Present Evidence Here II

[Unbeliever]

Then again, there's this:

[Baruch]

Too small a print.  Also I reject all of those axioms as nonsense.  Therefore the deduction, if there is one, it irrelevant for me.

[fencerider]

yes Baruch it is nonsense. Very disconnected logic. Here is the text as best I can make it out. Can we please make a real logic class a requirement...

----------
Godel's Mathematical Proof of God's Existence
axiom 1. (dichotomy) a property is positive if and only if its negation is negative.
axiom 2. (closure) a property is positive if it necessarily contains a positive property.

theorem 1. a positive property is logically consistent ( i.e. it possibly has some instance)

definition: something is God-like if and only if it possesses all positive properties.

axiom 3. being God-like is a positive property.
axiom 4. being a positive property is (logical, hence) necessary.

definition: a property P is the essence of x if and only if x has P and P is necessarily minimal.

theorem 2. if x is God-like, then being God-like is the essence of x.

definition: NE(x) x necessarily exists if it has an essential property.

axiom 5. being NE is God-like.

theorem 3. necessarily there is some x such that x is God-like.
-----------

That is all of it. appears the conclusion is missing. and what is there isnt very logical

[Baruch]

It looks more like something St Aquinas or St Anselm would write, not Kurt Godel.

[godmessenger]

First of all, present evidence that there is no God. And don't say that it is up to theists to present evidence of God. That is copping out. Also, don't say that you can't prove a negative. That is not true. The negative can be proven. It's just harder, because you have to prove the whole medium. Also, don't state that you can't prove something that doesn't exist. That is stupid, and assumes something not proven yet. If God doesn't exist, as atheists obviously believe, then there must be a logical reason why He doesn't. I say logic, not philosophic, like "why does God allow bad things to happen".

[TrueStory]

First of all, present evidence that there is no God. And don't say that it is up to theists to present evidence of God. That is copping out. Also, don't say that you can't prove a negative. That is not true. The negative can be proven. It's just harder, because you have to prove the whole medium. Also, don't state that you can't prove something that doesn't exist. That is stupid, and assumes something not proven yet. If God doesn't exist, as atheists obviously believe, then there must be a logical reason why He doesn't. I say logic, not philosophic, like "why does God allow bad things to happen".

POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE.

[Unbeliever]

I don't need to provide evidence that God does not exist, because I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that God does not exist. All my atheism means is that I don't believe in God, and that I don't have to prove.

Besides, The word "God" has not been defined. What does the word mean? Does it mean that some vague "something" exists out there? Does it mean that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent God exists?

Does this God have such properties as these:

(a) perfect                   (g) personal
(b) immutable                 (h) free
(c) transcendent              (i) all-loving
(d) nonphysical               (j) all-just
(e) omniscient                (k) all-merciful
(f) omnipresent               (l) the creator of the universe

If so, then this God cannot logically exist, due to the fact that so many of these properties are mutually exclusive, incompatible properties.


If a thing cannot logically exist, then I submit that it does not, in fact, exist. Unless logic is complete bullshit, that is.

[Mike Cl]

First of all, present evidence that there is no God. And don't say that it is up to theists to present evidence of God. That is copping out. Also, don't say that you can't prove a negative. That is not true. The negative can be proven. It's just harder, because you have to prove the whole medium. Also, don't state that you can't prove something that doesn't exist. That is stupid, and assumes something not proven yet. If God doesn't exist, as atheists obviously believe, then there must be a logical reason why He doesn't. I say logic, not philosophic, like "why does God allow bad things to happen".

It is up to theists to prove god's existence . Why?  Because there is no evidence that shows god(s) exist.  If I were to make the claim that Bugs Bunny exists or that fairies exist, then it would be up to me to prove that I am right by presenting evidence that they do exist.  Your god is no different than a fairy or Bugs Bunny in that they are all fictions invented by man.  That you don't present evidence that  your god exists then you are the cop out.  And I do know that you cannot prove your god exists for one cannot prove than a fiction is a nonfiction.

[aitm]

argue with fools and they call you a fool...

[Mike Cl]

argue with fools and they call you a fool...

Not the first time......................

[Unbeliever]

argue with fools and they call you a fool...

The Bible says:

Proverbs 26:4:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

But then, in the very next verse it also says:

Proverbs 26:5

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

But that's not a contradiction - it can't be since the Bible is the perfect Word of God! And it doesn't teach us situational ethics...

Or maybe it just means that we shouldn't answer a fool at all, whether "according to his folly" of otherwise.

[Baruch]

Folk wisdom doesn't make sense to sophisticates.  But the city slickers are taken in by the country bumpkins.

[fencerider]

Now we know how a Budhist can sit and meditate for hours. Its because they start thinking about something like Proverbs 26:4-5. almost like a computer program starting an infinite loop that keeps going until you push the power button.

[Drew_2017]

This is the evidence that persuades me of theism.

We all have the same evidence for or against the existence of God defined here as a personal intelligent agent capable of causing a universe with the conditions for life to exist. Evidence is merely facts that comport with a belief.
The following indisputable facts lead me to believe we owe our existence to an intelligent agent commonly referred to as God as opposed to the counter belief that mindless unguided forces are responsible for all we observe.

1.   The fact the universe exists
2.   The fact life exists
3.   The fact intelligent life exists
4.   The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5.   The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.

These are the primary facts of our existence and one can believe these facts came into existence minus any plan, intent or designer or doubt that claim and believe it was the intentional result of a personal agent. I subscribe to the former belief. I don't care if anyone else does everyone can decide for themselves...

[Unbeliever]

Welcome Drew!