INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[metis]

I would agree. I was debating a use it is put to by others, not claiming I agreed with the use, if you were addressing me. I believe both God and evolution exist but that evolution alone can't have produced reality as we know it.

I do know if it could or couldn't, and I'm not quite that old in order to have seen it for myself.

 

[Repox]

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.

This statement is based on common sense and logic.

Science has part of the answer with the big bang. It is science's smoking gun, irrefutable evidence for a beginning. Then, science's inability to explain the origin of the big bang is further evidence. If there is no scientific explanation, then, by default, God is the only explanation.

What I like best about this statement is "something cannot create itself." Because of the time line for the universe, whereas time began with the big bang, we go to nothing as the starting point. What could have done it. The Old Testament is about a spiritual beings (God and Angels), spiritual forms with no physical attributes. So, we have a cause, not nothing, but a spiritual world. Alas, the big bang was caused by a spiritual being. Assuming only a spiritual being can create something, GOD DID IT!

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

This statement is based on common sense and logic.

Science has part of the answer with the big bang. It is science's smoking gun, irrefutable evidence for a beginning. Then, science's inability to explain the origin of the big bang is further evidence. If there is no scientific explanation, then, by default, God is the only explanation.

What I like best about this statement is "something cannot create itself." Because of the time line for the universe, whereas time began with the big bang, we go to nothing as the starting point. What could have done it. The Old Testament is about a spiritual beings (God and Angels), spiritual forms with no physical attributes. So, we have a cause, not nothing, but a spiritual world. Alas, the big bang was caused by a spiritual being. Assuming only a spiritual being can create something, GOD DID IT!

But...what if there was always something and never nothing.

 

[1robin]

Not really. Even if evolution, or abiogenesis, was conclusively disproved, this wouldn't constitute proof of creationism. This is a false dilemma. Thus, evolution is not dependent upon the validity of abiogenesis in any dispute with creationism with respect to the domain of the ToE- the diversity of species.

That is probably why I never put it to either purpose. This discussion started I believe with a comment I made about evolution being true but still problematic in my opinion.

Um, what?

Steam is dependent on water in reality, but not as a theory debated as a hypothetical.

Right. But we can't pretend we don't know what factors play into what is recorded and what is not. The lack of transitional fossils is consistent with evolutionary theory, since this could simply represent a lack of the conditions required for fossilization.

You do realize I was commenting on things that I found inconsistent. I made no absolute claims about evolution other that I am sure it occurred. I think some burden confusion is going on here or your assuming something.

You're probably using "prove" as a weasel word here, but its easy to state some things that would falsify the ToE- "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian", to use the popular phrase. Species out of order with respect to the fossil records- if we were dating Neanderthal fossils as being older than homo ergaster fossils, that would be a problem. If we were finding species that, according to their DNA, didn't share a common ancestor, that would be a problem. If it was shown that mutations are not inherited, that would be a problem. I could go on here, but it's unnecessary. Your claim that the ToE is consistent with everything is patently false, and is a matter of public knowledge.

What is a homo-ergaster? Can I get it on me if I get too close? Your argumentation suggests that unless I prove evolution false (not even what I claim) it is true. That is the problem with a term that includes everything. Evolution is like a topical tar baby. It absorbs whatever it comes into contact with. That exact thing is illustrated by your claiming homosexuality is explained by evolution. I believe that evolution is not consistent with everything but so far the theory is consistent or claimed to be with whatever happens to be brought up. I think our disconnect is because you are talking about what you believe the theory is and I am discussing what I have found people claim it was. A theory that is both consistent with survival and things 100% lethal if adhered to, means nothing IMO.

I guess if you want to stick your head into the sand, nobody can force you to see. The only people who don't feel that IC has been conclusively refuted are a small group of fundamentalist Christians, which is a bad sign. And if you think that IC is still a credible hypothesis, please refer me to at least one peer-reviewed publication from a respectable academic science journal that accepts or utilizes irreducible complexity from the last, say, 20 years. I won't hold my breath.

