INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[SkepticThinker]

What I find rather "intriguing", is why all the hype on one or two people who have put forth a couple of hypotheses out of many? There are other informed cosmologists and quantum physicists out there, many of which have differing hypotheses. Why should anyone carte blanc accept So-and-So's hypothesis unless they knew with certainty that it was correct, and there simply is no way to tell this at this time.

IOW, what's so wrong about saying "I don't know" if there's insufficient evidence one way or another?

I'm wondering the same thing myself.

 

[Sams0n]

If you define god as simply anything that started existence then congratulations. I suppose using that broad definition god does exist. I think the vast majority of people who speak of a god would disagree with that definition however.

Perhaps I can end the "debate" on the existence of bigfoot by defining it as a 230+ pound hairy creature that walks on two legs. There's a few of those in my office alone.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It can refer to a duration of time, as

Infinite | Define Infinite at Dictionary.com

When it is said that the universe is infinite, that means through everlasting time, therefore no beginning. So obviously finite would mean the opposite, limited in time, therefore, a beginning.

yes but you said finite.

The definition of finite is has a limit, it is restricted, it has boundaries. It does not necessarily indicate a beginning it merely indicates that there is an end. The existence of The universe has been for a finite period of time is not really proper grammatically I don't think in discussing a beginning of the Universe, which is why it works better to say in some point in the past the Universe had a beginning, so from our point backwards it is finite, but saying that the Universe is finite makes no sense.

 

[philbo]

The definition of finite is has a limit, it is restricted, it has boundaries. It does not necessarily indicate a beginning it merely indicates that there is an end.

"Finite" doesn't require a beginning or an end by definition: a wheel is finite.. maybe time is a donut. But without the jam, obviously

 

[mystic64]

Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, "Let us make man in Our own image, according to Our likeness,"

If the above scripture is correct and if the hypothesis of evolution is correct, then a more advanced form of "man" has evolved before we as a species came into existence. And if the above scripture is correct, then this more advanced form of "man" has an advanced science that enables "Them" to use that science to create universes and then at least the science to seed those universes with extremely adaptable living seeds of biological life.

We as Christians worship God the Creator and there is no reason for us or anyone else to think that science was not involved in the creation of Creation. And once "man's" science figures out how it was done, then "man" will also be able to do it without the original Creator being involved. Which is also what English physicist Hawking maintained in his younger days.

 

[metis]

In Judaism, one quite popular commentary has it that when God created our universe and Earth, He purposefully didn't finish the job but, instead, left somethings for us to do so as to make Earth ours and not just His. This is why things sometimes go wrong, and also why we can be co-creators with God.

Is the above true? I have no clue.

 

[Ouroboros]

In Judaism, one quite popular commentary has it that when God created our universe and Earth, He purposefully didn't finish the job but, instead, left somethings for us to do so as to make Earth ours and not just His. This is why things sometimes go wrong, and also why we can be co-creators with God.

Is the above true? I have no clue.

If you're right, then we're not supposed to have a clue.

 

[metis]

If you're right, then we're not supposed to have a clue.

Good point!

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

yes but you said finite.

Ok?

The definition of finite is has a limit, it is restricted, it has boundaries.

If the universe is eternal, it never began to exist. It existed throughout infinite time...everlasting.

The exact opposite of this would be for the universe to have a beginning, and is therefore NOT everlasting and eternal in time.

Whatever word you want to use to describe that concept is up to you, but the argument is clear, the universe began to exist and is not past eternal.

It does not necessarily indicate a beginning

The argument is that universe began to exist and is therefore not eternal in its past. Like I said, whatever word you want to use to define it is entirely up to you as long as the context remains the same.

it merely indicates that there is an end. The existence of The universe has been for a finite period of time is not really proper grammatically I don't think in discussing a beginning of the Universe, which is why it works better to say in some point in the past the Universe had a beginning, so from our point backwards it is finite, but saying that the Universe is finite makes no sense.

Right, the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past. No arguments here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolution isn't science. It is "scientific religion". A little bit of science, with a little bit of faith.

You can keep repeating this garbage until the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that evolution is science. Evolution happens. Try doing biology without it.

Besides, you already admitted that you are willfully ignorant on the subject and therefore are not even remotely qualified to discuss it.

 

[metis]

It comes to the basic that nothing cant create something and even random quantum mechanic do not come out of nothing or exist of nothing.

