Prove that God doesn't exist.

[numinus]

Yes, it does push the question back. The first cause might not be God though it does have to be something outside of the natural world. And once we accept that there do exist things outside of the natural world then we can be more open to the testimony of the prophets.

For the naturalist they have to come to grips with the fact that almost all scientist claim that the universe had a beginning. Yet at the same time they claim that matter and energy can never be created nor destroyed. clearly there is a contradiction operating here and it just might indicate that the scientist have at least one assumption wrong somewhere. Perhaps the one where they say there is nothing beyond the natural world - which is a faith based statement. Well probably and obviously that is the assumption they have wrong because they claim that something started the universe.

But unlike the natural universe which almost all the scientists are saying had a beginning, God is claimed to have always existed by almost all the religionists.

Yes.

From the time of the conception of the natural sciences, one of the most enduring postulate is the conservation of mass and energy. Presently, we know that cme is being violated in the sub-atomic level. In physical cosmology, it is believed that the tensile tendency of the universe is a function of the expansion of space. As space expands, the tensile tendency, lambda, also increases.

Where lambda comes from is anybody's guess. One might as well say god made it so.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is no reason at all that there cannot be an infinite regression of cause and effect.

And if you are going to suggest some supernaturtal creator you are going to have to explain how the non-physical can interract with the physical.

Clue, it can't.

 

[numinus]

There is no reason at all that there cannot be an infinite regression of cause and effect.

Sigh

An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite sequence needed to provide such support could not be completed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

And if you are going to suggest some supernaturtal creator you are going to have to explain how the non-physical can interract with the physical.

Clue, it can't.

Sigh

Aristotle argued that knowing doesn't necessitate an infinite regress because some knowledge does not depend on demonstration:

“ Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premisses, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is either true or a necessary deduction from the premisses. The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite series): if on the other hand – they say – the series terminates and there are primary premisses, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. And since thus one cannot know the primary premisses, knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premisses are true. The other party agree with them as regards knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal.

Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premisses is independent of demonstration. (The necessity of this is obvious; for since we must know the prior premisses from which the demonstration is drawn, and since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions.
”
— Aristotle, Posterior Analytics (Book 1, Part 3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

 

[bododie]

... and 59 pages later can someone please cite the post which PROVED God doesn't exist? Kinda sounds like thousands of years and boatloads of science still haven't done it.

 

[dahermit]

The point I am making, if it isn't obvious by now, is that a metaphysical truth may not be reduced to an entry in a government logbook. Nor is it dependent on 'sensory' evidence.

Capice?

No, the point you were making was an appeal to authority...a catholic priest who in 1225 theorized that God existed. In that time, had he said that God did not exist, he would have been burned for heresy. Also in that time, some monks claimed to see him levitate. It would seem that he would have been too busy levitating and buggering alter boys to postulate theories of a deity.

 

[dahermit]

The point I am making, if it isn't obvious by now, is that a metaphysical truth may not be reduced to an entry in a government logbook. Nor is it dependent on 'sensory' evidence.

Enough of your third world straw man attempt. The my original post took to task the idea that the credibility of the person who states that they have had a life changing experience relative to religion is in fact evidence that God exists. Whereas my point was that there have been persons who have given statements that they have seen UFOs, who's credentials and credibility are on a par with or better than persons who claim a religious experience.

This is the only point on which I will argue despite your attempts to broaden the argument.

 

[numinus]

No, the point you were making was an appeal to authority...a catholic priest who in 1225 theorized that God existed.

Nope.

There are numerous proofs for god's existence. An entire branch of philosophy is devoted to it. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply ignorant.

In that time, had he said that God did not exist, he would have been burned for heresy. Also in that time, some monks claimed to see him levitate. It would seem that he would have been too busy levitating and buggering alter boys to postulate theories of a deity.

I'm afraid the buggering of altar boys is largely confined to the US clergy. I cannot help but wonder if the phenomenon is conducive to the catholic church or your culture.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is not a shred of credible evidence of god's existence.

That is why more and more people are casting off this superstition and voting with their feet.

Funny isn't it how the less educated you are the more likely you are to believe in a god.

 

[numinus]

There is not a shred of credible evidence of god's existence.

That is why more and more people are casting off this superstition and voting with their feet.

Funny isn't it how the less educated you are the more likely you are to believe in a god.

That is quite funny from someone who is patently ignorant of ontology and the rules of logic.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The ontological argument was discredited years ago.

It is only clung on to be despaerate people who have no proof for the existence of god.

 

[numinus]

The ontological argument was discredited years ago.

It is only clung on to be despaerate people who have no proof for the existence of god.

Then it would be a simple exercise to discredit it here -- rather than post your endless gibberish.

Oh and there are MANY ontological argumentS.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Go and google it.

Next bring on your flat earth argumenmt

 

[numinus]

Go and google it.

I have. I was hoping to see a ***** undertake the futile exercise.

Next bring on your flat earth argumenmt

Certainly. Haven't you heard of PLANE surveying before?

Duh?

 

[dahermit]

Nope.
There are numerous proofs for god's existence. An entire branch of philosophy is devoted to it. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply ignorant.

I pointed out that Thomas Aquinas's opinions would be suspect because of the time he lived(Heretics burned, he would not likely philosophize that God did not exist.) and his likely prejudicial background(a catholic priest committed to an existence of God before he developed his philosophy of the "proof" of God's existence. Wow, a priest convinced that God exists...what a revelation!). Also, being catholic makes him suspect inasmuch as catholic practices seem much like a magic show...as in monks observing him levitate, magic "holy water", incense, magic Latin words, ringing of magic little bells, lighting magic candles, magic gestures of the trinity, etc.

It is not possible to prove a negative, so of course there are many of what you call "proofs". I refer to "proof" only in the common usage of the today; can sustain scientific examination. Such things as philosophers refer to as "proof" is not in the same context.

Yes, it is well known that there are many philosophical arguments that have been made for the existence of God. If you would read and understand the posts, you would not try to bend the argument into something it is not. I certainly did not say that there is no philosophical background for the existence of a deity.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

But there isn't.

To say there is demeans philosophy.

The ontological argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument etc have all been discredited and you will not find a philosophy faculty in a credible university anywhere in the world where they are regarded as anything but part of the history of philosophy.

But then you won't find a credible university teaching creationsim but it doesn't stop the lunatic fringe from thinking they have discredited evolution