INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[SkepticThinker]

Well who could oppose such scholarship and rigorous proof? I think you determined this long before you evaluated it. That is not the point anyway. This is the context God comes with. If he is to be evaluated it must be within the environment and context that he comes in.

Sorry, just being honest. To me, the Bible is a work of fiction, like a fairy tale story where it’s meant to teach a moral lesson of some kind. I determined this long ago when I first read the Bible all the way through. And just the fact that it’s subject to all kinds of interpretation based on what kind of Christian is reading it and what their belief systems are doesn’t really help make it any more believable.

I’m not trying to be offensive here, I’m just trying to explain where I’m coming from.

Who said that? First he created all of us to live in perfection and harmony with him. If this is true then your attitude and mine throughout most of my life is a good indication that we would have none of it and so we were cast out of this perfection into a land where the rewards of our rebellion were obvious. He did not look for a person so he could declare his descendants special. He looked for one who would follow him and render his descendants special in the process. Not that others were forgotten. Many times Israel's specialness was a far greater liability than an advantage.
None, IMO with the possible exception of the Decalogue. Many of them are literally impossible to follow today. There is no temple to do many others in.

I thought you had said that.

All this sounds like to me, is that your god was/is looking for people who obey his commands without question. Do so and you get to live in “perfection and harmony with him.” Don’t do it and you burn in a lake of fire forever. Furthermore, if god really does want us all to live in perfection and harmony with him, then why make the commandments impossible to obey? It sounds like he has stacked the deck against us from the get-go. That doesn’t sound to me like a deity that wants to live in perfection and harmony with his creation.

 

[1robin]

The problem is that the argument is usually framed as a form of special pleading. The "the universe must be finite, but God is infinite" argument is fundamentally flawed, since there is no reason to assume that - could an infinite thing exist - that the Universe cannot, itself, be infinite in some form and therefore not require creation.

The argument isn't one of making assertions or claims about God, but in pointing out the fallacies often evoked by such arguments. I.E: when I make this argument, I do not mean to say "The universe must be infinite, therefore God couldn't do it" or "God must be finite" or any variation on these claims, what I'm actually saying is "here is the reason why your logic is flawed and I therefore do not accept your conclusion". An infinite God isn't a problem. The problem lies in evoking an infinite being through arguing that something cannot but infinite, which is special pleading.

It is things that are dependent on time that can't be infinite. It is things that are subject to issues like entropy that can't be infinite. Actual infinites can't be traversed. Actual infinites are a necessity of an eternal universe. I never suggest that some ethereal thing can't be infinite but that what we have isn't. This universe is well evidenced as to be finite. Any other universe claimed to exist does so in science fiction, currently. Ours bears every mark of beginning. I do not know if I am helping or not but I am leaving shortly anyway.

 

[Sha'irullah]

To add to further note.

Perhaps there has been a cause and effect in existence and perhaps this is the 3rd 4th or 100th universe to expand as some theories dictate that if the universe collapses it will just expand again from a singularity. Meaning it is an infinite cycle of creation and destruction but even with this in mind there still has so be a eternal existence of something.
I am not saying god although I believe in one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The problem is that the argument is usually framed as a form of special pleading. The "the universe must be finite, but God is infinite" argument is fundamentally flawed, since there is no reason to assume that - could an infinite thing exist - that the Universe cannot, itself, be infinite in some form and therefore not require creation.

The argument isn't one of making assertions or claims about God, but in pointing out the fallacies often evoked by such arguments. I.E: when I make this argument, I do not mean to say "The universe must be infinite, therefore God couldn't do it" or "God must be finite" or any variation on these claims, what I'm actually saying is "here is the reason why your logic is flawed and I therefore do not accept your conclusion". An infinite God isn't a problem. The problem lies in evoking an infinite being through arguing that something cannot but infinite, which is special pleading.

^^^^ This.

And in regards to the discussion about the origins of the universe, I think the safest and most reasonable answer at this point in time is simply that we don't know.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To add to further note.

Perhaps there has been a cause and effect in existence and perhaps this is the 3rd 4th or 100th universe to expand as some theories dictate that if the universe collapses it will just expand again from a singularity. Meaning it is an infinite cycle of creation and destruction but even with this in mind there still has so be a eternal existence of something.
I am not saying god although I believe in one.

True enough.


If they are ever to figure it all out and determine whether the universe is finite or infinite and how it came to be and all that, I bet you it will be something more amazing than we had ever even imagined. It kind of ticks me off knowing that I'll probably be long gone before that happens.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Again, I think this is usually brought up as a response to special pleading than anything else. I think the question of "if God created the Universe then what created God" is really just a demonstration of that logical fault, and clearly illustrates that assuming the intervention of some divine agency isn't really answering the question. The response that "God is eternal" demonstrates that the claim itself is a form of special pleading, since the response that usually follows is "well, then the Universe can be eternal, therefore no act of creation is required, therefore God is not a logical conclusion".

