Comments | paradox777: (Yes, I can PROVE that) God exists

paradox777

(Yes, I can PROVE that) God exists

Aug 23, 2005 03:41

I can prove that God exists. Not a lot of it is original; I just want to lay it on the table, because I'm sick of people saying that there *can't* be any proof. (I think they mean empirical evidence, anyway.) Even *if* my proof is a failure, it is no indication that a proof cannot be made rationally.

Here is my paper. (<-- Click on that link) ( Read more... )

Comments 10

fenmere August 23 2005, 17:14:19 UTC

First, let me preface that I generally agree with everything you've written, and that I consider myself a pantheist, which is to say that God is everything and everything is God. It just works much better in my mind than to seperate everything. Also, it makes it easier for me to deal with evils, and with the idea of loving my fellow man as if I loved God, but that's neither here nor there. Anyway...

I'm not sure I agree with this:

1) "God exists" is verifiable either rationally or empirically

Maybe I didn't read your paper carefully enough, but I can imagine that "God exists" might not be verifiable at all. How do we know that "God exists" is verifiable and that this statement is a given?

paradox777 August 23 2005, 21:38:56 UTC

That's not my paper. That's just a quick disclaimer to those who think that no one has any business doing a logical proof of a "religious" belief (i.e., one of those beliefs such that anyone is entitled to think what they want). My paper is the link -- "Here it is," I think it said. It's long, just to warn you, but appropriately so. BTW, "God exists" is a proposition; it has a truth value: it is either true or false. While it doesn't follow from that alone that it is verifiably true or false, it certainly is worth the effort. And my point was that, no, people are not simply entitled to their opinion. :p

The paper also serves to disprove pantheism.

fenmere August 23 2005, 21:47:00 UTC

I did skim through the paper, actually.

I need to be walked through some of the logic, though. When I took "Philosophy of Religion" at Whatcom, it was unconvincing then, and it still is to me now. But I just haven't been able to put the level of thought into it to figure out what specifically seems wrong, or why.

Let's just say I have a hunch that there's a flaw in there somewhere. I'm sticking to my opinion due to the hunch, it's a matter of faith, but on the other hand I reserve the right to be persuaded.

In other words, the language of your paper is not laymen enough for me to follow some bits. Is there a simple way of saying why pantheism doesn't work? Or that "God Exists" is varifyible?

paradox777 August 24 2005, 11:42:07 UTC

I really need to go to bed, and I'm a little intoxicated and very sleep-deprived, so I'll have to be quick:
First, "God exists" is verifiable because it can be logically deduced from a priori (internally verifiable; not empirical; rational; "prior to" experience) premises. If P is verifiably true, and P implies Q, then Q is verifiable, on the grounds that P ( ... )

Thread 8

dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog... blueninjah September 4 2005, 09:18:01 UTC

dog dog dog dog dog dog reducing fido into absurdum ( ... )

Re: dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog... paradox777 September 4 2005, 09:26:22 UTC

First off, yes, I do not only admit to brute facts but I think I proved their (at least possible) existence. It's a painful admission for any scientist or philosopher, but without PSR, we are left with brute facts ( ... )