INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Enai de a lukal]

Go look in the mirror.
Nothing looking back?

If that was the case, wouldn't it mean I was a vampire? No worries though, when I look in the mirror I see my reflection looking back at me. No magic, no spirits- that's just sort of how mirrors work.

You are not your own handiwork....I don't think so.

Clearly; I hardly gave birth to myself. Seriously, what are you nattering about anyways?

 

[Thief]

If that was the case, wouldn't it mean I was a vampire? No worries though, when I look in the mirror I see my reflection looking back at me. No magic, no spirits- that's just sort of how mirrors work.


Clearly; I hardly gave birth to myself. Seriously, what are you nattering about anyways?

So your chemistry is all that you believe in?
and your belief is then terminal...

 

[McBell]

And what portion of the quote do you contend with?

The fact that you cannot meaningfully define "soul" or "spirit"...

Even after being flat out asked numerous times over the years.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So your chemistry is all that you believe in?
and your belief is then terminal...

Ah, the inevitable collapse into incoherence. Knew it was coming.

 

[ladybug77]

I proved it with math. See my threads by me...theres a bunch of bull in the middle...people poking fun...but its TRUE. and some will see it. Towards the end it fires up again...im 100% right. People who doubted now see.

 

[ladybug77]

The fact that you cannot meaningfully define "soul" or "spirit"...

Even after being flat out asked numerous times over the years.

Its called: 'i'. You simply define it by: refering to your own self as i.
Its called: individuality.
The you, inside you...is i.

We all refer to ourselves as i. But each i is different. Each i is different, but each i is equal to the next i.

Its: i

Thats the soul, the spirit, thats the very thing you wish not to define!!!

The thing we have difficulty defining...is ourselves!!

Its simple. Not complicated.

 

[McBell]

I proved it with math. See my threads by me...theres a bunch of bull in the middle...people poking fun...but its TRUE. and some will see it. Towards the end it fires up again...im 100% right. People who doubted now see.

I really hope you are not talking about his thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/156510-i-saw-equation-my-dreams-lastnight.html​

Cause all you did in that thread is embarrass yourself.

 

[cottage]

I can't evaluate, explain, or respond to comments about supposed contradictions that do not say what was contradictory. What I want has nothing to do with anything (that is only what non-theists say to themselves to explain away why so few agree with them). I came to faith kicking and screaming. I did not want there to be a God, and even to this day I would alter about 95% of what I believe if I had the choice. As I said I can't evaluate what you do not reference. [/font][/color]

I’ll remind you then. See how these two statements of yours are selective and or contradictory:

You said: “Hume is wrong. There exists no reason whatever to suppose many categories of things in the natural cease to operate without the natural.”

But apparently they are! Because then you said:

Nothing in the natural universe can make Murder wrong. Nature did not mandate 2 + 2 = 4 it only described it. It's source must be beyond nature. There are literally an inexhaustible number of these concepts of which I gave just a couple.”

Exactly which molecule in nature do we extract morality from? Which scientific studies did the man 5000 years ago use to believe that love existed? Where exactly in the universe is the proof for beauty? I was not discussing triangle, beads, spheres, or slide rules. If the entire universe ceased to exist would the abstract concept of numbers no longer be true. Many of the greatest philosophers in history suggest the opposite.

Where and what is morality? (!) And love is about procreation, protection and mutual kinship. Beauty, or aesthetics, is part of the drive for self-improvement and the necessary creative instinct. And quantity and number and the rules of thought would still exist if the world came to an end – but no argument can be made that they existed before the world existed.

In what way is having nothing and then having something not something arising from nothing. I know what he said about it, I think I am the one who first quoted him. If you have nothing then nothing will ever exist. Even if your preference (see you accusation above) will not allow you to agree with that inevitability do not call your accounting for it science. Call it pure speculation, that either has no evidence or possibly counters evidence. Causality is evident in this world, there exists no reason that it would not in all possible worlds. I can't say it would but all the evidence and reasoning based on reliable scholarship suggests it would.

Wrong on all counts! You are begging the question by assuming possible worlds in order to accommodate causality. And the notion of possible worlds is a logical concept that applies to necessary truths, whereas causality is contingent.

Cause and effect have no dependence on anything natural. It is not bound by it. There is no reason to think it ceases to exist even if nature did. That is only one of dozens of things that are in nature but are independent of nature that I have heard of, there are probably millions.

