INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

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.

This cannot be done. They never have, are not currently, nor is there the slightest possibility they will create something from a state of non-being. Post me a link to whatever it is you are talking about here and I will prove they are not doing so. Science can and does change one arrangement or even state of matter into another arrangement or state. They never create anything from nothing and there is no reason to think they ever will, and many reasons to suggest they never can.

Man has never done this.

 

[McBell]

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.

Well this certainly explains you inhuman invulnerability to truth, facts, logic, and reason.

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.

:biglaugh:

 

[McBell]

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.

and you do not see how your statement "there must be a first cause which is uncaused" completely renders your number one useless right off the bat?

 

[1robin]

Well this certainly explains you inhuman invulnerability to truth, facts, logic, and reason.


:biglaugh:

Does my saying I am not going to discuss this with not even have the power to stop your diatribes? If I said I am not interested in what you are saying because you do not have the honor to do so respectfully then what possible purpose do your statements have?

 

[McBell]

Does my saying I am not going to discuss this with not even have the power to stop your diatribes? If I said I am not interested in what you are saying because you do not have the honor to do so respectfully then what possible purpose do your statements have?

I call it how I see it.
Thus far you dislike what I see.
Only you can change that.

I wonder if you realize that all you have done is show you are a choir preacher?

 

[metis]

It's truly a shame that someone here accuses others of "ignorance" simply because they disagree with his elevation of his beliefs to the level of fact. In this case, I am so glad to be "ignorant".

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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.

Now you're just being dishonest. You know what you said. I know what you said. It's been repeated many times over the past several pages. I'm not going to spend 15 minutes searching for the original post- you claimed that the most accepted or standard theory in cosmology posits a beginning of the universe, however you put it exactly. And the most accepted/standard theory in cosmology is the BBT- which does not posit any beginning of the universe. Your statement was misleading at best, false at worst, which is why having moved the goalposts was probably a good call.

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.

Not the original point, because while Hawking or Vilenkin could be said to be authorities on the BBT, if they are talking about their own hypotheses which are distinct from the BBT, and DO include a beginning of the universe, this isn't relevant to your claim and doesn't help you. Once again, I'm guessing I'll have to make this point about six more times for it to sink in.

Why have you ignored them all if your correct. What are you afraid of?

Um, getting bogged down talking about irrelevant topics? For the last time, neither Hawking's proposal nor Vilenkin's theorem are the most accepted theory in cosmology, so I really don't care about them here- they fall outside the scope of your claim.

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.

Consistency is a logical relation in which there is no contradiction. Since contradiction isn't a matter of degrees, neither is consistency. Look it up.

I knew it. You just could not stand agreeing to what I said...

Because it wasn't entirely accurate. The evidence doesn't rule out either possibility.

Almost nothing is consistent with an eternal universe and what tiny amount is, is in the most unreliable category of science there is.

This is inaccurate, and irrelevant anyways. If multiverse/cyclical/eternal universe models were not consistent with all but a "tiny amount" of evidence, this would mean they were contradicted by the majority of the evidence- in other words, that they have been refuted. They have not. Clearly this is a confused and mistaken claim. You may not find them plausible, but they have not been refuted- they remain credible and viable (neither established nor discredited) hypohteses.

They are not considered credible or viable.

Not by you. You, however, are not a physicist, so you don't really count. They are considered viable by physicists- even ones who don't endorse them would admit that they are at least credible.

If you can not agree with that or a version that is very similar then there is no resolution possible.

Because, as it stands, it is nonsense. There is no "more" or "less" consistent. And you've provided zero evidence for your claim that more scientists favor the models with a beginning than those which do not, the only plausible claim you've tried to make so far.

And once again, all this is ultimately moot since, even if we knew conclusively that there was a beginning of the universe, it would not follow that God did it, or that anything remotely like a theistic God exists at all. They just aren't necessarily related.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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.

A few more notes here. The most reliable model/theory in cosmology is, by far, the BBT. There aren't really others. And the BBT doesn't speak to the issue of a beginning. But in the absence of a quantum theory of gravity, even if this were true (it is not, it is based on a nonsensical premise, i.e. "more" consistency), it wouldn't matter a whit- since we know that, at the period in question, quantum effects would take over, any inferences we draw from classical theories is basically worthless with respect to the very early universe.

But as if it really needed pointing out, your bias and absolute lack of impartiality is on full display here- when someone characterizes what are considered viable alternatives by experts in the relevant field as "fantasies", its pretty clear they are simply looking to vindicate their personal beliefs and have little regard for truth or accuracy, if the truth turns out to be other than what they happen to believe already.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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.

That's a claim, not a piece of evidence. A claim which, as it happens, admits of no corroboration. Indeed, the causal closure of the physical is a principle of which no violation is known. Oops.

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.

Contrary to what physicists are saying... But you only care what they have to say when (you think) it happens to support your pet beliefs, right?

3. There exists virtually no possibility stuff has always existed.

Except for, you know, the logical possibility that it does, and the fact that eternal or cyclical models are both credible and intuitive (and endorsed by some experts).

4. We have the natural but it did not come from the natural.

Facts not in evidence. This is a really poor argument, even for you.

 

[1robin]

It's truly a shame that someone here accuses others of "ignorance" simply because they disagree with his elevation of his beliefs to the level of fact. In this case, I am so glad to be "ignorant".

I knew there was no way I could use ignorance that an insecure person would not get upset about even when I included what it actually means.

No one who understands the concept of cause and effect and understands the concept of the Biblical God would ask what caused God?

The question is not applicable. I assumed (actually it must be a fact) that you did not understand the concept of God because the question has no application.

Ignorance means you do not know. It does not mean your stupid.

I did not disagree with your beliefs. I disagreed with the question because it has no relevance and means nothing.

 

[1robin]

Now you're just being dishonest. You know what you said. I know what you said. It's been repeated many times over the past several pages. I'm not going to spend 15 minutes searching for the original post- you claimed that the most accepted or standard theory in cosmology posits a beginning of the universe, however you put it exactly. And the most accepted/standard theory in cosmology is the BBT- which does not posit any beginning of the universe. Your statement was misleading at best, false at worst, which is why having moved the goalposts was probably a good call.


Not the original point, because while Hawking or Vilenkin could be said to be authorities on the BBT, if they are talking about their own hypotheses which are distinct from the BBT, and DO include a beginning of the universe, this isn't relevant to your claim and doesn't help you. Once again, I'm guessing I'll have to make this point about six more times for it to sink in.


Um, getting bogged down talking about irrelevant topics? For the last time, neither Hawking's proposal nor Vilenkin's theorem are the most accepted theory in cosmology, so I really don't care about them here- they fall outside the scope of your claim.


Consistency is a logical relation in which there is no contradiction. Since contradiction isn't a matter of degrees, neither is consistency. Look it up.


Because it wasn't entirely accurate. The evidence doesn't rule out either possibility.


This is inaccurate, and irrelevant anyways. If multiverse/cyclical/eternal universe models were not consistent with all but a "tiny amount" of evidence, this would mean they were contradicted by the majority of the evidence- in other words, that they have been refuted. They have not. Clearly this is a confused and mistaken claim. You may not find them plausible, but they have not been refuted- they remain credible and viable (neither established nor discredited) hypohteses.


Not by you. You, however, are not a physicist, so you don't really count. They are considered viable by physicists- even ones who don't endorse them would admit that they are at least credible.


Because, as it stands, it is nonsense. There is no "more" or "less" consistent. And you've provided zero evidence for your claim that more scientists favor the models with a beginning than those which do not, the only plausible claim you've tried to make so far.

And once again, all this is ultimately moot since, even if we knew conclusively that there was a beginning of the universe, it would not follow that God did it, or that anything remotely like a theistic God exists at all. They just aren't necessarily related.

You have no interest in letting evidence decide this issue. Probably because you have theological objections to the most reliable science. Don't worry you are not alone. Many scientists admit they do it as well. Of course they did admit it and you have not. I have tried every means I know of to arrive at a conclusion to what is an obvious fact. However, you do not wish to resolve this so the whole discussion has no purpose. I will leave you to your preferred reality for now.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That's fine- we both know you have no interest in facts, but only in justifying your own beliefs which you hold come what may (i.e. irrespective of any facts or evidence).

I've adequately exposed and corrected your misrepresentation of contemporary cosmology (even got you to admit to it, after a fashion), which was my purpose- that's good enough for me.

 

[1robin]

That's a claim, not a piece of evidence. A claim which, as it happens, admits of no corroboration. Indeed, the causal closure of the physical is a principle of which no violation is known. Oops.

Apparently you have no access to law, books, or even TV. Every courtroom on earth uses testimony to determine the factual nature of a claim and considers it evidence if found reliable. The tests used to determine the reliability of testimony were actually written by a man in many cases who claims the Gospels pass them all. Many of the greatest experts on testimony in human history agree completely. You have made all kinds of claims about the metaphysical that have no testimony to even evaluate but deny testimony (and mountains of it) by those with access to the events recorded by thousands when it concerns even the empirical. Double standards are the indication of a failed argument.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."
Many impartial students who have approached the resurrection of Chris with a judicial spirit have been compelled by the weight of the evidence to belief in the resurrection as a fact of history. An example may be taken from a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey:
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."
Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:
"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html

A thousand examples just like this exist by histories greatest experts on evidence and testimony.

Now give me a list of experts who say nothing ever created something. The ones I know say that is a preposterous suggestion and distance themselves from it as fast as possible.

Contrary to what physicists are saying... But you only care what they have to say when (you think) it happens to support your pet beliefs, right?

So physicists claim that something does not exist. That would eliminate the one making the claim. Nice logic there.

Find me a single example of a respected physicist claiming that something ever claim from nothing, nothing exists, or find any example of something coming from nothing that nature produced. Until you do every thing you said is wrong and everything I said is correct. Good luck.

Except for, you know, the logical possibility that it does, and the fact that eternal or cyclical models are both credible and intuitive (and endorsed by some experts).

Any possibility it has nothing whatever to do with logic and defies all the logic that does exist. Please enlighten the world with a logical proof that nothing can create. Until you do well you know the rest.

Facts not in evidence. This is a really poor argument, even for you.

There are no examples of stuff that cannot happen. That is why everyone knows it can't. The only proof that can exist for that is that nothing did create something. Until you provide it well you know.

This exact argument is agreed to by almost every scientists and philosopher who ever lived. It has existed since the Greeks or earlier and has no demonstrable exception and no reason whatever ever to even suggest there exists a reliable theory that it potentially has any. Every aspect of reality is consistent with what I claim and no known except exists but thanks for playing I guess.

 

[metis]

I knew there was no way I could use ignorance that an insecure person would not get upset about even when I included what it actually means.

Oh, so now I'm "insecure". Wow, imagine you doing psychoanalysis on me and I don't even have to pay you. Unbelievable-- and truly, truly pathetic.

 

[1robin]

Oh, so now I'm "insecure". Wow, imagine you doing psychoanalysis on me and I don't even have to pay you. Unbelievable-- and truly, truly pathetic.

These are pretty reliable determinations. You ask a question about a concept which has no application to that concept possible. You probably do not understand the concept. I say you do not understand the concept and you make it a point to claim that no one should ever say you do not know anything. If a person appears offended by something as inoffensive and universally true as saying they do not know everything, then they are probably insecure. Pretty straightforward and reasonable.

 

[1robin]

That's fine- we both know you have no interest in facts, but only in justifying your own beliefs which you hold come what may (i.e. irrespective of any facts or evidence).

I've adequately exposed and corrected your misrepresentation of contemporary cosmology (even got you to admit to it, after a fashion), which was my purpose- that's good enough for me.

What is this? I know you are but what am I? I got out of middle school quite a while back.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Apparently you have no access to law, books, or even TV. Every courtroom on earth uses testimony to determine the factual nature of a claim and considers it evidence if found reliable. The tests used to determine the reliability of testimony were actually written by a man in many cases who claims the Gospels pass them all. Many of the greatest experts on testimony in human history agree completely. You have made all kinds of claims about the metaphysical that have no testimony to even evaluate but deny testimony (and mountains of it) by those with access to the events recorded by thousands when it concerns even the empirical. Double standards are the indication of a failed argument.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."
Many impartial students who have approached the resurrection of Chris with a judicial spirit have been compelled by the weight of the evidence to belief in the resurrection as a fact of history. An example may be taken from a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey:
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."
Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:
"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

A thousand examples just like this exist by histories greatest experts on evidence and testimony.

Hardly histories greatest experts- we have here a couple of (probably Christian) writers making highly contentious claims. Questionable anecdotes aside, the causal closure of the physical is a principle of which no violation has even been encountered.

Now give me a list of experts who say nothing ever created something. The ones I know say that is a preposterous suggestion and distance themselves from it as fast as possible.

Tryon, Krauss, Filippenko- and that's just off the top of my head. As we move closer towards a quantum theory of gravity, its looking more and more like "something from nothing" is pretty much what happened. As usual, our intuitions are a poor guide as to what is the case when it comes to physics- in fact, quite frequently what initially strikes us as "preposterous" (such as relativity, quantum stochastics, etc.) turns out to be exactly what is going on.

Any possibility it has nothing whatever to do with logic and defies all the logic that does exist. Please enlighten the world with a logical proof that nothing can create. Until you do well you know the rest.

Given that you've shown time and time again your utter ignorance regarding technical terms in logic (case in point, "more consistency"), you're in no position to say this. And its uncontroversial that an eternal or cyclical universe is logically possible- it is not self-contradictory (that's what logical possibility means). It is also considered a viable physical possibility by physicists, so once again, your claim has no merit.

This exact argument is agreed to by almost every scientists and philosopher who ever lived.

You haven't made any argument- you've asserted that the natural can't come from the natural, despite there being zero evidence for this claim. We have no reason for thinking the natural can't come from the natural- indeed, the opposite of this is a principle which, like the causal closure of the physical, has never been violated so far as we know.

 

[1robin]

Hardly histories greatest experts- we have here a couple of (probably Christian) writers making highly contentious claims. Questionable anecdotes aside, the causal closure of the physical is a principle of which no violation has even been encountered.

Well I was not aware that the only people who can not be used for Christianity's claims are those that believed them. Actually many of these guys became Christians because they decided as atheists to prove the bible wrong and gave it up. God must have some special delight in converting those who are his greatest enemies because it happens very often. He even converted the most hostile and powerful empire against Christians in history.

Anyway I never said they were histories greatest historians. I mentioned something about histories greatest experts in testimony and evidence, and even that was not in reference to the few quotes I gave. However all those scholars are very respected and competent.

Did you notice not one objection you made had anything to do with what the claim was. Again you are only judging my word use and even doing that wrong. Is there any way to get you to evaluate the actually issues using reasonable means?

Experts on testimony, evidence, and history (some among the greatest in history) claim the Bible meets every test there is and your response beyond semantics is nu-uh.

Tryon, Krauss, Filippenko- and that's just off the top of my head. As we move closer towards a quantum theory of gravity, its looking more and more like "something from nothing" is pretty much what happened. As usual, our intuitions are a poor guide as to what is the case when it comes to physics- in fact, quite frequently what initially strikes us as "preposterous" (such as relativity, quantum stochastics, etc.) turns out to be exactly what is going on.

