INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

How do you know what comes FROM a Christians faith if you do not have it?

It is possible to not believe something exists but hate it if it does. If you want to call me a hard agnostic that is fine. From the Bible's perspective until born again we are all atheists. Even those that have a superficial faith.

There are many roads that lead to God but unless there is a God there is nothing there to supply a response. A few hundred people claiming a UFO appeared (and I would never guess their motivations) are probably rooted in some fact but mistaken identities, etc..... There are good reasons to think UFO's have never visited here. Billions who claim to experience what can't be anticipated and what has no substitute to mistake it for is almost certainly fact. Especially given the actual dramatic changes in human lives, plus the millions of claims to miracles. My point is wishful thinking may produce a certain type of faith but will never get feedback or proof.

I've actually never told you my faith. But I'll continue to not do that .

As for what billions experience I would wager that each experience is different. But given an umbrella it would seem they were the same.

 

[1robin]

I've actually never told you my faith. But I'll continue to not do that .

I think my assumption a safe one. That is not a moral determination but one derived from our discussion. You have been on the opposite side of every issue I believe. Though you have been far more civil about it than most.

{quote]As for what billions experience I would wager that each experience is different. But given an umbrella it would seem they were the same.[/quote] I imagine they have unique aspects but every description I have heard (hundreds) has been of the same type and has many commonalities.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

I think my assumption a safe one. That is not a moral determination but one derived from our discussion. You have been on the opposite side of every issue I believe. Though you have been far more civil about it than most.

I imagine they have unique aspects but every description I have heard (hundreds) has been of the same type and has many commonalities.

I don't think you could make a moral determination since you are not a moral agent yourself.

Those experiences may have very few things in common in all actuality but you'll still use the lowest common denominator as you always do and lump them together as "the same".

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think my assumption a safe one. That is not a moral determination but one derived from our discussion. You have been on the opposite side of every issue I believe. Though you have been far more civil about it than most.

{quote]As for what billions experience I would wager that each experience is different. But given an umbrella it would seem they were the same.

I imagine they have unique aspects but every description I have heard (hundreds) has been of the same type and has many commonalities.[/QUOTE]

If you feel that it is safe, I will not impede you thinking so. I would however point out that disagreeing with you has very little to do with my faith. More so to do with your argument.

 

[1robin]

If you feel that it is safe, I will not impede you thinking so. I would however point out that disagreeing with you has very little to do with my faith. More so to do with your argument.

I have been interested in debate for over 20 years and have seen every professional one I can find. Have transcripts of most. I have been a prayer councilor for years. I even had a personal bizarre hobby of guessing a persons faith when first met and seeing what it later turned out to be. I have vast experience in detecting the existence of faith and how to detect if it's experiential or intellectual. I make no claim about your intellectual faith but I would bet anything that it does include a born again experience. Again this is not a moral conclusion but a reasoned one. A Christian is required to defend, acknowledge, and support his faith even in the face of death. It is not a game or something to leave doubts about for any Christians I have ever met. I have no desire to guess at your faith as it can be taken even if not in anyway actually being) an insult, so if you wish it to remain illusive I will not press it.

 

[1robin]

So... in your mind, do mature people make immature posts and calling their posts immature does not mean that you are calling them immature/

At least this one was funny, though I do not think it was intended to be. Who in the world would call attention to an immature person's being immature. No one goes "hey look that baby is being childish". Of course mature people (in age) make immature posts. Report all you wish. The record shows my continuous appeals for civility from you and your incessant denial. Your are officially placed on my ignore list and I will take your stalking and trolling up if necessary with the staff. If that is your goal anyway, we can resolve it straight away, as I would not prefer another thread get closed because of this crap. I am here to debate not be harassed. Last chance.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

At least this one was funny, though I do not think it was intended to be. Who in the world would call attention to an immature person's being immature. No one goes "hey look that baby is being childish". Of course mature people (in age) make immature posts. Report all you wish. The record shows my continuous appeals for civility from you and your incessant denial. Your are officially placed on my ignore list and I will take your stalking and trolling up if necessary with the staff. If that is your goal anyway, we can resolve it straight away, as I would not prefer another thread get closed because of this crap. I am here to debate not be harassed. Last chance.

