Can you disprove the Existance of God?

[ANDY-J3]

Originally posted by patoonce

I adhere to Reformed Theology, so I’m not arguing from a pure Catholic worldview but I'm arguing against your unbelieving worldview. By your post, I am assuming you are not a Catholic. If you were, I would not be arguing for the existence of God, but probably justification by faith alone.

It doesn't matter what form of Christianity you adhere to your beliefs rely on holy scripture as containing God's revelation to mankind-nothing else. You aren't arguing for the existence of God because that would make you a theist,you are arguing for the existence of the God of Christianity which means you are limited to using scripture alone.Therefore you are arguing solely on the basis of justification by faith-faith in the validity of Christian scripture. I am not an atheist or a religionist I'm a theist but I purposely avoid trying to defend my belief in God on the basis of logic-it belongs firmly in the realm of belief.


Any alleged “logical inconsistency” in the scripture still begs the question of justifying the laws of logic.First, you must justify the laws of logic, and then use those laws to show any inconsistency.

No it doesn't. If a Catholic tells me that any given book of the bible e.g. Daniel has one meaning while a protestant tells me it has an alternative meaning then justification of the laws of logic don't even enter into the equation. One of them must be wrong therefore in the absence of compelling evidence to tell me which one is wrong it would be logical for me to disbelieve both of them and question the validity of scripture as a divine revelation.



See Andy, I cannot just give you the raw data (logic) to use against the Christian worldview, when on your unbelieving worldview you cannot justify logic itself. Andy, can you justify the laws of logic? I don't think you can.


Logic is a process whereby a conclusion is drawn from a set of premises without reference to meaning or context. If I'm confronted with a wealth of evidence supporting any given proposition it would be perverse and illogical of me to disbelieve it. Alternately if I'm provided with no compelling evidence to support it then it would be illogical for me to believe it,hence I disbelieve you when you tell me that the God of Christianity exists.






Here, let me help. I think these are your only choices (if there are more let me know). Andy, are the laws of logic conventional (mutually agreed upon conclusions) or are the laws of logic biological in nature (biochemical impulses in the brain). Which one is it Andy? Steady you foot so I can shoot a logical canon. And please retract your irrational statement that no one needs to believe in the existence of anything that can’t be proven by logic. You know it’s fallacious and irrational.

What you are trying to do here is get the discussion bogged down in irrelevancies because you are aware that your arguments have been undermined.When you used Dr.Bahnsen's analogy of "crackers in the pantry" I don't think you fully grasped the nub of his argument. I am not saying "We don't see invisible things; therefore invisible things aren't there."-that would be the crackers in the pantry fallacy. I'm saying all things might be possible the existence of the Christian God for example,but until I'm provided with compelling evidence to show that they do exist I am not required to believe in anything.Now surely you can't argue with the logic of that?

[patoonce]

Any alleged “logical inconsistency” in the scripture still begs the question of justifying the laws of logic. First, you must justify the laws of logic, and then use those laws to show any inconsistency. [ Andy's answer - No it doesn't...]

Ahem...yes it does. All logical binds or contradictions assumes the laws of logic, thus you must use logic in order to know a logical contradiction. So, justify the laws of logic.


Andy, can you justify the laws of logic? I don't think you can. [Andy's answer - Logic is a process whereby a conclusion is drawn from a set of premises without reference to meaning or context. If I'm confronted with a wealth of evidence supporting any given proposition it would be perverse and illogical of me to disbelieve it.]

Andy, I'm not asking you to give a definition of logic. Justify logic on your worldview don’t give a definition. This is equivalent to you asking me to prove God exists, and then I give the Westminster definition of God. This is unacceptable Andy and you know it. Please be intellectually honest.


Here, let me help. I think these are your only choices (if there are more let me know). Andy, are the laws of logic conventional (mutually agreed upon conclusions) or are the laws of logic biological in nature (biochemical impulses in the brain). Which one is it Andy? [Andy's answer - What you are trying to do here is get the discussion bogged down in irrelevancies because you are aware that your arguments have been undermined. When you used Dr.Bahnsen's analogy of "crackers in the pantry" I don't think you fully grasped the nub of his argument.

Wonderful. You know the presupposition argumentation of Dr. Bahnsen and Dr. Vantil. This should make it must easier for you. Yes, I do know Dr. Bahnsen's debate against Gordon Stein, but now I know you are not familiar with it. For you make an ilk statement as Dr. Stein in that all provability relies upon logic, but the "crackers in the pantry" argument does not rely upon logic but empirical data.


Now, let’s make this very simple. You say there is no logical evidence for the existence of God. Justify the laws of logic upon your worldview. If you can do this your argument has credence, if not, your argument is mute. Simple, justify the laws of logic, if you can't relinquish using them. And please stay on task.

[Rob_Roy_Kowalski]

Dear Patoonce, you really are the most awful bore. Brainwashed beyond redemption and repetitive in the extreme. A perfect combination for someone who wishes to bore to death, those who seek to promote a viewpoint in any way opposed to that with which they have been indoctrinated.

You, however, go beyond the pale, daring to sound as if you are giving measured response to the thoughts of others when, in fact, you are merely treading an already well worn carpet.

Does anyone here recognise this as in any way familiar?

Are the laws of logic objects. Can you observe the laws of logic, the laws of science, morality?

And this:

You beg the question.

Quotes taken from here:

http://giveupalready.com/showthread....0851#post40851

Or how about this:

Only the Christian theistic worldview can give an account for the justification of the laws of logic as a provable tool for obtaining truth.

And:

The atheist cannot give an account for the justification of the laws of logic, but they used the laws of logic as if they are abstract, invariant, universal law, which can be applied for ascertaining truth.

Quotes taken from here:

http://giveupalready.com/showthread....0535#post40535

I did not read all of your stodgy pretentious discourse, as I was only seeking to establish whether or not you were trotting out repetitive drivel, which did indeed turn out to be the case. You present the same glutinous arguments on this website almost ad verbatim. Are you actually aware of how often you use the term, "worldview"??

Getting trapped in an elevator with you would be my idea of hell on earth.

[patoonce]

Rob_Roy_Kowalski

Yes Rob, I use presuppositional form of argumentation in other forums. This method of argumentation uses the transcendental argument, and I would say the truly reformed method, but that is for an in-house Christian debate of apologetical methodology. Everyone's world and life view interprets all your facts and evidences, but you probably already knew that (at least I hope so). And by the way, do you know what a worldview is? Probably not so here you go:

A worldview is a network of presuppositions which is not verified by the procedures of natural science, but in terms of which every aspect of man’s knowledge and experience is interpreted and interrelated.

You might want to study it and actually deal with the arguments and not rely on your insidious ad hominem argument (look it up if you don’t know what it is since your using it). So if you want to be in the reason giving game, step on the court and deal with the argument.

[DistantCelt]

Dear Patoonce.

Please tell me, if one has to engage in the rather silly viewpoint of 'prove something doesnt exist' ( which conflicts directly with material universe), how does one differentiate between fact and fiction ?

Can you prove that my dead grandfather has not tranformed into God after his death ?

How do you prove that the world wasnt created in accordance to the ancient Greek religious philosophy ? Or hindu philosophy ?

You cannot disprove the non-existance of something. For existance needs to be defined simultaneously with non-existance.

Contemplate one simple truth for the time being : Before existance,there was no non-existance.

[ANDY-J3]

Originally posted by patoonce
Ahem...yes it does. All logical binds or contradictions assumes the laws of logic, thus you must use logic in order to know a logical contradiction. So, justify the laws of logic.

We'll keep going over this again and again if needs be but if you believe that you can hide behind your wordplay-your transcendental,presuppositional,insidious ad hominem gobbledygook-and convince people that you actually have a valid viewpoint you're in for a rude awakening. Some people seem to imagine that sound philosophical argument requires them to use fancy words-it doesn't.It's the standard technique from Christians who know they can't defend their own system of belief on the basis of logic so what they do is obfuscate and create a straw man of some irrelevant issue and focus entirely on that to avoid focusing on the key issue which is how they justify their system of belief when it is based on a flawed holy scripture. Logic is a means whereby we can distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning independently of our agreement on substantive matters. That's straightforward so never mind any of your sophistry which is intended to introduce complications where none need exist. Using logic I can determine for example that the proposition "the bible is the literal word of God" must be wrong because if God is perfect then he couldn't create something which is imperfect and you yourself have (for obvious reasons) avoided challenging my statement about scripture so you don't seek to dispute that it contains imperfections.



Andy, I'm not asking you to give a definition of logic. Justify logic on your worldview don’t give a definition. This is equivalent to you asking me to prove God exists, and then I give the Westminster definition of God. This is unacceptable Andy and you know it. Please be intellectually honest.

You're not really in a position to talk about intellectual honesty-I'm discerning enough to realise that you yourself are being disingenuous in trying to focus on irrelevancies rather than even attempt to challenge the points I have put forward. The bottom line is that a combination of true premises and a valid inference provides a sound logical argument-that is something you wouldn't seek to dispute. Therefore when you provide me with a proposition say for example "I would contend that without the Christian worldview you could not know anything" it would be correct for me to disbelieve it because you have provided no valid logical proofs to support it. Your subsequent statement "and this is your proof for the existence of the Christian God, not just any God, but the God of the Old and New Testament" is of course nonsensical and if you were being intellectually honest you would concede that.


Now, let’s make this very simple. You say there is no logical evidence for the existence of God.



The death knell to your argument I'm afraid-I never said it and if you are secure in your belief that you can defend your viewpoint you wouldn't need to put words in my mouth. There are arguments and proofs for the existence of a creator,although not the God of Christianity given that that would rely entirely upon a (flawed) holy scripture. Some of those arguments for the existence of a creator are logical and quite compelling-the argument from design for example-although all of them can be challenged. No one on this thread however has argued solely for the existence of a creator,but for the existence of the God of Christianity,which can only be founded on scripture rather than logical argument.And to repeat my original factual statement,no one needs to believe in anything that doesn't conform to logic



Justify the laws of logic upon your worldview. If you can do this your argument has credence, if not, your argument is mute. Simple, justify the laws of logic, if you can't relinquish using them. And please stay on task.


Oh you can be certain that I'm very much on task-your intransigence and lack of intellectual honesty has ensured that.

[Rob_Roy_Kowalski]

Originally Posted by patoonce

You might want to study it and actually deal with the arguments and not rely on your insidious ad hominem argument (look it up if you don’t know what it is since your using it). So if you want to be in the reason giving game, step on the court and deal with the argument.

How kind of you to invite me to look up the term, "ad hominem argument", thus, by implication that I lack intelligence , using that very tool yourself.

However, I think that, if you look at the literal meaning of the phrase, you will see that I presented no argument, let alone an ah hominem argument.

I was merely making two main points and a few rude comments.

The first point was that you pretend to reply directly to the views of others (mainly Andy) with a measured response to specific points of view, when in fact you are merely repeating a sermon you have already given elsewhere.

The second point was that your argument is written in intellectual claptrap in order to sound clever without presenting any valid evidence.

I did not, therefore, seek to prove false your viewpoint by demeaning your character. I was attacking the style of argument you employ and will no doubt re-employ in response to this post.

My own guess would be that you will go down the " logical fallacy" route, even though you are now forewarned.