INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

The articles of the Christian faith (divine commands, a moral world order, an all-powerful all-good big brother watching over you, an afterlife, etc.) are nothing if not infantalizing.

That statement cannot be found in any creed in any Church or document as a reflection of sincere faith.

I see you are trying very hard to assert something into being. It will not work. You must show that any belief in any one of those terms is a juvenile proposition. Good luck, considering that many of the greatest minds in history have adopted them. Were Newton, Maxwell, Descartes, and Da Vinci in the habit of holding infantilizing beliefs?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You must show that any belief in any one of those terms is a juvenile proposition.

Needless to say, those aren't very difficult dots to connect.

Good luck, considering that many of the greatest minds in history have adopted them.

A silly statement, and one pretty darn close to a bare appeal to authority/consensus.

Were Newton, Maxwell, Descartes, and Da Vinci in the habit of holding infantilizing beliefs?

Yes, absolutely.

In any case, you focusing on this strikes me as a diversionary technique- you changing the subject so that we can all forget about your shameless misrepresentation of the views of professional philosophers (in yet another fallacious appeal to authority, ironically).

 

[Sees]

Needless to say, those aren't very difficult dots to connect.


A silly statement, and one pretty darn close to a bare appeal to authority/consensus.


Yes, absolutely.

In any case, you focusing on this strikes me as a diversionary technique- you changing the subject so that we can all forget about your shameless misrepresentation of the views of professional philosophers (in yet another fallacious appeal to authority, ironically).

Outside of so and so believing in it, and a whole bunch of regular people believing in it... there isn't much else to say. Arguments about smart, famous people of history believing always leave out that there wasn't much choice for quite a while...it was dangerous to be a non-believer or related to one.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Not to mention the obvious fact that smart and famous people can be wrong, too. Heck, two of the smartest, most influential men EVER, are famous largely for ideas that turned out to be false- both Newton and Aristotle espoused physical theories that have since been superseded (and, ironically, both of them held some very curious views about deities). In other words, saying "good luck showing that belief X is infantalizing/false/pernicious/whatever, because alot of smart people throughout history have believed it" is to display naiveté of mind-blowing proportions.

 

[cottage]

Stick with this analogy a little further. People outside N America are just like people in the natural. They take information about they can access and try and determine if it might also be true about what they cannot access. If they find more reasons to believe animals might exist in other places just as we find more (actually all of the evidence is in one direction) reasons to believe cause and effect exists beyond the natural then we can make a reasoned faith claim that it probably does. I see no flaw in the logic or the analogy with the exception that we can access the supernatural but not lands we have never been to.

There is a simple argument that demonstrates how your own analogy works against you. Those in what I shall call Group 1 (that is every person, including you) accept the reasoning that objects A may exist as state of affairs X, where A exists in general experience, but only if both A and X are subject to possible experience. “Aliens exist in some part of the universe” is a premise subject to possible experience in that we know by what means this could be verified, by space travel for example. But in Group 2 only those of a prejudiced mind or a dogmatic faith also believe that from the existence of A the existence of X can be assumed when only the former is available to us in general experience and the latter is excluded in possible experience. So Group 2 counters its own reasoning in Group 1 in order to make an exception, as a speculative plea from faith, while having nothing in general experience to corroborate it.

But now I’ll show what is really wrong with your argument that cause is supernatural (or exists beyond what is natural)
You are arguing to a principle that: “A thing that doesn’t contain its own explanation must therefore be supernatural” in order to state that causality is a supernatural phenomenon. The problem, though, is that could also apply to the world as a whole, since there are lots of things in the world that are yet to be explained. But the world cannot be both natural and supernatural!

We don’t understand how the human brain retains information; so we might well say:

The human brain doesn’t contain its own explanation

Therefore the human brain must be supernatural!

And it cannot be said: but the human brain requires a cause because everything that exists but doesn’t contain within its nature the explanation for its existence must have a cause, as that also implies a cause to explain causality, which is incoherent!
But causality is contingent, and so if God is the supernatural cause of the world and causality is also supernatural, then we have something that has the possibility to not exist as an explanation for something that has no possibility of not existing, which is a contradiction.

