• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can this win God-proofs contest?

ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
is this the jokes section?

questfortruth said:
If a being knows everything, then He knows that Omniscient Being exists as well. Thus, Omniscient Being exists.
Click to expand...

This is total nonsense. If A then B, therefore A...

questfortruth said:
If All-knowing Being does not exist, then the following would be true to say:
"All-knowing Being does not know anything." [As example: Dead bodies do not know math.]
We came to contradiction, because such Being is not All-knowing.
Thus, the All-knowing Being exists.
Click to expand...

This is even worse. If an all knowing being doesn't exist then neither does its state of knowledge.

Hint 1: you can't use word games to magic something into existence.
Hint 2: try reading up on critical thinking.
 
stvdv

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
stvdv said:
Thank you for sharing this .pdf

Nice short, and interesting: the Law of Conservation of Information together with the Shakespeare example. Makes perfect sense to me.
Click to expand...

questfortruth said:
The problem is not my proof. The problem is your reception of the Existing God. It makes no sense for an atheist to except Existing God. His imaginable god does not exist.
Click to expand...

Strange reply ... are you sure you meant to reply this to my post?
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
ratiocinator said:
is this the jokes section?



This is total nonsense. If A then B, therefore A...
Click to expand...
Suppose the total set of knowledge is {A1, A2, …., A10}, that includes the hidden knowledges as well. Suppose Bob knows all this set. Thus, Bob is omniscient being. Thus, inside the set is the knowledge: "Omniscient Being exists". Therefore, if Adam would get to know the set, there be such knowledge.
 
N

night912

Well-Known Member
izzy88 said:
You've demonstrated both here and in our other conversation that you do not understand logic.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but just because somebody disagree with you and pointed out the irrational things in your reasoning, doesn't mean that that they don't understand logic and that you do. Of the two of us, I'm the one who is being logical by objecting what I see to be illogical in your arguments and give rational reasons for it. I also do that for your counterarguments, while you only throw in your logical fallacies and celebrate prematurely thinking that you have refuted my points.

izzy88 said:
Your are wrong, and I explained quite clearly why you are wrong in the very comment you just responded to. This is essentially a mathematical problem; if you continuously subtract half of a number, no matter where you begin, you will never reach zero. But if you simply subtract the full number from itself, you will reach zero.
Click to expand...
Yes, you explained it quite clearly with your fallacies.

And there you go again with your irrational thinking. Special pleading for your rebuttal does nothing to help yours or my arguments.Yeah, it's simple math problem that you did not solve. Subtracting the full number from itself results in it to equal zero, that is irrelevant to the "half way" issue that you've chosen to ignored.

izzy88 said:
Which do we do when we walk from point A to point B?
Click to expand...
If one have some sort of understanding about logic, one would not have posted this strawman.
 
izzy88

izzy88

Active Member
night912 said:
Sorry, but just because somebody disagree with you and pointed out the irrational things in your reasoning, doesn't mean that that they don't understand logic and that you do. Of the two of us, I'm the one who is being logical by objecting what I see to be illogical in your arguments and give rational reasons for it. I also do that for your counterarguments, while you only throw in your logical fallacies and celebrate prematurely thinking that you have refuted my points.


Yes, you explained it quite clearly with your fallacies.

And there you go again with your irrational thinking. Special pleading for your rebuttal does nothing to help yours or my arguments.Yeah, it's simple math problem that you did not solve. Subtracting the full number from itself results in it to equal zero, that is irrelevant to the "half way" issue that you've chosen to ignored.


If one have some sort of understanding about logic, one would not have posted this strawman.
Click to expand...

Okay, bud.
 
ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
questfortruth said:
Suppose the total set of knowledge is {A1, A2, …., A10}, that includes the hidden knowledges as well. Suppose Bob knows all this set. Thus, Bob is omniscient being. Thus, inside the set is the knowledge: "Omniscient Being exists". Therefore, if Adam would get to know the set, there be such knowledge.
Click to expand...

But either there is an omniscient being or there isn't. So either one of the members of the set is "there is an omniscient being", and that being knows the whole set, or there isn't and "there is an omniscient being" is not in the set. There is no contradiction either way. It's also the case that the set of knowledge is dynamic, so if some being becomes omniscient, or, for that matter, the only omniscient being dies, then the contents of the set change.

This really isn't difficult - you're whole argument assumes that there is an omniscient being which is supposed to be your conclusion. This is called begging the question.
 
ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Agnostic Christian said:
Despite the fact that this makes no sense, paradoxes don't prove anything. Take for example Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox. If you were to walk from point A to point B, you must first walk halfway between the two. Then you must walk halfway between those two points - and then halfway between those two, and those next two, etc. ad infinitum. Thus never actually being able to reach point B. This obviously isn't true.
Click to expand...

That's not a paradox, it's a failure to realise that an infinite series can have a finite sum. Each half journey takes half the time if you walk at constant speed, so the time taken is

T = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 .... = 1.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
izzy88 said:
Do you know everything?
Click to expand...
"Your proof made totally no sense to me."
The problem is not my proof. The problem is your reception of the Existing God. It makes no sense for an atheist to except Existing God. His imaginable god does not exist.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
The problem is not my proof, when you are thinking to have debunked it or are making no sense of it. The problem is your reception of the Existing God. It makes no sense for an atheist to except Existing God. His imaginable god does not exist, for there are two põles of soul attraction: Existing God and Non-existing god. That is the reason behind infinite variety of religions between perfect true Theism and total atheism.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
izzy88 said:
Do you know everything?
Click to expand...
The problem is not my proof, when you are thinking to have debunked it or are making no sense of it. The problem is your reception of the Existing God. It makes no sense for an atheist to except Existing God. His imaginable god does not exist, for there are two poles of soul attraction: Existing God and Non-existing god. That is the reason behind infinite variety of religions between perfect true Theism and total atheism.
 
izzy88

izzy88

Active Member
questfortruth said:
"Your proof made totally no sense to me."
The problem is not my proof. The problem is your reception of the Existing God. It makes no sense for an atheist to except Existing God. His imaginable god does not exist.
Click to expand...

I think you replied to the wrong person...
 
dfnj

dfnj

Well-Known Member
questfortruth said:
First Proof:
If a being knows everything, then He knows that Omniscient Being exists as well. Thus, Omniscient Being exists.

Second Proof:

If All-knowing Being does not exist, then the following would be true to say:
"All-knowing Being does not know anything." [As example: Dead bodies do not know math.]
We came to contradiction, because such Being is not All-knowing.
Thus, the All-knowing Being exists.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced. I used to think there was only one way to define the word God:

God is all truth not known by men. If you do not think this is the one true definition of God then you do not know God.

But then i got older and discovered how strange the Universe behaves. So I updated my definition of God to be the following:

God if the force in the Universe that keeps our full understanding of nature just one step beyond our full comprehension.

But then I got older and I have come to the following conclusion:

God is just a word. No denies the existence of the word God. What the word means is irrelevant. All I know God is a word. And the word God only exists in our speaking and written thoughts. Everything else is beyond our comprehension. The word reality is a representation of reality. Reality is not really reality. Reality is also beyond our comprehension. All words and our thoughts about our lives and reality are all delusions. There only exists one single truth.

The mongoose is gone!


Better get into what you gotta get into
Better get into it now, no slacking please
United Nations ain't really united
And the organisations ain't really organised

Riki Tiki Tavi mongoose is gone
Riki Tiki Tavi mongoose is gone
Won't be coming around for to kill your snakes no more, my love
Riki Tiki Tavi mongoose is gone

Everybody who read the Jungle Book
Will know that Riki Tiki Tavi's a mongoose who kills snakes
When I was a young man I was led to believe there were organisations
To kill my snakes for me
I.E. the church, I.E. the government, I.E. school
But when I got a little older I learned I had to kill them myself

I said, Riki Tiki Tavi mongoose is gone
Riki Tiki Tavi mongoose is gone
Won't be coming around for to kill your snakes no more, my love
Riki Tiki Tavi mongoose is gone

People walkin' around, they don't know what they're doing
They bin lost so long they don't know what they've been looking for
Well, I know what I'm-a looking for but I just can't find it
I guess I gotta look inside of myself some more

Oh oh oh inside of myself some more
Come on now (baby)
Oh oh oh inside of myself some more (baby)

Riki Tiki Tavi mongoose is gone
Riki Tiki Tavi mongoose is gone
Riki Tiki Tavi mongoose is gone
Riki Tiki Tavi mongoose is gone

(Last time)

I saw you today
On the number twelve bus
You were going my way
Going my way
 
Last edited:
Heyo

Heyo

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
Suppose the total set of knowledge is {A1, A2, …., A10}, that includes the hidden knowledges as well. Suppose Bob knows all this set. Thus, Bob is omniscient being. Thus, inside the set is the knowledge: "Omniscient Being exists". Therefore, if Adam would get to know the set, there be such knowledge.
Click to expand...
Suppose the total set of knowledge is {A1, A2, …., A10}, that includes the hidden knowledges as well. Suppose Bob knows all this set. Thus, Bob is omniscient being. Thus, inside the set is the knowledge: "The moon is made of green cheese.". Therefore, if Adam would get to know the set, there be such knowledge.
 
ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
questfortruth said:
It is impossible to know everything without knowing that the Omniscient exists.
Click to expand...

Yes. However, as I said, the existence of such a being changes the facts that there are to know. Do you really not grasp this? It's very simple. The totality of everything that there is to know depends on what exists or doesn't exist.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
First Proof:
If a being knows everything, then He knows that Omniscient Being exists as well. Thus, Omniscient Being exists.
Click to expand...

Wow. That's some shockingly low quality logic you got there.

Let's apply this nonsense to another subject and without the use of synonyms to make it sound less stupid, perhaps then you'll realise how dumb that was:

"If a unicorn exists then a unicorn exists. Thus, a unicorn exists"


Second Proof:

If All-knowing Being does not exist, then the following would be true to say:
"All-knowing Being does not know anything." [As example: Dead bodies do not know math.]
We came to contradiction, because such Being is not All-knowing.
Thus, the All-knowing Being exists.
Click to expand...

Another prime example of shockingly bad logic.

If a being X does NOT exist... then there is no being to know or not know anything.
So no, it would not be true to say that that being "does not know anything". The sentence doesn't apply to non-existing beings.

So there is no contradiction. Only sillyness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top