INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Enai de a lukal]

(and yours, provided you care whether anyone can understand your assertion- which is by no means a given)

 

[Thief]

(and yours, provided you care whether anyone can understand your assertion- which is by no means a given)

That much would be the given.
You might not understand...and apparently you don't.
And I don't care.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Your need for definition is your own.

We very well can't debate if the terms aren't defined.

Otherwise the exploding taco tree invalidates your argument. Checkmate.

 

[Thief]

We very well can't debate if the terms aren't defined.

Otherwise the exploding taco tree invalidates your argument. Checkmate.

So you think you know tacos and chess boards?

God is the Almighty.
How's that for definition?
I believe it to be self-explanatory.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So you think you know tacos and chess boards?

God is the Almighty.
How's that for definition?
I believe it to be self-explanatory.

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. You are defining "spirit" as god the almighty?

Now I pose the same question to you. How do you know its real or that it exists?

 

[cottage]

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.

Forgive me, but you can’t just assert things or make unsupported statements. If you are stating something is the case then you need to show why it is the case, and not argue from ignorance to say just because we don’t know that a thing to be the case it doesn’t mean it cannot be the case.

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.

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.

That’s a sophistical argument that begins with a false premise!
There is evidence that the universe had a beginning. There is no evidence at all that the universe was created. And since there is no evidence that the world was created it does not follow that something supernatural created it.

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.

If there is a causal agent of contingent causes then it must itself be contingent, since cause is itself contingent. Only the world (as far as we know) is contingent, therefore the world sustains itself. See Thesis 1 in the Continuation.

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!

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?

On this basis, a question I’ve asked previously:
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. Professor Lane Craig agrees and thinks the only explanation is a personal God that chose to freely bring the world into existence, a matter on which you also agree. So I think we are entitled to ask: What is this reason for bringing the world into existence? And there can only be two possibilities, which are that God created the world for himself, or for the benefit of others. Both possibilities are 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. Therefore both reasons contradict the concept of an all-sufficient Supreme Being and hence it fails to deify the basic first cause concept.

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.

This is just a plea to faith, not an argument.

Continued below:

 

[cottage]

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.

Ahem! Wouldn’t it be better if you were to read what I actually wrote before you reply to me? Have a quick look back to see what I said.

Anyway, the material world is finite and hence there are good reasons to believe it did have a beginning. And there are two possible hypotheses to explain this, which I’ve already given you, the first of which is compatible with “Vilenkin’s Verdict”:


1) The world has not always existed; there was nothing before the world and one day it will cease to be. It is finite, and uncaused since there is no contradiction in denying any necessity in cause and effect, which being a contingent principle belongs to the world; and nor is there any necessity or empirical evidence for acts of creation, no evidence whatsoever, it being nothing more than an arbitrary act of the mind. The world neither created itself nor did it come from nothing since causation began with the world, and being contingent causation must end with the world.


2) The world is self-existent, i.e. contingent matter sustained within the world by an eternal, immutable quality. There is neither causal regression nor any infinitely forward progression since being immaterial it is not within the constraints of time. And note that this is to apply exactly the same premise of an unknown entity that the God hypothesis seeks to employ, but with the clear advantage that the world, having actual existence, has more objective reality than what is merely believed to exist as a matter of religious faith cluttered with contradictions and confused precepts. But as with Thesis 1 contingent matter can still cease to exist, but in this case it may renewed from its source.

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.

You are misunderstanding the concept. “Contingency” simply means there is no necessity or, in plain terms, nothing has to exist; no matter of fact is true and can never imply a contradiction if denied.

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.

Descartes’ rationalist philosophy failed to demonstrate the “I” or “We”, but only established that “there are thoughts.” Neither science nor theology is certain, but induction provides as with past knowledge that is a highly probable guide to the future. Every person, theist or religious sceptic, confidently believes that the sun will rise in the morning, not because it is certain and true but because as far as we can know it has always done so in the past. But every person does not believe in supernatural beings that seek a relationship with humankind. That is the distinction!

Now I’ve noticed your tone has suddenly become rather hostile and personal. By all means attack my posts, as I expect you to, but there is no reason to be uncivil now is there?

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.

Everything in nature is subject to experience and experience is contingent. And you say you do not need causation to argue to God and yet that is exactly what you’ve been doing by proposing that it exists beyond nature in order for God to be its cause!

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.

So if you’re not using the Big Bang to argue to God then why are you constantly posting a link to Vilenkin?

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.

What are you on about “restating your claims”? You said: “There is nothing in big bang cosmology that indicates a universe arose from nothing without a cause.” And I replied: “The creation of something from nothing is unknown in nature”. In other words nothing is ever seen to be created, which is to say that while causality, as change and movement, is observed in the material world there is no argument to show it exists other than within the world. And in fact there is nothing in Big Bang cosmology that indicates anything at all concerning a (first) cause.

Allude to what? Are you suggesting I must illustrate al the details of billions of supernatural claims in order to claim they exist?

That would be absurd. What I’m expecting from you is a proper argument or the presentation of evidence. Give me one, just one, example of a miracle that is universally accepted, ie throughout the world, by theists and non-believers alike, as being justifiably true? Secondly, it is very noticeable that much of your arguments are concerned with attempts to prove the supernatural as they are about establishing the existence of God. While it is true that if God exists then the supernatural exists, since God is supernatural by definition, it does not follow that if the supernatural exists then God must exist.

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.

Blimey, four hours a day! Why the obsession? Do you not have life away from this forum?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That much would be the given.

Contradicts-

And I don't care.

You must really enjoy the taste of your own foot, seeing how often it ends up in your mouth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ahem …

No you have not. You provided me with wild speculations about things which have no evidence. That is why abiogenesis is a law. It has no exceptions known. I can invent ways a building may self assemble but I would be as inconsistent with all the evidence as your claim is.

Do you have any idea how many astronomically improbabilities must occur in order to get life without God? I am virtually certain there are millions. I know there are dozens and they are multiplicative and produce chances so ridiculously absurd as to make the FAITH in it the height of irrationality. It is far more likely the same man will win every lottery he entered even if he entered them all.

My claim is exactly true. Please post the example the actual observation that makes anything I said wrong.

Abiogenesis is not a law. I think what you’re thinking about is the law of biogenesis which states that living things can only come from other living things via reproduction and that such organisms cannot appear fully formed (Which is a claim against creationism rather than abiogenesis). What it doesn’t say is that primitive life can’t form from complex molecules.

What I gave you were scientific studies where the results indicated that it is possible for the building blocks of life to form from nonliving materials. You brushed these off as failures, for some odd reason even though the results indicate what I said. If they were actually failures, as is your contention, the results should not have indicated that it’s at least possible for living matter to form from non-living matter. But they did, and so your analysis is inaccurate.

I showed you that in 2008 scientists revisited the Miller-Urey experiments and determined that they were more successful than they initially thought. They found additional amino acids that were undetectable in the original experiment. They also demonstrated that organic molecules are pretty easy to synthesize under a wide variety of atmospheric conditions and using different energy sources. Here it is:
http://astrobiology.gsfc.nasa.gov/analytical/PDF/Johnsonetal2008.pdf

There are tons of studies on the subject, that bring us closer and closer to understanding how life arose on earth which are more than simply wild speculations lacking in evidence. Nice try though. So while you’re here on the internet, declaring from some preconceived notions about god that all of this is impossible without “him,” scientists are out in the field trying to find actual answers for us. Every new piece of information gleaned is another piece that helps complete the puzzle:

A COMBINED EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL STUDY ON THE FORMATION OF THE AMINO ACID
GLYCINE (NH2CH2COOH) AND ITS ISOMER (CH3NHCOOH) IN EXTRATERRESTRIAL ICES
http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/Bil301/Kaiser%20Paper/p108.pdf

