INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[McBell]

Then step up and make a point.
Your previous and shallow notations are not sufficient.

oh the irony....

 

[Thief]

oh the shallow retorts...

 

[McBell]

oh the shallow retorts...

My bad:

OH! .... The..ever... loving... irony... of ... it.!...​

 

[Thief]

My bad:

OH! .... The..ever... loving... irony... of ... it.!...​

Back to topic?
I think you know how it will go.

 

[Thief]

Stands to reason....Something had to be First....in mind and heart.

If you insist on substance first then all of spirit is born of chemistry....and terminal.
There would be no cause for life....
Man is a mystery without purpose or resolve.

Getting back on track...

 

[1robin]

I have no idea what you mean by this: “Cause and effect are reducible further than change and creation”.

I meant that cause and effect are far more of a governing dynamic than only where we see them in change and creation. There is not the slightest reasons to conclude cause and effect null if no creation and no change had ever occurred.

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.

No it does not. The universe and everything in it are running down. The second law was said by Einstein to be the most immutable law in nature. The energy in the universe is dispersing even though it does reverse that trend for small amounts of time and space. In general things are coming apart and evening out. Wait long enough and no atom will be able to be seen from another and energy will be slightly greater than zero and uniform everywhere unless God's suspends what is occurring currently. The big question is how did it get wound up to begin with, no nature reason is possible.

But there are no instances of things being created from nothing.

That is my point. If anything ever was created (and all the evidence suggests it was) there was something that created it and that something can't be natural.

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.

I will give you an easy way to show what you said was true. Post exactly what in nature mandates, dictates, and enforces cause and effect.

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.

Miracles are not only true for believers. Since it was miracles observed as an unbeliever that convinced millions to become believers. However even that does not matter. If x is true for any person then it occurred. If the occurrence of x cannot be explained by natural processes then it must be explained by something beyond nature. If the explanation for everything that exists (nature) is not contained in everything that exists (nature) then the denial of something beyond it is preference not reason. The abstract does not refer to anything compounded from experience. They are perceived through experience but not created by it. Things like morality and numbers were not created by us even though most of us do conceive of them. Where in he natural world does moral truth come from. Which atom is the moral atom? Natural law never ever indicates what should be, only what is. I did not get that last part. God is beyond nature but his effects are seen in nature. On what basis is faith unjustifiable?

"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!

No God is not doctrinal belief. He is the source of doctrine. I think your usually wrong but you are not usually blatantly irrational. You can't dismiss God by re-defining him. A doctrine does not explain the resurrection narratives and the willingness for those who knew it's truth to die for it. It can't explain what has converted it's most virulent enemies, nor the millions of claims to miracles (just to barely scratch the surface). Even a doctrine is not dependent on matter. A doctrine can exist in the mind even if no matter ever existed. This was truly appalling. God is not material even as a concept alone and whatever the cased might for contingent reality he is independent of it.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

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.

All the universe in the entire known universe indicates it is not eternal. Now you have a talent for intellectual gymnastics but getting a finite universe that never did not exist is even beyond your powers.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

I am curious whether it will be Vilenkin's, mine, or your words that will be massaged a bit to get out of the corner that statement left you in.

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).

Contingent on what? Prove cause and effect is contingent on anything natural. I do not grant your assumptions with the validity you do. Describe to me what future state of the universe will render cause and effect null even theoretically.

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.

The father of modern philosophy said exactly the opposite but to use your own standards or criteria would mean theological knowledge is no less certain than scientific knowledge. Do you have enough courage in your own convictions to admit what you claimed or will you employ every semantic trick you can muster to undue what you attempted to do above.

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!

You seem to approve of exactly what I have been saying and you have been dismissing here.

If cause and effect are not dependent on bicycles, mushrooms, atoms, or energy then the absence of bicycles, mushrooms, atoms, and energy do not effect the existence of causation. I do not need causation to argue for God. I and countless men for the past 5000 years have seen it as an effective argument but have not been dependent on it at all. There are millions of lines of evidence for which God is the best explanation.

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.

Since I never used the BBT to prove God exists and have always said that nothing will never produce anything I have no idea what your countering. The BBT produces a finite universe in need of a cause. It does not produce the cause.

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 did not say anything what so ever about something coming from nothing. In fact I have only said the exact opposite. Why have you begun restating my claims in ways never intended? I said there are billions of claims to events that nothing IN NATURE explains exist. That does not leave me with no cause because my reality is far larger than your materialistic one. Mine can account for everything. Your can't. Allude to what? Are you suggesting I must illustrate al the details of billions of supernatural claims in order to claim they exist?