Reported for calling me childish, immature, in denial, trolling, a stalker and threatening me with staff for having the gall to respond to you.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I have been interested in debate for over 20 years and have seen every professional one I can find. Have transcripts of most. I have been a prayer councilor for years. I even had a personal bizarre hobby of guessing a persons faith when first met and seeing what it later turned out to be. I have vast experience in detecting the existence of faith and how to detect if it's experiential or intellectual. I make no claim about your intellectual faith but I would bet anything that it does include a born again experience. Again this is not a moral conclusion but a reasoned one. A Christian is required to defend, acknowledge, and support his faith even in the face of death. It is not a game or something to leave doubts about for any Christians I have ever met. I have no desire to guess at your faith as it can be taken even if not in anyway actually being) an insult, so if you wish it to remain illusive I will not press it.[/]

So what does that have to do with my faith?

 

[ImprobableBeing]

I have been interested in debate for over 20 years and have seen every professional one I can find. Have transcripts of most. I have been a prayer councilor for years. I even had a personal bizarre hobby of guessing a persons faith when first met and seeing what it later turned out to be. I have vast experience in detecting the existence of faith and how to detect if it's experiential or intellectual. I make no claim about your intellectual faith but I would bet anything that it does include a born again experience. Again this is not a moral conclusion but a reasoned one. A Christian is required to defend, acknowledge, and support his faith even in the face of death. It is not a game or something to leave doubts about for any Christians I have ever met. I have no desire to guess at your faith as it can be taken even if not in anyway actually being) an insult, so if you wish it to remain illusive I will not press it.[/]

So what does that have to do with my faith?

He knows what you believe better than you do? Isn't that obvious?

 

[Ouroboros]

So what does that have to do with my faith?

He's saying that if you tell him your faith, he can accurately guess it using magical psychic powers.
:faint:

 

[mystic64]

Wait... what?

Ok, lets approach this from a different angle: When a star becomes a neutron star it's density reaches a point were all molecular motion stops and it disappears leaving a "black hole". Because of the Law of the Conservation of Matter this mass can not just magically disappear, it has to go somewhere. Science fiction would have us believe that it reappears spontaneously somewhere else in Creation and creates a worm tunnel between two points in Creation. Steffen Hawking's math proves that is does not reappear in measurable Creation and that it is "gone" from measurable Creation. Because of the Law of the Conservation of Matter it still has to exist, but just not in measurable Creation. And his answer is that it still exists, but is in a different dimension. "Outside of our box", so to speak, (what science can measure and prove at this time is our box) and that where it goes has to be a part of Creation because of the Law of the Conservation of Matter, it is just that science can't measure it, which makes Creation bigger than what science thought that it was.

Also, what we perceive as matter is only present part of the time and the other part of the time it is "gone". Because of the Law of the Conservation of Matter it can not be magically "gone", it has to be somewhere else and that somewhere else has to be a part of Creation.

When a "Big Bang" happens matter just appears in Creation. Because of the Law of the Conservation of Matter it can't just come out of nowhere, it has to have come from somewhere and that somewhere has to be a part of Creation.

There is a part of Creation that science can not say exists because science can not measure it and prove that it exists. So, because God the Creator, one who can manipulate Creation following the known and unknown laws of physics, could possibly exist outside of measurable Creation, neither science or anyone else can say, "Because there is not any scientific proof that God the Creator does exist, God the Creator then can not exist." To say that would also be saying that Creation itself can not exist because science itself can not prove how or why it does exist.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Ok, lets approach this from a different angle: When a star becomes a neutron star it's density reaches a point were all molecular motion stops and it disappears leaving a "black hole". Because of the Law of the Conservation of Matter this mass can not just magically disappear, it has to go somewhere

That would work if it wasn't for relativity.