Now I get it. I had to look up "special pleading" and I realized it is the same as "stacking the deck". Thank you Google

But the response can be many since God can coexisting with the universe. So if he is eternal the universe is eternal coinciding with his existence.
This argument can go so many ways, neither of them having an end.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is things that are dependent on time that can't be infinite. It is things that are subject to issues like entropy that can't be infinite. Actual infinites can't be traversed. Actual infinites are a necessity of an eternal universe. I never suggest that some ethereal thing can't be infinite but that what we have isn't. This universe is well evidenced as to be finite. Any other universe claimed to exist does so in science fiction, currently. Ours bears every mark of beginning. I do not know if I am helping or not but I am leaving shortly anyway.

We don't know whether or not the Universe itself, however, is subject to any of the laws of entropy. We already know and understand that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and we also do not know what form - if any - the energy which comprises our Universe was in before the planck time (or even if such a concept as "before the planck time" is an oxymoron). We also don't know what physical laws, if any, existed before then, so laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, etc. are all moot for explaining the origin of the Universe. The point is, we cannot successfully make any assumptions about what the Universe is and is not capable of until we have a decent working knowledge of all the factors that went into the big bang. To assume that the Universe is either finite or infinite at this stage is premature, and there is no real reason - so far - to assume that the energy that comprises our Universe could not have always existed in some form. This is an argument of possibilities rather than evidence, and at the moment no possibility can really be successfully ruled out. The point is not to jump to conclusions until we have sufficient information to come to one.

Now I get it. I had to look up "special pleading" and I realized it is the same as "stacking the deck". Thank you Google

But the response can be many since God can coexisting with the universe. So if he is eternal the universe is eternal coinciding with his existence.
This argument can go so many ways, neither of them having an end.

It's a possibility but it also renders God entirely redundant, since an eternal Universe would not require an act of creation. Like I said before, there's no real reason why an eternal God couldn't actually exist that is responsible for the creation of a finite Universe, but the problem is less with the claim itself (which I feel has different problems) bur more with the logic used to reach the conclusion.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It's a possibility but it also renders God entirely redundant, since an eternal Universe would not require an act of creation. Like I said before, there's no real reason why an eternal God couldn't actually exist that is responsible for the creation of a finite Universe, but the problem is less with the claim itself (which I feel has different problems) bur more with the logic used to reach the conclusion.

Funny you mention this. Did you know there are some deist who believe the opposite of every god believing person?
They believe the creation of the universe created god. Blasphemous is it not?
Essentially they view god as the most powerful entity in the universe. In both wisdom and physical might. Essentially a floating cosmic sentient being would describe this well. They believe the universe was created and that perhaps this "god" created things in the universe.
Sounds rather bizarre but fascinating since this is the antithesis of most theists.

 

[McBell]

#1015

1. Civil war casualties, Union only: 364,000 deaths. There were 2 disease deaths for every 1 battle death. (lack of science killed twice as many as bullets designed to do so).

Twice as many men died of disease than of gunshot wounds in the Civil War. Dysentery, measles, small pox, pneumonia, and malaria were the soldier's greatest enemy. The overall poor hygiene in camp, the lack of adequate sanitation facilities, the cold and lack of shelter and suitable clothing, the poor quality of food and water, and the crowded condition of the camps made the typical camp a literal breeding ground for disease. Conditions, and resulting disease, were even worse for Civil War prisoners, who were held in the most miserable of conditions.
Civil War Medicine

364,000 total divided 66% = 240,000 (in fact 240,540 is the official number) Civil War Statistics

That is far more than the tens of thousands I had claimed but since I mistakenly included surgery deaths for no apparent reason lets pair it down further.
240,000
- 45,000 Dysentery
- 35,000 Typhoid
- 20,000 Pneumonia
- 11,000 Measles
- 14,000 Tuberculosis
- 30,000 Malaria
- 10,000 All others
---------------------------
75,000 killed by disease that was not contracted by non-surgical means. That is being very generous with the numbers. For example probably half the Pneumonia cases contracted it from surgery etc...
Civil War Diseases, Civil War Medicine, Civil War Nurses

Tens of thousands was a very conservative claim on my part. Since millions claimed by me from 4000 years until 1863 is very very safe I am not going through the numbers concerning it as well.

The civil war is a life long hobby.

What does that have to do with the probability of life beginning?

 

[Skeptisch]

What does that have to do with the probability of life beginning?

Nothing and it has also nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty either. :bible:

 

[1robin]

Essentially you are saying the same thing I am saying just with Biblical perspective.

The bold letters are wrong by the way(partially). Because scientist do believe in something that is eternal and usually that is energy because without it the Big Bang theory cannot exist. But some will assert in the concept of infinite cause and reaction to make the theistic concept of an eternal god look foolish.
But whether you believe god or energy is eternal that still means you believe in something eternal which resulted in our universe. So debating either on the grounds of illogical existence is pointless. As far as creation goes, an atheist and theist have the same metaphysics.
But there probably are some atheist who believe in eternal cause and effect although I have not known of any.

I agree my restating what you said. I just restated it as it traditionally is stated by the Kalaam argument. Scientists say many things. Theoretical cosmology is full of faith based claims that are called science. I meant that science has nothing reliable as a cause. BTW the latest cosmology (reliable that is) confirms that nothing existed prior to the universe. Many theories exist that allow other things to exist but they are more fantasy than science.

 

[1robin]

Sorry, just being honest. To me, the Bible is a work of fiction, like a fairy tale story where it’s meant to teach a moral lesson of some kind. I determined this long ago when I first read the Bible all the way through. And just the fact that it’s subject to all kinds of interpretation based on what kind of Christian is reading it and what their belief systems are doesn’t really help make it any more believable.

You certainly have the right to think this however I am not sure what use it is in a debate. I also believe this to be your prime directive so to speak. You think this first and then cast about looking for ways to support it.

I’m not trying to be offensive here, I’m just trying to explain where I’m coming from.

There is nothing offensive TO ME about your preference. It is sort of expected of non-theists. My point was only The Biblical God cannot be examined outside revelation and it's context or it no longer is the God I defend.

I thought you had said that.

All this sounds like to me, is that your god was/is looking for people who obey his commands without question. Do so and you get to live in “perfection and harmony with him.” Don’t do it and you burn in a lake of fire forever. Furthermore, if god really does want us all to live in perfection and harmony with him, then why make the commandments impossible to obey? It sounds like he has stacked the deck against us from the get-go. That doesn’t sound to me like a deity that wants to live in perfection and harmony with his creation.

Conditions in the Garden were far different from what we have. They did not know rebellion, sin, shame, evil until they committed the one act that he made off limits. The rest is derivative. God does not demand perfect obedience. The only thing he demands is honesty. We only need confess the truth that Christ died for us and we are sinners in need of forgiveness. How demanding is that? God REQUESTS many things (like obedience) but DEMANDS only what I claimed. I have no idea where you non-theists get your doctrines but that one is quite common and quite wrong.

 

[1robin]

To add to further note.

Perhaps there has been a cause and effect in existence and perhaps this is the 3rd 4th or 100th universe to expand as some theories dictate that if the universe collapses it will just expand again from a singularity. Meaning it is an infinite cycle of creation and destruction but even with this in mind there still has so be a eternal existence of something.
I am not saying god although I believe in one.

Those theories are wrong or at least very unlikely. The universes expansion is not perfectly efficient. It would lose massive amounts of energy with each cycle. If infinitely old the universe would have infinitely long ago become static. Any theory which relies on an actual natural infinity is doomed from the start. Having a math degree I am well aware of the wreck infinity makes of most things it is applied to including much of math its self. It is useful as a hypothetical threshold it is useless as an actuality. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem is by far the dominant cosmological model currently. I like it because it was designed to be bullet proof. Almost everything scientists quibble about is irrelevant to the theorem and it posits a single finite universe. There is a quote obsessively misused by atheist from Velankin (I believe) but I will wait and see if it's posted before I go find the letter that tells the whole story. I believe your oscillating universe theory a logical impossibility but even if not we have about 80 years or so to decide about God. I think dismissing him because some day somewhere X might be learned is a recipe for destruction and rationally invalid. We must use what is reliably known as of today and make our decisions. All of that is consistent with God, in fact much of it makes God an almost logical necessity.

 

[1robin]

^^^^ This.

And in regards to the discussion about the origins of the universe, I think the safest and most reasonable answer at this point in time is simply that we don't know.

Agreed but I would add that what we do have reliable evidence for is consistent with God. Maybe one day it won't be but for now nature indicates God so strongly that it has caused shockwaves in modern science which has become dominated by atheism.

 

[1robin]

We don't know whether or not the Universe itself, however, is subject to any of the laws of entropy. We already know and understand that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and we also do not know what form - if any - the energy which comprises our Universe was in before the planck time (or even if such a concept as "before the planck time" is an oxymoron). We also don't know what physical laws, if any, existed before then, so laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, etc. are all moot for explaining the origin of the Universe. The point is, we cannot successfully make any assumptions about what the Universe is and is not capable of until we have a decent working knowledge of all the factors that went into the big bang. To assume that the Universe is either finite or infinite at this stage is premature, and there is no real reason - so far - to assume that the energy that comprises our Universe could not have always existed in some form. This is an argument of possibilities rather than evidence, and at the moment no possibility can really be successfully ruled out. The point is not to jump to conclusions until we have sufficient information to come to one.