I don't see any cosmologists suggesting that it does. Most tend to think that sub-atomic particles and/or the "strings" that may make them could go back into infinity, which was a long time ago.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You’ve made it even more confusing now! There was no way anyone reading your post could possibly have known that. First of all, when you cite your quote as: (Hawking, Brief History of Time 138-39) that means you are citing “A Brief History of Time” by Hawking, where the quote appears on page 139.

I don't see how anything could be confusing when in the quote I gave the ellipsis, did you not see it? Do you know what it means? And as I said, there could be reasons why the page numbers were off by just a few pages.

The next confusing part that you’ve added here, is that now you’re saying it’s on page 136 of a totally different book when page 136 didn’t appear anywhere in your last post. The page numbers you cited were 138 and 139.

The fact of the matter is, I showed you where I got my information from. Instead of stating what book I got the quote from I just thought I would take you straight to the source, which worked out just fine because you've read it and the quotes were there. It isn't as if anyone was quoted out of context, all you are griping about is the fact that the page number that Dr. Craig reference did not match up with yours by just a few pages, and as I just said, there may be reasons for this.

Where did you indicate anywhere in that post that you were citing WLC, citing Hawking? Nobody reading that post could have known that either.

Well, you know now. Now what? Is there this big breakthrough now that you've read it? Obviously not.

It’s just one big confusing post containing very little accuracy.

Was the quote taken out of context?? No. So it was very accurate. And the confusing part comes from you failing to take notice to the elipsese. Not my problem.

Sorry, but the exact page number kind of matters in a book with 212 pages.

Write a letter do Dr. Craig and tell him he need to get his pages together if you are that concerned.

The reason we reference and cite things is so that somebody reading our work can easily find what we are referencing. The page number WLC gave was wrong, and the book title you gave was wrong.

The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe | Reasonable Faith

Click on that link, and go to citation #49. Read the quote, and check the reference. What do you see?

And not just that, but if your only gripe is the page numbers were off by about four pages and you had to turn a few more pages to find it, I mean cmon. I have bigger fish to fry. The fact of the matter is the quotes are in the book from Mr. Hawking. That is all that matters.

How on earth do you think someone was supposed to find the quote? If I had referenced something that badly in a paper I had written in university, I would have failed all my classes.

That would have been one of the many reasons why you would have failed.

There are no ellipses in the original quote you provided.

Check your post #2152 in which you quoted ME. Are you gonna sit there and tell me that you dont see the ellipses in the bold face text when I gave the quote??? Now who is being dishonest??

I’m not trying to “get you.” I’m trying to point out that I wasted a lot of time looking up the quote you provided in order to respond to it, because it was completely misquoted. Sorry but I find that a tad annoying and somewhat dishonest.

First of all, as I mentioned previously, you wasted a lot of time partially due to you either failing to notice or refusing to notice the ellipeses that was placed in the quote.

Second, it is not misquoted, it is what Hawking said. He said "When one goes back to the real time in which WE LIVE, however, there will still appear to be singularites." He said we live in real time. Imaginary time is not real time. He spent the entire passage talking about imaginary time and what it would be like if we live in imaginary time, but he never stated that we live in imaginary time..he said we live in real time. So how is that misquoting him?

Third, as mentioned before, Dr. Craig speaks out against Hawking's model in the public and in his written work, and Hawking's use of imaginary time has been spoken out again by Alexander Vilenkin and John Barrow.

Fourth, even on this model the universe STILL begins to exist anyway, so the model does NOT negate the second premise of the kalam, that the universe began to exist. That is what you need to focus on, instead of this cry baby stuff about page numbers. Hawking said it, and it was in context of what he said.

Yes and no. You need to actually read the parts of Hawking’s book preceding the quote fragments you provided to get what he’s talking about. Notice how he pointed out that the differences between “real” and “imaginary” time could actually be meaningless?

I really don't care what he said, because in my opinion he has contradicted himself on quite a few occasions, and the cosmological model in question doesn't even do anything for the naturalists view. I only used that quote because this particular model was brought up in our discussions.

Secondly, you quoted Hawking. That’s what we’re talking about. You didn’t quote Vilenkin quoting Hawking.

I said that Vilenkin and others have been critical of the use of imaginary time. That is a FACT.

While it appears to be edited, it’s obvious the guy in the audience is arguing with him and doesn’t agree with his assessment. Isn’t that what I said?


You said, “I am surprised that none of the physicists raised their hand and said "you are misrepresenting or simply misunderstanding physics". None of said that. I wonder why?”

What if the guy in the audience was the one that didn't understand physics?? Ever thought of that? Look, I've watched dozens of Dr. Craig debates, and he never got questioned on his understanding of physics. Never. Not even by Krauss or Stenger, who ARE physicists. So please.

