INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

You explicitly quoted Hawking, talking about his no-boundary proposal, to corroborate your claim (mistakenly, as it happens).

However I never said whatever theory I had quoted from is the most accepted model in cosmology.

You've moved the goalposts, as I've pointed out once already. You initially claimed that THE standard or most widely accepted theory in cosmology (which happens to be the BBT) posits a beginning of the universe- it does not. You've now changed this to the claim that models which DO posit a beginning of the universe are more popular than those that do not. That may well be the case, but it isn't especially relevant, and I'd be curious on what basis you're basing that claim anyways (as I asked before, can you cite a survey of physicists?).

I had to move them. Actually I had to make new ones and paint them fluorescent orange because you had buried the old ones in so much ambiguity that I no longer knew where they were. Which I imagine was the intention. The BBT is a very excepted model and perfectly consistent with a beginning. It does not even contain the possibility of a non-beginning. If you desire that, for some theological preference reasons you must look elsewhere. If I find a quote from it that does posit a beginning specifically will you conceded. However the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe is also a majority accepted model or aspect of it.

Ok... And?

What?

My primary claim is that reliable cosmology is overwhelming consistent with what the Bible claims.

Is this not a consistent standard to evaluate that claim by?

To avoid these technicalities I will restate my claim in an officially different version. The vast majority of reliable cosmology suggests that the single known universe's past is finite. Virtually all science that is consistent with additional universes and eternity is extremely speculative, based on far less reliable types of theoretical claims concerning evidence, and has been adopted as a reliable probability by few cosmologists.

If so then why is it not conceded?
If not then pray tell why not?

Every objection you make has everything to do with unrelated semantic technicalities and nothing whatever to do with my primary claims and the purposes of the discussion at all and the sufficiency of the evidence justifying them.

The claim that the universe had no beginning has a justification for nor completely ruling out.

The claim that the likely hood that the probability it does not have a beginning is even remotely comparable to the likely hood it had a beginning, is not scientifically justifiable.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

However I never said whatever theory I had quoted from is the most accepted model in cosmology.

Then the quote was irrelevant, as I've pointed out a number of times.

I had to move them.

Indeed- you couldn't reach them where they initially stood.

Actually I had to make new ones and paint them fluorescent orange because you had buried the old ones in so much ambiguity that I no longer knew where they were.

There was no ambiguity- what you initially claimed was simply false at worst or misleading at best.

The BBT is a very excepted model and perfectly consistent with a beginning. It does not even contain the possibility of a non-beginning.

Yes, it is consistent with a beginning or the lack thereof- which is why there are credible- neither established nor discredited- hypotheses expanding on and consistent with the BBT which both include a beginning of the universe and do not include a beginning of the universe. The BBT simply doesn't settle the issue one way or the other- it really doesn't even speak to it at all.

What?

The religious inclination of physicists, even those who directly contributed to the BBT, is not relevant to what (if any) religious implications the BBT itself carries- and there are none.

My primary claim is that reliable cosmology is overwhelming consistent with what the Bible claims.

Consistency doesn't admit of degrees- either there is a contradiction, or there is not. There is no "more" or "less" consistent.

 

[1robin]

Then the quote was irrelevant, as I've pointed out a number of times.

No it was not. I did not use the quote to prove what was the most accepted model in cosmology. I used it to prove that even someone who was theologically opposed to the beginning of the universe that was present in the most accepted models agreed it was probably a fact. Just as what you pointed out in that other thread you are using statements meant for one purpose for another purpose never intended and calling foul. Why is this stuff necessary if you were right?

Indeed- you couldn't reach them where they initially stood.

Just out of curiosity where do you even think they originally stood?

There was no ambiguity- what you initially claimed was simply false at worst or misleading at best.

For the sake of time I will not argue with this since I set up clear posts where they need to be just to get out the swamp of ambiguity and cross purposes you created.

Yes, it is consistent with a beginning or the lack thereof- which is why there are credible- neither established nor discredited- hypotheses expanding on and consistent with the BBT which both include a beginning of the universe and do not include a beginning of the universe. The BBT simply doesn't settle the issue one way or the other- it really doesn't even speak to it at all.

There is nothing in BBT that is consistent with non beginning. If you want evidence for that you will not find it in the BBT. It is highly almost exclusively suggestive of a beginning. I will even bet I can find a quote from someone who is talking about it who is an expert on it that will suggest it does posit a beginning it you will make it worth doing.

The religious inclination of physicists, even those who directly contributed to the BBT, is not relevant to what (if any) religious implications the BBT itself carries- and there are none.

It is, but was a side bar and I have bigger fish to fry.

Consistency doesn't admit of degrees- either there is a contradiction, or there is not. There is no "more" or "less" consistent.

Come off it man. You are pulling every trick you can think of to keep from admitting what I am sure you know is the truth. I will state it one last way (is there any way possible to get you to admit what most cosmologists do). The inability to concede the slightest point is indicative of an argument that can't survive the slightest challenge. It is as if one ray of light gets through and you think the whole house of cards will fall.

One last time in a different way:

The overwhelming majority of evidence is consistent with a finite single universe which had a beginning compared with multiverses or eternal universes? True or false?

I can't keep trying to get you to admit what is true. It just can't be justified but so long. Don't worry a finite universe is only one step of many that are needed before your lack of faith starts looking too bad. One step in the direction of truth will not ruin your day. I promise. I will leave you with that uneasy situation and check back tomorrow. Have a good one.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No it was not. I did not use the quote to prove what was the most accepted model in cosmology.

And Hawking talking about his no-boundary hypotheses can do no such thing. Either your initial claim was false or ill-posed, or your subsequent quotes were irrelevant- one or the other, my friend.

Just out of curiosity where do you even think they originally stood?

Here-

You initially claimed that THE standard or most widely accepted theory in cosmology (which happens to be the BBT) posits a beginning of the universe- it does not. You've now changed this to the claim that models which DO posit a beginning of the universe are more popular than those that do not. That may well be the case, but it isn't especially relevant, and I'd be curious on what basis you're basing that claim anyways (as I asked before, can you cite a survey of physicists?).

There is nothing in BBT that is consistent with non beginning. If you want evidence for that you will not find it in the BBT.

Apparently you're not clear what consistency is. Not providing evidence for a lack of a beginning does not mean it isn't consistent with it nevertheless. Consistency means it is not contradictory. Since the BBT does not posit a beginning of the universe, it does not contradict models which don't include one.

It is...

This is an obvious non-sequitur, so it's wise to leave it be.

Come off it man. You are pulling every trick you can think of to keep from admitting what I am sure you know is the truth. I will state it one last way (is there any way possible to get you to admit what most cosmologists do). The inability to concede the slightest point is indicative of an argument that can't survive the slightest challenge. It is as if one ray of light gets through and you think the whole house of cards will fall.

This isn't relevant to what I said. Consistency doesn't admit of degrees. Its a simple matter of definition. I've already said that your new claim may well be true- although you've provided no evidence for it- but I'm not going to concede what are obviously false claims just to... what, be nice, or something?

The overwhelming majority of evidence is consistent with a finite single universe which had a beginning...

Sure, so far as I know. But that's a far cry from your initial claim, or the conclusion you are clearly driving towards here.

...compared with multiverses or eternal universes?

So far as I'm aware, the overwhelming majority of evidence is ALSO consistent with multiverse or eternal universe models. If it was not, these hypotheses would be considered credible or viable- yet, they are.

 

[1robin]

And Hawking talking about his no-boundary hypotheses can do no such thing. Either your initial claim was false or ill-posed, or your subsequent quotes were irrelevant- one or the other, my friend.

First you say I used whatever model Hawking proposed as the most accepted. Which I did no such thing. Then you use that very model you had previously told me I could not use (even though I never tried to) to say it can do no such thing. I have no idea what his theorem says. I have no idea what thing it can not do. I have tried to clarify my claims in very clear terms but it seems the only argument you have is the mistaken semantic technicalities you contrived in my original claims so there apparently is no escaping from it. The issue is whether the most reliable science is consistent with a beginning or not. It is not what hawking's theory is, what it can do, or what mistakes you say I made in a claim that I have clarified in several way in order to get past the garbage and debate the issues. You may think Clinton's tactic of defining what is - is to be meaningful. I am concerned with what science indicates the strongest. Care to join me.