Suns burn out as far as I know. Are you making some kind of composition fallacy claim? Science is the field that should not make faith based assumptions about the universe yet it does, constantly. Theology admits it makes faith based decisions and that is where they belong and it is quite appropriate as long as no truth be suppressed in the process. In this case and most other my faith based assumptions are consistent with the current state of RELIABLE cosmology. It is science who must deny RELIABLE and current cosmology to make a cosmological case against God.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Suns burn out as far as I know. Are you making some kind of composition fallacy claim?

Are you committing an equivocation fallacy by comparing a sun to the Universe? They're two different things. Unless you can demonstrate that the Universe is a closed system like a sun is, you cannot claim that it is subject to entropy in the same way.

Science is the field that should not make faith based assumptions about the universe yet it does, constantly.

I disagree, and am more than willing to refute any attempt you can make to indicate that.

Theology admits it makes faith based decisions and that is where they belong and it is quite appropriate as long as no truth be suppressed in the process. In this case and most other my faith based assumptions are consistent with the current state of RELIABLE cosmology. It is science who must deny RELIABLE and current cosmology to make a cosmological case against God.

We were having a perfectly intelligent, non-knee jerking conversation just one post ago. Why did you have to drag all of this total nonsense into it? I'm not going to have another discussion with your preformed assertions about science.

 

[Agnostic75]

If we may, let's return to the opening post, as follows:

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.

Although I hope that a moral, kind God exists, I believe that a great many leading physicists, including Hawkings, Villenkin, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, would say, and have already basically said, that there is not a preponderance of scientific evidence that this universe came into being because of the actions of a God.

We do not have all of the answers, much more research is needed, and there is no need to jump to conclusions pending the results of future research. That is what true science is about.

Obviously, capable quantum physicists do not use religious books to arrive at scientific conclusions. Neither do capable biologists, as biologist, and theistic evolutionist Ken Miller has said. Miller has correctly said that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, and that God can only be accepted by faith, not by scientific research.

 

[1robin]

Are you committing an equivocation fallacy by comparing a sun to the Universe?

There is no retaliation necessary. I was not accusing you of a fallacy. I was asking were you making an argument that I was. It is the composition fallacy when things true about a part are extrapolated to the whole and the above is one. It was my test to determine what you were saying. I have never thought about whether the universe can be tested for thermodynamic adherence. The fact that everything in it is, is good evidence (but not proof) that it is. The claims by Newton and Einstein that thermodynamics is most immutable natural law is also good evidence. If you wish to base your beliefs on the absence of any indication the universe is not subject to thermodynamics have at it but it seems terribly desperate to me.

They're two different things. Unless you can demonstrate that the Universe is a closed system like a sun is, you cannot claim that it is subject to entropy in the same way.

It is more the burden of proof who is claiming the exception than the rule. The universe as a concept is certainly closed. The universe is everything. The actual universe appears to be closed or at least there is no good evidence that it isn't. It is the burden of the one who claims the whole is not subject to what is true of all its parts especially in the absence of any evidence or even a reliable theory demonstrating that. BTW where are you claiming I stated that the universe as a whole is subject to entropy. I believe it is but do not remember claiming so.

I disagree, and am more than willing to refute any attempt you can make to indicate that.

Science claims that life arose on its own. In absence of demonstrable proof (no matter how good the evidence, and it isn't good) is at least partially faith based.

We were having a perfectly intelligent, non-knee jerking conversation just one post ago. Why did you have to drag all of this total nonsense into it? I'm not going to have another discussion with your preformed assertions about science.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I wish I did so I could evaluate it and contend it if wrong but I am at a loss. However do not reply as you wish.

 

[Agnostic75]

It is science who must deny RELIABLE and current cosmology to make a cosmological case against God.

Absolutely not. No physicist is obligated to try to use science to disprove the existence of God.

 

[1robin]

Absolutely not. No physicist is obligated to try to use science to disprove the existence of God.

I was not suggesting they had no choice. I was saying that if cosmology is used to counter God it must come from the fantasy (unreliable) side of science and contradict reliable scientific evidence. No, they are under no obligation to argue against God and most don't, but if they do they are obligated to use evidence far less solid than what exists and is consistent with God. If their doing this bothers you then tell Dawkins and the gang, to shut it. If I was an atheist I would do so, as it is embarrassing.