An asymmetric underlying rule in the assignment of codons: Possible clue to a quick early evolution of the genetic code via successive binary choices
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1781368/

Carbonyl Sulfide–Mediated Prebiotic Formation of Peptides
http://centerforchemicalevolution.com/sites/default/files/prebiochemI-article.pdf


Catalysis in prebiotic chemistry: application to the synthesis of RNA oligomers
https://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Catalysis%20Adv.Space%20Res..pdf

Cations as Mediators of the Adsorption of Nucleic Acids on Clay Surfaces in Prebiotic Environments
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/orig/2003/00000033/00000001/05098679?crawler=true

Chemistry for the synthesis of nucleobasemodified peptide nucleic acid
http://pac.iupac.org/publications/pac/pdf/2004/pdf/7607x1591.pdf

Coevolution of compositional protocells and their environment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17510019

Conditions for the emergence of life on the early Earth: summary and reflections
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664691/

Continued ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

No you have not. You provided me with wild speculations about things which have no evidence. That is why abiogenesis is a law. It has no exceptions known. I can invent ways a building may self assemble but I would be as inconsistent with all the evidence as your claim is.

Coupled Growth and Division of Model Protocell Membranes
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja900919c

Early anaerobic metabolisms
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664682/

Evolution and self-assembly of protocells
http://complex.upf.es/~ricard/DarwinProtocells2009.pdf

Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code
http://www.ffame.org/pubs/Evolution%20of%20amino%20acid%20frequencies%20in%2 0proteins%20over%20deep%20time%3A%20Inferred%20ord er%20of%20introduction%20of%20amino%20acids%20into %20the%20genetic%20code..pdf

Formation of Protocell-like Vesicles in a Thermal Diffusion Column
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja9029818

Generic Darwinian selection in catalytic protocell assemblies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17510015

Homochiral selection in the montmorillonite-catalyzed and uncatalyzed Prebiotic synthesis of RNA
https://www.rpi.edu/dept/cogsci/yesterday/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Joshi_Homochiral_Chem_Com_2000.pdf

Implications of a 3.472–3.333 Gyr-old subaerial microbial mat from the Barberton greenstone belt, South Africa for the UV environmental conditions on the early Earth
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1474/1857.full


Ligation of the hairpin ribozyme in cis induced by freezing and dehydration
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383583/

Mineral Catalysis and Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalyzed Formation of RNA
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/ELEM_V1n3_145-150.pdf

Replicating vesicles as models of primitive cell growth and division
http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Hanczyc_and_Szostak_2004_COChemBio.pdf

Self-assembly processes in the prebiotic environment
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664680/

Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918/1229.short

Do you have any idea how many astronomically improbabilities must occur in order to get life without God? I am virtually certain there are millions. I know there are dozens and they are multiplicative and produce chances so ridiculously absurd as to make the FAITH in it the height of irrationality. It is far more likely the same man will win every lottery he entered even if he entered them all.

You can be certain of whatever you want. You need to back it up with some evidence if you want anyone else to buy it.

My claim is exactly true. Please post the example the actual observation that makes anything I said wrong.

It’s false. See above.

No I am not. I did not invent the Biblical concept of God nor the philosophers concept of God. I found both preexisting and had no ability whatever to construct a God to produce a desired result. What is also a certainty is that an infinite regression of causation is a logical absurdity and could never produce anything. If anything exists then there must be an uncaused first cause. It does not have to be my God (though he is the best candidate) but there must be one of some type. God as a concept has no cause or he could not be God. A caused God is not a maximal being.

Yes you are. I don’t care whether you invented the concept of god or not. The argument you are employing as evidence of the existence of your god is a fallacy. It doesn’t answer the question any more than “god did it” answers any question. Like in the case of “god did it” all you’re doing is using a mystery to explain a mystery, which in actuality explains nothing.