The existence of animals (cause and effect) were never questioned. The analogy showed that a reasoned deduction for what is known (the natural to what is not known (the supernatural) is at times a valid exercise. WE know cause and effect exists, they knew animals exist. They did not know animals existed on continents unknown to the. We do not know cause and effect apply to the supernatural. They deduced that if land existed at other places it was logical to believe animals exist there. It is logical believe that cause and effect exists in other realms of reality if they exist.

Are you seriously trying to say those two sentences are equivalent? “We do not know cause and effect apply to the supernatural.” In a single sentence you’ve managed to beg the question and make an argument from ignorance.
This is the sun totality of what the analogy amounts to:
1) They didn’t know some fact or facts about the world.
2) We don’t know that there is anything other than the world we experience
Note that 2 also applies to 1
And what “other realms of reality”? (!) There is only reality, the one in which causality actually exists.

There is no fallacy of falsifiability. Falsifiability is a criteria for science or empirical claims not philosophical or faith claims. A things existence is not affected by it's falsifiability. Falsifiability indicates the level of certainty in a claim. It is not a test for truth. I did not ask you to accept my claim as true. I asked you to consider it a valid deduction and a likely truth.

What I’m saying is your claim is not falsifiable and you have the burden of proof that can’t be met, and so it’s a fallacy because you’re making an argument from ignorance, by which anything can absurdly suggest anything. Also if you are asserting that it is a “likely truth” then that is in the arena of probabilities and contingent truths, which can only be settled by general experience. So explain, without arguing in a circle, where in general experience the supernatural is confirmed?

That is exactly what it means.
Contingent being
Web definitions

A. Something that does not exist in and of itself but depends for its existence upon some other being.

That is not what “contingency” means. Even in a colloquial or vernacular sense it only means “not certain” or “possible”. You’ve written it exactly as you would like to believe it, in order to suit the argument you’ve been making, which is incorrect. I’ve given the definition again below. If you disagree you can always look up the meaning in a dictionary, adding “logic” or “phil” to the search criteria, or better still go to something like Wikepeidia for an in depth explanation.

“A contingent proposition is neither true nor false. “The world is contingent upon God”, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or anything else, is a statement that is possibly true or possibly false. So contingent existence means that a thing may or may not be: that is to say without necessity. Whereas “A triangle has three sides” is a contingently true statement, necessarily so because the concept of a triangle is analyzable by its having three angles”.

Cause may be contingent but it's dependence for existence is not found in anything natural. It also makes no difference anyway. The cause of a car includes an engineer, even if an engineer is also contingent.

Everything in nature is subject to cause and effect, which necessarily requires mutation and movement, since one thing acting in relation to another in time is the definition of causality. But there was no time before the Big Bang and therefore causality could not pre-exist the beginning of the universe, and so cause and effect, which acts in relation to time as mutation and movement, is only intelligible after the universe began. Therefore causality began with the world. But if everything beyond nature was somehow subject to cause and effect, then it follows that God would have been dependent upon mutation and movement, which contradicts the notion of a timeless, immutable, unmoved mover. And if God wasn’t dependent upon causation then he had no means by which he could create the world. In either case God is impossible.

 

[cottage]

I have dealt with this twice so far. You are saying God created something for himself indicates a need. That is not true. I can create a castle in my back yard but I do not need a castle. God did not need to create, he chose to create. He could also have created a race of beings and created something for them without their having a need to exist or have anything else created for them. For some reason you are equating something having something or doing something with something having a need for it or to create it.

Forgive me but you have not once got remotely near to addressing this, which is why I keep putting it in front of you. You have agreed with Craig’s formulation of the Kalam argument.

“According to Craig, every kind of explanation is either a logico-mathematical explanation (which, because it is abstract, is incapable of explaining the fact that something comes into existence), a scientific explanation (which can explain events occurring within the universe, but not the coming-to-be of the universe itself) or a personal explanation, involving an agent doing something for a reason.”

I said God created something for himself or for others. But if God is omnipotent and all sufficient then he has no needs for he is, and has, everything by definition. So that is contradiction number 1. But a further absurdity is evident if it is said that he created the world for others (contradiction number 2), because there were no others, and so things that do not exist cannot benefit from being brought into existence. There are two further possibilities, equally absurd, one is that God created the world by accident and the other is that he wasn’t aware that he’d created it.

I do not see that anything I have claimed is contradictory any more than I see that a choice to create implies a need to create.

A personal being made a choice, a choice requires a reason and a reason is explicable. And whatever the reason God had for creating the world leads to contradiction (examples 1 and 2, above).

 

[Thief]

Forgive me but you have not once got remotely near to addressing this, which is why I keep putting it in front of you. You have agreed with Craig’s formulation of the Kalam argument.

“According to Craig, every kind of explanation is either a logico-mathematical explanation (which, because it is abstract, is incapable of explaining the fact that something comes into existence), a scientific explanation (which can explain events occurring within the universe, but not the coming-to-be of the universe itself) or a personal explanation, involving an agent doing something for a reason.”

I said God created something for himself or for others. But if God is omnipotent and all sufficient then he has no needs for he is, and has, everything by definition. So that is contradiction number 1. But a further absurdity is evident if it is said that he created the world for others (contradiction number 2), because there were no others, and so things that do not exist cannot benefit from being brought into existence. There are two further possibilities, equally absurd, one is that God created the world by accident and the other is that he wasn’t aware that he’d created it.
A personal being made a choice, a choice requires a reason and a reason is explicable. And whatever the reason God had for creating the world leads to contradiction (examples 1 and 2, above).

He would not have.....someone else.
He would, having gained the ability to say 'I AM!'....be the First.....and altogether alone.

Having gained self awareness, the infinite solitude would be ....difficult?

 

[1robin]

Needless to say, those aren't very difficult dots to connect.

You changed your avatar and I did not recognize you. Apparently it is difficult to connect the dots because I cannot get anyone to actually do so.

A silly statement, and one pretty darn close to a bare appeal to authority/consensus.

It is an appeal to authority and is not silly. Most of histories greatest minds do not believe in the tooth ferry, Santa Claus, or most other infantile belief systems. They however have believed in God quite regularly. Now if I used that as proof their beliefs were true it would be silly and a fallacy, I did not so. I used them exactly where they apply. Fallacies are the most abused crutch there is.

Yes, absolutely.

In any case, you focusing on this strikes me as a diversionary technique- you changing the subject so that we can all forget about your shameless misrepresentation of the views of professional philosophers (in yet another fallacious appeal to authority, ironically).

Since apparently I must specifically ask for what your response obviously requires. What belief did they have that was infantile and why do you claim this? You can forget this one all together if you want. I really want o know how you can demonstrate Christian beliefs are infantile. My focusing on this is simply to show the use of assertion and trying to define reality into existence actually has no bottom, to it. There is nothing behind those claims. They are just propaganda made for effect. That is a trivial exercise but if I am diverting from something I have no idea what it would be.

 

[1robin]

Not to mention the obvious fact that smart and famous people can be wrong, too. Heck, two of the smartest, most influential men EVER, are famous largely for ideas that turned out to be false- both Newton and Aristotle espoused physical theories that have since been superseded (and, ironically, both of them held some very curious views about deities). In other words, saying "good luck showing that belief X is infantalizing/false/pernicious/whatever, because alot of smart people throughout history have believed it" is to display naiveté of mind-blowing proportions.

You guys have put quite a bit of effort in avoiding the easy request of providing evidence the claim of infantilizing is actually true. Smart guys are wrong. However they get paid a lot of money because they are wrong far fewer times than the average person. When you get a huge group of the greatest scholars in history and they predominantly have faith calling faith childish is it's self childish. I never said anything about smart people always being right by the way, I said they usually do not adopt childish views. Yes their views have a t times been superseded but their original views were not childish. They may have been flawed, they may have been dumb, they may even have been insane, what they were not is childish. Is anyone ever going to even attempt to prove that faith is actually infantile? You claimed it, you back it up.

