jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (63 posts)

Examining A Claim of Scientific Proof That God Exists

  1. emrldphx profile image61
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    As I'm not being allowed to discuss this interesting claim where it was originally posted by Mikel G Roberts, I will post my analysis here.

    Mikel uses the following definitions for his claim of scientific proof:

    [/color]

    ARGUMENT 1-A:
    Mikel's definition of God is incorrect. The following definitions are taken from top resources.



    ARGUMENT 1-B:
    Mikel's definition of science is incorrect. The following definitions are taken from top resources.



    Mikel's definition was taken from wikipedia, answers.com, or some similar site. His definition includes the kind of science used by Aristotle over 2300 years ago(which I have highlighted in red).



    ARGUMENT 2-A:
    Mikel does make a strong argument that, among life forms that aren't identical, there will be one that is top. However, that does nothing to prove anything Divine, anything related to the creation of the universe, or anything toward the definition of God.

    ARGUMENT 2-B:
    Mikel writes that, if there were only once being in existence, that would make that being the Supreme Being. Capitalized adjectives are used as a title in reference to a specific proper noun. This means that 'supreme being' can fit his definition, but 'Supreme Being' refers to something that the title was made specifically for. In this case, God.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I fear this thread is beating a dead horse or, more accurately, a dead “proof.” Many others have tried to explain how the “Mikel G. Roberts Proof” is logically flawed. 

      The very first sentence of this proof contains a False Analogy. A False Analogy is a faulty instance of an “Argument from Analogy” which is defined as the process of inference involving the comparison of the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis of comparison inferring that they also share some further property. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy)

      In this “proof”, when comparing “forms of life”, it is illogical to claim SOME properties of life forms are NOT IDENTICAL and then conclude ALL properties of those same life forms are NOT IDENTICAL. The property of lesser/greater (if such a property even exists) could logically be equal in some life forms even if they have other properties that are NOT IDENTICAL. To make matters worse, the author argued in defence that life forms must have a greater/lessor property because numbers in algebra have a greater/lesser property that differ when their “value” properties are not equal. 

      The conclusion of the "Mikel G. Roberts Proof" may very well be true and accurate but this particular logical argument is invalid because the stated analogy is faulty.

      1. emrldphx profile image61
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Probably right... considering Mikel won't approve any of my comments about his theory, he's obviously not looking for truth, but trying to just be right.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image89
          Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Mikel is a fellow hubber and the author of his hub. He is entitled to control the tone and content of the comments on his published pages.  You, in turn, have opened this thread for the purpose of expressing your own ideas on this subject. You have accomplished this. No one is required to agree with you or even to respond to you. No one gets to be declared the "winner." I have aired my opinions and the reasons I hold them. It's time for me to show respect for the opinions of others and to move on.

          1. emrldphx profile image61
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you for your input Quilligrapher smile

            I really just wanted to discuss with Mikel, apparently he took offense at some kind of misunderstanding. I know he is the author of his hub, but when someone invites critique openly but only selectively allows critique to come forward, I think that is misleading.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image89
              Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I'm sure Mikel had his reasons.  Sometimes things just are what they are.
              Q.

      2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh Quill, you're missing the forest because of the trees.


        The word 'if'... does that mean anything to you?

        How about an If-Then statement.
        The only assumption in the proof is that 'We' exist. That a being of some kind exists.

        So long as that qualifier is met the proof stands. In fact the proof is: The only way for there to not be a Supreme Being is for there to not be 'Any' being.

        Supreme is defined. If there is only one example of an entity, that example is the Supreme example.

        That's it. All your squaking about Fallacy this Fallacy that is rubbish. A False Analogy would only be possible if I used an analogy as proof, which I don't. An analogy is simply a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

        A False analogy is a fallacy in which an argument is based on misleading, superficial, or implausible comparisons. Comparing a heart to a nerve center that creates emotions within an organism.

        My Comparisons are between two 'Life Forms'. That is not a false analogy.
        Next I state that if two things are not the same then they are different. Not a false analogy, and not untrue...by definition.
        Then I state if two things are different then they will have a lesser/greater relationship. Not a false analogy and not untrue.

        All of which is irrelevant to the proof of the existence of a supreme example 'so long as' an example of that thing exists.
        (If we exist then a supreme example also exists, if no other example exists then we are the supreme example.)

        But have fun, I'm done explaining the same thing over and over and over...ad nauseum.

        Mikel

        1. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So close! You almost replied to my arguments!

          Seeing as you didn't, I'll have to address the inconsistencies you used in this post.



          'Supreme Being' with capital letters is a title in reference to a proper noun. In this case, God. I don't know how your grasp on the English language is, but 'supreme being' and 'Supreme Being' do not mean the same thing.

