JayL Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Makes you think, doesn't it? Anyhow, this is the beginning stage of my proof. for God's existence. I am glad that you have some background in mathematics. If you want to keep calling it a proof you'll need to go a little farther than that. You seem to be heading towards some form of the teleological argument (which, incidentally, is not a proof). But my issue is not with the possibility that a god may exist as a cause of the universe, or as a source of natural law. My issue is that I am unable to logically move from this sort of deistic god to Yahweh or Jesus. And believe me when I say that before I abandoned my faith I did try to do this. I tried hard. And I failed. So if you can do it, then I would like to know about it. But I have my doubts. Well, my third point is that the Creator is VERY LIKELY to be the God of the Bible. The proof is about the existence of Creator God and that our universe is created by the intelligent being. To say it is a proof does sound a bit strong. But in the sense that most rational people would reach the logical conclusion makes it a proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scriptor Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Makes you think, doesn't it? Anyhow, this is the beginning stage of my proof. for God's existence. I am glad that you have some background in mathematics. If you want to keep calling it a proof you'll need to go a little farther than that. You seem to be heading towards some form of the teleological argument (which, incidentally, is not a proof). But my issue is not with the possibility that a god may exist as a cause of the universe, or as a source of natural law. My issue is that I am unable to logically move from this sort of deistic god to Yahweh or Jesus. And believe me when I say that before I abandoned my faith I did try to do this. I tried hard. And I failed. So if you can do it, then I would like to know about it. But I have my doubts. Well, my third point is that the Creator is VERY LIKELY to be the God of the Bible. The proof is about the existence of Creator God and that our universe is created by the intelligent being. I saw that was your third point. What I did not see was a logical justification of that point. There is a world of difference between the existence of a deistic god and the existence of the God of the Bible. Either explain your reasoning or stop calling it a proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Makes you think, doesn't it? Anyhow, this is the beginning stage of my proof. for God's existence. I am glad that you have some background in mathematics. If you want to keep calling it a proof you'll need to go a little farther than that. You seem to be heading towards some form of the teleological argument (which, incidentally, is not a proof). But my issue is not with the possibility that a god may exist as a cause of the universe, or as a source of natural law. My issue is that I am unable to logically move from this sort of deistic god to Yahweh or Jesus. And believe me when I say that before I abandoned my faith I did try to do this. I tried hard. And I failed. So if you can do it, then I would like to know about it. But I have my doubts. Well, my third point is that the Creator is VERY LIKELY to be the God of the Bible. The proof is about the existence of Creator God and that our universe is created by the intelligent being. I saw that was your third point. What I did not see was a logical justification of that point. There is a world of difference between the existence of a deistic god and the existence of the God of the Bible. Either explain your reasoning or stop calling it a proof. Well, I am afraid that this is as far as I would go in this forum. Perhaps you can pursue the line of reasoning on your own. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paine Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 No, the proof would not convince you. Only the Holy Spirit can leads you to the truth. That's because it isn't proof. Proof is based upon evidence. Evidence is objective. Is this seriously what you're saying? -- To be led to the truth, I have to already believe the truth. No. That is not what I am saying. The proof is objective and it is based on physics and the nature of mathematics. It does demonstrate that 1. The world is created. 2. There is a Creator. 3. The Creator is very likely to be the God of the Bible. To me it had a big impact on me because I was already a Christian believer. But would this proof turn you into a believing Christian? Can any intellectual proof do it? I doubt it. If your "proof" is truly a proof and if it demonstrates what you claim, then in all honesty it will convince me. But I doubt that it is a proof. I don't doubt that you have an argument for what you believe. But an argument does not equate to a proof. A proof shows something to be objectively true. If you can do that, then the Holy Spirit won't have to convince me. And I mean that sincerely. Don't believe me? Prove me wrong by sharing your "proof". Oh wait. You don't have one. Bummer. In your opinion, how would you define 'mathematics' ??? 1 + 1 +1 = Trinity *****GOD IS LOVE!!!!!***** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 aww don't keep us in suspense. But how typical. Math is logical => God created everything. You proof is a bit lacking in the middle part. But since you won't enlighten us further.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Jay, what you thought was so convincing isn't a 'proof' because it isn't objective. It's a contorted apologetic. A proof looks the same no matter what people believe. If I drop an apple and it falls, it hardly matters if you believe in the Theory of Gravity--you'll see it fall. But just like Christians don't generally grasp the meaning of "theory," you don't grasp the meaning of "proof." If your argument is only compelling to someone who is already inclined toward generosity, then it is not a proof. Even so, why would you be so sure that your tired little God of the Gaps was Yahweh? Out of dozens if not hundreds of creation stories, why should yours, which has been so thoroughly debunked and humiliated, be the right one? Maybe the right myth is from a religion now dead. Or maybe they are all inaccurate and hey, science is actually closer to the truth. It's so clumsy, so childish to insist that a myth is what really happened. Only fundies really do it. I suspect it's just that need for a Magic Daddy speaking. You know, years ago, people understood what gods were and how they operated. We've gotten so lazy in the modern age. Yahweh used to show off. He showered down miracles, pillars of fire, plagues, gifts of tongues, pillars of salt, worldwide floods, you name it. Now his powers have waned so much that one can only think an event is his doing (much less a really good miracle) if one squints just so in just the right light, and oh, he never performs in front of nonbelievers like he used to! It's cute though how you blither that having lots of adherents in some way means your fairy tale is true. You already know how stupid that is and how quickly such a fart of an assertion falls apart after even cursory examination, yet you trot it out. Interesting. In short, what a puerile, irrational piece of work you can be. I genuinely feel bad for you if horse shit like you're spouting is really what you believe. What a lame, sterile faith. No, thanks. I think I'll pass. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Well, I am afraid that this is as far as I would go in this forum. Perhaps you can pursue the line of reasoning on your own. Sorry. Jay, you've lost. Lost badly. Your so-called "proof" appears to be no more than bald assertions that you believe merely because you want to believe them. Even at the "ideas" level all you have is a tangle of wishful thinking rather than an orderly assembly of premises and conclusions. I move that this thread be locked. All in favour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Hey gang! Maybe this is Jay's 'proof'? http://www3.telus.ne...erfectproof.htm Which would make his real name, Troy Brooks. And he'd be living in Alberta, Canada, not California, USA. Both of which would be ok, since we already know that nothing he writes should be taken as... A. Truthful or B. Accurate 'nuff said? BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scriptor Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Makes you think, doesn't it? Anyhow, this is the beginning stage of my proof. for God's existence. I am glad that you have some background in mathematics. If you want to keep calling it a proof you'll need to go a little farther than that. You seem to be heading towards some form of the teleological argument (which, incidentally, is not a proof). But my issue is not with the possibility that a god may exist as a cause of the universe, or as a source of natural law. My issue is that I am unable to logically move from this sort of deistic god to Yahweh or Jesus. And believe me when I say that before I abandoned my faith I did try to do this. I tried hard. And I failed. So if you can do it, then I would like to know about it. But I have my doubts. Well, my third point is that the Creator is VERY LIKELY to be the God of the Bible. The proof is about the existence of Creator God and that our universe is created by the intelligent being. I saw that was your third point. What I did not see was a logical justification of that point. There is a world of difference between the existence of a deistic god and the existence of the God of the Bible. Either explain your reasoning or stop calling it a proof. Well, I am afraid that this is as far as I would go in this forum. Perhaps you can pursue the line of reasoning on your own. Sorry. But you see, I have pursued that line of reasoning, which is why I know that it fails. There is an argument there if you choose to see it, but it's not a terribly good one, and it does not end with the God of the Bible. As I said. Not a proof. Just some hand-waving and wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 That link is interesting, BAA. Definitely sounds like Jay, but who knows? Apologetics makes robots of people; arguments are so often parroted from Christian to Christian without even the most cursory of examinations. Loved the thing at the end about why people don't "give their lives to Christ." That writer's God is a sneaky little bastard who literally hides himself from people and specially picks the ones who he wants to believe. I have to say that if I were an omnibenevolent, all-powerful God who really did desperately want people to go to Heaven, if I really were the kind of loving deity who really did want all my creations to avoid the fiery pit I'd set up for evil angels (another flawed creation, alas--apparently I am not a very good designer at all), I'd be screaming from the rooftops and writing my message in flaming letters across the sky, not making understanding so difficult and my presence so hard to detect. Either God doesn't really want us all saved, or he's a fucking idiot. Or he just doesn't exist. It's pitiful that the writer of that piece really thinks that the idea of God hiding understanding from his own children is some proof of both God's benevolence and of people's sinfulness. Apparently one must be gullible in order to be saved. The only way I can believe is if I already want to believe--because otherwise God doesn't give a rip about me. I find it unspeakably sad that this writer all but shouts "GOD WUVS ME MOSTEST!" like he's 3 years old. There really is something in the human psyche that wants to feel special over and above all other people. And what is more special than being singled out by God to be able to blindly swallow his load? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Thanks Akheia! Is Jay actually Troy? As you say, who knows? As I say, who cares? All we need to know about Jay is the following three facts. 1. He's a liar. 2. He's an obviously obvious troll. 3. This so-called 'proof' of his is just another desperate maneuver to keep himself in the center of our attention. So, by rights, we shouldn't be feeding the troll. However, since we are, the least I can do is to keep on showing that Jay's just an attention-seeking nobody. His 'proof' of God isn't new, isn't unique, isn't special and isn't the result of brilliant thinking on his part. I don't even have to see it to make that claim. Why? Because other, smarter and better-read Christian apologists have formulated their own proofs of the existence of God. They've done it before Jay and they've done it better than him. Troy Brooks is just one of many Hypochristians with their own irrefutable proofs. Here's another, with the unlikely name... Sye Ten Bruggencate. http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/ So why don't you get in on my little game of Jay-baiting, Akheia? Surf the Net and find as many Christians with their own private 'proofs' for the existence of God? I'm sure that Jay would really appreciate hate the fact that his own private 'proof' isn't the only one out there! BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I would, but apologetics bores me silly. It's all the same old arguments hashed in exactly the same way by people who are all so dreadfully earnest and yet so dreadfully uneducated. Jay follows them in lockstep: insane, longwinded, repetitive, illogical, presumptuous, condescending, arrogant, and--worst of all--boring. I almost wish one of them would come up with something genuinely engaging, something sparkling to read and thought-provoking, but it's just all the same old, same old. Apologetics is that branch of pseudo-philosophy that only its mother could love. All Jay's done that's even vaguely different is refuse to specify exactly which boring, inane theory he subscribes to in order to make sense out of his mediocre, irrational faith system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Ok then, Akheia. So maybe we should just stop feeding the obviously obvious (and boring) troll? I will if you will. Deal? BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Ok then, Akheia. So maybe we should just stop feeding the obviously obvious (and boring) troll? I will if you will. Deal? BAA. I will too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 then maybe this thread will die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 then maybe this thread will die. And not resurrected... 122 pages. I think it's time to start a new thread if the topic is still of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts