INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Last I heard....the starting 'point' of all things.

If you can believe that all of the universe (the one word) can have a singular starting 'point'....
Then all that is left is to decide of that 'point' was made of substance...
or Spirit.

If you say substance...than all that we are is a complex accident.
And there can be no resolve for the presence of Man....at all.

If you say Spirit.....then maybe we can 'Continue'.

No it's starting point of our universe.

What's the obsession with man needing reason? What about animals what's their reason? Do they have souls? Or spirits? Or are they doomed to just live and die.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

The first problem occurs when one tries to use the words 'rational' and 'God' in the same sentence. Then, when one realises they cannot, it immediately switches to the 'default' of the human brain and thinking process: "If God cannot be rationalized, God is irrational. Irrational things do not exist - therefore, God does not exist".

I could say that 'God is totally outside the realm of limited human understanding' but that looks like a Theist 'cop out' doesn't it? I mean, somebody with half a brain could say 'well, if God isn't meant to be 'understood', then how can I 'understand' God'? Yeah, case rested.

Just because something cannot be proven as existing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist...doesn't necessarily mean it does either, but the option is there for a deity to exist, where there would otherwise be none.

I am a very logical an responsible person and I am not given in to superstition nor would I believe in anything that 'didn't exist'.....and let's face it, I really don't need to 'believe in God' because I know God exists I just know it and I 'know beyond knowing' know it!

Sometimes, I see a person who wants to feel Lord Shiva in their heart and I wish I could share just even 1% of it. So, is God just an emotion for me? not existing in any real form beyond that?

Well yes...and no, but if you could feel that, then you'd know it too.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Last I heard....the starting 'point' of all things.

Only, its starting to look more likely that this is not the case. Relativity predicts the "initial singularity"- relativity, which breaks down when it gets to the quantum level.

If you can believe that all of the universe (the one word) can have a singular starting 'point'....

What you can believe is sort of irrelevant here- we can believe all sorts of things. The question is what is there good reason to believe, and there are two points here- 1. we're having less good reason to believe there was such a thing as an initial singularity, and 2. we have no good reason to believe any initial singularity has anything even remotely to do with occult entities like gods in the first place.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

How I see it, is that if people don't believe, they simply don't, full stop. I never saw the point in being an Atheist and trying to get others to 'prove God'. I mean, if they really didn't believe in God, they wouldn't even care, would they? So what's that all about?

I came into this thread with a million reasons as to why I personally believe God exists and now, I cannot even remember a single one of them...funny that.

All I can do is fall back on 'personal experience' which means squat in the real world and even less online...put it another way, if there were any way to prove the existence of God to you all, trust me, I would.

Pics or it didn't happen, right?

It just seems like I read into some of these posts "I want to be able to believe"...."I only wish I could believe"..."Give me enough reason to believe and I will..."

Why do you want to believe in God even though you say you don't hmmm?

Please understand this - God is in the wanting!

Just wanting proof means you already have it.

Don't believe me? Close your eyes, shut out your silly, critical/overcriticising mind and just open your heart up to the endless possibilities of the universe....just do it.

 

[mystic64]

I noticed this statement (that is so incoherent I can't understand it) was substituted for the evidence I asked for. Give me the evidence I asked for, not commentary that is an attempt to distract from the fact it does not exist.

My evidence is on the other internet, the super high speed one that science uses to share information and most of that is encrypted. So Robin I do not have any evidence. You win .

 

[PolyHedral]

How I see it, is that if people don't believe, they simply don't, full stop. I never saw the point in being an Atheist and trying to get others to 'prove God'. I mean, if they really didn't believe in God, they wouldn't even care, would they? So what's that all about?

We care because other people care.

 

[Agnostic75]

The Gospels are record of oral testimony in the exact same way depositions are. Legally the probability of reliability of testimony is the issue never it's certainty. The Gospels pass all tests for reliability but none exist for certainty in any court room or history book. I have covered the copies reliability so will not revisit that issue.

But as I have told you before, even if all of the New Testament manuscripts were copied 100% correctly, that does not reasonably prove the God inspired them. I have also told you about Dr. Richard Carrier's article at The Formation of the New Testament Canon about the formation of the New Testament canon. The article shows that the formation of the New Testament canon is questionable. As far as I know, you have never commented on the article.

Four of your own sources, Borde, Guth, Vilenkin, and Penrose, have never agreed with your claim that God is the best explanation for the universe. An article at Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe | Debunking William Lane Craig shows that you, and William Lane Craig, have misrepresented their research.

You put Penrose on a pedestal, but he says that energy probably existed briefly before the big bang, and he believes that it is reasonably possible that other universes exist.

Part of the article that I mentioned says:

"However, Craig’s main problem is that a beginning of the universe can still be described in scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from 'absolute nothingness' (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true."

I once said that you are a dabbler in quantum physics. You replied that even the experts are dabblers. That is true from a certain perspective, but what I meant was that you are not capable of having some intelligent, informed discussions with some experts about what little we do know about quantum physics. You embarrassed yourself since the less that experts know about quantum physics, and the more counter-intuitive it is, the less that dabblers like you should discuss it.

Quantum physics is often counter-intuitive to amateurs. Most people are amateurs, and they do not know enough about quantum physics to have scientifically informed opinions about it. The majority of leading physicists do not believe in God, and the National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God. All of that indicates that most people should not waste their time discussing quantum physics. Even most experts who discuss it know that science cannot presently reasonably prove or disprove the existence of God.

 

[1robin]

Demonstrating that neither you, nor your friends, have anything approaching an elementary grasp on the relevant issues and concepts. And, as it happens, I got a good chuckle out of reading this post. One prolonged argument from incredulity.

In any case, you've immolated yourself in a field of strawmen here; you're critiquing a book you have not read, RE a subject you are wholly ignorant of and are in little or no position to evaluate, simply because it sounds weird to you (and is inconvenient to your religious commitments). Needless to say, that you dismiss the opinions of qualified experts, before even reading those opinions, basically renders your own opinion completely irrelevant. (and are they necessarily right, because they're experts? Of course not. But they can't be dismissed by the mere wave of a hand, i.e. your fallacious appeal to incredulity. I'd say "nice try", but it really wasn't- it was sort of a lazy try...)

Well whatever else your post is, it is not what I asked for. It is your burden not mine. Even if my quotes or evidence is invalid (which is not true) at least I attempted to supply something. Will you ever do so?

Nothing here is a quote from a cosmologist claiming anything came from nothing.
It does not contain anything of any kind that speaks to that matter at all.

It is more of the same semantic technicality, fallcies where arguments should be, and buzz words used to keep someone from actually having to respond to a cliam or prove one of their own.

I will say again you are like a lawyer who has a client who they know is guilty beyond any doubt, but who is objecting, yelling procedural foul, and distracting the DA by rhetoric. Even if your objections were valid your client is still guilty. I am interested in justice not the welfare of a guilty man.

Where are the quotes?
Where is the evidence for something ever coming from nothing?

I am intent on resolving that issue with you if you will allow it. If I forget to respond to everything else you have posted after that please remind me if you wish a response. However I will not deviate. Quotes and evidence please.

BTW what book did I not read? Hawking's book?

 

[1robin]

Somehow you've got this attitude that insulting and demeaning others seemingly reflects your faith, but I have to wonder what kind of faith that really is?

Micah 6[8]: He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

On what basis do you claim I have been insulting?
On what basis do you claim any insulting arose from my faith?

Ignorance is a fact and is not an insult unless the person it is said about incorrectly takes it as stupidity, and only an insecure person would do so.

Do you have anything pertaining to the original issue to offer?

God needs no creator, it is not an issue that needs to be resolved.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

On what basis do you claim I have been insulting?
On what basis do you claim any insulting arose from my faith?

Ignorance is a fact and is not an insult unless the person it is said about incorrectly takes it as stupidity, and only an insecure person would do so.

Do you have anything pertaining to the original issue to offer?

God needs no creator, it is not an issue that needs to be resolved.

why doesn't God need a creator?

 

[metis]

On what basis do you claim I have been insulting?

So, you honestly think that accusing a person of having "ignorance" and then following it up by calling that person "insecure" is not insulting? Unbelievable.

On what basis do you claim any insulting arose from my faith?

Because in some faiths, including Judaism, publicly demeaning another is considered morally unacceptable. The fact that you insult so many here seems to suggest that your faith teaches that it's OK to demean others. Either that or you just ignore the teachings that say otherwise. So, which is it?

Ignorance is a fact and is not an insult unless the person it is said about incorrectly takes it as stupidity, and only an insecure person would do so.

When used to attack another, which you do actually quite often to numerous people here, this is an attempt to demean them. All we have to do is to look back at any number of your posts to see your sarcasm and insults, and then denying that you're doing that frankly is just a lie. It's so pathetic that you feel a need to resort to such disingenuous tactics.

God needs no creator, it is not an issue that needs to be resolved.

And exactly how do you know that? Were you there at "creation"? And how exactly do you know it's not "Gods"? Over and over again you're making claims that are fine and dandy as far as beliefs are concerned, but they're hardly slam-dunk facts.

 

[metis]

Here's an article that well articulates the different positions on this, and please note the conclusion at the end. The article is entitled "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists" by Sean Carroll at the California Institute of Technology: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Since it is cosmologists that are pretty much the experts on the Big Bang, and since they overwhelming question any theistic cause, that should tell anyone something.

 

[metis]

Even though what I post next provides no scientific evidence one way or the other, nevertheless it provides some interesting insight that some here might find interesting. Here's a segment:

Question:
Do Buddhists believe in a god?

Answer:
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says: "Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines."
Dp. 188...

The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea... They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god...

The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin of the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god's power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding...

Question:
But so many people believe in some form of god, it must be true.

Answer:
Not so. There was a time when everyone believed that the world was flat, but they were all wrong. The number of people who believe in an idea is no measure of the truth or falsehood of that idea. The only way we can tell whether an idea is true or not is by looking at the facts and examining the evidence. -- A Basic Buddhism Guide: Buddhism and the God-idea

 

[Thief]

No it's starting point of our universe.

What's the obsession with man needing reason? What about animals what's their reason? Do they have souls? Or spirits? Or are they doomed to just live and die.

We are all doomed to die.
But not all perish.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

We are all doomed to die.
But not all perish.

So you're afraid to perish.

 

[Thief]

Only, its starting to look more likely that this is not the case. Relativity predicts the "initial singularity"- relativity, which breaks down when it gets to the quantum level.


What you can believe is sort of irrelevant here- we can believe all sorts of things. The question is what is there good reason to believe, and there are two points here- 1. we're having less good reason to believe there was such a thing as an initial singularity, and 2. we have no good reason to believe any initial singularity has anything even remotely to do with occult entities like gods in the first place.

Someone had to be First...in mind and heart.
I label that as Creator.
as it seems to me.....Sprit before substance.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Where are the quotes?
Where is the evidence for something ever coming from nothing?

I posted an interview with Krauss, in which he discusses the book and describes the general idea. In any case, I haven't read the book, and didn't suggest that I necessarily accept or agree with the idea- but you stated it as if it was an uncontroversial fact that something cannot come from nothing, when this is precisely what at least some physicists are starting to think did happen. I was simply pointing out that, once again, you've simply made a bare assertion and categorically dismissed the credible opinions of experts who disagree with you by a mere wave of the hand.

BTW what book did I not read? Hawking's book?

No, Universe From Nothing- you know, the one you were ridiculing and laughing about despite not having read it, and not really having even the slightest idea about its subject matter...

 

[Thief]

So you're afraid to perish.

Nay.
To stand before God is a greater fear.

He might allow me to live....in oblivion.

 

[metis]

Some may find this interesting:

Pratītyasamutpāda (Sanskrit; Pali: paticcasamuppāda) is commonly translated as dependent origination or dependent arising. The term is used in the Buddhist teachings in two senses:
On a general level, it refers to one of the central concepts in the Buddhist tradition—that all things arise in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions...

The principle of pratītyasamutpāda is the basis for the Buddhist view that it is not possible to identify a beginning or origin of the world or universe. According to the Buddhist view, since all phenomena are dependent upon multiple causes and conditions, it can not be said that there was a first cause or event that sparked the creation of the universe. Thus Buddhist philosophy refutes the concepts of either a creator god or an initial event as posited in the "big bang theory". Dhammananda Maha Thera explains:[30]
Modern science says that some millions of years ago, the newly cooled earth was lifeless and that life originated in the ocean. Buddhism never claimed that the world, sun, moon, stars, wind, water, days and nights were created by a powerful god or by a Buddha. Buddhists believe that the world was not created once upon a time, but that the world has been created millions of times every second and will continue to do so by itself and will break away by itself. According to Buddhism, world systems always appear and disappear in the universe. -- Prat

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Nay.
To stand before God is a greater fear.

He might allow me to live....in oblivion.

Why fear God? Why Call God a He?