Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

OK, came up with a proof for God's existence. Maybe the atheists and agnostics here can pick it apart.

1. What we call "truth," we have gained through logic.

2. What we call "logic," we have gained by experience.

3. Therefore, truth is rational experience.

4. We have observed trends in human behavior.

5. Therefore, indeterminism (pure free will) is false.

6. As individuals, we experience free will, therefore pure determinism is false.

7. Therefore, the only rational alternative is soft determinism as a parallel process -- that is, our choice and fate go hand-in-hand, neither determining one or the other, but parallel to one another.

8. Through parallel processes, there is more than one "soft determined" being.

9. Two free wills, whether partial or not, cannot co-exist without an intermediary to determine which will overcomes the other when their choices conflict.

10. If the intermediary in this case is nature, then that is determinism and our experience of free will would be false.

11. Therefore, either God exists or free will does not exist.

12. There is no reason to believe free will does not exist when it is established by our experience, therefore it is reasonable to believe that God exists.

[feederband]

Nathyn wrote: OK, came up with a proof for God's existence. Maybe the atheists and agnostics here can pick it apart.

1. What we call "truth," we have gained through logic.

2. What we call "logic," we have gained by experience.

3. Therefore, truth is rational experience.

4. We have observed trends in human behavior.

5. Therefore, indeterminism (pure free will) is false.

6. As individuals, we experience free will, therefore pure determinism is false.

7. Therefore, the only rational alternative is soft determinism as a parallel process -- that is, our choice and fate go hand-in-hand, neither determining one or the other, but parallel to one another.

8. Through parallel processes, there is more than one "soft determined" being.

9. Two free wills, whether partial or not, cannot co-exist without an intermediary to determine which will overcomes the other when their choices conflict.

10. If the intermediary in this case is nature, then that is determinism and our experience of free will would be false.

11. Therefore, either God exists or free will does not exist.

12. There is no reason to believe free will does not exist when it is established by our experience, therefore it is reasonable to believe that God exists.

This is your proof that god exsist...? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

[Nathyn]

Yes. And if you don't believe in free will, then you should slap yourself then ask yourself why you did it.

[Saf]

Nathyn wrote:
1. What we call "truth," we have gained through logic.
You have not defined truth. I would assert precisely the opposite: all a priori knowledge comes in the form of logical tautology which says nothing about the world. Truth about matters of fact comes in the form of validated hypotheses based on empirical observation.

Quote: 2. What we call "logic," we have gained by experience.
Logic is the opposite of experience. What on earth are you talking about?

Quote: 3. Therefore, truth is rational experience.
Debunked, as is the rest of your argument now.

[Nathyn]

Saf wrote: Nathyn wrote:
1. What we call "truth," we have gained through logic.
You have not defined truth. I would assert precisely the opposite: all a priori knowledge comes in the form of logical tautology which says nothing about the world. Truth about matters of fact comes in the form of validated hypotheses based on empirical observation.
No, because a priori knowledge is partially based upon our experiences -- what you call empirical observation is nothing more than our combined experiences and more sophisticated forms of determining truth through observation, which is itself experienced. A priori knowledge cannot come from logical tautology alone because the simple tautology, "Either truth exists or truth does not exist," is not necessarily logically true. Because if truth does not exist, then you cannot claim that the statement, "Truth does not exist," is true, but rather, logical tautologies aren't inherently true with regard to reality as a whole, because non-existence is not merely non-existence, but a void which cannot be described logically and is totally different simply non-existence.

Saf wrote: Quote: 2. What we call "logic," we have gained by experience.
Logic is the opposite of experience. What on earth are you talking about?
No, because all of us learn and research through experience. You go to college, read, and do science through your experience. You experience going to work and doing research. Upon seeing such research, you reason it over.

Now, one may say that logic came before experience. However, human beings were certainly dumb apes before the wise men. So, for this reason, it's fairly clear that we evolved to have experience first and slowly gained a more developed reason. Before we developed reason, there was truth. A person can swat at a fly and while a fly may not reason, it nevertheless knows that the fly swatter is there, which is true. Thus, one day, man experienced reason. And through reason, he gained a more enlightened understanding of his experience.

Saf wrote: Quote: 3. Therefore, truth is rational experience.
Debunked, as is the rest of your argument now.
Not at all.

If you're in college, you should ask any professor why pure rationalism is false. If you're an Objectivist, stop reading Ayn Rand and pick up, "A Critique of Pure Reason," by Kant.

[snow]

feederband wrote:
This is your proof that god exsist...? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

You could have tried to demonstrate why he was wrong in a respectful manner, or simply not posted anything. Instead, you mock him. More hypocrisy from you. Aren't you supposed to be an adult?

[thefranzkafkafront]

Saf wrote: Nathyn wrote:
1. What we call "truth," we have gained through logic.
You have not defined truth. I would assert precisely the opposite: all a priori knowledge comes in the form of logical tautology which says nothing about the world. Truth about matters of fact comes in the form of validated hypotheses based on empirical observation.

Quote: 2. What we call "logic," we have gained by experience.
Logic is the opposite of experience. What on earth are you talking about?


Quote: 3. Therefore, truth is rational experience.
Debunked, as is the rest of your argument now.

Thank you.

People making grand sweeping statments about proving god by logic, may want to enrole in their local college and take a few classes in logic first.

Quote: 1. What we call "truth," we have gained through logic.

Buzz.

True things are oberserable or otherwise nessisary, that is to say all widowers are men would be a true statement, but to say an emperical precept was 'true' requires you to be obsering it and it being correct at the same time.

If i where to be looking at an apple right now i could then say, 'It is true that i see an apple'.

As you can see there are two types, 'logic' of rationalism only covers certain mathmatical instaces of the first.

Quote: quote]2. What we call "logic," we have gained by experience.
You gain knowledge through experience, either mentally of physically, the faculty of logic you are born with.

Quote: 3. Therefore, truth is rational experience.

Yet you've just cited experience as the source of logic, thats not rationalistic. Rationalism holds that all emperical knowledge is fallible, thus if you've aquired your logical system from experence, a rationalist would say all your conclusions are fallible.

Quote: 4. We have observed trends in human behavior.
Another contridiction, this is empericial not rationalist.

Quote:
5. Therefore, indeterminism (pure free will) is false.
Irregarless of your previous statements in itself this conclusion is non-sequitor. Trends do not equal truth.

Quote: 6. As individuals, we experience free will, therefore pure determinism is false.

7. Therefore, the only rational alternative is soft determinism as a parallel process -- that is, our choice and fate go hand-in-hand, neither determining one or the other, but parallel to one another.

8. Through parallel processes, there is more than one "soft determined" being.

9. Two free wills, whether partial or not, cannot co-exist without an intermediary to determine which will overcomes the other when their choices conflict.

10. If the intermediary in this case is nature, then that is determinism and our experience of free will would be false.

11. Therefore, either God exists or free will does not exist.
Massive logic jump in bold. Theres nothing thats a logic nessisity in the jump from 8 to 9, your going have to justify that in itself.

Quote: 12. There is no reason to believe free will does not exist when it is established by our experience, therefore it is reasonable to believe that God exists.
Invalid conclusion sorry.

[feederband]

snow wrote: feederband wrote:
This is your proof that god exsist...? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

You could have tried to demonstrate why he was wrong in a respectful manner, or simply not posted anything. Instead, you mock him. More hypocrisy from you. Aren't you supposed to be an adult?

No need to demonstrate ....No proof here snow ball...

[Nathyn]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Saf wrote: Nathyn wrote:
1. What we call "truth," we have gained through logic.
You have not defined truth. I would assert precisely the opposite: all a priori knowledge comes in the form of logical tautology which says nothing about the world. Truth about matters of fact comes in the form of validated hypotheses based on empirical observation.

Quote: 2. What we call "logic," we have gained by experience.
Logic is the opposite of experience. What on earth are you talking about?


Quote: 3. Therefore, truth is rational experience.
Debunked, as is the rest of your argument now.

Thank you.

People making grand sweeping statments about proving god by logic, may want to enrole in their local college and take a few classes in logic first.
Already taken Philosophy 101, Ethics 101, and Logic 101.

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote: 1. What we call "truth," we have gained through logic.

Buzz.

True things are oberserable or otherwise nessisary, that is to say all widowers are men would be a true statement, but to say an emperical precept was 'true' requires you to be obsering it and it being correct at the same time.

If i where to be looking at an apple right now i could then say, 'It is true that i see an apple'.

As you can see there are two types, 'logic' of rationalism only covers certain mathmatical instaces of the first.
Logic allows you to understand your experiences, however. All knowledge comes from experience, but without logic, the quality of that knowledge is extremely poor.

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote: 3. Therefore, truth is rational experience.

Yet you've just cited experience as the source of logic, thats not rationalistic. Rationalism holds that all emperical knowledge is fallible, thus if you've aquired your logical system from experence, a rationalist would say all your conclusions are fallible.
And it's true. Empirical evidence is fallible. Because, by our reason, we know that we rely upon quite a few axioms, such as that truth and reality exist at all. And how one chooses such axioms is arbitrary. Therefore, we don't know whether truth or reality exists, but it's fairly reasonable to assume such, based upon our experiences.

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote: 4. We have observed trends in human behavior.
Another contridiction, this is empericial not rationalist.
I don't follow what you're trying to say. A person doesn't need to be strictly an empiricist or a rationalist. My philosophy professor said that very few people are pure empiricists or pure rationalists anymore.

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote:
5. Therefore, indeterminism (pure free will) is false.
Irregarless of your previous statements in itself this conclusion is non-sequitor. Trends do not equal truth.
No, but based upon the presumption that truth and reality exist, and that rational experience brings us truth of reality, if science shows us that there are trends in human behavior, then there cannot be absolute free will. Because absolute free will would be unbounded and without trends, due to the fact that anyone could just choose whatever they wanted at any time.

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote: 6. As individuals, we experience free will, therefore pure determinism is false.

7. Therefore, the only rational alternative is soft determinism as a parallel process -- that is, our choice and fate go hand-in-hand, neither determining one or the other, but parallel to one another.

8. Through parallel processes, there is more than one "soft determined" being.

9. Two free wills, whether partial or not, cannot co-exist without an intermediary to determine which will overcomes the other when their choices conflict.

10. If the intermediary in this case is nature, then that is determinism and our experience of free will would be false.

11. Therefore, either God exists or free will does not exist.
Massive logic jump in bold. Theres nothing thats a logic nessisity in the jump from 8 to 9, your going have to justify that in itself.
Thought that might be difficult. Here goes.

Say that you have two people with a free will, Jack and Jill. In a purely indeterminist universe, anyone chooses everything around them. Everything that happens is a result of their choice. Jack decides mentally, "I want a dog," and suddenly, a dog appears.

The reason an intermediary is necessary between more than one free will is because their choices may conflict. Say that Jack decides, "I want a dog," and Jill decides, "I don't want Jack to have a dog." Well, their choices conflict. The dog cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Therefore, there must be some form of arbiter which decides whether or not Jack gets his dog or not.

This is also true even in the partially determined universe that we live in. What I asserted was that fate and choice always go together, as parallel processes. If that's true, then we have some degree of free will, but we are somewhat bound by our circumstances. I can choose to have a dog, yes, but in choosing to have a dog, I have to literally go to the store and get one. I can't just choose to have a dog and have it suddenly appear, like Jack. However, even in this case of limited free will, there may be cases where two wills contradict. Say that I go to get a dog and another person goes as well to get the same dog. We fight over it. Now, which person will get the dog? There's a fairly equal chance that each will get the dog and, if free will comes into play when both try to coerce one another, then there must be an arbiter.

[Sataere]

Nathyn wrote: OK, came up with a proof for God's existence. Maybe the atheists and agnostics here can pick it apart.

1. What we call "truth," we have gained through logic.

2. What we call "logic," we have gained by experience.

3. Therefore, truth is rational experience.

4. We have observed trends in human behavior.

5. Therefore, indeterminism (pure free will) is false.

6. As individuals, we experience free will, therefore pure determinism is false.

7. Therefore, the only rational alternative is soft determinism as a parallel process -- that is, our choice and fate go hand-in-hand, neither determining one or the other, but parallel to one another.

8. Through parallel processes, there is more than one "soft determined" being.

9. Two free wills, whether partial or not, cannot co-exist without an intermediary to determine which will overcomes the other when their choices conflict.

10. If the intermediary in this case is nature, then that is determinism and our experience of free will would be false.

11. Therefore, either God exists or free will does not exist.

12. There is no reason to believe free will does not exist when it is established by our experience, therefore it is reasonable to believe that God exists.

A string of barely coherent psuedo-logic such as this doesn't prove anything. It only shows you know how to really reach for things to link to eachother. Nice try, but I'm sorry to say that I highly doubt this will convince anyone.

[snow]

feederband wrote:

No need to demonstrate ....No proof here snow ball...

I could have sworn you said you were married and had kids. That means you're supposed to act older than 18.

[feederband]

snow wrote: feederband wrote:

No need to demonstrate ....No proof here snow ball...

I could have sworn you said you were married and had kids. That means you're supposed to act older than 18.

What does me being married with kids have anything to do with there is proof of nothing here?