 

[Repox]

You guys have put quite a bit of effort in avoiding the easy request of providing evidence the claim of infantilizing is actually true. Smart guys are wrong. However they get paid a lot of money because they are wrong far fewer times than the average person. When you get a huge group of the greatest scholars in history and they predominantly have faith calling faith childish is it's self childish. I never said anything about smart people always being right by the way, I said they usually do not adopt childish views. Yes their views have a t times been superseded but their original views were not childish. They may have been flawed, they may have been dumb, they may even have been insane, what they were not is childish. Is anyone ever going to even attempt to prove that faith is actually infantile? You claimed it, you back it up.

There is a theory in sociology called Social Recognition theory. Simply stated, it says people's self identity is based on "social recognition for competence." The theory further states that the social structure of society is based on levels of competence. In most areas of activity, the most competent people move to the top of the status hierarchy. The theory defies liberal ideas that greedy and corrupt persons dominate society. There are there because THEY ARE THE MOST COMPETENT PERSONS IN THEIR AREAS OF ACTIVITY. This theory is supported with empirical evidence which has never been refuted. In short, if you are good at what you do, you're likely to succeed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not to mention the obvious fact that smart and famous people can be wrong, too. Heck, two of the smartest, most influential men EVER, are famous largely for ideas that turned out to be false- both Newton and Aristotle espoused physical theories that have since been superseded (and, ironically, both of them held some very curious views about deities). In other words, saying "good luck showing that belief X is infantalizing/false/pernicious/whatever, because alot of smart people throughout history have believed it" is to display naiveté of mind-blowing proportions.

Yes! How did alchemy work out for Newton?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It is an appeal to authority and is not silly. Most of histories greatest minds do not believe in the tooth ferry, Santa Claus, or most other infantile belief systems. They however have believed in God quite regularly. Now if I used that as proof their beliefs were true it would be silly and a fallacy, I did not so.

Ah, it wasn't fallacious, it was simply irrelevant. Gotcha.

Fallacies are the most abused crutch there is.

Ironic that you should say this when your posts lean heavily on fallacious forms of argumentation.

Since apparently I must specifically ask for what your response obviously requires. What belief did they have that was infantile and why do you claim this? You can forget this one all together if you want. I really want o know how you can demonstrate Christian beliefs are infantile.

Beliefs that are empirically false whose sole purpose is to artificially alleviate our insecurities and discomforts by assuring of us simple, universal solutions are pretty clearly infantalizing. But I'll say more on this once you go back and address your mischaracterization of professional philosophic views towards natural theology and God- not getting off the hook for that one so easily.

 

[1robin]

Yes! How did alchemy work out for Newton?

Alchemy did not work out well for him as far as I know. However alchemy is not a childish pursuit. The claim was that Christian faith was infantile. meaning it is so stupid and unfounded that it required a child's belief in anything to accept. Not one sentence has been given to back that claim up and alchemy is certainly not one. I am used to non-theists making sarcastic remarks devoid of merit for effect because their entire position is emotionally based IMO. However when that sarcasm is all that is posted and I am bored you must back it up. Again the claim was not that Christianity may be wrong. The claim was it was infantile. Alchemy is not evidence that my claim about great men shows they also had infantile beliefs. Try again. BTW did you know Newton wrote more on theology than science?

 

[1robin]

There is a simple argument that demonstrates how your own analogy works against you. Those in what I shall call Group 1 (that is every person, including you) accept the reasoning that objects A may exist as state of affairs X, where A exists in general experience, but only if both A and X are subject to possible experience. “Aliens exist in some part of the universe” is a premise subject to possible experience in that we know by what means this could be verified, by space travel for example. But in Group 2 only those of a prejudiced mind or a dogmatic faith also believe that from the existence of A the existence of X can be assumed when only the former is available to us in general experience and the latter is excluded in possible experience. So Group 2 counters its own reasoning in Group 1 in order to make an exception, as a speculative plea from faith, while having nothing in general experience to corroborate it.

But now I’ll show what is really wrong with your argument that cause is supernatural (or exists beyond what is natural)
You are arguing to a principle that: “A thing that doesn’t contain its own explanation must therefore be supernatural” in order to state that causality is a supernatural phenomenon. The problem, though, is that could also apply to the world as a whole, since there are lots of things in the world that are yet to be explained. But the world cannot be both natural and supernatural!

