Proofs for the existence of God do not work

[LittleOrphanAndy]

I am challenging Fundamentalists to a debate regarding whether or not Proofs for the existence of God are valid .

Note: I am asking Fundamentalists but i welcome anyone to weigh in .. Also I do not require substatiation of my assetion in order to present it as a debate topic .I respect youre right to assert youre view without such substatiation.

My assertion is that they are not valid because A. They do not prove the God of the bible and on the contrary prove a different God all together.B.It places a human in the position of arbitrating the establishment of the divine which is a contradiction in terms .C. They do not excluded the possibility of other dieties .D. They are primarily based on syllogisims which require a presuposition therefore making the argument null and void .

[Hentenza]

So, which logical argument would you like to use? Ontological, teleological, cosmological, or the ever popular moral argument?:yawn:

[LittleOrphanAndy]

Every thing that is finite has a cause .This is logical. You can definately argue back to an infinite cause .Because eventualy something infinite created the first finite cause ..

Im not disputing that . I am disputing that that does not prove one omnipotent God . It proves only an infinite being It does not exclude the possibiliy for many other infinite beings to exist . Also even if the argument did show only one god it would not be by very definition the God of the bible.. A god isnt neccesarily the God.

[Hentenza]

Every thing that is finite has a cause .This is logical. You can definately argue back to an infinite cause .Because eventualy something infinite created the first finite cause ..

Im not disputing that . I am disputing that that does not prove one omnipotent God . It proves only an infinite being It does not exclude the possibiliy for many other infinite beings to exist . Also even if the argument did show only one god it would not be by very definition the God of the bible.. A god isnt neccesarily the God.

God says it's Him. Read Genesis.;):wave:

[LittleOrphanAndy]

On the contrary what he says about himself is much more wonderful and descriptive. But we are talking about manmade assertions that many call proofs.and whether or not they can be justified .

You made an assertion V. Please show youre grounds for it .

[LittleOrphanAndy]

my mistake

[Hentenza]

On the contrary what he says about himself is much more wonderful and descriptive. But we are talking about manmade assertions that many call proofs.and whether or not they can be justified .

You made an assertion V. Please show youre grounds for it .

It is wonderful and descriptive indeed!!!!!!

There are no man made assertions when it comes to the Word of God only bad interpretations.;):wave:

The grounds for it are neatly laid out in scripture.;):thumbsup::hug:

[Hentenza]

my mistake

No need to apologize. :hug::hug::hug:

[cubanito]

Ay carajo....

Definitions should be the starting point of any serious logical debate.

As I understand it the propositions set forth suffer form a series of problems.

1- What does the OP mean by the following words, precisely:
a- God
b- Proof
c- valid, and also not valid

2- What construct of thought is the OP asking the question of? The OP should be aware that while some share many patterns, both within traditional logic and mathematics it has been proven that math and logic are distinct non-congruent systems
a- logic
b- mathematics
c- some other internally consistant framework (I'm only vaguely familiar of others, and do not claim an expert on the 2 above)

3- To what level of rigor does the OP wish to rise? Please note we are now in post-modernism, where it has become cetain both mathematically and logically that no system of thought can be both complete and applicable to reality.

JR

[LittleOrphanAndy]

You are not adressing the question of whether or not the proofs are valid .My argument is that they are not .. I am refering to the classical arguments .

Perhaps you didn't understand what I am asking of you .

[Hentenza]

You are not adressing the question of whether or not the proofs are valid .My argument is that they are not .. I am refering to the classical arguments .

Perhaps you didn't understand what I am asking of you .

Hi Andy,

Maybe it would help by explaining what you mean by proofs.:wave:

[BigNorsk]

I think if you are trying to argue that philosophical proofs of Gods existence aren't really proof, that you are really adopting a position from a fundamentalist standpoint.

A fundamentalist holds to sola Scriptura. We have proof of God's existence, we call it the Bible. It is trustworthy. End of story. There's really not much room for debate there for the Bible is really really clear that God exists.

If you want to argue against philosophical proofs, I would think it would be more productive (maybe that's a poor word) to go to a forum that wouldn't be sola Scriptura but would turn to man and his philosophies as proof of something.

Marv

[cubanito]

Well Marv,again I both agree and disagree w u, but admire ur stance.

We agree that we stand or fall on the Bible.

We agree that "man's philosophies" are so inadequate to deal with God's "existance" that trying to use them is something akin to trying to tie a Lion down with a single spider's thread.

We both have made the kind of commitment that leaves with no wish, ability or even possibility of accepting any other basis for truth than the Bible.

Furthermore, my heart's immediate response to your message is "hooray!"

The thing is though, this is on the "debate w a Fundy" site, not the "we are all Fundy" site.

So, as a former agnostic who once thought about these things in the dark, my initial enthusiasm to simply affirm Truth and be oh-so-joyful that God turned on the lightswitch in my being, is curbed by the thought that those with questions ought be answered.

I can't say your answer to the question is wrong. I IS correct that once the trustworthyness of the Bible is shown beyond a reasonable doubt (not necessarily beyond all shadow of a doubt), all these other philosophical meanderings are, well, silly.

However, I am willing to meet the OP at her point of query. Certainly she has gone to the correct site, and asked without overt offense.

JR

[desmalia]

It looks like the OP's posts have been removed from this forum. Maybe a sock account or something, I don't know. Kinda too bad. He asked some interesting questions. But I'm sure the mods had a good reason.