Of course it is 'bound by it', because it contingent! And it cannot logically be contingent and necessary.

I have two requests.

1. Please do not call my faith and claims made relevant to it other than genuine. Call them wrong if you wish but do not claim to have access to my motivations, because you don't.
2. Please do not refer to claims about the multiverse, something arising without a cause, or self actualizing stuff as science.

1. I certainly don’t believe your claims are genuine, but that is not to be taken as meaning I think you don’t believe them to be such. And of course that is why we’re having the debate.

2. I’ve asked you several times why you keep dropping in these Red Herrings and putting up a Straw Man to knock down. I think you know full well by now that I don’t support arguments to multiverses; and I have never, ever claimed that a causeless or self-existent world is anything more than speculation, no different than the god hypothesis. Go back and check!

You have said the universe did not arise from nothing.
You have said it does not have an explanation of it's own existence within its self.

You have eliminated both nothing and everything (that is what the natural universe means) as containing the explanation of the universes existence. Then where pray tell, does it lie and how does anyone access that magical realm? Maybe even liberalism works there.

“Magical realm”! Well, I must say, that’s rich coming from a theist!

Now please just remember the difference between us. I gave you two possible explanations and they were alternative hypotheses, but I don’t believe-in either of them, unlike your dogmatic attachment to an incoherent, supernatural authority figure.

 

[ladybug77]

God is Hydrogen

 

[Thief]

Equations?....for belief?.....and you guys know better.
even as the years go by.... stubborn denial.

Hey!
One plus one equals another one!...sometimes two or three...
got kids?

 

[Thief]

God is Hydrogen

and 'I' have always suspected this substance as the means of light.

'Let there be light!'

 

[cottage]

There is no observation ever made, and no evidence ever observed where nothing existed and then something existed (much less without a cause). Call it what you wish. The point is there is no evidence it has occurred nor ever could.

I agree entirely! There has never been any known observation where nothing existed and then came into being – as in creation! But cause and effect is not creation! Nothing has ever been known to be created by something else but causality is seen all the time. Cause and effect is the most necessary feature of the material world; so what do think I’m doing then, denying it? Of course I’m not! Here's the difference: No things in the physical world, automobiles, computers, tables and chairs etc, begin to exist as if there was nothing there in the first place for we do not create anything in the physical world, not objects, not thoughts, not even children; we just apply, adapt, or respond to what is already there. This synthesis doesn’t occur with the introduction of something that didn’t previously exist and then began to exist but comprises a change or variation in the form of existent physical matter or our ideas. Even our most fantastic imaginings, for example, are not created from nothing but compounded from general experience. Therefore all change and motion is subject to a causal principle applying to the cause of every effect and its preceding cause, but while all things changing and in motion need to be caused in that respect they are not created. Your argument is that the entire sequence of causes was created by a supernatural being. And by what means did this creation occur? Causation! So a contingent principle was created by your God in order to enable him to create a contingent world that in future would exist by the contingent principle! So in other words he couldn’t create a contingent world without the principle of the contingent world that he created! Can’t you see the utter absurdity in what you’re proposing? If you attempt to use cause as a creative tool it leads you into self=contradiction, but when you acknowledge cause for what it is, i.e. a contingent principle, no contradiction is implied.

As I have said my boss did his dissertation in information theory. The fact that every known effect happens only when a change of information occurs is consistent with every observation and every theoretical construct that deals with reliable philosophy. Let's pretend that however does not mean it is true of things beyond nature. Why do I always have to pretend only when I am talking with a non-theist? [/font][/color]

Then kindly explain what is "beyond nature"?

1. I have a theory or proposition that has no known exception.

And I do, too! In fact mine is certain. Contingent matter cannot logically be necessary. And if God depends upon a contingent principle then he cannot be the creator of contingent matter.

2. You have one that has no known occurrence.

So do you: a supernatural being that creates something out of nothing. You presume to argue against the universe being the only existing entity, which is something that has no known exception.

And it is your side who always insists faith is irrational. Truly amazing.

False comparison! On the subject of possible explanations I said this:

"I believe-that it is possible; I don’t believe-in it, whereas you won’t allow anything to count against your belief-in faith." This is an important point. I can be wrong in all my speculations, and so I don’t hold to any of them as an article of faith as you must.

