Is this Proof of Lord?

[questfortruth]

The omniscient is aware of his existence. Therefore, in omniscience, there is the knowledge that believers are right.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360777856_Proof_of_God

 

[ChristineM]

The omniscient is aware of his existence. Therefore, in omniscience, there is the knowledge that believers are right.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360777856_Proof_of_God

 

[joe1776]

Huh?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

God is omniscient so is aware that his believers are right. And his believers are right because God is omniscient. Is this the argument?

 

[questfortruth]

God is omniscient so is aware that his believers are right. And his believers are right because God is omniscient. Is this the argument?

Please, do not rephrase it.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Please, do not rephrase it.

I was only asking for clarification. That's how I read the argument.

 

[questfortruth]

I was only asking for clarification. That's how I read the argument.

I repeat, DO NOT CORRUPT MY PROOF.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I repeat, DO NOT CORRUPT MY PROOF.

Okie doke. Good luck!

Edited to add: I was genuinely looking for clarification and not trying to unfairly present your argument.

 

[F1fan]

It looks to be another "If X, then X" yet X isn't shown to exist. The flaw is thinking that referring to X as if it exists as a priori is sufficient to assume it exists. It doesn't work. It's another attempt to force God into existence with words.

 

[F1fan]

I repeat, DO NOT CORRUPT MY PROOF.

Too late. You beat us to it.

 

[Polymath257]

The omniscient is aware of his existence. Therefore, in omniscience, there is the knowledge that believers are right.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360777856_Proof_of_God

Answer: not, it is not proof.

 

[questfortruth]

looks to be another "If X, then X"

PLEASE DO NOT RE-write MY PROOF. I have no X written there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It looks to be another "If X, then X" yet X isn't shown to exist. The flaw is thinking that referring to X as if it exists as a priori is sufficient to assume it exists. It doesn't work. It's another attempt to force God into existence with words.

Well, that is not unique to religion. If we define the universe as natural, then it is an objective fact, that the universe is natural.

 

[F1fan]

PLEASE DO NOT RE-write MY PROOF. I have no X written there.

We've all seen this before. New boss same as the old boss.

 

[F1fan]

Well, that is not unique to religion. If we define the universe as natural, then it is an objective fact, that the universe is natural.

We observe the consistency of nature as natural. We observe the consistency, we didn't define it as consistent. There is no other observed phenomenon that suggests there isn't a natural.

 

[questfortruth]

We've all seen this before. New boss same as the old boss.

The sentence of type "If X, then X" is the following:

If I am blue, then I am blue.

Here the X is "I am blue". You cannot see this structure in the text of my proof.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We observe the consistency of nature as natural. We observe the consistency, we didn't define it as consistent. There is no other observed phenomenon that suggests there isn't a natural.

Well, natural is an over-reduction of consistency, because it is natural that I can say. No, the universe is not natural. You are confusing your cognition as consistency with how the universe work.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The sentence of type "If X, then X" is the following:

If I am blue, then I am blue.

Here the X is "I am blue". You cannot see this structure in the text of my proof.

Can't see proof in your "proof," either. @F1fan is quite correct, you are merely trying to force God into existence with words.

You might just as well have said, "God exists because God exists." Just as empty and meaningless.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can't see proof in your "proof," either. @F1fan is quite correct, you are merely trying to force God into existence with words.

You might just as well have said, "God exists because God exists." Just as empty and meaningless.

The universe is natural because the universe is natural. Works just as well.

 

[Altfish]

Is this Proof of Lord?

NO