"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[schmuck]

---

provide empirical proof for god's existence, until then, I won't believe that he exists. Ka simple.
mulikoy2x pa jd nga dili nako ma prove nga wala ga exist.

Gi-explainan na gani ka, nga illogical ang mo prove og negative(god does NOT exist), mo insister gihapon.

sakyan nato imong dear #7 ha. atong subayon:

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

atong sumpayan ha.
Let X be the domain that transcends both space and time
Let A be trancendent being
6. A exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
7. X—the the domain that transcends both space and time —exists.
8. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for X to exist.
9. What it takes for X to exist cannot exist within X or be bounded by X space and X time.
10. Therefore, what it takes for X to exist must transcend both X space and X time.
so on and so fort. ad infinitum.

what does it prove? nothing. It only brings more questions.

[mannyamador]

provide empirical proof for god's existence, until then, I won't believe that he exists.

That's an arbitrary, a priori precondition. Why should only emprical proofs be acceptable to prove the existence of a non-corporeal being? That is unreasonable and absurd. if you are really interested in the truth, non-empirical proof s should be acceptable as well.

By the way, no one has been able to refute #7 yet. The tired old objection by Hume was refuted a really long time ago.

[schmuck]

That's an arbitrary, a priori precondition. Why should only emprical proofs be acceptable to prove the existence of a non-corporeal being? That is unreasonable and absurd. if you are really interested in the truth, non-empirical proof s should be acceptable as well.

By the way, no one has been able to refute #7 yet. The tired old objection by Hume was refuted a really long time ago.

did you even read and understand my reply?

how convenient, god is non-corporeal. So how can he interact with the corporeal? The moment when a non-corporeal object interacts with a corporeal object, it ceases to be non-corporeal. Therefore, can produce empirical evidence.

question for you, if you accept that 'nothing can come from nothing', but also accept that 'god has always been', then why not stop at 'the universe has always been'? why bring magic into the equation?

[bodie]

Just because you say so? You have to prove it. So far, you've failed to do so. MISERABLY, I might add.

So, why should the non-existence of God be the "default" position again?

Look at the previous posts. Consult your books on logic if needed.

Why not? Many have tried. You are making an a priori statement with no logical basis. No. if you maintain God does not exist, you must prove it.

Your just rephrasing the question. And again, you cannot prove the non-existence of god. You must therefore prove that god exists in order to disprove that god does not exist. If you continue to refuse to understand this, then we cannon go forward with this argument logically.

Lets go back to your aeta example. The aeta cannot prove that the US does not exist. Because if he continues looking, then he will find that the US does if fact exist. Its physically possible to verify that. The existence of god has so far not been physically possible to verify. That is why your example was a fallacy.

That's right. I have no objection to this. Theists must prove the existence of God.

Theists and atheists must prove the existence of god.

So far, you have only given the flimsiest objection (famously promoted by Hume), which claims the Necessary Being is not God. I replied that the Necessary Being, since it is effectively the Creator of the universe, is very much like the God theists believe in. In fact, the Necessary Being (Creator) is one of the most fundamental attributes of God accepted by theists. Without it, all other attributes of God are meaningless to theists.

Your objection has been refuted. The argument for the existence of God stands, demolishing the atheist position. But then I do not expect you to listen to reason. You never have.

Urr... who isnt listening to reason here? Does the fact that we question your methods mean that we dont listen to reason? The replies against you have been based on logical arguments so far.

And just to be clear, the atheist position does not necessitate a "Necessary Being". Premise 1 of argument #7 is unvalidated to begin with. That is they reason why its been refuted.

[mannyamador]

The moment when a non-corporeal object interacts with a corporeal object, it ceases to be non-corporeal. Therefore, can produce empirical evidence.

First, you have to prove that claim. You haven't. Show me some evidence for such a claim, empirical or otherwise.

Second, any empirical evidence would be of the interaction, not of the non-corporeal being. So you can conveniently attribute it to something else.

Glug... glug... glug...

question for you, if you accept that 'nothing can come from nothing', but also accept that 'god has always been', then why not stop at 'the universe has always been'?

I have no problem with the idea that the universe has always been. That still doesn't give it, or any contingent being in it, the property of necessity. Therefore, a Necessary Being is still, well, necessary.

The argument is from contingency and necessity, not from an action at some point in time.

And again, you cannot prove the non-existence of god

Again, that's an a priori, arbitrary claim. I have already shown a valid method for doing so. No. You must prove your claim. Otherwiwe it is just a dogmatic, unfounded assumption. Theists must also prove their claim or they too would be the same.

Theists and atheists must prove the existence of god.

Perhaps you mean atheists must prove the non-existence of God. Why should atheists have to prove the existence of God? They are, after all, atheists, not theists.

And just to be clear, the atheist position does not necessitate a "Necessary Being".

So how do contingent beings making up the universe get their necessity to exist? They do not have it and the universe as a while cannot suddenly acquire what none of it has. The logic is unassailable. There must be at least one non-contingent being which is the source of necessity. or else nothing could exist.

By the way, the Necessary Being is the proven conclusion of the argument, not the premise. if it were, then the argument would begging the question.

[schmuck]

First, you have to prove that claim. You haven't. Show me some evidence for such a claim, empirical or otherwise.

Second, any empirical evidence would be of the interaction, not of the non-corporeal being. So you can conveniently attribute it to something else.

Glug... glug... glug...

lol nangitag proof nga by definitions lang daan daog na.
corporeal - visible and tangible
non-corporeal - invisible and non-tangible, can not cause anything in the corporeal world

unsaon man kuno pag-interact og non-corporeal sa corporeal?

of course pangitaon jd na og natural explanations tanan imong ipresent as evidence. last resort na nang magic2x. Have you heard of Occam's Razor?

I have no problem with the idea that the universe has always been. That still doesn't give it, or any contingent being in it, the property of necessity. Therefore, a Necessary Being is still, well, necessary.

The argument is from contingency and necessity, not from an action at some point in time.

Why must there be necessity? You're only postulating that neccessity is a neccessity.



*hantod karon imo gihapon gi shift ang burden of proof? haha kapila na gibalik2x dili gihapon kasabot.
god exists <- positive claim
god does not exist <- negative claim

burden of proof lies on the side having the positive claim. gaya kasabot oi.
basa -> The Burden of Proof

[bodie]

Again, that's an a priori, arbitrary claim. I have already shown a valid method for doing so. No. You must prove your claim. Otherwiwe it is just a dogmatic, unfounded assumption. Theists must also prove their claim or they too would be the same.

Sige. What will it take to prove my claim? The logical method does not appear to work with you man.

Perhaps you mean atheists must prove the non-existence of God. Why should atheists have to prove the existence of God? They are, after all, atheists, not theists.

The more people seek the existence of god and fail to find proof, the stronger our case. Its that simple. When someone finds proof, our case falls down. Again, simple ra.

On the other hand, sige mi pangita that god does not exist. How do we do that? Impossible man na... because we are looking for non-existence. That is why mangita mi ug god. That is why the burden of proof is on your side.

So how do contingent beings making up the universe get their necessity to exist? They do not have it and the universe as a while cannot suddenly acquire what none of it has. The logic is unassailable. There must be at least one non-contingent being which is the source of necessity. or else nothing could exist.

By the way, the Necessary Being is the proven conclusion of the argument, not the premise. if it were, then the argument would begging the question.

You said: There must be at least one non-contingent being which is the source of necessity. This is the crux of the matter. And within that, the word "being" (shouldnt it be "Being"?) is another thing. That is the weak point in argument #7. You make a leaf of faith in validating that argument without a shred of proof. That is what atheists are arguing against. We refuse to make that leap of faith. We want to KNOW how, not BELIEVE that it is.

[mannyamador]

Sige. What will it take to prove my claim? The logical method does not appear to work with you man.

It would be more accurate to say that you don't know how to argue logically. But give it a try. Many atheists have done so. I would suppose you've read up on their efforts.

The more people seek the existence of god and fail to find proof, the stronger our case.

To fail to prove the existence of God weakens or dissipates attacks on your position, but it doesn't prove your position. You still must show that God does not, or cannot, exist. Until then, all you have is an unfounded assumption, an irrational, baseless claim.

If theists fail to prove their position, then their position is also such.

On the other hand, sige mi pangita that god does not exist. How do we do that? Impossible man na... because we are looking for non-existence. That is why mangita mi ug god. That is why the burden of proof is on your side.

I have already shown a valid method used by many atheists. All you need to do is show a condition that is incompatible with the existence of God. If the co-existence cannot be explained, then God cannot exist. Simple. This totally refutes your claim about burden of proof. You cannot claim a priori that it is impossible to prove non-existence. The burden of proof is on both sides.

But you can't even seem to gather the wherewithal to do that. Looks like you're just looking for an excuse to cover up the fact that you have nothing to back up your atheist position.

You said: There must be at least one non-contingent being which is the source of necessity. This is the crux of the matter.

And this is simple logic. If all beings were contingent, then how could anything exist? You can't seemt o explain that. Contingency lacks such existential necessity. If absolutely everything were contingent, where would you have necessity? You are assuming everything must be contingent. We are questioning that assumption -- in fact, showing that it cannot be so. QED.

[schmuck]

^ atong ibreak down imong argument ha.
1. Everything has cause
2. The first cause is the uncaused cause
3. This uncaused cause is god.
?
sakto?

[bodie]

It would be more accurate to say that you don't know how to argue logically. But give it a try. Many atheists have done so. I would suppose you've read up on their efforts.

I have. I dont claim to have read all of them, pero generally the argument is like that. Are you saying all of them fail to argue logically? Because I am forwarding the standard argument here.

To fail to prove the existence of God weakens or dissipates attacks on your position, but it doesn't prove your position. You still must show that God does not, or cannot, exist. Until then, all you have is an unfounded assumption, an irrational, baseless claim.

If theists fail to prove their position, then their position is also such.

From where I (and a whole lot of other people) are standing it is the logical assumption. Unfounded due to lack of evidence to the contrary, yes. Irrational and baseless... no.

I have already shown a valid method used by many atheists. All you need to do is show a condition that is incompatible with the existence of God. If the co-existence cannot be explained, then God cannot exist. Simple. This totally refutes your claim about burden of proof. You cannot claim a priori that it is impossible to prove non-existence. The burden of proof is on both sides.

And again, I will tell you that it is just one of the arguments. Keep in mind that this argument is primarily a philosophical question dealing with intangible things. You seem convinced with the arguments given in defence, we are convinced on the rightness of our own arguments. With regards to questions such as these, nobody wins. There is always a reason why they are "correct". Tangible things are more conclusive, thats why there are other arguments other than this one.

But you can't even seem to gather the wherewithal to do that. Looks like you're just looking for an excuse to cover up the fact that you have nothing to back up your atheist position.

If your willing to stay and keep on topic, I will be glad to give you a summary of the arguments for the atheist position given by Dawkins in his book. All I ask is that you keep an open mind.

And this is simple logic. If all beings were contingent, then how could anything exist? You can't seemt o explain that. Contingency lacks such existential necessity. If absolutely everything were contingent, where would you have necessity? You are assuming everything must be contingent. We are questioning that assumption -- in fact, showing that it cannot be so. QED.

Again, we disagree on this. Again, this is a philosophical question. If you willing I can give you arguments for this one as well. However, if your amendable to it, I propose we agree to disagree on the point and leave it at that. The correctness of the premise appears to be a fundamental belief on your, just as the incorrectness of the premise is a fundamental point on my side. Arguing about it probably wont change anything.

Also, read the book if you can. Theists have often commented that it just shows how delusional atheists are.