INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

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

That statement was not from me. I do not understand how you quoted where it became mine.

 

[ladybug77]

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

 

[1robin]

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.

Cause and effect are reducible further than change and creation. If a change in states or information does not occur then nothing will change or begin to exist. That is evident in changing of states as you have pointed out and justifiably believed to occur every time something changes even if that change is something beginning to exist. There is no reason what so ever to conclude that a relationship not derived from nature is bound by nature. My claiming that something beginning to exist is consistent with every thing known even if it is unproven. The idea that things that begin to exist do not require a cause is by far the worst and least evidenced position.

Then kindly explain what is "beyond nature"?

The supernatural. I think I have answered this twice so far. Miracles, the universe beginning to exist, abstract concepts like numbers, prophecy, and teh foundation of morality just to name a few.

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.

God is not matter. He is spirit and mind. There for he is a necessary being and nature is not. God is not dependent on anything.

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.

God's miraculous power has millions of theoretical occurrences. A universe beginning to exist without a cause contradicts every occurrence known and has no evidence at all. These are not even remotely equal claims. Just the bible alone contains hundreds of supernatural occurrences.

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.

I did not assign you an agnostic or atheist label so the clarification is a distinction that makes no difference. My point was your arguments against God contradict evidence.

“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.”

Cause and effect occur in this world. They are not dependent on it. There exists no reason to suggest it does not apply even if nature did not exist. Your conclusion is not meaningful because no premise exists to derive it from. All changes require a change in information states. If there was no universe and no God there is no information that exists that could have changed states. There exists no causal capacity or potential in non being.

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.

Some categories of knowledge are more certain that others (many would argue and have that the most certain thing known is that we think). That does not render any less certain claim mere speculation. Theology does not have a proof or parish burden.

The Bible's explanation is the best for the historical corroborations for relevant to it's claims. A crucifixion, an empty tomb, and multiple appearances are best explained by a resurrection.

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.

There is no proof, there is good reason to believe it is true. Even the supernatural would seem to require cause and effect though the causes and effects could be independent of time. What they can't be independent of is something existing.
There is no reason to suggest that cause and effect are dependent on nature. You are confusing perception with existence I think.

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.

There is nothing in big bang cosmology that indicates a universe arose from nothing without a cause.

There are claims to known exceptions to nature. Billions of them, your dismissal of them without grounds does nothing to indicate they are not true.

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

I will point out the next example on top of the half dozen I already have spelled out when it occurs.

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.

There occurred to this section a mangling of format as great as my mangling of grammar and it left me unclear what was claimed.

 

[cottage]

Cause and effect are reducible further than change and creation. If a change in states or information does not occur then nothing will change or begin to exist. That is evident in changing of states as you have pointed out and justifiably believed to occur every time something changes even if that change is something beginning to exist. There is no reason what so ever to conclude that a relationship not derived from nature is bound by nature. My claiming that something beginning to exist is consistent with every thing known even if it is unproven. The idea that things that begin to exist do not require a cause is by far the worst and least evidenced position.

I have no idea what you mean by this: “Cause and effect are reducible further than change and creation”.The undeniable fact is that the universe exists as a sustaining power, where objects degrade and die and new objects appear from the old constituents and then grow to maturity, ensuring the continuity and the cyclical balance of life. But there are no instances of things being created from nothing. And now just look at what you wrote here: “There is no reason what so ever to conclude that a relationship not derived from nature is bound by nature.”The sentence itself is an example of sophistry, a tautology that presumes to allude to something but merely repeats its premise while demonstrating nothing. In fact, not only is there no reason whatsoever to believe causality exists beyond nature, wherever that is supposed to be, but the notion is self-contradictory and impossible, as I’ve explained – and which you haven’t addressed. You are arguing that the entire sequence of causes was created by a supernatural being. And by what means did this Being use for its creation? Causation! So a contingent principle was created to create a contingent principle! So in other words he couldn’t create a contingent world without the principle of the contingent world that he created! The utter absurdity of that is evident even without considering that cause being contingent cannot be necessary.

The supernatural. I think I have answered this twice so far. Miracles, the universe beginning to exist, abstract concepts like numbers, prophecy, and teh foundation of morality just to name a few.

I’m asking what is there beyond nature. All the things you mention are in the nature of the world and do not take us beyond it. Even if the universe did have a beginning, and it very well might, as I’ve argued previously, it does not take us beyond what exists. Miracles are only true for believers and then only for particular believers in circumstances particular to them. And there is no universal acceptance of miracles – and the same goes for prophecy. Abstract concepts without exception refer to objects and ideas compounded from experience. And morality is a human construct and nothing more than a tool for a harmonious co-existence with our fellows. If you truly believe in God because of the above things then, in my view, that makes a very poor showing indeed for faith in a supernatural being that is supposed to do and have done certain things.

God is not matter. He is spirit and mind. There for he is a necessary being and nature is not. God is not dependent on anything.

"God" is just a doctrinal belief. And I’ll say it again: Contingent matter cannot logically be necessary. And if God depends upon a contingent principle then he cannot be the creator of contingent matter – and self-evidently he cannot then be necessary!

God's miraculous power has millions of theoretical occurrences. A universe beginning to exist without a cause contradicts every occurrence known and has no evidence at all. These are not even remotely equal claims. Just the bible alone contains hundreds of supernatural occurrences.

There is no evidence of anything in the universe beginning to exist, no evidence at all, and therefore it cannot be inferred that all things that begin to exist require a cause for their existence. The other sentences in that paragraph are just bald assertions or special pleas from faith.

Cause and effect occur in this world. They are not dependent on it. There exists no reason to suggest it does not apply even if nature did not exist. Your conclusion is not meaningful because no premise exists to derive it from. All changes require a change in information states. If there was no universe and no God there is no information that exists that could have changed states. There exists no causal capacity or potential in non being.

The premise that you’ve continually ignored or do not grasp is that cause is contingent. And that is the crux of the matter. All of your theologian philosophers agree on that point. Why? The answer is because it cannot be denied without contradiction. And if the world ends eventually, as many scientists believe, that contingent principle must logically end with it, unless there are other contingent worlds in existence. But there is no compelling reason to believe there are other worlds (universes).

Some categories of knowledge are more certain that others (many would argue and have that the most certain thing known is that we think). That does not render any less certain claim mere speculation. Theology does not have a proof or parish burden.

The Bible's explanation is the best for the historical corroborations for relevant to it's claims. A crucifixion, an empty tomb, and multiple appearances are best explained by a resurrection.

No categories of knowledge are “more certain”; there is no certain knowledge (not even that “we” think). The only certain truths are tautologies that give us no new information about the world or our place in it.

There is no proof, there is good reason to believe it is true. Even the supernatural would seem to require cause and effect though the causes and effects could be independent of time. What they can't be independent of is something existing.
There is no reason to suggest that cause and effect are dependent on nature. You are confusing perception with existence I think.

Causality isn’t “dependent upon nature” but is analysed in terms of experience, which of course applies to everything that exists in nature, and there is nothing in nature that is necessary. How then do you expect to infer a contingent principle found in experience to establish the existence of a Being that is supposed to be the originator of that principle that is used to create the principle found in nature? So, you are saying you need causality to argue to God and his creating of the world, but God needs causality to create the world, and you must take causality from the world in order to argue to God. It is a case of Reductio ad absurdum!

There is nothing in big bang cosmology that indicates a universe arose from nothing without a cause.

There is nothing in Big Bang cosmology that identifies a cause of the universe, and there is nothing in the universe that indicates that something can be created from nothing.

There are claims to known exceptions to nature. Billions of them, your dismissal of them without grounds does nothing to indicate they are not true.

The creation of something from nothing is unknown in nature. And please, don’t just allude to things and leave them unstated. Give me something I can respond to.

I will point out the next example on top of the half dozen I already have spelled out when it occurs.

Why not now? (!)

 

[Thief]

That statement was not from me. I do not understand how you quoted where it became mine.

It looked that way in #2933

I still see creation as 'proof'...Cause and effect.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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

This is about a +150 on the Baez crackpot index, if my count is correct... Pretty amusing, really.

 

[Looncall]

This is about a +150 on the Baez crackpot index, if my count is correct... Pretty amusing, really.

I agree.

There must be some terrible flaw in language if such utter balderdash can be composed in it.

 

[Thief]

Still....at the 'point' of creation....
The expansion would not have any heavy elements.

God First....then hydrogen.

Please note the date of this post.
Previous to this....no scientist has ever said so.

 

[ladybug77]

That statement was not from me. I do not understand how you quoted where it became mine.

i would like to apologize for trying to teach God, or prove God. I cannot prove him with science, or math. I CAN PROVE HOW A SUBSTANCE WAS MADE...AND HOW WE ARE REPRODUCTIVE CREATURES....but I CAN NOT PROVE THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT POSSESSES ME....to be real to anyone else but me. And not limited to me. 7 generations of holy spirit. My GOD is LOVE. NOT SEX. love is looking within, and then looking without. I cant imagine my life as a hydrogen atom...my faith wont let me.

 

[Thief]

Relax...you're not alone.

 

[ladybug77]

Its hard to relax. The end is near. Our earth is corrupted. The earth is Gods Heart. We as the holy spirit have a job to do, and heal this earth. But the bacteria has spread into our own hearts...remember to forgive yourself for your sins. And accept forgiveness from others. Love conquers all.

 

[McBell]

i would like to apologize for trying to teach God, or prove God. I cannot prove him with science, or math. I CAN PROVE HOW A SUBSTANCE WAS MADE...AND HOW WE ARE REPRODUCTIVE CREATURES....but I CAN NOT PROVE THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT POSSESSES ME....to be real to anyone else but me. And not limited to me. 7 generations of holy spirit. My GOD is LOVE. NOT SEX. love is looking within, and then looking without. I cant imagine my life as a hydrogen atom...my faith wont let me.

You really should be apologizing for the completely unnecessary use of bold and font size 5.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Its hard to relax. The end is near. Our earth is corrupted. The earth is Gods Heart. We as the holy spirit have a job to do, and heal this earth. But the bacteria has spread into our own hearts...remember to forgive yourself for your sins. And accept forgiveness from others. Love conquers all.

The billions of insects, bacteria, animal life forms would disagree about the so called "earth is corrupted" argument. Though if you mean that humans are the problem, then if they could respond i'm sure they would agree.

 

[Thief]

Its hard to relax. The end is near. Our earth is corrupted. The earth is Gods Heart. We as the holy spirit have a job to do, and heal this earth. But the bacteria has spread into our own hearts...remember to forgive yourself for your sins. And accept forgiveness from others. Love conquers all.

uhmmmmm....
I know what you mean....but here at the forum it borders preaching.
Not allowed.

With some careful words chosen you can still speak.
Please go on.

I do believe the end is near.
Last night I dreamt the angels circling over head.
Not a sight of comfort.

As for the earth I care not.
It can support the chemistry of only 9billion people.
We are almost there.
If I live another 15years, I will see the end.
(If the scientists are right)

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

uhmmmmm....
I know what you mean....but here at the forum it borders preaching.
Not allowed.

With some careful words chosen you can still speak.
Please go on.

I do believe the end is near.
Last night I dreamt the angels circling over head.
Not a sight of comfort.

As for the earth I care not.
It can supprt the chemistry of only 9billion people.
We are almost there.
If I live another 15years, I will see the end.
(If the scientists are right)

Umm that's a misquote...and a slight misunderstanding of overpopulation and what it means.

 

[Thief]

Umm that's a misquote...and a slight misunderstanding of overpopulation and what it means.

Nope...saw the interview.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Nope...saw the interview.

I'm sure you did.

There are plenty of interviews about overpopulation.

The issue isn't "how many people can the world hold" the issue is "how is the distribution and utilization of resources uneven in the world."

 

[Thief]

I'm sure you did.

There are plenty of interviews about overpopulation.

The issue isn't "how many people can the world hold" the issue is "how is the distribution and utilization of resources uneven in the world."

The world is finite.
We will overrun the resources.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The world is finite.
We will overrun the resources.

Oh the world will be quite fine. We maybe finite, but plenty of things will outlive us.

The Sun, wind, and water will remain to provide energy to plants and animals .

 

[Thief]

Oh the world will be quite fine. We maybe finite, but plenty of things will outlive us.

The Sun, wind, and water will remain to provide energy to plants and animals .

So you are getting the point?

Back to topic now?