a challenge to those who feel intelligent

[Polymirize]

These questions usually get deflected with something like "the true nature of God cant be grasped by the human mind" I agree! but wasnt the point of this explanation to provide understanding not mystery? Is this the "rational explanation" that was offered at the start of the proof?

Deflected can be a little harsh. I mean, how do you discuss infinity in finite terms? How do you speak of necessary conditions on the unconditional?
You don't. Of course you'll never "prove" god through reason. it's completely irrational.
The only argument in its favor is that reason (much like science) is based upon our current understanding, so it's not complete.
You mean you want the mystery to be revealed? The answers to be given? The illusion to drop away?
Eventually, you'll have to face your doubts without an answer, but instead only with more questions.

[Reefer Rogue]

The Principle of sufficient reason:

A closely related traditional form of cosmological arguement starts with a philisophical principle known as the The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which says, "There must be an explanation (a) for any being, and (b) for any positive fact. Using PSR, a theist can reason,

1. Every being is either dependent or self-existent.

2. Not every being can be dependent.

Thus,

3. There is a self-existent being.

Because of PSR, step 1 rules out there being anything that is explained by nothing. A dependent being is explained by something else. A self-existent being is self-explanitory, or necessary.

Step 2 results from this reasoning: If all beings were dependent, then there would be one positive fact-that these being exist at all-that would have no explanation, and this is ruled out by PSR also; that fact can only be explained by a nondependent being;thus 2 is true.

And step 3 follows from 1 and 2. There is no reason to think that anything in the universe, or the total composed of these things, is self-existent, thus there must be a God outside the system of dependent beings who created them.


A traditional Design arguement:

1. So far as we are able to determine, every highly complex object with intricate moving parts is a product of intelligent design. (The only such objects whose ultimate origin we are sure about are artifacts designed by people.)

2. The universe is a highly complex object with intricate moving parts. (From observation)

Therefore,

3. Probably, the universe is a product of an intelligent design (from steps 1 and 2)

4. No one could design a universe but god. (it's a big job)

Therefore,

5. Probably, there is a god. (from steps 3 and 4)

I'll be back later and write some evidence in favour of Athiesm :stoned:

[altagid]

Deflected can be a little harsh. I mean, how do you discuss infinity in finite terms? How do you speak of necessary conditions on the unconditional?
You don't. Of course you'll never "prove" god through reason. it's completely irrational.
The only argument in its favor is that reason (much like science) is based upon our current understanding, so it's not complete.
You mean you want the mystery to be revealed? The answers to be given? The illusion to drop away?
Eventually, you'll have to face your doubts without an answer, but instead only with more questions.

Firstly this was presented as a proof. It fails. Since the 19th Century - Cantor - Mathematics routinely deals with the infinite. It is an integral part of the calculus for instance.

I agree you cant prove God, not with certainty, not to beyond reasonable doubt, not even to a preponderance of the evidence , but the author of that proof thought he could and Rogue asked for my comments

[altagid]

The Principle of sufficient reason:....

1. Every being is either dependent or self-existent.

2. Not every being can be dependent....

Disagree - how about turtles under turtles under turtles descending forever - why must there have been a prime turtle? And if there could have been a prime turtle why cant that be the universe itself?

[Adolf Smittler]

The Principle of sufficient reason:

A closely related traditional form of cosmological arguement starts with a philisophical principle known as the The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which says, "There must be an explanation (a) for any being, and (b) for any positive fact. Using PSR, a theist can reason,

1. Every being is either dependent or self-existent.

2. Not every being can be dependent.

Thus,

3. There is a self-existent being.

Because of PSR, step 1 rules out there being anything that is explained by nothing. A dependent being is explained by something else. A self-existent being is self-explanitory, or necessary.

Step 2 results from this reasoning: If all beings were dependent, then there would be one positive fact-that these being exist at all-that would have no explanation, and this is ruled out by PSR also; that fact can only be explained by a nondependent being;thus 2 is true.

And step 3 follows from 1 and 2. There is no reason to think that anything in the universe, or the total composed of these things, is self-existent, thus there must be a God outside the system of dependent beings who created them.


A traditional Design arguement:

1. So far as we are able to determine, every highly complex object with intricate moving parts is a product of intelligent design. (The only such objects whose ultimate origin we are sure about are artifacts designed by people.)

2. The universe is a highly complex object with intricate moving parts. (From observation)

Therefore,

3. Probably, the universe is a product of an intelligent design (from steps 1 and 2)

4. No one could design a universe but god. (it's a big job)

Therefore,

5. Probably, there is a god. (from steps 3 and 4)

I'll be back later and write some evidence in favour of Athiesm :stoned:

an object or being not subject to law has not been observed. an object or being not subject to law can not be explained. this leads to the conclusion that god can not exist outside "the system" without being subject to some greater system; by the definition of god, this is not the case. therefore god does not exist.

[altagid]

Yeah that was a driveby and I deserve to get called on it. I would justify my statement but right now we are trying to find the real answer to , godtheuniverseandeverything. Just as soon as we've done that, I will explain, promise!

No Science definitely does not have all the answers. It cant even answer most of the questions that it can deal with - as Adolf pointed out - and there are many important topics that it cant even begin to tackle, at least not with what we have on hand. What should I do with my life? What is the sound of one hand clapping? Is Brittany Spears really a no talent cunt?'

However, while it cant answer these things, it can inform the investigation. In this way science is much underused and much underappreciated.

Science is not a set of answers at all. Its method of investigation. It's actually a technique for generating useful questions It is totally new method of thought - only about 500 years old and it is a major advance for human understanding.

I would like to talk a bit scientific thinking, since its so important and there is so much confusion but first godtheuniverseandeverything.

[altagid]

Reefer Rogue, if you quote someone else's work you must give an attribution. You owe it to the guy who wrote it and you owe it to the guy who reads it. Otherwise, the implicit claim is that this is your work. Is it?

[BloodyRedBarron]

When your Dead Your Dead.
Think about it?
If I am retarted am I not in heven?
If have a 12 inch cock can I use it in heven?
If I have a Bag of Weed can I smoke it in heven?
At least in Hell I'll have a light.

[Reefer Rogue]

Reefer Rogue, if you quote someone else's work you must give an attribution. You owe it to the guy who wrote it and you owe it to the guy who reads it. Otherwise, the implicit claim is that this is your work. Is it?

I did quote my source. Look harder at my last post

The main arguement against Theism: (Premise 1)

1. If there were a God, there would be no evil in the world. (From the concept of God)

2. There is evil in the world. (By observation)

Therefore,

3. There is no God.

Supporting arguement:

A: A morally good being prevents all the evil that he has the power and oppurtunity to prevent. (By definition of goodness)

B. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent all evil. (By definition of omnipotence)

C An omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal being who is the creater of all has the oppurtunity to prevent all evil. (By definition of all ther operative concepts)

D. God is, by definition, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and creator of all else. (By the standard, developed concept of God)

Therefore,

E. If there were a god, there would be no evil in the world. (And this conclusion is identical to premise 1 of the main arguement, which was in need of support.)

[Adolf Smittler]

taken from wikipedia:
If the Universe had to be created by God because it must have a creator, then God, in turn would have had to be created by some other God, and so on. This attacks the premise that the Universe is the second cause, (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause). A common response to this is that God exists outside of time and hence needs no cause. However, such arguments can also be applied to the universe itself - that since time began when the universe did, it is non-sensical to talk about a state "before" the universe which could have caused it, since cause requires time.