INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

The story of the Good Samaritan follows the same question as does the one you mention. The man had obeyed all the laws and Jesus was even said to feel great love for him. What the man would not give up though is his riches.

That was the story I had brought up because I felt sure that was what you are linking with Nicodemus. I had occasion to really dig into that story and what at first appeared to be simple turned out to be a very sophisticated discussion. I cannot remember every detail but let me hit the high points.

With Nicodemus Christ said he must be born again because he knew that is what Nicodemus lacked and needed instruction on and it was true. Nicodemus was a good man, he was a lawful man, he was a just man. If any man could have merited heaven by obedience it was Nicodemus yet Christ said being a teacher he did not even understand the basics. he could not even see the kingdom until he was born again.

Now that man who said "good teacher what must I do........": This one starts of earlier with our being told the man was some kind of legal official and knew the law very well. Jesus knew this and Jesus knew the man's heart was not in the right place in his asking this question. This occurred a lot with Christ's enemies. They put their accusations or contempt in question form and Jesus gave them cryptic and tailored responses in order to bring out their faults on their own terms. This is called opening up a person with their assumptions and is a tactic of master philosophers. This man was certain his obedience was enough. Jesus knew that is not even the correct question but wished to contend the man on his own terms. Jesus was right is saying if we are perfectly obedient and never sin we can get to heaven. That is not to say anyone ever has or could do so except for him. Jesus used the law to condemn a man who thought his righteousness came from the law. He said ok if you think you are obedient then be obedient even in the ways you could never be. This trapped the man in the pit of his own making. If it stopped there that might have been to trite to accept. However Jesus went on to teach that what is impossible for man (it is impossible for man to earn his way to heaven) was possible for God (God can legal declare us righteous even though our own record is a failure).

So if you take both these stories and a lot of context surround them they are identical. The man who really was open got a direct answer and it was 100% spiritual, the man who was right in his own mind and insincere was condemned by his own standards and while the conversations seems hopeless adding in his comments about God being able to do what we can't and save us they are perfectly consistent. Sorry, I was in a hurry and could not give references for where I get these things from but they are easily searched for.

Summary: Grace and grace alone is our only hope.

 

[camanintx]

God could be his own source. For example, you could say that God as the source of existence is above time. That on the mind, he could have spontaneously occurred by being created by his own future into the past - or whatever type of time-frame he exists in...

Doesn't any such argument completely ignore everything we know about time? If something is "above time" then how can it have any future or past? Time by definition involves change, so how can anything "above time" change itself, much less create a whole universe?

 

[Thief]

Time does not exist.
To exist outside of time is simply to be of spirit.

Then you need not change.
You could be eternal.

 

[camanintx]

Time does not exist.

We agree there.

To exist outside of time is simply to be of spirit.

If time does not exist, then how can anything existing "outside" of it?

Then you need not change.
You could be eternal.

If God doesn't change, then there is no moment when it didn't create the universe. So wouldn't that make the universe eternal as well?

 

[1robin]

Doesn't any such argument completely ignore everything we know about time? If something is "above time" then how can it have any future or past? Time by definition involves change, so how can anything "above time" change itself, much less create a whole universe?

It certainly covers areas we do not understand. How do we know what being independent of time means. I cannot say but let me illustrate some supporting evidence for the concept. Time cannot be eternal because no actual infinites are possible. You cannot cross an infinite expanse of anything to arrive at this one or "now". Infinites cause mathematical nightmares and irrationalities, in my experience they are usually unreachable asymptotic boundary, and impossible results. For example if for example the solar system was eternal it would mean that Saturn for instance had circled the sun .4 times as many cycles as the Earth yet both the Earth and Saturn have infinite times of having been around the sun. How is infinity and .4 times infinity equal. If have an infinity of coins and take away three how many are left? Is infinity and infinity minus three equal? Infinity does not work except in abstract potentialities. Shove it into reality and everything gets messed up.

If you think actual infinites are either possible or are real look into the latest models of the BBT or BGV. Neither posit an infinite past anything. Vilenkin goes way out of his way to suggest scientists can no longer hide (that is right he said hide) behind infinite past universes.

So all the evidence (again his words) suggests that time, matter, and space began to exist a finite "time" ago that mandates whatever caused them be independent of them. I have no idea what that would mean. Finite minds are not equipped to understand infinite concepts. I however find the modern characteristics associated with whatever caused this universe to line up exactly with what ignorant men thousands of years ago said about God and creation.

I can know it fits even if I cannot fully comprehend what it is.

The subject gets very detailed but I tried to only illustrate a sample of what is involved in the claim.

 

[1robin]

We agree there.

Didn't you just make a point above that depended on distinguishing time from outside of time. I do not get this are you suggesting duration does not exist?

If time does not exist, then how can anything existing "outside" of it?

I do not think anyone would claim to know what it means exist independent of time but certainly no one could possibly think times creator is in time. I may not know what it means to a fish to breath water but I certainly know they do it. I may not know what black holes do to gravity but I can agree they have a drastic affect on it. BTW how can someone claim multiple universes exist but restrict time in any way.

If God doesn't change, then there is no moment when it didn't create the universe. So wouldn't that make the universe eternal as well?

1. There exists no evidence the universe is eternal. There exists no evidence outside of that which suggests it is finite.
2. There is no theoretical possibility for it being eternal.
3. The only evidence God exists outside of time is times creator cannot be in time and knowledge existed in time before it was discovered by those who claim to speak with God. However unlike the universe there are many reasons to think a being independent of time exists.

Things can be just as true and just as valid even if they escape our ability to perceive. We are just not set up to comprehend subjects like timelessness, infinity, or apparently not destroying every form of government ever created.

 

[Thief]

We agree there.

If time does not exist, then how can anything existing "outside" of it?

If God doesn't change, then there is no moment when it didn't create the universe. So wouldn't that make the universe eternal as well?

The physical portions must change....any of it.....all of it.
So says science!
(grade school science actually...a long standing notion!)

Spirit however might not have physical restriction!
What if you must deal with your dreams?.....not able to awaken!

 

[camanintx]

If you think actual infinites are either possible or are real look into the latest models of the BBT or BGV. Neither posit an infinite past anything. Vilenkin goes way out of his way to suggest scientists can no longer hide (that is right he said hide) behind infinite past universes.

So all the evidence (again his words) suggests that time, matter, and space began to exist a finite "time" ago that mandates whatever caused them be independent of them. I have no idea what that would mean. Finite minds are not equipped to understand infinite concepts. I however find the modern characteristics associated with whatever caused this universe to line up exactly with what ignorant men thousands of years ago said about God and creation.

There is a big difference between "infinite" and "eternal". And just because something began to exist a finite time ago doesn't necessarily mean it had a beginning. Einstein does a good job explaining it here: Chapter 31. The Possibility of a “Finite” and Yet “Unbounded” Universe. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory

Didn't you just make a point above that depended on distinguishing time from outside of time. I do not get this are you suggesting duration does not exist?

When I say time does not exist, I mean as something other than a concept that allows us to make sense of the changing world around us. The only "time" anyone has ever experienced is "now". What we call the past no longer exists and what we call the future is only what may come to exist.

I do not think anyone would claim to know what it means exist independent of time but certainly no one could possibly think times creator is in time. I may not know what it means to a fish to breath water but I certainly know they do it. I may not know what black holes do to gravity but I can agree they have a drastic affect on it. BTW how can someone claim multiple universes exist but restrict time in any way.

Saying that anyone or anything can exist "outside" of something that doesn't exist in the first place is illogical. As for multiple universes, you would have to ask someone who makes that claim, because it isn't me.

1. There exists no evidence the universe is eternal. There exists no evidence outside of that which suggests it is finite.
2. There is no theoretical possibility for it being eternal.
3. The only evidence God exists outside of time is times creator cannot be in time and knowledge existed in time before it was discovered by those who claim to speak with God. However unlike the universe there are many reasons to think a being independent of time exists.

Again, eternal does not mean the same thing as infinite. If time came into existence along with the universe, then there was no time when the universe did not exist, which makes it by definition "eternal".

