Deductive argument for existence of One Creator

[mimis]

Man, you have a rather convenient way of shfiting the topic from your own bungling errors. Your the one that claiming that for something to be apparent, it must be 'capable of being proven'. That is simply false and there is a reason why the most-hardened atheists like Bertrand Russel have to operate on the premise of 'common-sense'. Nobody seeks to 'prove' scientifically 'common-sense' and they cannot.

What I am saying is exactly what I am saying, i.e. deducative logic cannot prove much of what we know, because deducative knowledge is based upon a 'partial' apprehension of reality. I have to choose a particular point of reference and judge reality from this reference point for this mode of understanding to work. Science can never, ever, ever move beyond the very limited mode of operation it works from. This is why the 3-body problem cannot be solved mathematically. Whether or not this leads to the existence of God is a totally separate question. If you cannot get it through your thick skull that science is very, very limited in what it can do, than your just living in a delusuional world, choosing not to face the issue of reality. There is absolutey no doubt whatsoever the human consciousness operates on a different realm, i.e. to deny intuition, is to deny what we experience every single day. The question is, how does man know in this manner?

Then there is the issue of knowledge actually taking a seat within the individual, i.e. I can scientifically prove a fact over and over again, but this doesn't mean I actually "believe it". People know the moral code, but few actually live by it. COnsciousness is something greater than mere logic.

You totally avoided my challenge: if you find your "truths" to be valid because they are common sense, then why do so many people not perceive them as true? You seem to think that people should believe--because it is simply common sense--in magical, invisible spirits (god(s), angels, jinns, etc.), yet you cannot show the effects of any of these entities on the real world. Whenever you find that science does not explain something to your satisfaction (because you were probably educated in a madrassa), your answer is: it must be magic! Fortunately, more and more people are finding such answers to be unsatisfying, which is why we see religiosity declining as levels of education rise. Islam depends for its continued existence on high birth rates and on fundamentalists continuing to blow up schools.

[ihsan]

You totally avoided my challenge: if you find your "truths" to be valid because they are common sense, then why do so many people not perceive them as true? You seem to think that people should believe--because it is simply common sense--in magical, invisible spirits (god(s), angels, jinns, etc.), yet you cannot show the effects of any of these entities on the real world. Whenever you find that science does not explain something to your satisfaction (because you were probably educated in a madrassa), your answer is: it must be magic! Fortunately, more and more people are finding such answers to be unsatisfying, which is why we see religiosity declining as levels of education rise. Islam depends for its continued existence on high birth rates and on fundamentalists continuing to blow up schools.

That's comical..

I'm avoiding the challenge, when your the one thatmade a claim that things, when they are 'obvious' must be 'capable of being proven'. That is plain and simply false and your still shifting the topic.

One again, even hard-core atheists like Bertrand Russell have to work from the very foundations of their philosophies from the perspective of 'common sense'. The very foundations of knowledge are essentially built upon 'common sense'.

What a Muslim asserts is that certain claims cannot be proven according to this method that you assert has the ability to prove anything and that we need revelation for certain matters, and what a Muslim asserts is a true statement, no matter how much you try and spin out of it. We don't say it must be magic, we don't resort to stupidity by making such stupid statements like "people of religion continue to blow up schools and have high-birth rates" to shift away the topic, because they were shown to be plain and simply wrong.

[jude3]

Hi Mimis

How would you 'prove' colour existed to a blind man...?

What sort of proof would one need to confirm that Alexander the Great existed...? (Do you believe he existed, if yes, why?)

If 500 people in London witnessed an amazing and unexplainable event...what proof would be required for the people in Birmingham to believe in the event...?

If I provided you with 300 detailed explanations on January 1 of what would occur to you in the year...and at the end of the year all 300 came true, what would this mean...?

If God has stated how he will be known that is different from how you believe God 'should' be made known (eg by science, visible observation etc), why would that not be considered myopic?

Regards.

Jude

[mimis]

Hi Mimis

How would you 'prove' colour existed to a blind man...?

A blind man can read (braille) or listen to scientific explanations of the physics underlying color. No magical explanations are required.

What sort of proof would one need to confirm that Alexander the Great existed...? (Do you believe he existed, if yes, why?)

There are a number of histories, though not primary sources, dating back to at least the 1st century BC. No magic is required to explain the existence of Alexander the Great. I do not "believe" he existed, this is not an issue of faith. Rather, I THINK he existed, based on the available evidence. If contrary evidence becomes available, I will consider it and possibly change my view. Can you say the same for your belief in magical, invisible spirits?

If 500 people in London witnessed an amazing and unexplainable event...what proof would be required for the people in Birmingham to believe in the event...?

Video (provably untampered with) would help. Eyewitness testimony, as we all know, is demonstrably unreliable.

If I provided you with 300 detailed explanations on January 1 of what would occur to you in the year...and at the end of the year all 300 came true, what would this mean...?

Go right ahead. Give me 300 detailed explanations of what will happen in 2012. If all 300 come true, I will believe that you are indeed a true prophet. But, as you well know, nothing of the sort appears in any of the so-called "scriptures". All of the "prophecies" are vague and open to scores of possible interpretations. No religion that expects to persist can afford to make detailed, specific prophecies, for obvious reasons.

If God has stated how he will be known that is different from how you believe God 'should' be made known (eg by science, visible observation etc), why would that not be considered myopic?

One can make the same argument for the existence of Zeus, Vishnu, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why don't you add these to the pantheon of magical, invisible spirits that you believe in?

[jude3]

A blind man can read (braille) or listen to scientific explanations of the physics underlying color. No magical explanations are required.

What is the mechanism then for the blind man to 'accept' that there is colour after he has read braille or listened to explanations...?

There are a number of histories, though not primary sources, dating back to at least the 1st century BC. No magic is required to explain the existence of Alexander the Great. I do not "believe" he existed, this is not an issue of faith. Rather, I THINK he existed, based on the available evidence.

Indeed, I THINK Jesus is who he claimed to be.

Video (provably untampered with) would help. Eyewitness testimony, as we all know, is demonstrably unreliable.

Yet humans, over thousands of years, have relied on witness accounts as the primary source of evidence in testimonies, courts etc. If you were charged with robbing a bank 9with no video footage), and you had two witnesses to affirm you were somewhere else, how much value would you want the court to place on their accounts?

One can make the same argument for the existence of Zeus, Vishnu, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why don't you add these to the pantheon of magical, invisible spirits that you believe in?

I believe you're missing the question - If God has stated how he will be known that is different from how you believe God 'should' be made known (eg by science, visible observation etc), why would that not be considered myopic? Meaning, 'aren't YOU (mere man with limited intellect and reasoning compared to, say, a Creator God) determining the mechanism for which God will be made known?

Related -

How do you believe the comos came into existence...? By itself, always existed, a force outside of itself, other?

Also -

If I showed you a hand painting, what conclusion can you make re how that painting was made...or if it was made by a person or not...?

Kind regards

[mimis]

What is the mechanism then for the blind man to 'accept' that there is colour after he has read braille or listened to explanations...?

Intellect, not blind faith.

Indeed, I THINK Jesus is who he claimed to be.

If that is indeed the case, what evidence could be produced that would cause you to change your view?

Yet humans, over thousands of years, have relied on witness accounts as the primary source of evidence in testimonies, courts etc. If you were charged with robbing a bank 9with no video footage), and you had two witnesses to affirm you were somewhere else, how much value would you want the court to place on their accounts?

And even today, people are mistakenly sentenced to death on eyewitness testimony. And the testimony you are talking about is hearsay piled upon hearsay over 2,000 years. How gullible you are!

I believe you're missing the question - If God has stated how he will be known that is different from how you believe God 'should' be made known (eg by science, visible observation etc), why would that not be considered myopic? Meaning, 'aren't YOU (mere man with limited intellect and reasoning compared to, say, a Creator God) determining the mechanism for which God will be made known?

No, you who have missed the point. And then you made it circular be presupposing the existence of 'God'. Why do you prefer to believe in your invisible 'God' instead of the invisible Zeus, Vishnu, etc.? Personally, I have had far greater success praying to the invisible Tooth Fairy than to your 'God'.

How do you believe the comos came into existence...? By itself, always existed, a force outside of itself, other?

I don't know. I tend to favor the hypothesis that the cosmos always existed in some form. But just because I don't know something doesn't lead me to believe in magic. Are you saying that your 'god' is in the gaps?

If I showed you a hand painting, what conclusion can you make re how that painting was made...or if it was made by a person or not...?

Please don't resurrect the tired old "blind watchmaker" argument. That has been refuted to death.

And by the way, where are your 300 detailed predictions for 2012?

[shaad_lko]

he doesnt need to give you 300 predictions. That was a rhetorical question - net essence is that evidence for God is ample, but of course the evidence cannot satisfy your personal whims and fancies.

[MF]

How would you 'prove' colour existed to a blind man...?

You can't because color exists only in the brain. If you want to compare the existence of God with color it would mean God exists subjective only in the brain too.. wich is exactly my idea of God. He's personal.

[shaad_lko]

or it could be both - an idea as well as reality.

[jude3]

No, you who have missed the point. And then you made it circular be presupposing the existence of 'God'. Why do you prefer to believe in your invisible 'God' instead of the invisible Zeus, Vishnu, etc.? Personally, I have had far greater success praying to the invisible Tooth Fairy than to your 'God'.

