The Black Vault

Greeney, you asked for what logical proof of God's existence I would accept.

I'm trying to explain why that question doesn't really make sense. Logic isn't like observation, or direct experience. Logical proofs are proofs in the form proposed in this thread - the ontological argument - so you seem to want me to compose my own logical proof of God.

But I'm an atheist, and my position is that no such proof exists, so your question makes no sense to me.

Now, what I think you're trying to ask me is "what would I consider proof of God's existence", which is a completely different question to the one you asked. The answer to that question would be "I'm not sure".

You might think this is a copout, but most people do not know exactly what it would take to make them believe something to be true. I am sure, however, that if there is a God and he wants me to be a believer, he does know what proof would convince me, and if he sees fit, he will provide it.

I would certainly be swayed towards belief if I witnessed a true miracle, though. My whole worldview would change drastically if I directly experienced something I considered supernatural, or paranormal, and I was not under the influence and of sound mind. A direct experience with God would also probably sway me, but it would have to be very clear it was God and not a figment of my imagination. I would also be swayed by any valid logical proof of God's existence, but knowing what I do of logic, I am pretty sure such a thing cannot exist.

I hope this helps.

By the way, I do not think tempers flared at all in this thread. In fact, without wanting to sound mean, it was more polite and well mannered than any I have ever had with you, who seem content to drop attacks towards me into every single post you make.

humphreys wrote:Now, what I think you're trying to ask me is "what would I consider proof of God's existence",

Thats exactly what I ask you to do, tell us what logical proof you would accept, and you would not do it. You say a miracle would sway you, but how would you decide if it was a miracle, or just refute them too?

humphreys wrote:I would also be swayed by any valid logical proof of God's existence

Forinstance?

humphreys wrote:By the way, I do not think tempers flared at all in this thread.

Little digs were starting, which I know starts things going down hill, I agree its going pretty well, just wanted to chime in not to let frustrations led to bigger meltdowns. Everyone is doing good, Thank You.

greeney2 wrote:

humphreys wrote:Now, what I think you're trying to ask me is "what would I consider proof of God's existence",

Thats exactly what I ask you to do, tell us what logical proof you would accept, and you would not do it.

The question "what would I consider proof of God's existence?" is not the same as the question "what logical proof for God's existence would you accept?".

They are not the same things, greeney.

You must understand that there are different types of proof.

A "logical proof" is not the same as a proof through direct experience, for example. You asked me specifically for an example of a "logical proof" for God's existence, and I explained to you that if there was such a thing I would have to be a believer.

If I could prove God via a set of logical statements we would not be here right now discussing whether or not he was real.

greeney2 wrote:You say a miracle would sway you, but how would you decide if it was a miracle, or just refute them too?

If I witnessed it directly and there was no other natural explanation, then it would be convincing. If an angel appeared from thin air and carried a child to safety in front of my very eyes how could I explain it any other way?

greeney2 wrote:

humphreys wrote:I would also be swayed by any valid logical proof of God's existence

Forinstance?

See above and please stop asking the same question.

I'll tell you what it should take more than: It should take more than hearsay, or emotional appeal, or argumentum ad populum.

So, without referring to your bible, or relying on the number of believers in your particular religion, or generally manipulating the emotional baggage of human hopes and fears, what do you have to offer that might convince anyone that your belief is correct?

greeney2 wrote:Tempers are starting to escalate,and flare with each other, so lets all reel it in a little. Everyone is just getting frustrated with everyone else, so before the flaming gets out of hand, please agree to just disagree. Stop with the little digs, and labeling. This was why I moved it out of the battle forum, to avoid conflicts

I have already conceded the ontological proof debate to humphreys and DIss0n80r, since I could not prove my claim. They win this round, yes.

The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. If someone claims God exists then they must clarify what they mean by "God" and then prove his existence using logical arguments.

Khan, you are really quite a decent fellow when you're not playing dirty. I take back some of the horrible things that at1 and I have said about you.

I would also like to read yours and at1's thoughts on what math might imply about the existence of a God (or God-like intelligence, if you prefer). I personally wouldn't know where to begin, not to mention I suck at math.

Still, I'm sure the two of you discussing it would be an interesting read, for me at least.

humphreys wrote:Why is it not logically possible for something to exist, and yet not exist in actuality? I doubt you even understand the question.

To be and not be at the same time and in the same relation is a logical fallacy. Do you disagree?

greeney2 wrote:Thank You Event, for your reply to me, you cleared up some of the definition of "weak and strong" atheists from your perspective, that neither claims any proof so to speak, one just makes stronger assertions of non-existance than weak atheists do, if I understand you. From my perspective, I don't see much difference with neither having proof, by your own definition you all are weak.

No. The definition of strong and weak atheist wasn't from my perspective. That's why I put it in quotes and followed it with the about.com link. Did you read the whole link? You must not have, because you still don't seem to understand the difference.

Basically, a strong atheist will assert (with absolute knowledge) that a certain god or gods do not exist, while a weak atheist will simply deny the existence of a god or gods with his/her own reasoning (without claiming absolute knowledge).

I gave my proof that the "Biblical God" does not exist. It's solid proof.

I hope that clears things up.

Yes it clears it up, and I went back and looked at your link. It states what I concluded, neither strong or weak has proof, the strong atheist has basically additonal assertions, and it even states in your link what I said, that all atheists are weak atheists. The idea of strong or weak would mean something if you were an atheist, but to a believer, its a moot point, it doesn't matter to someone who believes in one God.

Whatever you terms "absolute knowledge" and "solid proof" means to your logic, who knows.