We don’t understand how the human brain retains information; so we might well say:

The human brain doesn’t contain its own explanation

Therefore the human brain must be supernatural!

And it cannot be said: but the human brain requires a cause because everything that exists but doesn’t contain within its nature the explanation for its existence must have a cause, as that also implies a cause to explain causality, which is incoherent!
But causality is contingent, and so if God is the supernatural cause of the world and causality is also supernatural, then we have something that has the possibility to not exist as an explanation for something that has no possibility of not existing, which is a contradiction.




Are you seriously trying to say those two sentences are equivalent? “We do not know cause and effect apply to the supernatural.” In a single sentence you’ve managed to beg the question and make an argument from ignorance.
This is the sun totality of what the analogy amounts to:
1) They didn’t know some fact or facts about the world.
2) We don’t know that there is anything other than the world we experience
Note that 2 also applies to 1
And what “other realms of reality”? (!) There is only reality, the one in which causality actually exists.







What I’m saying is your claim is not falsifiable and you have the burden of proof that can’t be met, and so it’s a fallacy because you’re making an argument from ignorance, by which anything can absurdly suggest anything. Also if you are asserting that it is a “likely truth” then that is in the arena of probabilities and contingent truths, which can only be settled by general experience. So explain, without arguing in a circle, where in general experience the supernatural is confirmed?





That is not what “contingency” means. Even in a colloquial or vernacular sense it only means “not certain” or “possible”. You’ve written it exactly as you would like to believe it, in order to suit the argument you’ve been making, which is incorrect. I’ve given the definition again below. If you disagree you can always look up the meaning in a dictionary, adding “logic” or “phil” to the search criteria, or better still go to something like Wikepeidia for an in depth explanation.

“A contingent proposition is neither true nor false. “The world is contingent upon God”, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or anything else, is a statement that is possibly true or possibly false. So contingent existence means that a thing may or may not be: that is to say without necessity. Whereas “A triangle has three sides” is a contingently true statement, necessarily so because the concept of a triangle is analyzable by its having three angles”.







Everything in nature is subject to cause and effect, which necessarily requires mutation and movement, since one thing acting in relation to another in time is the definition of causality. But there was no time before the Big Bang and therefore causality could not pre-exist the beginning of the universe, and so cause and effect, which acts in relation to time as mutation and movement, is only intelligible after the universe began. Therefore causality began with the world. But if everything beyond nature was somehow subject to cause and effect, then it follows that God would have been dependent upon mutation and movement, which contradicts the notion of a timeless, immutable, unmoved mover. And if God wasn’t dependent upon causation then he had no means by which he could create the world. In either case God is impossible.

Cottage, you are a victim of your own civility and intelligence. I must put far more thought and time into your posts than most of the others combined and so save them to last and then look for time to answer. With the HOLY days and a sick step mom I am getting behind on yours. I will try and get to them as soon as I can. Please remind me if I do not. Have a great Christmas.

 

[1robin]

There is a theory in sociology called Social Recognition theory. Simply stated, it says people's self identity is based on "social recognition for competence." The theory further states that the social structure of society is based on levels of competence. In most areas of activity, the most competent people move to the top of the status hierarchy. The theory defies liberal ideas that greedy and corrupt persons dominate society. There are there because THEY ARE THE MOST COMPETENT PERSONS IN THEIR AREAS OF ACTIVITY. This theory is supported with empirical evidence which has never been refuted. In short, if you are good at what you do, you're likely to succeed.

I think there is some merit in the theory. However I can find no relevance between it and what you responded to. I made a secondary claim about experts being experts because they are right more often than the rest of us. Your claim seems to validate mine. Was that your intent with what you provided. I am interested in what you said but you must clarify what was meant by it.

 

[1robin]

Ah, it wasn't fallacious, it was simply irrelevant. Gotcha.

