$50 challenge: prove to me that a god or gods exist!

LatinStyleLover · Oct 23, 2009

if you can't prove something (in this case, "god"), there is no reason to believe in it (again, in this case, "god"). i can might as well declare that there is an invisible cat sitting on the sofa, but since you can't prove it, it must be true (obviously a foolish thing to say).

You are getting ready for a date with a girl that you are planning on ********** with later that night. A friend of yours, someone you trust, tells you he has personal knowledge (but cannot prove it to you) that this girl has a sexually transmitted disease and that she sleeps with guys like you just so she can infect them. This girl is really hot, you also happen to really like her, but you are not ready to get a disease from her. You do not know for sure if your friend is telling you the truth. Maybe he likes her, too, and wants you to stop seeing her. Maybe he is telling the truth. You really do not know, do you? What do you do? You could ask her for proof, but that would just offend her and she would likely drop you anyway then. Do you choose to believe your friend, someone you have come to trust after many years of friendship?

Good people have claimed to have had experiences that, for them, prove the existence of God. Have they had the experience? Only they know for sure, but they make the claim that they have. If you trust them, believe in them, then you must choose whether to believe what they are telling you or not. For me to deny the existance of God would be to disbelieve many people I truly trust and deny my own life's experiences. I do not require additional proof of God's existence.

"if you can't prove something (in this case, "god"), there is no reason to believe in it"

The reason to believe your friend in the above scenario is because if he is right then you would be endangering your own health. Many people make THAT decision every day. Many people make that decision and wish they had followed the advice of a trusted friend and not their own sex drive.

In the case of God, believing in him does not harm you and, with few exceptions, causes most to become better people. Failing to believe when there exists so much evidence of his existence seems the foolish choice.

"my personal favorite is that pascal's wager is a false dichotomy in that it assumes that the 2 choices it presents are the ONLY choices you have (which is false because there is the other choice that living a life without believing in god is BETTER than the restrictions on freedom imposed on you by religion)."

This is another premise I feel compelled to reject. How does religion restrict your freedom? Most academics would argue that knowledge is freedom. Many former POW's have talked at length about how what is in one's heart and mind is the one thing imprisonment cannot take from you. Most have argued that it was their faith in God, the knowledge that he exists, that kept them going. If knowledge is freedom and the more knowledge you have the more freedom you have then the same must necessarily apply to spiritual knowledge, too. Knowing that God exists does not restrict freedom, it make one more free. Denying the existance of God denies you of an infinite source of additional knowledge and actually limits you to only what you can see and prove. Your are a prisoner to your own limits on knowledge.

The entire premise of your question is backwards since it assumes God does not exist. The real question is how can one NOT believe in God and still explain the infinite marvels that abound in the universe. What is more foolish to believe, that a "Big Bang" or other accidental convergence of matter created all of the wonders that exist in our universe and that they all work so well together by infinite acts of good fortune or that a being of unlimited power and goodness created all of this for us because he loves us that much? All one need do is witness the birth of one of their own children, feel that immense love that is born with your child, and it becomes easy to understand how God, creator of us all, our father, would want all of this for us. That just makes so much more sense, to me.

I reject your opening premise. I will give anyone here $5000 if they can prove to me that God does NOT exist. Good luck with that one!

musicguy · Oct 23, 2009

if you can't prove something, whether it be scientifically, mathematically, or logically, then there is no logical reason to believe in that thing. you say that spirituality is intuited; so what LEADS to this intuition?

what is your proof that energy in the beginning is divinity? what is your proof that only the divine can create?

Where science leaves off, spirituality begins. Science is the how, spirituality is the why. Nothing leads to intuition. Intuition is a separate process altogether, not related to the mind.

You're asking for physical proof of something that's not physical. The proof isn't anywhere, yet it's everywhere. There is a reason why some scientists have a problem justifying divinity. They're using the wrong tools and methods to discover divinity.

If you're really earnest in discovering divinity, then you have to follow the scientific method of spirituality that has been laid down by the leaders of all the major religions, by saints and sages of all lands. Pick any one path that appeals to you, earnestly follow the code of conduct it prescribes, and I guarantee you will gain a glimpse of divinity as countless others have over the ages.

John152 · Oct 23, 2009

First, I think this is funny since philosophers have been trying to figure this one out since for a looooong time and there hasn't really been an answer.

But just to throw something out there I'll put out Aristotle's Unmoved Mover (synopsis taken from wikipedia):

Aristotle's argument for the existence of the unmoved mover progresses as follows

1. There exists movement in the world.
2. Things that move were set into motion by something else.
3. If everything that moves was caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
4. Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
5. From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
6. From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.

John152 · Oct 23, 2009

Nothing leads to intuition.

I'd have to disagree that NOTHING leads to intuition. While it may a gut feeling that doesn't have any justification it still has to be grounded in reality/experience. Without some form of experience you wouldn't be able to make assumptions or have gut feelings about anything; if someone is raised from birth in a dark room and no objects do you really think they would be able to intuit something?

musicguy · Oct 23, 2009

I'd have to disagree that NOTHING leads to intuition. While it may a gut feeling that doesn't have any justification it still has to be grounded in reality/experience. Without some form of experience you wouldn't be able to make assumptions or have gut feelings about anything; if someone is raised from birth in a dark room and no objects do you really think they would be able to intuit something?

I was just trying to say that the mind and intuition need to be disassociated from each other as they are separate processes.

superfans124 · Oct 23, 2009

$50 is not gonna make my brain cells start firing electrodes for such hedious proposal.

LatinStyleLover · Oct 23, 2009

I'd have to disagree that NOTHING leads to intuition. While it may a gut feeling that doesn't have any justification it still has to be grounded in reality/experience. Without some form of experience you wouldn't be able to make assumptions or have gut feelings about anything; if someone is raised from birth in a dark room and no objects do you really think they would be able to intuit something?

That might be a means for proving God's existence. I believe that all are born with the light of Christ within them and that, not experience, is the basis of what we refer to as our conscience. Take away all experience, as you suggest, and only a Divinity would explain conscience.

Ctrl+W · Oct 23, 2009

This is an interesting subject, raising important questions concerning bias in theory confirmation; but it's too complicated a subject to really explore here.
so your belief in god is based on reasons too complicated to explain? yes, that was a rhetorical question.

That said, I have given considerable thought to this, even did a bit of research, and have come to some conclusions that may or may not be worth sharing.

I will not make the mistake of claiming that the existence of God can be proven.
the fact that god can't be proven is all that is required to not believe in god. more simply put, there is no logical reason to believe in something if there is no logical reason. it sounds so simple because it is.

In the sense of the word proof that prevails in the scholarly world and that I am using here, it can't be proven.
what other sense of the word, "proof," is there? in the context of a debate, there is only one sense, that being "proof" as defined by the socratic method (logic).

Proof in this sense must be indisputable, so that every rational man is compelled to agree. Proof in religious matters, were it possible, would therefore have to be based solely on merely temporal evidence.
therefore? you're making an unsubstantiated distinction that there is non-religious proof and religious proof. there is only one kind of proof. proof is proof. if you change the definition of "proof," it's no longer proof by definition.

A person limiting himself to such evidence would be powerless to discriminate facts that have a bearing on the question of God's existence from those that don't. He would be like the person who, without a proper map, loses his way in the presence of many landmarks simply because he cannot recognize them as landmarks.
this is circular logic because it assumes that religious proof equally applies to the socratic method as non-religious proof. in fact, i've already disproved this in my previous counter-argument above.

That principles of faith can't be proven does not mean that they can't be solidly based on evidence.
yes, but this is not what i'm arguing. i'm arguing that the faith required to believe in a god is based on illogic or bad evidence.

In science, too, proof is impossible, and for reasons similar to those that make it impossible in religion;
please explain. science is all about proving theories with...proof. and science has done plenty of proving.

but scientific theories can be well-confirmed by evidence.
it sounds like you are arguing semantics.

well-confirmed = prove
evidence = proof

therefore, your previous clause contradicts this clause.

Such theories and "maps" of faith lead one to expect certain things to happen, and the more they do happen, the more one can justifiably put confidence in those theories and "maps." The main point is simply that just because the nonbeliever can't find evidence for God's existence, it does not follow that others, with more suitable "maps," can't find it either.
please define "maps." this just sounds like the rationalization process of religious belief. maps = predisposition? you say that non-believers don't see the evidence and believers see the evidence. that's not an argument or even a statement of any substance. it's a tautology. again, as a non-believer, i'm asking you, as the believe, to present me with evidence. i don't need to be reminded that i don't see evidence and you do; that's why i'm asking that you change this situation with some evidence.

