As we all know, it’s a fool’s dream to obtain physical evidence of the Almighty, and since I am no fool, I shall prove beyond all doubt that that God (who is Love, as we all know, “all” excluding the heathens, of course) truly exists using nothing more than logic, of which I am an undisputed master.
Ahem…
God is the very bestest, most loving, most perfect entity there can possibly be in this or any other world. He wuvs you THIS much [arms spread out all the way].
The universe could not exist without Him (trust me on this one; it is self-evident and does not need explanation; only a close-minded atheist would dare challenge this marvelous, beautiful axiom).
Therefore He exists.
Beautiful, isn’t it? It’s so simple, so elegant, it MUST be true, and only a blind chimpanzee could not see it.
If you want to know the math behind my proof, here it is, but be warned: Only someone of my brilliant intellect can possibly comprehend it.
G=G
O=O
D=D
L=L
O=O
V=V
E=E
Therefore God= Love and since we know that love exists, God must exist too!
Pardon me while I pat myself on the back for my ingenuity. I now await your praise and adulation…
Your subject matter, however, is spot-on. That ontowhatchamajigger symbolomatic proof of the existence of the magical sky pixie gives me a serious headache.:smack:
Lib, I and others have showed you why you were wrong numerous times on that thread. You either ignored us or were smug and condescending to us (as you often are). I just thought I’d show you how rude and ridiculous you’ve been.
Please knock it off and remember that you, too, can be wrong.
Aw, dangit, Jab. You stepped out of character too soon and ruined your own thread. We could have had some fun. (You should have stayed in character and reacted with great indignation and used a lot of big words.) Oh well, it’s yours to ruin. With all due respect, I’m gonna kinda weigh it this way…
Left hand: Every logician and philosopher of note in the western world in modern times.
vs
Right hand: A couple of hand-stabbing materialists on the SDMB.
Hmmm . . . I lurked throughout that entire thread, and noticed that:
Most everybody in the thread who has had any formal training in logic agreed that the argument as presented was formally correct and not deficient in structure. In other words, that the argument was logically correct.
Most everybody in the thread, including Libertarian, agreed that the structure of the argument, and its conclusion, carried no particular metaphysical implication whatsoever.
Lemme see here…by using the above math…a little change over here…substitute this value there…
Eureka! You can also prove that: Dog=Glove. Knowing that gloves are for putting your hands in, it can reasonably be extrapolated that fisting your dog is okay!
Ah, Science and Nowledge! (thats what the “N” on Big Red’s football helmets stand for, by the way!)
Damn! I have forgotten to not become drunken again!
The pointlessness of it all. If he never actually proved that God does exist in the world we live in, the actual, real world, what was the point of it all? It’s just mental masturbation. It feels good, but what else does it do? (And I’m tired of his condescension and smugness. I thought I made that clear.)
I see above that Lib is subject to the fallacious reasoning that the more popular the belief, the more likely it is to be true. Lib, has it ever occurred to you that all the “logician(s) and philosopher(s) of note in the western world in modern times” may be wrong, may have been victims of that human tendency to accept conclusions we find comfortable (there is a God) and try mightily to deny the conclusions we find uncomfortable, perhaps even frightening (there is no God)?
The small percentage of humanity who are atheists just may be the ones who are right, and I think that possibility scares you.
jab, please provide a quote from Libertarian in that thread where he said (or hell, even implied) that he was proving the existence of the Christian God.
You can’t? No surprise.
The point of the thread was to show that the ontological argument for the existence of God (perhaps a poorly chosen word, but that’s what it’s stuck with) is in fact valid, and may present a problem for materialists. If you don’t understand, or don’t agree, or don’t care, then act appropriately. Don’t demand that people defend something they didn’t even say.
Yep, that’s right Ultra. And thanks, Phil, for mentioning the truth.
That’s why I kept thinking that some of the respondents weren’t reading anything I wrote. Not that I care if they ignore what I write, but when they both ignore and then accuse, it’s over the line.
I explained, using an entire post, that the argument DOES prove that God exists in the “real” world. This world. The final inference in the argument, G, means “God actually exists”.
As Phil said, I have no idea what the metaphysical implications might be for others (certainly, I know what they are for me). And as Ultra said, the argument presents a problem for materialists, not the least of which is whether they will face it with intellectual honesty the way theists must face similar arguments that have shown them to be wrong about such things as the watchmaker argument.
Oh, abundantly. You know, the obvious solution for a mature human being would be to not read his posts anymore, if they frustrate you so much. If you feel that he is consistently smug and condescending, and you choose to engage him in argument anyway, whose fault is it when you walk away pissed off?
Call me deluded, but I believe that I can show him where he’s wrong.
Now look above, if you will. ultrafilter says
And then Lib says
If Lib and ultra’s statements don’t contradict, if they agree, then I must be losing my mind. Ultra claims that Lib was never trying to prove that God really exists, then Lib says he agrees with ultra and then says he WAS trying to prove that God really exists and has accomplished this!
Which one of us is being illogical, me or Lib? which one of us is crazy?
But saying that God exists as Supreme (necessary) Being (existence) might imply the Christian God, but then again, it might not — it might imply just the universe as God. And I said that very thing over and over in that thread. I have my opinion, but I understand (and I want you to understand) that my opinion in that regard has no bearing on the proof and is not derived from it.
I know that. But Libertarian never has before. Every other time he has used the word (the things that I’ve read, anyway), he was referring to the being described in the Bible. Hell, he’s said that God is a libertarian!
Wait, so let me get this straight. You present this argument in support of theists, because it presents a “problem for materialists.” However, metaphysically speaking, the God which you’re proving could be the Christian God (a very theistic concept), or it might just prove the universe as God, which as I understand it is a very materialistic concept. Am I clear so far?
You can’t say thangs like that cause I don’t like it !!! You’re first sentince is awl wrong too! :mad: :mad: