God - there is no proof!

Originally posted by Churlant
And if the universe always existed, what then?

-JC

It seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who claim this. Our sensory experience indicates that something does not come from nothing. If there was not something "in the beginning," how could there be anything now?

Our sensory experience also indicates that material things are non-eternal, they have a beginning and end in time. Now the universe is clearly composed of material objects. So, once again, the burden of proof is upon those who claim that the a material universe could have "always existed."

Originally posted by bbarr
And then Kant had to spoil the fun by showing that existence isn't a predicate...

How so? Methinks that would make language meaningless.

Originally posted by whodey
I get the feelling that if you were there to witness the Red Sea parting you would say that it was due to an earth quake. If you saw Christ raise someone from the dead you would say he was never dead to begin with. You can explain anything away that you do not believe. You could even say the holacaust never happened and convince yourself of this. This is ...[text shortened]... is the construct on how process data and what conclusions you come to when assessing that data.

People even when faced with God or God acting will still react as
their heart moves them too, that is if scripture is correct. Look
at,

John 12 9-11
"Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him."

The way the universe is currently designed people can and do
behave this way, in the face of truth they need to acknowledge,
they can still act out of the desires of thier heart. So I doubt
even if God did do something infront of them, they would still
find away in their minds to reject it out of hand.
Kelly

Originally posted by knightmeister
Let's face it guys , if there was some way that someone could construct an argument that could 'prove' (or disprove)God then it would have been done by now. Do we really think (Xstians or atheists) that someone on this forum or somehwere in the world is going to suddenly stumble across a 'proof' and we are all going to go.....ahhhh! of course! Why didn't I think of that!

You are of course assuming that we all agree on what God is. I personally believe that the God described in the Christian Bible has been prooved by many people to not exist. The real question is whether you are willing to accept these proofs and what you believe constitutes a proof.
An no, nobody goes .... ahhhh! they rather go ...see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil and go the other way as fast as they can.

Doesn't this suggest that there has to be another way of going about things.... ?
No I dont see how it would

The whole point of Xtianity wasn't supposed to be that it would become some kind of mathematical problem to be disputed. It was supposed to be about something 'alive' and experiential so that instead of 'knowing' God existed because you had 'proved' it logically you 'got to know' God because he was hanging around with you , making a nuisance of himself as it were. It's only when you have had the merest taster of this that the idea of God actually existing becomes even plausible. Without it God is just a preposterous mathematical nonsensical concept.
God has never been a mathematical concept whether nonsensical or not. I agree that Christianity can never be based on logical proof, but that is clear from the number of followers, not one of which has logical proof.

Originally posted by Villager
This throws up an interesting question, for those of you who don't believe in God: suppose that He does exist; what 'proof' would you accept for this, that couldn't be otherwise ascribed to natural causes, delusional psychology or something else?

Before you could have proof that something exists, it would have to be properly defined. From the definitions we can deduce what evidence we would expect to be able to see.

Originally posted by Villager
So you're saying there's no reliable way to decide on what to have faith in, and what not?

That's why it's called Faith mister!

Originally posted by Raindear
How so? Methinks that would make language meaningless.

O.K., so give me an argument. Suppose that existence isn't a predicate, then...

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K., so give me an argument. Suppose that existence isn't a predicate, then...

If existence isn't a predicate than the expression "he is a man" does not describe the kind of existence "he" has.

After you eat an apple, it "is" no longer (at least as an apple). The meaning of that expression depends upon the fact that existence can be predicated.

Originally posted by Raindear
If existence isn't a predicate than the expression "he is a man" does not describe the kind of existence "he" has.

After you eat an apple, it "is" no longer (at least as an apple). The meaning of that expression depends upon the fact that existence can be predicated.

And, as Dotty pointed out above using quantificational logic, we can represent the proposition 'He is a man', like this:

(Ex)(Hx & Mx)

Where 'E' is the existential quantifier, 'H' is the predicate 'is him' (where 'him' is presumably some demonstrative notion), 'M' is the predicate 'is a man', and 'x' is the variable ranging over the domain of discourse or other. At no point is it necessary to predicate of that which is 'him' the property of existence. Existence is not some property an entity can have or fail to have; it is not a property at all.

To say of the apple that it no longer exists is not to say (absurdly) that there is an apple that no longer has the property of existing. It is to say, rather, that the concept 'that apple' no longer has an extension. That is, that the concept is not instantiated in the world. So, it is not necessary for language to be meaningful that existence by predicable.

Originally posted by bbarr
And, as Dotty pointed out above using quantificational logic, we can represent the proposition 'He is a man', like this:

(Ex)(Hx & Mx)

Where 'E' is the existential quantifier, 'H' is the predicate 'is him' (where 'him' is presumably some demonstrative notion), 'M' is the predicate 'is a man', and 'x' is the variable ranging over the domain of discourse o ...[text shortened]... is not necessary for language to be meaningful that existence by predicable.

Existence is some property an entity can have or fail to have; it is not a property at all.
If, in your world, this comment makes sense, I wonder how in the hell you even swallow food without assistance.

Originally posted by Raindear
It seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who claim this. Our sensory experience indicates that something does not come from nothing. If there was not something "in the beginning," how could there be anything now?

Our sensory experience also indicates that material things are non-eternal, they have a beginning and end in time. Now the univer ...[text shortened]... n of proof is upon those who claim that the a material universe could have "always existed."

If you wish to get technical, I will point out that our "sensory experience" supports the suggestion there has never been "nothing".

As much as I normally avoid Occum's Razor, I may as well employ it here. We can believe that which we see has always been, or we can believe "something came from nothing" in which case we must find a First Cause (ie God) or some other assumption.

-JC

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Existence is some property an entity can have or fail to have; it is not a property at all.
If, in your world, this comment makes sense, I wonder how in the hell you even swallow food without assistance.[/b]

If you have an argument against this claim, then present it.

It looks to me as though you are applying an arbitrary distinction, but I am not sure I've understand you correctly.

What does this mean?

"Existence is some property an entity can have or fail to have; it is not a property at all."

Originally posted by bbarr
If you have an argument against this claim, then present it.

Are you even reading your own stuff?

"Existence is some property that an entity can have or fail to have; it is not a property at all."

Who can argue against such nonsense?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Are you even reading your own stuff?

"Existence is some [b]property that an entity can have or fail to have; it is not a property at all."

Who can argue against such nonsense?[/b]

My bad, should've been a 'not' in there. Now it's fixed. If you have a problem with the claim, then by all means present your arguments against it.

How would you define a property?