INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

Pigeon Chess it is!

That is it. I have no desire to discuss anything with someone so bitter and trivial. I'm out. The issue deserves better.

 

[McBell]

That is it. I have no desire to discuss anything with someone so bitter and trivial. I'm out. The issue deserves better.

:biglaugh:

 

[Thief]

:biglaugh:

Really?:fork:

 

[1robin]

:biglaugh:

Advancing the discussion as always. I see no effort to prove me wrong was attempted or possible.

 

[Gui10]

Advancing the discussion as always. I see no effort to prove me wrong was attempted or possible.

Oh because you're advancing the discussion with answers like that?

 

[1robin]

Oh because you're advancing the discussion with answers like that?

There is no discussion to advance. I have given up on a discussion being advanced with the party in question for some time now. The meaning in the discussion was destroyed by them long ago. I have resigned myself to killing time with mirrored rhetoric as that is all that is available. I hope you are not attempting to make it worse as I have killed all the time with nonsense I needed to.

 

[McBell]

Advancing the discussion as always. I see no effort to prove me wrong was attempted or possible.

You hit the nail on the head.
No one will ever convince you you are wrong.
Even when you are.

 

[no-body]

There is no discussion to advance. I have given up on a discussion being advanced with the party in question for some time now. The meaning in the discussion was destroyed by them long ago. I have resigned myself to killing time with mirrored rhetoric as that is all that is available. I hope you are not attempting to make it worse as I have killed all the time with nonsense I needed to.

That's because you keep ignoring the main question for your "solution" I know it's a lost cause but lets try one more time why is God immune from logic and reason and not the universe? and why your God specifically?

 

[McBell]

Really?:fork:

yes really.
I found the irony of his statement that amusing.

 

[Gui10]

There is no discussion to advance. I have given up on a discussion being advanced with the party in question for some time now. The meaning in the discussion was destroyed by them long ago. I have resigned myself to killing time with mirrored rhetoric as that is all that is available. I hope you are not attempting to make it worse as I have killed all the time with nonsense I needed to.

Well I in this case, where both of you have the same opinion about the other, I figure one of you is ''righter'' than the other.

So, in this game of pigeon chess, who is the pigeon?

As you problably read it previously, the pigeon is the one holding a dogmatic point of view that is unchageable even with apparently logical reasoning.

Now, who is dogmatic? The religious one or the one behind science?

Well let me inform you, sir, that science is NOT DOGMATIC!

Science has overwritten itself time after time, its principles are never poured in concrete, a new possibility is always open as long as research is done to demonstrate an alternate conclusion. Even today, some of the core concepts of science, such as ''the universe is 14 billion years old'' are challenged. Some scientist now say it is 32 bilion years old (Lawrence Krauss). You see, that is the core difference between religion and science, science changes, it improves, constantly, with new research and new methods. Religion, however, still relies on a 2000 year old book that has absolutely no base in a modern society.

So, in conclusion, having proved that your religion is dogmatic and that science is not, I think it is fair to say that YOU are the pigeon in this chess match.

Care to explain to me that you are not the pigeon?

 

[1robin]

That's because you keep ignoring the main question for your "solution" I know it's a lost cause but lets try one more time why is God immune from logic and reason and not the universe? and why your God specifically?

I did not answer that question because it was not asked and even if it had been it would have been an irrational question. God is strongly implied by logic and reason which is why it is a topic usually brought up in discussions on the subjects. I think what you are doing is attempting to bind God by natural law which makes no sense. Reason and logic imply God in the strongest sense. Natural law has little input. If it was just me and my logic that I was using I might be inclined to think that it was possible that I was simply ignorant and investigate to determine the answer. The fact is that I use only well-known adequate arguments still debated after thousands of years by the most brilliant among us. I could easily see that you may be smarter than me but the arrogant idea that these time worn but secure arguments used by great philosophers, scientists, and theologians are illogical or unreasonable sadly says far more about the one using them. In fact as science makes new discoveries the old claims become even surer. I will give you an example, the Bible predicts the universe to be fine-tuned not just for us, or for life, or for a recognizable universe at all. Einstein did not like that and so dug his heels into a steady state theory. If this were the late fifties you would be using Einstein as an omniscient source for proof and you would be wrong. As we now know and as the Bible has always said the universe began to exist and is expanding. The latest research shows that to be the case and no shrinking universe possible. However multiverses are the only retreat left and were constructed without need of evidence or any way to potentially get any. They have finally made the perfect denial machine. The point is what we have screams God in the most logical and reasonable way. Only when it is warped with what science wishes to believe or fantasize about does it become less rational. There is nothing illogical or irrational about God but there is with much of the science used to challenge him.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I did not answer that question because it was not asked and even if it had been it would have been an irrational question. God is strongly implied by logic and reason which is why it is a topic usually brought up in discussions on the subjects.

Actually, it's the exact opposite. The notion of God has absolutely zero rational or logical backing behind it, which is why the majority of people who believe in a God only claim to do so out of "faith". This is why people talk about God in relation to logic and reason - because, to many, God doesn't require rational justification.

I think what you are doing is attempting to bind God by natural law which makes no sense.

Makes no less sense than saying laws don't apply to God. Both are baseless assumptions about something that we have no evidence of.

Reason and logic imply God in the strongest sense.

How?

Natural law has little input. If it was just me and my logic that I was using I might be inclined to think that it was possible that I was simply ignorant and investigate to determine the answer. The fact is that I use only well-known adequate arguments still debated after thousands of years by the most brilliant among us.

Which are...?

I could easily see that you may be smarter than me but the arrogant idea that these time worn but secure arguments used by great philosophers, scientists, and theologians are illogical or unreasonable sadly says far more about the one using them.

And I would say the fact that countless people throughout all of human history, including some of history's greatest minds, who believed in the concept of God still failed, after all this time, to produce one shred of any kind of evidence for their existence is extremely telling.

In fact as science makes new discoveries the old claims become even surer. I will give you an example, the Bible predicts the universe to be fine-tuned not just for us, or for life, or for a recognizable universe at all.

And how has science confirmed this even slightly? How do you test for "fine-tuning"? Considering the vast majority of the Universe is completely and utterly inhospitable to life, how can you say it was specifically "fine-tuned" for anything?

Einstein did not like that and so dug his heels into a steady state theory. If this were the late fifties you would be using Einstein as an omniscient source for proof and you would be wrong.

Arguing against people by creating a presumptive straw-man doesn't bode well for your argument.

As we now know and as the Bible has always said the universe began to exist and is expanding.

Where does the Bible say that the Universe is expanding?

The latest research shows that to be the case and no shrinking universe possible. However multiverses are the only retreat left and were constructed without need of evidence or any way to potentially get any. They have finally made the perfect denial machine. The point is what we have screams God in the most logical and reasonable way.

You've yet to present any logical argument for God whatsoever. All you've basically said is "the Bible says these things, and those things are basically true". Well, congratulations. How does that mean that, logically, God exists?

Only when it is warped with what science wishes to believe or fantasize about does it become less rational. There is nothing illogical or irrational about God but there is with much of the science used to challenge him.

Science is never used to "challenge" God. Science is completely neutral on the subject of God, just as it is with all supernatural and/or mythical creatures.

 

[1robin]

Well I in this case, where both of you have the same opinion about the other, I figure one of you is ''righter'' than the other.

I am the only one that gave any attempt at an argument. He only sarcastically dismissed it. There are not two apples to compare.

So, in this game of pigeon chess, who is the pigeon?
As you probably read it previously, the pigeon is the one holding a dogmatic point of view that is unchangeable even with apparently logical reasoning.

I do not hold a dogma at all because it is doctrine. I resent and dismiss digma and tradition. I developed my theology without influence of any outside source save experience with God and the Bible and other theological texts. I did not even know what born again meant until after I had been. I have changed what I thought repeatedly on some issues. I hold nothing that is intellectually unjustified.