Here-

If you claimed I established the original goal posts (why you think the original goal posts clarified in several ways is meaningful I do not know) then you must provide my statements not your to show the fault even though it has been cleared up if it ever existed at all.

Apparently you're not clear what consistency is. Not providing evidence for a lack of a beginning does not mean it isn't consistent with it nevertheless. Consistency means it is not contradictory. Since the BBT does not posit a beginning of the universe, it does not contradict models which don't include one.

I have asked you several times that if I show quotes or easily extrapolated claims about a beginning from competent authorities on the BBT will you concede the point. Why have you ignored them all if your correct. What are you afraid of?

This is an obvious non-sequitur, so it's wise to leave it be.

So far I have about 3 semantic technicalities used to avoid what science indicates in the strongest terms. Science is the issue. Any chance we can eventually discuss it.

This isn't relevant to what I said. Consistency doesn't admit of degrees. Its a simple matter of definition. I've already said that your new claim may well be true- although you've provided no evidence for it- but I'm not going to concede what are obviously false claims just to... what, be nice, or something?

The heck consistency does not include degrees. Probability is the foundation of consistency. Any claim about consistency has probabilities and degrees necessary to claim it at all. Please post what claim I made that you concede is true. If it is scientific then my intention may have been accomplished and these debates about debate would be unnecessary.

Sure, so far as I know. But that's a far cry from your initial claim, or the conclusion you are clearly driving towards here.

Ignore the above since you granted the likely hood of what I wanted to say anyway. We can get away from trying to get a guilty guy of by objections to procedures if you agree this is probably true: The overwhelming majority of evidence is consistent with a finite single universe which had a beginning...

So far as I'm aware, the overwhelming majority of evidence is ALSO consistent with multiverse or eternal universe models. If it was not, these hypotheses would be considered credible or viable- yet, they are.

I knew it. You just could not stand agreeing to what I said and had to contradict what I said with what can't be shown to be true. Almost nothing is consistent with an eternal universe and what tiny amount is, is in the most unreliable category of science there is. They are not considered credible or viable. They are considered possible by some only because they are speculations about things which have no ability to be tested. They are no more valid than claiming a race of pink rabbits live somewhere in the universe. You can't rule it out so it is possible. However many of them (all of the major ones) have authorities in cosmology who claim they are impossible and much of the far more reliable fields of science suggest their impossibility in the strongest terms.

I see resolution even for obvious things is not desired by you and every trick in the book (almost none of which are scientific) will by used to retain a desired ambiguousness for the universe which does not exist in reliable science. I can't resolve what you refuse to be. There is no justification in trying to do so indefinitely.

The most reliable models and theorems in cosmology are far (and I mean far) more consistent with a finite universe with a beginning that any fantasies about eternal universes and the theoretical science that keeps them alive at all.

If you can not agree with that or a version that is very similar then there is no resolution possible. I will take one last shot if you can't because unlike most resolution is my goal. Change that sentence if you can't bring your self to agree with it into something you can and I will see if it retains enough truth and relevance to allow me to agree with it.

 

[McBell]

Not one aspect of the natural is known to be able to bring into existence anything from non-existence.

still milking that strawman?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

How can the supernatural make something out of nothing?

 

[1robin]

How can the supernatural make something out of nothing?

Why would you suggest it could not? The only evidence we have of the nature of the spiritual is claims it does produce physical effects. There is no evidence available that it can't. The only question that is reasonable is how good is the evidence it does.

We know several things here that make it pretty clear and leave little room for escape.

1. We have actual material stuff.
2. There exists no possibility stuff can create it's self. Nothing has zero causal potential.
3. There exists virtually no possibility stuff has always existed.
4. We have the natural but it did not come from the natural. Even natural law has no creative potential.
5. Whatever caused the natural to exist must be beyond the natural or supernatural.

If it helps you can think of the supernatural as just another for of the natural that we do not understand. Like the quantum which it is claimed can bring the material from only an energy field. There are a few problems with using this analogy but it points out the silliness in claiming the unseen can't produce the seen or the unknown can't produce the known.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Why would you suggest it could not? The only evidence we have of the nature of the spiritual is claims it does produce physical effects. There is no evidence available that it can't. The only question that is reasonable is how good is the evidence it does.

We know several things here that make it pretty clear and leave little room for escape.

1. We have actual material stuff.
2. There exists no possibility stuff can create it's self. Nothing has zero causal potential.
3. There exists virtually no possibility stuff has always existed.
4. We have the natural but it did not come from the natural. Even natural law has no creative potential.
5. Whatever caused the natural to exist must be beyond the natural or supernatural.

If it helps you can think of the supernatural as just another for of the natural that we do not understand. Like the quantum which it is claimed can bring the material from only an energy field. There are a few problems with using this analogy but it points out the silliness in claiming the unseen can't produce the seen or the unknown can't produce the known.

We've never seen anything that was not natural produce anything but natural. Why is there an assumption that to start the natural you needed supernatural?

Why would something like the quantum field be considered natural and not supernatural? It certainly seems to go against what we view as natural:

 

[1robin]

We've never seen anything that was not natural produce anything but natural.

We have never seen anything created by the natural. We have stuff. The natural created none of it (at least that is what everything we currently know shows). Something produced it and the natural can't. Kind of narrows it down. Something beyond the natural must have. Fortunately we have libraries full of claim that the supernatural produced natural things. I myself have had a little experience with this. (not much but some)

IOW all the evidence that exists points to a supernatural realm that has creative power. The only question left is just how strong is that evidence. It is somewhere between reasonable and certainty. We posit scientific claims when no evidence exists at all. Why is only a problem for the supernatural?

Why is there an assumption that to start the natural you needed supernatural?

That is not an assumption. It is a claim that no known exception to exists. Do you believe the natural can bring something into existence from nothing? Then please post an example of this and you might get a Nobel.

Why would something like the quantum field be considered natural and not supernatural? It certainly seems to go against what we view as natural:

Because it is governed by natural law. I am not sure if that is the official definition but it is probably close. Natural things obey natural law. When things defy natural law then the supernatural must be considered. The Quantum does not go against the natural at all. It goes against physics that only applies to large things (Newtonian physics) It introduced a new type of physics (quantum physics) that governs the micro world. It is only strange because it has only been recently discovered and is still little understood. The exact same way Newtonian physics was when discovered.

 

[McBell]

Why would you suggest it could not? The only evidence we have of the nature of the spiritual is claims it does produce physical effects. There is no evidence available that it can't. The only question that is reasonable is how good is the evidence it does.

So the best you got is "you cannot prove it doesn't"...?

We know several things here that make it pretty clear and leave little room for escape.

1. We have actual material stuff.
2. There exists no possibility stuff can create it's self. Nothing has zero causal potential.
3. There exists virtually no possibility stuff has always existed.
4. We have the natural but it did not come from the natural. Even natural law has no creative potential.
5. Whatever caused the natural to exist must be beyond the natural or supernatural.

Actually, you present a list of assumptions.
Nice try presenting them as "known"...

If it helps you can think of the supernatural as just another for of the natural that we do not understand. Like the quantum which it is claimed can bring the material from only an energy field. There are a few problems with using this analogy but it points out the silliness in claiming the unseen can't produce the seen or the unknown can't produce the known.

Or perhaps flat out lying about how someone in this thread other than yourself has made claims of something coming from nothing?

 

[1robin]

So the best you got is "you cannot prove it doesn't"...?

Since this post actually deals with the issue I will respond. Neither is proven. However all the evidence is on one side. There exists no evidence what so ever that the natural has or ever could create from nothing, nor that anything is eternal. As I said the only question is how strong the evidence the supernatural created everything is. I think that it is pretty strong however it is debatable. What nature has created is not, nothing.

Actually, you present a list of assumptions.
Nice try presenting them as "known"...

So we have stuff is an assumption huh? How is that exactly.

How is there are no known examples of the natural creating from nothing an assumption? Give me evidence it did and you may get the Nobel as I have said.

The rest are perfectly justified extrapolations that have no alternative known from those FACTS.

Or perhaps flat out lying about how someone in this thread other than yourself has made claims of something coming from nothing?

You just could not make it through one post without revealing your true nature could you? I did not mention anything about another thread. I have no idea what you are talking about, and neither do you and since you could not say what you do not know without being petty I will not respond again to this. You never fail to disappoint.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

We have never seen anything created by the natural. We have stuff. The natural created none of it (at least that is what everything we currently know shows). Something produced it and the natural can't. Kind of narrows it down. Something beyond the natural must have. Fortunately we have libraries full of claim that the supernatural produced natural things. I myself have had a little experience with this. (not much but some)

IOW all the evidence that exists points to a supernatural realm that has creative power. The only question left is just how strong is that evidence. It is somewhere between reasonable and certainty. We posit scientific claims when no evidence exists at all. Why is only a problem for the supernatural?


That is not an assumption. It is a claim that no known exception to exists. Do you believe the natural can bring something into existence from nothing? Then please post an example of this and you might get a Nobel.

Because it is governed by natural law. I am not sure if that is the official definition but it is probably close. Natural things obey natural law. When things defy natural law then the supernatural must be considered. The Quantum does not go against the natural at all. It goes against physics that only applies to large things (Newtonian physics) It introduced a new type of physics (quantum physics) that governs the micro world. It is only strange because it has only been recently discovered and is still little understood. The exact same way Newtonian physics was when discovered.

I didn't say create I said produce which I guess in laymen may include some form of creation. But what we note is that in the natural world the state of thins is change not necessarily creation or destruction. So if the supernatural goes and interferes with the natural does it suddenly become natural? Because all it is doing is changing which is what the natural does.

 

[McBell]

Since this post actually deals with the issue I will respond. Neither is proven. However all the evidence is on one side. There exists no evidence what so ever that the natural has or ever could create from nothing, nor that anything is eternal. As I said the only question is how strong the evidence the supernatural created everything is. I think that it is pretty strong however it is debatable. What nature has created is not, nothing.

A simple yes would have sufficed.
As for your "all the evidence is on one side" sermon, you have as yet to show it to be true either.

So we have stuff is an assumption huh? How is that exactly.

Supporting the unprovable with the unprovable does not support your unprovable.
Regardless of how many claims you make otherwise.

How is there are no known examples of the natural creating from nothing an assumption? Give me evidence it did and you may get the Nobel as I have said.

One wonders why you are so attached to this blatant lie?

The rest are perfectly justified extrapolations that have no alternative known from those FACTS.

More empty claims in support of your empty claims.
At least you are consistent.

You just could not make it through one post without revealing your true nature could you? I did not mention anything about another thread. I have no idea what you are talking about, and neither do you and since you could not say what you do not know without being petty I will not respond again to this. You never fail to disappoint.

The only ones who have ever made the claim of something from nothing are those dishonest people like yourself trying in vain to support their empty claims.

Like I said, at least you are consistent.

 

[1robin]

I didn't say create I said produce which I guess in laymen may include some form of creation. But what we note is that in the natural world the state of thins is change not necessarily creation or destruction. So if the supernatural goes and interferes with the natural does it suddenly become natural? Because all it is doing is changing which is what the natural does.

The issue is creation from non being. Unless you think matter, time, and space is eternal which does not have a snow balls chance. I never mentioned change. Natural law can change things that already exist around. We know they can, and we do not know there is any possibility they can create. That was not the issue at hand.

We are talking about sources not the effects. No the supernatural source does not become natural when it acts on the natural because it is obeying no natural law we know of. That is the definition of the supernatural. When the natural fails to answer the questions of why or how then the answer is beyond natural and there for supernatural. No it is not just changing. We are talking about creation.

Let me state it again.

We have X.
No known natural law or action of any type can create X.
There is virtually no possibility X always existed.
X came into existence and requires a cause.
Nature can not possibly be that cause but a cause exists.
The only possibility left is something beyond the natural.
We have evidence in volumes for the entire history of man that has been recorded that the supernatural exists.

Do you believe the supernatural exists?

You must destroy those points with good evidence and justification before you can even begin to dismiss the supernatural.

 

[metis]

What created "God", and how could one tell that it's supposedly not "Gods"? All I have seen is one assumption on top of another, on top of another,... And some say "infinity" doesn't exist?

The unfortunate reality is that so many simply elevate their beliefs to the "fact" level, and that really is quite delusional. Beliefs are beliefs, and beliefs are based on faith-- not objective evidence. This is not to say, however, that "God" or "Gods" could not possibly exist, so I'll continue to take the "I don't know" position.

 

[mystic64]

There is no concept beyond God that explains the existence of anything. Not one aspect of the natural is known to be able to bring into existence anything from non-existence. No there is no potential for time without a creator. However let's pretend there was. It would not matter anyway because the latest cosmology and philosophy for the past few thousand years both indicate time is not nor can it ever be eternal. However lets say none of that was true for a second. What does what you posted mean anyway. Let's say instead of it being a logical absurdity it is actually true. What do you think that means?

What it means is that the science of physics is now exploring ways to create "Little Bangs" in a controlled scientific environment. Old science would say that you can not do it because you would be creating matter. New science says that you can do it because you are not creating matter, you are just bringing small amounts of matter into our velocity time frame. To me the whole thing is exciting. The science of genetics is playing with the building blocks of all living things and the science of physics is playing with the building blocks of Creation. And if "Man" can do it, then surely it would have been possible for God to have done it . We live in exciting times.

 

[mystic64]

What created "God", and how could one tell that it's supposedly not "Gods"? All I have seen is one assumption on top of another, on top of another,... And some say "infinity" doesn't exist?

The unfortunate reality is that so many simply elevate their beliefs to the "fact" level, and that really is quite delusional. Beliefs are beliefs, and beliefs are based on faith-- not objective evidence. This is not to say, however, that "God" or "Gods" could not possibly exist, so I'll continue to take the "I don't know" position.

! You have the mind of a rational thinker. Good post!

 

[1robin]

What created "God", and how could one tell that it's supposedly not "Gods"? All I have seen is one assumption on top of another, on top of another,... And some say "infinity" doesn't exist?

I have not really been debating God specifically. This is a typical mistake and has become kind of a joke in Christianity. This question and Dawkins central argument shave been called the worst arguments against God in western history.

1. Anything the begins to exist must have a cause.
2. God did not begin to exist.
3. God does not have a cause.

God or not there must be a first cause which is uncaused anyway (no matter what it is) if we actually have something. If you have something its causal chain can't possibly be infinite or it would not exist.

The unfortunate reality is that so many simply elevate their beliefs to the "fact" level, and that really is quite delusional. Beliefs are beliefs, and beliefs are based on faith-- not objective evidence. This is not to say, however, that "God" or "Gods" could not possibly exist, so I'll continue to take the "I don't know" position.

I have never claimed my faith in God is a certainty available to anyone else. I understand non-Christians have not been born again and have no access to the evidence we do.

I argue God is the best explanation given the evidence. My burden is not proof anyway. The burden of faith is a sufficiency of evidence that constitutes a intellectual permissive belief. That is a little ambiguous but no standard would not be. I know God exists but I only argue that the Bible's claims are the best explanation for the evidence we have.

I hope you did not mean me here. I will make you justify your claims if you did.
I also did not specifically mean you in my critique of your who created God question. I understand that most people do not understand the Bible and it is a logical question to them.

 

[1robin]

! You have the mind of a rational thinker. Good post!

That was not a good question. It is a terrible question caused by ignorance. Not stupidity, just a lack of knowledge about what is being discussed. See my post above for why?