Present Evidence Here II

[SNP1]

If you do not understand modal logic, then don't pretend to. You only make yourself look like an idiot.

[SNP1]

simple. you've failed to explain why the being is necessary or prove that it is necessary. As some one else already stated.

Also I can make any words look like they are modeled after logic that does not make it logical.

1) I explained why it must be necessary. Maybe try reading.

P1) Q is either necessary or contingent
P2) Not contingent
C) Q is necessary

Premise 1 is true by definition.
Premise 2 is supported because the CCF is all contingent facts, Q, being an explanation of the CCF, cannot be a part of the CCF.

2) It isn't "modeled after logic", it is an actual branch of logic called modal logic. You clearly do not understand it based off of your pseudo argument.

[doorknob]

Once again you've failed to prove that god is necessary. That's a major problem with it. You missed my point in making words look logical. I was suggesting that your words only looks like logic and are not actual logic. I'm not convinced there are only two types of facts for one thing. If you could provide a link to where this is stated I'd love to see it. I've googled logic and I"ve never seen any where that there are only two types of facts.

also for deductive logic you need to have facts first. You do not have facts.

[SNP1]

also for deductive logic you need to have facts first. You do not have facts.

This isn't deductive logic, it is modal logic. It is an entirely different school of logic.

Specifically, this is the branch of modal logic sometimes referred to as possible modal logic.

When dealing with modal logic, you have to use the axioms of modal logic. In modal logic, a fact is either contingent or necessary.

I recommend, before making yourself look even more like an idiot about this subject, that you take an introduction to philosophy course. You will touch on the basics of modal logic.

[doorknob]

Nice. I can't afford to take a philosophy class thank you very much or I would.

Also one last note I base my facts off science not philosophy. You can use philosophical logic all want it won't make it any more real. There is a reason scientific facts are not based on philosophy.

Also you predefine that god must be necessary. You have nothing backing that statement up

[SNP1]

Nice. I can't afford to take a philosophy class thank you very much or I would.

You should. It should be a requirement as it teaches people how to think.

Also one last note I base my facts off science not philosophy. You can use philosophical logic all want it won't make it any more real. There is a reason scientific facts are not based on philosophy.

There is a reason that science and philosophy differ. It actually has a historical reason. For the longest time, there were two schools of thought, empiricism and rationalism. No one wanted to mix the two together. Both made great strides in showing certain facts about the world. Eventually, they merged in two different ways.

Modern science is one of those ways. It bases itself mostly off of empiricism, but has some rationalism in it.

Next, modern philosophy. Modern philosophy is mostly rationalism, but has some empiricism in it.

Also you predefine that god must be necessary. You have nothing backing that statement up

How was that predefining god as necessary? By definition, an explanation of the CCF must be necessary (under modal logic). And via one of the axioms of possible modal logic, if something that is necessary is possible, then it is real.

The ONLY flaw with this argument does not lie in any premise or the conclusion, but the method. It uses a branch of modal logic sometimes called possible modal logic. There is a debate among some philosopher whether any conclusion reached with possible modal logic reflects what is possible or what is real (I take the position of the former). This means one could say that this argument only shows that a god is possible, meaning that gnositic atheism is an even stupider position than people think.

[Desdinova]

Despite all of your condescending lecturing all you are saying is that something is possible.  I'm sorry but I don't put stock in possibilities when it comes to belief in a higher power.  Give me scientific data that supports the existence of a god and then you'll have my attention.

[SNP1]

Despite all of your condescending lecturing all you are saying is that something is possible.  I'm sorry but I don't put stock in possibilities when it comes to belief in a higher power.  Give me scientific data that supports the existence of a god and then you'll have my attention.

I am saying that some say that it means it is possible, others say that it reflects reality.

If it was conclusive, I wouldn't be an atheist, now would I?

Also, to ask for scientific evidence for god is fundamentally flawed.

Science deals with the natural world. God, by definition, is supernatural. That means that, by definition, it is impossible for there to be direct scientific evidence for a god. That is why the question of "is there a god?" is a philosophical question.

[Desdinova]

The supernatural is not relevant here.  Something either exists or it doesn't.  Science can be applied to anything that exists.  Science is knowledge.  I don't think that asking for proof of God is flawed.  It may be useless, because he doesn't exist.  Still, the burden of proof is on those that say he exists merely because a book written thousands of years ago says he does.  Furthermore, they have the audacity to say that I have to believe in him or suffer eternal damnation.  I have a problem with that.  So prove this god exists!  What's flawed about that?  What is flawed in my observation is that fact that on one hand you purport to be an atheist and on the other had you seem to champion the possibility that a supreme being may exist.  That sounds like agnosticism to me.

[SNP1]

The supernatural is not relevant here.

How isn't it? God is a supernatural being, therefore it is relevant when discussing if there is a god or not.

Something either exists or it doesn't.

Correct.

Science can be applied to anything that exists.

No, it cannot. Science uses methodological materialism. It presupposes that there is only the material, and only works on the material. God would be immaterial, and thus cannot be tested with science.

I don't think that asking for proof of God is flawed.  It may be useless, because he doesn't exist.

I do not think it is flawed either, but asking only for scientific evidence (which can never have direct evidence for anything immaterial) is flawed.

Still, the burden of proof is on those that say he exists merely because a book written thousands of years ago says he does.  Furthermore, they have the audacity to say that I have to believe in him or suffer eternal damnation.  I have a problem with that.  So prove this god exists!  What's flawed about that?  What is flawed in my observation is that fact that on one hand you purport to be an atheist and on the other had you seem to champion the possibility that a supreme being may exist.  That sounds like agnosticism to me.

You might go based off of the trichotomy of theism, agnosticism, or atheism. I do not. I take the stance that there are 4 positions, gnostic theism, agnostic theism, agnostic atheism, or gnostic atheism. I fall under agnostic atheism. I personally claim that there isn't a god, but recognize that it is possible that there could be one.

[Desdinova]

How isn't it? God is a supernatural being, therefore it is relevant when discussing if there is a god or not.

I posit that the supernatural does not exist.  Ergo Irrelevant.

God would be immaterial, and thus cannot be tested with science.

If something is immaterial it does not exist.  God does not exist.  If you claim God exists then he is material.  Science would apply.

I take the stance that there are 4 positions, gnostic theism, agnostic theism, agnostic atheism, or gnostic atheism. I fall under agnostic atheism. I personally claim that there isn't a god, but recognize that it is possible that there could be one.

As Billy Joel once said:

"Hot funk, cool punk, even if it's old junk
  It's still rock and roll to me"

[SNP1]

I posit that the supernatural does not exist.  Ergo Irrelevant.

Would you be able to support that assertion?

If something is immaterial it does not exist.  God does not exist.

Would you be able to support that assertion?

If you claim God exists then he is material.  Science would apply.

If god was defined as something material, then yes, science would apply. Thing is, god is not defined as something material.

[Desdinova]

Can you support the assertions that god or the supernatural do exist?  See where I'm going here?  We can go back and forth on this forever.  And you are correct, god is defined as something supernatural or immaterial.  I, for one, cannot accept this.  He either exists or he does not.  I cannot prove that god does not exist anymore than the pope can prove he does exist.  However there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that god does not exist.  It suggests that man created god and all gods before him.  Just like he created unicorns and leprechauns.  Do you go around thinking there is a possibility that these exist as well?  I'll let you have the last word here, as for me, I'm moving on.

[Hydra009]

Would you be able to support that assertion?

It's not possible to prove a negative, but the claim that supernatural beings do not exist is the default position.  And all it would take to refute that would be a single scrap of evidence to the contrary.  The fact that we're met with logic games and word salad instead of a simple presentation of evidence in these threads leads me to believe that such evidence is lacking.

[DigitalBot]

If god was defined as something material, then yes, science would apply. Thing is, god is not defined as something material.

First of all, thing is, god is not defined. Or it is better to say God is defined as something, somewhere, sometime, somehow and it loves us.

Secondly, science would apply in any case, as well as it applies to any immaterial thing like software, data bases,  laws of nature and logic. And by the way God can not breach logic, therefore science would apply to immaterial things even more superior than God.