You did not explain anything above. You said something I know most of science actually refutes and said some mythical scientists believe it.

Where was the explanation, where was the evidence, where was anything at all beyond an unknowable assertion that contradicts every known relationship? You can't assert truth into existence any more than you can a universe.

“Cause and effect is the way we understand the world, of course it is, and without that feature the world would very quickly come to an end. And actually if the world comes to an end, as many scientists believe it will, then every feature of the world will be gone including the principle we know as cause and effect. That will leave nothing; which is exactly what scientists tell us existed before the Big Bang. So I think that is rather more theoretically possible than your arbitrarily proposing something in the nothingness that employed a contingent feature that was yet to exist and simply as a means to buttress a superstitious belief.”

I can't think of too many things that are not composed of states and types.

Plasma, solid, liquid and gas are all types of matter. In a debate a person occasionally must submit what can't be proven as a possible explanation for data. In this case I am distinguishing the supernatural (which is not governed by any natural laws we know of), from the natural. They together are types of reality. They are both theoretically real and not of the same type. Can we knock of having to define terms that are well understood every 5 minutes. You know exactly what I mean, but are for some reason equating the unproven with the undefinable. Why? When the source of the universe or cause and effects nature are discussed you are more than willing to operate in the arena where no evidence exists and much evidence contradicts. Why the double standards?

Can you really not see the difference here, despite how many times I explain it? Look, I don’t pretend to know the secrets of the material world but I’m like every other person in that we all know it exists, unlike God and the supernatural. So we propose hypotheses to explain reality, i.e. what exists, and since there is only the material world we seek answers in those terms, scientific, metaphysical and sometimes highly speculative, but we don’t believe-in them as a matter of faith, we only believe-that they are possible.

Yet I never asked you to explain in detail what that beginning was or why cause and effect would cease with the universe.

It has been explained, several times. If there is no necessity in causality then the principle of cause and effect has no meaning beyond the experiential world; so we can't demand a cause of the world unless we assert it as an effect, but we can't do that because there is no necessary cause! And that is confirmed for us because causality is contingent and cannot be both contingent and necessary. And so it follows that if and when the contingent world comes to an end so will every contingent principle including causality.

Which part was your idea of a universe that exists independent of cause come from? Which part of reality even remotely suggested cause and effect are dependent on nature?

Do you not realize the double standards your using?

The answer to the first question is: From the Big bang Theory
The answer to the second question is: There are no known exceptions or occurrences outside of nature.

By the way, what are these double standards you are referring to?

I mangle language as much as anyone but that statement was IMO very well stated. I will try and make it clearer anyway. You can't use the probability of a natural event to calculate the probability of a natural event. At best you might be able to make some

.


Well, yes, of course God is the problem. “God” is a belief-as-faith, it isn’t a proposition that is empirically verifiable or necessarily true and people have different interpretations and a variety of emotional investments in the notion.

 

[Thief]

I agree entirely! There has never been any known observation where nothing existed and then came into being – as in creation! But cause and effect is not creation! Nothing has ever been known to be created by something else but causality is seen all the time. Cause and effect is the most necessary feature of the material world; so what do think I’m doing then, denying it? Of course I’m not! Here's the difference: No things in the physical world, automobiles, computers, tables and chairs etc, begin to exist as if there was nothing there in the first place for we do not create anything in the physical world, not objects, not thoughts, not even children; we just apply, adapt, or respond to what is already there. This synthesis doesn’t occur with the introduction of something that didn’t previously exist and then began to exist but comprises a change or variation in the form of existent physical matter or our ideas. Even our most fantastic imaginings, for example, are not created from nothing but compounded from general experience. Therefore all change and motion is subject to a causal principle applying to the cause of every effect and its preceding cause, but while all things changing and in motion need to be caused in that respect they are not created. Your argument is that the entire sequence of causes was created by a supernatural being. And by what means did this creation occur? Causation! So a contingent principle was created by your God in order to enable him to create a contingent world that in future would exist by the contingent principle! So in other words he couldn’t create a contingent world without the principle of the contingent world that he created! Can’t you see the utter absurdity in what you’re proposing? If you attempt to use cause as a creative tool it leads you into self=contradiction, but when you acknowledge cause for what it is, i.e. a contingent principle, no contradiction is implied.




Then kindly explain what is "beyond nature"?





And I do, too! In fact mine is certain. Contingent matter cannot logically be necessary. And if God depends upon a contingent principle then he cannot be the creator of contingent matter.



So do you: a supernatural being that creates something out of nothing. You presume to argue against the universe being the only existing entity, which is something that has no known exception.




False comparison! On the subject of possible explanations I said this:

"I believe-that it is possible; I don’t believe-in it, whereas you won’t allow anything to count against your belief-in faith." This is an important point. I can be wrong in all my speculations, and so I don’t hold to any of them as an article of faith as you must.


“Cause and effect is the way we understand the world, of course it is, and without that feature the world would very quickly come to an end. And actually if the world comes to an end, as many scientists believe it will, then every feature of the world will be gone including the principle we know as cause and effect. That will leave nothing; which is exactly what scientists tell us existed before the Big Bang. So I think that is rather more theoretically possible than your arbitrarily proposing something in the nothingness that employed a contingent feature that was yet to exist and simply as a means to buttress a superstitious belief.”






Can you really not see the difference here, despite how many times I explain it? Look, I don’t pretend to know the secrets of the material world but I’m like every other person in that we all know it exists, unlike God and the supernatural. So we propose hypotheses to explain reality, i.e. what exists, and since there is only the material world we seek answers in those terms, scientific, metaphysical and sometimes highly speculative, but we don’t believe-in them as a matter of faith, we only believe-that they are possible.



It has been explained, several times. If there is no necessity in causality then the principle of cause and effect has no meaning beyond the experiential world; so we can't demand a cause of the world unless we assert it as an effect, but we can't do that because there is no necessary cause! And that is confirmed for us because causality is contingent and cannot be both contingent and necessary. And so it follows that if and when the contingent world comes to an end so will every contingent principle including causality.




The answer to the first question is: From the Big bang Theory
The answer to the second question is: There are no known exceptions or occurrences outside of nature.

By the way, what are these double standards you are referring to?

I mangle language as much as anyone but that statement was IMO very well stated. I will try and make it clearer anyway. You can't use the probability of a natural event to calculate the probability of a natural event. At best you might be able to make some

.


Well, yes, of course God is the problem. “God” is a belief-as-faith, it isn’t a proposition that is empirically verifiable or necessarily true and people have different interpretations and a variety of emotional investments in the notion.

I don't believe...'God is the problem'.
God is the answer.
Which came First?...Spirit or substance?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Cheeseburgers came first. And seriously, aren't you getting bored after posting the same exact post over 12,000 times? (12,000... wow!!!)

 

[Thief]

Cheeseburgers came first. And seriously, aren't you getting bored after posting the same exact post over 12,000 times? (12,000... wow!!!)

And with some much opportunity...you might catch on?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Nothing to catch on to, you just post the same lame gibberish, then...misuse..."some"...punctuation...to..."make"..."it"... look... "different".

 

[McBell]

And with some much opportunity...you might catch on?

One would think that after four years of the same old merry go round not working that you would have at the very least considered the infinity small possibility that your merry go round is not working because perhaps maybe (naw, it couldn't be) your presentation is severely lacking...

to much to hope for?

 

[ladybug77]

God is not the problem. God is always the answer. The answer is always ONE!
This goes with TRUE number line. There is NOT A ZERO. the Zero is a placeholder!! For??
ABSOLUTE ONE

God says he is the alpha and omega.
Take the letters of '0ne'
The '0' is always '1' maybe the 'n' = never 'e' = ending ???

God is Hydrogen. God is YHMH. God is One??
Do these relate??

1(+-)=infinity

^^^thats the equation for everything.

Waters freezing point is 0.0
If the decimal is ACTUALLY ....ABSOLUTE 1.
and the '0' is a placeholder for '1'

Then look:

0.0

One hydrogen is the decimal.
One '0' is one oxygen.

Science and math are friends buddy. And zero...is ABSOLUTE ONE. In actuality. Binary code anyone??

Nothing equals zero.

50×0 is not even solvable without knowing the value of zero.

Now do we have free will....using an atom as a ilustration...yes and no.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c7mlPxehBM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[McBell]

 

[ladybug77]

The execution of the term is lacking...do some reasearch for yourself.