INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Thief]

Except this is nothing more than "goddidit" buttered up to look sciencey

Yeah well.....I don't believe the universe 'just happened'.

That would need belief that cause and effect are not related.
So much then for scientific experimentation.
So much for rational thinking.

 

[Uberpod]

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.

Labelling an unknown with a magical explanation without any evidence is no explanation at all. I'm sure this has been said already.... but just in case.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yeah well.....I don't believe the universe 'just happened'.

That would need belief that cause and effect are not related.
So much then for scientific experimentation.
So much for rational thinking.

Well science actually looks at correlation not necessarily cause...and isn't quantum physics changing how we think about cause and effect.

 

[McBell]

Yeah well.....I don't believe the universe 'just happened'.

That would need belief that cause and effect are not related.
So much then for scientific experimentation.
So much for rational thinking.

Who says the universe "just happened"?
I mean, who other than those who are trying to force god into a gap?

 

[1robin]

But thousands of experts in macro evolution would easily be able to refute your arguments. You said that your main purpose is to support new Christians, but your amateurish arguments will only embarrass new Christians when they use them in debates, especially when they debate experts. You would do poorly against experts in almost and field of education. You are training new Christians to lose future debates.

No they can't. That is why they are still problems. Get past this sophomoric and arbitrary ranking stuff you do with me and professional debaters. I get most of what I talk about from legendary scholars that debate these issues with scholars for evolution currently. Life only comes from life, is a rule with no known exceptions. What you may consider the strength of that argument is not meaningful. The fact is that evolution is founded on it yet not one example of it occurring is known. You can obsess about the technical semantics of words, try and win word fights, make judgments that you obviously lack the qualifications to make, render them less than useless, arbitrarily rank me with people you never seem to name, and consider things known to be problems even by the youngest and brightest of biologists not to be actual problems all you wish. You still have not gotten life from non-life and without it you need a God-like being and there are hundreds of these unresolved problems still in need of resolution. Please spend more time resolving them and less time comparing me to something I never claimed to be. You have never seen any species become a new one, and have never seen the Universe or even a piece of it arise on it's own, and have never seen life arise from non-life. Your claiming these are not problems says more about you and the sad state of what has become of science than me or my claims.

 

[1robin]

Four billion years, which is even somewhat older than I, can and did provide more than enough opportunity for significant changes to take place both with the genotypes and the phenotypes. The only real opposition nowadays comes from them who believe that their scriptures are a more reliable source of science than the huge body of evidence accumulated from scientists all over the world.

So anything that had enough time to occur must have occurred by definition even if not a single example of it has ever been observed. Evolution I sure occurred but it boundaries and reality are squarely fixed in oblivion. My argument is that it alone can not account for reality as we know it and if you disagree then you have a lot of stuff to prove and overcome.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Yeah well.....I don't believe the universe 'just happened'.

That would need belief that cause and effect are not related.
So much then for scientific experimentation.
So much for rational thinking.

Actually, you can pretty much forget ALL laws that exist within this universe because time, space, gravity and all of the laws don't exist outside of this universe so whatever was before it did not have to adhere to any of the laws we have within it.

Go read some Carl Sagan, he can explain it on a level where you can grasp it better.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

So anything that had enough time to occur must have occurred by definition even if not a single example of it has ever been observed. Evolution I sure occurred but it boundaries and reality are squarely fixed in oblivion. My argument is that it alone can not account for reality as we know it and if you disagree then you have a lot of stuff to prove and overcome.

You do realize that we are still evolving? In a million years someone (far different from you and i) will read this and proclaim "we cannot be related to THOSE" and deny reality just like you are doing.

Evolution isn't fixed in oblivion, it is bound by nothing, life finds a way.

 

[1robin]

No, what I said is proof that most atheists want a God to exist who would provide them with a comfortable eternal life. Quite obviously, humans like comfort, and they like it no matter who, or what provides it. That is just plain old common sense.

They often do not like it if it comes with a sacrifice of pride, admissions of the gravest guilt, and the surrender to a higher authority. If there is anything humans like more than any other it is pride, we will give everything we have or ever will have for pride. There is something we hate more than anything else, being told what to do and having ultimate accountability. We have fought wars, sacrificed everything and everyone we loved to keep one and avoid the other and the exact opposite is what God requires. They might like some of what he is selling but they are never going to pay what it costs.

Most atheists believe that Hitler existed, and they do not like him. Since most atheists believe that Hitler existed, and do not like him, why do they claim that the God of the Bible does not exist?

Hitler does not claim complete sovereignty over them, and will not be their judge. He does not take away their pet sins, he does not put down that which they love, and he agrees with them that pride is good. It is also quite a bit easier to deny the existence of a spirit than a man who's picture we have. You are the king of equating the unequal.

Their reasons must frequently be something other than they do not like the God of the Bible. There are thousands of articles and books by skeptic scholars that dispute the existence of the God of the Bible for many reasons that do not have anything to do with God's character.

The Bible, every Christian I know (and everyone of them were former Atheists), and myself are examples (and by far the better examples) of what unbelief is based on. According to all three we are born separated, alienated, and hostile to God at some level that environment contributes to. We deny God long before we are able to form arguments for that rebellion. It is a position in search of evidence. The arguments are used to validate a belief held since birth and a spiritual condition we inherited. Not only that the Christian himself must struggle with it the rest of his life. The arguments are so poor no one could actually risk loosing the possibility of salvation on their merit alone. That would be the height of stupidity.

The Biblical writers knew this long ago:

No Condemnation in Christ
…6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Romans 8:7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

Is the steady march towards greater and greater moral insanity with abortion and mutually assured destruction not proof that we are in rebellion from birth? I have not done so in a long time but I used to look at every avatar that atheist's used. I think well over half were some type of demonic image or of some type of picture that would potentially provoke God, Christian sentiments, or promote rebellion.

You have said that even quantum physicists are dabblers. If you are right, that is an excellent reason why you have no business saying anything about it. If no one really knows very much about it, why have you spent so much of your time discussing it?

This is the last time I will entertain your demands about what I do with my time and posts. I can speak to what they have claimed about the Quantum. You are doing something far worse anyway. You know little about physics, the quantum, or theology yet speak on them all and even use physicists for theological claims. I can certainly state things that experts have concluded about the quantum and your suggestion otherwise is not only wrong but hypocritical.

 

[1robin]

The New Testament doesn't actually say what you are saying. First there is no real having to decide until after the first judgement and the return of Christ our Lord and Savior. All decisions have to be made before the second and final judgment, not before the first judgment.

That is inconsistent with every mainstream Christian theological doctrine I have ever heard of. It exists as no creed I am aware of and is inconsistent with countless verse and doctrines. Maybe I misunderstood. Are you suggesting that if we die without Christ we can sit around in the grave and think about it some more? If that was true why are there two judgments? I think you woefully misunderstand revelations.

And second, if you are a true follower of Christ, then "By your works you shall be known." If you are not a true follower of Christ, then "By your works you shall be judged." Either way, works are involved. Like Lord Jesus said, "If you do not believe My words, then believe My works."

Ephesians 2:8-9

New International Version (NIV)

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV - For it is by grace you have been saved, - Bible Gateway

Paul says grace not works and you say work? I am going with Paul.

How many works did this man have?

New Living Translation
But if the work is burned up, the builder will suffer great loss. The builder will be saved, but like someone barely escaping through a wall of flames.
1 Corinthians 3:15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved--even though only as one escaping through the flames.

You have three choices.
1. Grace alone.
2. Grace and works.
3. Works alone.

If you adopt 2 or 3 then please tell me exactly how many works, of what kind, to whom? If done do they illuminate all my sins, how many, of what type? Since disobedience is sin and Christ came to forgive ALL sin why are you denying what he claimed to do? How can you limit what Christ did and give yourself his job and his credit?

Third, we are all, for the most part anyway, in a state of ignorance which is why there are two judgements. The first judgement is a reward for those that have faith in spite of being in a state of ignorance and the second judgement is for after there is no longer any ignorance because of and as a result of the second coming of Christ. No one gets condemned to the eternal fires or is punished, except for a few that are not in a state of ignorance and have sinned against the Holy Spirit, until the second judgement, which is after the thousand year reign of Christ and the little bit of time that Satan is set free.

I will get into what the judgments are if you wish but there is no possibility your description is accurate. It takes a while to debate judgments out and I wish to get done with what salvation is first. Please answer the questions above in detail.

 

[1robin]

You do realize that we are still evolving?

I think in many ways we are devolving however it was your premise not your conclusion I was remarking on. You said macro-evolution has occurred because there exists enough time to allow it. Forget for a minute that you nor anyone knows how much time is needed to get what we have, even if there was enough time does not mean something occurred.