Why not now? (!)

I have to be thinking on it and have time to illustrate why they are double standards which will add several paragraphs to posts already very long. As one of the very few orthodox Christians debating I am the target for the minions of atheists and for some reason I am the target of almost al the most prolific of them. It takes more that 4 hours a day just to respond to a half dozen of the most prolific from your side of the aisle.

 

[1robin]

It looked that way in #2933

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

It did look that way. I have no idea how that occurred. Someone's formatting got out of control. Cause and effect are not proof of God but they are very good indicators of the transcendent or supernatural.

 

[1robin]

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.

I have no idea what that means? What it's purpose was? Or why it necessitated size 80 font?

 

[McBell]

Back to topic?
I think you know how it will go.

Yeppers.
You will chase your tail in same circle you have been running for the last what, four years:

Spirit first..
I have no religion!
cause and effect
I have no Dogma!
Faith requires no proof
{insert veiled empty threat here}
denial
"empty retort"​

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And God said to Moses as Moses did ask a name....
'Tell the people..."I AM!"...and they that understand will know whose law this is.'

NO. A book written many many years ago based off of ancient mythology that has been translated several times states that some guy heard god say something to that effect.

The "I am" is only contingent upon my accpetance of the bible as fact. You must first provide reasoning for the bible being fact.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeppers.
You will chase your tail in same circle you have been running for the last what, four years:

Spirit first..
I have no religion!
cause and effect
I have no Dogma!
Faith requires no proof
{insert veiled empty threat here}
denial
"empty retort"​

Wow! It would be so easy to build an automated bot randomly picking those responses... makes me wonder about mr T... hmm...

 

[Thief]

NO. A book written many many years ago based off of ancient mythology that has been translated several times states that some guy heard god say something to that effect.

The "I am" is only contingent upon my accpetance of the bible as fact. You must first provide reasoning for the bible being fact.

Someone had to be First in mind and heart.
He would have the ability to say...'I AM!'

How's that for reasoning?

 

[Thief]

Wow! It would be so easy to build an automated bot randomly picking those responses... makes me wonder about mr T... hmm...

Makes me wonder about people that digress to shallow retort and personal attacks.
oh..that constant demand for 'proof'...
when Webster's clearly states proof is not required for faith.

Try some 'reasoning'.

btw...I pity the fool!....that can't.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Someone had to be First in mind and heart.
He would have the ability to say...'I AM!'

How's that for reasoning?

No one has to be "the first". We know from evolution that if we go back far enough we were nothing but bacteria or bacteria like organisms. The overly gradual change between now and then makes it impossible to have a single "first" of anything for our species or our advancements.

 

[Thief]

No one has to be "the first". We know from evolution that if we go back far enough we were nothing but bacteria or bacteria like organisms. The overly gradual change between now and then makes it impossible to have a single "first" of anything for our species or our advancements.

First in mind and heart.

You jumped to biology skipping over spirit.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

oh..that constant demand for 'proof'...
when Webster's clearly states proof is not required for faith.

You mistake the sense of "not required" in the definition- the point is, faith is defined as "not based on proof/evidence", so in order for something to qualify as faith- to fit the definition- it is "not required" to be based on proof/evidence. But that doesn't mean that ones beliefs, held on faith, are not still subject to the same principles of soundness and reason that all other beliefs are- faith is still "required" to be based on proof/evidence in order to be reasonable, to be credible, to be knowledge, and so on.

Try some 'reasoning'.

Back 'atcha.

Someone had to be First in mind and heart.

How many times have you posted this exact same phrase, without argument or explanation? I'm putting the over/under at 100.

How's that for reasoning?

Sloppy, unsubstantiated, and vague.

 

[Thief]

You mistake the sense of "not required" in the definition- the point is, faith is defined as "not based on proof/evidence", so in order for something to qualify as faith- to fit the definition- it is "not required" to be based on proof/evidence. But that doesn't mean that ones beliefs, held on faith, are not still subject to the same principles of soundness and reason that all other beliefs are- faith is still "required" to be based on proof/evidence in order to be reasonable, to be credible, to be knowledge, and so on.


Back 'atcha.


How many times have you posted this exact same phrase, without argument or explanation? I'm putting the over/under at 100.


Sloppy, unsubstantiated, and vague.

No really...in the scheme of regression....Someone had to be First.
Back 'atcha.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

First in mind and heart.

You jumped to biology skipping over spirit.

You have yet to define spirit. Thus we go full circle.

 

[Thief]

You have yet to define spirit. Thus we go full circle.

Your need for definition is your own.