How do you know this? Why are you inexhaustible when telling what it is I do not think you could possibly know but never ever answer direct questions like retaining parts that are only assets when combined or foundations of morality without God? I have in desperation relied on fill in the blanks that are not even attempted to fill in. I have no idea how to resolve issues given that fact.

If you don't understand, ask for clarification. But don't come back with this "reality will not bow to rhetoric" nonsense. If its true its true, and if its false then show or say why.

In the light of the previous statement I think my claims valid and justified though if you had answered as requested I would have responded differently.

Let me ask again as I wanted this answer more than any other. Murder is actually wrong even if God did not exist based on ___________________. Until you fill in some blanks I have no choice but to budget my time and comments accordingly.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Steam is dependent on water in reality, but not as a theory debated as a hypothetical.

And you've still given no reason to suppose that the reality of evolution is in any way contingent upon the reality of abiogenesis.

You do realize I was commenting on things that I found inconsistent.

And the inconsistency was superficial; as soon as one takes into consideration what goes into fossil preservation, the inconsistency disappears.

What is a homo-ergaster?

A predecessor to homo neanderthalis. You do understand the point right, that if it turned out that carbon dating showed that fossils of a species that is supposedly an ancestor of another species are far more recent than their purported descendent, this would be a problem. Or, to put it more simply, "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian".

Your argumentation suggests that unless I prove evolution false (not even what I claim) it is true.

No, you've claimed that the ToE is consistent with anything and everything, and is unfalsifiable- to show the absurdity of this, I gave you a list of things which would be inconsistent with the ToE, and falsify it.

How do you know this?

Know what, that IC does not appear in any respectable academic journals? That it is been discredited? By viewing the relevant literature- how else?

In the light of the previous statement I think my claims valid and justified though if you had answered as requested I would have responded differently.

The fact that you gave a non-answer ("reality doesn't bow to rhetoric") suggested you simply didn't understand something- terminology, etc. There's nothing wrong with asking for clarification.

Let me ask again as I wanted this answer more than any other. Murder is actually wrong even if God did not exist based on ___________________. Until you fill in some blanks I have no choice but to budget my time and comments accordingly.

This merry-go-round again? Why? It isn't even relevant to the topic at hand!

 

[Repox]

But...what if there was always something and never nothing.

Assuming the big bang is correct, there is a time line to the universe. Based on logic, that means there must have been a beginning. To avoid that reality, we must have an explanation of time looping back in a circular manner, or something like that. There appears no science to support that possibility.

Explain how there was always something.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Assuming the big bang is correct, there is a time line to the universe. Based on logic, that means there must have been a beginning.

Not necessarily. The BBT holds that, since the universe is expanding, and there is a good deal of leftover heat, we can infer that at some prior time the universe was in a hot, dense state. This is the time-line, and it does not include a "beginning", nor does this logically follow.

To avoid that reality, we must have an explanation of time looping back in a circular manner, or something like that.

That's one possibility; a cyclical model in which the Big Bang was preceded by a "Big Crunch', and that, eventually, the universe will stop expanding and will start contracting again- and so on, ad infinitum.

Explain how there was always something.

Well, even if there was any "beginning" of the universe, that would mean there was a "beginning" of time as well- and since "always" is a temporal relation, it requires time to exist; so in a sense, if something has existed since time began, then it has always existed- it has existed as long as there has been such a thing as time or temporality. ("before the beginning of time" is no less incoherent than "north of the north pole")

But there is nothing about standard BB cosmology that excludes an eternal universe, so this is sort of moot anyways.

 

[Thief]

This isn't going so well. First of all....time does not exist.
Time cannot be applied to God.

So using a non-entity to lean as proof of.... an Entity.... isn't going to gel.

It should all come down to that 'indisputable rational'.....which came first?
Spirit?...or substance?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Assuming the big bang is correct, there is a time line to the universe. Based on logic, that means there must have been a beginning. To avoid that reality, we must have an explanation of time looping back in a circular manner, or something like that. There appears no science to support that possibility.

Explain how there was always something.

Because the Big Bang is the start of our universe. But the Big Bang is something.

