INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Enai de a lukal]

Someone had to be First...in mind and heart.

No, not necessarily.

I label that as Creator.

Clearly you are willing to be generous in the application of that title, since even if there were any first cause, it needn't be anything like a god.

as it seems to me.....Sprit before substance.

A meaningless slogan.

 

[1robin]

why doesn't God need a creator?

He was not created. I am very surprised people still ask this.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

He was not created. I am very surprised people still ask this.

So where does God exist?

 

[1robin]

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.

I guess there is no hope discussing the issues so what the heck. Insult is a quality of motivation and spirit in which something is received. I have no motivation to insult you at this or that time. I make truthful observations to the best of my ability. I hate PC garbage and rarely withhold a valid point because of the spirit which our over sensitive modern times may view it in. I am rarely purposely insulting but will say what I believe is true if applicable and relevant.

1. You and I do not know everything - we are in fact ignorant.
2. A person who obsesses about a fact that is relevant and every mild is overly sensitive.

I can apply sensitivity and ignorance to someone without meaning the slightest insult. Exactly where is the fault and where is the rational behind being obsessed about being called either one of those terms. You make them more and more likely to be true with every post about them.

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?

I do not have the time to research every cultural group on Earth and find out what they might consider insulting and in out hyper sensitive trivial culture I no longer wish to if I could. My first claim is a fact and not an insult anyway. My second is being proven more true with each of your posts and is not insulting unless the person wishes it to be. Actually we are all insecure in some manner and there for it was a fact. I am insecure about a few things. However I would probably admit it and would not obsess about it.

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.

Oh come off it. You have no idea what an attack is if you thought that was. You may not be in the righty place. Debate is no place for hyper sensitivity.

And exactly how do you know that?

That is what is true of the concept of God. If God needed a creator he would not be God. God is a maximal being even within the philosophers concept of God and within the concept as given by the three greatest religions in history. This is getting ridiculous.

Were you there at "creation"?

Do I have to be to know that an eternal concept has no need of a creator?

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.

I am speaking about concepts as they are defined. Not about actualities I have witnessed (I have witnessed them to a certain extent but that is not what I have been talking about). Whether he exists or not the God in question (you have used scripture so we know which concept applies) is of single non created God. If you wish to now switch to some far less evidenced form of God then have at it but I am not interested personally. You have been discussing the Biblical concept of God. He is one and he is uncreated and there for has no need of a creator.

 

[1robin]

So you're afraid to perish.

The fear of non-existence is common to all species and to you (if not pathological). That is not what inspires faith 9 out of 10 times, our faith (however even if it did it is not invalid). Denying a solution by denying the problem is not valid. Alexander said that he believed that fear of death inspires all men. Anyone who would deny such an obvious part of existence no longer desires reality to be included in a discussion. I never met a Christian who was saved because he was scared but I have met many who lost almost al fear of death by being saved. Even being very generous this would be a genetic fallacy. To deny the factual nature of faith by assuming a false inspiration of it is a disservice to your self.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The fear of non-existence is common to all species and to you (if not pathological). That is not what inspires faith 9 out of 10 times, our faith (however even if it did it is not invalid). Denying a solution by denying the problem is not valid. Alexander said that he believed that fear of death inspires all men. Anyone who would deny such an obvious part of existence no longer desires reality to be included in a discussion. I never met a Christian who was saved because he was scared but I have met many who lost almost al fear of death by being saved. Even being very generous this would be a genetic fallacy. To deny the factual nature of faith by assuming a false inspiration of it is a disservice to your self.

Uh-huh.

Still the question wasn't aimed at you. The fear of non-existence is a great motivator, and the fear does not need to be crippling. The issue isn't that you die, the issue is that all you do now, doesn't mean anything. If there is no afterlife, what need is there for you to be moral? Is it the only reason, of course not, there are plenty who believe in their faith without the need of an after-life. His response seems to hinge on the need for one, due to not wanting to perish.

 

[1robin]

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.

Before I get into what he said, is this the sum total of the cosmologists that claim something came from nothing? The fact someone claims up is down and left is right does not mean it is controversial. It is not. Nothing does not exist for anything to come from and has no causal potential whatever no matter what anyone says (and almost no ones says anything different).

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...

I have seen many experts in mathematics, cosmology, and philosophy critique his book exhaustively. I even offered you links. However I did not contend with his book. I contended with on of his statements and it's full context and the nature of one of it's statements which required no context to do so. I read everything associated with its context but it was unnecessary. I know what it is for a layman such as myself to criticize something a genius like Hawking has said. Only in the case where what is said is self contradictory or it's truth being impossible would I have done so and those who I confirmed it with have every qualification to do so. I have no idea what Hawking's ability is concerning cosmology but he is a terrible philosopher and unfortunately for him and for those that revere him all of his claims concerning or impacting God are completely philosophical. His science ability has no relevance concerning God. There exists no context possible where his statement makes sense and does not destroy its self.

The arguments I made about nothing have never been contended nor attempted. The quotes I have requested are missing (beyond a reference for one) and not even a reason why my statement about Dawkins claim was wrong has been supplied. I am have all but abandoned any hope that you value or will even permit anything to be resolved. Every discussion concerns things that have no potential to resolve anything despite exhaustive insistence and attempts to do so. Truth is apparently a bridge too far, to request and no hope exists it will be acquiesced to you. I can't resolve what another refuses to allow to be.

I looked into Kraus's book. It has nothing to do with "nothingness" Every nothing he proposes is something. Just as Haking did. The only nothingness involved is the amount of science involved. It is all philosophical and all wrong. I don't mean wrong like probably not right. I mean impossible. How many critiques from non-theists are required. How many scientific critiques do I need to supply. What they say has nothing what so ever to do with non-being. Three is always something involved in their nothing.

 

[1robin]

Uh-huh.

Still the question wasn't aimed at you. The fear of non-existence is a great motivator, and the fear does not need to be crippling. The issue isn't that you die, the issue is that all you do now, doesn't mean anything. If there is no afterlife, what need is there for you to be moral? Is it the only reason, of course not, there are plenty who believe in their faith without the need of an after-life. His response seems to hinge on the need for one, due to not wanting to perish.

I know it wasn't aimed at me. I was giving my views on it. If you found no use for them then feel free to ignore them. Even if fear was the motivator for every Christian who ever lived it could not create what does not exist. It can't produce an experience with Christ if that experience is invalid. It is not the motivation but even if it was it would still not compromise faith claims.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I know it wasn't aimed at me. I was giving my views on it. If you found no use for them then feel free to ignore them. Even if fear was the motivator for every Christian who ever lived it could not create what does not exist. It can't produce an experience with Christ if that experience is invalid. It is not the motivation but even if it was it would still not compromise faith claims.

I'm sure at the least that Thief's views are not similar to yours, so i'm interested in his point.

I'm sure that it plays a part in the motivation. Claims are claims, whether spiritual/faith claims are valid will probably never be known, however their motivations can be seen, whether those motivations are accurate or not, shrug.

Essentially you can have the premise entirely wrong but come up with the right conclusion.

 

[1robin]

So where does God exist?

This question has no relevance to the other. However he exists in time and outside of time, he exists in space and independent from it, he can manifest himself through matter but is not composed of matter. He exists everywhere. I do not even see the relevance or meaning of the question exactly. I am quite sure it was an attempt to produce something that would allow you to go "ah - ha" so ????????? but I will await that since the context will not be apparent until then. Things find their existence in him not the other way around.

 

[1robin]

I'm sure at the least that Thief's views are not similar to yours, so i'm interested in his point.

Very well.

I'm sure that it plays a part in the motivation. Claims are claims, whether spiritual/faith claims are valid will probably never be known, however their motivations can be seen, whether those motivations are accurate or not, shrug.

I did not get this.

Essentially you can have the premise entirely wrong but come up with the right conclusion.