 

[1robin]

There is a big difference between "infinite" and "eternal". And just because something began to exist a finite time ago doesn't necessarily mean it had a beginning. Einstein does a good job explaining it here: Chapter 31. The Possibility of a “Finite” and Yet “Unbounded” Universe. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory

Oh no. Another poster burned me completely out on semantics. Why is that the first refuge of a non-theist? It is like Clinton's obvious guilt being red herring-ed with a what does "is" mean. I grant others common language use, why is the favor never returned? All finites are bounded in reality, only in abstract thought experiments are they not. A circle is considered an unbounded finite but is not a boundless circumference. It must repeat to continue. Unless there is good reason to think time repeats the semantics does not serve here. Time doe snot even qualify is an unbounded finite because it is linear.

When I say time does not exist, I mean as something other than a concept that allows us to make sense of the changing world around us. The only "time" anyone has ever experienced is "now". What we call the past no longer exists and what we call the future is only what may come to exist.

I was speaking of what we call duration. The past exists regardless of whether it is currently being experienced. Africa does not disappear because I cannot see, smell, or taste it. I grant time is a mysterious issue but no less real because it is such. If you will agree I want avoid the deep end of theory and stich to what common language use and intuition indicates. If you want to instead be strictly technical then the latest philosophy and physics suggest even matter is projected by mind. I do not agree but that is what we are going to have to deal with if you want to be technical.

Saying that anyone or anything can exist "outside" of something that doesn't exist in the first place is illogical. As for multiple universes, you would have to ask someone who makes that claim, because it isn't me.

I claim time is as real as matter regardless if it is not apprehended in the same way as matter is. Are you really going to premise your entire argument on the non existence of what we all agree exists (even as an abstract as real as say, numbers). Do numbers exist? If not my teachers owe me about 50,000 big ones.

Again, eternal does not mean the same thing as infinite. If time came into existence along with the universe, then there was no time when the universe did not exist, which makes it by definition "eternal".

Every Christian would agree. Eternal is primary and time is derivative. Eternal is non-contingent and physics suggests time is. That is why we usually say God is not infinitely old he is Eternal. A lot of wisdom for bronze age idiots. How did they predict this modern paradox? BTW I grant I grant I used the terms improperly. I should have known to not assume common language use will be granted.

 

[camanintx]

The past exists regardless of whether it is currently being experienced. Africa does not disappear because I cannot see, smell, or taste it. I grant time is a mysterious issue but no less real because it is such. If you will agree I want avoid the deep end of theory and stich to what common language use and intuition indicates. If you want to instead be strictly technical then the latest philosophy and physics suggest even matter is projected by mind. I do not agree but that is what we are going to have to deal with if you want to be technical.

I am not being theoretical or technical when I claim that time doesn't exist. Neither you nor I can experience anything but "now". We know that Africa continues to exist even when we cannot see, smell, or taste it because we can return to it and experience it again. The same cannot be said of the past. Once a moment has passed, we can no longer experience it. We might be able to remember it, but even those memories only exist in the present. While time travel makes for great science fiction, there has never been an experiment that suggests it is even remotely possible. Until you can show that time is more than a concept, the rest of this discussion is meaningless.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Oh no. Another poster burned me completely out on semantics. Why is that the first refuge of a non-theist?

Why is hiding behind a flimsy plea of "semantics" the first (and apparently only) refuge of the theist?

 

[1robin]

Why is hiding behind a flimsy plea of "semantics" the first (and apparently only) refuge of the theist?

Because immediately to saying this an atheist made a plea to semantics. I tell you what. I will try and explain today why I have such derision for pure semantics in detail. At least that is a change of pace.

 

[1robin]

I am not being theoretical or technical when I claim that time doesn't exist. Neither you nor I can experience anything but "now". We know that Africa continues to exist even when we cannot see, smell, or taste it because we can return to it and experience it again. The same cannot be said of the past. Once a moment has passed, we can no longer experience it. We might be able to remember it, but even those memories only exist in the present. While time travel makes for great science fiction, there has never been an experiment that suggests it is even remotely possible. Until you can show that time is more than a concept, the rest of this discussion is meaningless.

My experience is not the arbiter of truth. I have not experienced Pluto, the core of the Earth, or a black hole yet everyone considers them all realities. I am not experiencing my house currently but that doe snot make my house any less of a reality. The fact that yesterday is not currently being experienced does nothing to make it any less of a reality hen this second. However I know what it is your trying to say and clarified a little it would be true. Time can be universally apprehended but all of time is not always currently available as a universal perception. Even that is pushing it. The thing I am trying to say is true or not it is one of those premises that exist as a technicality concerning language and have no governance over the actual existence of anything. If yu do not experience proper grammar in my posts it does not mean it does not exist, either.

Now as far as time travel goes I can't take it. I cannot even watch a show about it because so many paradoxes exist. I will not tell you what being independent of time means. I suggest it never the less is a virtual necessary characteristic of times creator and times creator is a necessity because it began to exist.

I prefer Leibniz's claims to others. He claims everything must contain an explanation of its existence. Time exists even if it is only a certain fact it only exists for this moment. Time, matter, and space do not contain their explanations for existence. Their explanations necessary come from outside themselves. I do not know what that entails but I know it the most reasonable of causal deductions.

BTW God does not travel through time. Past present and the future and are not linear to him. He does not traverse things, he is present in all things.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Because immediately to saying this an atheist made a plea to semantics. I tell you what. I will try and explain today why I have such derision for pure semantics in detail. At least that is a change of pace.

The problem is that the plea of "semantic technicalities" often happens whether semantic technicalities are involved or not, or whether any semantic technicalities involved are relevant or crucial. A lot of times, when people claim something is just "semantics", its because they are misunderstanding something crucial- and it also often betrays a disregard for accuracy and precision.

 

[Ouroboros]

The problem is that the plea of "semantic technicalities" often happens whether semantic technicalities are involved or not, or whether any semantic technicalities involved are relevant or crucial. A lot of times, when people claim something is just "semantics", its because they are misunderstanding something crucial- and it also often betrays a disregard for accuracy and precision.

Agree.

Not every word has to be precise in an argument, but there are always certain key points that has to be exact or the conclusion fails. There's a fallacy called "fallacy of equivocation" for instance, which means that a word is used in double meanings to get to the conclusion. It's a form of double speak based on vague definitions. It's a lexical error, not grammatical, and as such, a correction of this semantic technicality is relevant to the whole argument.

 

[1robin]

The problem is that the plea of "semantic technicalities" often happens whether semantic technicalities are involved or not, or whether any semantic technicalities involved are relevant or crucial. A lot of times, when people claim something is just "semantics", its because they are misunderstanding something crucial- and it also often betrays a disregard for accuracy and precision.

We have spent the last several days talking of little but semantic technicalities. I am not sure what you are saying. By technicality I do not mean unjustified I mean an issue unrelated to the factual nature of a claim. I was going to clarify what I object to such much about arguments FOUNDED on technicality but I believe I have illustrated it the best it can be using the legal example. A procedural violation in an investigation is completely irrelevant to guilt. In a legal sense this is a necessary evil. However in faith it is not necessary or the issue. I do not care about human defined technical validity. I care about common sense rationality as applied to truth. I find personal experience claims far more convincing than philosophic arguments about modal being, for example.

When I am on the gold tee I do not compute trajectories using physics, or get out the surveying equipment I use evidence based intuition, experience, and prayer. Tools for accuracy are great but have a tendency to be applied in exclusion of truth and beyond competence. More truth by far has come from a walk outside than any lab.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

We have spent the last several days talking of little but semantic technicalities. I am not sure what you are saying. By technicality I do not mean unjustified I mean an issue unrelated to the factual nature of a claim. I was going to clarify what I object to such much about arguments FOUNDED on technicality but I believe I have illustrated it the best it can be using the legal example.

Legal examples miss the mark since some very special conditions obtain in a court of law that do not obtain elsewhere- the technicalities you mention exist to balance, e.g. the presumption of guilt associated with being criminally charged, the resources at the disposal of the state, and so on. And the "semantic technicality" you are talking about here couldn't be more crucial to the point at issue- yes, validity is a technical property of arguments. But when you're talking about the adequacy of a deductive argument, this is a very salient technical property. You've also completely failed to grasp the relation between truth and validity, as evidenced by your dismissiveness on this point; valid arguments are truth-preserving- they assure us that the truth of the premises of an argument lead to the truth of the conclusion. Think of it this way- an argument consists of premises and a conclusion, and the premises are basically reasons for thinking the conclusion is true; in a valid argument, the premises actually provide reasons for thinking the conclusion is true since, if the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily must be. With an invalid argument, on the other hand, the premises do not provide reasons for thinking the conclusion is true, in the sense that the premises do not lead to the conclusion- the premises could be true and the conclusion false. An invalid argument is, at bottom, simply one in which the premises do not support or lead to the conclusion. But if an argument whose premises do not support or lead to the conclusion is not a bad argument, then nothing is.