Faith, like science, is based on evidence. It is no more subjective and ignorant of evidence than secular knowledge is objective and unbiased about evidence.
faith based on evidence is logical. if you can present the evidence, it will prove that your faith is logical. until then, your faith is illogical.

Having abandoned the idea that knowledge is like an objective picture,
if you abandon that knowledge is objective, then you also abandon logic by abandoning the very premise of logic.

that it is in all respects to be contrasted with faith, we can see that faith and knowledge are similar in important ways.
you still haven't explained the similarities between "faith" and "knowledge." and i don't see where you are going with that. also

Instead of looking away from the facts of the real world, faith is one way, among many others, of looking at the world.
you don't need to tell me that faith is a viewpoint, but you do need to tell me how that viewpoint is logical.

Faith need be no less intellectual and well-founded than a scientist's belief about the temporal world,
a good scientist's belief about anything will be based on logic, so yes, faith need be no less logical than a scientist's logical belief.

provided the faithful person is pure in heart, is honest and unrationalizing about the evidence he receives, and throws his energies into living his life accordingly.
again, let's hear about this evidence.

When he does this, he constantly encounters and recognizes spiritual landmarks"”"hidden treasures of knowledge""”that allow him with complete intellectual integrity to bear witness of the accuracy of the faith that he has personally verified.
why would a logical belief in something make logic appear more frequently? logic is not biased towards the believer or non-believer. however, a believer (or non-believer) can be biased towards (or against) logic!

As the scripture says, "faith cometh not by signs""”again, you can't build faith on merely temporal evidence, "but signs follow those that believe." As I understand it, faithfulness in heeding spiritual landmarks can ultimately lead one to his spiritual destination in which he may be privileged to behold spiritual things directly.
using scriptures to formulate an argument is circular logic. what the scripture says has no importance to me until you prove to me that god exists or the scriptures are true.

Each man tends to find in his experience evidence for what he has always believed.
enough with the assertions. let's hear about the evidence in your experience(s).

A person tends to see just the kinds of things he already represents on his "map""”the kinds of things he has seen before. He thereby becomes more and more convinced that his "map" is a good one; for, relying on it as he must, he interprets the world in its terms and in so doing, systematically filters out evidence for opposing points of view.
i'm not sure what you mean by "map," but if you're saying i'm filtering out evidence, show me by showing me the evidence that i'm overlooking. also, you previously admitted to abandoning objectivity, so that makes you unfit for identifying evidence. in fact, to filter out evidence requires abandoning objectivity.

It is for this reason that what you believe theologically can never be disproven by a nonbeliever.
none of your aforementioned "reasons" support this claim that theological beliefs can never be disproven by a non-believer. but you are right in that you can't disprove god. BUT just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean it is true. the burden proof rests on the POSITIVE, not the negative, so it is the theist's responsibility to prove that god exists. demanding that the atheist disprove god is like demanding that you disprove that that there is no invisible cat on the sofa or the invisible cat exists.

To gather the facts that he would use against you, he must examine reality in terms of his own "map"; he has no choice. But in doing this, he filters out in advance any evidence that might support you and discredit him. The spiritual significance of temporal things escapes him. Therefore, his gathering of evidence is hopelessly prejudiced where spiritual things are concerned. In slightly technical language, we would say that in order to gather the evidence, he must assume as true the very "map" he wants to prove true and thereby assume as false the "map" he wants to prove false; this means that his argument is circular, that it "begs the question," that, in short, it is logically worthless. The nonbeliever can't put faith to the test and so is not in a position to discredit it. For the very same reason that merely temporal evidence can't serve to prove the existence of spiritual things, it can't be used to disprove it either. I would go so far as to say that accepting the world's way of looking at reality is the problem of all so-called intellectuals who profess to find serious intellectual difficulties with faith.

Finally, although the knowledge versus faith problem has dissolved, a new problem has arisen in its place. We have seen that if a man wants to acquire the faith "map" of reality he must (1) undergo appropriate training and (2) purify the desires that have led him in the past to overlook faith. Only by these means can he gradually come to see reality more and more in the way God sees it. Thus, the new problem that has arisen is that of changing and developing ourselves so that we can comprehend the things of God. Strangely, the solution to so-called intellectual difficulties with God is not intellectual at all, but spiritual. I would say that there are no intractable intellectual problems with faith; there are only "intellectuals" with problems with faith.