Sure it does. You just don’t want it to, so you think referring to your god as the “uncaused cause” somehow gets you around the problem, when in actuality, it doesn’t.

Please demonstrate how a timeless being can be in time before time?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't see how anything could be confusing when in the quote I gave the ellipsis, did you not see it? Do you know what it means? And as I said, there could be reasons why the page numbers were off by just a few pages.

If you can’t see how your quotation was confusing and/or misleading, then you aren’t paying attention because I just explained it to you.

Dr. Craig is supposed to be a scholar, as you pointed out. If he is, then he should know how to properly source his material.

The fact of the matter is, I showed you where I got my information from. Instead of stating what book I got the quote from I just thought I would take you straight to the source, which worked out just fine because you've read it and the quotes were there. It isn't as if anyone was quoted out of context, all you are griping about is the fact that the page number that Dr. Craig reference did not match up with yours by just a few pages, and as I just said, there may be reasons for this.

If you had shown where you got your information from in the first place, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. You cited Hawking’s book, A Brief History of Time, but that is not where you got the quote from. The source of the quote is Hawking’s book, not Craig’s book. I looked through Hawking’s book because I happen to own it, and like I said, I had to waste a bunch of time reading practically the entire chapter to figure out where the two lone sentences came from.

The point in referencing your sources in the first place is so that the reader does not have to waste a bunch of time searching all over the place for the original quotation. And normally, we cite the PRIMARY source, rather than the secondary one. That’s all I’m pointing out here. Sorry, but I don’t like wasting time.

Well, you know now. Now what? Is there this big breakthrough now that you've read it? Obviously not.

I know because I found it myself.

Was the quote taken out of context?? No. So it was very accurate. And the confusing part comes from you failing to take notice to the elipsese. Not my problem.

It left out all explanation as to what he was talking about. So, not quite.

No, the confusion comes from you providing a completely inaccurate source.

Write a letter do Dr. Craig and tell him he need to get his pages together if you are that concerned.

I am concerned when he’s supposed to be a scholar. He knows better.

The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe | Reasonable Faith
Click on that link, and go to citation #49. Read the quote, and check the reference. What do you see?

I see an improperly sourced reference. This is why I always go to the PRIMARY source.

And not just that, but if your only gripe is the page numbers were off by about four pages and you had to turn a few more pages to find it, I mean cmon. I have bigger fish to fry. The fact of the matter is the quotes are in the book from Mr. Hawking. That is all that matters.

That’s not all that matters. It matters if the quote is accurate. THAT’S what matters most here.

Continued ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

That would have been one of the many reasons why you would have failed.

Says the guy who can’t properly source his material and talks about subjects he admits he knows nothing about.

First of all, as I mentioned previously, you wasted a lot of time partially due to you either failing to notice or refusing to notice the ellipeses that was placed in the quote.

What do the ellipses have to do with anything?? It had absolutely nothing to do with my difficulty finding the quotations.

Second, it is not misquoted, it is what Hawking said. He said "When one goes back to the real time in which WE LIVE, however, there will still appear to be singularites." He said we live in real time. Imaginary time is not real time. He spent the entire passage talking about imaginary time and what it would be like if we live in imaginary time, but he never stated that we live in imaginary time..he said we live in real time. So how is that misquoting him?

I already addressed this in another post. And at this point all I can tell you is to read the book, or at least the chapter because you haven’t quite got it right. He points out that imaginary numbers exist as a mathematical concept and that differences between “real” and “imaginary” time could actually be meaningless.

Third, as mentioned before, Dr. Craig speaks out against Hawking's model in the public and in his written work, and Hawking's use of imaginary time has been spoken out again by Alexander Vilenkin and John Barrow.

Good, that’s what scientists are supposed to do. What this shows us is what I’ve been saying for a while now (others also). The answer we have to give for the origin and duration of the existence of the universe(s)
at this point should be “I don’t know.”

Fourth, even on this model the universe STILL begins to exist anyway, so the model does NOT negate the second premise of the kalam, that the universe began to exist. That is what you need to focus on, instead of this cry baby stuff about page numbers. Hawking said it, and it was in context of what he said.

Not really. Somebody already addressed this point, so I won’t bother doing it here.

Sorry, I have a big problem with quote mining because it is dishonest and misleading. Call me a crybaby all you want, but if you tried to pull this crap in the academic community, you wouldn’t make it very long.

