~ Proof That God Exists ~

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Perhaps it is unfortunate or perhaps it's even good fortune, we have found that the junior members who begin to cherry-pick the views that they allow themselves to see generally don't last long here at The Forum.

I wish both of you luck & I look forward to one day perhaps engaging both of you in continued philosophical perceptions.

I respectfully believe we have already traveled beyond your bounds here.


Give yourselves some time...perhaps re-read where we have been here.


Look for the friendly pieces I have left to you...


.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The truth is, that it seems very unlikely that anyone currently knows whether there is a creator or not. Some profess that they know there is, while others profess to know there isn't, but neither side can prove their belief, absolutely, certainly, beyond a shadow of doubt, unless of course, that doubt is already present. But whether or not one that believes either way, can or cannot be persuaded to change their beliefs, says nothing of the actual 'proving' of the facts, either way. It's all speculation, and shall remain so until the absolute truth of the entire universe is finally understood, complete, with absolute certainty.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



THANK YOU. A voice of reason emerges.


I appreciate your input.



.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Thanks Bill, if nothing else I try and be as honest and as logically sound, as best I can.

[Arising_uk]

... It's all speculation, and shall remain so until the absolute truth of the entire universe is finally understood, complete, with absolute certainty.

But this 'until the absolute truth of the entire universe is finally understood, complete, with absolute certainty.' is just speculation then? What if the truth is that this will never happen? What if there is no absolute empirical truth? Something that Physics appears to have come to terms with(as this it what you appear to be talking about as what you say does not apply to Logic). As there are some absolute truths that do not rely upon your speculation happening and can be known with absolute certainty via Logic, 'The Universe exists or does not exist', 'The Universe cannot exist and not exist', 'If the Universe exists then bachelors are unmarried men. The Universe exists. Bachelors are unmarried men.', etc. Pointless maybe but absolute truths nevertheless.

[SpheresOfBalance]

... It's all speculation, and shall remain so until the absolute truth of the entire universe is finally understood, complete, with absolute certainty.

But this 'until the absolute truth of the entire universe is finally understood, complete, with absolute certainty.' is just speculation then? What if the truth is that this will never happen? What if there is no absolute empirical truth something that Physics appears to have come to terms with(as this it what you appear to be talking about as what you say does not apply to Logic). As there are some absolute truths that do not rely upon your speculation happening and can be known with absolute certainty via Logic, 'The Universe exists or does not exist', 'The Universe cannot exist and not exist', 'If the Universe exists then bachelors are unmarried men. The Universe exists. Bachelors are unmarried men.', etc. Pointless maybe but absolute truths nevertheless.

Watch as the wheel goes round and round! Arising you have not made a case to the contrary, only further proven my points. As it doesn't matter if you, I or Bill ever knows, with certainty. Or anyone else for that matter.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, Arising_uk is right on target.

The basic laws of logic say that things cannot "be" and "not be" at the same time. And that's not his mere opinion, but rather a fundamental of logic.

It's quite useless to argue against him, since in order to do so at all, you are yourself forced to rely on concede the basic principles of logic. Otherwise, you would have to concede that your OWN argument is not reliant on logic, and hence, not necessary for any rational person to believe.

Arising has got you, whether you know it or not.

There is simply no logical way to argue that logic does not exist.

Nice shot, Arising.

P.S. -- Bill, we're all about being polite here. But being polite doesn't mean we have to agree with you views. If that's what it has to mean to you, then you're going to be very unhappy on this or any philosophy site. You need to be comfortable with people saying, "I respect you, but you're completely wrong."

[SpheresOfBalance]

Actually, Arising_uk is right on target.
No you missed it again as usual, her argument undermines her argument.


The basic laws of logic say that things cannot "be" and "not be" at the same time. And that's not his mere opinion, but rather a fundamental of logic.
Yet I never said anything of the sort, you must be seeing things.


It's quite useless to argue against him, since in order to do so at all, you are yourself forced to rely on concede the basic principles of logic. Otherwise, you would have to concede that your OWN argument is not reliant on logic, and hence, not necessary for any rational person to believe.
Your English seems to be escaping me, I've highlighted it above "forced to rely on concede" is it a problem with tense? Please rewrite.


Arising has got you, whether you know it or not.
No she doesn't. It's meaningless with regard to either 'proving' there is or is not a god, which was in fact the point. Please pay attention.


There is simply no logical way to argue that logic does not exist.
Who said logic does not exist? You seem to be a bit confused.


Nice shot, Arising.
Nice suck up, Immanuel Can't.


P.S. -- Bill, we're all about being polite here. But being polite doesn't mean we have to agree with you views. If that's what it has to mean to you, then you're going to be very unhappy on this or any philosophy site. You need to be comfortable with people saying, "I respect you, but you're completely wrong."

Yet Arising has never said she respects anyone, she doesn't like.
You need to put your hands back in your own pants, as stroking people doesn't suit you, or maybe it does!

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Belief in a god - ANY god, is just a notion.


Belief is NOT proof. That is why Plantinga is just a "philophaster."


Most people are impressed with a title or the aura of an author.


Obviously that is proven within this thread.


The fact that we here at The PhilosophyNow Forums post to the world for all to hear while we stand naked, often alone, with our experiences and expressions to me speaks much louder than past philophasters who hide behind the closed-end, one direction flow of a book.




WE ARE THE NEW LEGITIMATE PHILOSOPHERS.



If Plantinga IS a philosopher - BRING HIM HERE - let him jump into the ring - let's see how he fares here -or FUCK HIM.




.

[Arising_uk]

No you missed it again as usual, her argument undermines her argument.

Show me where sexist?

No she doesn't. It's meaningless with regard to either 'proving' there is or is not a god, which was in fact the point. Please pay attention.

No you, as my point was about your epistemology and your claim that there are no absolute truths.

Yet Arising has never said she respects anyone, she doesn't like.

I respect philosophically sound views and beliefs that often entails me respecting them from people I don't like. It's such as you and Bill who need all molly-coddling aprobabtion.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Approbation: FTFY



.

[Arising_uk]

My thanks.

I respect philosophically sound views and beliefs that often entails me respecting them from people I don't like. It's such as you and Bill who need molly-coddling approbation. So the former does not apply to you and the latter does. Just to be clear an' all.

Whilst you're here could you outline your understanding of Plantinga's distinction with respect to belief.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Thank you for this opportunity.


I may have posted something similar to this earlier within this thread;


Wikipedia:

Alvin Plantinga has argued that some people can know that God exists as a basic belief, requiring no argument. He developed this argument in two different fashions: firstly, in God and Other Minds (1967), by drawing an equivalence between the teleological argument and the common sense view that people have of other minds existing by analogy with their own minds. Plantinga has also developed a more comprehensive epistemological account of the nature of warrant which allows for the existence of God as a basic belief.

Plantinga has also argued that there is no logical inconsistency between the existence of evil and the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, wholly good God.


...so, you have an individual, Alvin Plantinga, saying that people can know a god exists by belief alone.


Proof, REAL proof, the kind we use is empirical. Not based upon belief. Belief is not proof. Rarely is belief logical.



Don't care how many books Alvin Plantinga has written thus far. Unless he appears upon this forum to volley legitimate questions or he changes his perspective I dismiss him as an extreme lightweight.



You are welcome.





.

[Arising_uk]

I said your thoughts Bill.

...so, you have an individual, Alvin Plantinga, saying that people can know a god exists by belief alone.

Do you read your 'wiki' quotes? He makes a distinction between beliefs and uses an equivalence analogy to support it. Can you explain why you think the equivalence does not hold?

Proof, REAL proof, the kind we use is empirical. Not based upon belief. Belief is not proof.

Where does he mention proof?

Rarely is belief logical.

Beliefs are pretty much always logical, its that the premises are false.

Don't care how many books Alvin Plantinga has written thus far. Unless he appears upon this forum to volley legitimate questions or he changes his perspective I dismiss him as an extreme lightweight.

That makes you a lightweight then as you continuously avoid changing your perspective or answer critique. What you do do is tailor what you say when you think someone has said something that makes what you say make more sense to you as you did not have that sense in the first place. I like this word 'philosophaster' as I think it perfect fit for the Gnu.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




Wikipedia is the fountain of all knowledge.


To my defense in the other account, you throw too much at me in each of your responses.


PLEASE pick one or two of the most important questions you have for me then submit them.

I will make a superhuman effort to address those two or so questions to the best of my ability.




.