INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Thief]

On what basis have you determined that you are in fact using assumptions correctly?


Its neither noble or wise to make rash life decisions from ignorance. I can make the assumption god is not real by looking at the lack of evidence. This is one of those cases in which assumptions can be very useful.

Try looking up on a clear night....say it again.

 

[cottage]

I don't think experiences of God are predominantly intellectual. We engage with him emotionally, on a less heady level. We can talk about him in heady ways all we want but we miss the point when we try to give an 'argument' for his existence.

I'm a religious sceptic and I've never seen an argument that convincingly demonstrates the existence of any God or gods; in fact so many of them seem to make such a possibility less likely. However, I can sort of understand what you're saying, but without being able to give an argument to support what it is I think I'm understanding.

 

[Ouroboros]

Waiting for 'proof' to remove the assumption will put you in your grave without a decision made.

Seems like this is something that scares you a lot. It's funny. It used to be an issue for me as well while I was Christian, to know if I had the right faith and everything was okay with God and so on, but now... I found peace in the non-Christian community. Go figure. I'm calmer and less freaked out about the end of life now when I don't believe in an afterlife. Now I can do my best to enjoy what I have instead of grasping for pipe dreams in the "next".

 

[Ouroboros]

Try looking up on a clear night....say it again.

That's when I realized that Everything is One. And we're part of that One. No separation between God and us. We are part of God. Just as we are the eyes, ears, brains, minds, and experiences of God. We're the extension of the Whole. So enjoy life and don't be so scared of what might come next.

 

[1robin]

You ignored the ignore? LOL!

Anyway, I think it's enough for me for now to debate with Thief (if it can be called a debate or not). We can pick this up at a later time, you and I.

As you wish.

 

[1robin]

And there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but I don’t think you’re quite getting my meaning (argument down the page).

My statement was only to clarify my claim not counter yours.

You said: “You made two points "I think" and we have beat the second one to death and I am leaving for lunch so I will leave that last one alone for the time being.”

And I said: “And this is the point where you’ve withdrawn from the argument. So I’ll wait for you to come back.”

Oh I get what your saying now. Alright let me get back to where I left off.

Here is what I did not respond to:

There is only one instance where a reason or explanation is required, and that is where it is proposed that God, a personal, conscious, self-sufficent, omnipotent, omniscient being is said to have created the world. It would clearly be incoherent to say he created the world for no reason or purpose, and if God has the aforementioned attributes then the world could not have come about by accident or without his knowledge. So what was the reason or purpose?

First let me say again we have beat this to death so I imagine I'm going to repeat myself here.

1. Neither an explanation nor the lack of one is required.
2. As I said above there are far better reasons to think an explanation exists (in fact all of the reasons suggest this), than to suggest the universe has no explanation.
3. That would be true whether my God, any God, or just something unknown to natural science turns out to be the cause.
4. I believe we should expect a cause for the universe and that we can make intelligent conclusions about what it must be like.

A. It must have the capacity to chose (personal). If it did not the universe would have always existed or never began to.
B. It must be independent of time (as we know it).
C. It must be independent of space.
D. It must be non-material.
E. It must be more powerful than can been comprehended.
F. It must be more intelligent than we can comprehend.

I think there is little escape from these but the below are also reasonable to believe.

a. He is probably moral agent.
b. He probably has a purpose for the universe.
c. He is rational.


Anyway I find all those deductions reasonable and almost necessary and I find the Biblical God by far the closest to that description of any candidate.

 

[Agnostic75]

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?

You cannot reject an appeal to popularity and authority and then use them your self.

I rejected an appeal to popularity regarding the number of Christians in the world. There is a big difference between the number of professing Christians in the world and the actual number. No human could possibly know how many actual Christians there are in the world. Anyway, the actual number has nothing to do with whether or not a God inspired the Bible, and neither do the achievements of Christians.

I obviously did not reject an appeal to authority regarding macro evolution, and homosexuality since I appealed to authority regarding those issues.

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.

Statistics are very very hard to use unless specifically designed to show a specific thing.

Statistics are easy to use to show support among experts for macro evolution, and homosexuality, and statistics have nothing to do with the fact that you do not know enough about macro evolution to question it.

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.

I do not think either is true. I think every rational PhD in biology would agree there are still some gaping holes or hurdles in the theory, and I think most people I have debated have had an informed opinion. Some very informed.

Research has conclusively proven that the vast majority of experts in the U.S. accept macro evolution. An article at Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation shows
that only 14 hundredths of 1% of experts in the U.S. accept creation science.

In an article at Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Wikipedia says:

“While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the “fact of evolution.”

Regarding my comment that "most people at these forums do not know enough about biology to have informed opinions about macro evolution," I wish to revise that as follows:

“Most people in the world do not know enough about biology to have informed opinions about macro evolution.”

Are you implying that you have informed opinions about macro evolution? If so, please critique Ken Miller's article on the flagellum, mutation, and irreducible complexity at The Flagellum Unspun. I doubt that most people at these forums could intelligently discuss the article, and certainly most laymen couldn’t.

Are you implying that most people at these forums have informed opinions about macro evolution? Who are these forums have you discussed macro evolution with that you consider to be well informed about macro evolution? How many of them questioned it?

Regarding science, it is reasonable for laymen to accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts pending further research that might change the opinions of most experts, especially when a large consensus of skeptic experts, and Christian experts agree, an example being their acceptance of macro evolution, and especially since a good number of creationist experts also accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory.

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.

It must be interesting to you because you "note" it in every other post. If macroevolution, like static state models, flat earths, geocentric models, turns out to be wrong then it was only propaganda.

No, not propaganda, just mostly honest mistakes. Science can only do the best that it can do at a given time, and at this time, a large consensus of skeptic experts, and Christian experts accept macro evolution. Even if macro evolution was false, you do not know enough about it to question it. William Lane Craig is at least sensible enough to know that he does not know enough about it to question it, so he tells Christians that it doesn’t matter since if it is true, God gave a soul, and a spirit, to an early hominid.

It is no wonder those less exposed to the propaganda were less influenced.

Better stated, those less exposed to anything are less influenced by it. Before the 1800s, creationists had the advantage since few people knew very much about evolution. As science, and education improved, evolution became more popular among laymen, and especially among experts. Surely advances in science, and education are generally helpful.

Are you committed to Boolean differential calculus as used in M theory? Probably not because you probably know little about it.

I do not know anything about Boolean differential calculus, but I am more interested in your lack of knowledge about macro evolution.

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

I have shown that without him the universe does not make sense.

I said “the God of the Bible,” not any god.

I gave reasonable evidence that if morality does exist, God is it's source and that if God is then he is morally right, and that almost everyone apprehends an objective moral realm only God accounts for.

If a God inspired the Bible, he is not moral since he refuses to provide reasonable evidence to all people who have been adequately evangelized.

Reasonable evidence is an ambiguous term which can mean anything. For example there is no claim of any kind you can give (beyond the fact we think) to which I can't claim it lacks reasonable evidence. People who hold no fundamental conviction's love to be ambiguous. It allows preferences to be kept and plausible denial to exist at least until judgment.

Semantics are not necessary. There needs to be some way to describe arguments that are sufficiently valid to be accepted by people, so the words “reasonable,” “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and “plausible” are widely used.

I will next quote where you said “the evidence for Christianity has been strong enough to convince…….” That is surely the same thing as saying “the evidence for Christianity has been strong enough to convince…….” There term “strong enough” is surely as ambiguous a term as “reasonable evidence” is.

The evidence for Christianity has been strong enough to convince 1/3 of an ignorant population of it's merit, and 2/3 of a knowledgeable population of the same. Think of convincing 2/3 of the people who investigated seriously of four apocalyptic horsemen, a guy rising from death, and that hell and heaven exist. The evidence must have been extremely strong. That is far above any burden it actually has no matter how grey you make your demands.

Your arguments are not valid for the following reasons:

1. Logically, there is not a necessary correlation between how many people believe something, and the truth, and there is not a necessary correlation between the achievements of Christians, and the truth. In the future, some other religion might become larger than Christianity is, and those same arguments would also apply to that religion.

2. Polls have shown approximately how many professing Christians there are in the world, but no one can reliably estimate the number of actual Christians in the world.

3. Matthew 7:14 says “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Matthew 20:16 says “So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.” Those verses do not indicate anywhere near the number of professing Christians that there are in the world.

4. Regarding people in the world who are aware of the basics of Christianity, no one knows how many of them have been adequately exposed to all other world views, how many of them who became Christians would have become Christians if they had been equally exposed to all other world views, and how many of them are able to adequately evaluate evidence. Historically, fallible, imperfect humans have frequently shown that they are not able to adequately evaluate evidence.

5. Many people in the world choose the world view that their parents chose.

 

[Agnostic75]

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good thing since all good things are obviously not equal.

No he did not. Nothing in his nature forced him to create anything. Creation is an expression of his nature not a dictate of it.

That is false. Every specific thing that God does, and does not do, is dictated by his nature. God specifically must not lie, which is an example of God's nature dictating a specific inaction. God specifically had to create humans, which is an example of God's nature dictating a specific action. If God acted contrary to those two examples, he would not be God.

John 3:16 says:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

If God had not given the world his only begotten Son, he would not be God, and such inaction would have been against his nature, which dictated that he give the world his only begotten Son. God cannot act, or refuse to act contrary to his nature.

Justification is the determining element in right thing. It is what separates killing from murder. Nothing in his nature forced him to create anything. Creation is an expression of his nature not a dictate of it.

That suggests that God giving the world his only begotten Son was optional, but it certainly was not optional since if God had not done that, he would not have been God, and quite obviously, God must always be God. Logically, in order for God to give the world his only begotten Son, he first had to create humans.

God's omnibenevolent nature is always his only justification for doing things, and the only reason why he ever does anything.

If God is never bound by specificity, then all of his actions, and inactions would be equal, and it would never matter what he specifically does, or does not do, but that cannot be true or God creating a small asteroid in a distant part of space would not be any different from him creating humans.

William Lane Craig has said that God is the greatest conceivable being. J.P. Moreland, who is a distinguished colleague of William Lane Craig, has said that it is impossible for God to have his attributes to a greater degree that he already has them. That implies that if God could have done anything better than he already has done, he would have done it, and that when God does anything, it has to be the best that he can do, or he would not have done it. When God created man, and gave man his only begotten Son, that was the best that he could have done at that time. God's perfect, omnibenevolent nature dictated that he do those things.

You have said that God would be good even if he never did anything. That is ridiculous. Even if all that God ever did was think, he would be doing something, and he cannot control his thoughts any more than he can control his actions. For example, God cannot lie. He is not even able to consider lying because of his perfect, omnibenevolent nature. God had to create humans since that was part of his nature. Obviously, he had to have thought about doing it before he did it since thinking about doing it is also part of his nature. Since God could not have avoided thinking about creating humans, and giving them his only begotten Son, he could not have avoided creating humans, and giving them his only begotten Son.

No intelligent case could be made that God can control his thoughts since, for example, God cannot consider lying. In addition, no intelligent case could be made that God can control his actions. Since God cannot control his thoughts, he cannot control his actions either.

Logically, no being is admirable if he does not have the option not to be admirable, and must always do what he does. Morality has no meaning without choice. Choice implies options. God never chooses to do good things since he must always do good things.

Repeat of the repeat above.

That was obviously not a repeat since it was the first time in that post that I said that morality has no meaning without choice. An omnibenevolent God could not ask humans to love a being who cannot control his thoughts, actions, and inactions since that would be deceptive. Therefore, the God of the Bible does not exist.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: The following is from another forum. It is complied from a number of our discussions that we had in a thread that is titled “The right religion.” Some of this post will be revisions of what I said in the other thread.

There is quite obviously not any need for me to read what Craig says about that since I am only referring to skeptics who have already been evangelized and would have become Christians under different circumstances, including living in another city in the same country, living in another country, or having different parents.

Since millions living where to be Christian risked death and still they believed this is not an excuse and not relevant.

That does not have anything to do with my arguments, and does not refute them. Let me try to make my arguments simpler for you. Let's say that John lived in South Korea. He grew up in a Christian home, had devout Christian parents, and attended church regularly, so he was sufficiently evangelized to be accountable. By age 18, John became a skeptic, and stayed a skeptic for the rest of his life. He lived in South Korea for his entire life. Most Christians would claim that John will not have eternal life. However, if John had been sent to the U.S. when he was a baby, and lived there for the rest of his life, it is reasonably possible that he would have become a Christian.

Let me put it another way. For the sake of argument, let's say that scientists were able to duplicate John at birth, and made one million exact duplicates of him, including his soul, and spirit. The scientists placed the duplicates in a wide variety of places all over the world, with adoptive parents of all major worldviews. It is a virtual given that at least some of the duplicates would have become Christians. Let's call one of them Tom. In your opinion, will Tom have eternal life?

I am saying circumstances are not to blame.

No, I just proved that they are to blame since there are not any doubts whatsoever that if John had been placed in the home that Tom was placed in instead of Tom, John would have become a Christian. Since my arguments are irrefutable, you will have no choice except to complain about my hypothetical arguments, but hypothetical arguments are valid, and are frequently used by Christians.

If you claim that John should not have eternal life, you have a problem since an exact duplicate of him, Tom, became a Christian. In addition, you have another problem since Tom not have become a Christian if he had been raised under the same conditions where John was raised. My hypothetical arguments have to be valid because it is a virtual given that if one million clones were made of a skeptic named John, who was properly evangelized, at least some of the clones would become Christians under certain circumstances.

However the circumstances would not have dictated that, the hearts in the clones would have.

There is no need for semantics. Well of course the hearts of the clones would have made the choices, but many of the choices that they made were different because the circumstances were different. Thus, the circumstances dictated which worldview some the clones would choose.

Where does God guarantee an equal amount of evidence and chances to every human being in history? He offers enough evidence not an equal amount.

For all practical purposes, John and Tom are the same person. Does Tom the clone deserve to have eternal life since he became a Christian? If so, why doesn’t John deserve to have eternal life since he would have become a Christian if he had been raised under the same circumstances as Tom? If Tom the clone deserves to have eternal life, why don’t all skeptics who have been sufficiently evangelized and would have become Christians under different circumstances not deserve to have eternal life? How are they any different than Tom?

If Tom had been raised under the same circumstances as John, he would not have become a Christian, in which case, his circumstances would have dictated the choice that his heart would make.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: William Lane Craig touts the issue of "multiple, independent attestations," but even if there were ten Gospels instead of four, most Christians would not accept them if they said that God will send everyone to hell. That has to be the case because of since self-interest, which largely causes people to become religious in the first place. According to self-interest, it would not be beneficial to spend a lot of time trying to reasonably prove that God will send everyone to hell, and it would be beneficial to spend time trying to disprove the claim.

You once made an argument that many Christians have done things that are against their self-interest. That is true regarding how you meant it, but not regarding how I meant it. What I meant was that few, or no Christians willingly do anything that is against their own ultimate self-interest, which is having eternal life. If the Bible said that everyone will go to hell, it would definitely be in everyone's self-interest to try to discredit it, and hope that some other God, or even aliens, would provide them with a comfortable eternal life, and only a relative handful of people would accept the Bible.

Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. In some cases, their parents give up Christianity as a result. What justification is there for God to allow, or cause that? What fair, worthy, and just goals could God have for allowing those things?

What fair, worthy, and just goals could God have that require him to injure, and kill people, and innocent animals with hurricanes, and diseases?

If you don't mind, I would still like your explanations for the flood story. Did a flood happen? If so, was it global, or regional? Why was the story written?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[Thief]

That's when I realized that Everything is One. And we're part of that One. No separation between God and us. We are part of God. Just as we are the eyes, ears, brains, minds, and experiences of God. We're the extension of the Whole. So enjoy life and don't be so scared of what might come next.

Seen any tv news reports lately?

 

[Ouroboros]

Seen any tv news reports lately?

Yes? So?

Have you?

 

[cottage]

Here is what I did not respond to: First let me say again we have beat this to death so I imagine I'm going to repeat myself here.

1. Neither an explanation nor the lack of one is required.

But I’m afraid one is required. By your own argument everything either has its own explanation or is explained by something else. So if the world doesn’t contain its own explanation because it was freely and purposefully created by a personal God, then as a conscious being he must have an explanation for creating the world. And according to Christian theism he does: We are told God the Creator wants a personal relationship with his creation. But God is logically the only agent that can profit or gain from this arrangement and not the formerly non-existent creatures. And not only is that inconsistent with Christian Theism but it also implies that the Supreme Being requires something he does not already have, which is an immediate contradiction even before we consider the implied emotional content. By no amount of sophistry, specious reasoning or appeals to faith, can it logically be argued that the greatest conceivable being is at the same time, or at anytime, not wholly entire or in some way incomplete*. And it is utterly absurd even to think of created beings gratifying the needs or emotional requirements of the Supreme Creator.

if God is the Supreme Being then he cannot want something he does not have – and a relationship with his own creation is an absurdity all on its own that defies logic and even commonsense.

P1: If God is the Supreme Being then he wants for nothing*
P2: God wanted a relationship with his creation
Conclusion: God is not the Supreme Being

If the premises are both true then the conclusion that follows must also be true.

2. As I said above there are far better reasons to think an explanation exists (in fact all of the reasons suggest this), than to suggest the universe has no explanation.
3. That would be true whether my God, any God, or just something unknown to natural science turns out to be the cause.
4. I believe we should expect a cause for the universe and that we can make intelligent conclusions about what it must be like.

A. It must have the capacity to chose (personal). If it did not the universe would have always existed or never began to.
B. It must be independent of time (as we know it).
C. It must be independent of space.
D. It must be non-material.
E. It must be more powerful than can been comprehended.
F. It must be more intelligent than we can comprehend.

I think there is little escape from these but the below are also reasonable to believe.

a. He is probably moral agent.
b. He probably has a purpose for the universe.
c. He is rational.


Anyway I find all those deductions reasonable and almost necessary and I find the Biblical God by far the closest to that description of any candidate.

If your assertion is that the Biblical God, a personal, conscious being, brought the world into existence then you need to resolve the dilemma I've given you above. Otherwise all the points you've listed are meaningless.

 

[Thief]

Back to 'proving' God again.

Faith requires no 'proving'.

God is supreme....none greater.

Shall we do the cause and effect routine.....again?

 

[cottage]

Back to 'proving' God again.

Faith requires no 'proving'.

God is supreme....none greater.

You are not expected to prove your faith; you are expected to prove your assertions!

Shall we do the cause and effect routine.....again?

Okay. Your move.

 

[Thief]

You are not expected to prove your faith; you are expected to prove your assertions!




Okay. Your move.

Science would have you believe in the singularity......do you?

 

[cottage]

Science would have you believe in the singularity......do you?

I don't believe-in 'the singularity' anymore than I believe in gods.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[The Bullfrog]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

Humans invented science.