Religions > Atheism > You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"RS" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2005 11:23:42 PM |
| Object: |
You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
You don't have to read all of the links in detail, but make sure to read my
concluding paragraph before you respond completely.
I am Roman Catholic. Your crack at Roman Catholic faith, however, only
serves to display your continued ignorance of cultures not your own.
Here is a detailed, albeit a somewhat farfetched proof for the existence of
God using logic and observed data:
http://www.you-god-loves.org/proof_for_god.htm
Also another objective and perfectly logical proof offered by Descartes:
http://csunx4.bsc.edu/bmyers/3MEDPRF.htm
Here is a collection of over 300 simple-logic arguments for the existence of
God:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Note, this source offers arguments, rather than proofs. If you are offended
or even confused about the logic behind these arguments, do not look at the
2, 3, or 4 conditions. Instead, read those conditions and compare them to
the title of the argument. Look at moral argument II (10). Some might say
"That is overreaching" but in evidence of the fact that the writer is
offering a moral argument, it is true for said moral argument.
Below is a sermon by Pastor Matthew Henderson on the existence of God:
http://www.gerrardstreet.free-online.co.uk/sermons/s19990926pm.htm
It offers some sound logic and cultural comparisons to show the validity in
people believing God does exist and how it isn't incorrect of them to
believe so.
My favorite source, however, is an article which details around 12 proofs
which summon the most common arguments atheists bring forth and compare them
in light of simple logic in comparison to scriptural and theological
standpoints.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html
Another branch off of this same website offers an explaination of certain
scientists in light of the existence of God (and their personal beliefs):
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This includes Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle,
Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, and Einsteisn. The most astounding part is
Einstein who recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.
Einstein believed in God. Do you still call theists insane?
The following is some examples of the individuals with such strong faith
that caused true evil from being manifested or hindered in the world:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/spiritual.html
Following is logical proof against the argument "Since we can't see God, God
doesn't exist."
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notseegod.html
This includes a personal witness of the author.
Evidence on the power of prayer for physical healing (data included):
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
Scientific studies showing a positive effect of religion on health:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
Hmm... religion can make you healthier... sounds to me like I'm insane for
that :p
And finally, a summary page of all of the articles outside of those I
provided:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html#Supernatural
This included Common criticisms, common objections to Christianity, common
atheist's myths, and articles detailing the evidence of the Divine.
One last thing you may snap back concerning Einstein:
"Einstein didn't believe in a personal god!" or something along those
lines... here is an article describing it in words better than I can:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
Lastly, if you still deam all of this evidence I have provided non-objective
and illogical, I am glad that you disagree with some of the greatest
scientists and philosophers of our time. Copernicus, Galileo, Kelvin,
Einstein, etc... they must have all been insane fools for believing in the
existence of some form of the Divine. You claim I am insane for believing
in God and I offer no "objective" proof. I do not need to, since those who
came before me such as these great minds have already offered enough sound
evidence. I believe in God because God is the order behind creation.
Regardless of how silly it may sound to you, I have a developed a personal
relationship with the God I have come to know. I wouldn't be so quick to
dismiss that if I were you. To do so would display that you believe
yourselves to be more intelligent than some of the greatest scientific
thinkers and philosophers throughout history.
-RS
.
|
|
| User: "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim?" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 05:42:16 AM |
|
|
"Note, this source offers arguments, rather than proofs".
Yes, that is exactly the problem with ALL sources about this invisible,
non-existant god. they are nothing but arguments, we ask for PHYSICAL PROOF,
like hey, how about this "loving compassionate" god actually SHOWING UP ONCE
in awhile and say hi ???????????? But no, that would be TOO MUCH to ask
evidently.
god loved us so much that he gave his only begotten son to save our souls,
but he is evidently too busy to stop by and say hi once in awhile. LMAO.
"RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote in message news:ct4l5p$b65$1@news3.bu.edu...
You don't have to read all of the links in detail, but make sure to read
my concluding paragraph before you respond completely.
I am Roman Catholic. Your crack at Roman Catholic faith, however, only
serves to display your continued ignorance of cultures not your own.
Here is a detailed, albeit a somewhat farfetched proof for the existence
of God using logic and observed data:
http://www.you-god-loves.org/proof_for_god.htm
Also another objective and perfectly logical proof offered by Descartes:
http://csunx4.bsc.edu/bmyers/3MEDPRF.htm
Here is a collection of over 300 simple-logic arguments for the existence
of God:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Note, this source offers arguments, rather than proofs. If you are
offended or even confused about the logic behind these arguments, do not
look at the 2, 3, or 4 conditions. Instead, read those conditions and
compare them to the title of the argument. Look at moral argument II
(10). Some might say "That is overreaching" but in evidence of the fact
that the writer is offering a moral argument, it is true for said moral
argument.
Below is a sermon by Pastor Matthew Henderson on the existence of God:
http://www.gerrardstreet.free-online.co.uk/sermons/s19990926pm.htm
It offers some sound logic and cultural comparisons to show the validity
in people believing God does exist and how it isn't incorrect of them to
believe so.
My favorite source, however, is an article which details around 12 proofs
which summon the most common arguments atheists bring forth and compare
them in light of simple logic in comparison to scriptural and theological
standpoints.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html
Another branch off of this same website offers an explaination of certain
scientists in light of the existence of God (and their personal beliefs):
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This includes Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle,
Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, and Einsteisn. The most astounding part
is Einstein who recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.
Einstein believed in God. Do you still call theists insane?
The following is some examples of the individuals with such strong faith
that caused true evil from being manifested or hindered in the world:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/spiritual.html
Following is logical proof against the argument "Since we can't see God,
God doesn't exist."
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notseegod.html
This includes a personal witness of the author.
Evidence on the power of prayer for physical healing (data included):
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
Scientific studies showing a positive effect of religion on health:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
Hmm... religion can make you healthier... sounds to me like I'm insane for
that :p
And finally, a summary page of all of the articles outside of those I
provided:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html#Supernatural
This included Common criticisms, common objections to Christianity, common
atheist's myths, and articles detailing the evidence of the Divine.
One last thing you may snap back concerning Einstein:
"Einstein didn't believe in a personal god!" or something along those
lines... here is an article describing it in words better than I can:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
Lastly, if you still deam all of this evidence I have provided
non-objective and illogical, I am glad that you disagree with some of the
greatest scientists and philosophers of our time. Copernicus, Galileo,
Kelvin, Einstein, etc... they must have all been insane fools for
believing in the existence of some form of the Divine. You claim I am
insane for believing in God and I offer no "objective" proof. I do not
need to, since those who came before me such as these great minds have
already offered enough sound evidence. I believe in God because God is
the order behind creation. Regardless of how silly it may sound to you, I
have a developed a personal relationship with the God I have come to know.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that if I were you. To do so would
display that you believe yourselves to be more intelligent than some of
the greatest scientific thinkers and philosophers throughout history.
-RS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 12:04:28 AM |
|
|
"RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote in message news:ct4l5p$b65$1@news3.bu.edu...
You don't have to read all of the links in detail, but make sure to read
my
concluding paragraph before you respond completely.
I am Roman Catholic. Your crack at Roman Catholic faith, however, only
serves to display your continued ignorance of cultures not your own.
On the contrary - more cracks are made about the ACTIONS of people who claim
to be Roman Catholics, and the arrogance of the Roman Catholics who think
THEIR religion is the one and only true christian religion, and the actions
of the Roman Catholic religion to rule the lives of others who are not Roman
Catholic.
Here is a detailed, albeit a somewhat farfetched proof for the existence
of
God using logic and observed data:
http://www.you-god-loves.org/proof_for_god.htm
(psssst ... it cannot be both farfetched, and logical, at the same time.)
Obviously you do not hvae the mental ability to be the one who determines
the validity of an argument.
All we have here is a varation of "There's a tree ...... that proves god
exists."
Also another objective and perfectly logical proof offered by Descartes:
http://csunx4.bsc.edu/bmyers/3MEDPRF.htm
Not only irrational, but distorted.
Here is a collection of over 300 simple-logic arguments for the existence
of
God:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Note, this source offers arguments, rather than proofs. If you are
offended
or even confused about the logic behind these arguments, do not look at
the
2, 3, or 4 conditions. Instead, read those conditions and compare them to
the title of the argument. Look at moral argument II (10). Some might
say
"That is overreaching" but in evidence of the fact that the writer is
offering a moral argument, it is true for said moral argument.
I guess you weren't bright enough to notice that this is a "tongue in cheek"
sarcasm page about teh FOOLISH arguments FOR god.
Below is a sermon by Pastor Matthew Henderson on the existence of God:
http://www.gerrardstreet.free-online.co.uk/sermons/s19990926pm.htm
It offers some sound logic and cultural comparisons to show the validity
in
people believing God does exist and how it isn't incorrect of them to
believe so.
Sermons validate nothing.
My favorite source, however, is an article which details around 12 proofs
which summon the most common arguments atheists bring forth and compare
them
in light of simple logic in comparison to scriptural and theological
standpoints.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html
More plain old babble, and distorted claims against atheists; and NOTHING
that "proves" god.
Another branch off of this same website offers an explaination of certain
scientists in light of the existence of God (and their personal beliefs):
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This includes Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle,
Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, and Einsteisn. The most astounding part
is
Einstein who recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.
Einstein believed in God. Do you still call theists insane?
While other pages, about Einstein, claim he didn;t believe in "god", and
certainly NOT the Christian god.
The following is some examples of the individuals with such strong faith
that caused true evil from being manifested or hindered in the world:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/spiritual.html
Following is logical proof against the argument "Since we can't see God,
God
doesn't exist."
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notseegod.html
This includes a personal witness of the author.
That is nothing more than a strawman argument, invented by religious
zealots - and NEVER voiced by atheists.
"Personal witnessing" means NOTHING, scientifically!!!
Evidence on the power of prayer for physical healing (data included):
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
Scientific studies showing a positive effect of religion on health:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
Hmm... religion can make you healthier... sounds to me like I'm insane for
that :p
ATTITUDE can make you healthier - while SOME religous people MAY have a
corresponding good attitude, that SAME attitude can be achieved by watching
Three Stooges movies!
And finally, a summary page of all of the articles outside of those I
provided:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html#Supernatural
This included Common criticisms, common objections to Christianity, common
atheist's myths, and articles detailing the evidence of the Divine.
A whole page of crap, iinsted of individual droppings.
One last thing you may snap back concerning Einstein:
"Einstein didn't believe in a personal god!" or something along those
lines... here is an article describing it in words better than I can:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
First, Einstein, no matter what he did in science, is NOT the final arbitor
of god.
Second, Just like Newton's before him, Einsteins "science" had applications
so far.
Third - no matter what Einstein discovered about science, he STILL did not
discover any evidence for god - his personal believes carry no more weight
than any other persons.
Lastly, if you still deam all of this evidence I have provided
non-objective
and illogical, I am glad that you disagree with some of the greatest
scientists and philosophers of our time.
No. I disagree with one (among many) delusional fanatics about what this
"evidence" represents.
The VAST majority of scientists - then and now - would, rationally, have to
admit that while they may BELIEVE in a god - they have NO evidence for a
god.
Copernicus, Galileo, Kelvin,
Einstein, etc... they must have all been insane fools for believing in the
existence of some form of the Divine. You claim I am insane for believing
in God and I offer no "objective" proof. I do not need to, since those
who
came before me such as these great minds have already offered enough sound
evidence.
Where?
I CERTAINLY hope it's not the pile of deranged crap you've already shoveled!
I believe in God because God is the order behind creation.
No - you believe in god because you beliueve in god.
You have not shown ANY "proof" of god - therefore ther claim that "god is
the order behind creation" is invalid.
Regardless of how silly it may sound to you, I have a developed a personal
relationship with the God I have come to know. I wouldn't be so quick to
dismiss that if I were you. To do so would display that you believe
yourselves to be more intelligent than some of the greatest scientific
thinkers and philosophers throughout history.
Bwahahhaaaaa.......you would be so arrogant to think that a scientist would
not know know the difference between what he believes, and what he can
prove; and that the BELIEFS of a scientist carry just as much weight as what
he can PROVE scientifically.
BTW .... There are a VAST number of scientists who are atheists, and,
throughout history, there have been a vast number of religious scientists
who believed in something other than your god.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 06:56:46 AM |
|
|
"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in message
news:10vbobeijqs6ubc@corp.supernews.com...
Here is a collection of over 300 simple-logic arguments for the existence
of
God:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Note, this source offers arguments, rather than proofs. If you are
offended
or even confused about the logic behind these arguments, do not look at
the
2, 3, or 4 conditions. Instead, read those conditions and compare them
to
the title of the argument. Look at moral argument II (10). Some might
say
"That is overreaching" but in evidence of the fact that the writer is
offering a moral argument, it is true for said moral argument.
I guess you weren't bright enough to notice that this is a "tongue in
cheek"
sarcasm page about teh FOOLISH arguments FOR god.
It wasn't my intention to take that source in totality. I was observing
that certain arguments, though made for the purpose of diminishing the
kingdom of God, have turned out to possess certain logic which only
heightens his existence:
1, 198, and more.
As for the sermon below, did you read it? "Sermons validate nothing"
attitude says nothing about your being open to the material.
I didn't ask you to judge the validity of the sources, however, but the
material contained. I presume that since you didn't respond concerning the
material addressed, then you lack the ability to respond to it.
God is perfection
I can think of perfection
Therefore perfection must exist
God exists.
That is the summary of the kind of proof I was wishing to relay, supported
by the sources I gave (if you read them). Please respond to the proofs and
materials in teh sources in an intelligent and in depth manner, rather than
snipping them as "plain old babble"
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Vestal" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 11:00:51 AM |
|
|
"RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote in news:ct5fo0$ldc$1@news3.bu.edu:
"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in message
news:10vbobeijqs6ubc@corp.supernews.com...
Here is a collection of over 300 simple-logic arguments for the
existence
of
God:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Note, this source offers arguments, rather than proofs. If you are
offended
or even confused about the logic behind these arguments, do not look
at
the
2, 3, or 4 conditions. Instead, read those conditions and compare
them to
the title of the argument. Look at moral argument II (10). Some
might
say
"That is overreaching" but in evidence of the fact that the writer
is offering a moral argument, it is true for said moral argument.
I guess you weren't bright enough to notice that this is a "tongue in
cheek"
sarcasm page about teh FOOLISH arguments FOR god.
It wasn't my intention to take that source in totality. I was
observing that certain arguments, though made for the purpose of
diminishing the kingdom of God, have turned out to possess certain
logic which only heightens his existence:
1, 198, and more.
As for the sermon below, did you read it? "Sermons validate nothing"
attitude says nothing about your being open to the material.
I didn't ask you to judge the validity of the sources, however, but
the material contained. I presume that since you didn't respond
concerning the material addressed, then you lack the ability to
respond to it.
God is perfection
I can think of perfection
Therefore perfection must exist
God exists.
That is the summary of the kind of proof I was wishing to relay,
supported by the sources I gave (if you read them). Please respond to
the proofs and materials in teh sources in an intelligent and in depth
manner, rather than snipping them as "plain old babble"
-RS
Frank and Joe Hardy are crime-solving teenagers.
