Examining A Claim of Scientific Proof That God Exists

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (63 posts)

60
emrldphxposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 71
  Quilligrapherposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  71
  Quilligrapherposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for your input Quilligrapher
  
  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.
  reply report
  71
  Quilligrapherposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure Mikel had his reasons. Sometimes things just are what they are.
  Q.
  reply report
  75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
2. 58
  WD Curry 111posted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm trying to outlast him, but I'm running out of steam.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mikel, I'm amazed you come into this thread and manage to not reply to me or my arguments...
  reply report
  75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
  56
  writerscramp570posted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  LewSethicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Is it just me, or should these guys get a room?
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ?
  
  Is it just me, or if you don't have anything to contribute...
  reply report
  56
  writerscramp570posted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  50
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Science is deaf and dumb; it is beyond it to handle the issue; it is not designed for it.
  reply report
0
Emile Rposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
69
Cagsilposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure what 'original statement' you are referring to, or really what point you are trying to make?
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin 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?
  
  They would have power or control over it. Power and Control isn't authority.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And ignorance would grant you the ability to apply human laws to a god?
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We don't have authority over our children? Where do you live?
  
  But then again, I still don't know what definition of authority you are using.
  
  In my country, parents have authority over their children.
  
  This doesn't mean you can force them to do something... but I never argued that God can force us to do anything either.
  reply report
  50
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Creator God does not force us to do anything; it is correct.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Is there a way to invite Mikel to defend his assertions?
  reply report
  50
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think he understands that he took a wrong stand and it will be futile to defend it.
  report
  58
  WD Curry 111posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  He lives in China. Enough said.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, like Florida's youth are good examples of parent's authority.
  reply report
  58
  WD Curry 111posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The government interferes with parental authority in China. That's east of you.
  report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So you can still beat your kids in Florida with no government intervention?
  report
  60
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know if you believe in a Diety or not, but in order to have a discussion about what God's rights may or may not be, we have to assume for the sake of argument that He does exist and that He did create the universe and mankind.
  
  In that sense, I think it feeble to compare God to any one man.
  
  Another problem is that, among believers, the concept of God isn't always the same. Some versions of God don't accept any kind of monetary offerings, so the greed argument doesn't work for those versions. Some versions of God don't include organized religion, so the controlling and dividing argument doesn't work there.
  reply report
  60
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know if you believe in a Diety or not, but in order to have a discussion about what God's rights may or may not be, we have to assume for the sake of argument that He does exist and that He did create the universe and mankind.
  
  Sorry, I can't assume that. Particularly in terms of rights. Would it not make sense to discuss the evidence supporting or otherwise, his existence, before discussing his rights. In terms of the the controlling and dividing arguments, this does not always appertain to organised religion. There are other ways to divide and rule. So, your rejection of the controlling and dividing argument, doesn't work here.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hollie, go back and read what I wrote again. You say it would make more sense to discuss his existence before we discuss his rights. I said, we can't discuss his rights unless we assume his existence. After all, how can you discuss the rights of something that doesn't exist?
  
  If you try to discuss his rights, but assume he doesn't exist, there is no basis on which to put his rights.
  
  If you assume he doesn't exist, then what's the point of discussing whether or not he is controlling puppets for sake of greed?
  
  So, do you want to discuss his existence or his rights?
  reply report
  60
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I cannot discuss the rights of a "being" until I'm sure he exists. The former is futile, until the latter is validated.
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But you did. You came in with a remark about God domineering and dictating, but contributing nothing.
  
  You can't argue that 'even though he doesn't exist, he is dictating and doesn't contribute anything'. If you want to discuss his rights, for the sake of argument, you have to assume his existence. That's the point.
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm curious, if you don't mind. Is English your native language?
  reply report
50
paarsurreyposted 13 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?
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think he relies on what he can best twist to meet his needs.
  reply report
0
Wilfionposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
2. 59
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ditto!
  reply report
3. 75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Who asked a question? I believe it was a statement of sorts.
  reply report
  75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Then that would fall under the category of 'misguided conclusions' as mentioned in that same post.
  
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps assumed "misguided conclusions" might be a better term if you want to put it under that part of your post.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
75
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/85675?p … ost1839291
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  @ Green Bird
  
  No answer?
  
  Intellectual Dishonesty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Examining A Claim of Scientific Proof That God Exists

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Examining A Claim of Scientific Proof That God Exists

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies