INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

The Apostles burdened themselves with a massive empirical burden they had every reason to avoid if their claims were false. There was no expectation of a bodily rising Christ. Even they (even though they should have) did not expect Christ to actually physically resurrect. The Jews certainly didn't. They could have very easily claimed he spiritually arose from the dead and no one could have possibly proven otherwise. However they against all logic proposed he was not in his sealed and guarded grave any longer. Why? Issues with a theft claim only adds improbability onto improbability. Good luck. I can't event think of a bad explanation.

I do not know enough about biblical textual criticism to reply to that, but I am certain that hundreds of skeptic scholars, and thousands of gifted skeptic amateurs could adequately refute those arguments. Biblical textual criticism is a vast field, and you are not adequately prepared to debate it.

At Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com • View forum - Christian Texts and History, there is a religious discussion website where most of the members on both sides know a lot more about biblical textual criticism than you will ever know. Many of them specialize in biblical textual criticism. I have watched many of them debate for years at another website. Some of them are professionals, and most members that are not professionals are gifted amateurs. Even some of the amateurs are fluent in New Testament Greek.

You would embarrass yourself if you made your arguments at that website. If you wish, I can give you the names of some of the skeptics at that website who are professionals, or gifted amateurs.

If a person loses a debate, that would not necessarily mean that their premise is wrong, but it would mean that they are not able to adequately defend their
premise in debates.

I have no need to spend ten years researching textual criticism. I have aces to hundreds of textual critics and their conclusion's who have done the work for me.

That is nothing more than an idle boast. You will refuse to debate at that website since you know that you would embarrass yourself. If you debated at that website, and did pretty well, you would greatly increase your credibility at this website. If you refuse to debate there, which you probably will, it is reasonable for people to conclude that you are not confident of your arguments.

William Lane Craig has an article about the reliability of the Gospels at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/establishing-the-gospels-reliability. That would be a good thing for you to debate at the website that I mentioned.

It is quite interesting that you frequently appeal to experts, but refuse to debate experts.

I am willing to debate most of the topics that I am currently debating with you with experts.

Please reply to my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, 3496, 3498, and 3500.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

I do this a lot actually. I love looking at the stars. Not once has it convinced me of a god.

 

[Thief]

I do this a lot actually. I love looking at the stars. Not once has it convinced me of a god.

Then Whose handiwork are you looking at?

Or do you believe ?...it just started moving.....all by it's self.
(which is contrary to the laws of motion)

 

[Agnostic75]

Incorporating aliens is no less faith based than including God.
Actually it is worse because it only kicks the can down the road without any need to. I do not care what tens of millions of Americans believe. Tens of millions of them are atheists as well. I care about what I conclude from the evidence.

You have criticized naturalism many times at these forums. If aliens brought life to earth, that does not require that naturalism be true. You have wasted your time discussing Penrose, Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin since their writings cannot adequately refute the aliens theory.

There is nothing illogical and almost nothing unnecessary given by a claim that the universe is not eternal and there was a uncaused first cause. I would only claim God as the leading and most sufficient theory but that is far less than an indisputable theory. However there are only two choices a abstract concept as creator or a mind. Abstracts create nothing on their own and we are left with mind until some intrepid scientist invents a new fantasy.

If you are correct, that would adequately refute naturalism, but it would not adequately refute the aliens theory.

 

[1robin]

What hurdles are you referring to other than naturalism?

So you agree that you misspoke by claiming I had stated macro-evolution was impossible? I have already provided several examples of the hurdles I mention. Are you denying that currently unexplainable problems or holes in the theory of evolution exist? You think we have no questions left to explain about events that occurred a billion years ago when we cannot agree on the details of even the most famous attack in the civil war that occurred less than 200 years ago and comes with a hundred battle reports from participants, and rarely can predict weather accurately more than 48 hours in advance? You have a ridiculously high confidence in a subject with more error than success in it's history. No one has a clue what happened to the airliner that went down a few weeks back ,nor why none of the transponder equipment did as it was designed, nor have we found even a piece of wreckage, but what happened at the bottom of the ocean 200 million years ago is a piece of cake.

Wikipedia says:



Do you consider that evidence to be hurdles that have not been reasonably overcome?

Last I heard even among secular evolutionist that claim that birds came from dinosaurs was still very much debated. So to further state that the certain knowledge of what is not known is evidence for something even less known is not very persuasive. There was no evidence in what you provided. There was only declarations. What is it that you found impressive in what you quoted. Did the overuse of unnecessarily technical terminology dazzle you into believing there must be something persuasive there? I cannot debate simply claiming something is both true and proof of something else. You need to supply what it is they found that makes them think all claims to truth are true. I can say the presence of prophecy makes God a certainty. Would you say ok and believe or would you do as you and I have done and examine if prophecies exist, if they are true, and if God is necessary to explain them?

 

[1robin]

I do not know enough about biblical textual criticism to reply to that, but I am certain that hundreds of skeptic scholars, and thousands of gifted skeptic amateurs could adequately refute those arguments. Biblical textual criticism is a vast field, and you are not adequately prepared to debate it.

That was funny. You have no reason whatever to think what I said was incorrect in any way but you are certain that someone some where does. Is that really where we are at? If you admit you know little about biblical textual criticism then in what way are you qualified to know that I am not adequately proficient in it? Your making less justifiable hyperbolic claims to knowing what you can't than your quotes about macro-evolution. I could have three degrees in textual criticism for all you know, besides I thought I asked you to desist with the meaningless personal commentaries.

At Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com • View forum - Christian Texts and History, there is a religious discussion website where most of the members on both sides know a lot more about biblical textual criticism than you will ever know. Many of them specialize in biblical textual criticism. I have watched many of them debate for years at another website. Some of them are professionals, and most members that are not professionals are gifted amateurs. Even some of the amateurs are fluent in New Testament Greek.

I am not answering claims that depend on, are related to, or even mention your estimation of my abilities, especially my future abilities, for neither of which are known by you nor are important. If you do not have an answer then humbly live with it.

You would embarrass yourself if you made your arguments at that website. If you wish, I can give you the names of some of the skeptics at that website who are professionals, or gifted amateurs.

Don't care.

If a person loses a debate, that would not necessarily mean that their premise is wrong, but it would mean that they are not able to adequately defend their
premise in debates.

I am quite familiar with how debates work, that is except for those where your involved. No rules govern what your doing.

That is nothing more than an idle boast. You will refuse to debate at that website since you know that you would embarrass yourself. If you debated at that website, and did pretty well, you would greatly increase your credibility at this website. If you refuse to debate there, which you probably will, it is reasonable for people to conclude that you are not confident of your arguments.

It is a boast that I have access to scholars. My Lord what is next? You ever heard of these obscure things called the internet, the library, or the classroom? You may think a claim to literacy arrogant, but you would be the only one.

William Lane Craig has an article about the reliability of the Gospels at Establishing the Gospels’ Reliability | Reasonable Faith. That would be a good thing for you to debate at the website that I mentioned.

If the people at the site (now you not only sending me to new threads but to new sites as well) know anything about textual criticism then they are very familiar with Craig's arguments. They do not need me and I do not have time for them.

It is quite interesting that you frequently appeal to experts, but refuse to debate experts.

The experts debate other experts. Why should they debate me? I do as I wish and you require no explanation and I need no evaluation from you. Stick to the issues and quit with the p[personal estimations.

I am willing to debate most of the topics that I am currently debating with you with experts.

Please reply to my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, 3496, 3498, and 3500.

I did not ask you anything that this was a response to. Well that was 20 minutes I will never get back. This is also the worst post you have ever made. I would not make it a habit or string posts of like this to close together. This is the kind of stuff that makes me lose respect for a debater and justification for a debate.

 

[1robin]

You have criticized naturalism many times at these forums. If aliens brought life to earth, that does not require that naturalism be true. You have wasted your time discussing Penrose, Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin since their writings cannot adequately refute the aliens theory.

I may have criticized naturalism. I hardly think that point worth devoting keystrokes to. Naturalism is very criticized over the entire academic and informal debate scene in general. In what your responded to I contended with the aliens theory and did not mention a single name you said I did. I do not remember using a single one of their claims in any debate that included aliens. I can't even think of a reasons I would want to. I use them primarily to establish that the universe is finite, fine tuned, or to critique some of Hawking claims and the like. The aliens claim is first of all no threat to anything I stand by. It does not get you out of the abiogenesis problem, nor the cause and effect problem. I had two points about aliens.

1. The belief in them requires more faith given less evidence than my faith does. So no one can reject faith based beliefs and also consider aliens a solution to anything.
2. That aliens only provide another example of life necessarily coming from life. They do little but confirm my claims even if they kick the can down the road a bit.

Why are aliens a reasonable solution and God not? I sometimes think the only criteria many people have by which they judge the acceptability of a thing is whether it is labeled natural or supernatural. That is the only difference between the two as far as this context is concerned. Do you suggest aliens are an explanation of something? If so what is that based on?

If you are correct, that would adequately refute naturalism, but it would not adequately refute the aliens theory.

My comment was on naturalism I believe and not aliens. Aliens are not an answer to abiogenesis, they would be more proof of it. They are not anti-biblical. I have no reason to think they do not exist. I do have reasons to think they have never visited earth but even that is debatable. Your concentration on them is a little baffling.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Then Whose handiwork are you looking at?

Or do you believe ?...it just started moving.....all by it's self.
(which is contrary to the laws of motion)

I don't know how the universe began. However that doesn't mean I believe god did it.

What evidence do you have that god is what started everything?

 

[Thief]

I don't know how the universe began. However that doesn't mean I believe god did it.

What evidence do you have that god is what started everything?

I lean to the tenants of science.

For every effect there is a cause.(singularity)

Nothing moves until something moves it.(the bang)

When an item moves, it moves in a straight line and constant until something causes a change.

That's not what we see as we look around.
(I see orbits, rotations, and spirals.)

Something is causing all of this to happen.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I lean to the tenants of science.

For every effect there is a cause.(singularity)

Nothing moves until something moves it.(the bang)

When an item moves, it moves in a straight line and constant until something causes a change.

That's not what we see as we look around.
(I see orbits, rotations, and spirals.)

Something is causing all of this to happen.

There can be many causes to one effect and one cause can have many effects, it's not one to one.

We see orbits and rotations because things have mass...the mass generates a gravitational pull which bends space resulting in the rotations we see around large masses....

 

[Thief]

There can be many causes to one effect and one cause can have many effects, it's not one to one.

We see orbits and rotations because things have mass...the mass generates a gravitational pull which bends space resulting in the rotations we see around large masses....

I see the pinch of God's fingers snapping the singularity.

The rotation would have to be there BEFORE the 'pop'.

Otherwise, there would be only a simple hollow pulse of an expansion.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I lean to the tenants of science.

For every effect there is a cause.(singularity)

Nothing moves until something moves it.(the bang)

When an item moves, it moves in a straight line and constant until something causes a change.

That's not what we see as we look around.
(I see orbits, rotations, and spirals.)

Something is causing all of this to happen.

If you lean to the tenats of science then you would have no problem admitting that you don't know and that the concept of god in regards to your explanation is a god of the gaps argument that simply wishes to fill any unknowns with your baseless concepts.

 

[Thief]

If you lean to the tenats of science then you would have no problem admitting that you don't know and that the concept of god in regards to your explanation is a god of the gaps argument that simply wishes to fill any unknowns with your baseless concepts.

I can be sure.
Nothing moves.....until something moves it.

Science!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I can be sure.
Nothing moves.....until something moves it.

Science!

But what movies it? Until we know we cannot give it an answer. So god still remains...unsupported.

 

[Thief]

But what movies it? Until we know we cannot give it an answer. So god still remains...unsupported.

Spirit first.

You say you don't know....ok....you don't.

I say I am sure it is God.
because of science.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Spirit first.

You say you don't know....ok....you don't.

I say I am sure it is God.
because of science.

you say....many things....but mean...very little....
spirit....what is spirit....how can we see it?
Why call it god....at all?

 

[Thief]

you say....many things....but mean...very little....
spirit....what is spirit....how can we see it?
Why call it god....at all?

Because....(once more)....as some people don't really want to think about it....
Someone had to be First.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Because....(once more)....as some people don't really want to think about it....
Someone had to be First.

But what if the first came later?

 

[Thief]

But what if the first came later?

Later than WHAT?.....and the He wouldn't be the First.

Someone Else would be that Someone First.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

There's negatives.

Again something doesn't need to be first it's only first if time is linear since we know time is not...first is a meaningless statement.