GOD EXISTS

gcomeau wrote:
The fact that demonstrating the existence of anything requires reliance on the reliability of observational data.

Peter wrote:Agreed

The reliability of observational data requires the baseline assumption that the basic laws of physics that govern those observations are not being violated.

Peter wrote:Agreed

Any supernatural hypothesis by definition requires those laws to BE violated (otherwise the thing in question, be it a deity or a ghost or a demon or whatever wouldn't be "supernatural").

Peter wrote:Nonsese. The fundamental laws might be a product of your supernatural force. The fundamental laws in question is God's subconscious, if you will. No violation at all and might well be demonstrated under certain as yet undiscovered conditions.

Thus voiding the reliability of any test data and rendering the claim undemonstrable.[/quote]

Not quite.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
The fact that demonstrating the existence of anything requires reliance on the reliability of observational data.

Agreed

The reliability of observational data requires the baseline assumption that the basic laws of physics that govern those observations are not being violated.

Agreed

Any supernatural hypothesis by definition requires those laws to BE violated (otherwise the thing in question, be it a deity or a ghost or a demon or whatever wouldn't be "supernatural").

Nonsese. The fundamental laws might be a product of your supernatural force.

Which by definition would require that that supernatural force supercede them and not be bound by them.

The fundamental laws in question is God's subconscious, if you will. No violation at all and might well be demonstrated under certain as yet undiscovered conditions.

Unless you're going to argue God is incapable of not being ruled by his subconscious, and thus has no conscious free will, God would not be bound by those laws.

Are you going to present an argument that God is bound by the laws of physics? Because that would be an extreme minority position within Christianity, and if you want to argue that would you mind starting with how God created the universe and those laws of physics with them?

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
The fact that demonstrating the existence of anything requires reliance on the reliability of observational data.

Agreed

The reliability of observational data requires the baseline assumption that the basic laws of physics that govern those observations are not being violated.

Agreed

Any supernatural hypothesis by definition requires those laws to BE violated (otherwise the thing in question, be it a deity or a ghost or a demon or whatever wouldn't be "supernatural").

Nonsese. The fundamental laws might be a product of your supernatural force./quote]

Which by definition would require that that supernatural force supercede them and not be bound by them.

The fundamental laws in question is God's subconscious, if you will. No violation at all and might well be demonstrated under certain as yet undiscovered conditions.

gcomeau wrote:Unless you're going to argue God is incapable of not being ruled by his subconscious, and thus has no conscious free will, God would not be bound by those laws.

Are you going to present an argument that God is bound by the laws of physics? Because that would be an extreme minority position within Christianity, and if you want to argue that would you mind starting with how God created the universe and those laws of physics with them?

I am doing nothing of the sort. I simply assert that your proof is no proof at all. If fundamental laws are a product of god's conscious or unconscious mind, God existence does not violate that law and so might be observed with confidence.

That Huxley's coined term Agnosticism, cannot assert that proof God's existence either way is indemonstrable and still be consistent with the concept that spawned the word.

So, agnostic, as intended to be used by Huxley in regards to God's existence means the agnostic does not believe that God exists nor does he believe God does not exist. He has no faith guiding any belief about God.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Unless you're going to argue God is incapable of not being ruled by his subconscious, and thus has no conscious free will, God would not be bound by those laws.

Are you going to present an argument that God is bound by the laws of physics? Because that would be an extreme minority position within Christianity, and if you want to argue that would you mind starting with how God created the universe and those laws of physics with them?

I am doing nothing of the sort. I simply assert that your proof is no proof at all.

If you're not making the argument above, then yes it is.

The only way around it is to declare you believe in a "God" that is NOT supernatural. Which you appear reluctant to do. I bet I can guess why.

gcomeau wrote:If you're not making the argument above, then yes it is.

The only way around it is to declare you believe in a "God" that is NOT supernatural. Which you appear reluctant to do. I bet I can guess why.

No, it isn't. Your argument required the chain of logic to conclude what you did. The possibility exists that God exists, because it is not proven that He does not.

To be indemonstrable, there can exist no possible way to demonstrate that the statement is true. We have agreed that God's absence or existence has not been proved. Your proof requiring fundamental law be broken if God exists is false because fundamental law can be a product of God's existence. God's existence has not been disproven.