It was not fallacious or irrelevant. Numbers are used to establish reliable data for insurance companies, disease treatment centers, and all manner of Government institutions that require accurate data on people and things. They are used every where in every setting and are valid. The only time they are irrelevant or invalid (and irrelevant is a stretch) is when claiming that because x number believe y then y is true. This is something I have not done and so no foul or crutch of any kind exists to allow you to ignore what is inconvenient.

Ironic that you should say this when your posts lean heavily on fallacious forms of argumentation.

I very rarely make an actual fallacious claim. Your side of the isle has abused fallacies as a crutch quite a bit, but in 80% of the claims of a fallacy there exists no such thing. I can yell incorrect grammar every few sentences of your claims and then conclude you are illiterate. However if there existed little actual grammatical mistakes I would be as foolish to do so as your side is when claiming "fallacy" as soon as an expert or a number appears connected with anything. They are systematically misused, misunderstood, and misapplied crutches in an effort to win a word fight and dismiss inconvenient claims.

Beliefs that are empirically false whose sole purpose is to artificially alleviate our insecurities and discomforts by assuring of us simple, universal solutions are pretty clearly infantalizing. But I'll say more on this once you go back and address your mischaracterization of professional philosophic views towards natural theology and God- not getting off the hook for that one so easily.

That is an actual genetic fallacy. Unlike you I will explain why this is so instead of yelling foul and think I have actually done something. Even if a belief is born in an effort to sooth some need that in it's self would not make it false. The origin of a claim does not mandate the truth of a claim. I may believe that a wet towel helps a head ache. Does that mean wet towels cannot help headaches or that some medical explanation or truth as to why does not exist. Not to mention the fallacy was also irrelevant because the Bible was clearly not born from a desire to sooth anything. Right or wrong it is troublesome, places new and extraordinary burdens on people, posits things that make a person shiver to read, introduce real evil beings that can not be combatted through normal means, posits a hell that all are destined to if they do not change, and most doctrine arises through historical events not philosophizing. So you were actually guilty of both accusation you misapplied to me. Keep digging until you hear Chinese.

You said something about me going back and addressing something. What post is it in?

Merry Christmas.

 

[steeltoes]

There is a theory in sociology called Social Recognition theory. Simply stated, it says people's self identity is based on "social recognition for competence." The theory further states that the social structure of society is based on levels of competence. In most areas of activity, the most competent people move to the top of the status hierarchy. The theory defies liberal ideas that greedy and corrupt persons dominate society. There are there because THEY ARE THE MOST COMPETENT PERSONS IN THEIR AREAS OF ACTIVITY. This theory is supported with empirical evidence which has never been refuted. In short, if you are good at what you do, you're likely to succeed.

A successful crime boss is competent, greedy, and corrupt.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Alchemy did not work out well for him as far as I know. However alchemy is not a childish pursuit. The claim was that Christian faith was infantile. meaning it is so stupid and unfounded that it required a child's belief in anything to accept. Not one sentence has been given to back that claim up and alchemy is certainly not one. I am used to non-theists making sarcastic remarks devoid of merit for effect because their entire position is emotionally based IMO. However when that sarcasm is all that is posted and I am bored you must back it up. Again the claim was not that Christianity may be wrong. The claim was it was infantile. Alchemy is not evidence that my claim about great men shows they also had infantile beliefs. Try again. BTW did you know Newton wrote more on theology than science?

I was responding to the observation that smart people can believe not-so-smart things as well. So, appeals to single authority figures as some sort of infallible beings don't really demonstrate much.

 

[cottage]

Cottage, you are a victim of your own civility and intelligence. I must put far more thought and time into your posts than most of the others combined and so save them to last and then look for time to answer. With the HOLY days and a sick step mom I am getting behind on yours. I will try and get to them as soon as I can. Please remind me if I do not. Have a great Christmas.

I'll be here on your return, having nothing better to do while waiting for an operation on my spine due to take place mid-January. But meanwhile take care of Mom and enjoy Christmas.

 

[1robin]

I was responding to the observation that smart people can believe not-so-smart things as well. So, appeals to single authority figures as some sort of infallible beings don't really demonstrate much.

That was not the original claim that generated the discussion. The original claim was that faith is infantile. I would suggest that faith is the smartest concept possible but I would not have used Newton in the argument the way I did.