Wasn't sure whether to put this in SMP or here, but there is this kid that is always trying to prove that God exists on Facebook. He tried it once before a few months back by using math. Here is his new theory:

Deepak Chopra, come on down!

Are you wanting someone to provide you with a refutation so you can look smart in response on facebook?

You could exchange fairies for god in premises 3 & 4 and the conclusion.

Technically, it's using logic.

I don't accept Premise 1. There's also a different "existence" posed in Premise 3, so one has to show the relationship between these types of "existence" in a substantive way; there's also the question of what the existence of a "thought" entails as suggested by the conclusion ( "thinker"; where do thoughts "come from"? ). Premise 4 doesn't indicate by what means thoughts retain their identity.

Reminds me of a paper on a mathematical model of divine infinity (using transfinite ordinals ):

http://www.ericsteinhart.com/article...neinfinity.pdf

Besides, Plantinga already showed the flaws of most of the common proofs of the existence of "G-d" in "G-d and Other Minds" almost half a century ago; despite that, he's also known for being a Christian philosopher and somewhat known for his version of the modal ontological argument.

I laughed pretty good at this.

And bring George Berkeley with you.

Not bad for a kid. Problem is premise one, if true, would prove God doesn't exist. The traditional theistic God is transcendent to the universe and is himself the creator of the universe(energy). In premise one "everything is energy" confirms what Sagan said: "The universe is all there is, etc."

It isn't really that hard to prove stuff, when you aren't burdened with any kind of property or attribute in what you are trying to prove and your theory is unfalsifiable to boot. It is actually really, really easy. Nevermind that the two things we would reasonably expect from "proof" are no longer present.

Faceless and property-lacking "Gods" that exist based on premises that can't be tested. That's fine (and utterly, wholly and completely irrelevant and without value). Those Gods aren't the Gods that people tend to worship, however. And why would they worship them? There is nothing to worship. You might as well be an atheist, it wouldn't make a difference.

Provide me a proof that there exists a God that doesn't want you to work on the Sabbath and thinks pigs are unclean. That's the kind of "God" I'm interested in debating.

Unfortunately, most theists are not...

Well, then there is no debate.

T: "God exists, because pebbles"
A: "God does not exist, because sand"

The end.

You have a lot of posts in RGT for someone not interested in the debate.

Also if someone were able to provide proof of that God what would we debate?

I am very interested in theological debate. Thankfully theological debate is more than making empty claims about gods without properties.

Is there anything particularly worthwhile about "If energy, then Zybzzt"? If so, feel free to explain it to me.

fwiw, the above proof also fails on this:

1st bolded is only not wrong if "in one form or another" means "at least as energy". As energy, the content of the thought, arguably, is lost. Same goes for the thought about an omni... etc. and thus, in its energy-form it doensn't require a thinker.

If you wanted more than this, i.e. full-fledged thoughts swirling through the universe, you'd have a host of other ontological issues quite aside from the question of the existence of god.

TBH I don't see a lot of theological debate here.

You're asking for a proof that you know doesn't exist to inform a debate it would render irrelevant

No, I'm asking for soundness as opposed to only validity. Soundness is necessary for logic arguments that want to prove actual phenomena.

If not, as has been pointed out (albeit humorously), it doesn't matter what you enter into the equation.

And you know that isn't happening yet you're here regardless.

I get the requirement for soundness for logical arguments but you know that there isn't an argument for God that will satisfy that requirement for you so we're really in danger of getting circular.

We'll start of with the important bit of your post first; You seem to be arguing that if one finds a statement to be irrelevant and without value, that one should leave it alone. I don't have much to say on that, except that I disagree.

The other statement is more a reflection on me and what I would or would not accept. I don't have much to say on that except that I find attempts to deduce God far more worthwhile than dialectic proofs.

You think attempts to deduce God for this purpose worthwhile?

You want soundness, you want all the premises to be true and the premises to require the conclusion to prove God thinks pigs unclean. I'm not trying to be a dick here but that seems ambitious. I am however the least credible theist here so I should probably leave it

First of all, any absurdity in this matter is not of my doing. I did not invent the rule about unclean pigs out of thin air, it is an actual trait of the world's most popular deity which is universal to all all the three main doctrines that can be said to worship it (Islam, Christiantiy and Judaism)... so we're speaking about quite a few billion people, even if we remove those who think the pigs rule do not longer apply.


Other than that... Which kind of gods does almost the entiry of the world's religious populace actually worship? Empty faceless dialectic Gods with no measurable footprint, or described Gods with specified rules, attitudes and demands?

[citation needed]

I'm not claiming you introduced the "absurdity" but we both know that a request to have such an "absurdity" justified by a sound logical proof is futile. I get I'm being nitty but it seems almost disingenuous.

I suspect Christians may point to Mathew 15:11

@tame_deuces
Could you exemplify what you mean by a logically proven god that is devoid of property of attribute?

Ask him to define energy

Yes, that is extremely simple. It means you can exchange the concluded "god" with a nonsensical word, but this does not change any implications of the proposition.

Basically the term is just an empty container. In propositions similar to the one in the OP You are not talking about any specific "God" or anything at all for that matter; Essentially you are merely talking about a word, so the entire "proof" is just an exercise in dialectic reasoning more than anything else.