Well let me inform you, sir, that science is NOT DOGMATIC!

Science is as dogmatic as possible. Fortunately where science is wrong it is demonstrable and does not allow for the continued belief of that dogma. However some do anyway. There are currently flat earthers still around. Religion might seem less flexible because it is less domonstatably false.

Science has overwritten itself time after time, its principles are never poured in concrete, a new possibility is always open as long as research is done to demonstrate an alternate conclusion. Even today, some of the core concepts of science, such as ''the universe is 14 billion years old'' are challenged. Some scientist now say it is 32 billion years old (Lawrence Krauss). You see, that is the core difference between religion and science, science changes, it improves, constantly, with new research and new methods. Religion, however, still relies on a 2000 year old book that has absolutely no base in a modern society.

I know of no other field where failure is saluted so much. The Bible may have withstood so well because it needed no correcting. Thousands of years after a 3 year career in a backwater middle eastern area Jesus's words are still true and have required no correcting. There is no demonstrable fact that proves the Bible wrong outside scribal error. If you see fault in that I do not concur.

So, in conclusion, having proved that your religion is dogmatic and that science is not, I think it is fair to say that YOU are the pigeon in this chess match.

There is no match. There is a derogative term used to dismiss an argument that never took place. Religion is true or false independently of whether it is dogmatic and my religion is anything but.

Care to explain to me that you are not the pigeon?

Care to explain why I must or what a pigeon has to do with the truth of God? I get ten trillion tons of claims that science disproves the Bible and not a single ounce of proof. Where the heck is this ground breaking example? Where is the time magazine with your picture on the cover claiming such? Christianity is the most scrutinized concept in history and is still as merited in the age of reason (how an age where we kill our babies on an industry scale can be called reason is beyond me) as it ever was. Chess and pigeons have no place in the discussion as buzzwords have no explanatory power or scope. The death of Christianity is sung from every corner yet not a single nail can be found for the coffin.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Science is as dogmatic as possible. Fortunately where science is wrong it is demonstrable and does not allow for the continued belief of that dogma.

Hold on a second. You just said science is dogmatic, but then said that it changes when it is shown to be demonstrably wrong. That's exactly the opposite of being dogmatic.

However some do anyway. There are currently flat earthers still around. Religion might seem less flexible because it is less domonstatably false.

And such people do not adhere to the scientific method, but adhere only to their dogmatic beliefs. So how is science dogmatic?

I know of no other field where failure is saluted so much.

Failure? Nobody "failed" in science. Facts are things that require patience and understanding, and these things take a great deal of time and research. When science reaches an incorrect conclusion, it only does so because the information available at the time lead them to it - this is why all conclusions are tentative. If you honestly think that changing your mind about something when new facts come to light is "failure" then you clearly have some severe issues with the very concept of learning.

The Bible may have withstood so well because it needed no correcting.

Just like every other holy text that has been preserved for over a thousand years.

Thousands of years after a 3 year career in a backwater middle eastern area Jesus's words are still true and have required no correcting.

Even the part where he said every letter of the Law would remain in effect until the end of time?

There is no demonstrable fact that proves the Bible wrong outside scribal error.

Logical fallacy. "This has never been proven wrong, therefore it is correct". You mentioned earlier that you believe what you believe for logical reasons, but if that's the case then there shouldn't be any such holes in your reasoning.

 

[Harrytic]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

Even as someone who believes that God created this world and us, I see this as a weak argument. Who knows what has always been there and what hasn't. I personally believe that there are thousands of Gods. Where they all uncreated? Perhaps they all evolved from something lesser?

Who knows? And does it really matter? If the universe was once created by magic or if it was always there... it's still mind blowing.

 

[gnostic]

Something that existed for always outside the time-boundaries.

Without time, there can be no eternity.