I do not think you can get the premise wrong in the case of Christianity and get the conclusion right. I do not even think a non-valid motivation exists that produce the right result in this case. I was saying that regardless of what you think of the motivation (even if it was the motivation) would not effect what it produced. Nothing could produce something that did not exist.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

This question has no relevance to the other. However he exists in time and outside of time, he exists in space and independent from it, he can manifest himself through matter but is not composed of matter. He exists everywhere. I do not even see the relevance or meaning of the question exactly. I am quite sure it was an attempt to produce something that would allow you to go "ah - ha" so ????????? but I will await that since the context will not be apparent until then. Things find their existence in him not the other way around.

So is God natural or not unnatural? How can something exist in and out of time?

My point is that you said that God is supernatural, Time is a natural thing, so how can something super natural exist in the Natural? At what point is it still super natural? If God exists out of Time, then how does God interfere with the Natural? And would God be considered Natural where God exists?

Is it another Universe? A pocket Universe? The Bible seems to make it clear that God exists within the heavens (prior to knowledge of anything like the Universe), we now know the Universe is much larger than the heavens as described for instance in Genesis.

We also have multiple explanations of God manifesting in human form on the earth in the book of Genesis, and at least one point described "as coming down" meaning that God exists on a plane above our own (normally called heaven), so where is heaven?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Very well.

I did not get this.

I do not think you can get the premise wrong in the case of Christianity and get the conclusion right. I do not even think a non-valid motivation exists that produce the right result in this case. I was saying that regardless of what you think of the motivation (even if it was the motivation) would not effect what it produced. Nothing could produce something that did not exist.

You can very well get the premises wrong, because the premise of what it means to be a Christian has from the very beginning been up in the air. It wasn't until the first Council of Nicea (maybe before), that there was an establishment of what was required, and what a Christian was. Since then it has been debated and further splintering has occurred multiple times in the faith. So the premises can be wrong, the conclusions can be right. In the same way the premises can be correct but the wrong conclusions drawn.

"natural" things cannot produce what does not exist, but something does not need to exist in a way that is accurate for premises to be drawn from them.

 

[1robin]

You can very well get the premises wrong, because the premise of what it means to be a Christian has from the very beginning been up in the air. It wasn't until the first Council of Nicea (maybe before), that there was an establishment of what was required, and what a Christian was. Since then it has been debated and further splintering has occurred multiple times in the faith. So the premises can be wrong, the conclusions can be right. In the same way the premises can be correct but the wrong conclusions drawn.

I never said it could not be gotten wrong. I said if it was it would not produce the correct result. I disagree but you have not shown that a false premise will ever produce one Christian. At best you have shown that confusion existed as to what the right premise was. I have no idea why you did as disagreement exists for almost every claim that exists of any type. Yet the truth of the mater is not denied because disagreement exists.

"natural" things cannot produce what does not exist, but something does not need to exist in a way that is accurate for premises to be drawn from them.

I agree that the natural cannot bring anything into existence. That has nothing o do with premises that produce results. I can think putting coal in the gas tank is a correct premise but I won't go anywhere. Only a correct premise produces correct results. I can believe Satan died on the cross until I die. I will never be born again.

 

[1robin]

So is God natural or not unnatural? How can something exist in and out of time?

Now that is an example where a false premise produced a false result. Where did you get this? God in not natural in the sense we mean it anyway. He produced natural law and is not bound by it.

My point is that you said that God is supernatural, Time is a natural thing, so how can something super natural exist in the Natural? At what point is it still super natural? If God exists out of Time, then how does God interfere with the Natural? And would God be considered Natural where God exists?

Why do you think the creator of time could not step into time. There exists no rational for that. He is not bound by the laws he created for matter but can interact with matter. I do not even know why you object to this.

Is it another Universe? A pocket Universe? The Bible seems to make it clear that God exists within the heavens (prior to knowledge of anything like the Universe), we now know the Universe is much larger than the heavens as described for instance in Genesis.

God does not require a universe to exist in. He requires no space as we know it. I have no idea why you think God requires anything natural or is prohibited from interacting with it.