Agnostics need not believe that God's existence is indemonstrable to be agnostic as Huxley envisioned.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:If you're not making the argument above, then yes it is.

The only way around it is to declare you believe in a "God" that is NOT supernatural. Which you appear reluctant to do. I bet I can guess why.

No, it isn't. Your argument required the chain of logic to conclude what you did. The possibility exists that God exists, because it is not proven that He does not.

now you're just changing the subject. Nobody was talking about having proven God didn't exist. We were talking about it NOT BEING POSSIBLE to prove he does or does not exist.

To be indemonstrable, there can exist no possible way to demonstrate that the statement is true.

Yep. Which there isn't.

We have agreed that God's absence or existence has not been proved.

Yep. So?

Your proof requiring fundamental law be broken if God exists is false because fundamental law can be a product of God's existence.

If they are a product of God's existence then God therefore supercedes them. He can't create them and be bound by them at the same time. So which is it? Is God bound by the laws of physics and you thus believe in a "God" that is entirely a natural entity... or is he the creator of the laws of physics and this not bound by them?

God's existence has not been disproven.

Why do you keep saying that? Is it some kind of compulsion?

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:If you're not making the argument above, then yes it is.

The only way around it is to declare you believe in a "God" that is NOT supernatural. Which you appear reluctant to do. I bet I can guess why.

No, it isn't. Your argument required the chain of logic to conclude what you did. The possibility exists that God exists, because it is not proven that He does not.

now you're just changing the subject. Nobody was talking about having proven God didn't exist. We were talking about it NOT BEING POSSIBLE to prove he does or does not exist.

To be indemonstrable, there can exist no possible way to demonstrate that the statement is true.

Yep. Which there isn't.

We have agreed that God's absence or existence has not been proved.

Yep. So?

Your proof requiring fundamental law be broken if God exists is false because fundamental law can be a product of God's existence.

If they are a product of God's existence then God therefore supercedes them. He can't create them and be bound by them at the same time. So which is it? Is God bound by the laws of physics and you thus believe in a "God" that is entirely a natural entity... or is he the creator of the laws of physics and this not bound by them?

God's existence has not been disproven.

gcomeau wrote:Why do you keep saying that? Is it some kind of compulsion?

****** *


PeterZ, you have loads of Christian patience.

Perhaps one cannot prove that God Exists. I've assumed that as a given.

However, one can prove that God must Exist.

cthia wrote:Perhaps one cannot prove that God Exists. I've assumed that as a given.

However, one can prove that God must Exist.

So, you accept as a given that you can't prove god's existence.

However, you are convinced that god's existence is a necessary precondition for the universe existing, and that you can prove this.

Please elaborate on the difference between the two, because I sure can't see it.

The E

I believe cthia was commenting on my exchange and the assumptions made to address the fault in gcomeau's logic.

Gcomeau's use of the term is inconsistent with Huxley's reasons for coining the term. Asserting the truth of God is indemonstrable requires faith since that has not been proven. Cthia merely commented on why gcomeau's attempt failed.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:Perhaps one cannot prove that God Exists. I've assumed that as a given.

However, one can prove that God must Exist.

So, you accept as a given that you can't prove god's existence.

However, you are convinced that god's existence is a necessary precondition for the universe existing, and that you can prove this.

Please elaborate on the difference between the two, because I sure can't see it.

PeterZ wrote:The E

I believe cthia was commenting on my exchange and the assumptions made to address the fault in gcomeau's logic.

Gcomeau's use of the term is inconsistent with Huxley's reasons for coining the term. Asserting the truth of God is indemonstrable requires faith since that has not been proven. Cthia merely commented on why gcomeau's attempt failed.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:Perhaps one cannot prove that God Exists. I've assumed that as a given.

However, one can prove that God must Exist.

So, you accept as a given that you can't prove god's existence.

However, you are convinced that god's existence is a necessary precondition for the universe existing, and that you can prove this.

Please elaborate on the difference between the two, because I sure can't see it.

Not exactly.

I entertain it will be fruitful to prove that the negation cannot be true.

And commenting on your exchange.