I really don't care what he said, because in my opinion he has contradicted himself on quite a few occasions, and the cosmological model in question doesn't even do anything for the naturalists view. I only used that quote because this particular model was brought up in our discussions.

LOL Now it doesn’t matter what he said. Don’t quote him then, if you don’t actually care.

I said that Vilenkin and others have been critical of the use of imaginary time. That is a FACT.

And … ?

What if the guy in the audience was the one that didn't understand physics?? Ever thought of that? Look, I've watched dozens of Dr. Craig debates, and he never got questioned on his understanding of physics. Never. Not even by Krauss or Stenger, who ARE physicists. So please.

If he’s a physicist, as you contended he was, then I seriously doubt he doesn’t understand physics.

I’ve watched dozens of Dr. Craig debates as well and I’ve seen him being questioned on physics many times. I saw one video where a physicist straight out told him he didn’t have a clue what he was talking about.

Please demonstrate how a timeless being can be in time before time?

Don’t bother trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. Prove your own claim.

 

[1robin]

Who are "they?"

Both Harris, Hitchens, and some guy who I have never seen before (he has very little hair but it is also very long, weird looking) I think he was a biology expert. However it was not them saying this that was the important point. In saying this they referred to e-mails from colleges and prominent atheists that had told them the fear of God thing. I think you can look up those words on u-tube and find those comments but I do not have time right now.

Richard Dawkins refuses to debate him because he'd rather spend his time educating people on science than debating a slippery theist. He probably doesn't want to waste his time on someone who employs dishonest debate tactics like quote mining, preaching and moving the goalposts. I wouldn't. What's the point?

Now that is just wrong. Dawkins does everything he can to cough up garbage in front of every theist he can. He even goes to atheist rally and suggests they harass any theist they meet. Which he even had atheists complaining about. There are many great scholars on the atheist side. he is not one of them. He actually did debate Craig but he was only one man of a team against Craig's team. It was a huge event but not a very good debate. He probably does not want to face Craig because Craig tore his central argument completely apart. He called it the worst argument against God in the history of western thought. Defend Dawkins if you wish but you have picked a lame horse. Whatever he is in the lab he is a pathetic philosopher and an even worse theologian.

Craig is not peer reviewed in the scientific community.

He is in the philosophic community and many of these metaphysical issues are better handled by philosophy than science. I do not know why you mentioned this. If you watch his critique of Hawking's book you will see why I have learned to distrust theoretical scientists. It is one of the best discussion I have ever seen and I have seen a massive amount. There was also a legendary pure mathematician there if you wanted a pure scientist and even a legendary textual scholar. I will give you the link if you want.

 

[1robin]

What I find rather "intriguing", is why all the hype on one or two people who have put forth a couple of hypotheses out of many? There are other informed cosmologists and quantum physicists out there, many of which have differing hypotheses. Why should anyone carte blanc accept So-and-So's hypothesis unless they knew with certainty that it was correct, and there simply is no way to tell this at this time.

IOW, what's so wrong about saying "I don't know" if there's insufficient evidence one way or another?

Because that is not the case. I have no problem with them pursuing anything they wish as long as they admit it when they hit a brick wall. We all have on average a little more than 70 years to take any stance that must be personally taken. I did not come to God because of anything in cosmology but others may have. You never know what pivotal thing a person may find meaningful. For many years the nature of the universe and it's past has been pretty much a mystery. In modern time many things are starting to line up in one direction. A finite past universe is what the most accepted data says. Sure we can test other ideas but it looks more than likely that cosmology and the Bible line up pretty well. If someone is to make a decision including those facts they do not have time to wait until absolute certainty is achieved. I think all the time spent on whose hypothesis says what is because atheism hates the God consistent indications of the latest reliable cosmology that every attempt to water it down or distract from it is in some strange way a worthy goal. Not me both BGVT and evolution seem to be true and I accept them and what I like is not involved.

 

[metis]

Actually, if one takes the Genesis accounts literally, they don't match the evidence of the BB nor that of evolution. Therefore, to elevate one theory of the BB over the other makes not one iota of sense because there's insufficient evidence to conclude one way or another.

Nor have the cosmologists "hit a brick wall" as evidence is gradually coming in as time goes on, plus I mentioned that there are some cosmologists who believe that it's possible the data on the study of the "afterglow", quite possibly with 10 years or so, may provide enough information to determine what actually set our universe in motion at the BB.

IOW, you believe in the one theory because you want to believe in the one theory, whereas I prefer a far more objective approach, which is to wait for more information to come in before drawing any conclusion one way or another.