If I want to laugh at his proof I will...You can laugh and be over 18 last time I checked..

[ieatfood]

Nathyn wrote: Yes. And if you don't believe in free will, then you should slap yourself then ask yourself why you did it.

free will clearly does not exist
if you took a course in neuroscience, you would understand that
our brains are just machines
machines cannot have free will

[snow]

feederband wrote:
What does me being married with kids have anything to do with there is proof of nothing here?

If I want to laugh at his proof I will...You can laugh and be over 18 last time I checked..

Maturity level. . . this place is supposed to be a forum of civilized debate. Like I said, if you thought his logic was stupid, then why even bother coming in and expressing that utterly worthless response? The more you post, the more you show how little substance there is behind your beliefs.

[feederband]

snow wrote: feederband wrote:
What does me being married with kids have anything to do with there is proof of nothing here?

If I want to laugh at his proof I will...You can laugh and be over 18 last time I checked..

Maturity level. . . this place is supposed to be a forum of civilized debate. Like I said, if you thought his logic was stupid, then why even bother coming in and expressing that utterly worthless response? The more you post, the more you show how little substance there is behind your beliefs.

And just what are your beliefs?

[letsgooilers]

Quote: this place is supposed to be a forum of civilized debate

Really? I thought this was the internet, in which anyone can express an opinion. And this forum, I thought for sure was designed for people to express opinions against each other irregardless of whether or not it is done in a "civillized" matter.

Quote: Like I said, if you thought his logic was stupid, then why even bother coming in and expressing that utterly worthless response? The more you post, the more you show how little substance there is behind your beliefs.

If you think his response is worthless, then why bother to post a response to him then? In fact, if what you are responding to is utterly worthless, then what is your post?

[feederband]

letsgooilers wrote: Quote: this place is supposed to be a forum of civilized debate

Really? I thought this was the internet, in which anyone can express an opinion. And this forum, I thought for sure was designed for people to express opinions against each other irregardless of whether or not it is done in a "civillized" matter.

Quote: Like I said, if you thought his logic was stupid, then why even bother coming in and expressing that utterly worthless response? The more you post, the more you show how little substance there is behind your beliefs.

If you think his response is worthless, then why bother to post a response to him then? In fact, if what you are responding to is utterly worthless, then what is your post?


Thanx... I'm used to his smerky remarks...

[Saracen]

Nathyn wrote: OK, came up with a proof for God's existence. Maybe the atheists and agnostics here can pick it apart.

1. What we call "truth," we have gained through logic.

2. What we call "logic," we have gained by experience.

3. Therefore, truth is rational experience.

4. We have observed trends in human behavior.

5. Therefore, indeterminism (pure free will) is false.

6. As individuals, we experience free will, therefore pure determinism is false.

7. Therefore, the only rational alternative is soft determinism as a parallel process -- that is, our choice and fate go hand-in-hand, neither determining one or the other, but parallel to one another.

8. Through parallel processes, there is more than one "soft determined" being.

9. Two free wills, whether partial or not, cannot co-exist without an intermediary to determine which will overcomes the other when their choices conflict.

10. If the intermediary in this case is nature, then that is determinism and our experience of free will would be false.

11. Therefore, either God exists or free will does not exist.

12. There is no reason to believe free will does not exist when it is established by our experience, therefore it is reasonable to believe that God exists.

:clap: :tu:

[snow]

letsgooilers wrote:
Really? I thought this was the internet, in which anyone can express an opinion. And this forum, I thought for sure was designed for people to express opinions against each other irregardless of whether or not it is done in a "civillized" matter.

Nope, you're wrong.

letsgooilers wrote:
If you think his response is worthless, then why bother to post a response to him then? In fact, if what you are responding to is utterly worthless, then what is your post?

Because if someone doesn't confront him, he'll continue wasting bandwidth.

feederband wrote: Thanx... I'm used to his smerky remarks...

What a joke. That's all you post is "smerky" remarks. Look at your first post. Look at what this conversation is about. It's about the old man with children who can't even match their maturity level.

[Nathyn]

ieatfood wrote: Nathyn wrote: Yes. And if you don't believe in free will, then you should slap yourself then ask yourself why you did it.

free will clearly does not exist
if you took a course in neuroscience, you would understand that
our brains are just machines
machines cannot have free will
While staring at this post, can you decide seemingly randomly whether or not you will or will not post a reply?

And has neuroscience fully disproven free will's existence or has it merely limited it by proving it isn't absolute?