Existence of Demons (and Angels)

quote:

---

I suggest a full reading of my Hypothesis of consciousness which actually proves God exists. Message #6 and #15 prove God exists. Here it is, un-refuted.

---

It isn't a proof - its still too unclear exactly what the premises means. As can be seen from the thread various criticisms were raised and unanswered. Also the truth of the premises was ruled off-topic - but for the argument to actually work the truth of the premises would be very much in doubt.Let's sum it up:
1) The premises as presented were ambiguous and the logical structure of much of the argument unclear. Bit these pints disqualify it as a proof.2) The premises were likely vacuous or false (since we don't know what they mean none of the critics can say which !). Showing either would constitute a reutation although the second case was not permitted in the thread.These points were raised in the thread so you can't say that you are unaware of them.So it isn't a proof, and if you were to finish the argument to the point where it could be considered one it would probably be refuted in short order.And please can you explain why, given that you lost interest in your own argument before actually clearing up all the major problems, you actually have the nerve to call it a "proof" and state that it is "unrefuted" ? I mean, if you thought that you really did have a valid proof wouldn't you have actually gone on to finish it instead of abandoning it in such a poor state ?If you eally think that your argument is any good then I suggest you start a new thread to discuss it - you can start with posting a version of the argument which deals with the actual points raised. And with a new thread we can freely discuss the truth of the premises.This message has been edited by PaulK, 12-06-2004 03:01 AM

Well if the admins forbade any line of critiicsm that could refute your argument then to call it "unrefuted" is misleading unless it is qualified.Perhaps you could also get around to answering my message 28 which is really necessary to understand the premises of even your revised argument (and to understand the question of whether the universe is a system).

Well, if you want an event in the Bible that is not described as a miracle and is contrary to science, try this from Genesis 30 (NASB)

And that is the problem. It is all very well to say that nothing in the Bible is opposed to science, but if every claim contrary to our scientific knowledge is assumed to be due to some sort of supernatural intervention, and exempted on that ground, then the claim is empty.

So, if I understand what you are saying it is true that the Bible does contain some material which contradicts our scientific understanding. However, you assume these examples to be due to the intervention of God or some other supernatural entity that exists in your belief system.

Can you explain how this has any relevance to the post you replied to ? Or did you just click on the wrong button ?

I fail to see how we could expect any clearer presentation form a pre-scientific account like the story of Jacob. It is clearly stated that Jacob and his rods were the causal agents and God is left unmentioned.How can it be in nay way significant that the Bible lacks statements that we could not reasonably expect it to make even if the story, were simply a legend with the same factual basis as other legends ?

I don't see why you should feel the need to point out your belief in the truth of the story when I carefully phrased my question to respect that belief.The question seems to be quite simple. Since there is no real possibility of finding statements you would consider opposed to our scientific regardless of whose view of the story is correct what is the significance of claiming that there are no such statements ?