I Can Prove God

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Evangelism
  3. » I Can Prove God

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 11:27 pm
Hi, I can prove God so I thought I would get a thread going to invite discussion on the matter.

Quote:
The purpose of this page is to provide a logical and empirical proof that is straight forward and easily understandable for those gifted in reasoning and science; as well as to point to the principles and techniques of living which give joyous harmony in this knowledge.

Monopantheism can be understood to be the foundational belief of all major religions (subconscious or not). The only work of people that I have seen that ever went at length to actually prove monopantheism was Spinoza's Ethics and Christopher Langan's Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe. Spinoza seems to focus on determinism... and Langan seems to focus on teleology. It takes 10 propositions for Spinoza to prove his case on God's existence based on axioms. With Langan however he seeks more to bring you up to speed as fast as you can to his immense intellect of knowledge and connecting it all together into the proof. The advantage of Spinoza's work is that it is geometrically concise and contains ethics on how to understand our relation to the knowledge and the advantage of Langan's work is that he uses no axioms but instead makes the entire proof founded on logical tautologies as well as showing some empirical verification!

http://www.mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/Spinoza/ethica-front.html
Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory

So, here is my proof that is both geometrically concise (even more so than Spinoza's) and entirely founded on logical tautologies (even more so than Langan's). After the logical proof I provide two gems; direct empirical verification of all aspects of God's nature, and a list of media links to teachers who explain in detail the proper ethics.

There is only one thing in this proof that is not proven, and that is the axiom of non-contradiction; which is required to prove anything at all. It has been a custom among modern sophists to deny the existence of absolute truth and therefore deny the existence of any standard to measure or determine a rational truth. Such sophists must concede that if they deny my proof because of this axiom they; Therefore cannot disprove my proof, and if my proof is wrong (by this measure) all proof is wrong. This is a conclusion I am happy to accept. I only highlight this point because of the multitude of modern sophists claiming intellectual superiority these days. As Plato characterized them; they are superficial manipulators of rhetoric and dialectic. Unfortunately our universities are filled with sophistry; acting as factories of intellectual godlessness. We may make the point; God is truth; If you deny the existence of truth surely you have denied the existence of God.

The proof has one definition, one Axiom, seven logical Tautologies with ten corollaries, one Deduction, five Inductions, with (credits), [attributes], and some resolved Paradoxes.

Definition;
By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists.

(A1) Propositions cannot be both true and false. (Parmenides)
The axiom of non-contradiction is required to prove anything at all.

(T1) Nothing is nothing. (Victor Hugo)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: AA)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) (Mars Turner)
Four senses of "is" are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;
A ≡ A "nothing equals nothing" Law of Identity
A → A "nothing implies nothing" Reflexivity of Implication
idA: AA "nothing has the property of nothing" Identity Morphism
(∃Ax)(A = x) "nothing exists as nothing" Reflexivity of Existence


(T2) Nothing is uninvolved. - Something is self-causal. (Mars Turner)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A) [consciousness]
nothing equals nothing AND nothing implies nothing
ergo nothing is not implicated with something
ergo everything is implicated with something
ergo something is self-implicated
Note; Implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation, as the only reason correlation would not be causation is the possibility of missing variables.
ergo nothing is not causal with something Q.E.D.
ergo everything is causal with something
ergo something is self-causal Q.E.D.
Note; Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-causation is consciousness!

(T3) Nothing is nondescript. - Something is self-descriptive. (Christopher Langan)
(A ≡ A)∧(idA: AA) [intentional]
Note; Endomorphic self-description is self-manifestation!

(T4) Nothing is nonexistence. - Something is essentially existence. (Parmenides)
(A ≡ A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [substance]

(T5) Nothing is made of nothing. - Everything is made of something. (Parmenides)
(A → A)∧(idA: AA) [pantheism](T6) Nothing is the cause of nothing. - Something is the cause of all things. (Mars Turner)
(A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [causal]

(T7) Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed everywhere. (Mars)
(idA: AA)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [eternal, invincible, perfect]
Note; Something that has always existed is eternal. That which is eternal cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore it is invincible. Because it is eternal it also has an unchanging nature and this while embodying the existence of all things [T5] it therefore is perfect.