Unfortunately as your argument hinges on the lack of relativity it fails right here.

See gravity would make time halt at that amount of gravity. The mass would be in stasis at this point, so close to being timeless or actually timeless given it's speed it would exist in all time.

I don't think you know what you are proposing nor do i think you have any clue about what you are proposing so again...

Wait... what?

 

[Agnostic75]

Greenleaf gave actual examples of what you claim does not occur. Did you read the whole paper?

Yes, I did read the whole paper, and Greenleaf did not say anything about a specific supernatural event that reasonably proves that the event happened, and he did not say anything that thousands of skeptic Bible scholars could not adequately refute.

Greenleaf was a lawyer, not a professional theologian, and lots of new research regarding biblical criticism and history has been conducted since his death in 1853.

Research shows that today, contemporary eyewitness accounts are often wrong, let alone eyewitness accounts that supposedly happened thousands of years ago.

Please quote some examples by Greenleaf that you believe reasonably proves that a God inspired the Bible.

Do you disagree with Dr. Bart Ehrman's claim that the Bible contains some forgeries? Have you read his book about Bible forgeries? I haven't. If you haven't, I would be willing to read it if you will, and then we could discuss it. If the Bible contains any probable forgeries at all, that is reasonable evidence that it is plausible that God did not inspire any writings about homosexuality.

Accurate transmissions of texts does not necessarily have anything to do with divine inspiration. In addition, since there are very few existing first century, and second century original texts, how can anyone know how many texts, and which texts might have been changed?

As Dr. Richard Carrier shows in an article about the formation of the New Testament canon at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html, the formation of the canon was questionable for many reasons. The article is very scholarly, very well-argued, very thorough, and very well-documented. You do not have nearly enough education to adequately refute even 10% of the article, let alone all of it, and you certainly would not be willing to have a public debate with Dr. Carrier about the article.

Risking death to kill others is a very common occurrence in history but the Jews and Christians have unrivaled records of choosing certain death without struggle. This argues very strongly that they had an external source of power no other culture has demonstrated, that allowed them to do this.

No it doesn't since all that that reasonably proves is that Christianity was the most effective religion at convincing people to give their lives for their religion "among the available choices," certainly not the most effective of "any possible religion." If a new religion was started, and one million people joined it, and all of them gave their lives for the religion, would that alone discredit Christianity? If an unknown planet existed where everyone was good, and moral, would that alone discredit Christianity?

There is obviously not any valid research that shows how many people would be willing to die for any possible false religion.

 

[cottage]

What in the heck is going on here? No subsection of reality any way it can be sliced has the reason for it's existence within it. No effect has ever been observed that has no cause. That is what makes a law a law. Nothing has zero creative potential. The natural has zero demonstrated creative potential from non-existence. There are no known exceptions. If you wish to hope that some day something will change that is fine with me but I never cease to be amazed by this tactic. In every other issue of any type you would insist we go with the best evidence we have. Unless God is involved then we may freely go in-spite of every single piece of evidence we have even if we are only positing a fantasy. I have finite time to make certain determinations and like everyone else about everything else I make most based on less than knowing every fact about every thing every where. Why is this invalid for God? I know of nothing more substantiated that effects require causes. If you invent a standard that makes that unreliable then the entire spectrum of reality would become meaningless. I have no idea why you think this.

A hypothetical negates nothing in actuality and nothing has zero causal potential.


Again I do not get this type of thinking. You deny something that has no known or theoretical exception if favor of something that has no known example. Why? This is not reason or logic nor rational. It is preference driven hope in-spite of the evidence. We could sit around and debate hypotheticals till the end of time. Why should we when something is as consistent as cause and effect? I will end by simply saying that most philosophers since historical times have granted cause and effect and it is consistent with all known data. I am going with that. Hypotheticals in spite of the evidence and devoid of any themselves are not really my thing. The only challenge possible is for you to find at least one effect that has no cause. Good luck.

BTW if there was something then nothing then us. We can not access the something before the nothing and have the same problem because once the nothing arrived there was no creative potential anywhere. Nothing produces nothing, every time.

I’m a little disappointed to see you’ve not really understood the argument I’m making, which is made evident by these statements of yours:

‘Nothing produces nothing, every time.’

And especially this: ‘Nothing has zero creative potential.’

I’m most certainly not proposing that nothing can cause or produce anything, a notion that I’ve already dismissed as an absurdity.

I wrote: ‘Now since there is no logical necessity in causality we can certainly allow the idea of a prior nothingness, which negates an external cause of the world together with the very principle itself. Logically something can exist where before there was nothing, which is not saying absurdly that something can come from nothing.’

And of course cause and effect is consistent with all known data, but the God hypothesis seeks to take us beyond the empirical world and outside all known data. If there is a distinction to be made between your metaphysic and mine it is that yours must exigently and necessarily call upon a principle found in physical world in order to argue to the concept of a Supreme Being, which involves a direct contradiction and makes God an impossible concept. I will be explaining this fully in my reply to your response regarding the Greenleaf critique.

 

[mystic64]

That would work if it wasn't for relativity.

Unfortunately as your argument hinges on the lack of relativity it fails right here.

See gravity would make time halt at that amount of gravity. The mass would be in stasis at this point, so close to being timeless or actually timeless given it's speed it would exist in all time.

I don't think you know what you are proposing nor do i think you have any clue about what you are proposing so again...

Wait... what?

Time as we know it is relative to movement within our velocity time frame. When you step out of our velocity time frame time is different but it still exists. Our velocity time frame goes basically from the speed of light to what we perceive as zero molecular motion. There is a velocity time frame that is slower than ours and a velocity time frame that is faster than ours. Time still exists in those velocity time frames, it is just different than the time in our velocity time frame because the velocity of those time frames are different. When a mass is accelerated from the slower velocity time frame, whatever the cause is that creates that acceleration, that mass enters our faster velocity time frame as a "big bang" complete with a cloud of matter, preset gravity wells, rotation/spin, and a black hole at its center. A neutron star is an example of some of that matter falling back into the slower velocity time frame and staying there.

Now, because of, "a mass at rest has a tendency to stay at rest", any mass that is accelerated into our velocity time frame wants to stay in the slower velocity time frame, thus drag is created. Because of, "a mass in motion has a tendency to stay in motion", any mass that is accelerated into our velocity time frame wants to stay in our velocity time frame, thus pull is created. These two forces at work cause the accelerated mass to oscillate between our faster velocity time frame and the slower velocity time frame that the mass came from. When this mass oscillates into our velocity time frame we can measure it. When this mass oscillates back into the slower velocity time frame it disappears and we can not measure it. Because of this oscillation between two different velocity time frames, ours and the slower one, matter appears to be, at least relative to physics, here part of the time and not here part of the time.

And that is just the relationship between our velocity time frame and the velocity time frame that is slower than ours. There is also a velocity time frame that is faster than ours and there is also a relationship between it and our velocity time frame. Creation is bigger than what was originally thought and Stephen Hawking's Black Hole math proves that this is so, which is why conservative traditional science tried to discredit him. Science is on the edge of a whole new frontier and old science is a bit upset about it.

Also, until science can find out what causes mass from a slower velocity time frame to be accelerated into our velocity time frame and until science can figure out how big Creation really is (there are already two parts of it that we can not measure and there is probably more), there being a Being or a group of Beings at play in the creation processes is possible even though we can not measure their presence because of there being parts of Creation that we can not measure. And to say this is not possible would have to be done on faith. The best that one can be at this point in time without faith being involved is "Agnostic". The belief that God the Creator does exist is based on faith and the belief that God the Creator does not exist is based of faith because there is not any direct evidence either way, along with the possibility that God the Creator could be "at this time" in some part of Creation that we can not measure.

 

[1robin]

So what does that have to do with my faith?

I have already said I do not wish to risk insulting someone who has been civil so far. I will leave your faith to you. However you had no problem judging why Christians believe in general so I do not think my claims out of bounds but it does seem like you wish to leave it ambiguous and there is no purpose to be served in debating an issue where resolution is undesired by one side.

 

[1robin]

I’m a little disappointed to see you’ve not really understood the argument I’m making, which is made evident by these statements of yours:

‘Nothing produces nothing, every time.’

And especially this: ‘Nothing has zero creative potential.’

I’m most certainly not proposing that nothing can cause or produce anything, a notion that I’ve already dismissed as an absurdity.

I wrote: ‘Now since there is no logical necessity in causality we can certainly allow the idea of a prior nothingness, which negates an external cause of the world together with the very principle itself. Logically something can exist where before there was nothing, which is not saying absurdly that something can come from nothing.’

And of course cause and effect is consistent with all known data, but the God hypothesis seeks to take us beyond the empirical world and outside all known data. If there is a distinction to be made between your metaphysic and mine it is that yours must exigently and necessarily call upon a principle found in physical world in order to argue to the concept of a Supreme Being, which involves a direct contradiction and makes God an impossible concept. I will be explaining this fully in my reply to your response regarding the Greenleaf critique.

I was not speaking directly to your beliefs about cosmology but about the most reliable science we have at this time. Many people believe in multiverses, eternal quantum energy fields, oscillating universes, etc... I can't entertain every fantastic thing a person wishes were true. I was speaking about the most accepted model of the universe we have. It posits a single finite universe. That necessitates a end to the universe and everything natural known. That necessitates a nothing which nothing will come from. Again why am I the only one that is going with the best evidence. If you deny a nothing cosmology suggests strongly existed at some point then you are going in spite of the best evidence and in a direction that has virtually no evidence. Actual infinities are logically absurd. However it does appear you did agree with a nothingness.

I wrote: ‘Now since there is no logical necessity in causality we can certainly allow the idea of a prior nothingness, which negates an external cause of the world together with the very principle itself. Logically something can exist where before there was nothing, which is not saying absurdly that something can come from nothing.’

When discussing the nature of the universe our logic only binds the natural. There are no laws nor principles that govern God beyond some principles that are not binding but probably apply. If we had a natural nothing but now have a something which nothing could not produce then we know two things. 1. There was something beyond the nothing or we would still have nothing. 2. That something is non-natural.

Cause and effect are principles we know apply to the natural and we have no reason whatever to claim they do not apply anywhere else. I never argue God to a certainty, it can't be done. I argue to a high probability. It is highly probable that the universe did not exist at some point, it is almost certain that it can't self create, it is almost a certainty that it had a cause, it is probable that cause is not natural, it is very likely that cause was the Biblical God. If you contend a single step in that claim then you are going against the best evidence not with it. I have an intellectual permissibility burden not a proof burden. Science is supposed to have a evidence burden yet incorporates more faith based on less evidence in the case of multiverses, eternal actualities, and all other areas that are used to contend with God. I met my burden but the scientific argument against God has not met it's burden.

 

[1robin]

Yes, I did read the whole paper, and Greenleaf did not say anything about a specific supernatural event that reasonably proves that the event happened, and he did not say anything that thousands of skeptic Bible scholars could not adequately refute.

Proof is not his nor my burden. For testimony and history things are debated or posited to a standard of high probability. His methodology (which determines laws methodology as he was the source many times) justifies high confidence for the supernatural claims made in the BIble. That is 100% of faiths burden.

Greenleaf was a lawyer, not a professional theologian, and lots of new research regarding biblical criticism and history has been conducted since his death in 1853.

There is nothing new that makes his statements less meaningful. And you are wrong anyway. Modern scholarship to my great surprise is trending in the directing of reliability for the Gospels. I can give you a link to a professional textual scholar who can elaborate with stats and names of you wish.

Research shows that today, contemporary eyewitness accounts are often wrong, let alone eyewitness accounts that supposedly happened thousands of years ago.

That was one weird claim.

1. They are no more or less reliable than they ever were.
2. Virtually no new information exists about contemporary claims in general.
3. The Biblical claims are stronger now than in Greenleaf's time.
4. Unless there is a specific prohibitive reasons contemporary claims are always the best source in general. Of course exceptions exist but your claims were general and in general they are the most valuable resource in every field.

Please quote some examples by Greenleaf that you believe reasonably proves that a God inspired the Bible.

That was not the scope of that papers purpose. It was to legally examine the Gospels by the same methodology modern law uses for testimony. I have given several reasons to believe this of my own and not one has been overturned so far.

Do you disagree with Dr. Bart Ehrman's claim that the Bible contains some forgeries?

Nope. However forgeries is not a good word to use. Errors and a few additions is better.

Have you read his book about Bible forgeries? I haven't. If you haven't, I would be willing to read it if you will, and then we could discuss it. If the Bible contains any probable forgeries at all, that is reasonable evidence that it is plausible that God did not inspire any writings about homosexuality.

I know plenty about Ehrman's claims. They are:

There are 400,000 errors in the total biblical tradition.
That adds up to about 5% of any one Bible.
He admits that no core doctrine contains known errors.
Virtually all errors are known and indicated in every modern Bible.
The Bible exceeds by far (I mean far) any other work of ancient history of any kind.

What is the complaint?

Accurate transmissions of texts does not necessarily have anything to do with divine inspiration. In addition, since there are very few existing first century, and second century original texts, how can anyone know how many texts, and which texts might have been changed?

I have given evidence for both.

As Dr. Richard Carrier shows in an article about the formation of the New Testament canon at The Formation of the New Testament Canon, the formation of the canon was questionable for many reasons. The article is very scholarly, very well-argued, very thorough, and very well-documented. You do not have nearly enough education to adequately refute even 10% of the article, let alone all of it, and you certainly would not be willing to have a public debate with Dr. Carrier about the article.

I do not rely on my education to evaluate these claims. The information I use comes from scholars just as good or better than Carrier. N.T. Wright, Dr White, Church fathers, etc.... Pick an argument he made. I do not have time to read the whole paper currently.

No it doesn't since all that that reasonably proves is that Christianity was the most effective religion at convincing people to give their lives for their religion "among the available choices," certainly not the most effective of "any possible religion." If a new religion was started, and one million people joined it, and all of them gave their lives for the religion, would that alone discredit Christianity? If an unknown planet existed where everyone was good, and moral, would that alone discredit Christianity?

It has a reason it is the most effective. You seem to be suggesting it's effectiveness has nothing to do with it's truth. No matter what philosophy or theology suggests you should have courage in the face of death they do not supply it unless true.

There is obviously not any valid research that shows how many people would be willing to die for any possible false religion.

That is why it was a side note and not a proof. It does require a person to account for it personally. It alone would not be convincing but when hundreds of these lines of evidence start stacking up it is more than enough to convince anyone not resistant. You tactic in your theological posts seems to be:

1. Adopt any other explanation for any evidence regardless if the truth of the Bible's claims is the best fit.
2. To assign burdens of proof to faith claims.
3. To claim an argument made for one purpose is unfit for another purpose it was not intended for.
4. Randomly compare me with people who I have never claimed to equal in scholarship.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Let's just note that the Principle of Sufficient Reason, while intuitively plausible, has no standing as a logical truth or a well-established empirical hypothesis, despite everyone taking it for granted.

And I see 1robin is continuing to (deliberately) misconstrue contemporary cosmology.

 

[1robin]

Let's just note that the Principle of Sufficient Reason, while intuitively plausible, has no standing as a logical truth or a well-established empirical hypothesis, despite everyone taking it for granted.

Yet is the basis for 99.99999999999% percent of every thing humans claim to be true. Again why is it only a problem when God is involved.

And I see 1robin is continuing to (deliberately) misconstrue contemporary cosmology.

I also see even the attempt to prove that claim is entirely absent. The most accepted modern cosmological model is a single finite universe. If you disagree then some effort beyond assertion is required. I have proven that claim countless times.