 

[Repox]

Because the Big Bang is the start of our universe. But the Big Bang is something.

Of course the big bang is something, but what caused it?

 

[Repox]

This isn't going so well. First of all....time does not exist.
Time cannot be applied to God.

So using a non-entity to lean as proof of.... an Entity.... isn't going to gel.

It should all come down to that 'indisputable rational'.....which came first?
Spirit?...or substance?

You say "Time cannot be applied to God." So, where did it come from?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Because the Big Bang is the start of our universe. But the Big Bang is something.

The Big Bang is not really "the start of our universe" as in a beginning or origin. This is a popular misconception. Try reading some lay/introductory material on cosmology sometime. Here's a place to start, or here, or here.

 

[Repox]

The Big Bang is not really "the start of our universe" as in a beginning or origin. This is a popular misconception. Try reading some lay/introductory material on cosmology sometime. Here's a place to start, or here, or here.

However, there is no "scientific consensus" that the big bang is not the beginning of the universe.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am neutral on what Behe has claimed.

That is fine since one study showed that in the U.S., about 99.86% of experts accept common descent, which would include the majority of Christian experts. The same study showed that some of the people who are most likely to be creationists are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.

Of the relative handful of creationist experts, a good percentage of them also accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, so their scientific objectivity is questionable.

Since no one should take the global flood theory, or the regional flood theory literally, there are not any good reasons why anyone should take the story of Adam and Eve literally. If you wish, I will explain why the regional flood theory is not valid. A regional flood could have happened, but that theory is questionable for some textual reasons in the book of Genesis.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

However, there is no "scientific consensus" that the big bang is not the beginning of the universe.

There is a scientific consensus that the BBT does not include or entail any beginning of the universe in anything resembling the relevant sense. This is simply a matter of fact, and one you can verify via the links I provided, or any other source on the subject you care to pick. Models which do include any absolute beginning of the universe(such as the zero-energy proposal) are distinct from, and go beyond, the standard BBT.

 

[Repox]

There is a scientific consensus that the BBT does not include or entail any beginning of the universe in anything resembling the relevant sense. This is simply a matter of fact, and one you can verify via the links I provided, or any other source on the subject you care to pick. Models which do include any absolute beginning of the universe(such as the zero-energy proposal) are distinct from, and go beyond, the standard BBT.

Where is scientific consensus, such as referee journals, for maverick theories about the cause of the big bang?

I said, based on scientific consensus, the BB is a theory about the beginning of time. Because science has no verifiable theory for the cause of the big bang, there remains the question: WHAT CAUSED IT?

I propose that God created the universe. Until such time that science has an empirical explanation for a cause, that remains a possibility.

 

[Cephus]

Of course the big bang is something, but what caused it?

We don't know. That's not a license to just make something up because your uncomfortable not knowing.

 

[Cephus]

However, there is no "scientific consensus" that the big bang is not the beginning of the universe.

It is the beginning of *OUR* universe, not of everything that ever existed anywhere. We just don't have the ability to pierce the edge of our universe and see what lies beyond at the moment.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I said, based on scientific consensus, the BB is a theory about the beginning of time.

No, it isn't. The Big Bang Theory postulates a hot, dense, early state of the universe- not a "beginning" (of time or of the universe).

Because science has no verifiable theory for the cause of the big bang, there remains the question: WHAT CAUSED IT?

I propose that God created the universe. Until such time that science has an empirical explanation for a cause, that remains a possibility.

The problem is, "God did it" is no real explanation- God did what, exactly? If you can answer this, then you've included your explanandum in your explanans in toto- the explanans is richer than the explanandum; in addition to what we need to explain about X, we now need to explain God as well; we end up with more things to be explained than we started with. Clearly, this doesn't cut the mustard. (on the other hand, consider scientific explanations, such as Newton's theory of gravity, which accounted for a large body of data with a handful of mathematical expressions- the explanans is simpler than the explanandum, which is what we're looking for.)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It is the beginning of *OUR* universe

Nope. There may be a beginning of the universe, but this is not part of the BBT.