As a solution to the new problem, I see two courses of action: (1) an earnest striving for a "mighty change of heart" according to the instructions to be found in the scriptures; and (2) intense study of these inspired texts. Why these writings rather than others? Because they contain the core of God's "map" of reality insofar as it can be adapted to our understanding. You should read, make notes on, and reread the scriptures, pleading with God that your heart will be softened and that these writings will, line upon line, grow comprehensible to you.

If you do this, you will find that instead of running into dead ends of irreconcilability between knowledge and faith, your thinking will uncover more and more rich and thrilling connections between spiritual truths and knowledge about our temporal world. Because your heart has become purified, you'll be able to use your mind to your heart's content. You'll realize that there is nothing to fear from the use of one's mind, but only from the use of a mind that is subservient to impure desires. For it is like any other faculty you have"”benighted and even destructive unless sanctified by the power of God; but if so sanctified, glorious.
i couldn't read the rest of your post. you'll need to write less vague and more succintly, because it's frustrating to read. but so far, i'll just say your arguments seem to be a bunch of slippery slopes and circular logic, precisely because it's all rooted on a false premises, e.g. faith not requiring objectivity, placing the burden of proof on the negative, etc.

Ctrl+W · Oct 23, 2009

I will try to find synopsis of books.

My worldview is created from mainly one axiom (contains two statements but they go hand in hand), i'm sure there are more and I could come up with a few, but the first is the most obvious/important.

Axiom 1. There is only 1 true God, and He has revealed Himself through the Bible in its original text.

Therefore I understand your point regarding the circular argument, you are quite true, I was just assuming the the responder regarding Faith being like science had this same axiom, and therefore my correction would hold true.

Despite this being an axiom I should be able to find some proof for it using some axioms, since the Biblical text tells me I can (as cited in Romans above). For this reason I will find it difficult to quickly come up with an argument, but will do my best.

If you could compile a list of axioms to work on I would appreciate that. Such as there is universal truth, or there exist some moral laws of which the set contains elements x, y, ... or any others you might wish to start with.

I would like to consider this more of a discussion then a debate, it would not be my intent to convince you i am right and you are wrong, rather give us both the opportunity to learn from each other.

Thanks.
well, i created this thread for my intellectual stimulation, and one of which involving counter-arguments, so whether that is still a discussion or not, i still look forward to what you have to say!

as for compiling a list of axioms, i am just assuming that we understand logic. if we're going to start arguing the nature of truth, ontology, epistemology, etc., i'm going to say right now i don't want to go there as that's going to require way too much effort and time.

i was looking keep it simple enough for most people here to understand.

eztantz · Oct 23, 2009

GOD?

Ctrl+W · Oct 23, 2009

You are getting ready for a date with a girl that you are planning on ********** with later that night. A friend of yours, someone you trust, tells you he has personal knowledge (but cannot prove it to you) that this girl has a sexually transmitted disease and that she sleeps with guys like you just so she can infect them. This girl is really hot, you also happen to really like her, but you are not ready to get a disease from her. You do not know for sure if your friend is telling you the truth. Maybe he likes her, too, and wants you to stop seeing her. Maybe he is telling the truth. You really do not know, do you? What do you do? You could ask her for proof, but that would just offend her and she would likely drop you anyway then. Do you choose to believe your friend, someone you have come to trust after many years of friendship?
yes, i might believe my friend if i trust him enough, because assuming he is right doesn't require such a stretch of logic. however, if my friend said she was an space alien, i would be less likely to assume he is right because that is such extraordinary claim. extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. this is also formally outlined in occam's razor: it is more REASONABLE to believe in something less extraordinary than it is to believe in something more extraordinary. which is less extraordinary to believe? that there is a god who controls everything or the laws of physics control everything? of course, occam's razor doesn't argue that the more extraordinary scenario is false. but it does tie in with the fact that given 2 choices, it's unreasonable to believe the more extraordinary until you have the proof.

Good people have claimed to have had experiences that, for them, prove the existence of God. Have they had the experience? Only they know for sure, but they make the claim that they have. If you trust them, believe in them, then you must choose whether to believe what they are telling you or not. For me to deny the existance of God would be to disbelieve many people I truly trust and deny my own life's experiences. I do not require additional proof of God's existence.
see my response above. this is like saying if i trust someone, i will believe everything he says. surely you can see the illogic in that. again, the more extraordinary the claim, the greater the evidence required to make it reasonable to believe.