(D1) One thing is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere. (Spinoza) [omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, monism]
Proof--The true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the nature of the thing defined. From this it follows that--No definition implies or expresses a certain number of individuals, inasmuch as it expresses nothing beyond the nature of the thing defined. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist [T6]. This cause of existence must either be contained in the nature and definition of the thing defined [T2], or must be postulated apart from such definition. If a given number of individual things exist in nature, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. Consequently, the cause of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual thing. It therefore follows that, everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the nature of something [T4], existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition we cannot infer the existence of several things; therefore it follows that there is only one thing that is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere. Q.E.D.

Note; Consciousness is a fundamental property of reality [T2 Note & D1], and is the cause of the creation of all things [D1]. Therefore God is conscious being and humans partake in this essence of the creative source to the extent that they are conscious or self-causal.

(I1)http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiritual/God_Geometric_html_m3777f433.gifimmanent]
Mass-Energy Equivalence; bradyons have transformational pathways with gauge bosons; all spatial things are forms of energy.

(I2)http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiritual/God_Geometric_html_m1c3f4121.gif(Edmund Whittaker & Thomas Bearden) [transcendent]
Delta Time-Energy Equivalence; tachyons have transformational pathways with gauge bosons; all temporal things are forms of energy.

(I3)http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiritual/God_Geometric_html_m5d81d19a.gif(Max Planck & Werner Heisenberg) [infinite, omnipresent, perfect]
Zero-Point Energy; we have a contribution of 1/2 hbar omega from every single point in space resulting in a substantial infinity as well as making energy spatially infinite. Because it is infinite it is unchanging in it's nature, while embodying the existence of all things, it therefore is perfect.

(I4)http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiritual/God_Geometric_html_m50dea69.gif(Julius Mayer) [eternal, invincible]
Conservation of Energy; energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore it is temporally infinite.

(I5)http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiritual/God_Geometric_html_3aebbb5c.gif(Mars Turner) [all-power-full]
Power Integral; power involves the transformation of energy, therefore the infinite, omnipresent, and eternal energy is all-power-full.

Note; The definitive and causal mechanism for mind-matter interactions (Mars Turner);
Mind (scalar temporal energy; tachyons) and Matter (vector spatial energy; bradyons) are dually related harmonic convergents of each other. i.e. The destructive interference of vector potentials creates a scalar wave, and the destructive interference of scalar waves creates a vector potential.

Experiments demonstrating the mind-matter mechanism; (p < = 5x10^-2 is statistically significant)
sense of being stared at (p < 1x10^-25) Biology Forum
telephone telepathy (p = 4x10^-16) Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
telekinesis on REG (p = 3.5x10^-13) Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
mass psychic control (p = 2x10^-9) Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy
remote viewing (p = 9.1x10^-8) Division of Statistics University of California Davis

Note; From the deductions and inductions we see arise a fundamental dual-aspect to reality (energy and consciousness) and a superficial or created dual-aspect to reality (mind and matter). This philosophy would then amount to a quanterion monopantheism.

From the fundamental dual we see that energy can be viewed as forward causation and that consciousness can be viewed as final causation so that in the end they are one via causation. This is a remarkable point because in the bible God's very name means "he who causes to become" and God is even given the title the Alpha (forward) and the Omega (final). Forward and final causation may be connected to each other as if in a self excited circuit as an iterative fractal and holographic process where iterations are determined by the quantum potential of sequential temporal and spatial states.

The mechanism of this process is articulated in Christopher Langan's work;
Introduction to the CTMU
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

From the superficial dual we see that tachyons are a form of energy that travels faster than the speed of light and is temporal based and that bradyons are a form of energy that travels slower than light and is spatial based. Where both are one in that they are forms of energy in fact harmonic convergents of each other.

Zero-Point Energy is God the Father; pure energy; pure substance.
Zero-Energy Tachyon is Logos the Son; pure consciousness; pure form.

Pure substance has no form. And pure form has no substance. When these two fundamentals come together they create the superficial world. As all created things have both substance and form.

We are of course sapient beings assuredly composed of bradyons. However there are sapient beings assuredly composed of tachyons. They are called spirits or angels or gods.


Mutualistic Tachyonic Sapience; Holy Spirit; Angels.
Parasitic Tachyonic Sapience; Wicked Spirit; Demons.

The main difference with respects to these two factions of the gods is how they view us. Fortunately the majority of these beings have a mutualistic philosophy toward us.

It should be noted, it is these gods whom we are made in the image of! They created us, as well as earth, the galaxies, and all the animals. They are the ones who manifest before humans to speak the will of God.

How does creation occur? Well, we have already covered the fact that the destructive interference of scalar temporal energy (Mind) creates vector spatial energy (Matter) and visa versa. And then there is also the technological innovations that involve the arranging of the energy forms.

But to get to the root of this question you have to answer how energy formation occurs from the infinite zero-point energy and the zero-energy tachyon in the first place!!! Otherwise you would have to suppose a limited amount of energy existing in form for manipulation and also ignore how that formed energy came into being!

Here is how it works; the constructive interference (coherence) of converging vector spatial potentials or scalar temporal waves creates more formed energy! And the exact amount newly formed equals the number of coherent radiators times the average power of each radiator squared minus the number of coherent radiators times their average power.

For example; if we have 10 electromagnetic emitters transmitting the same coherent frequency and converging the signals on a point receiver; supposing each emitter transmits 1 Watt of power than the converged formation of energy would not be 10 Watts but 100 Watts! That equals a new form creation of 90 Watts!

All over unity technology utilizes converging multi source coherence in one way or another. But even if you do not converge the source coherence you can create exotic properties from aggregate coherence; such as superconductivity, superfluidity, and superconsciousness.

What is more interesting is that you can create aggregate coherence in your own brain (superconsciousness) by practicing transcendental meditation! Where the entire brain experiences global EEG coherence. Prolonged practice of TM apparently increases intelligence and holistic thinking. And when multiple people practice TM it acts like a converging multi source coherence on the surrounding society; with the effect being squared by the number of mediators! A few thousand mediators can actually lower the crime rate of an entire city and even reduce fighting and deaths in war zones.

How can form be destroyed? One way seems to be induced by changing the magnetic field located in a Bose condensate, so that the quantum wavefunction's self-interaction becomes attractive; thus transferring the formed energy back into the infinite energy field.

(P1) Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?
No, God cannot do anything contrary to his nature. Creating anything involves the transformation of energy, and moving anything requires the transformation of energy. God is an infinite energy and a rock which inherently has finite form cannot exist in an infinite substantial state. Therefore God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift.

(P2) If all things have a cause doesn't God (first cause) need a cause also?
Yes, God has no external cause (D1) and God is the cause of all existent things (D5), therefore God is his own cause i.e. God is self-causal or self-determistic.


Link to original article with sources and links.
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 11:45 pm
@MySiddhi,
MySiddhi wrote:
Hi, I can prove God so I thought I would get a thread going to invite discussion on the matter.

http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiritual/God_Geometric.html


MySiddhi,Smile

Welcome to the forum MySiddhi, you are certainly welcome to post a topic on the proof of God. I am sure it will be quite successful in stirring dialogue. Settle in and make yourself at home. We glad you have joined us!! PS: Have you not heard, God is dead!!!Very Happy
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 12:03 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
MySiddhi,Smile

Welcome to the forum MySiddhi, you are certainly welcome to post a topic on the proof of God. I am sure it will be quite successful in stirring dialogue. Settle in and make yourself at home. We glad you have joined us!! PS: Have you not heard, God is dead!!!Very Happy

I guess we will find out in the battle field of discourse whether God is dead or not... as soon as I have thread posting rights in the religion forum.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 11:16 am
@MySiddhi,
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/general-discussion/1614-if-god-member-forum.html

Read that and it is a way of understanding how God has no potential. So whether dead or not really doesn't matter, b/c it would be insane for God to exist in the scientific entropic, acausal, self causal, kind of story mind game that I tried to read .

If God was real perhaps it would strive to make it easy to understand its own existence?

This is going to be really fun to argue.!!!!!!
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 10:07 pm
@Holiday20310401,
I look forward to some commentary on your elaborate post. I'm not trained in formal logic, so I don't have much to add to it.

However I will say that logical proofs don't necessitate truth outside the boundaries of the proof itself, so even if you can logically prove God that doesn't have any bearing on whether he ACTUALLY exists.
 
Justin
 
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 11:58 pm
@Aedes,
This was originally posted in the introduction forum so it was moved to logic and edited to include much of the text for easy discussion and a link to the original article. Thanks!
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 12:06 am
@Justin,
The problem with the logic proof just byh scanning it is there are premises that are unknown to be true still. Tachyons?! Come on, its like we're talking about star trek or something. They are hypothetical at the moment, just like so many other particles that seem to support the argument. Sorry.

Though I guess I don't know the logic put up so its unfair for me to judge.:rolleyes:

[CENTER]:poke-eye:
[/CENTER]
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 01:57 am
@Holiday20310401,
Quote:
I can prove God


Me too, just not to anyone else. The only way someone can "prove" God to another person is to help them on their path towards God. Spiritual teachers being an example. God is a personal experience. No logical proof required.
 
DrZoidberg phil
 
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 06:08 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
I look forward to some commentary on your elaborate post. I'm not trained in formal logic, so I don't have much to add to it.

However I will say that logical proofs don't necessitate truth outside the boundaries of the proof itself, so even if you can logically prove God that doesn't have any bearing on whether he ACTUALLY exists.


Well, I am trained in formal logic. It's just reformulated arguments you've heard a million times already. I didn't see anything new.

It starts with the assumption God is restrained by logic.... which an omnipotent God isn't, since it created logic... along with everything else.

But let's say for sake of argument that God is. Any of the omnipotence paradoxes invalidates it. Just take your pick. They all do a wonderful job of it.

...and then you're in the mess of trying to prove which religion/sect this is proof for. Even if you manage to somehow ignore the omnipotence paradoxes you're not better off than no knowledge at all. It's impossible from any valid evidence for the existence of an omnipotent force to tie it to any specific religion/sect.

Just because scientists are pretty clueless to our origins doesn't give any added weight to any religious theory. We just have to accept that at best we're just guessing. It's about hedging bets. Nothing wrong with that...but please don't claim you can "prove God". It's just intellectually dishonest.

...and since anything omnipotent is unrestrained by logic there's no way to work out or understand anything about it. Which equally defeats faith in it because you can impossibly understand what it is you're having faith in.

Questions on that?
 
neo-anchorite
 
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 03:44 pm
@MySiddhi,
Aedes correctly points out that there is a certain gap between any logical conclusion and existence but for me that still misses the point. The original argument seems to overlook the nature of faith, which is quite different from simply believing that something exists. You can prove to me that there is an oak tree in my garden but I will not therefore worship it. Surely faith has to do with things like finding meaning in life, being reconciled with one's own finititude and perhaps finding a strength of character (a preparedness to sacrifice things and feel that that makes sense).

Could a logician have persuaded Abraham that he ought to sacrifice his son? Would Abraham ever have sacrificed his son for the sake of logical consistency?
 
nameless
 
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 05:08 pm
@MySiddhi,
MySiddhi wrote:
(A1) Propositions cannot be both true and false. (Parmenides)
The axiom of non-contradiction is required to prove anything at all.

If your whole house of cards is built upon a refuted 'law' (Parmenides was incorrect, evidenced so by quantum theory's double slit experiment), then I need read no further. The rest will likewise fall. No, you cannot 'prove' anything, definitively, conclusively, universally. Period. Especially depending on some 'law' that seems to only have a 'local' status at best.
Neither can your 'god' be so proven, nor anything else.
(Last I heard, anyway, 'god' is not a 'thing'.)

*************
Is a 'tautology' not an error (why would you brag about your practice thereof)?:

Quote:
tautology

This is the name for a particular fault in expression


So, for me, I need read no further, than your above referenced quote, for your proposition of 'Proof' to have already failed.

Since you see need to post your erroneous 'proof' in multiple places, you might expect me to reply sometimes. Perhaps I can just save the response and multiple post it along with your multiple posts?
And link people to the necessary discussion including the howls of the 'believers' to my suggestion that the 'sacred' (so called) laws of (identity, objectivity, etc..) empiricism have been toppled...

Peace
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 08:19 pm
@DrZoidberg phil,
DrZoidberg wrote:
Well, I am trained in formal logic. It's just reformulated arguments you've heard a million times already. I didn't see anything new.

It starts with the assumption God is restrained by logic.... which an omnipotent God isn't, since it created logic... along with everything else.

But let's say for sake of argument that God is. Any of the omnipotence paradoxes invalidates it. Just take your pick. They all do a wonderful job of it.

...and then you're in the mess of trying to prove which religion/sect this is proof for. Even if you manage to somehow ignore the omnipotence paradoxes you're not better off than no knowledge at all. It's impossible from any valid evidence for the existence of an omnipotent force to tie it to any specific religion/sect.

Just because scientists are pretty clueless to our origins doesn't give any added weight to any religious theory. We just have to accept that at best we're just guessing. It's about hedging bets. Nothing wrong with that...but please don't claim you can "prove God". It's just intellectually dishonest.

...and since anything omnipotent is unrestrained by logic there's no way to work out or understand anything about it. Which equally defeats faith in it because you can impossibly understand what it is you're having faith in.

Questions on that?



God is restrained by himself. Stoics call God the Logos... from which we get our English word logic.


IF omnipotence is all-power-full and we use the scientific definition of power as I have highlighted it;

Then we have solved the paradox thus;


Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

No, God cannot do anything contrary to his nature. Creating anything involves the transformation of energy, and moving anything requires the transformation of energy. God is an infinite energy and a rock which inherently has finite form cannot exist in an infinite substantial state. Therefore God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift.
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 08:31 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
If your whole house of cards is built upon a refuted 'law' (Parmenides was incorrect, evidenced so by quantum theory's double slit experiment), then I need read no further. The rest will likewise fall. No, you cannot 'prove' anything, definitively, conclusively, universally. Period. Especially depending on some 'law' that seems to only have a 'local' status at best.
Neither can your 'god' be so proven, nor anything else.
(Last I heard, anyway, 'god' is not a 'thing'.)

*************
Is a 'tautology' not an error (why would you brag about your practice thereof)?:



So, for me, I need read no further, than your above referenced quote, for your proposition of 'Proof' to have already failed.

Since you see need to post your erroneous 'proof' in multiple places, you might expect me to reply sometimes. Perhaps I can just save the response and multiple post it along with your multiple posts?
And link people to the necessary discussion including the howls of the 'believers' to my suggestion that the 'sacred' (so called) laws of (identity, objectivity, etc..) empiricism have been toppled...

Peace



What does the law of non-contradiction have to do with the double slit experiment?

You are welcome to provide a single example of a proposition that is both true and false in the same respect at the same time! By the way, that would actually falsify the law of non-contradiction.


When someone is writing a rhetorical piece such as a novel or a newspaper or other such rhetoric a tautology would be out of place.

However, when one is writing a proof... a logical tautology is logical truth. No one can create a proof without using tautologies. In propositional calculus a tautology is a theorem. And any propositional formula that is a logical tautology is formally necessarily true.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 09:39 pm
@neo-anchorite,
neo-anchorite wrote:
Aedes correctly points out that there is a certain gap between any logical conclusion and existence but for me that still misses the point...Could a logician have persuaded Abraham that he ought to sacrifice his son? Would Abraham ever have sacrificed his son for the sake of logical consistency?
No. So I'm not missing the point of faith at all. The contention that God can be proved logically, however, is a contention that faith is worthless without logical support.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 09:41 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Is a 'tautology' not an error
No, it's not. Tautologies are closed logical systems. For instance, if you claim that 1+1=2 is some sort of transcendent truth, I can easily respond that 1+1=2 simply because that is one way of defining 2. (which could also be defined as 0.1 + 1.9). There is no external reference.
 
neo-anchorite
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 12:06 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
The contention that God can be proved logically, however, is a contention that faith is worthless without logical support.


Should the logical argument for the existence of God not begin with something to convince the skeptics (amongst whom we find Kant and Kierkegaard) who doubt whether God NEEDS a proof in logic.

