, you assume that there will always be sufficient reason for everything. However, not only do we see everyday causality break down at the quantum level,

About assumptions, you are absolutely correct.

this will inevitably run into an infinite regress of reasons (or, strictly speaking, some sort of cyclic set of reasons).

Thats irrelevant. This is only about the topic of the thread, and what I said.

Strictly speaking a logicically valid argument based on clearly true premises.

So you have to invalidate the principle I used. Please go ahead.

Thanks.

 

[Nimos]

Well, all of the world is not a board game, so your example is not relevant for all of the world.
You really have to check for the limits of induction.

I am aware of that. How come when you are asked a direct question that you don't answer it?

Its like you add a 100 other assumptions to it and then draw a conclusion based on that. Did I say or claim that all of the world was like a board game in the first place? Yet you reach the conclusion that my question is not relevant for all of the world, when I never even suggest that in the first place?

Why do you think I made the example with the cat?

No, but if you ask me to decide whether a given animal on an image is a cat or not, I will answer you based on that. And not start answering you left, right or center, that not all animals are cats and therefore... blah blah blah

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am aware of that. How come when you are asked a direct question that you don't answer it?

Its like you add a 100 other assumptions to it and then draw a conclusion based on that. Did I say or claim that all of the world was like a board game in the first place? Yet you reach the conclusion that my question is not relevant for all of the world, when I never even suggest that in the first place?

Why do you think I made the example with the cat?

No, but if you ask me to decide whether a given animal on an image is a cat or not, I will answer you based on that. And not start answering you left, right or center, that not all animals are cats and therefore... blah blah blah

Well, I would adhere to the rules of board game. But so what?

As for a cat. That is a case of something objective. Rules not so much.

 

[ratiocinator]

Thats irrelevant. This is only about the topic of the thread, and what I said.

It's not irrelevant, it's a direct problem with one of your stated axioms.

So you have to invalidate the principle I used. Please go ahead.

Not only have I pointed out a problem with the principle you stated, you haven't actually put forward any argument that logically takes us from that principle to your original claims. So, let's say, for the sake of argument, that I fully accept the principle of sufficient reason, now, how does that justify your two claims?

IF God exists, there would definitely be proof. There is no question about it.
If God does not exist, there has to be proof that God does not exist. There is no question about it.
​

Where is the logic that starts with the axiom of the PSR and takes us to those conclusions?

 

[Nimos]

Well, I would adhere to the rules of board game. But so what?

As for a cat. That is a case of something objective. Rules not so much.

Then what are the difference between the question I asked you and when you are presented with a set of rules in a board game and you having to make a decision based on those?

The example of the cat, were to illustrate that when asked a question, where you are specifically asked what to take into consideration, that it is pointless to then start including all sorts of other irrelevant stuff in order to answer it. Meaning that the "rules" of the question is to answer it based on the image of a cat and nothing else. Fair enough if you don't like the word "rules" in this case, I can understand why.

Obviously the reason is, that if you start including all kinds of other things and assumptions, then you are not addressing the actual question asked, but whatever you believe is relevant or think the person asking the question mean.