Proof of God!

[Gorgo]

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

[Charles]

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists

Premise 1 is an assumption, an opinion.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

This one is just incorrect. it is unclear how you got to the conclusion in point 4. None of the premises show why if there is cause god must exist.

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Frankly that is just a play on words.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Premise 2 Is an assumption and opinion

[RickSp]

(Ah Charles, it is a joke. Low key humor.)

My favorite is:
(1) God is love.
(2) Love is blind.
(3) Stevie Wonder is blind.
(4) Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
(5) Therefore, God exists.


The logical flaw, by the way, is obvious.

We all know that Ray Charles is God.

[Aaron Spicka]

Nice one

[Gorgo]

Quote by: RickSp We all know that Ray Charles is God.

That's great.

Stevie would probably agree, therefore I am God.

[Chalk]

It is very difficult to 'prove' anything.. especially without concrete evidence, which none of the above provide.

[Cephus]

I'm not going to directly deal with any of the arguments presented or it would be a long, long post. Suffice it to say that each and every one of them is logically faulty to the point of being ridiculous Just goes to show the irrational lengths some theists will go to to justify their ridiculous beliefs.

[Gorgo]

See, they're so good they might as well be real!

[Prometheus]

So why bring these up? My philosophy 120 class tore all of these apart on the second day of class? It's not like anyone (except the catholics with Anselm and Descartes ontological proof) actually buy these proofs.

I don't personally know any theists who base their beliefs on logical arguments of this kind.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus I don't personally know any theists who base their beliefs on logical arguments of this kind.

So what kind of logical arguments do they base their beliefs on?

Starboy

[RickSp]

One thing which is far funnier than the modestly amusing list above is the group of folks who haven't figured out that it was a joke.

What is so funny about the humorless?

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Starboy So what kind of logical arguments do they base their beliefs on? Starboy

I don't think that religion *can* be logically proved. People who claim that they can *proove* the existance of god are either stupid, uneducated, or zelous past the point of reason. It is moronic to claim a scientific proof when we can't even prove the existance of the electron, and stupid to claim a philosophical proof when we can't prove the existance of our own bodies. *Proof* is a word used far to often, by people who don't know it's meaning.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: RickSp One thing which is far funnier than the modestly amusing list above is the group of folks who haven't figured out that it was a joke. What is so funny about the humorless?

Well since it was posted by Gorgo, it was obviously not serious.

The joke was on the nimrods who bothered disproving them.

[FIFI]

"With Perfect love, and perfect trust"... therefore, all children are Gods. Tee-hee.

[Charles]

I'm such an idiot.

[Prometheus]

No sweat. Gorgo's good at what he does.

[FIFI]

Nah, your not an idot *pat on head*

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus I don't think that religion *can* be logically proved. People who claim that they can *proove* the existance of god are either stupid, uneducated, or zelous past the point of reason. It is moronic to claim a scientific proof when we can't even prove the existance of the electron, and stupid to claim a philosophical proof when we can't prove the existance of our own bodies. *Proof* is a word used far to often, by people who don't know it's meaning.

Thanks for the clarification regarding proof but what about the "logical arguments" you alluded to?

Starboy

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Starboy Thanks for the clarification regarding proof but what about the "logical arguments" you alluded to? Starboy

Logical arguments applied to religion:

Most discussion of religion is not in fact argument, because there are exceedingly few logical paths to derive the premise of the religious belief from.

Even though I myself use a somewhat logical path to my own beliefs, I shy away from most "logical" religious derivations, because most religious arguments that are claimed to be logical are in fact obviously flawed, and zelously nieve. A religious person who requires his belief system to make total sence is extremely egotistical in believing that they can make total sence of the plans/purposes of God. Religion is based on faith, not logic. Faith at it's deepest level is merely trust in god and his subtle manifestations. Again, religoin is primarily faith based, not logic, but the catch here is that there has to be some validity to the faith. That initial kernal of faith does have to be based on logic. Unfortunately most religious people base their initial faith on thier parents or peers, and not a personal search .

Anyway, the small logical beginning for faith? I cannot speak for all, but I can speak for myself and those in my faith. Here is a scripture from LDS cannon which best describes this belief:

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Though the majority of my beliefs are faith based, God cannot expect someone to swallow an entire set of beliefs and way of life with no rational starting point. This is that starting point. Science is in the buisiness of making predictions. Wheather or not the theory makes sence, it's ability to make predictions essentially establishes it's validity. That is the format of this scripture, and it is the very small, logical basis of my belief system.

That said, I still generally despise logical arguments and proofs of religoin, because they are neither logical or proofs.

[MerlinsByte]

I feel any proofs offered for the existance of God, tounge in cheek or serious, is as good as any mish mash that science can come up with for the creation of the universe. In fact the multi or infinite universe theory with wavy gravy membranes touching and making more big bangs I suppose ... takes rather more faith than even the old bearded man on a throne deal. Rather more as in big infinity bucket more. Infinite universes? yeah like God done it cures all the crippling real problems that science has today, except that it is a recent myth rather than an very old one. what a joke.

mb