Is faith - human faith - really the sort of thing that is worthless without logical support?

Kierkegaard, for one, was convinced that the most fundamental religious ideas were absurd from the standpoint of the sort of reason being expounded in the logical argument on this forum. "I am mortal and I am not mortal (because immortal - assuming the immortality of the soul, which is my essence, presumably)" is a way of summing up one crucial Christian idea which is clearly absurd.

For Kierkegaard, faith requires a leap beyond such logic otherwise it is never really faith - a passionate belief in a God who was also not a God (because he became flesh).

Was he wrong? Will logic, in the end, do the trick?

"Nothing is nothing"

"Nothing is ..."

"Nothing IS ..." Hmmm?

But if nothing is, is it not therefore something?

Of course Sartre spent a few pages dwelling upon the ways in which nothing is (or can be) something (which doesn't make sense as a logical proposition but does as a paradoxical summary of a phenomenological fact that we take note of absences - an absence can be something for us, not just nothing).
 
Aedes
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 06:26 am
@neo-anchorite,
neo-anchorite wrote:
Should the logical argument for the existence of God not begin with something to convince the skeptics (amongst whom we find Kant and Kierkegaard) who doubt whether God NEEDS a proof in logic.
Let me first say that it's grossly naive to think that someone truly skeptical about the existence of God would be convinced by logic. I can prove to you that I'm wearing shoes by showing you my feet. That's how you convince a skeptic.

Someone like Kierkegaard, who endorses the legitimacy of religious belief from faith alone, does not require logical proof, right? They'll still believe without it.

Quote:
Is faith - human faith - really the sort of thing that is worthless without logical support?
Are you asking my opinion about it? I think that we have faith in many things without logical support and faith is very useful. It's what keeps my patients hopeful even when odds are against them. But for someone else who feels the need to logically prove the existence of God, like a Duns Scotus or an Anselm, faith is insufficient.

Quote:
Kierkegaard, for one, was convinced that the most fundamental religious ideas were absurd from the standpoint of the sort of reason being expounded in the logical argument on this forum.
And people before him felt that way too, esp Spinoza.

Quote:
Was he wrong? Will logic, in the end, do the trick?
For those who feel that logic in a vacuum somehow can prove something about the external world. But if you look closely, people who PROVE something using logic are almost certainly just rationalizing a pre-existing belief. In this way it becomes a kind of highly precise sophistry.
 
neo-anchorite
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 07:22 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Let me first say that it's grossly naive to think that someone truly skeptical about the existence of God would be convinced by logic. I can prove to you that I'm wearing shoes by showing you my feet. That's how you convince a skeptic.



Just to clarify: the skeptics previously referred to (Kant and Kierkegaard) were Chrisitians (no skepticism there) who were nevertheless skeptical about the relevance of logic to faith.

The point I was trying to make comes from recently being impressed by Kierkegaard's ideas that truth (religious Truth) is subjective and that genuine faith cannot rest upon a rational system of thought - the implication being that before we devote days/weeks/years/a lifetime to developing a watertight logical argument that is supposed to provide some kind of rational foundation for religious belief there needs to be some kind of phenomenology of faith to clarify what sort of "thing" it is and thereby clarify the relevance of logic to religion - to clear the way for the logical argument (if indeed one is needed) otherwise the argument begs the question and simply assumes (as does your reference to your shoes) that my belief in God is the same sort of thing - the same sort of phenomenon - as my belief that your feet exist.

By the way, there is no need to remove your shoes. I believe you!!
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 07:36 am
@neo-anchorite,
You cannot say 'nothing implies nothing...' it's false, as I told you in another forum. You didn't reply - but went right ahead and posted it here without addressing the issue. Typical religionist.

iconoclast.
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 07:47 am
@neo-anchorite,
I of course disagree on the issue of faith with Kierkegaard and others.

I do not have faith that God exists. And if I ever believed in God without actually knowing how to formally prove it, it was due to intuition.

For me I only have faith in a two things involved with belief... such as a resurrection hope... and that of God's kingdom.

Beyond that, faith to me is magik. When ever I use faith, I use it to intentionally create the future.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Evangelism
  3. » I Can Prove God
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/20/2019 at 11:26:05