Proof-existence of an intelligent Creator+His Purpose

[Buffett and Colbert]

...
No?

Regardless of whether you can't tell who he is, the satire is blindingly obvious.

He is still being relatively offensive, and hey on NS we like to pick holes in peoples logic, and this guys statements are full of it, you can't blame people for do that, least of all on NS.

It's a natural reflex.

[Heronfield]

How is that not offensive?

It's blatantly not serious. I think it's pretty danged funny.

My point is that there is no need for it, and it could be taken offensively.

[Heronfield]

It's a natural reflex.

Indeed it is, and its fun when you know that you've got them!

[Dzvasdvsdv]

My point is that there is no need for it, and it could be taken offensively.

Yeah, if you lack a sense of humour. Unfortunately most of NSG does.

[SaintB]

Hows it go again? Oh yeah!

Proof denies faith and faith is what God wants.

There is no proof either way, why can't people just drop the subject already.

We were supposed to have faith that God made the lightning flash and the rain fall. Turns out, we proved it wasn't him directly causing these things.

We were supposed to have faith that God makes people sick and makes them well. Turns out, we proved it wasn't him directly causing these things, either.

We were supposed to have faith that God made the celestial bodies in the heavens revolve around the earth. Turns out, we proved they don't do this, and God isn't the one moving them.

The more we discover, the less there is for God to do. Or at least, less that God can be proven to be doing. Now God is relegated to the realm of quantum mechanics and chaos theory where it's harder to prove or disprove things. So tell me: what's the difference between a God you can't observe in action and no God at all?

You make the mistake of assuming that I was arguing for the existence of God. Beleivers have faith, and faith is all that really matters to them in this regard. You can't win; nor can they. Why not just find something more constructive?

[Buffett and Colbert]

You make the mistake of assuming that I was arguing for the existence of God. Beleivers have faith, and faith is all that really matters to them in this regard. You can't win; nor can they. Why not just find something more constructive?

It kills time.

[SaintB]

You make the mistake of assuming that I was arguing for the existence of God. Beleivers have faith, and faith is all that really matters to them in this regard. You can't win; nor can they. Why not just find something more constructive?

It kills time.

I think if NSG put its collective heads together and thought about something seriously (and ignored the claims of certain totally batshit posters) we could solve most of the world's ills... or at least come up with a plan.

[Heronfield]

I think if NSG put its collective heads together and thought about something seriously (and ignored the claims of certain totally batshit posters) we could solve most of the world's ills... or at least come up with a plan.

Lets do it, what shall we start with first, cancer or poverty?

[SaintB]

I think if NSG put its collective heads together and thought about something seriously (and ignored the claims of certain totally batshit posters) we could solve most of the world's ills... or at least come up with a plan.

Lets do it, what shall we start with first, cancer or poverty?

World peace damnit!

[Buffett and Colbert]

You make the mistake of assuming that I was arguing for the existence of God. Beleivers have faith, and faith is all that really matters to them in this regard. You can't win; nor can they. Why not just find something more constructive?

It kills time.

I think if NSG put its collective heads together and thought about something seriously (and ignored the claims of certain totally batshit posters) we could solve most of the world's ills... or at least come up with a plan.

If NSG had that power, Galloism would be the ruler of the universe.

[Dzvasdvsdv]

If NSG had that power, Galloism would be the ruler of the universe.

Gallosim's left.

[Heronfield]

World peace damnit!

You're probably right on some level though, there is a lot of wasted time, energy and thinking going into this website!

[EvilDarkMagicians]

If NSG had that power, Galloism would be the ruler of the universe.

Gallosim's left.

More like on a holiday.

[Buffett and Colbert]

If NSG had that power, Galloism would be the ruler of the universe.

Gallosim's left.

Well thank you for ruining my fun!

Fine. What would happen would that all stupid people are persecuted mercilessly in a never ending bickering match...

[Heronfield]

If NSG had that power, Galloism would be the ruler of the universe.

Gallosim's left.

Well thank you for ruining my fun!

Fine. What would happen would that all stupid people are persecuted mercilessly in a never ending bickering match...

What's thread about again?

[Skarlocke]

Fallacy of the first cause.

You're stating everything needs a first cause, yet implemented an uncaused cause to fill in the gap, thereby contradicting yourself. This argument also seems to ring of the 'god of the gaps' where you're suggesting that god is responsible for something that we do not currently fully understand.

You may think it logical to put god in the place of an unknown, but in fact it is far from it. If you want to prove god exists you need to provide evidence for such a being which doesn't simply rest where reason hasn't yet had time to investigate fully.

[SaintB]

World peace damnit!

You're probably right on some level though, there is a lot of wasted time, energy and thinking going into this website!

I was trying to start an argument

If NSG had that power, Galloism would be the ruler of the universe.

Gallosim's left.

Well thank you for ruining my fun!

Fine. What would happen would that all stupid people are persecuted mercilessly in a never ending bickering match...

What's thread about again?

I forget.

[Buffett and Colbert]

If NSG had that power, Galloism would be the ruler of the universe.

Gallosim's left.

Well thank you for ruining my fun!

Fine. What would happen would that all stupid people are persecuted mercilessly in a never ending bickering match...

What's thread about again?

What thread?

[Heronfield]

World peace damnit!

You're probably right on some level though, there is a lot of wasted time, energy and thinking going into this website!

I was trying to start an argument

Oh ok...erm...there is no way NS could solve any problems, everyone would just disagree!

[Risottia]

Back on topic: final death of OP.
Longish, though you must consider that debunking about 1000 years of medieval scholarly bullshit deserves a bit of effort.

Pure Reason
Pure reason mistakenly goes beyond its relation to possible experience when it concludes that there is a Being who is the most real thing conceivable. This personified object is postulated by Reason as the subject of all predicates, the sum total of all reality. Kant called this Supreme Being, or God, the Ideal of Pure Reason because it exists as the highest and most complete condition of the possibility of all objects, their original cause and their continual support.


Ontological Proof of God's Existence
The Ontological Proof considers the concept of the most real Being and concludes that it is absolutely necessary. The Ontological Argument states that God exists because he is perfect. If he didn't exist, he would be less than perfect. Existence is assumed to be a predicate or attribute of the subject, God. But, Kant asserted that existence is not a predicate. Existence or Being is merely the infinitive of the copula or linking, connecting verb "is" in a declarative sentence. It connects the subject to a predicate. "Existence is evidently not a real predicate … The small word is, is not an additional predicate, but only serves to put the predicate in relation to the subject." (A599) Also, we cannot accept a mere concept or mental idea as being a real, external thing or object. The Ontological Argument starts with a mere mental concept of a perfect God and tries to end with a real, existing God.

Summarized further, we may say that this argument is essentially deductive in nature. Given a certain fact, it proceeds to infer another from it. The method pursued, then, is that of deducing the fact of God's being from the a priori idea of him. If man finds that the idea of God is necessarily involved in his self-consciousness, it is legitimate for him to proceed from this notion to the actual existence of the divine being. In other words, the idea of God necessarily includes existence. It may include it in several ways. One may argue, for instance, according to the method of Descartes, and say that the conception of God could have originated only with the divine being himself, therefore the idea possessed by us is based on the prior existence of God himself. Or we may allege that we have the idea that God is the most necessary of all beings — that is to say, he belongs to the class of realities; consequently it cannot but be a fact that he exists. This is held to be proof per saltum. A leap takes place from the premise to the conclusion, and all intermediate steps are omitted. The implication is that premise and conclusion stand over against one another without any obvious, much less necessary, connection. A jump is made from thought to reality. Kant here objects that being or existence is not a mere attribute which may be added on to a subject, thereby increasing its qualitative content. The predicate, being, adds something to the subject which no mere quality can give. It informs us that the idea is not a mere conception, but is also an actually existing reality. Being, as Kant thinks, actually increases the concept itself in such a way as to transform it. You may attach as many attributes as you please to a concept; you do not thereby lift it out of the subjective sphere and render it actual. So you may pile attribute upon attribute on the conception of God, but at the end of the day you are not necessarily one step nearer his actual existence. So that when we say God exists, we do not simply attach a new attribute to our conception; we do far more than this implies. We pass our bare concept from the sphere of inner subjectivity to that of actuality. This is the great vice of the Ontological argument. The idea of ten dollars is different from the fact only in reality. In the same way the conception of God is different from the fact of his existence only in reality. When, accordingly, the Ontological proof declares that the latter is involved in the former, it puts forward nothing more than a mere statement. No proof is forthcoming precisely where proof is most required. We are not in a position to say that the idea of God includes existence, because it is of the very nature of ideas not to include existence.


Cosmological ("Prime Mover") Proof of God's Existence
The Cosmological Proof considers the concept of an absolutely necessary Being and concludes that it has the most reality. In this way, the Cosmological Proof is merely the converse of the Ontological Proof. But the Cosmological Proof purports to start from sense experience. It says, "If anything exists in the cosmos, then there must be an absolutely necessary Being. " It then claims that there is only one concept of an absolutely necessary object. That is the concept of a Supreme Being who has maximum reality. Only such a supremely real being would be necessary and independently sufficient without compare. But this is the Ontological Proof again, which was asserted a priori without sense experience.

Summarizing The Cosmological Argument further, it may be stated as follows: Contingent things exist — at least I exist; and as they are not self-caused, nor capable of explanation as an infinite series, it is requisite to infer that a necessary being, on whom they depend, exists. Seeing that this being exists, he belongs to the realm of reality. Seeing that all things issue from him, he is the most necessary of beings, for only a being who is self-dependent, who possesses all the conditions of reality within himself, could be the origin of contingent things. And such a being is God. This proof is invalid for three chief reasons. First, it makes use of a category, namely, Cause. And, as has been already pointed out, it is not possible to apply this, or any other, category except to the matter given by sense under the general conditions of space and time. If, then, we employ it in relation to Deity, we try to force its application in a sphere where it is useless, and incapable of affording any information. Once more, we are in the now familiar difficulty of the paralogism of Rational Psychology or of the Antinomies. The category has meaning only when applied to phenomena. But God is a noumenon. Second, it mistakes an idea of absolute necessity — an idea which is nothing more than an ideal — for a synthesis of elements in the phenomenal world or world of experience. This necessity is not an object of knowledge, derived from sensation and set in shape by the operation of categories. It cannot be regarded as more than an inference. Yet the cosmological argument treats it as if it were an object of knowledge exactly on the same level as perception of any thing or object in the course of experience. Thirdly, it presupposes the Ontological argument, already proved false. It does this, because it proceeds from the conception of the necessity of a certain being to the fact of his existence. And it is possible to take this course only if idea and fact are convertible with one another. It has just been proved that they are not so convertible.

[Czardas]

I have a much simpler proof.

a) The universe exists. Fact.
b) The universe contains human beings. Fact.
c) Some human beings are better than other human beings. Fact.
d) Therefore, there is a scale on which human beings exist, from less perfect to more perfect. Deduction.
e) No human being is perfect. Fact.
f) Mathematically, every sequence goes towards infinity. Fact.
g) Hence, there is a being that is infinitely perfect. This being is God. Deduction.
h) If God exists, He must have created the universe. Fact.
i) Asking what created God makes as much sense as asking what color the smell of raspberries tastes like. Well-reasoned and educated opinion.

Q.E.D.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I have a much simpler proof.

a) The universe exists. Fact.
b) The universe contains human beings. Fact.
c) Some human beings are better than other human beings. Fact.
d) Therefore, there is a scale on which human beings exist, from less perfect to more perfect. Deduction.
e) No human being is perfect. Fact.
f) Mathematically, every sequence goes towards infinity. Fact.
g) Hence, there is a being that is infinitely perfect. This being is God. Deduction.
h) If God exists, He must have created the universe. Fact.
i) Asking what created God makes as much sense as asking what color the smell of raspberries tastes like. Well-reasoned and educated opinion.

Q.E.D.

This is where the fail starts.

[Czardas]

I have a much simpler proof.

a) The universe exists. Fact.
b) The universe contains human beings. Fact.
c) Some human beings are better than other human beings. Fact.
d) Therefore, there is a scale on which human beings exist, from less perfect to more perfect. Deduction.
e) No human being is perfect. Fact.
f) Mathematically, every sequence goes towards infinity. Fact.
g) Hence, there is a being that is infinitely perfect. This being is God. Deduction.
h) If God exists, He must have created the universe. Fact.
i) Asking what created God makes as much sense as asking what color the smell of raspberries tastes like. Well-reasoned and educated opinion.

Q.E.D.

This is where the fail starts.

Typical secular progressive debate tactics, ignoring the argument to make supposedly amusing comments.

I pray for your soul.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I have a much simpler proof.

a) The universe exists. Fact.
b) The universe contains human beings. Fact.
c) Some human beings are better than other human beings. Fact.
d) Therefore, there is a scale on which human beings exist, from less perfect to more perfect. Deduction.
e) No human being is perfect. Fact.
f) Mathematically, every sequence goes towards infinity. Fact.
g) Hence, there is a being that is infinitely perfect. This being is God. Deduction.
h) If God exists, He must have created the universe. Fact.
i) Asking what created God makes as much sense as asking what color the smell of raspberries tastes like. Well-reasoned and educated opinion.

Q.E.D.

This is where the fail starts.

Typical secular progressive debate tactics, ignoring the argument to make supposedly amusing comments.

I pray for your soul.

Was this... serious?

[Dzvasdvsdv]

Was this... serious?

You're not very good at this are you?