I can think of crime-solving teenagers.
Therefore crime-solving teenagers must exist.
Therefore Frank and Joe Hardy exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 12:28:27 PM |
|
|
"David Vestal" <someoggetridofthis@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E97A0EA2D15someoggetridofthisma@130.133.1.4...
Frank and Joe Hardy are crime-solving teenagers.
I can think of crime-solving teenagers.
Therefore crime-solving teenagers must exist.
Therefore Frank and Joe Hardy exist.
Along the same line of logic, but you are missing one thing in my initial
assumption:
God is perfection.
I am not pointing out that God must exist to be perfection, but relaying the
nature of God as held by those who believe in Him. For those who believe in
God, God is perfection. It is Divine Nature as understood by those who are
believers. God and Perfection are synonymous. If perfection weren't
sentient, it wouldn't be perfection.
My justification:
If perfection were lacking sentience, it would have limitations. Perfection
has no limitations.
perfection: complete, fulfilled, ideal, impeccability, maturity, merit,
purity, sublimity, superiority, supremacy, transcendence, virtue, wholeness,
distintion, elevation, eminence, glory, grace, granduer, honor, importance,
loftiness, MAJESTY, merit, morality, nobleness, poise, prestige, regard,
renown, respectability, seemliness, solemnity, splendor, stature, virtue,
worthy, celebrity, credit, eminence, fame, greatness, manner,
prominence,absoluteness, allness, collectiveness, complexity, universality,
etc.
All of these MUST exist in perfection in order for perfection to exist. If
it is lacking one, it is not perfection. The nature of God contains all
aspects of perfection.
I could, therefore, rewrite my proof:
Divine nature is perfection
We can concieve perfection
Perfection must exist
the Divine then exists.
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Vestal" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 01:54:57 PM |
|
|
"RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote in news:ct6363$c21$1@news3.bu.edu:
"David Vestal" <someoggetridofthis@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E97A0EA2D15someoggetridofthisma@130.133.1.4...
Frank and Joe Hardy are crime-solving teenagers.
I can think of crime-solving teenagers.
Therefore crime-solving teenagers must exist.
Therefore Frank and Joe Hardy exist.
Along the same line of logic, but you are missing one thing in my
initial assumption:
God is perfection.
I am not pointing out that God must exist to be perfection, but
relaying the nature of God as held by those who believe in Him. For
those who believe in God, God is perfection. It is Divine Nature as
understood by those who are believers. God and Perfection are
synonymous. If perfection weren't sentient, it wouldn't be
perfection.
My justification:
If perfection were lacking sentience, it would have limitations.
Perfection has no limitations.
perfection: complete, fulfilled, ideal, impeccability, maturity,
merit, purity, sublimity, superiority, supremacy, transcendence,
virtue, wholeness, distintion, elevation, eminence, glory, grace,
granduer, honor, importance, loftiness, MAJESTY, merit, morality,
nobleness, poise, prestige, regard, renown, respectability,
seemliness, solemnity, splendor, stature, virtue, worthy, celebrity,
credit, eminence, fame, greatness, manner, prominence,absoluteness,
allness, collectiveness, complexity, universality, etc.
All of these MUST exist in perfection in order for perfection to
exist. If it is lacking one, it is not perfection. The nature of God
contains all aspects of perfection.
I could, therefore, rewrite my proof:
Divine nature is perfection
We can concieve perfection
Perfection must exist
the Divine then exists.
-RS
While it's admirable that you can copy and paste from a thesaurus,
nothing you've written rebuts the parallel nature of our respective
arguments. Rather than waxing eloquent on the nature of perfection,
you'd be better served to show the manner in which your "proof" differs
from mine.
Frank and Joe Hardy are crime-solving teenagers.
I can conceive of crime-solving teenagers.
Therefore crime-solving teenagers must exist.
Therefore Frank and Joe Hardy exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 02:15:27 PM |
|
|
"David Vestal" <someoggetridofthis@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E99792F1538someoggetridofthisma@130.133.1.4...
While it's admirable that you can copy and paste from a thesaurus,
nothing you've written rebuts the parallel nature of our respective
arguments. Rather than waxing eloquent on the nature of perfection,
you'd be better served to show the manner in which your "proof" differs
from mine.
Frank and Joe Hardy are crime-solving teenagers.
I can conceive of crime-solving teenagers.
Therefore crime-solving teenagers must exist.
Therefore Frank and Joe Hardy exist.
It is exactly what I did, but you missed it. Frank and Joe Hardy are
crime-solving teenagers is an observation of what they are as people, as
humans. It points out their occupation.
God is perfection is pointing out an assumption of Divine Nature based on
the teachings and beliefs of those who believe in the Divine.
God is perfection
Since perfection exists
God exists
It isn't too hard to understand. If God is perfection, and perfection
exists, God exists.
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thou" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 02:39:34 PM |
|
|
"God is perfection
Since perfection exists
God exists"
following logic, ok.
"God is perfection is pointing out an assumption of Divine Nature based
on
the teachings and beliefs of those who believe in the Divine."
Logic does not prove anything when it is based on assumptions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 11:44:45 PM |
|
|
"Thou" <multibiz7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106685574.883869.268330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
"God is perfection
Since perfection exists
God exists"
following logic, ok.
"God is perfection is pointing out an assumption of Divine Nature based
on
the teachings and beliefs of those who believe in the Divine."
Logic does not prove anything when it is based on assumptions.
Umm, the foundation of any logical proof is basic assumption. I have
intensively studied probability and discrete mathematics in relation to my
educational field. To prove an argument or to offer a sound logical and
mathematical proof, assumptions must be made in some of the most general
cases.
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 10:29:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:44:45 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> said in
alt.atheism:
Umm, the foundation of any logical proof is basic assumption. I have
intensively studied probability and discrete mathematics in relation to my
educational field. To prove an argument or to offer a sound logical and
mathematical proof, assumptions must be made
But NOT the very thing you're trying to prove. That's fallacious.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 04:34:41 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:44:45 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"Thou" <multibiz7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106685574.883869.268330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
"God is perfection
Since perfection exists
God exists"
following logic, ok.
"God is perfection is pointing out an assumption of Divine Nature based
on
the teachings and beliefs of those who believe in the Divine."
Logic does not prove anything when it is based on assumptions.
Umm, the foundation of any logical proof is basic assumption. I have
intensively studied probability and discrete mathematics in relation to my
educational field. To prove an argument or to offer a sound logical and
mathematical proof, assumptions must be made in some of the most general
cases.
Certainly: Logical arguments can be made from assumptions deemed to be
true and conclusion may be true (or false) with respect to these
assumptions but this does not make the conclusion universally true
because that would depend on the truth or otherwise of these
assumptions. Also circular arguments are not correct logic
thus:
God exists
therefore god exists
If you are trying to prove a god actually exists, you have to start
with valid premises not assumptions that have no known validity.
Thus assuming a god must be perfect is invalid particularly as you
have no way of determining what 'perfection' means in that regard.
The definition of a perfect circle has been defined and I know what it
is but I am not sure I could begin to define what a perfect god would
have be like.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 10:48:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:34:41 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
reposting so the moron will see Les' post.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:44:45 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"Thou" <multibiz7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106685574.883869.268330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
"God is perfection
Since perfection exists
God exists"
following logic, ok.
"God is perfection is pointing out an assumption of Divine Nature based
on
the teachings and beliefs of those who believe in the Divine."
Logic does not prove anything when it is based on assumptions.
Umm, the foundation of any logical proof is basic assumption. I have
intensively studied probability and discrete mathematics in relation to my
educational field. To prove an argument or to offer a sound logical and
mathematical proof, assumptions must be made in some of the most general
cases.
Certainly: Logical arguments can be made from assumptions deemed to be
true and conclusion may be true (or false) with respect to these
assumptions but this does not make the conclusion universally true
because that would depend on the truth or otherwise of these
assumptions. Also circular arguments are not correct logic
thus:
God exists
therefore god exists
If you are trying to prove a god actually exists, you have to start
with valid premises not assumptions that have no known validity.
Thus assuming a god must be perfect is invalid particularly as you
have no way of determining what 'perfection' means in that regard.
The definition of a perfect circle has been defined and I know what it
is but I am not sure I could begin to define what a perfect god would
have be like.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 10:47:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:44:45 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"Thou" <multibiz7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106685574.883869.268330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
"God is perfection
Since perfection exists
God exists"
following logic, ok.
"God is perfection is pointing out an assumption of Divine Nature based
on
the teachings and beliefs of those who believe in the Divine."
Logic does not prove anything when it is based on assumptions.
Umm, the foundation of any logical proof is basic assumption. I have
intensively studied probability and discrete mathematics in relation to my
educational field. To prove an argument or to offer a sound logical and
mathematical proof, assumptions must be made in some of the most general
cases.
You're a wonderful example of the GIGO principle.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thou" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 10:52:35 AM |
|
|
Yes, but this is an assumption based on a belief. Or an assumption
based on an assumption.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Vestal" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 02:23:48 PM |
|
|
"RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote in news:ct69dk$gm3$1@news3.bu.edu:
"David Vestal" <someoggetridofthis@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E99792F1538someoggetridofthisma@130.133.1.4...
While it's admirable that you can copy and paste from a thesaurus,
nothing you've written rebuts the parallel nature of our respective
arguments. Rather than waxing eloquent on the nature of perfection,
you'd be better served to show the manner in which your "proof"
differs from mine.
Frank and Joe Hardy are crime-solving teenagers.
I can conceive of crime-solving teenagers.
Therefore crime-solving teenagers must exist.
Therefore Frank and Joe Hardy exist.
It is exactly what I did, but you missed it.
No, you did not reference my proof at all, and thus could hardly have
drawn contrasts with it. However, now that you have, I will respond.
Frank and Joe Hardy are
crime-solving teenagers is an observation of what they are as people,
as humans. It points out their occupation.
God is perfection is pointing out an assumption of Divine Nature based
on the teachings and beliefs of those who believe in the Divine.
So your proof is predicated on the beliefs of those who believe as you
do? Sounds rather like you're begging the question.
God is perfection
....according to people who believe that.
Since perfection exists
God exists
It isn't too hard to understand. If God is perfection, and perfection
exists, God exists.
Since you mention it, who said perfection existed? Where's your proof of
that?
-RS
According to the Harry Potter mythology, unicorns are so pure as to
define purity. Thus, their existence can easily be proven:
Unicorns are purity.
I can conceive of purity.
Therefore, unicorns exist.
Of course, this "proof" is based on the beliefs of those who believe in
the Harry Potter mythology, just as yours is based (by your own
admission) on the beliefs of those who believe in the god mythology.
Which is to say that it isn't a proof at all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 09:43:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:15:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> said in
alt.atheism:
God is perfection is pointing out an assumption
And an assumption can't be used to prove an assumption.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 03:10:37 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:15:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"David Vestal" <someoggetridofthis@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E99792F1538someoggetridofthisma@130.133.1.4...
While it's admirable that you can copy and paste from a thesaurus,
nothing you've written rebuts the parallel nature of our respective
arguments. Rather than waxing eloquent on the nature of perfection,
you'd be better served to show the manner in which your "proof" differs
from mine.
Frank and Joe Hardy are crime-solving teenagers.
I can conceive of crime-solving teenagers.
Therefore crime-solving teenagers must exist.
Therefore Frank and Joe Hardy exist.
It is exactly what I did, but you missed it. Frank and Joe Hardy are
crime-solving teenagers is an observation of what they are as people, as
humans. It points out their occupation.
Nope. It is logically exactly the same as your version.
God is perfection is pointing out an assumption of Divine Nature based on
the teachings and beliefs of those who believe in the Divine.
*****. Baseless assertion.
God is perfection
***** alert. PROVE IT>
Since perfection exists
God exists
More ullshit.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is love.
Therefore God is Ray Charles.
It isn't too hard to understand. If God is perfection, and perfection
exists, God exists.
Only if you're stupid.
-RS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 04:40:32 PM |
|
|
on 25 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, RS dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
"David Vestal" <someoggetridofthis@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E99792F1538someoggetridofthisma@130.133.1.4...
While it's admirable that you can copy and paste from a thesaurus,
nothing you've written rebuts the parallel nature of our respective
arguments. Rather than waxing eloquent on the nature of perfection,
you'd be better served to show the manner in which your "proof"
differs from mine.
Frank and Joe Hardy are crime-solving teenagers.
I can conceive of crime-solving teenagers.
Therefore crime-solving teenagers must exist.
Therefore Frank and Joe Hardy exist.
It is exactly what I did, but you missed it. Frank and Joe Hardy are
crime-solving teenagers is an observation of what they are as people,
as humans. It points out their occupation.
God is perfection is pointing out an assumption of Divine Nature based
on the teachings and beliefs of those who believe in the Divine.
God is perfection
Since perfection exists
God exists
It isn't too hard to understand. If God is perfection, and perfection
exists, God exists.
But since you've assumed your premise, which you admit to, your reasoning
is flawed.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 11:46:57 PM |
|
|
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E995800E713vicman@127.0.0.1...
But since you've assumed your premise, which you admit to, your reasoning
is flawed.
On the contrary, everyone believed (because none of you read my
explaination) that I was assuming God existed for the purpose of assuming
God existed. This is the exact opposite of what I was doing.
I was pointing out the nature of God. My word, have none of you ever read
Sallustius, Descartes, or Bacon?
I was pointing out the nature of the Divine, the Divine = perfection. That
isn't an assumption, but a simple observation. In mathematical terms it
would be equivalent to let x = 5.
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 07:08:44 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:46:57 -0500, "RS"
<rswarts@bu.edu> let us all know that:
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E995800E713vicman@127.0.0.1...
But since you've assumed your premise, which you admit to, your reasoning
is flawed.
On the contrary, everyone believed (because none of you read my
explaination) that I was assuming God existed for the purpose of assuming
God existed. This is the exact opposite of what I was doing.
I was pointing out the nature of God. My word, have none of you ever read
Sallustius, Descartes, or Bacon?
I was pointing out the nature of the Divine, the Divine = perfection. That
isn't an assumption, but a simple observation. In mathematical terms it
would be equivalent to let x = 5.
That's just Anselming, which is *****.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 06:58:08 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:46:57 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> in news
message <ct7ata$ob2$1@news3.bu.edu> wrote:
[.....]
I was pointing out the nature of the Divine, the Divine = perfection. That
isn't an assumption, but a simple observation. In mathematical terms it
would be equivalent to let x = 5.
Therein lies your confusion. In mathematics, x stands for an unknown
number for which a formula needs to be solved. In order to solve the
formula one must have valid statements and some known quantities. To
simply claim that x = 5 is an assumption, not an observation, and we
have no idea to what x refers.
For example, if one has a valid statement that would be solvable, but
all the variables are unknown, such as 2x = (a + b)7, the statement
would be solvable, but would yield an infinite number of answers, none
of which we could be sure was the correct answer. However, if one
knows the variables, then the statement has only one answer. If we
could determine, by actual observation or measurement that a = 2 and b
= 3, then to solve for x, the statement would read 2x = (2 + 3)7 and
we could solve for x. In this case, x = 17.5. Oops, your assumption
that x = 5 is wrong.
Oh dear. It looks like you need to nail down those variables.
Evidence of actual existence would be a good place to start.
Liz #658 BAAWA
"Spiritually alive" apparently means that you are confusing your
internal mental constructs with actually existing things. Hans-Richard Gruemm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 10:30:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:46:57 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> said in
alt.atheism:
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E995800E713vicman@127.0.0.1...
But since you've assumed your premise, which you admit to, your reasoning
is flawed.
On the contrary, everyone believed (because none of you read my
explaination) that I was assuming God existed for the purpose of assuming
God existed. This is the exact opposite of what I was doing.
I was pointing out the nature of God.
That's an assumption that this god exists.
I was pointing out the nature of the Divine, the Divine = perfection. That
isn't an assumption, but a simple observation. In mathematical terms it
would be equivalent to let x = 5.
That assumes that x exists.
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 04:36:49 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:46:57 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E995800E713vicman@127.0.0.1...
But since you've assumed your premise, which you admit to, your reasoning
is flawed.
On the contrary, everyone believed (because none of you read my
explaination) that I was assuming God existed for the purpose of assuming
God existed. This is the exact opposite of what I was doing.
I was pointing out the nature of God. My word, have none of you ever read
Sallustius, Descartes, or Bacon?
I was pointing out the nature of the Divine, the Divine = perfection. That
isn't an assumption, but a simple observation. In mathematical terms it
would be equivalent to let x = 5.
let x = 5 is a simple observation?
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 10:48:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:36:49 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
reposting
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:46:57 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E995800E713vicman@127.0.0.1...
But since you've assumed your premise, which you admit to, your reasoning
is flawed.
On the contrary, everyone believed (because none of you read my
explaination) that I was assuming God existed for the purpose of assuming
God existed. This is the exact opposite of what I was doing.
I was pointing out the nature of God. My word, have none of you ever read
Sallustius, Descartes, or Bacon?
I was pointing out the nature of the Divine, the Divine = perfection. That
isn't an assumption, but a simple observation. In mathematical terms it
would be equivalent to let x = 5.
let x = 5 is a simple observation?
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 09:43:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:28:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> said in
alt.atheism:
"David Vestal" <someoggetridofthis@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E97A0EA2D15someoggetridofthisma@130.133.1.4...
Frank and Joe Hardy are crime-solving teenagers.
I can think of crime-solving teenagers.
Therefore crime-solving teenagers must exist.
Therefore Frank and Joe Hardy exist.
Along the same line of logic, but you are missing one thing in my initial
assumption:
God is perfection.
Bald assertion and assuming your conclusion that your god exists -
which is what you're trying to prove. "God <insert any property
here>" can't be used as proof that God exists - it's an assumption,
not a fact.
Next logical fallacy, please. This one is dead.
--
"The study of geology is ok-But not when it contradicts what is laid
out in the Bible that the earth is more than 10,000 years old."
- Doug Lee, Creationist
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 11:49:52 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:eb4ev0dfou7innd72g10aohfd9oo0ujtl5@4ax.com...
Bald assertion and assuming your conclusion that your god exists -
which is what you're trying to prove. "God <insert any property
here>" can't be used as proof that God exists - it's an assumption,
not a fact.
Again, I was using this as an EXAMPLE of the style of proof some of the
sources I gave you used in greater detail and complexity. Apparently, you
chose to ignore that and saw it as more than an example. I see that I am
unable to have a civilized conversation with any of you because none of you
are capable of reading my posts for what they really say. Instead, all you
do is snip apart my posts in hopes to reword what I write and introduce
obscurity where clarity is obvious. Please address the matter of my posts
rather than snipping it and reading only what you desire to read.
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 03:16:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:49:52 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> said in
alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:eb4ev0dfou7innd72g10aohfd9oo0ujtl5@4ax.com...
Bald assertion and assuming your conclusion that your god exists -
which is what you're trying to prove. "God <insert any property
here>" can't be used as proof that God exists - it's an assumption,
not a fact.
Again, I was using this as an EXAMPLE of the style of proof some of the
sources I gave you used in greater detail and complexity.
It's an example of assuming your conclusion, which CAN'T be used as
proof of anything.
I see that I am
unable to have a civilized conversation with any of you because none of you
are capable of reading my posts for what they really say.
If you don't understand logic you really shouldn't argue logic with
those who do, since you'll only get frustrated. First learn at least
the fallacies, so that you don't try to use them.
Instead, all you do is snip apart my posts in hopes to reword what I write and introduce
obscurity where clarity is obvious.
Posting logical fallacies as proof is very clear - but it's not proof.
Please address the matter of my posts
rather than snipping it and reading only what you desire to read.
I'm addressing the fact that you're posting logical fallacy and
claiming that it's proof when it's not. Post actual proof.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 10:54:56 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:49:52 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:eb4ev0dfou7innd72g10aohfd9oo0ujtl5@4ax.com...
Bald assertion and assuming your conclusion that your god exists -
which is what you're trying to prove. "God <insert any property
here>" can't be used as proof that God exists - it's an assumption,
not a fact.