 

[Leftimies]

the only way anything can exist is eternity. eternity, limitless duration of time, governed by universe exploding (brith) and collapsing (death) over and over and over again. each time, the collapse of universe (matter is drawn to the center at near-speed of light, where it crashes and explodes) causes massive explosion of raw power, known as Big Bang. this has been going on since the dawn of time, because it supposedly will happen again, if the scientific article i once read is trustworthy. its a cycle of eternity.

this eternity and limitless duration of time is, for me, the dependency of existence and nonexistence, the ultimate divine law of nature. yin and yang. our world must be eternal, and this eternity - the union of nonexistence and existence - is what we call God.

 

[PolyHedral]

the only way anything can exist is eternity. eternity, limitless duration of time

An existence with an infinitely long time is not the same thing as entities which exist without time.

 

[1robin]

Actually, it's the exact opposite. The notion of God has absolutely zero rational or logical backing behind it, which is why the majority of people who believe in a God only claim to do so out of "faith". This is why people talk about God in relation to logic and reason - because, to many, God doesn't require rational justification.

Did I forget to respond to a recent post of yours? I thought I saw one when scrolling by? I meant dogmatic in that things are claimed to be true that are not known to be so. In other words string theory is claimed to be fact or very likely such even though there is no evidence of it. Of course things that are common knowledge and that contradict previous claims are eventually conceded most of the time. Fortunately the Bible does not require such revision.

Makes no less sense than saying laws don't apply to God. Both are baseless assumptions about something that we have no evidence of.

If you think natural law in this context that was created by God is binding on God and supernatural events I have nothing to add. It simply makes no sense. It is like saying a Boson is bound by Newtonian physics.

How?

If you are unaware of the arguments that have been involved in this debate for hundreds of years in some cases I do not think you can contribute. Since I know very well that you are aware of them then you are being deliberately facetious.

Which are...?

Good night nurse. Asking questions you already have the answers for is mildly insulting. I will give one "The cosmological argument". There is no counter argument but please feel free to bang your head at your own discretion.

And I would say the fact that countless people throughout all of human history, including some of history's greatest minds, who believed in the concept of God still failed, after all this time, to produce one shred of any kind of evidence for their existence is extremely telling.

You are confusing evidence with proof. I am almost intimidated into not listing any because It requires selecting from an infinite list. I will do it another way.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

Sir Edward Clarke, “As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Professor Thomas Arnold, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the chair of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:

"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause.

I could do this forever. Add in Simon Greenleaf, Lord Lyndhurst, Leonardo da Vinci, Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Sir Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz, Antoine Lavoisier, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Michael Faraday, Sir George Stokes, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Nicola Tesla, Max Planck, Guglielmo Marconi, Niels Bohr, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Michael Polanyi, C.S. Lewis, Johannes Gutenberg, Enrico Fermi, Allan Sandage
http://brainz.org/50-most-influential-christians-all-time/
All these men and the thousands I did not list were experts at drawing conclusions from evidence and all agree that God is a likely reality. Before you reach for the habitually misapplied authority fallacy safety blanket, I am not claiming their faith proves God is true. I am saying their faith makes claims God is not evidenced or not intellectually permissible ridiculous and almost insane.

Instead of wearing myself out posting evidence to be ignored I will instead say I am unaware of any fact that is inconsistent with God from science or any other field.

And how has science confirmed this even slightly? How do you test for "fine-tuning"? Considering the vast majority of the Universe is completely and utterly inhospitable to life, how can you say it was specifically "fine-tuned" for anything?

Because the odds against a life permitting universe are infinite. We make the same kind of conclusions every single day in science. If you wish more authorities to justify this I have them. One thing is for sure the evidence for God is infinitely greater than multiverses, but only one is allowed. The probability of getting life by chance is astronomically, absurdly, hyperbolically, rediculous and just plain nuts.

Arguing against people by creating a presumptive straw-man doesn't bode well for your argument.

He was the one who said his assumption created the biggest professional mistake of his career. Tell him his own conlusion is a strawman.

Where does the Bible say that the Universe is expanding?

I did not mean to suggest it did. I meant it suggested it began to exist. It is claimed it suggests it is expanding but I did not mean to imply that myself. However here it is: Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God has stretched it out. He has expanded it (and is perhaps still expanding it). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/universe-confirms-bible
I do not use this argument but it is my fault that it looked as if I was attempting to.