 

[1robin]

Legal examples miss the mark since some very special conditions obtain in a court of law that do not obtain elsewhere- the technicalities you mention exist to balance, e.g. the presumption of guilt associated with being criminally charged, the resources at the disposal of the state, and so on. And the "semantic technicality" you are talking about here couldn't be more crucial to the point at issue- yes, validity is a technical property of arguments. But when you're talking about the adequacy of a deductive argument, this is a very salient technical property. You've also completely failed to grasp the relation between truth and validity, as evidenced by your dismissiveness on this point; valid arguments are truth-preserving- they assure us that the truth of the premises of an argument lead to the truth of the conclusion. Think of it this way- an argument consists of premises and a conclusion, and the premises are basically reasons for thinking the conclusion is true; in a valid argument, the premises actually provide reasons for thinking the conclusion is true since, if the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily must be. With an invalid argument, on the other hand, the premises do not provide reasons for thinking the conclusion is true, in the sense that the premises do not lead to the conclusion- the premises could be true and the conclusion false. An invalid argument is, at bottom, simply one in which the premises do not support or lead to the conclusion. But if an argument whose premises do not support or lead to the conclusion is not a bad argument, then nothing is.

Oh no you don't. I am not going from one semantic boiling pot into another one so easily.

I will briefly mention some non technicality objections then let it rest. The law (in the US) has two parts to discover truth and to protect rights granted by opinion and without an actual foundation, without God anyway.

Some legal methodology only applies to arrive at acceptable standards for truth. These are what Greenleaf and your logical validity speak to. These are perfectly applicable across the entire spectrum of discussion. My objection to yours was not that it did not apply but that it was not the only criteria that can justify a claim, and it is a terrible criteria that is made independently from truth. The same as laws about procedure are made independently from guilt. It is an opinion. If two people make good cases for and against logical validity or a similar criteria to justify an argument as Craig, Aquinas, Plantinga, Leibniz, etc have there exists no transcendent standard to determine which side is correct. You are left to decide which opinion best reflect the "official opinion" based on an opinion. This probably explains why you "just happen" to believe everyone on faiths side ate the ones who are technically invalid.

Other legal methodologies are determines by the legal philosophy of a nation. Ours has the idea that were are innocent until proven guilty. This only has application within similar legal systems and is not capable of application over broad spectrums. This one is not even opinion it is pure contrivance. I think a good one, but simply invented. Many other nations range between neutrality and presumed guilt. None are right, none are wrong, they just are.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

My objection to yours was not that it did not apply but that it was not the only criteria that can justify a claim, and it is a terrible criteria that is made independently from truth.

Unfortunately,

A. You failed to understand that it is a necessary condition for an acceptable deductive argument- it doesn't guarantee it will be acceptable, but its absence guarantees it will be unacceptable. You've yet to deal with this fact (and I'm not holding my breath).

B. You repeat this mistaken claim about validity having nothing to do with truth, despite my having explained this relationship repeatedly, including in my last post.

If two people make good cases for and against logical validity or a similar criteria to justify an argument as Craig, Aquinas, Plantinga, Leibniz, etc have there exists no transcendent standard to determine which side is correct.

Nobody has, nor is likely to, make a case against logical validity. Certainly not the folks you mention. The notion is fairly absurd. Validity is absolutely essential to the very notion of an argument.

Other legal methodologies are determines by the legal philosophy of a nation. Ours has the idea that were are innocent until proven guilty. This only has application within similar legal systems and is not capable of application over broad spectrums. This one is not even opinion it is pure contrivance. I think a good one, but simply invented. Many other nations range between neutrality and presumed guilt. None are right, none are wrong, they just are.

Yeah, we've covered why legal analogies miss the mark already.

 

[Thief]

Eliminate each possiblity until you have only one.
Then...though it may seem unlikely....the last item is the answer.