INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

The whole point is it never said anywhere that God created the earth from nothing. Nor does it say anywhere that there was a time when God dwelt in absolute nothingness.

What? I go through all the trouble of posting the Hebrew words used and the fact they mean create from nothing specifically in Genesis, and yet you say that it does not say that. I do not understand. I showed the word used is Bara' and is used to mean created from nothing 42 times in the Bible and only 9 times for it's other 7 meanings. I have always thought that making up a sentence and then declaring if God did not say those words in that order then X is not true to be a terrible method of exegesis and is common in Islam but I did not figure a LDS would use a method that meaningless.

 

[1robin]

That would be something coming from nothing and nothing comes from nothing. Face it you have nothing to back you up.

In fact there is nothing that does not back it up. There is no escape from creation out of nothing from either a scientific perspective or a theological one. The dominant theory of modern cosmology as is indicated in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem and many others is that we know of one finite universe. Almost all trends in modern cosmology are consistent with that. In fact you get back scientific nonsense when you consider an infinite universe.

1. Entropy would have produced a heat dead and maximal entropy universe infinitely long ago if the universe had no beginning. All stars would have burned out; everything would have expanded so far apart not one atom could be seen with a telescope from another.

2. An infinite universe means that there are an infinite number of past seconds. It is impossible to transverse an infinite series of anything and therefore no way to have arrived at this current second.

3. This also means an infinite series of past events could not have been sequentially crossed to arrive at this one.

There exists no actual infinite in nature. Infinity is an abstract concept only and is a logical paradox that can't actually exist. Any effort to get around this if one's religion or science will not abide these simple ideas lie in the realm of science fiction, fantasy, and wishful thinking.

Both the science and Biblical theology concerning a finite universe are based on overwhelmingly better evidence than what exists for an eternal universe. In fact there is no evidence for an eternal universe only guesses and speculation.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Excessive mental gymnastics seems incompatible with solid faith. I suppose those who are honest enough to admit that it all comes down to faith, have no need to try to twist reality in a vain attempt to convince others.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The fact you find this absurd, says more about you than me. This sensationalistic childish nonsense in less than honorable and made only for effect. This isn't high school. I do not know why I am bothering but in this context, we were originally made morally perfect, we were able to be morally perfect by our relationship with God and his power. When we rejected God the power went away and we became corrupted. We have no gotten so corrupt we do not know what morality is any longer. Many say an illusion and others whatever they happen to want. Now either say something relevant and mature of give it up. This type of stuff will not merit any further dialogue.

Speak for yourself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To validate creationism one needs to replace:

Science with pseudoscience
Reason with unreason
Intellectual honesty with dishonesty

Or we can have faith that the many CEMs (Creation Evidence Museums) all over North America are presenting scientific rather that pseudoscientific evidence.

This CEM (Creation Evidence Museum), opened in 1984, it proudly bills itself as a "scientifically chartered museum." Its founder and director, Carl Baugh, Ph.D., sees it as a natural extension of his life's work -- to topple Darwin's theory of evolution by proving that people and dinosaurs lived together.

Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, Texas

"Dr. Baugh's main justification for his giant human footprints is that every human who lived before the biblical flood was a giant. To prove this, the museum is building a suitably titanic "hyperbaric biosphere," in which it hopes to reproduce "Earth's original pre-Flood environment" -- lots of oxygen, lots of atmospheric pressure -- and grow dinosaurs." :biglaugh: I can't wait to see what happens!


On the one hand I'd love to go visit one of these places, I think it would be a riot! But on the other hand, I don't want to support the crap they teach because they're ruining the state of education in North America. Tough one.

 

[1robin]

"Dr. Baugh's main justification for his giant human footprints is that every human who lived before the biblical flood was a giant. To prove this, the museum is building a suitably titanic "hyperbaric biosphere," in which it hopes to reproduce "Earth's original pre-Flood environment" -- lots of oxygen, lots of atmospheric pressure -- and grow dinosaurs." :biglaugh: I can't wait to see what happens!


On the one hand I'd love to go visit one of these places, I think it would be a riot! But on the other hand, I don't want to support the crap they teach because they're ruining the state of education in North America. Tough one.

I am very skeptical of claims like this but I have heard of many experiments (true or myth, I do not know) that have grown things to great size and longevity within those conditions. Both sides have a lot of Kooks. Mine probably the most, but I would not rule out a scientific claim because it's source has faith. What pet store is he supposedly getting this dinosaur from? Why do yo think these conditions would not have a significant affect on metabolism and or size? Christians have done more for science than any other group in my opinion. Not that this guy is one. The who's who of science history is dominated by believers.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am very skeptical of claims like this but I have heard of many experiments (true or myth, I do not know) that have grown things to great size and longevity within those conditions. Both sides have a lot of Kooks. Mine probably the most, but I would not rule out a scientific claim because it's source has faith. What pet store is he supposedly getting this dinosaur from? Why do yo think these conditions would not have a significant affect on metabolism and or size?

I was thinking maybe they were going the Jurassic Park route - maybe they got their hands on some dino DNA.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Christians have done more for science than any other group in my opinion. Not that this guy is one. The who's who of science history is dominated by believers.

I would say that religious and nonreligious scientists of all stripes have done a helluva lot for science, especially the ones that keep their personal biases out of their work.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

What? I go through all the trouble of posting the Hebrew words used and the fact they mean create from nothing specifically in Genesis, and yet you say that it does not say that. I do not understand. I showed the word used is Bara' and is used to mean created from nothing 42 times in the Bible and only 9 times for it's other 7 meanings. I have always thought that making up a sentence and then declaring if God did not say those words in that order then X is not true to be a terrible method of exegesis and is common in Islam but I did not figure a LDS would use a method that meaningless.

Which Hebrew Dictionary are you using?

I suppose it really now comes down to my 3 big biblical questions

Issues in Understanding
and Translating the Bible
Issue #1
• There is no “original” Hebrew manuscript that we have to translate the Bible from. In other words we have copies of copies of copies and no manuscript today that is in Moses’s handwriting. The issue here is that we have many different manuscripts that are about the same things, but not all of them are exactly the same, for example there is the Masoretic text which is what the King James Bible is mostly translated from, but there is also the Septuagint which contains several of the oldest ancient translations of the Old Testament, however there are also the Dead Sea Scrolls which are the oldest Biblical but each one is different, so if each manuscript is different, which is the most right?

Old Testament Manuscripts:
-Septugint
-Samaritan Pentateuch
-Dead Sea Scrolls
-Targum
-Diatessaron
-Muratorian fragment
-Pe****ta
-Vetus Catina
-Masoretic Text

New Testament Manuscripts:
-Alexandrian
-Egyptian
-Eclectic
-Western
-Byzantine
Issue #2
• Words with multiple definitions.
Some Bibles are different translations of the same manuscript.
Most words in most languages have ten or more definitions making reading and understanding the interpretation of each word in a verse a big multiple choice test. My question is where is the answer key? It has been said that it is found in the cross references, but where is the answer key to those cross references to verify that the interpretation of those cross references have the correct translation?
Issue # 3
• Idioms- If the Bible interprets itself where does it give an explanation of what each idiom means?
For example:
- To covereth one’s feet or go down for water both mean to go to the bathroom (found in 1Sam. 24:3 and Ex 7:15
- wink with the eye means to show genuine hatred (Ps. 35:19)
- To send hornets means to send the military (Ex. 23:28)
- To speak to the rock means to take the rock off the well (Num. 20:8)
- To have teeth as white as milk means to have abundant flocks (Gen. 29:12)
- And bald head means to need to repent (2 Kings:23)

These 3 big issues are not reasons to distrust the Bible by any means, but rather they are reasons to distrust individual translations and interpretations of the Bible, and provide reasons to double check everything and take note of what is the same and what is different between translations. These three issues show the great need for modern day revelation, the need for God to tell us personally what is true. James 1:5 “If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God…"

 

[camanintx]

There is no escape from creation out of nothing from either a scientific perspective or a theological one. The dominant theory of modern cosmology as is indicated in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem and many others is that we know of one finite universe. Almost all trends in modern cosmology are consistent with that. In fact you get back scientific nonsense when you consider an infinite universe.

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin does not prohibit a finite yet unbounded universe with no "beginning".

 

[1robin]

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin does not prohibit a finite yet unbounded universe with no "beginning".

I does not speak to it at all. That is an argument from science. By all means keep building new fantasies as fast as facts destroy the old ones, heck spend millions investigating them. I not joking I am all for it. I do not fear science. However as of now the evidence for a finite single universe is vastly superior to any other model. Why if and only if evidence suggests God strongly is anything devoid of evidence or with vastly less evidence always adopted instead of the most reliable consluions. Science oriented people lose all objectivity the minute anything leans towards God. I do not mind the argument or theory but the double standards are apparent and a little frustrating. Ignore typeOs I am in a rush. Have a good one.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

If You Could Hie to Kolob - YouTube

 

[camanintx]

I does not speak to it at all. That is an argument from science. By all means keep building new fantasies as fast as facts destroy the old ones, heck spend millions investigating them. I not joking I am all for it. I do not fear science. However as of now the evidence for a finite single universe is vastly superior to any other model. Why if and only if evidence suggests God strongly is anything devoid of evidence or with vastly less evidence always adopted instead of the most reliable consluions. Science oriented people lose all objectivity the minute anything leans towards God. I do not mind the argument or theory but the double standards are apparent and a little frustrating. Ignore typeOs I am in a rush. Have a good one.

All of the facts and evidence we have can only tell us that about 13.8 billion years ago everything we can see occupied a extremely small and dense space. Scientifically speaking, there is no way for us to know anything about this singularity, much less whether or not anything could have preceded it. Such questions are the domain of philosophers so using words like fact and evidence are irrelevant.

You propose something existing before the universe that is infinitely organized and infinitely complex. It's my contention that anything that preceded the universe would have been infinitely disorganized and simple. Which do you think would be the easiest to justify philosophically?

 

[godnotgod]

The fact you find this absurd, says more about you than me. This sensationalistic childish nonsense in less than honorable and made only for effect. This isn't high school. I do not know why I am bothering but in this context, we were originally made morally perfect, we were able to be morally perfect by our relationship with God and his power. When we rejected God the power went away and we became corrupted. We have no gotten so corrupt we do not know what morality is any longer. Many say an illusion and others whatever they happen to want. Now either say something relevant and mature of give it up. This type of stuff will not merit any further dialogue.

You cannot have 'straight' without 'crooked'. These are conceptual dualities that we superimpose over nature. The universe is neither straight nor crooked, and yet both at the same time. A stick is always crooked, but still relatively straight. One value defines the other. This is harmony. You are trying to make straight better than crooked, by imposing a value judgment called morality onto them, and thereby setting up a conflict between (moral) good and evil, pointing the finger at 'evil', and pretending to be on the side of the 'good', with 'good' on your 'side'. It is all smoke and mirrors your ego enjoys concocting. So don't accuse me of sensationalism: I am merely reflecting the carnie barker alarmist sensationalism you continue to express in all your posts.

The reason I poke fun at what you say, is because it is ridiculous to pit dualities against each other. It demonstrates a basic ignorance about how the universe works. You superficially see reality as black and white, nay, black VS. white, and so polarized and in opposition to extremes. What you fail to realize is how the dualities always work together, because one side always has the essence of the other within it. Consider bamboo. It is strong. Bridges have been built of bamboo. But at the same time it gives. It is flexible. Were it only strong and rigid, it would soon break from brittleness. Were it too flexible, it would lack strength. This integration of opposite qualities within the same entity is expressed in the following manner:

You see that within each of the major halves is contained a minor aspect of its opposite. This is how nature works in all its various dualistic aspects, thereby creating and maintaining the singular and seamless quality of it being One in harmony with itself. A man who follows the way of nature (Tao) is also in harmony with himself and with nature. There is no inner conflict. You want to deliberately stir up conflict out of your own confusion and ignorance to serve the gratification of ego, by pitting good against evil; straight against crooked; dark against light; supernatural against natural; spirit against flesh, Jesus vs. Satan, heaven vs. hell; etc., because you have a shallow understanding of your own nature, and you do this because you are basically afraid of the unknown. This fear creates a state of metaphysical anxiety, and so you create a God to provide freedom from your anxiety over your fate. A man in harmony with himself and the universe does not need to invent a God to provide him with freedom from anxiety. The only way to attain such freedom is to simply allow the Self to settle naturally upon itself.

Your scenario paints an absurd picture of Reality because you want it all one way without the other necessary side. That's where all the conflict and 'corruption' comes from that you keep harping about, but YOU are the one creating it! If you were really smart, you would not attach yourself to either side, but simply understand the nature of their dualistic interdependence and interaction.

The problems is that you are having a troubled voyage on a boat sailing in perfectly calm weather. The storm is all in your head, and not in Reality. Bear in mind that when you see the world as sinful, it is YOU that you are seeing, because YOU make up the world. It is a question of the beam and the splinter in one's eye.

Because you don't understand the nature of the conflict, which is illusory, the only solution you can come up with is totally arbitrary, and that is the idea of either conquering evil with good, or separating them forever by, as you previously stated, casting evil into hell. Or the scenario is an artificial fantasy where some 'supernatural' force dominates and controls by force, where 'lions lay down with lambs'.

Campeche?
​

 

[1robin]

All of the facts and evidence we have can only tell us that about 13.8 billion years ago everything we can see occupied a extremely small and dense space. Scientifically speaking, there is no way for us to know anything about this singularity, much less whether or not anything could have preceded it. Such questions are the domain of philosophers so using words like fact and evidence are irrelevant.

You are right that science should consider its self, done when it gets to time=0 and let the philosophers and theologians take over. Unfortunately that is not what they do. Since what we have is so consistent with God they must produce anything regardless of evidence or logic to leave a window open for a non-God necessary universe. That is fine; spend billions looking into any fantasy they wish. I do not fear science and if some conclusive scientific reason to believe God nonexistent can be found then I would be a fool to not follow it. However that is not what we have. We have science that indicates God is almost a logical necessity. We find complexity of an unimaginable scale. Information composed of billions of bits in specific order, decoding systems tuned to resolve and apply that information. We have an abundance of life and biological principles that have no exception indicating life only comes from life. All this points to God or something very similar. Philosophy bears this out, theology as well. This is where the double standards come in.
You rightly claim that science is almost impotent "before" t=0 yet then posit some scientific alternative any way that has no evidence and is IMO an incoherent concept but let's say it is logical. What I object to is the allowance for this unbounded, unfunded, fairyland, ambiguous universe, yet your total allowance for God. God is a much more reliable and evidenced hypothesis. Why is it that primarily only in the areas where science really opens the door to God are scientists so resistant to God but so open to things that have no evidence whatever? Things invented by speculation, even things that as far as we know can't be true. It seems anything is preferable to even allowing God to be considered. This is strange or would be if God did not exists and predict this exact blindness in humanity. Is it because they resent God, or accountability, do they only consider scientific type data valid, is it coincidence. Why are they only interested is obscuring the obvious if it is consistent with God? Whatever the reason it is logically invalid and reveals much. We should (as they insist unless inconvenient) we should go with what we know. What we know is perfectly consistent with God. BY all means speculate and investigate but be consistent in conclusions.

You propose something existing before the universe that is infinitely organized and infinitely complex.

Not necessarily. I propose a mind that is nonmaterial existed. I do not have the education to explain how complex that concept would be. The ones who do say it is very simple. It can do complex things (the same way a shovel can) but it is complex. If you disagree there is no way to settle the issue.

It's my contention that anything that preceded the universe would have been infinitely disorganized and simple. Which do you think would be the easiest to justify philosophically?

I do not know if simplicity is more probable than complexity in a world view that allows for God. I do however not think disorder capable of producing significant complexity. That is fundamental.

 

[1robin]

You cannot have 'straight' without 'crooked'. These are conceptual dualities that we superimpose over nature. The universe is neither straight nor crooked, and yet both at the same time.

That is pseudo-philosophic nonsense. If I went and broke every straight stick in existence the crooked ones are not going to blink out of existence. This principle is only true if two things are necessary to make a whole. You are confusing epistemology with ontology again. Every stick in the universe could be crooked (in fact in nature this is literally a fact) however to recognize they are crooked it is necessary to compare them with something. It is about how we recognize things not how things come to be what they are. God could mandate that only evil exists and it would be evil. We however could not recognize it unless good existed to compare it with.

A stick is always crooked, but still relatively straight. One value defines the other. This is harmony. You are trying to make straight better than crooked, by imposing a value judgment called morality onto them, and thereby setting up a conflict between (moral) good and evil, pointing the finger at 'evil', and pretending to be on the side of the 'good', with 'good' on your 'side'. It is all smoke and mirrors your ego enjoys concocting. So don't accuse me of sensationalism: I am merely reflecting the carnie barker alarmist sensationalism you continue to express in all your posts.

I should have followed my instincts and continued not responding. I resume doing so now. You are just too abrasive and I do not want to jeopardize another person’s thread.

 

[camanintx]

I propose a mind that is nonmaterial existed. I do not have the education to explain how complex that concept would be. The ones who do say it is very simple. It can do complex things (the same way a shovel can) but it is complex. If you disagree there is no way to settle the issue.

You propose something which no one has ever presented evidence of. Unless you can do otherwise, I think the issue is settled.

 

[1robin]

You propose something which no one has ever presented evidence of. Unless you can do otherwise, I think the issue is settled.

This is an example of what I mean. I really want to know how you can claim that a being who is said to have produced the most cherished and studied book in human history, the most universally recognized example of benevolent behavior in human history (who has more textual attestation than any individual of any kind in ancient history), and a concept that answers millions of questions in science and philosophy. Not to mention there does not even exist an argument even possible, to prove he is not likely to exist, the archeological evidence, historical corroborations, prophecy, or a thousand other things. However all the boundless, fruitless, timeless, whateverless universes are all reasonable options. Even if there was as little evidence for God as these other cosmological faith based guesses why are you not ruling out both or neither? Even if no God has ever existed there are far better and far more arguments for his existence than for cosmological fantasy. Why the double standards? I am bewildered by the mindset.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Both the science and Biblical theology concerning a finite universe are based on overwhelmingly better evidence than what exists for an eternal universe. In fact there is no evidence for an eternal universe only guesses and speculation.

As a matter of fact the universe will be Eternally inflated

Eternal inflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, the bigbang theory only explains everything after bigbang, not before.
Anyways, It would be quite illogical in my opinion to think that, from Eternity God did not create anything, and just a few billions years ago He decided to create. Are you saying God had to wait and think when and how to create long before bigbang?

 

[Looncall]

You are right that science should consider its self, done when it gets to time=0 and let the philosophers and theologians take over. Unfortunately that is not what they do. Since what we have is so consistent with God they must produce anything regardless of evidence or logic to leave a window open for a non-God necessary universe. That is fine; spend billions looking into any fantasy they wish. I do not fear science and if some conclusive scientific reason to believe God nonexistent can be found then I would be a fool to not follow it. However that is not what we have. We have science that indicates God is almost a logical necessity. We find complexity of an unimaginable scale. Information composed of billions of bits in specific order, decoding systems tuned to resolve and apply that information. We have an abundance of life and biological principles that have no exception indicating life only comes from life. All this points to God or something very similar. Philosophy bears this out, theology as well. This is where the double standards come in.
You rightly claim that science is almost impotent "before" t=0 yet then posit some scientific alternative any way that has no evidence and is IMO an incoherent concept but let's say it is logical. What I object to is the allowance for this unbounded, unfunded, fairyland, ambiguous universe, yet your total allowance for God. God is a much more reliable and evidenced hypothesis. Why is it that primarily only in the areas where science really opens the door to God are scientists so resistant to God but so open to things that have no evidence whatever? Things invented by speculation, even things that as far as we know can't be true. It seems anything is preferable to even allowing God to be considered. This is strange or would be if God did not exists and predict this exact blindness in humanity. Is it because they resent God, or accountability, do they only consider scientific type data valid, is it coincidence. Why are they only interested is obscuring the obvious if it is consistent with God? Whatever the reason it is logically invalid and reveals much. We should (as they insist unless inconvenient) we should go with what we know. What we know is perfectly consistent with God. BY all means speculate and investigate but be consistent in conclusions.
Not necessarily. I propose a mind that is nonmaterial existed. I do not have the education to explain how complex that concept would be. The ones who do say it is very simple. It can do complex things (the same way a shovel can) but it is complex. If you disagree there is no way to settle the issue.
I do not know if simplicity is more probable than complexity in a world view that allows for God. I do however not think disorder capable of producing significant complexity. That is fundamental.

What makes you think that philosophers and theologians are capable of finding out about a situation about which no-one can obtain any information?

This "we do not know anything about this, therefore god" nonsense gets tiresome.

Saying something is consistent with god tells us nothing about whether there is a god.

 

[1robin]

As a matter of fact the universe will be Eternally inflated

Eternal inflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also, the big bang theory only explains everything after big bang, not before.
Anyways, It would be quite illogical in my opinion to think that, from Eternity God did not create anything, and just a few billions years ago He decided to create. Are you saying God had to wait and think when and how to create long before big bang?

Hey I T. You are giving correct current scientific evidence, the universe is spreading out at an increasing rate. The logical result of this is not good for us or a logical God and if you’re saying your theology is consistent with this then you may want to rethink it. If natural law is allowed to continue in its present direction then not too long from now everything will be almost infinitely separated. Every atom will exist as far from any other as possible. I would have to question any deity that would have planned and allowed that to occur. What is the point? This God would be capricious, inept, and insane from our perspective. Why build a universe that fails to be a purposefull universe?

The Bible says that God will abolish the current state of nature and reinstitute the perfect state it was intended to have. A universe that is an infinite expanse of dust is not in a Biblical future. The Bible does not get into as much detail about this as I would like but it is clear than everything is remade, "behold I make all things new". The Earth is burned to a crisp and then remade, perfectly. That is where heaven’s "headquarters’ will be. Since this does not allow for you always expanding universe I can just imagine the redaction that has taken place with revelations.

For the rest you are assuming that if God sat around and only made the universe a few billions years ago that is a problem. Philosophers have demonstrated that this is simply not true.

1. God exists independent of time. It has little or no effect or relevance on him. That is why the thousand years are a day and vice versa.
2. There was no time "before" the big bang that anyone had to wait out. Cosmology and Biblical cosmology both claim that God created time, matter, and space at the big bang. Time did not exist "before then".
3. It is also a logical IMPOSSABILITY that time is infinite. That is naturally incoherent self-refuting concept unless you appeal to fantasy and science fiction.
4. Even if time existed for eternity, and if God sat around for eternity and then decided to make everything, that is still not a problem. That would only mean something for a being with either limited time or ability. You can say you would not have done so yourself, but to say God should not have, is a meaningless statement.

So in summary the Bible's "In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space), and the Earth (matter) is an accurate description of the best current cosmology and is consistent with an almost intuitive cosmological instinct in humans. If your theology suggests infinite time or an infinite universe then it might be right, or might be wrong but is certainly against known natural law and the most reliable current cosmology.