 

[ladybug77]

Hey yo my bros...God is real. Get over it. Search yourself...you will find what makes your body and soul coexist. Wink wink.

 

[1robin]

Forgive me, but you can’t just assert things or make unsupported statements. If you are stating something is the case then you need to show why it is the case, and not argue from ignorance to say just because we don’t know that a thing to be the case it doesn’t mean it cannot be the case.

Assertions derived from reality and applied to things not seen is one of the most comment concepts even in science. Where do you think dark matter, dark energy, multiverses, oscillating universes, cracked eggs, holographic theory, and most of history comes from. It take things derived from the known and unless there exists a reason not to do so, they are applied to the unknown. Cause and effect are present in any state change of information known, every change of any type requires a state change in information, by the associative property every actual change requires cause and effect. In every talk (even by the most theoretical and rabid atheist scientists) on evolution or cosmology you will hear "cause and effect" and design used more than just about anything else.

That’s a sophistical argument that begins with a false premise!
There is evidence that the universe had a beginning. There is no evidence at all that the universe was created. And since there is no evidence that the world was created it does not follow that something supernatural created it.

There is evidence it was created. Fine tuning, the rationality within it, the lawful nature, etc..... those are not what a universe flung into being by nothing should have. They should not even have a universe. Nothing has no information in it to change states and result in an anything. The universe can't just appear, nothing can not create anything, the universe is not self creating, that pretty much narrows it down even if what it narrows it down to is inconvenient. That is why that argument is still standing after 3000 years of scrutiny to this day.

If there is a causal agent of contingent causes then it must itself be contingent, since cause is itself contingent. Only the world (as far as we know) is contingent, therefore the world sustains itself. See Thesis 1 in the Continuation.

That is not correct. A causal agent is not composed of causation alone. A personal being can chose to create or not. He neither has to create nor is prevented from doing so and neither effect his existence. Causation may be contingent but the causal agent is not. If X sustains X then X is not contingent. A thing contingent on it's self is a kind of tautology. Even if true the X that sustains x could not have brought x into existence. Your detour led back to the starting point.

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!

Wow we went back to theology 101 here. God in the Bible and in philosophy is a being that never began to exist. Only things that begin to exist require a cause. This is in fact true of everything actually in existence. Every single chain of causation that exists must have at it's terminus an uncaused fort cause. Infinite regression of causation is impossible. It will never produce anything. If we have a Z then there must be an uncaused A that began its chain of causation. This takes the form of pretty much a law in philosophy.

On this basis, a question I’ve asked previously:
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. Professor Lane Craig agrees and thinks the only explanation is a personal God that chose to freely bring the world into existence, a matter on which you also agree. So I think we are entitled to ask: What is this reason for bringing the world into existence? And there can only be two possibilities, which are that God created the world for himself, or for the benefit of others. Both possibilities are 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. Therefore both reasons contradict the concept of an all-sufficient Supreme Being and hence it fails to deify the basic first cause concept.

I think he created it for himself and for others and I do not see anything incoherent about that. You went straight from creation for pleasure or for another's pleasure straight to need in order to make a point. Why? The Bible nor philosophy says anything about God having a need for us or the universe. He did not create out of necessity but out of love. There is nothing incoherent about creating a being so as to have it experience love and reason, etc.... The only way it would be incoherent is if the being, being created, did not exist to experience things. Your objection here was incoherent. Usually I can see what another person is driving at even if terribly wrong. Here I am lost why you would have said anything in the above paragraph. Clearly scholars of imminent status like Craig see no incoherence and that is exactly what he and others were extensively trained to do and neither do I.

This is just a plea to faith, not an argument.

That was not so. Depending on what I am asked I describe God as a concept or as a theological being, and even a philosophic maximum. In that statement I was talking about him as a concept but in none of the three is God a doctrine. That does not even make sense and is far more of a statement of faith than what I said. God as a concept is a being not a doctrine. In 15 years of debate I have never heard anyone attempt to reduce a theoretical being to a theological dogma. BTW I admit it is not always apparent which of the three modes I am in but in none of them would my statement be faith based alone.

 

[metis]

Reconciling the idea that everything must have a cause, but "God" is somehow an exception, is interesting theology but lousy science, especially since no evidence can be brought forth to fortify the claim. But that doesn't stop many theists from inventing stories and then claiming it's really "science".

According to the research cosmologist Leonard Susskind, most cosmologists lean in the direction that there were always sub-atomic particles and/or the elements (possibly "string") that make up sub-atomic particles. Hawking also leans in that direction when he states the gravitational force alone might have created our universe.

But of course the Bible is a much greater scientific source than Susskind, Hawking, and most other cosmologists and quantum physicists.

 

[1robin]

Ahem! Wouldn’t it be better if you were to read what I actually wrote before you reply to me? Have a quick look back to see what I said.

I looked over your stement I replied to and even bolded it. Here it is:

There is no evidence of anything in the universe beginning to exist, no evidence at all

My response was this:

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

Now, what statement could have been any more appropriate in response to yours. I think your trying to lessen the emphatic nature of what you said be including some context from past posts. That is fine but I can't always remember back more than a post or two, and my reply can not be any more appropriate to this latest statement of yours.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, the material world is finite and hence there are good reasons to believe it did have a beginning. And there are two possible hypotheses to explain this, which I’ve already given you, the first of which is compatible with “Vilenkin’s Verdict”:

If you listen to an atheist there are an infinity of hypothesis to explain this. In fact anything and everything is a worthy explanation minus God did it. I will assume you mean these are your two best hypothesis.

1) The world has not always existed; there was nothing before the world and one day it will cease to be. It is finite, and uncaused since there is no contradiction in denying any necessity in cause and effect, which being a contingent principle belongs to the world; and nor is there any necessity or empirical evidence for acts of creation, no evidence whatsoever, it being nothing more than an arbitrary act of the mind. The world neither created itself nor did it come from nothing since causation began with the world, and being contingent causation must end with the world.

That is not what Vilenkin or anyone I am familiar with says. He and I say the universe began to exist and one of two things will occur in the future. It will never end in either of them. It will become an evenly dispersed energy and matter space, boring but existent. Or God will alter natural processes like he occasionally does and once again supervise nature constantly and it will be what it was intended to be. Nothing comes into being or even changes without a state change in information. The only possible information that could have changed before the universe existed was in the mind of God. You will never get anything if nothing existed and no God.

I am growing weary of this.

1. You claim that a universe can begin to exist without a cause. You can't know that and more importantly it contradicts everything we do know and philosophy its self.
2. I claim the universe had a cause. I can't know that either but it is consistent with everything we do know and fits hand in glove with philosophy and observation.

Here is what you asked for:

I am going with every piece of evidence there is even if the evidence is only relevant by inference. You insist we go with evidence unless, as in this example, it makes God more likely then you go against all the evidence and it's not even a faith criteria. It is pure speculation based on nothing what ever. There is a double standard if they exist at all.

2) The world is self-existent, i.e. contingent matter sustained within the world by an eternal, immutable quality. There is neither causal regression nor any infinitely forward progression since being immaterial it is not within the constraints of time. And note that this is to apply exactly the same premise of an unknown entity that the God hypothesis seeks to employ, but with the clear advantage that the world, having actual existence, has more objective reality than what is merely believed to exist as a matter of religious faith cluttered with contradictions and confused precepts. But as with Thesis 1 contingent matter can still cease to exist, but in this case it may renewed from its source.

I was not discussing what sustains anything. I have no idea how an atom is sustained or what that even means. It is not being sustained anyway, it is burning out, running down, dispersing. I was discussing how it all began to exist. I can include many arguments about things in nature that nature can't explain but that is another subject. However any slice of reality no matter how large or small does not contain the reason for it's existence within it. There is always a chain of causation for every events and bit or matter in the universe. The world does exist and can be said to be more proven than God but the universe has nothing to offer in the way of explanation of the world or much of what is in it. That is the issue.

You are misunderstanding the concept. “Contingency” simply means there is no necessity or, in plain terms, nothing has to exist; no matter of fact is true and can never imply a contradiction if denied.

It means a things existence is not predicated on another things existence. It might have implications about whether it must exist but I have never seen it used that way and doubt it can be. God is not contingent but he does not philosophically have to exist unless you get into multiverse fantasies, then he invariably exists.

Descartes’ rationalist philosophy failed to demonstrate the “I” or “We”, but only established that “there are thoughts.” Neither science nor theology is certain, but induction provides as with past knowledge that is a highly probable guide to the future. Every person, theist or religious sceptic, confidently believes that the sun will rise in the morning, not because it is certain and true but because as far as we can know it has always done so in the past. But every person does not believe in supernatural beings that seek a relationship with humankind. That is the distinction!

I do not see how the lack of an "I" would still allow for thought. His comments were made in the context of himself. He said that if he thought then he must be a thing somewhere thinking because thinking requires a thing. He applied his identity to whatever that thing was and that is the context of the claim.

In what way are thousands of years containing records of millions of supernatural events any less reliable than a few hundred years of recording events involving black holes or quantum physics. We will swallow whole what maybe a few scientists at best tell us is the truth based on stuff we cannot understand and did not see but we reject supernatural claims (even if we see them, many times) even though they are the record of history by the millions. There is no actual legitimate basis for doing so. I want only a reasonable and consistent standard.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Now I’ve noticed your tone has suddenly become rather hostile and personal. By all means attack my posts, as I expect you to, but there is no reason to be uncivil now is there?

I apologize. I must save the longest posts to last because they require more time. Yours are very long. By the time I get to them sometimes I have become frustrated by the shallow tactics in the attempt to win word fights over a subject more deserving of honesty than any in history. Sorry.

Everything in nature is subject to experience and experience is contingent. And you say you do not need causation to argue to God and yet that is exactly what you’ve been doing by proposing that it exists beyond nature in order for God to be its cause!

This is an example of what I mean by the concept of God. God as a theoretical being is beyond nature. It is in that context he must be considered and only in that context can whatever did create the universe exist. I do not remember trying to prove what is true of the God concept, it kind of is true by default as well as the context it comes inseparable from. IOW the cause of the universe must be independent from everything in it, time, space, matter, etc.... God as a concept happens to be all these things and the only concept that is all these things. Therefor God as a concept is the best explanation for the universe. Does not prove he exists but does prove the concept is consistent with what nature needs.

So if you’re not using the Big Bang to argue to God then why are you constantly posting a link to Vilenkin?

Vilenkin is not a founder of the BBT so I do not understand the contention. The argument we are discussing is the cosmological argument. It is composed of about 2 scientific parts, a theological part, and a philosophical part. I use scientists for the science parts, and theologians and philosophers for the rest. I do not use a scientists to get from one end of the argument to the other. The same way a trial brings in expert witnesses in different fields for different aspects of a case.

What are you on about “restating your claims”? You said: “There is nothing in big bang cosmology that indicates a universe arose from nothing without a cause.” And I replied: “The creation of something from nothing is unknown in nature”. In other words nothing is ever seen to be created, which is to say that while causality, as change and movement, is observed in the material world there is no argument to show it exists other than within the world. And in fact there is nothing in Big Bang cosmology that indicates anything at all concerning a (first) cause.

If we have a universe that began to exist and what existed before it was nothing then every atom in the universe is an example of something coming from either nothing (which is impossible) or something that is not natural. Just because an atom is old does not change the fact it began to exist.