Mmmm, we have an issue then, as I hold that God has instructed how he will be known, and it's not via the school of Minis.....so, in a way, you're making yourself into a little god...setting the rules for how God will be known.

I don't know. I tend to favor the hypothesis that the cosmos always existed in some form. But just because I don't know something doesn't lead me to believe in magic. Are you saying that your 'god' is in the gaps?

No, not God of the gaps.

On the cosmos, if I can borrow your line, the notion that it has always existed has been refuted to death.

So that leaves us:

1. it created itself, or
2. it was created by an agent outside of itself.

1 or 2?

[ali]

If 500 people in London witnessed an amazing and unexplainable event...what proof would be required for the people in Birmingham to believe in the event...?

QUOTE:


Once a student in a class of mine insisted that the CEO of Proctor and Gamble had admitted on the Donahue TV show that he was a Satanist and that the corporate logo was Satanic symbolism as well. I told my student that this was an urban legend. Next time he brought in the crudely copied hand-bill he had read. It offered a New York City phone number and urged the reader to call and ask for the transcript of the show for so and so date. I called it. There was no connection at all with Donahue. The hoaxer had evidently assumed that the mere provision of this (fake) information would be so convincing as to deceive the reader into thinking just as my student did and just as Holding does. When the reader of 1 Corinthians 15 reads that Paul challenged him to go and ask the 500 brethren about their resurrection sightings, something Paul knew well the Corinthians would never have the leisure to do, he may be impressed, but Paul was taking no risks. The mere challenge in such a case functions as sufficient "proof." Note that he provides no clue as to the names or locations of these supposed witnesses. In the late Syriac hagiography, The Life of John Son of Zebedee, the apostle similarly invites his hearers to check out the story of Jairus’ daughter, resurrected by Jesus. The idea is that the reader will understand that once upon a time the facts could have been checked out, even though it is too late for him personally to do so. This all proves nothing and indeed invites suspicion of imposture where it might not have arisen otherwise.


END QUOTE

[jude3]

Ali, thanks.

[jude3]

Mimis, any thoughts on the cosmos question....?

Also, what do you make of Antony Flew's recent and startling change of direction to believing in a creator God...?

You argue that 'mere' intellect should force one to come up with a decision re no god....so does that mean atheists (you!) have more intellect than Flew, or Pascal, Newton, Boyle....?

[jude3]

Mimis

You said earlier that my reasoning for saying God can/will only be known by his means (as expressed in the bible) is circular. As such, I think you were ‘rightfully’ not needing to reply.

If so, can you comment on the idea that ‘proving’ the existence of the supernatural by using only natural means isn’t also a form of circular reasoning…!? Or worded another way, how can only natural means show us the supernatural? (How can a black and white film show us colour...?)

The reason why I ask, is that mainstream secular ‘science’ says (to the effect) that only things explainable by a naturalistic method can be true and valid.

The natural conclusion, therefore, is that this view of ‘science’ is ‘contained’ to naturalism….it has no jurisdiction to anything outside of naturalism/materialism. (Perhaps it should have a new name...so as not to hoard the word 'science,'....as true science should be characterised by the rule "Follow the data to wherever it leads"...!? A name such as 'Little Science' might work...or 'Capped Science,'....or 'Don't-upset-the-faculty Science'.....or 'How dare you question our long-held views Science', or, 'Now look here you dumb schmuck....your funding will be cut off if you move outside of the standard bounds of materialism Science').

Therefore, you chipping away with your questions and requests for evidence is meaningless, as you are operating in myopia by ‘limiting’ your evidence/data/answers to your pre-determined world view.

I’ll describe it this way – suppose I wish to join a society called the “Why don’t we all believe in the flying spaghetti monster group of believers?” I approach the group and ask how I join…and what the group stands for. The group representative starts to explain the charter and what they believe…only to be cut off by the inquirer, who says, ‘sorry, I don’t accept the data you’re presenting me.’ The representative says, ‘well, this is the only way we present the data…it contains words, images, quotes etc….’ The inquirer responds, ‘I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t accept THOSE methods of you explaining what you believe…I only accept THESE predefined methods…are you able to convert your data/messages into these predefined methods?’

So, isn’t the inquirer being rather haughty in this example?

Ultimately, why do you believe the materialistic view is deemed the only method for determining truth?

Kind regards.

[mimis]

If so, can you comment on the idea that ‘proving’ the existence of the supernatural by using only natural means isn’t also a form of circular reasoning…!? Or worded another way, how can only natural means show us the supernatural?

No, that is not circular reasoning, because there is no presumption that the "supernatural" exists. It is you who are assuming its existence, and because that is such a fanciful, magical presumption, it is you who bears the burden of proof. For example, let's say that I tell you that the interior of the Moon is inhabited by invisible leprechauns, who can only be perceived if you believe in them. That is exactly how I view your belief in god(s).