In a million years someone (far different from you and i) will read this and proclaim "we cannot be related to THOSE" and deny reality just like you are doing.

Don't worry, our moral insanity does not have a millions years left before it eradicates all life known to exist or God puts a stop to tis circus.

Evolution isn't fixed in oblivion, it is bound by nothing, life finds a way.

It is or should be bound by a billion things. Speed of light, density versus volume, availability of carbon, UV protection. Since 95% of all life forms are extinct apparently life does not always find a way and one way or another if God does not intervene it will cease to exist in any form whatever at some point a cosmological blink of time in the future. However that is not what I said. I said that evolution's boundaries are not fixed. The theory shrinks to remove what is inconvenient and expands to cover what is desired. I have had evolutionists say it produced morality unless it was a bad moral. It is theoretical spandex and an theory that attempts to explain everything actually explains nothing. It was a tree, then a bush, now a forest, next maybe an algae. The theory has evolved more than what it describes. It is a one size fits anything word that is of almost no use even if true and in some ways should be ignored even if true.

 

[mystic64]

No they can't. That is why they are still problems. Get past this sophomoric and arbitrary ranking stuff you do with me and professional debaters. I get most of what I talk about from legendary scholars that debate these issues with scholars for evolution currently. Life only comes from life, is a rule with no known exceptions. What you may consider the strength of that argument is not meaningful. The fact is that evolution is founded on it yet not one example of it occurring is known. You can obsess about the technical semantics of words, try and win word fights, make judgments that you obviously lack the qualifications to make, render them less than useless, arbitrarily rank me with people you never seem to name, and consider things known to be problems even by the youngest and brightest of biologists not to be actual problems all you wish. You still have not gotten life from non-life and without it you need a God-like being and there are hundreds of these unresolved problems still in need of resolution. Please spend more time resolving them and less time comparing me to something I never claimed to be. You have never seen any species become a new one, and have never seen the Universe or even a piece of it arise on it's own, and have never seen life arise from non-life. Your claiming these are not problems says more about you and the sad state of what has become of science than me or my claims.

You might add that there is absolutely no direct scientific evidence that God does not exist, but there is indirect evidence that the something that we call God does exist and that there is a lot of science that is based on indirect evIdence. Also the Earth has not been in existence long enough for life to have spontaneously come into being.

Actually, you can pretty much forget ALL laws that exist within this universe because time, space, gravity and all of the laws don't exist outside of this universe so whatever was before it did not have to adhere to any of the laws we have within it.

ImprobableBeing is correct and no matter how one looks at it, the Creator of the Creation that we exist in would be operating under a set of laws that can not be measured or understood from within the box or bubble that we experience as Creation.

 

[1robin]

You might add that there is absolutely no direct scientific evidence that God does not exist, but there is indirect evidence that the something that we call God does exist and that there is a lot of science that is based on indirect evIdence. Also the Earth has not been in existence long enough for life to have spontaneously come into being.

I have mentioned these and many other reasons for what I believe. It does not help. I keep trying not to, but am always forced back into believing what the obstacle is, is either emotional or spiritual and arguments are just place holders because evidence and logic never have any effect. I can understand a lack of faith but I can't understand the double standards, inconsistency in logic, and desire to dismiss the only hope our race ultimately has even theoretically possible.

ImprobableBeing is correct and no matter how one looks at it, the Creator of the Creation that we exist in would be operating under a set of laws that can not be measured or understood from within the box or bubble that we experience as Creation.

This is very confusing but How do natural laws exist outside of nature? Why can't God do exactly what it appears he has done. Give us minds that can riddle the rationality out of the universe he put into it. I can't calculate how probable God is but there is zero probability that natural law created either nature or natural law. You can hold out for new thing to be discovered if you wish but holding out too long is theoretically the worst mistake possible and once again a double standard. Why is God the only solution that despite the evidence is not allowed to an atheist? There is also zero chance that the creator of this universe is bound by any aspect of creation. That is a logical absurdity. Whatever created time is not bound by time. The same is true for space and matter. Whether God exists or not the creator can't possibly be bound by creation.

 

[metis]

So anything that had enough time to occur must have occurred by definition even if not a single example of it has ever been observed.

That is not at all what I said. Secondly, we do know speciation has indeed occurred because it has been observed (google "speciation", and even the Wikipedia source is actually quite good).

Evolution I sure occurred but it boundaries and reality are squarely fixed in oblivion. My argument is that it alone can not account for reality as we know it and if you disagree then you have a lot of stuff to prove and overcome.