"if you can't prove something (in this case, "god"), there is no reason to believe in it"

The reason to believe your friend in the above scenario is because if he is right then you would be endangering your own health. Many people make THAT decision every day. Many people make that decision and wish they had followed the advice of a trusted friend and not their own sex drive.

In the case of God, believing in him does not harm you and, with few exceptions, causes most to become better people. Failing to believe when there exists so much evidence of his existence seems the foolish choice.
this is pascal's wager. see my previous posts for my rebuttal.

"my personal favorite is that pascal's wager is a false dichotomy in that it assumes that the 2 choices it presents are the ONLY choices you have (which is false because there is the other choice that living a life without believing in god is BETTER than the restrictions on freedom imposed on you by religion)."

This is another premise I feel compelled to reject. How does religion restrict your freedom? Most academics would argue that knowledge is freedom.
you're confusing knowledge with belief. i am WELL knowledged in christianity (i used to be christian and was undergoing church leadership training, not to mention was a sunday school teacher) and other religions, and yes, it's enabled me to make even more informed decisions! also, religion involves rules with the way you should behave and think, and when you have rules, you are restricting.

Many former POW's have talked at length about how what is in one's heart and mind is the one thing imprisonment cannot take from you. Most have argued that it was their faith in God, the knowledge that he exists, that kept them going.
there are also many POWs who survived imprisonment without a faith in god, so that alone disproves that faith in god was what allowed them to survive. the truth is that everyone has their own psychological coping mechanisms, whether it be a belief in god, the will to serve their family, or just simple mental strength.

If knowledge is freedom and the more knowledge you have the more freedom you have then the same must necessarily apply to spiritual knowledge, too. Knowing that God exists does not restrict freedom, it make one more free. Denying the existance of God denies you of an infinite source of additional knowledge and actually limits you to only what you can see and prove. Your are a prisoner to your own limits on knowledge.
you're interchanging "knowledge" and "knowing" in error. also, knowledge is freedom ONLY when that knowledge is true. knowledge in falsehood is NOT freedom.

The entire premise of your question is backwards since it assumes God does not exist.
show me where i state that this is my premise. all i have ever stated is that until there is proof, there is no logical reason to believe in god.

The real question is how can one NOT believe in God and still explain the infinite marvels that abound in the universe.
answer: as stated numerously, one can not believe in god if there is no proof. and regarding the infinite marvels that abound in the universe, you are making an logical error by assuming that the ONLY explanation is god.

What is more foolish to believe, that a "Big Bang" or other accidental convergence of matter created all of the wonders that exist in our universe and that they all work so well together by infinite acts of good fortune or that a being of unlimited power and goodness created all of this for us because he loves us that much? All one need do is witness the birth of one of their own children, feel that immense love that is born with your child, and it becomes easy to understand how God, creator of us all, our father, would want all of this for us. That just makes so much more sense, to me.
how does that make more sense when we have science to explain so much more than when man lived in huts and thought everything was voodoo and magic? even if we don't have a sufficient enough explanation, again, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean your explanation is true.

I reject your opening premise. I will give anyone here $5000 if they can prove to me that God does NOT exist. Good luck with that one!
you can't prove a negative.

latinstylelove, no offense, but i'm going to have to disqualify you from this $50 challenge as you don't apply the socratic method as i do. thanks for your participation.

LatinStyleLover · Oct 23, 2009

The greatest minds currently known in the world have theorized regarding Higgs Boson. The Higgs boson is a massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are no known fundamental scalar particles in nature.

The Higgs boson is the only Standard Model particle that has not yet been observed.

The Higgs mechanism, which gives mass to vector bosons, was theorized in 1964 by FranÃ§ois Englert and Robert Brout ("boson scalaire"); in October of the same year by Peter Higgs, working from the ideas of Philip Anderson; and independently by Gerald Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and Tom Kibble, who worked out the results by the spring of 1963. The three papers written on this discovery by Guralnik, Hagen, Kibble, Higgs, Brout, and Englert were each recognized as milestone papers during Physical Review Letters 50th anniversary celebration. While each of these famous papers took similar approaches, the contributions and differences between the 1964 PRL Symmetry Breaking papers is noteworthy. These six physicists were also awarded the 2010 J. J. Sakurai Prize for Theoretical Particle Physics for this work. Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam were the first to apply the Higgs mechanism to the electroweak symmetry breaking. The electroweak theory predicts a neutral particle whose mass is not far from that of the W and Z bosons.

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, which briefly came online on September 10, 2008 and was scheduled to become fully operational by late 2009 (now postponed due to several problems) is expected to provide experimental evidence either confirming or refuting the Higgs boson's existence.

The above is science, advanced science, albeit theoretical, yet science worthy of J. J. Sakurai Prize for Theoretical Particle Physics. Yet, while the greatest minds on this earth theorize Higgs Boson’s existence, it has yet to be definitively proven. Physics is largely theoretical, meaning, believed to be true, but not proven. How is that any different than spirituality, or faith? Faith is the belief in things not seen, but nonetheless true. Science calls that nonsense yet gives the Nobel to Theoretical Physicists annually or almost so?

You wrote: “a good scientist's belief about anything will be based on logic.” So theoretical physics is not science then and not based on logic because it relies on unseen science?

“you're making an unsubstantiated distinction that there is non-religious proof and religious proof. there is only one kind of proof. proof is proof. if you change the definition of "proof," it's no longer proof by definition.”

Not so. Some proof is based on theory. Some proof is based on faith. Science accepts theory, but rejects faith. That is nonsense. The ability to theorize in what cannot be seen, but scientifically is believed to exist is no more valid than believing in something unseen, but nonetheless true, which is the basis of spirituality. Where is the difference, besides the fact that one is considered Nobel worthy and the other fantasy, at least by you?

Ctrl+W · Oct 23, 2009

Where science leaves off, spirituality begins. Science is the how, spirituality is the why. Nothing leads to intuition. Intuition is a separate process altogether, not related to the mind.
you still have to explain to me why i should believe in spirituality. and why are fixated on science? i'm talking about logic here.

You're asking for physical proof of something that's not physical.
where did i ever ask for physical proof? all i ever asked for was proof. physical proof is just one kind of proof.

The proof isn't anywhere, yet it's everywhere.
since it's everywhere, it would be easy to show me the proof then. please post it.

There is a reason why some scientists have a problem justifying divinity. They're using the wrong tools and methods to discover divinity.
everyone is prone to believing in silly things, including scientists. if some scientist actually believes in god, it's the result of compartmentalization, which allows one to compromise their own belief system (in this instance, logic) to accomodate another (in this instance, the belief of god). just because some scientists pursue an explanation for god doesn't make it true. why only some and not all scientists?

If you're really earnest in discovering divinity, then you have to follow the scientific method of spirituality that has been laid down by the leaders of all the major religions, by saints and sages of all lands. Pick any one path that appeals to you, earnestly follow the code of conduct it prescribes, and I guarantee you will gain a glimpse of divinity as countless others have over the ages.
please give me a brief outline. i'm not going to spend a day to read a book because i don't think it would be worth the effort since i'm sure it won't change my position (this is not due to stubbornness or closed-mindedness, but due to vast experiences - i used to be a sunday school teacher).

Ctrl+W · Oct 23, 2009

First, I think this is funny since philosophers have been trying to figure this one out since for a looooong time and there hasn't really been an answer.

But just to throw something out there I'll put out Aristotle's Unmoved Mover (synopsis taken from wikipedia):

Aristotle's argument for the existence of the unmoved mover progresses as follows

1. There exists movement in the world.
2. Things that move were set into motion by something else.
3. If everything that moves was caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
4. Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
5. From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
6. From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.
i'm under the impression that most philososphers don't believe in god.

regarding aristotle's argument:

in #3, why can't this happen? until that is explained, #4-#6 is invalid.

Ctrl+W · Oct 23, 2009

I was just trying to say that the mind and intuition need to be disassociated from each other as they are separate processes.
if you separate the mind from intuition, you are left with instinct. now you gotta prove that it is human instinct to believe in god.

there's also the predispositions to believe in something due to environment, but i don't think you are making that mistake.

$50 challenge: prove to me that a god or gods exist!

Senior Member

Distinguished Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

Definitely full canvas only

Half canvas is fine

Really don't care

Depends on fabric

Depends on price

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: