Using simple logic to prove the presence of God

[BlueDevil]

[quote=Makeen;293659]

Originally Posted by BlueDevil

This is the kind of response I expected. Instead of attempting to refute me (which I challenge you all to), you resort to a poor sense of humour. But thanks for your response anyway, it's reassuring to know you had nothing better to say in response to what I posted.

When you demonstrate that your supposed proof actually proves anything at all about the existence of god then a sensible discussion could be had. Until then it is just a waste of time.

I look forward to something of substance when I get up in the morning.

[Iseeyouthere]

Originally Posted by Makeen

Lets stay on topic, is there any Atheist who can refute my above statements?

Regarding which God I believe in, my answer is this, I believe in One God, to whom the most beautiful names belong. It not being bound by space-time

Yeah yeah yeah... "one true god, the only god, god of the qur'an", blah blah blah...


I'll have a crack at this.

Lets see...

Argument 1: "I don't agree that for truth to be discovered it must exist".

Answer: How can you deny such simple logic? If there is an Island and I discover it, the Island had to be there before I discover it

Yet before the island was discovered, we did not know it was there. We needed proof that there was an island there before we accepted that there is an island there.

If I told you I discovered an island made of chocolate and gems, would you believe me?

I discovered it, so it must of been there.
Or am I pulling your leg and simply fooling you into thinking there is an island thats covered in shinies and rots your teeth?

I could show you evidence... A chocolate bunny from the island!
Or is it just something I picked up from Coles from the half-price bin?

So... was the island always there?
Or am I just fooling you so I can sell old Easter chocolate before it melts?

Argument 2: "Can you please elaborate on what you mean by Truth that exists before it is discovered has been applied. I don't agree with that and it doesn't make sense to me for me to agree with it"

Answer: Let us refer to the simple truth, "Fire burns". If that simple truth has not been applied then why does fire burn? Why does that truth apply?

Mainly the truth of "fire is hot" came from an experiment of people burning themselves. A caveman could come up with a primitive, yet easy to understand process of how "fire = hot" became truth.

Experiment: Touch fire.
Result: Fire burnt hand. Hot.
Conclusion: Fire hot
Fact: Fire hot.
Truth: Fire hot.

Ook ook agaga booga.

But an experiment was carried out to prove the statement is fact.


So... Truth does not equal truth until the fact is proven to be true... otherwise.. it is not considered truth.
Also, not considered false either.
But until evidence is presented to make the statement true... it is not true or false.

[Makeen]

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Why only one god? Even if there was a god, or gods, why only one?

Everything in our existence is bound by space-time. Our universe began and continues with the dimension of space-time. In our existence, any existence has to have a prior existence before it. The only way for our existence to exist is by a cause attributed to a timeless entity or thing or "it" (I prefer "it" but it is not grammatically sound).

Answer to your question in short? There is only one timeless entity. A singularity. Odd thing. Singular.

[Makeen]

Originally Posted by BlueDevil

When you demonstrate that your supposed proof actually proves anything at all about the existence of god then a sensible discussion could be had. Until then it is just a waste of time.

I look forward to something of substance when I get up in the morning.

In other words, you cannot prove me wrong and have given up and are now being evasive. Sorry, I know what I said might of been a bit heavy on your mind.

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by Makeen

Allow me to make it a bit more simple by stating a conclusion based on the above statements:

(f) conclusion: If truth exists before it is discovered, if it is discovered that is, then who is that truth known by? especially if that truth has been applied, applies and is therefore known?

Can you name one scientific advance that pointed to the existence of any gods or supernatural causation, rather than a naturalistic explanation?

With evidence and links, please.

[gruber]

Everything in our existence is bound by space-time. Our universe began and continues with the dimension of space-time. In our existence, any existence has to have a prior existence before it. The only way for our existence to exist is by a cause attributed to a timeless entity or thing or "it" (I prefer "it" but it is not grammatically sound).

Answer to your question in short? There is only one timeless entity. A singularity. Odd thing. Singular.

The blood god Khorne, the god of forbidden desires and excess Slannaash, the god of rot and decay Nurgle and the god that is a lie and weaves fate Tzeentch, all live outsisde of time and space. They all involve themselves in our universe, The Materium and effect it, even though they live in the Immaterium.

Its good to see that you finally proved they all existed with a simple paragraph that hasnt been peer reviewed or gotten you your noble prize for dis-proving a lot of theories and expanding science into a whole new world

[Logic please]

[quote=Makeen;293669]

Originally Posted by BlueDevil

In other words, you cannot prove me wrong and have given up and are now being evasive. Sorry, I know what I said might of been a bit heavy on your mind.

Allow me to acquaint you with the local rules of argument. A germane extract:

Originally Posted by TGBL

2. Burden of proof lies with you.

• If you make a claim, that claim should have a basis, and we're asking you to show that basis.
• If you have a peer-reviewed academic paper, other publication, or article which supports your claim, please show us your evidence.
• Prior to entering into a discussion, please ensure that you are willing to concede that the source of any claim you make is unreliable if your claim is shown to be incorrect.
• The burden of proof has been accepted as a fundamental part of philosophical debate for thousands of years. We don't care if you can't or won't accept this.

[dilbadoon]

I'm genuinely having a hard time understanding all this, maybe it's a little late and I should probably sit this out, but I'll try and maybe you can clarify Makeen

Originally Posted by Makeen

a - When we discover something true, we have discovered truth
b - For truth to be discovered, it must exist.
c - Truth therefore exists before it is discovered
d - Truth that exists before it is discovered is truth that has been applied
e - Truth that is applied is known

Argument 1: "I don't agree that for truth to be discovered it must exist".

Answer: How can you deny such simple logic? If there is an Island and I discover it, the Island had to be there before I discover it

This would be the most logical response, based on the evidence we have that islands don't simply spring into existence. However, nobody could say that they were 100% sure that the island was there before it was discovered. They could however use evidence on the island to theorise how long it had been there, ie. animal skeletons, dead trees, rocks, minerals etc which can all be aged to attempt to determine the age of the island itself. I think you may be over simplifying things.

Originally Posted by Makeen

Argument 2: "Can you please elaborate on what you mean by Truth that exists before it is discovered has been applied. I don't agree with that and it doesn't make sense to me for me to agree with it"

Answer: Let us refer to the simple truth, "Fire burns". If that simple truth has not been applied then why does fire burn? Why does that truth apply?

Again, I really don't get this, fire burns due to the temperatures created by the chemical reactions. I don't understand the question "why does this truth apply"? Are you suggesting fire needs a reason to burn us?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Originally Posted by Makeen

In other words, you cannot prove me wrong and have given up and are now being evasive. Sorry, I know what I said might of been a bit heavy on your mind.

I have a talking giraffe. Prove that I am wrong. I acquired a giraffe with such personic properties thanks to spacestar ordering.

[Makeen]

Originally Posted by Logic please

Can you name one scientific advance that pointed to the existence of any gods or supernatural causation, rather than a naturalistic explanation?

With evidence and links, please.

Can you refute me? I used logic and simple English. Why the need for a complex scientific advance when I've used something more simple (English and Logic). I don't want to go off topic please.