No, it's is you who are making the point that there are "boundaries" and that "reality" somehow cannot based on evolution alone, so why don't you take your own advice above and provide evidence for both?

 

[Agnostic75]

They often do not like it if it comes with a sacrifice of pride, admissions of the gravest guilt, and the surrender to a higher authority.

But atheists would not have wanted to surrender to Hitler either, but they still believe that he existed, so there have to also be some other reasons why they do not believe that the God of the Bible exists, such as interpolations, and forgeries.

This is the last time I will entertain your demands about what I do with my time and posts. I can speak to what they have claimed about the Quantum. You are doing something far worse anyway. You know little about physics, the quantum, or theology yet speak on them all and even use physicists for theological claims. I can certainly state things that experts have concluded about the quantum and your suggestion otherwise is not only wrong but hypocritical.

You have no reputation at all among physicists. The majority of leading physicists do not believe in God. The National Academy of Sciences are neutral on the existence of God. Your own sources Vilenkin, Borde, Guth, and Penrose never said anything like your claim that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

You are right that I do not know very much about physics, but although you know a lot more about it than I do, you know far less that the majority of leading physicists do about it, and you have refused to prove that you can adequately defend your arguments at Physics Forums, where there are lots of experts. All that you want to do is to debate other dabblers. If you were confident of your debating abilities, you would be willing to join Physics Forums.

The same arguments apply to your limited knowledge of biology.

It would be wonderful if a moral God exists. What evidence have you provided that a moral God exists?

Please make a post in my thread on the Tyre prophecy at The Tyre prophecy.

The essay that you mentioned by Simon Greenleaf at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html is nothing special. Greenleaf says:

"The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule. Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

We could debate those claims alone for years and get nowhere. There are a vast multitude of good reasons to reject those claims. No modern court of law that I am aware of accepts supposed eyewitness testimonies of supernatural events since quite obviously, supernatural events are not the same as natural events, and are far more questionable than natural events are. Current research has shown that supposed eyewitness testimonies in court cases are often unreliable.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

I think in many ways we are devolving however it was your premise not your conclusion I was remarking on. You said macro-evolution has occurred because there exists enough time to allow it. Forget for a minute that you nor anyone knows how much time is needed to get what we have, even if there was enough time does not mean something occurred.

No, son, macro-evolution has been observed in a laboratory (macro evolution meaning inter-species evolution)

Don't worry, our moral insanity does not have a millions years left before it eradicates all life known to exist or God puts a stop to tis circus.

LOL, what you would call "moral sanity" has brought us terrorism, the crusades, witch burnings, the holocaust (and don't even pretend that you have read mein kampf and hitlers own words if you are going to deny it, i have, i know my peoples history), salem witch trials, Anders Breivik, Abortion clinic bombings, the various murders of oppenents, the early church's violent murdering of scientists and opposers, the Spanish Inquisition, the IRA, the Uganda Christian freedom guerilla... and this is just Christianity, include the rest of the 1500 or so religions with their various gods and it's amazing how we managed to stay alive with such god crazed fanatics roaming the earth.

It is or should be bound by a billion things. Speed of light, density versus volume, availability of carbon, UV protection. Since 95% of all life forms are extinct apparently life does not always find a way and one way or another if God does not intervene it will cease to exist in any form whatever at some point a cosmological blink of time in the future. However that is not what I said. I said that evolution's boundaries are not fixed. The theory shrinks to remove what is inconvenient and expands to cover what is desired. I have had evolutionists say it produced morality unless it was a bad moral. It is theoretical spandex and an theory that attempts to explain everything actually explains nothing. It was a tree, then a bush, now a forest, next maybe an algae. The theory has evolved more than what it describes. It is a one size fits anything word that is of almost no use even if true and in some ways should be ignored even if true.

This is your belief in the absence of knowlage, did you know that there are bacteria that can live in volcanoes? your ignorance leads you down paths you CHOOSE because you REFUSE to know and that is the biggest crime you can commit against your god according to himself.

BTW, are you a gravitist, perhaps a germ theorist? Surely you are not an ocularist or a relativitist?

 

[1robin]

That is not at all what I said. Secondly, we do know speciation has indeed occurred because it has been observed (google "speciation", and even the Wikipedia source is actually quite good).

Whether is occurs was not denied by mean but only the reasons I thought you claimed it had. Is this what you claim to be proof of observed species level evolution?
Observed instancesIsland genetics, the tendency of small, isolated genetic pools to produce unusual traits, has been observed in many circumstances, including insular dwarfism and the radical changes among certain famous island chains, for example on Komodo. The Galápagos islands are particularly famous for their influence on Charles Darwin. During his five weeks there he heard that Galápagos tortoises could be identified by island, and noticed that Finches differed from one island to another, but it was only nine months later that he reflected that such facts could show that species were changeable. When he returned to England, his speculation on evolution deepened after experts informed him that these were separate species, not just varieties, and famously that other differing Galápagos birds were all species of finches. Though the finches were less important for Darwin, more recent research has shown the birds now known as Darwin's finches to be a classic case of adaptive evolutionary radiation.[6]
Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe you can highlight it because I do not see it.

No, it's is you who are making the point that there are "boundaries" and that "reality" somehow cannot based on evolution alone, so why don't you take your own advice above and provide evidence for both?

Okay. Get life without God. Get evolution of any kind without life. Get a universe without God. Get natural law without God. Get Chemical evolution on the scales necessary without God. Get morality from amoral natural law. Get consciousness from the unconscious. Get the ration from the irrational. Get constants like the expansion rate from initial conditions. Every single example is potential evidence of God or at t least the supernatural, as no natural source is known. Many are assumed but few even have coherent theoretical possibilities without God. Get anything that is from that which is not. Every subsection of reality is evidence for God. No matter how you slice natural reality regressively it does not contain the causes for its self within its self.

 

[McBell]

Okay. Get life without God. Get evolution of any kind without life. Get a universe without God. Get natural law without God. Get Chemical evolution on the scales necessary without God. Get morality from amoral natural law. Get consciousness from the unconscious. Get the ration from the irrational. Get constants like the expansion rate from initial conditions. Every single example is potential evidence of God or at t least the supernatural, as no natural source is known. Many are assumed but few even have coherent theoretical possibilities without God. Get anything that is from that which is not. Every subsection of reality is evidence for God. No matter how you slice natural reality regressively it does not contain the causes for its self within its self.

We are here aren't we?
And without god.

There you go.

Next?

 

[mystic64]

I have mentioned these and many other reasons for what I believe. It does not help. I keep trying not to, but am always forced back into believing what the obstacle is, is either emotional or spiritual and arguments are just place holders because evidence and logic never have any effect. I can understand a lack of faith but I can't understand the double standards, inconsistency in logic, and desire to dismiss the only hope our race ultimately has even theoretically possible.




This is very confusing but How do natural laws exist outside of nature? Why can't God do exactly what it appears he has done. Give us minds that can riddle the rationality out of the universe he put into it. I can't calculate how probable God is but there is zero probability that natural law created either nature or natural law. You can hold out for new thing to be discovered if you wish but holding out too long is theoretically the worst mistake possible and once again a double standard. Why is God the only solution that despite the evidence is not allowed to an atheist? There is also zero chance that the creator of this universe is bound by any aspect of creation. That is a logical absurdity. Whatever created time is not bound by time. The same is true for space and matter. Whether God exists or not the creator can't possibly be bound by creation.

Robin, I admire what you are attempting to do and I have been playing this game on internet message boards for twenty years now. And I have a working back ground in science. With that said, the OP of this topic is a trick question because there is no direct scientific proof that God does not exist and there is no direct scientific proof that God does exist. Both the belief that God does exist and the belief that God does not exist has to be done on "faith" because there is not any direct scientific evidence that proves or disproves the existence of God.

Now about science; we live in a physical reality that goes from slightly faster than absolute zero Kalvin (all molecular motion stops) to slightly slower than the speed of light. Anything that reaches absolute zero Kalvin disappears and is gone. Anything that reaches the velocity of the speed of light disappears and is gone. The question is where did it go? Because it went someplace that science can not measure and because science can not measure it, it does not exist in the creation that we experience. It has to have gone outside of the "box or bubble" that we experience as Creation, so to speak. The physicist Stephen Hawking's "Black Hole" math says that it is not gone, but that it has just moved into another dimension. His math basically says that there is more to Creation than what science can at this time measure. Which makes what science can measure at this time, "our box or bubble". There is the possibility that God exists outside of what we experience as Creation (our box) and that because of this He can not be measured by science at this time.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Now about science; we live in a physical reality that goes from slightly faster than absolute zero Kalvin (all molecular motion stops) to slightly slower than the speed of light.

Wait... what?