Again, I was using this as an EXAMPLE of the style of proof some of the
sources I gave you used in greater detail and complexity. Apparently, you
chose to ignore that and saw it as more than an example. I see that I am
unable to have a civilized conversation with any of you because none of you
are capable of reading my posts for what they really say. Instead, all you
do is snip apart my posts in hopes to reword what I write and introduce
obscurity where clarity is obvious. Please address the matter of my posts
rather than snipping it and reading only what you desire to read.
The communication problem is you, Sport. Don't blame others for your
communication incompetance.
Your posts are nothing more than fecal matter. Your taking the time
to learn about logic, logical fallacies, and reason would be well
spent, but that's something you won't do.
That you believe in stolen and recycled bronze age faerie tales is
your business and your problem. There is no reason for anyone outside
your putrid bronze age assinine superstition to take it seriously.
You are no different than the very young child nattering about Santa
Claus and interrupting the adults. You're one of the legion of
Americans making the US the laughing stock of the world.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 01:30:36 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:28:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"David Vestal" <someoggetridofthis@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E97A0EA2D15someoggetridofthisma@130.133.1.4...
Frank and Joe Hardy are crime-solving teenagers.
I can think of crime-solving teenagers.
Therefore crime-solving teenagers must exist.
Therefore Frank and Joe Hardy exist.
Along the same line of logic, but you are missing one thing in my initial
assumption:
God is perfection.
I am not pointing out that God must exist to be perfection, but relaying the
nature of God as held by those who believe in Him. For those who believe in
God, God is perfection.
Believing something does not make it so no matter how hard you
try to believe.
It is Divine Nature as understood by those who are
believers. God and Perfection are synonymous. If perfection weren't
sentient, it wouldn't be perfection.
My justification:
If perfection were lacking sentience, it would have limitations. Perfection
has no limitations.
I can conceive of a perfect circle. A perfect circle is not square so
perfection can have limitations a circle can only be a circle.
perfection: complete, fulfilled, ideal, impeccability, maturity, merit,
purity, sublimity, superiority, supremacy, transcendence, virtue, wholeness,
distintion, elevation, eminence, glory, grace, granduer, honor, importance,
loftiness, MAJESTY, merit, morality, nobleness, poise, prestige, regard,
renown, respectability, seemliness, solemnity, splendor, stature, virtue,
worthy, celebrity, credit, eminence, fame, greatness, manner,
prominence,absoluteness, allness, collectiveness, complexity, universality,
etc.
detectable? Is a perfect thing not perfect if it cannot be detected?
How do you know that a conceived god has all these properties
except as a conception
All of these MUST exist in perfection in order for perfection to exist. If
it is lacking one, it is not perfection. The nature of God contains all
aspects of perfection.
Assuming there is one!
I could, therefore, rewrite my proof:
Divine nature is perfection
We can concieve perfection
A perfect circle
Perfection must exist
Why?
Whilst I can conceive and describe exactly a perfect circle
I have no way of knowing a perfect circle actually exists indeed
I am fairly certain such a concept is pure mathematics and does
not exist in nature
the Divine then exists.
Quite frankly this is nonesense.
-RS
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 10:40:44 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:30:36 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:28:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"David Vestal" <someoggetridofthis@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E97A0EA2D15someoggetridofthisma@130.133.1.4...
Frank and Joe Hardy are crime-solving teenagers.
I can think of crime-solving teenagers.
Therefore crime-solving teenagers must exist.
Therefore Frank and Joe Hardy exist.
Along the same line of logic, but you are missing one thing in my initial
assumption:
God is perfection.
I am not pointing out that God must exist to be perfection, but relaying the
nature of God as held by those who believe in Him. For those who believe in
God, God is perfection.
Believing something does not make it so no matter how hard you
try to believe.
It is quite the Turing Test failure.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA ==> GOP Congress Targets MORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "People will feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don't know how you get a deficit down wi
I THINK THAT'S ONE OF YOURS TXJOHN, YOU RIDICULOUS TROLL Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS ARE RETARDS ==> Gunfire exchanged across Rio Grande
You poofters always say "proof proof proof"
Proof of God in the Old Testament -- would you believe it?
Kicking Yang's ***** Snorting Fairy ***** ==> In Case You Need More Proof...
Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA ==> GOP Congress TargetsMORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "Peoplewill feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don'tknow how you get a deficit down witho
UNDENIABLE PROOF JESUS EXISTS YOU STUPID ATHEIST MORONS....
Proof of God video, you won't stop laughing
| You got your PROOF afterall!
Re: Calling all Agnostics/Athiests: What will you accept as proof that God exists?
Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA ==> Whoever you are, your attempt to deprive me of my right to speak freely won't work
Proof of how the WTC REALLY came down...This conspiracy goes HIGHER than you know!
Re: PROOF THAT ALL RIGTWINGERS CANT SPELL MENTALLY ===== > MENTALY!!==> Thank You, John Murtha
Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA ==> GOP Congress TargetsMORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "Peoplewill feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don'tknow how you get a deficit down witho
Proof that you toenail-biters are retards
|
|
|
