Proof of God

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Jaded Sage
Posts: 1100
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Jaded Sage »

Harbal wrote:
Jaded Sage wrote:
The point being that no one can believe in God and be a philosopher at once?
It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God. If you have an absolute belief in God's existence you have not aquired it through philosophy.
Jaded Sage wrote:I just called God by it's other name: benevolence.
It would be far less confusing if you could stick to calling God "God".
As far as I can tell, calling it benevolence would get rid of confusion.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 10729
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Proof of God

Post by Harbal »

Jaded Sage wrote: As far as I can tell, calling it benevolence would get rid of confusion.
So why didn't you call your topic "Proof of benevolence"? You strike me as being someone who has difficulty focusing on the subject at hand.
Dubious
Posts: 4637
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Dubious »

God = Benevolence??

Has there ever been a better stated example of an oxymoron?
Wyman
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Wyman »

Dubious wrote:God = Benevolence??

Has there ever been a better stated example of an oxymoron?
I'm dubious.
Jaded Sage
Posts: 1100
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Jaded Sage »

Harbal wrote:So why didn't you call your topic "Proof of benevolence"?
Because it didn't occur to me that anyone might need a proof of benevolence, whereas, many do appear to need a proof of God.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 10729
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Proof of God

Post by Harbal »

Jaded Sage wrote:
Harbal wrote:So why didn't you call your topic "Proof of benevolence"?
Because it didn't occur to me that anyone might need a proof of benevolence,
I have to confess that I have never felt the need for it.
Jaded Sage wrote:whereas, many do appear to need a proof of God.
Even though I don't need that, either, I would be interested to hear it.
Dubious
Posts: 4637
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Dubious »

Wyman wrote:
Dubious wrote:God = Benevolence??

Has there ever been a better stated example of an oxymoron?
I'm dubious.
...my default position on philosophy forums.
Jaded Sage
Posts: 1100
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Jaded Sage »

Harbal wrote:
Jaded Sage wrote:whereas, many do appear to need a proof of God.
Even though I don't need that, either, I would be interested to hear it.
You're in luck. I might have just provided it on the very first post.

1 John 4:8 defines God as love, so God is love.

If love exists, then God exists.
Love exists, therefore God exists.

Love ≡ God
Love ∴ God
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 10729
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Proof of God

Post by Harbal »

Jaded Sage wrote: You're in luck. I might have just provided it on the very first post.

1 John 4:8 defines God as love, so God is love.

If love exists, then God exists.
Love exists, therefore God exists.

Love ≡ God
Love ∴ God
That's exactly the kind of luck I have when I buy a ticket on the lottery.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8360
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Jaded Sage wrote:
Harbal wrote:
Jaded Sage wrote:
I would argue that anyone without a firm practice of benevolence is not employing a love of wisdom.
You complained about a lack of philosophy and I commented on it but rather than sticking to the point you just go of at a tangent about something else.

The point being that no one can believe in God and be a philosopher at once? I just called God by it's other name: benevolence.
WHooahh- Well how very un-philosophical of you.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8360
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Jaded Sage wrote:
Harbal wrote:
Jaded Sage wrote:whereas, many do appear to need a proof of God.
Even though I don't need that, either, I would be interested to hear it.
You're in luck. I might have just provided it on the very first post.

1 John 4:8 defines God as love, so God is love.

If love exists, then God exists.
Love exists, therefore God exists.

Love ≡ God
Love ∴ God
Surely you know that this is just rubbish?

God is Evil
If evil exists then god exists.
evil does in fact exist
Therefore god is in fact evil.
Wyman
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Wyman »

Dubious wrote:
Wyman wrote:
Dubious wrote:God = Benevolence??

Has there ever been a better stated example of an oxymoron?
I'm dubious.
...my default position on philosophy forums.
You were supposed to say:

No, I'm Dubious
Why?
Because I chose that name first.
What name?
I'm Dubious.
About what?
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Proof of God

Post by Necromancer »

Gödel! Gödel! Gödel!

Like this?
From:
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Theorem 3 in other words: God exists! (And maybe this is sound.)
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Lacewing »

Jaded Sage wrote: You're in luck. I might have just provided it on the very first post.

1 John 4:8 defines God as love, so God is love.

If love exists, then God exists.
Love exists, therefore God exists.
Hi JS -- Your post has inspired me to follow-through on creating a thread I've been planning on: "Seeking courageous answers from theists". I hope you will participate by answering the first few questions I have asked there, as I would very much like to hear your answers. Thank you.
Dubious
Posts: 4637
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Dubious »

Wyman wrote:
You were supposed to say:

No, I'm Dubious
Why?
Because I chose that name first.
What name?
I'm Dubious.
About what?
Sounds a lot like the beginning of who's on first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg
Post Reply