INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[monti]

something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing.

Becomes circular doesn't it? i.e. If there was nothing before anything, then where did it all come from?
This is why, I believe, all religion is based on faith alone.

 

[Thief]

Becomes circular doesn't it? i.e. If there was nothing before anything, then where did it all come from?
This is why, I believe, all religion is based on faith alone.

All religion?...oh that's right...I ain't got one.
Just a firm conviction to Cause and effect.

 

[Ouroboros]

The assumptions on my part...I consider reasonable.
Are you confused?

I think you're just confusing.

 

[1robin]

That is an example of the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum." Logic indicates that how many fallible, imperfect humans accept colonization, slavery, the subjugation of women, or any particular religion, does not necessarily have anything to do with the truth.

No it was not. My claim was to a sufficiency of evidence to counter your bare assertion not proof. However what you said was hyperbolically hypocritical since you have mentioned how many physicists believe in God or how many medical establishments recommend abstinence, or a thousand other ad populum arguments. This is one big bowl or wrong.

If a certain store has the best tomatoes in the world, that does not necessarily mean that those tomatoes are the "best possible" tomatoes," only that they are the "best available" tomatoes in the world. Similarly, if Christianity is the best religion in the world, that does not necessarily mean that it is the "best possible" religion in the world, only that it is the "best available" religion in the world.

I am not discussing a relative best or an ambiguous what makes it best. It is the best because it is the truest and most evidenced. Religions and best possible have no relationship to each other. They are either true or false. Mine has the greatest possibility of being true.

If Christianity had not come along, some other religion would have been the best available religion in the world, and centuries from now, a new religion might be the best available religion in the world.

Since that would be true for any religion, your argument is that if something else may have come along whatever is does not matter. That is silly. Even if secularism overtook the planet or He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them Luke 21:8 (the bible suggests virtually just that) It would not change the truth of Christianity one bit. It would in fact confirm it.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Those Scriptures indicate that only a few people will become saved, and implies that there are not anywhere near 2 billion Christians in the world today.

No it does neither. The only scripture that deals with numbers is in Revelations and speaks of 144,000 martyrs, not the total in heaven.

Common sense indicates that there is not any correlation between professing Christians, and actual Christians who will have eternal life. If a God inspired the Bible, it is impossible for any human to guess how many Christians there are in the world today to the nearest billion.

I took the numbers that claim to be Christians and halved it. I later found my guesses to be pretty close based on statistics of people claiming to have been born again. However we are not talking about salvation here, only faith. So I can use the full 2 billion plus all the billions since Christ came.

At Matthew 7:14 Commentaries: "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it., there are a number of Bible commentaries that agree with me. One of the commentaries mentions Matthew 22:14, which says "For many are called, but few are chosen."

This is salvation not faith. What determines that is being born again. Using my numbers of about 1 billion currently and maybe 20% of the totality over history. That is by definition a relative few.

Obviously, the God of the Bible prefers quality over quantity.

No he prefers what he says:

New International Version
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

It is us not him that messes this all up.

 

[1robin]

But the link that you mentioned promotes intelligent, so we can dispense with what it says about Alexander Vilenkin.

I do not understand this.

Here is what Vilenkin said again:

In the Beginning Was the Beginning | Tufts Now

Vilenkin definitely promotes a static, eternal universe [prior to the beginning of the expansion of the universe about 14 billion years ago] since he said “The third possibility, and the main focus of this paper that I wrote…….is…….a static universe that sits forever then somehow bursts open and starts expanding.”



Vilenkin’s eternal inflation model addresses the beginning of the inflation of the universe, not the beginning of the universe. That is why he said “For the eternal inflation model, what we can show mathematically is that there is no end to this process.”



Meaning that if the volume of the universe grows, it must have begun to grow, not that it must have began to exist.



That is more proof that supports my arguments.

I actually know very little about physics. I am just using common sense to try to interpret what he said. I might be wrong. If I am wrong, that does not change any of my arguments in other threads, and does not change some of my other arguments in this thread.

Please reply to my posts 3376, 3377, and 3378.

Since what you said about Vilenkin matches nothing in the paper which he worked on that is so famous and the quotes I gave from him, you need to tell me when this other paper was written and what it's importance is. I think I am going to find you misunderstand Vilenkin's position but you seem to be making two contradictory claims from the same guy so we are going to have to find out where the error lies. I did not get so much of this post I thought it better to start with more clarity.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: In my previous post, I said:

"But the link that you mentioned promotes intelligent, so we can dispense with what it says about Alexander Vilenkin."

I meant to says "intelligent design."

oh, that makes more sense. Thanks for the clear up. The quotes come from papers that he wrote in physics, and from a speech he gave at Hawking's birth day. An intelligent design group simply used them in a paper they wrote. I have given the same quotes from many sources and they are in context. I can or you can find those quotes and exactly what he meant by them (though they are self explanatory) in all kinds of scientific sites. I never ever dismiss sources alone. If I dismiss a source I show why they deserved to be dismissed or how that had mangled the quote or conclusions.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: I have decided not to discuss physics anymore since I prefer to discuss topics that I know more about, and that would leave more time for me to discuss other topics.

Please reply to my posts 3376, 3377, and 3378.

Ok, and I appreciate the humility.

 

[1robin]

Becomes circular doesn't it? i.e. If there was nothing before anything, then where did it all come from?
This is why, I believe, all religion is based on faith alone.

It is circular without God. That is the problem. Infinite regression of causation chains never produce anything. So if we have a universe we know it had a cause, that was not it's self caused. And this universe does not contain it's own explanation and all things have explanations. Once God is the one explanation that contains his own explanation for existence. With God the universe makes sense and can be. Without him we are left with fantasy, science fiction, or logically absurd explanations for why anything material exists at all.

 

[Ouroboros]

All religion?...oh that's right...I ain't got one.
Just a firm conviction to Cause and effect.

Cause and effect is relating to causality.

For God (as a person) to be a Cause, he would have to depend on Causality.

In other words, Causality has to exist before First Cause can exist.

Causality is also dependent on things (substance as you call it) to exist. "One thing leads to another." That "thing" must be before Causality can be.

 

[Thief]

Cause and effect is relating to causality.

For God (as a person) to be a Cause, he would have to depend on Causality.

In other words, Causality has to exist before First Cause can exist.

Causality is also dependent on things (substance as you call it) to exist. "One thing leads to another." That "thing" must be before Causality can be.

Cause and effect are basic to science.
Can't have an experiment without that relationship.

Can't have an effect without the cause.
Can't have the universe(one word) without it's Creator.

 

[Ouroboros]

Cause and effect are basic to science.
Can't have an experiment without that relationship.

Can't have an effect without the cause.
Can't have the universe(one word) without it's Creator.

And science deals with natural things, in other words, God is a natural thing, not a supernatural or non-natural.

Is cause and effect eternal or created? If it was created, the cause must've existed before cause was created, which makes it contradictory. If it was eternal, it was before God.

 

[monti]

With God the universe makes sense and can be. Without him we are left with fantasy, science fiction, or logically absurd explanations for why anything material exists at all.

And the same applies when we throw a God into the mix.

 

[Thief]

And science deals with natural things, in other words, God is a natural thing, not a supernatural or non-natural.

Is cause and effect eternal or created? If it was created, the cause must've existed before cause was created, which makes it contradictory. If it was eternal, it was before God.

So you're still hedging there is no God.....because......
He would have to be born like we are.....
therefore not a God.....
And the singularity just popped into existence.....because.....?

And without a cause.?....which would be contrary to science, as science depends on....cause and effect.

You can't have it both ways.

If you hold to cause and effect.....
The singularity had a Cause.

Spirit first.

 

[Ouroboros]

So you're still hedging there is no God.....because......
He would have to be born like we are.....
therefore not a God.....

There is a God, but not the God that you think it is.

God is All that exists, includiong you and me, the universe, powers, energy, consciousness, all of it is one and all of it needs all the other. Interdependence.

And the singularity just popped into existence.....because.....?

Singluratiies usually pop into existence through gravity and explosive force from a supernove (I think it was). We're talking about black holes, right, or is it the future transhuman singularity you're referring to?

And without a cause.?....which would be contrary to science, as science depends on....cause and effect.

No a single cause. Many causes, infinite in both width and depth. Eternal nature, time, and substance. Things change. Things die and new things are born. All of it is God, not just a simple little thing here or there.

You can't have it both ways.

You mean I can't have a scientific cause and a scientific cause at the same time?

A scientific cause is not a supernatural spiritual cause, so you're the one arguing a non-scientific thing.

If you hold to cause and effect.....
The singularity had a Cause.

Spirit first.

Spirit and substance both, coexisting, codependent, eternally.

 

[Agnostic75]

However what you said was hyperbolically hypocritical since you have mentioned how many physicists believe in God or how many medical establishments recommend abstinence, or a thousand other ad populum arguments.

I used a consensus of 99.86% of American experts who accept macro evolution, and I used a 100% consensus of major medical organizations who say that homosexuality is not a mental illness, that homosexuals should be allow to adopt children, and would reject your utterly absurd claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence? What was wrong with that?

When I refer to a consensus of experts, sometimes I know a fair amount about the topic, such as homosexuality, and sometimes I don't, such as biology, and physics. It is reasonable for laymen to accept the opinions of a consensus of experts if they do not know very much about an issue. It is also reasonable for laymen to accept the opinions of a consensus of experts if they do know a lot about an issue. It is not reasonable for people who do not know a lot about biology to question macro evolution like you have done, especially since one study says that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept it. Of the relative handful of creationist experts, a good number of them accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, so their scientific opinions about macro evolution are questionable.

Even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, the vast majority of experts would still disagree with you, and most people at these forums do not know enough about biology to have informed opinions about macro evolution.

It is interesting to note that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.

If a certain store has the best tomatoes in the world, that does not necessarily mean that those tomatoes are the "best possible" tomatoes," only that they are the "best available" tomatoes in the world. Similarly, if Christianity is the best religion in the world, that does not necessarily mean that it is the "best possible" religion in the world, only that it is the "best available" religion in the world.

I am not discussing a relative best or an ambiguous what makes it best. It is the best because it is the truest and most evidenced. Religions and best possible have no relationship to each other. They are either true or false. Mine has the greatest possibility of being true.

You contradicted yourself since the words truest, most evidenced, and the greatest possibility of being true are words that are used to compare various things. In a thread at the General Religious Discussions forum that is titled "The right religion," you have spent a good deal of time comparing Christianity relative to other religions.

Regardless of any other religion, you have not provided reasonable evidence that the God of the Bible exists, and that he is moral.

 

[Agnostic75]

If Christianity had not come along, some other religion would have been the best available religion in the world, and centuries from now, a new religion might be the best available religion in the world.

Since that would be true for any religion, your argument is that if something else may have come along whatever it does not matter.

Consider the following:

It doesn't matter since even if a God exists, the odds are astronomical that a God did not inspire the Bible.

Is that why billions believe the exact opposite and some of the greatest universities on earth study it? Since maybe half the population has seriously studied the Bible, that means out of those that can know 2/3 believe you're wrong and half the rest just don't know.

What I said in the first paragraph of this post was partly a reply to what I just quoted that you said. In other words, if Christianity had not come along, some other religion would be the largest, and that would not make any more difference than it does that Christianity is the largest. The truth is not reasonably proven by how many people believe it, and a religion is not reasonably proven to be true because of the achievements of its followers.

Even if secularism overtook the planet or He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them Luke 21:8 (the Bible suggests virtually just that) It would not change the truth of Christianity one bit. It would in fact confirm it.

But a God did not inspire the Bible.

 

[Thief]

But a God did not inspire the Bible.

Really?.....

And what was That which Moses spoke to on the mountain?

And the Psalms are the rants of a man gone mad?

 

[Thief]

There is a God, but not the God that you think it is.

God is All that exists, includiong you and me, the universe, powers, energy, consciousness, all of it is one and all of it needs all the other. Interdependence.


Singluratiies usually pop into existence through gravity and explosive force from a supernove (I think it was). We're talking about black holes, right, or is it the future transhuman singularity you're referring to?


No a single cause. Many causes, infinite in both width and depth. Eternal nature, time, and substance. Things change. Things die and new things are born. All of it is God, not just a simple little thing here or there.


You mean I can't have a scientific cause and a scientific cause at the same time?

A scientific cause is not a supernatural spiritual cause, so you're the one arguing a non-scientific thing.


Spirit and substance both, coexisting, codependent, eternally.

Try thinking.....origin......genesis.....in the beginning.....

THAT singularity.

Spirit first.

 

[Ouroboros]

Try thinking.....origin......genesis.....in the beginning.....

THAT singularity.

Spirit first.

Try thinking....origin....genesis.....in the beginning....

THAT singularity.

Nature first.

A singularity is part of the Natural world. Causation/Cause/Effect are all part of the Natural world. All that you're suggesting is part of the Natural world. God is part of the Natural world.

Good that you agree finally.

 

[Thief]

Try thinking....origin....genesis.....in the beginning....

THAT singularity.

Nature first.

A singularity is part of the Natural world. Causation/Cause/Effect are all part of the Natural world. All that you're suggesting is part of the Natural world. God is part of the Natural world.

Good that you agree finally.

Don't forget the prefix ...'super'....