That would be absurd. What I’m expecting from you is a proper argument or the presentation of evidence. Give me one, just one, example of a miracle that is universally accepted, ie throughout the world, by theists and non-believers alike, as being justifiably true? Secondly, it is very noticeable that much of your arguments are concerned with attempts to prove the supernatural as they are about establishing the existence of God. While it is true that if God exists then the supernatural exists, since God is supernatural by definition, it does not follow that if the supernatural exists then God must exist.

Here is another example of the double standards you asked me to point out.

1. You have made claims that not only have 0 evidence but contradict evidence and philosophy.
2. Almost everything you believe is not a universal belief.
3. Why in the world are you insisting universal belief is the criteria only where God is concerned?

I have no such burden and no claim has such a weird criteria. My claim is that millions of recorded events have no natural explanation. Even some natural (almost universal) aspects of the universe have no natural explanation. That is a much higher standard than faith naturally comes with. For faith I only need a belief that is not contradicted by evidence conclusively but my claim satisfies a much higher criteria than that, but no claim satisfies the criteria you posted.

Blimey, four hours a day! Why the obsession? Do you not have life away from this forum?

I have other things that I must do every hour of every day. Those things are of a nature that means I am stuck with various amounts of down time but will not allow me freedom to do anything else. My job is dependent on science and so is naturally full of down time. Either an instrument that is at the end of it's life cycle dies every 5 minutes or it's replacement never works without a lot of technical encouragement. At home I spend much time programming and get bored and check out the forum to break the monotony.

I guess I do not have too much of a life beyond that besides family stuff. I never cared what is going on at the club or anything. I also missed my calling getting a math degree. I wish I had gone into philosophy or theology as a profession. They are the only things that do not bore me eventually. Sorry if I got short with you but even a saint's patience would be tried by some of the arguments I see. Ignorance is understandable, a rabid bias is not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

1. You claim that a universe can begin to exist without a cause. You can't know that and more importantly it contradicts everything we do know and philosophy its self.
2. I claim the universe had a cause. I can't know that either but it is consistent with everything we do know and fits hand in glove with philosophy and observation.

Do you not see the contradiction here? You're telling him that we can't believe that a universe can exist without a cause, but you are perfectly justified in believing that some god can exist without a cause.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In what way are thousands of years containing records of millions of supernatural events any less reliable than a few hundred years of recording events involving black holes or quantum physics. We will swallow whole what maybe a few scientists at best tell us is the truth based on stuff we cannot understand and did not see but we reject supernatural claims (even if we see them, many times) even though they are the record of history by the millions. There is no actual legitimate basis for doing so. I want only a reasonable and consistent standard.

The former is based on personal experience alone and is neither testable nor demonstrable. The latter is testable and demonstrable.

Why do you dismiss the claims of the thousands (possibly millions) of people who say they were abducted by aliens but give ultimate credence to claims related to the god you believe in? And what do you think about people who claim to have had supernatural experiences involving Allah? I was recently listening to a call-in show where a woman described a near-death experience in which she found herself inside the Starship Enterprise from Star Trek. What should we conclude about her claims?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have no such burden and no claim has such a weird criteria. My claim is that millions of recorded events have no natural explanation. Even some natural (almost universal) aspects of the universe have no natural explanation. That is a much higher standard than faith naturally comes with. For faith I only need a belief that is not contradicted by evidence conclusively but my claim satisfies a much higher criteria than that, but no claim satisfies the criteria you posted.

How do you know this?

 

[McBell]

How do you know this?

I suspect in his haste he forgot the word "known".

 

[SkepticThinker]

I suspect in his haste he forgot the word "known".

Hopefully. But even then, I don't even know if you can really claim that much unless the people having these experiences have had them analyzed scientifically. There may be no known natural explanation available to the individual experiencing it, but that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one.