          Also, your argument precludes the possibility of more than one being being equal in supremacy. You state that clearly in your proof:

          'Next I state that if two things are not the same then they are different.'

          A proof, by definition, cannot be based on an if. If this, then that, so that. That's called a propositional fallacy.

          But no worries. You don't have to respond to me, because I address quite a few specific fallacies. That would be bad for your proof.

    2. WD Curry 111 profile image60
      WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You are busy. Knocking it down. The English language that is. Your logic, scholarship and style are nearly flawless. You didn't go to school in Florida. I can't remember the verse, but somewhere it says Christ is the mono-pole that holds all things together. Pure science in anticipation of the question. You can never beat the devil at this game. He lies and cheats. You just have to outlast him.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm trying to outlast him, but I'm running out of steam. sad

        1. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Mikel, I'm amazed you come into this thread and manage to not reply to me or my arguments...

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You want to have discussions with me? You should have thought about that before you tried the infantile crap you tried to pull. Have a great life.

            1. emrldphx profile image61
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, I posted an argument against your proof on your hub and you deleted it.

              At first, I thought it was a mistake, cause I was new to HubPages, but I soon learned better when I tried again.

              Yes, I've been baiting you since then, because running from a well-structured argument only shows that you know you've based your proof off of assumptions, fallacies, and incorrect definitions.

      2. emrldphx profile image61
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I appreciate the kind words Curry(if that's what you prefer to be called. If not, I apologize).

        I'm actually a college drop-out big_smile

        1. profile image59
          writerscramp570posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Which explains your need to force others with an explaination of something being true or false, is just childish. Instead of trying to prove someone elses deductions as false, why don't you prove your own false ideas as proof of your reactions to anothers answers.
          The truth........................You can't handle the truth.

          1. emrldphx profile image61
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Mikel invites criticism of his proof, I just happen to have arguments that either haven't been presented to him, or haven't been presented as precisely. Just as he is entitled to his opinion, I am entitled to mine. I'm not attempting to force others, but to show the fallacies Mikel has used in logic and terminology.

            Being a college drop-out has nothing to do with it.

            If you think my ideas are false, why don't you point them out to me? I'd be happy to learn something new.

            The truth.......................... nobody can handle all the truth, there's not enough time for all of that.

            1. LewSethics profile image61
              LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Is it just me, or should these guys get a room?

              1. emrldphx profile image61
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                ?

                Is it just me, or if you don't have anything to contribute...

            2. profile image59
              writerscramp570posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              There is nothing but time for truth, it is your kind of thinking that put this country in this hole, in the first place. Ignorance of the truth is no excuse for stupidity. College is a farce, and is a basis for income streams to dumb down sociaty. All you college people bought into the scam, that you get knowlege from professors, but the truth is, college has only inburned their ideas and old teachings that have no use in this sociaty any longer, therefore you have no value in this sociaty, as you have no imagination or brains to think for yourselfs. You have been duped by the illuminati that controls all the colleges and schools, for the only purpose of dumbing down the new world order generation, and getting rich on the backs of the under informed, so you can't think about all the scams they are pulling on you. This is fact, in which I'm sure you'll have a simular but exact opisite of mine, and probebly millions of others. So what? Does it all really matter???  Do you really matter???  Does anyone really matter???  it will only matter to the beholder,  So why wast time with false facts, according to someone elses ideals and beliefs.  Try worring about your own little world and find your own truths as you believe them to be.
              Just sayin....Thats all

              1. emrldphx profile image61
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Did I ever advocate against truth? All I said is nobody can handle all truth. By that, I mean we pick and choose what we want to learn about.

                Wow, I dunno, but the college I went to was pretty good... all my classes we learned and practiced and experimented to see the reasons why things are true...

                I'm sorry, I don't know exactly what you are trying to say, or who you are trying to say it to.

                1. profile image68
                  paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Science is deaf and dumb; it is beyond it to handle the issue; it is not designed for it.

  2. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    I agree with everything you said, except for the argument you label 2A. I don't think it is possible to determine what life form is top. Not and agree on it. Your criteria may be different from someone else's and I consider it to be human arrogance to think we have a right to make that call.

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, to be clear, I don't agree with him. I did say that it's a strong argument, but it can also be argued, like you said, that multiple could be equal on top, or on top in different ways according to different criteria.

  3. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    My original statement still holds true, which defies any higher power as a higher authority.

    Just because there might be a higher power, it doesn't necessarily make that higher power a higher authority. wink

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure what 'original statement' you are referring to, or really what point you are trying to make?

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Really? I find that amusing. Are you having reading comprehension issue?

        Just because there might be a higher power doesn't make it a higher authority.

        As Mikel originally states- a "supreme being" and/or your "Supreme Being" may be a higher power, but still doesn't make it a higher authority.

        1. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Your original statement would be your first statement. In the context of this thread, your first statement was about your first statement. Yes, there is room for confusion there... were you meaning to refer to a statement in itself in an infinite loop, or were you referring to a statement elsewhere on the forums?


          You're not making your point very clear here. The entire claim is attempted proof of God. I was showing how proving 'supreme being'(not 'Supreme Being') doesn't have anything to do with God.

          As to authority, it's fair to say, following copyright laws, that if one were to create a universe, they would have authority over it.

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            My original statement would be the first sentence of this thread, where I said- a higher power isn't a higher authority.
            Copyright laws? roll

            They would have power or control over it. Power and Control isn't authority.

            1. emrldphx profile image61
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you for clarifying for me... just a side-note, is English your native language?

              You wrote:



              The first sentence was 'My original statement still holds true, which defies any higher power as a higher authority.', hence the confusion



              Copyright laws are a generally-agreed upon human sentiment that someone that creates something has full rights to it. If I write a book, I can change it, print it, burn it, sell it.

              By definition, authority denotes control. If you have a problem with the word, you should clarify what authority means to you.

              1. Cagsil profile image61
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And ignorance would grant you the ability to apply human laws to a god? roll

                1. emrldphx profile image61
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  If we have authority over what we create, would you be ignorant enough to say that God, upon creating the universe, doesn't have authority over it? In other words, you have more authority over your creations that He does his?

                  1. recommend1 profile image70
                    recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    There is no basis for your claim that we have authority over what we create.  Our children would be a prime example, the novel Dr Frankenstein is probably one of the best and easiest explorations of this.

                  2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    God to me, sounds like JP Morgan, believes he has the right to control, domineer and dictate, whilst contributing absolutely nothing. And, in addition, using a bunch of puppets, who knowingly or otherwise, have decided that they will help him divide fellow man, from fellow man. All in the name of religion, or capitalism and greed.

                2. emrldphx profile image61
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm curious, if you don't mind. Is English your native language?

  4. profile image68
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    Mikel G Roberts should provide definitions or claims and the reasons thereof from the Holy Book he believes in.

    Does he rely more on the dictionary than the Bible or the Word revealed?

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think he relies on what he can best twist to meet his needs.

  5. profile image0
    Wilfionposted 5 years ago

    I can't see where there is a claim here of scientific proof, only arguments put forward, which seem to have no connection to science.

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Mikel claims that logic can be used as scientific proof. I decided to play his game and disprove his claims using only logic.

    2. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ditto!

    3. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Read the Hub, I've explained it all about 400 million times now. Everybody new shows up and repeats the same questions the other 400 million people asked. Bring up the same misguided conclusions get set straight and the next guy shows up and I get to start it all over again.... PPPFFFFFF

      1. Randy Godwin profile image91
        Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Who asked a question?  I believe it was a statement of sorts.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Then that would fall under the category of 'misguided conclusions' as mentioned in that same post. yikes

          smile

          1. Randy Godwin profile image91
            Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps assumed "misguided conclusions" might be a better term if you want to put it under that part of your post.  smile

      2. emrldphx profile image61
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Why is it that you approve certain questions on your hub, but not mine?

        I haven't seen anyone definitively argue against your definitions, or the examples of logical fallacy that I specifically point out. Care to address me?

  6. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago
    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And what is your problem with that? I went to bed, woke up, ran some errands, and replied to one of your posts... how is that a problem?

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Changing the questions to answers I have already given, to other people, without changing the answers.... Inputting the new questions to make the old answers appear stupid and moronic, pretending that you did nothing wrong so it seems like the replaced questions are the original questions...HHHMMM what would be wrong with that? hmm

        1. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What are you going on about? When I got back, I went through, as I always do, and responded to each post in order. I replied to your post: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/85675?p … ost1838007

          with this post: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/85675?p … ost1839151


          Let's go through this again. You replied to something I said:
          http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/85675?p … ost1838007

          Yet, when I replied to that:
          http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/85675?p … ost1839151
          it was childish?

          I didn't change any of your statements. I didn't change anyone's questions. What are you even claiming I did?

          You really have a problem with me responding to your response to me?

        2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          @ Green Bird

          No answer?

          Intellectual Dishonesty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty

          1. emrldphx profile image61
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If you happen to look at the post directly above yours, I did respond.

            I didn't change anything. I quoted your post, and gave you the link to the post I quoted for you to check.

 
working