Proof that God exists

yammycat

Is this an oxymoron, given 'proof' requires universal and immutable logic and natural laws and were there an omnipotent being said cannot exist.

There is ample proof that 1 + 1 equals 2 however were an omnipotent being to exist he could change this whenever he feels to 1 + 1 equals jam donuts and we would believe this and be teaching it in our schools.

Proof of a omnipotent supernatural being negates the concept of proof, am I wrong in that assertion ?

Could I go so far as to imply evidence or purported evidence of an omnipotent supernatural being can simply be discarded as once the idea of supernatural is suggested you have neutered your own argument and can no longer assert something as evidence or proof as these concepts no longer exist in your world view.

NecroSteve

In reply to your question...

No, cop on.

AhSureTisGrand

yammycat wrote: »

There is ample proof that 1 + 1 equals 2 however were an omnipotent being to exist he could change this whenever he feels to 1 + 1 equals jam donuts and we would believe this and be teaching it in our schools.

Dude humans can do that. We decided what 1 and 2 meant in the first place

Galway K9

you smoking weed?:D

raah!

From observed phenomena you make inductive inferences. From premises/axioms you make proofs. The ontological argument would be an example of an attempted proof (whether or not it was successful or you accept it) which does not rely in any way on empirical evidence.

If you wanted to go as far as you want to go in your last argument you would have to show that a connection between the natural and super natural is not possible.

Joe1919

yammycat wrote: »

...........There is ample proof that 1 + 1 equals 2 however ..........

This is not always the case. A one foot piece of wood plus a one foot piece of wood is not a two foot piece.............Besides numbers have no real existence. They only describe the quantity. They are dependent on what it is they are a quantity of. Saying that two fairies plus two fairies equal four fairies tells me nothing about the existence of fairies. Mathmatical truths are true because we constructed maths and defined them as truth. It like the famous argument 'all bachelors are unmarried men'.. Its true because we made it true in our language. But it tells us nothing ............

strobe

yammycat wrote: »

Is this an oxymoron, given 'proof' requires universal and immutable logic and natural laws and were there an omnipotent being said cannot exist.

There is ample proof that 1 + 1 equals 2 however were an omnipotent being to exist he could change this whenever he feels to 1 + 1 equals jam donuts and we would believe this and be teaching it in our schools.

Proof of a omnipotent supernatural being negates the concept of proof, am I wrong in that assertion ?

Could I go so far as to imply evidence or purported evidence of an omnipotent supernatural being can simply be discarded as once the idea of supernatural is suggested you have neutered your own argument and can no longer assert something as evidence or proof as these concepts no longer exist in your world view.

I follow, I think.

The oul 'if an omnipotent being exists then anything is possible' dealy? Accept that It exists and then cabbage can be diamonds. That kind of thing, yeah? So...

It doesn't really say anything about anything, ye know.

I don't want mathematical proof of anything in particular outside of mathematics. Just indicatory evidence pointing one way more than the opposite. That would do just fine.