 

[Agnostic75]

I think all the time spent on whose hypothesis says what is because atheism hates the God consistent indications of the latest reliable cosmology that every attempt to water it down or distract from it is in some strange way a worthy goal. Not me both BGVT and evolution seem to be true and I accept them and what I like is not involved.

Atheism has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences' neutral position on the existence of God.

The majority of leading physicists do not believe in God.

Borde, Guth, Vilenkin, and Penrose either do not believe in God, or are agnostics.

Since you are a mere dabbler in quantum physics, there are not any good reasons why anyone should accept your opinions about the origin of the universe over the opinions of the National Academy of Sciences, and the majority of leading physicists. Most people do not know nearly enough about quantum physics to adequately judge debates about the existence of the universe. You have refused to debate experts in physics since you know that you would lose the debates. Why then does it matter how well you think you do in debates with other amateurs?

Almost any atheist would be quite pleased if some powerful, kind aliens offered humans a comfortable eternal life, so your belief that atheists hate the God hypothesis is absurd.

The vast majority of non-Christians in the world who will die during the next twelve months already believe in various gods. From a conservative Christian perspective, they will be no better off than atheists who die.

 

[mystic64]

Actually, if one takes the Genesis accounts literally, they don't match the evidence of the BB nor that of evolution. Therefore, to elevate one theory of the BB over the other makes not one iota of sense because there's insufficient evidence to conclude one way or another.

Nor have the cosmologists "hit a brick wall" as evidence is gradually coming in as time goes on, plus I mentioned that there are some cosmologists who believe that it's possible the data on the study of the "afterglow", quite possibly with 10 years or so, may provide enough information to determine what actually set our universe in motion at the BB.

IOW, you believe in the one theory because you want to believe in the one theory, whereas I prefer a far more objective approach, which is to wait for more information to come in before drawing any conclusion one way or another.

One of the ones that I like best is the one that says the the Garden of Eden was created back when the Earth was watered by dew/mist and before flowering plants. According to science that would be back well before the extinction event that killed off most of the dinosaurs, somewhere around 60 to 65 million years ago. The problem with accepting that time frame would be the ages of the "begots" which when added up come to 6000 years instead of 6o million years. Thus makeing some zeros missing from the lengths of the "begots" lifespans.

And about the BB theory, the first thing that is created is a cloud of matter and then this cloud condenses into stars, planets, and various sized other chunks of matter. Basically the cloud is dried up if one doesn't wish to use the math of physics to explain the phenomenon.

 

[1robin]

Atheism has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences' neutral position on the existence of God.

Nor is their stance a meaning or relevant point to make. I will say this once you grab a hold of something you are loathe to let it god at any price.

The majority of leading physicists do not believe in God.

The majority of Physicists through out history did. Though I have no idea what this would prove.

Borde, Guth, Vilenkin, and Penrose either do not believe in God, or are agnostics.

That is why their input only extends to cosmology. We have already had this exact discussion. If you ignored what I said then why should I re-type it now.

Since you are a mere dabbler in quantum physics, there are not any good reasons why anyone should accept your opinions about the origin of the universe over the opinions of the National Academy of Sciences, and the majority of leading physicists. Most people do not know nearly enough about quantum physics to adequately judge debates about the existence of the universe. You have refused to debate experts in physics since you know that you would lose the debates. Why then does it matter how well you think you do in debates with other amateurs?

I believe no one rises above dabbler as far as the Quantum is concerned and I do not even get to that level. Whatever information I give about the Quantum comes from the best of the dabblers.

This is the latest and most accepted cosmology: Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning” Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning” | Wintery Knight

I am going with the most reliable models. If you wish to place hope in some hail Mary distant second place theory be my guest but that is preference not logic.

Almost any atheist would be quite pleased if some powerful, kind aliens offered humans a comfortable eternal life, so your belief that atheists hate the God hypothesis is absurd.

Nope, I used to be a prayer councilor for a large Church. Every single Christian I have ever talked agreed to two things. Our former atheism was a result of not liking God are aspects of him and our arguments made with such insistence because they we were very insecure about our position. I have yet to see an exception though I am sure quite a few exist. Read any former atheist testimony site and you will find the same.

The vast majority of non-Christians in the world who will die during the next twelve months already believe in various gods. From a conservative Christian perspective, they will be no better off than atheists who die.

You keep saying these same things and I have no idea what this even means. What various God's are you talking about. The Trinity, pluralism, paganism. What? It's one bizarre claim.