We also have multiple explanations of God manifesting in human form on the earth in the book of Genesis, and at least one point described "as coming down" meaning that God exists on a plane above our own (normally called heaven), so where is heaven?

Genesis describes God appearing in other forms. The form is not the total representation of God. God manifests himself through things but it is not completely encapsulated by them.

Lets say you had some actual reasons to believe anything you said here. What is it you think it means even if it was true?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I disagree but you have not shown that a false premise will ever produce one Christian. At best you have shown that confusion existed as to what the right premise was. I have no idea why you did as disagreement exists for almost every claim that exists of any type. Yet the truth of the mater is not denied because disagreement exists.


I agree that the natural cannot bring anything into existence. That has nothing o do with premises that produce results. I can think putting coal in the gas tank is a correct premise but I won't go anywhere. Only a correct premise produces correct results. I can believe Satan died on the cross until I die. I will never be born again.

Based on a premise that you accept without actual factual evidence, you need to rely on personal revelation, except at best you have others personal revelations and your experience, which may or may not have been revelation.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Now that is an example where a false premise produced a false result. I never said it could not be gotten wrong. I said if it was it would not produce the correct result. Where did you get this? God in not natural in the sense we mean it anyway. He produced natural law and is not bound by it.

Why do you think the creator of time could not step into time. There exists no rational for that. He is not bound by the laws he created for matter but can interact with matter. I do not even know why you object to this.

God does not require a universe to exist in. He requires no space as we know it. I have no idea why you think God requires anything natural or is prohibited from interacting with it.

Genesis describes God appearing in other forms. The form is not the total representation of God. God manifests himself through things but it is not completely encapsulated by them.

Lets say you had some actual reasons to believe anything you said here. What is it you think it means even if it was true?

Not really it has God appearing as a man, it has God walking, God is usually described as the least humanoid.

I'm asking these questions simply because you're putting up qualities of God that are essentially circular. God exists outside of the Universe, so where does God exist? It's made clear in Genesis that it is heaven and heaven is a physical thing, as the term was not spiritual but what we see above us. So where in heaven is God?

 

[1robin]

Based on a premise that you accept without actual factual evidence, you need to rely on personal revelation, except at best you have others personal revelations and your experience, which may or may not have been revelation.

That is not true or relevant. It makes no difference how speculative my premise is. If incorrect it will not produce a correct result. Even if 2 + 2 was pure speculation it would produce 4. I can't get 4 by speculating 1 = 5. That one has a few correct premises, being born again does not. I will not be born again by believing bowling shoes can save me.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That is not true or relevant. It makes no difference how speculative my premise is. If incorrect it will not produce a correct result. Even if 2 + 2 was pure speculation it would produce 4. I can't get 4 by speculating 1 = 5. That one has a few correct premises, being born again does not. I will not be born again by believing bowling shoes can save me.

Except these are not claims that rely on strict premises like math. These rely on faith claims. Such that what is "true" is only "true" to the one who experiences it.

 

[1robin]

Not really it has God appearing as a man, it has God walking, God is usually described as the least humanoid.

Of course it does. Men walk and appear humanoid. If he could not walk or did not look like a man then in what way did he appear as a human. Christ ate, drank, walked, talked, even died (to our eyes). Yet lived again, ascended into heaven, is co-occupant of God's throne, is Lord of all reality, existed before anything else did, and was perfect. He appeared to be human and yet did things only God could do. Appearance is one thing, essence is another.

What do you mean God does not require a universe to exist in? Then where is Heaven?

Why in the world are you restricting supernatural concepts by what natural things are bound by? One hundred years ago no physical law or reality we knew of described how very small objects acted. Do you think we know enough about anything to say what Heaven must have to operate within. Even being absurdly generous and saying heaven needs anything we could ever know of why do you think we know or ever will what that would be. Science in all probability knows infinitely little of the total of just natural reality. It is extremely arrogant to think we has the slightest idea of what reality contains. Much less what is beyond the natural. Time needs no space to exist, in fact your side loves to claim that everything came from nothing (which is abjectly absurd), however what does not even bind the natural is absurd to think as binding what is beyond it.