INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

AGNOSTIC75 As I have said I will no longer respond to posts about homosexuality in this "evidence for God" thread.

That is fine. Anytime that you want, we can continue our discussions in the thread about homosexuality. Your arguments are absurd, and illogical, and have little support among experts. I will copy and paste my post #331 in this thread to the thread on homosexuality, and add some comments.

 

[Warren Clark]

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.

Welcome to the forum.

There is no proof for the existence of god...
There is no way to know that before there was everything there was nothing.
Whether it be supernatural or natural, we have no evidence of what it was that seeded the big bang or the turn of events that formed life.
The problem with this is that people think the big bang is a singular point in time... maybe this video can help explain better for you.
[youtube]zr3fMlzud6s[/youtube]

 

[Alceste]

Belief in God requires faith. Now that is one heck of an Earth shattering discovery. I expect to see the founder of this break through concept on time magazine shortly. Science many times is based on more faith given less evidence than God requires but at least we admit the role of faith in our beliefs.

I think you missed the point. It is irrational to believe in God, but that's ok. These repeated attempts to argue it is logical, rational or scientific are destructive to both your grasp of reason and the authenticity of your faith. Likewise, trying to prove your wife is worth loving using formal logic isn't going to get you any snuggles on Valentines day.

 

[1robin]

That is fine. Anytime that you want, we can continue our discussions in the thread about homosexuality. Your arguments are absurd, and illogical, and have little support among experts. I will copy and paste my post #331 in this thread to the thread on homosexuality, and add some comments.

Anyone who insists that unless all homosexuals get aids it is an acceptable practice despite the many times over rate of STD's has no buisness evaluating my argumentation. I am tangled up in quite a few threads at the moment and that one was reason versus emotion and had such a low rate of return it is low on my priority list. You can however jump in the cosmological discussion if you desire.

 

[1robin]

I think you missed the point. It is irrational to believe in God, but that's ok. These repeated attempts to argue it is logical, rational or scientific are destructive to both your grasp of reason and the authenticity of your faith. Likewise, trying to prove your wife is worth loving using formal logic isn't going to get you any snuggles on Valentines day.

I do not mind arguments against God. In fact I welcome them. However claims against it's rationality have no merit and I resent them a little not because they are offensive but because they are completely absurd. A large percentage of history most rational and intelligent scholars have been of faith. Does not make it true but it does make a claim that it is incompatible with reason and logic utterly ridiculous. I will however agree that love might have some elements of irrationality about it, it sure produces irrational acts by the billions.

 

[LuisDantas]

A person may be rational and believe in God. There is nothing wrong with that.

Belief in God, however, is by definition irrational because it transcends reason.

 

[Alceste]

I do not mind arguments against God. In fact I welcome them. However claims against it's rationality have no merit and I resent them a little not because they are offensive but because they are completely absurd. A large percentage of history most rational and intelligent scholars have been of faith. Does not make it true but it does make a claim that it is incompatible with reason and logic utterly ridiculous. I will however agree that love might have some elements of irrationality about it, it sure produces irrational acts by the billions.

You can not claim that belief in God is rational and understand what "rational" actually means at the same time. This is why I think it is destructive. In order to try to explain your love for your God with logic, you have to change the rules. Logic has those rules for a reason, though. It isn't "anything goes", and you can't pave over a break from the rules of logic with extra words or special pleading.

I recommend you test all your "logical" arguments for the existence of God before trying them out on people who understand the rules of logic. The test is simple: write them in a word processor then do a "find and replace" to substitute a random imaginary object wherever you wrote "God". Then reread your "logical" argument, and you ought to be able to see exactly what we will see when we read it. Hopefully, you will also see exactly why it is not a rational argument.

 

[PolyHedral]

Belief in God, however, is by definition irrational because it transcends reason.

What does this even mean? A statement cannot transcend reason - statements cannot be supported are not reasonable to believe.

 

[Alceste]

A person may be rational and believe in God. There is nothing wrong with that.

Belief in God, however, is by definition irrational because it transcends reason.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Alceste]

What does this even mean? A statement cannot transcend reason - statements cannot be supported are not reasonable to believe.

He's talking about the sentiment of belief. The internal experience. It's emotional, not rational.

 

[LuisDantas]

I've actually described belief in God as a matter of aesthetics on occasion.

I don't understand why some people attempt to present it as a matter of reason.

 

[Alceste]

I've actually described belief in God as a matter of aesthetics on occasion.

I don't understand why some people attempt to present it as a matter of reason.

I agree, and that goes for both sides of the debate. I've always answered those threads that ask "atheists, what would it take to convince you God exists" by saying I imagine I would simply wake up one day believing, and that would be that. Of course, most gods thus far proposed are incompatible with my nature and philosophy, but it's completely possible that I might one day wake up as a pantheist after a night of crazy dreams, or have another peak experience that seems to indicate that the universe is conscious.

The application of reason or logic to such an experience would be destructive to both the experience and my grasp of logic.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do not mind arguments against God. In fact I welcome them. However claims against it's rationality have no merit and I resent them a little not because they are offensive but because they are completely absurd. A large percentage of history most rational and intelligent scholars have been of faith. Does not make it true but it does make a claim that it is incompatible with reason and logic utterly ridiculous. I will however agree that love might have some elements of irrationality about it, it sure produces irrational acts by the billions.

I hate having to agree with loopy knuckle walking fundies like you, but this vile puppy eating heathen concurs.
Believers can be quite rational....we just disagree about a single premise, one which neither of us can prove or disprove.
I prefer to judge the individual rather than the believer status.

 

[1robin]

You can not claim that belief in God is rational and understand what "rational" actually means at the same time. This is why I think it is destructive. In order to try to explain your love for your God with logic, you have to change the rules. Logic has those rules for a reason, though. It isn't "anything goes", and you can't pave over a break from the rules of logic with extra words or special pleading.

I recommend you test all your "logical" arguments for the existence of God before trying them out on people who understand the rules of logic. The test is simple: write them in a word processor then do a "find and replace" to substitute a random imaginary object wherever you wrote "God". Then reread your "logical" argument, and you ought to be able to see exactly what we will see when we read it. Hopefully, you will also see exactly why it is not a rational argument.

Faith meets this definition for rational:
1. Having reason or understanding.
or
A: using reason or logic in thinking out a problem
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rational

Faith can be gained by the sole fact of historical events alone. Not that that is the sum of it's constituents or even a meaningful fraction of them. God being logical is almost a necessity. Sciences presupposition that the universe is rational has no foundation without some God like underpinning or reality. When a thousand conclusions like this one can be found from the most rational people among us, claims of its irrationality become more and more ridiculous:

J. N. D. Anderson "...a scholar of international repute and one eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is one of the world's leading authorities on Islamic law...He is dean of the faculty of law in the University of London, chairman of the department of Oriental law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London." This outstanding British scholar who is today influential in the field of international jurisprudence says: "The evidence for the historical basis of the Christian faith, for the essential validity of the New Testament witness to the person and teaching of Christ Himself, for the fact and significance of His atoning death, and for the historicity of the empty tomb and the apostolic testimony to the resurrection, is such as to provide an adequate foundation for the venture of faith." http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html

If you wish to establish the precedent that faith is irrational by some kind of semantically acrobatics then that dooms every court decision ever reached by jury, most of science, and that fact that reality was not created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age irrational as well. How is faith in God any different from faith in dark matter. Both are undetectable and both inferred from their effects (although God has quite a few more effects than dark matter, in fact dark matter is an effect)?

I turn to the question of whether it can still be rational to have faith;
arguing that, contrary to common assumptions, there need be no conflict between faith and
rationality.
http://philosophy.berkeley.edu/file/490/Buchak_Can_it_be_Rational_to_have_Faith.pdf

(Ph.D., Princeton University). Her primary research interests are in decision, game, and rational choice theory

The investigator who has done all of the above has plenty of reasons for believing in God: they've seen the effects of his interaction with others, their experience (and possibly research) has so far confirmed what the Bible says, and they've personally interacted with him. This evidence, not to mention other reasons for believing that one may discover, is enough for any Christian to believe there's a rational basis for their faith.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/rational_faith.html

 

[1robin]

A person may be rational and believe in God. There is nothing wrong with that.

Belief in God, however, is by definition irrational because it transcends reason.

It does not transcend reason it transcends proven fact. So does half of science.

 

[1robin]

I hate having to agree with loopy knuckle walking fundies like you, but this vile puppy eating heathen concurs.
Believers can be quite rational....we just disagree about a single premise, one which neither of us can prove or disprove.
I prefer to judge the individual rather than the believer status.

That is the first time I have ever had an agreement that stung. Was that a form of consulation?

 

[Agnostic75]

Anyone who insists that unless all homosexuals get aids it is an acceptable practice despite the many times over rate of STDs has no buisness evaluating my argumentation.

But you know very well that that is not my argument. You have implied that 1) at an unstated certain percentage, homosexuality is not acceptable, that 2) because an usntated percentage of homosexuals ahve STDs, homosexuality is not acceptable even for monogamous homosexuals (about have of homosexuals are monogamous), and that 3) because an unstated percentage of homosexuals ahve STD's, all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

What is this mystical percentage?

Your argument is a red herring since 1) you would object to homosexuality no matter what percentage of homosexuals had STDs, 2), and you object to homosexuality even in areas of the world where the percentages of homosexuals who have HIV are much lower than the 20% figure for 21 major American cities.

If all homosexuals who are monogamous, and who are not monogamous but practice safe sex, practiced abstinence that would have very little effect on homosexuals who have HIV, and would deprive all homosexuals of the joy and pleasure of having same-sex relationships. That is because the vast majority of homosexuals who have HIV are not interested in monogamy (about half of homosexuals are monogamous), and safe sex, and would thus be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life than practicing monogamy, and safe sex.

Thus, homosexuals who are monogamous, or who are not monogamous but practice safe sex, cannot possibly be at fault since most homosexuals who have STDs, and practice unsafe sex, are obviously not even influenced by homosexuals who are monogamous, or who are not monogamous but practice safe sex, let alone by a very low percentage of homosexuals who chose to try to practice abstinence for life.

Let's get back to your comment that "anyone who insists that unless all homosexuals get aids it is an acceptable practice despite the many times over rate of STDs has no buisness evaluating my argumentation."

Percentages do not really matter to you since you would object to homosexuality no matter what percentages of homosexuals had HIV, which, as I said, are very low in some parts of the U.S., and the world, much lower than 20%. A hundred years ago, no one had HIV, or AIDS, but you still object to homosexuality then.

You are a very strange bird indeed. I have never heard anyone else use a secular argument that all homosexuals are guilty because some homosexuals have STDs, and that since some homosexuals have STD's, all homosexuals should practice abstinence for life. That is really weird, and would make you a laughing stock if you printed it on the front page of the New York Times.

 

[1robin]

But you know very well that that is not my argument. You have implied that 1) at an unstated certain percentage, homosexuality is not acceptable, that 2) because an usntated percentage of homosexuals ahve STDs, homosexuality is not acceptable even for monogamous homosexuals (about have of homosexuals are monogamous), and that 3) because an unstated percentage of homosexuals ahve STD's, all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

What is this mystical percentage?

Your argument is a red herring since 1) you would object to homosexuality no matter what percentage of homosexuals had STDs, 2), and you object to homosexuality even in areas of the world where the percentages of homosexuals who have HIV are much lower than the 20% figure for 21 major American cities.

If all homosexuals who are monogamous, and who are not monogamous but practice safe sex, practiced abstinence that would have very little effect on homosexuals who have HIV, and would deprive all homosexuals of the joy and pleasure of having same-sex relationships. That is because the vast majority of homosexuals who have HIV are not interested in monogamy (about half of homosexuals are monogamous), and safe sex, and would thus be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life than practicing monogamy, and safe sex.

Thus, homosexuals who are monogamous, or who are not monogamous but practice safe sex, cannot possibly be at fault since most homosexuals who have STDs, and practice unsafe sex, are obviously not even influenced by homosexuals who are monogamous, or who are not monogamous but practice safe sex, let alone by a very low percentage of homosexuals who chose to try to practice abstinence for life.

Let's get back to your comment that "anyone who insists that unless all homosexuals get aids it is an acceptable practice despite the many times over rate of STDs has no buisness evaluating my argumentation."

Percentages do not really matter to you since you would object to homosexuality no matter what percentages of homosexuals had HIV, which, as I said, are very low in some parts of the U.S., and the world, much lower than 20%. A hundred years ago, no one had HIV, or AIDS, but you still object to homosexuality then.

You are a very strange bird indeed. I have never heard anyone else use a secular argument that all homosexuals are guilty because some homosexuals have STDs, and that since some homosexuals have STD's, all homosexuals should practice abstinence for life. That is really weird, and would make you a laughing stock if you printed it on the front page of the New York Times.

I also said I would not highjack this thread and this stalking of yours is getting out of control. Why in the world is my opinion so important to you?

 

[PolyHedral]

I also said I would not highjack this thread and this stalking of yours is getting out of control. Why in the world is my opinion so important to you?

 

[Alceste]

Lol, that exact thing happened to me last night.