Actually that was my mistake. Give me a list or links (not names) to their claiming this. I can't imagine anyone with beyond a high school education ever claiming nothing has creative potential. I want to see it because I cannot imagine anyone hat smart saying anything that utterly devoid of any possibility of being true and with no evidence ever being available of any kind even if it was true. I really want links to them saying this. The Quantum never has nor probably ever will be said to produce something from nothing. This is one very common mistake. The Quantum always has a something first (usually fluctuating energy fields) which might be hard to see but are something not nothing. How is the nothing that produced something a part of the Quantum anyway. Nothing is not equal to the quantum. Nothing does not equal anything. It is not physics, not math, not a car, not a house, not in a box, I do not like green eggs and ham. Nothing is not part of any term that describes something. I thought you hyper semantic filter would have picked up on that but it is probably tuned only by preference.

Given that you've shown time and time again your utter ignorance regarding technical terms in logic (case in point, "more consistency"), you're in no position to say this. And its uncontroversial that an eternal or cyclical universe is logically possible- it is not self-contradictory (that's what logical possibility means). It is also considered a viable physical possibility by physicists, so once again, your claim has no merit.

I made it through the first sentence and gave up. You are just not going to debate the issue are you?

You haven't made any argument- you've asserted that the natural can't come from the natural, despite there being zero evidence for this claim. We have no reason for thinking the natural can't come from the natural- indeed, the opposite of this is a principle which, like the causal closure of the physical, has never been violated so far as we know.

More garbage about me that has not one single shred of relevance or possibility of being true.

I am never going to get a debate about the actual issues but if I can get the quotes of any respected scientists claiming nothing has ever produced anything I will be happy.

Heck even drugged out 70 hippy rock bands knew nothing comes from nothing.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well I was not aware that the only people who can not be used for Christianity's claims are those that believed them. Actually many of these guys became Christians because they decided as atheists to prove the bible wrong and gave it up. God must have some special delight in converting those who are his greatest enemies because it happens very often. He even converted the most hostile and powerful empire against Christians in history.

Um, ok... And?

Anyway I never said they were histories greatest historians. I mentioned something about histories greatest experts in testimony and evidence, and even that was not in reference to the few quotes I gave. However all those scholars are very respected and competent.

And yet, their opinions certainly don't give us an instance of a violation of the causal closure of the physical.

Did you notice not one objection you made had anything to do with what the claim was.

Experts on testimony, evidence, and history (some among the greatest in history) claim the Bible meets every test there is and your response beyond semantics is nu-uh.

Still hiding behind this "semantics" nonsense. You simply characterize any claim or argument you don't understand, or contradicts your claims, as "semantics".

Actually that was my mistake. Give me a list or links (not names) to their claiming this.

Krauss recently released a book on the subject, A Universe From Nothing, and here's an article by Filippenko. And applying QM to the early universe is popular thing in cosmology right now, I'd imagine there are plenty others who have released works making similar claims in the last few years.

I can't imagine anyone with beyond a high school education ever claiming nothing has creative potential. I want to see it because I cannot imagine anyone hat smart saying anything that utterly devoid of any possibility of being true and with no evidence ever being available of any kind even if it was true. I really want links to them saying this.

Your argument from incredulity is not especially compelling, needless to say...

I made it through the first sentence and gave up. You are just not going to debate the issue are you?

Says the guy who is unwilling to actually respond to counter-arguments, either categorically dismissing objections as mere "semantics", or... well, because you simply don't feel like reading I guess, as in this case.

More garbage about me that has not one single shred of relevance or possibility of being true.

Read more carefully- not about you. It was an accurate description of the exchange so far; you had made a bare assertion, one which is contrary to a principle to which there are no known exceptions, and provided zero evidence for it. And I simply stated that fact.

Heck even drugged out 70 hippy rock bands knew nothing comes from nothing.

Ah, then it must be true.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And for those that may be interested, here is an interview with Krauss about his new book, Universe From Nothing.