Comments on: Proof that God Exists http://dedwarmo.com/2009/06/03/proof-that-god-exists/ Pronounced dead-warm-oh Mon, 06 Feb 2012 02:59:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John Shook http://dedwarmo.com/2009/06/03/proof-that-god-exists/comment-page-1/#comment-12871 John Shook Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:00:12 +0000 http://dedwarmo.com/?p=1351#comment-12871 Try my similar website for doubting that God exists: http://www.naturalisms.org/doubtgod/ Try my similar website for doubting that God exists: http://www.naturalisms.org/doubtgod/

]]> By: Perry http://dedwarmo.com/2009/06/03/proof-that-god-exists/comment-page-1/#comment-12672 Perry Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:05:31 +0000 http://dedwarmo.com/?p=1351#comment-12672 Yeah, I just don't get how 2 is true. Just because I can't "show how, in an Atheist (materialist) universe, there can be immaterial, universally applicable laws of any kind" doesn't mean that there isn't a way to show it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For 2 to be true, some evidence that it is true has to be presented. I don't see any. Yeah, I just don’t get how 2 is true. Just because I can’t “show how, in an Atheist (materialist) universe, there can be immaterial, universally applicable laws of any kind” doesn’t mean that there isn’t a way to show it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

For 2 to be true, some evidence that it is true has to be presented. I don’t see any.

]]> By: dedwarmo http://dedwarmo.com/2009/06/03/proof-that-god-exists/comment-page-1/#comment-12502 dedwarmo Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:46:04 +0000 http://dedwarmo.com/?p=1351#comment-12502 Why do they say to "ask God to show himself to you"? Why would they ask me to do something that was unnecessary? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_circuits" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_circuits</a> Setting aside the human mind for a moment, electronic devices use logic circuits. This logic works because of the nature of matter. They are not as complex as the human mind and they don't "think" like humans, but nevertheless they use logic. Is my calculator a transcendental machine? Just because a rock sits in one place until acted upon by a force (law of inertia) , then you conclude that there must be a God? Can't we say that is just the way matter is? The concept of God does not explain the laws of science. It just postpones answering the question a little bit. God could have created a universe that was inconsistent and unpredictable and with no laws. Why is it necessary to push the boundaries of credibility? There are some questions that we currently just can't answer. Isn't it more intellectually honest to say, "I don't know"? Gordon Stein asks, "how is it possible to have laws?" I ask, "how is it possible to have God? Where did God come from?" Why do they say to “ask God to show himself to you”? Why would they ask me to do something that was unnecessary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_circuits

Setting aside the human mind for a moment, electronic devices use logic circuits. This logic works because of the nature of matter. They are not as complex as the human mind and they don’t “think” like humans, but nevertheless they use logic. Is my calculator a transcendental machine?

Just because a rock sits in one place until acted upon by a force (law of inertia) , then you conclude that there must be a God? Can’t we say that is just the way matter is?

The concept of God does not explain the laws of science. It just postpones answering the question a little bit. God could have created a universe that was inconsistent and unpredictable and with no laws.

Why is it necessary to push the boundaries of credibility? There are some questions that we currently just can’t answer. Isn’t it more intellectually honest to say, “I don’t know”?

Gordon Stein asks, “how is it possible to have laws?” I ask, “how is it possible to have God? Where did God come from?”

]]> By: Bobmo http://dedwarmo.com/2009/06/03/proof-that-god-exists/comment-page-1/#comment-12501 Bobmo Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:10:16 +0000 http://dedwarmo.com/?p=1351#comment-12501 Oops, I meant "prayer." (I don't think brayer is necessary either.) Oops, I meant “prayer.” (I don’t think brayer is necessary either.)

]]> By: Bobmo http://dedwarmo.com/2009/06/03/proof-that-god-exists/comment-page-1/#comment-12500 Bobmo Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:05:10 +0000 http://dedwarmo.com/?p=1351#comment-12500 I think your syllogism accurately represents the argument being presented, and I agree that both (1) and (2) must be true for (3) to be true. As for Premise (2), Greg Bahnsen used to challenge debate opponents to show how, in an Atheist (materialist) universe, there can <i>be</i> immaterial, universally applicable laws of any kind. Specifically addressing the laws of logic, his contention was that Atheists can <i>use</i> them, but they cannot justify their existence. In his debate with Gordon Stein, he said, "The laws of logic are not conventional or sociological. I would say the laws of logic have a transcendental necessity about them. They are universal; they are invariant, and they are not material in nature. And if they are not that, then I'd like to know, in an atheist universe, how it is possible to have laws in the first place. And secondly, how it is possible to justify those laws?" I think it's a great question, and one that is not answered by saying they are part of the "nature of matter" since laws of logic have no connection to matter. Regarding brayer "being necessary to believe in God," I don't think that is true, nor do I believe the Christians you have spoken to believe that is true. (In your comment, you switched from "immersing yourself in the Bible" to "prayer being necessary".) I do believe that God can use the Bible to convince you that He exists. How does this contravene deductive logic? I think your syllogism accurately represents the argument being presented, and I agree that both (1) and (2) must be true for (3) to be true.

As for Premise (2), Greg Bahnsen used to challenge debate opponents to show how, in an Atheist (materialist) universe, there can be immaterial, universally applicable laws of any kind. Specifically addressing the laws of logic, his contention was that Atheists can use them, but they cannot justify their existence.

In his debate with Gordon Stein, he said, “The laws of logic are not conventional or sociological. I would say the laws of logic have a transcendental necessity about them. They are universal; they are invariant, and they are not material in nature. And if they are not that, then I’d like to know, in an atheist universe, how it is possible to have laws in the first place. And secondly, how it is possible to justify those laws?”

I think it’s a great question, and one that is not answered by saying they are part of the “nature of matter” since laws of logic have no connection to matter.

Regarding brayer “being necessary to believe in God,” I don’t think that is true, nor do I believe the Christians you have spoken to believe that is true. (In your comment, you switched from “immersing yourself in the Bible” to “prayer being necessary”.) I do believe that God can use the Bible to convince you that He exists. How does this contravene deductive logic?

]]>