You've yet to present any logical argument for God whatsoever. All you've basically said is "the Bible says these things, and those things are basically true". Well, congratulations. How does that mean that, logically, God exists?

Quote me a single statement where I said or even hinted that because the Bible says X then X is true. That was completely false. I use the argument the Bible says X and the universe suggests X and therefore X is likely true.

Science is never used to "challenge" God. Science is completely neutral on the subject of God, just as it is with all supernatural and/or mythical creatures.

I agree that it shouldn't be as it has no facts inconsistent with the Bible available but it is none the less. Or I should say science fiction is used. I have apparently gotten out of sequence responding to you. I will attempt to recalibrate.

 

[Looncall]

Did I forget to respond to a recent post of yours? I thought I saw one when scrolling by? I meant dogmatic in that things are claimed to be true that are not known to be so. In other words string theory is claimed to be fact or very likely such even though there is no evidence of it. Of course things that are common knowledge and that contradict previous claims are eventually conceded most of the time. Fortunately the Bible does not require such revision.
If you think natural law in this context that was created by God is binding on God and supernatural events I have nothing to add. It simply makes no sense. It is like saying a Boson is bound by Newtonian physics.
If you are unaware of the arguments that have been involved in this debate for hundreds of years in some cases I do not think you can contribute. Since I know very well that you are aware of them then you are being deliberately facetious.
Good night nurse. Asking questions you already have the answers for is mildly insulting. I will give one "The cosmological argument". There is no counter argument but please feel free to bang your head at your own discretion.
You are confusing evidence with proof. I am almost intimidated into not listing any because It requires selecting from an infinite list. I will do it another way.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

Sir Edward Clarke, “As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Professor Thomas Arnold, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the chair of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:

"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause.

I could do this forever. Add in Simon Greenleaf, Lord Lyndhurst, Leonardo da Vinci, Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Sir Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz, Antoine Lavoisier, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Michael Faraday, Sir George Stokes, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Nicola Tesla, Max Planck, Guglielmo Marconi, Niels Bohr, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Michael Polanyi, C.S. Lewis, Johannes Gutenberg, Enrico Fermi, Allan Sandage
http://brainz.org/50-most-influential-christians-all-time/
All these men and the thousands I did not list were experts at drawing conclusions from evidence and all agree that God is a likely reality. Before you reach for the habitually misapplied authority fallacy safety blanket, I am not claiming their faith proves God is true. I am saying their faith makes claims God is not evidenced or not intellectually permissible ridiculous and almost insane.

Instead of wearing myself out posting evidence to be ignored I will instead say I am unaware of any fact that is inconsistent with God from science or any other field.
Because the odds against a life permitting universe are infinite. We make the same kind of conclusions every single day in science. If you wish more authorities to justify this I have them. One thing is for sure the evidence for God is infinitely greater than multiverses, but only one is allowed. The probability of getting life by chance is astronomically, absurdly, hyperbolically, rediculous and just plain nuts.
He was the one who said his assumption created the biggest professional mistake of his career. Tell him his own conlusion is a strawman.
I did not mean to suggest it did. I meant it suggested it began to exist. It is claimed it suggests it is expanding but I did not mean to imply that myself. However here it is: Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God has stretched it out. He has expanded it (and is perhaps still expanding it). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/universe-confirms-bible
I do not use this argument but it is my fault that it looked as if I was attempting to.
Quote me a single statement where I said or even hinted that because the Bible says X then X is true. That was completely false. I use the argument the Bible says X and the universe suggests X and therefore X is likely true.
I agree that it shouldn't be as it has no facts inconsistent with the Bible available but it is none the less. Or I should say science fiction is used. I have apparently gotten out of sequence responding to you. I will attempt to recalibrate.

Why do you bother quoting from all these authors? The world has lots of crackpots in it and many of them write books. What counts is evidence. If your authors give evidence, you should show it. Merely giving quotes is very like mere name-dropping. It cuts no ice.