Can this win God-proofs contest?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dead bodies do not know math.

The verbe "know" isn't applicable to dead, or non-existing, things.

It's like talking about the taste of a color. it makes no sense. It's invalid.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If a being knows everything, then He knows that Omniscient Being exists as well. Thus, Omniscient Being exists.

If a unicorn exists, then a unicorn exists, therefore a unicorn exists.


Same logic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is impossible to know everything without knowing that the Omniscient exists.

Just like it is impossible for a unicorn to exists if no unicorns exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Your proof made totally no sense to me."
The problem is not my proof. The problem is your reception of the Existing God.

No. The problem is your pathetic attempt at using logic and your ignorance of logical fallacies.

It makes no sense for an atheist to except Existing God

...for various reasons none of which has anything to do with the invalid laughable "logic" on display in this thread.

In this thread, it's your 2 "arguments" that are the topic of discussion.

His imaginable god does not exist.

Neither does the one presented in the ridiculous "arguments" in this thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have ability to know all. Because God is my friend.

So what did I have for lunch yesterday?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One can ask God anything.

Sure. You can also ask anything of Thor, Quetzalcoatl, the interdimensional aliens following us around everywhere, bigfoot, the tooth fairy, santa claus, your wife,...


The question is: which of these will actually answer? All my money is going to be on "your wife" and exactly 0 dollars on all the others.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

All the mushrooms in the forest experience life in the forest in more or less the same way. And yet none of them even know that they are living in a forest. They could very easily imagine that they are living on the moon.

Yes, but the objective/outside truth never changes for any given mushroom. you at least have to admit this. And that's what we honestly should be trying to understand/encounter. The truth that exists in its most fundamental nature. Understand that, and you hold a great many keys... as we have already found out through our examination, acceptance and understanding of the natural world around us.

The point is that similar sensory systems experience similar sensory input. That's all. The similarities do nothing to ensure the accuracy of the imagined reality that such input generates.

Your last sentence is not at all cogent, and flies in the face of enormous reams of evidence that we all gather on a daily basis. You are far too hyperbolic with these ridiculous statement. Similarities "do nothing" to ensure the accuracy of our perceived realities through sensory input? "NOTHING?" Are you mad? If that were true, then none of us could rely on anything else any of the others EVER said. Which is not, at all, where we find ourselves. Once again, you do no more than prove to me that you aren't worth listening too.

 

[izzy88]

One can ask God anything.

Ask God what city I was born in and let me know what he tells you.

 

[questfortruth]

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.

There is hidden from you knowledge of God's existence, which is now becoming open knowledge. The sum of hidden and open knowledge is invariant.

 

[PureX]

Yes, but the objective/outside truth never changes for any given mushroom. you at least have to admit this. And that's what we honestly should be trying to understand/encounter. The truth that exists in its most fundamental nature. Understand that, and you hold a great many keys... as we have already found out through our examination, acceptance and understanding of the natural world around us.

All we've gotten from our examination of the natural world so far are bigger and bigger guns to kill each other with, and the ability to practice our selfishness and greed with such abandon that we're about the wipe ourselves out, and turn the Earth in to a barren cinder. So you'll have to pardon me if I am not seeing the Great Advancements In Knowledge that you imagine to be coming from the worship of "objective reality", spawned by philosophical materialism.

Your last sentence is not at all cogent, and flies in the face of enormous reams of evidence that we all gather on a daily basis. You are far too hyperbolic with these ridiculous statement. Similarities "do nothing" to ensure the accuracy of our perceived realities through sensory input? "NOTHING?" Are you mad? If that were true, then none of us could rely on anything else any of the others EVER said. Which is not, at all, where we find ourselves. Once again, you do no more than prove to me that you aren't worth listening too.

I'm sure those similarities in our experience give is the illusion that we "understand" what happening outside ourselves, because we can build similar imaginary conceptions of "reality" based on them. But, logically, that's just a great big example of confirmation bias.

 

[questfortruth]

Ask God what city I was born in and let me know what he tells you.

You are Catholic? Then most stylish answer would be Rome. Eternal City. There is your thought, prayer, and your loving heart.

 

[izzy88]

There is hidden from you knowledge of God's existence, which is now becoming open knowledge. The sum of hidden and open knowledge is invariant.

Are you sure you're actually Eastern Orthodox? I didn't think that was an esoteric religion. What you're saying sounds very gnostic.

 

[izzy88]

You are Catholic? Then most stylish answer would be Rome. Eternal City. There is your thought, prayer, and your loving heart.

Haha touché

 

[questfortruth]

So what did I have for lunch yesterday?

Water, eggs. It is from a logical guess, I have not asked God. Eggs - Passover, water - any stuff (e.g. milk, juice) has water in it.

 

[questfortruth]

Are you sure you're actually Eastern Orthodox? I didn't think that was an esoteric religion. What you're saying sounds very gnostic.

In all theistic religions is at least one common truth, which is "God exists". The truth (parts of it) are everywhere [but not in satan].

 

[questfortruth]

So what did I have for lunch yesterday?

Water, eggs. It is from a logical guess, I have not asked God. Eggs - Passover, water - any stuff (e.g. milk, juice) has water in it.

 

[izzy88]

It is from a logical guess, I have not asked God

Why not?

 

[ratiocinator]

There is hidden from you knowledge of God's existence, which is now becoming open knowledge.

You have provided not one iota of a reason to think so.

The sum of hidden and open knowledge is invariant.

Even if it is (and it depends how you define it) in reality, it isn't invariant across hypothetical versions of reality. There are two possibilities with regard to an omniscient being - either one exists, and the sum of knowledge includes that fact, or there isn't such a being, and the sum of knowledge includes that fact instead.

There is no contradiction either way. You can't set up a hypothetical reality and then just pretend that the conclusions hold across all possible versions of reality.

This really isn't complicated.

 

[dybmh]

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.

With utmost respect: I think you should have put this in the OP. Your argument is intended to be proof for Theists, not everyone?

 

[Agnostic Christian]

It's not about solipsism. It's about recognizing that our "reality" is imaginary because we have so little access to whatever reality is. So that when we are spouting off about knowledge and truth and what exists and what doesn't we are basically just blowing smoke up our own @sses. No offense.

Again, opposed to what?

You're using this definition of "imaginary" that includes exactly the opposite of what "imaginary" is. If however many people all agree that the sun gives off heat, because they can feel it on their skin, and we can build instruments like thermostats to detect this change in heat, and we can crack an egg on a hot sun-scorched surface and watch and smell it cook, how is that imaginary? If I stare into the sun for several hours and burn out my retinas to the point where my vision is permanently damaged, is that imagined or real? If, in spite of the fact that people can corroborate what their individual senses tell them, you're saying everything is imaginary because we individually experience the universe through our own minds, then the logical conclusion of that is solipsism, because you can apply that reasoning to everything except your own mind.