INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Thief]

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.


Can we get past this semantic diversions and back to the science and what is consistent with it? Every conversation is the same. The science all goes in a direction consistent with God and so to avoid that unallowable fact, I have to spend thousands of words on what the definition of is, is. Or counter theories who's only merits are that they can't be proven absolutely false. Something has gone wrong terribly wrong when the faith guy is the only person going with the best evidence. If you do not like the term law, then use principle, perfectly consistent theory, or even beige unicorn hippocampus. I do not care. The issue is that effects always have causes without any known exception.

How about the singularity?
I say God did it.
You would agree?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

Let's just forget for the moment that you have no idea what you're talking about here and that you simply copied-and-pasted a few sentences from Wikipedia articles, what the hell does this have to do with anything you've claimed?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

How about the singularity?
I say God did it.
You would agree?

There probably was no "singularity"- classical physics predicts a singularity, but we know classical physics is wrong. And saying "God did it" is not only completely unwarranted (completely speculative), its completely vacuous as well. Seriously, saying "God did it" adds exactly no more and no less than saying "a wizard did it"- or saying nothing at all.

 

[McBell]

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.


Can we get past this semantic diversions and back to the science and what is consistent with it? Every conversation is the same. The science all goes in a direction consistent with God and so to avoid that unallowable fact, I have to spend thousands of words on what the definition of is, is. Or counter theories who's only merits are that they can't be proven absolutely false. Something has gone wrong terribly wrong when the faith guy is the only person going with the best evidence. If you do not like the term law, then use principle, perfectly consistent theory, or even beige unicorn hippocampus. I do not care. The issue is that effects always have causes without any known exception.

So what caused your god?
Merely claiming to believe that god was not caused does not work.

 

[McBell]

While at the same time maintaining a sense of belief?

How about walking on water?....raising the dead?.....wine to water?

oh...that's right....you don't 'believe'.

But that ok.....I'm not sure if belief in miracles is required.

How about....?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I have expectation.
The angels are waiting to do unto each one of us.....as we have done unto others.

Oh my bad.....maybe I am answering the wrong guy.....

Really?
All that to not address the point?

 

[1robin]

It isn’t ‘preference’. The object is very simply to demonstrate that there isn’t a single hypothesis that must be accepted to the exclusion of others. And the difference is that I'm open to all possibilities and don’t require any paticular hypothesis to be true, since I have no ideological beliefs to be jacked up and thus my scepticism allows for me to be proved wrong.

That is not what they do in courtrooms, classrooms, or in almost in any part of. We make the best decision based on the best evidence. We have two choices here.

1. A finite universe. All the reliable evidence there is consistent with it.
2. An infinite universe. No reliable evidence is consistent with it any many reasons exist to suggest it is not even possible.

If want to equivocate on he theory with all the evidence so as to allow for the theories than have no reliable evidence that is your right, but what it isn't is useful, normal, scientific, or what you do with almost every other decision you make.

Well I’ve read it and it is no less than what I expected; in fact it is exactly what I expected from a theist website. The pattern begins interestingly with informed scientific knowledge, exploring various hypotheses to make valid critical points. But no sooner have those critical points been raised than we go full steam ahead into dogma and ideology. The usual apologists are quoted such as Craig and Anscombe, and science is forgotten, having served its purpose, to be superseded by the supernatural. It seems lost on the apologists (who are ready with the answer prior to the question) that even if the world did have a beginning, a view that may very well be true, we are not led to any external cause - and especially not the one that takes the form espoused here by Craig:

Of course we do. Science does the exact same thing given far less reason. They are currently making theories that require more faith given less evidence that the Bible does. In fact they even contradict evidence which is the one thing faith is not even allowed to do. This is perfectly acceptable for theology and philosophy, but my real issue is why is it denied them but allowed in even far greater extremes and called science. Why is the grossest speculation even if it contradicts the evidence allowed for "science" but rejected for faith?

"Professor William Lane Craig goes on to argue that this supernatural cause of the cosmos must be personal. According to Craig, every kind of explanation is either a logico-mathematical explanation (which, because it is abstract, is incapable of explaining the fact that something comes into existence), a scientific explanation (which can explain events occurring within the universe, but not the coming-to-be of the universe itself) or a personal explanation, involving an agent doing something for a reason. Personal explanation is the only schema that can explain the coming-to-be of the cosmos, reasons Craig."

That is perfectly true and inconsistent with nothing known. This is another tactic that I just can't understand. For some reason you allow science to contradict reality and be valid. Yet you (not just you) deny perfectly consistent and perfectly valid extrapolations (even if they are the only known possible solution) for faith. Proof is sciences burden yet it is often completely missing or contradictory yet allowed as valid, then for some reason the burden of proof is applied to faith and even if perfectly logical if not a known empirical fact claimed to be invalid. This is a heads you win tails God looses argument. If fantasy, presumptions, and doubles standards are necessary to contend with something maybe it should not be contended.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Now please consider again my recent post on this question with reference to the emboldened words above:

“There is also a perfectly legitimate question to which I never receive an answer, other than an argumentum ad ignorantiam such as God being God must have his reasons or some other obfuscated reply. Leibniz said that even if the world has always existed there must be a sufficient reason to explain its contingent existence.

I am lost here. If something has always existed it is non-contingent not contingent.

And this sufficient reason he said will be God, an intelligent being that freely chose to bring the world into existence.

How do you bring into existence anything that has always existed unless you first define goalposts for time.

Eternity is usually used to indicate everything in time and independent of it, but "has always existed" is ambiguous.

According to the principle of sufficient reason nothing happens by chance and a thing that doesn’t have to exist but does exist needs a reason for its existence. Perhaps Leibniz overstates the principle on a question of chance, but that needn’t trouble us here and in any case his argument backfires on him for it is immediately evident that to say an intelligent, personal being freely chose to bring the world into existence is to assign a purpose to the act of creation. And there can only be two answers to that question. God created the world for himself, or for the benefit of others. Both possibilities appear incoherent. For it seems obvious that an omnipotent Supreme Being, who is sufficient in all things, cannot have needs, unfulfilled wishes or desires. He has everything and is everything by definition. And nor can it be said that he created the world for the benefits of others, since it is nonsensical to imply that creatures that didn’t formerly exist can benefit from anything. So it may be argued that neither God nor the world existing from eternity need a reason for being, since there will be nothing external to them, but if the world is created then there must be a reason and a purpose for its being brought into being. So what is it?”

Well I finally understand what the theme was here even though it's parts were a little unclear.

You seem to be suggesting that any fulfilled being would not require additional creations to be fulfilled and so would not create what he does not need. First let me say I have ever heard of this argument before so it mighty take a bit to think on it.
I will say now that a precedent exists for a fulfilled being who receives something that adds enjoyment that was not missing. A human 500 years ago had no need of a Lotus and could be fulfilled in the possession dept. If I had a time machine and transported one to him he might have enjoyed it but it was never a need nor necessity. Of course this is not a direct reply to your argument but is an example where circumstances can do what you are suggesting could not occur. I will think on it a bit but this is a simple word game involving the capacity of human language to capture characteristics of an infinite being. It is a interesting word game but not exactly a hurdle. The heap paradox is one that is interesting but does nothing to change the fact heaps exist.

There is no contradiction in saying the world as existence itself is the Supreme Being, since something exists necessarily in order for it to be denied. And there is evidently cogent reasoning in that hypothesis. Firstly we have the clear advantage of knowing that the world actually exists, which is rather more than can be said of God! And secondly we know that the principle of causation belongs to the world, whereas we have no knowledge of any external world, and even if there were such a thing it could not be the Supreme Being without involving a contradiction since it would be dependent upon a feature of the actual world.

The world is not a maximal entity. Even the non-specific generalized definition of a God is a maximal being. This type of stuff belongs in a rhetoric classroom and probably no where else. Perception has no relevancy here. A thing is not better or more real depending on perception. The world (whether universe or planet) is a contingent being not only in theory but all observations are consistent with it. God is not contingent on anything. God would still be God with no universe. This is a form of entertainment not a meaningful way to evaluate reality. It reminds me of the logic that became more relevant with every drink, when I used to drink.

Whether intention or not this type of thing only serves to complicate the obvious, trivialize the momentous, and obscure the clear.

All the evidence suggests we have one finite universe that does not contain it's own explanation. Logic requires a cause beyond nature, and philosophy indicates the Biblical God is the best candidate available, and faith carries no proof burden.

And then consider this alternative:

In Hume’s Dialogues there are two characters, Philo and Demea, in discussion.
Philo says the fabric of the world has more in common with vegetable matter than it does with intelligence. Demea objects that if the world possesses a vegetable quality, sowing seeds into chaos out of which new worlds arise (according to philo’s hypothesis), then how can order come from a non-ordered world? To this Philo replies ‘just look around you’: trees bestow order and organisation upon the trees that comes from their seeds without knowing order. And he says instances of this kind are far more frequent in the world than order arising from ‘reason and contrivance’. And for Demea to say order in animals and vegetable matter are caused ultimately by design is begging the question and can only be known by proving a priori that order in nature is inseparably attached to thought and that order can never belong to matter.

Reality suggests vegetable matter necessitates intelligence, all information does. Another principle without known exception. This is another example of a causal chain with not even a reliable natural first cause theory. Neither the seeds nor the tress contain an explanation for what they contain. Neither does any natural system.

Did you read my own comments on intelligence and a supposed deity?

Here or elsewhere?

I

realise that some people are here almost everyday but I have a life and commitments outside this forum. For me this is recreation, not an obsession. However, I will always reply to your posts as soon as I am able when we are in discussion.

I made no complaint nor subscribed a motivation. I just mentioned what goes into my justification if much must be typed. All the time I have comes from one fact. Even the latest and best of application science is faulty more often that not. Of 12 instruments subcontracted as drop in replacements all 12 have failed. They are the latest of their technology but he technology is 50 years old, and it still does not work. If we do not know most of what is in our oceans, can't predict weather 48 hours in advance, and have billion dollar ships hitting rocks known of for a thousand years what chance do we have of knowing what occurred hundreds of millions of years ago or a hundred thousand lights years away? What we do know is perfectly consistent with God.

 

[1robin]

Let's just forget for the moment that you have no idea what you're talking about here and that you simply copied-and-pasted a few sentences from Wikipedia articles, what the hell does this have to do with anything you've claimed?

If you can't keep up, and you go against all the evidence there is, to preserve a preference, don't turn around and be hypocritical on top of it all. I have used the law of non-contradiction at least 25 times in threads concerning comparative religion and exclusive claims to absolute truth. So keep your false accusations based in ignorance out of places where the evidence that does not exist, yet your claims depend on, should be. This was a response to a question asking for a law that had no exceptions. It does not have to do with my cosmological claim. Why is sarcasm and arrogance so prevalent in atheism?

 

[1robin]

So what caused your god?
Merely claiming to believe that god was not caused does not work.

I can't believe this 4th grade Sunday school question is still being asked. How could anyone know something they are this ignorant about exists or doesn't exist. Reminds me of a former PLO terrorist I know of. He said in 3rd grade he did not know what a Jew was but knew he hated them. God as the concept illustrated in the Bible is uncaused. Only things that begin to exist need a cause. That is how the law or principle is stated, specifically. In fact the universe and every real thing that has ever existed must have am uncaused first cause. There is no such thing as an infinite regression of causation that actually creates anything. If you have something there must be a first uncaused cause of some type of it.

 

[metis]

So what caused your god?
Merely claiming to believe that god was not caused does not work.

And this is a central point of their inconsistency. If it's so logical that everything must have a cause, then why does "God" get a free pass? It makes not one iota of sense.

Secondly, who was there to actually see "God" create the universe? If I wasn't there, then why should I assume "God" did it?

Again, and I think you'll agree with this, it's a matter whereas some have just elevated belief to the level of absolute fact.

 

[McBell]

I can't believe this 4th grade Sunday school question is still being asked. How could anyone know something they are this ignorant about exists or doesn't exist. Reminds me of a former PLO terrorist I know of. He said in 3rd grade he did not know what a Jew was but knew he hated them. God as the concept illustrated in the Bible is uncaused. Only things that begin to exist need a cause. That is how the law or principle is stated, specifically. In fact the universe and every real thing that has ever existed must have am uncaused first cause. There is no such thing as an infinite regression of causation that actually creates anything. If you have something there must be a first uncaused cause of some type of it.

I already said that merely stating your belief that god is uncaused does not work.
I should have clarified that neither does explaining why you hold said beliefs.

Care to try again?


OASN
Why all the personal attacks?
Is it something I said?

 

[FashionOfMyLove]

Not really. Science agress that the Universe could have started on its own/

 

[Ouroboros]

Secondly, who was there to actually see "God" create the universe? If I wasn't there, then why should I assume "God" did it?

(as always I agree with you, and I'll add some of my thoughts because I think I'm so speschal. )

Which is one of the central problems with any creation story. Whoever had the "revelation" of how God created the world would interpret their visions subjectively, which means that from get-go, there's no absolute/objective/literal understanding of creationism. It can't be. A person wrote the story from a dream/vision/revelation, not a personal, at that time, observation. It would be impossible anyway considering how the universe works for anyone to have a personal view of its beginning.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This was a response to a question asking for a law that had no exceptions.

Ah, now that wasn't so hard, was it? It only took you several sentences of irrelevant bluster before you got to answering the question. Unfortunately, axioms of classical logic have nothing to do with these so-called "philosophical laws" you're so confused about. For one thing, logical axioms, like those of classical logic, can be used or disposed of depending on what our purposes are- classical logic doesn't always work, and sometimes we need to employ a paraconsistent logic (one in which the law of contradiction does NOT hold generally)- so even as far as it goes, your example doesn't even work. But in any case, these are logical axioms, not a posteriori factual/empirical principles, such as the one in question regarding the universe.

And BTW, holding forth on subjects you have not the slightest clue about tends to lead to this foot-in-mouth syndrome you keep contracting, not that you seem to care too much about that.

Why is sarcasm and arrogance so prevalent in atheism?

Idk, is it because making unwarranted and stupid comments is so prevalent in theism?

 

[Thief]

There probably was no "singularity"- classical physics predicts a singularity, but we know classical physics is wrong. And saying "God did it" is not only completely unwarranted (completely speculative), its completely vacuous as well. Seriously, saying "God did it" adds exactly no more and no less than saying "a wizard did it"- or saying nothing at all.

By all means....call God....anything you want to.
No doubt in my mind you will get to say it again....to His face.

Expansion (or explosion) indicates a common starting 'point'.

I don't have a problem with that.

I persist in 'God did it' as I believe.....Spirit first.

If not...then all of this life is a complex accident that warrants no purpose and can have no resolve.
Man would be a complete mystery.
No answer of purpose....going your way.

 

[Thief]

(as always I agree with you, and I'll add some of my thoughts because I think I'm so speschal. )

Which is one of the central problems with any creation story. Whoever had the "revelation" of how God created the world would interpret their visions subjectively, which means that from get-go, there's no absolute/objective/literal understanding of creationism. It can't be. A person wrote the story from a dream/vision/revelation, not a personal, at that time, observation. It would be impossible anyway considering how the universe works for anyone to have a personal view of its beginning.

How about testimony from the Guy that was there?

What?.....the First in mind and heart.....lacks a tongue?
(so to speak)

 

[Thief]

Not really. Science agress that the Universe could have started on its own/

Science leans on cause and effect.
Without it....no experiment can be considered conclusive.
The pending result must be predictable.

But I say yeah....cause and effect.

The universe is the effect....God is the Cause.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Science leans on cause and effect.
Without it....no experiment can be considered conclusive.
The pending result must be predictable.

But I say yeah....cause and effect.

The universe is the effect....God is the Cause.

Pretty much a textbook fallacy of composition right here. Face it, there's no reasonable way to establish the existence of God, or God's causal role in the existence of the universe. If you want to believe in these nevertheless, that's certainly your right. But you're only fooling yourself if you think this belief is based on any sound arguments or compelling evidence.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

In a sense, fideists are far more honest and realistic about this issue; at least they admit that religious faith does not admit of rational justification.

 

[Thief]

Pretty much a textbook fallacy of composition right here. Face it, there's no reasonable way to establish the existence of God, or God's causal role in the existence of the universe. If you want to believe in these nevertheless, that's certainly your right. But you're only fooling yourself if you think this belief is based on any sound arguments or compelling evidence.

Cause and effect doesn't work for you?