• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is this Proof of Lord?

Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
No. You are keeping to re-write my proof. Please use original formulation only.
Click to expand...
Why did you omit the first line of my post? Are you trying to re-write my post?

I answered you directly. There is NO proof in your so-called "proof." It is a meaningless jumble of words mean nothing, except that it is hidden example of Russell's paradox, which always leads to contradictions.
 
ppp

ppp

Well-Known Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
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.
Click to expand...
How are you determining that it is an over-reduction? As opposed to an under reduction. Or a dead on correct reduction?
 
It Aint Necessarily So

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
The omniscient is aware of his existence. Therefore, in omniscience, there is the knowledge that believers are right.
Click to expand...

No, this is not proof of or even evidence of a god. It's evidence that you can't make a sound argument. Others have already explained why your argument is fallacious.

questfortruth said:
You are keeping to re-write my proof. Please use original formulation only.
Click to expand...

Nobody is attempting to rewrite your argument. Why would they? A couple have tried to get you to clarify it, which you refuse to do. So, if we stick within the boundaries of your request, the thread is over. Your argument has been rejected multiple times already by page 2.

Once you post your comment, you've opened the door to others to express their opinions without your permission or constraints.

Your argument boils down to that if an entity knows everything, then it knows that those who believe it exists are correct. That's a trivial observation. It applies to al of us, omniscient or otherwise. I'm not omniscient, but I am aware of my existence, and yes, I know that everybody who agrees that I exist is correct. And don't think I'm not grateful to them for validating my impression that I exist.

What do you think I just proved there? Nothing? I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top