INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[ruffen]

It becomes a question of what is cause and what is effect.

Is PI the cause for our circles to round, or is PI a simple geometrical result?

 

[Agnostic75]

Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[Agnostic75]

The data is far beyond anything that can be debated. A rise in secularism produces moral degradation in general.

I refer you to my new thread on atheism, and crime.

 

[1robin]

If there are no theoretical explanations for these constants, then how can you say they could have been any other than what they are? Before you can claim they are "finely tuned" you first have to show how they could have been different in the first place. Just as Pi can't be anything other than 3.14159..., isn't it reasonable to assume the other natural constants are in fact constant?

I do not understand the reasoning you used. In this context there are two primary ways things are determined.
1. One natural and logical necessity.
2. Choice.
My claim was there exists no known natural reason that many of the constants are what they are. There for choice in a debate with a theist is the other option. If choice, then any choice was available unless purpose imposes its self. So we have a purpose and a design with characteristics that are consistent with than purpose. No natural explanation and no reason to think choice could not have produce any range of factors but didn't. Now we have will. BTW the fact that there are maybe a dozen or more of these the dependant probability soon gets astroniomical. All must be exactly as they are to get a structured universe and therefore life of anytype.

I have never heard Pi used as one of these. The one I always here used is a constant used in expansion rate formulas. Nothing known in nature explains or according to Physicists and Mathematicians even theoretically could explain constants like that example. I almost never use this argument and have never determined how strong it might be but always thought it interesting.

And I never use this one nor anything like it but will include it here for fun. If you use the exact same formula (I have long ago forgotten what it was) for Genesis 1:1 and for the other primary creation verse (forgotten as well) the formula produces PI to vast decimal places for one verse and e in exact detail for the other one. I hate Bible codes and math tricks but found Norman Geisslers presentation of a renegade French Christian polymath’s work fascinating. I can look it up if you wish to contend this meaningless footnote.

 

[1robin]

What’s the point of the Bible then? What’s the point of the 600+ commandments? I mean, it certainly looks as though “he” tried to provide an injunction against every possible wrong given the number of commandments that are contained within the Bible.

As Sir Lancelot said "that's easy" The primary purpose of the Bible is to lead a human to faith in God. He never intended to fix this world although he does at times stop us from destroying it and ourselves and other events he chooses.

Your god doesn’t necessarily have to provide injunctions against every wrong possible but if “he” wanted to convey that slavery is wrong, then maybe “he” shouldn’t have condoned it in the Bible. It’s not like “he” just didn’t mention it or something.

Actually he did do so but in a much more comprehensive way. The Bible teaches that he gave us all a moral conscience. However it is only brought fully on line when we are reconciled to him, and only fully "tuned" by spiritual faith and effort. That actually explains countless moral dilemmas perfectly.

Your god apparently condoned beating a slave, so long as (s)he didn’t die within a certain number of days. “He” also went on about how to trick a slave into becoming a slave for life, if you could find him a nice wife. If that’s not an endorsement of slavery, I don’t know what is. So he didn’t specifically state “slavery in the old south is not the kind of slavery I’m talking about.” So what? “He” clearly endorsed slavery.

I already explained this and it bore no resemblance to what is claimed here.

Yeah, you know what? I do require your god to fix everything “he” messed up in the first place.

He did not mess up, however he promised to fix it at some point. With your views we have no explanation, no provision, and no ultimate resolution.

I’m big on personal responsibility and all that. You may think it’s okay for such a god to blame his creation for all the mistakes “he” made, but I find that repugnant.

This is so diametrically opposed to secular history that I will leave reality to make my point. In fact many on your side claim morality is an illusion and responsibility a farce and given your views they are right.

I’m not asking your god to do what I wish. I’m asking “him” to be clear in what “he” wants from his creation which clearly hasn’t been done given the number of Christian sects in existence on this planet. Not to mention every other religion humankind has ever believed in.

In any system where fallible and rebellious humans are involved this is the result. Like Christ he gave us a pure revelation and allowed us to do with it as we will. Is it any wonder that the Romans killed Christ, others perverted the Gospel, and secularists attempt to obscure even its most benevolent effects and legacies? No subject on Earth no matter how clear is ever agreed on by everyone. Even if you have a point about the commentary the core of Christianity is about as clear as possible.

How and when did “he” do that?

How did humans invent evil? We're not the creators of the universe.

My statement was so unusually well written and so devoid of any thing these questions are based on I will post it again.

He did more than that. He gave a rational basis and reason for both those being true. However people (like someone I will not mention) said they would rather invent truth's they wished to be so, and God said then reap the whirlwind (we whipped up). It is a grave error that you assume God's purpose is to make this world right. It being wrong is the evidence of our limitations and the price of sin. He has moral justification to allow the evil we invent to exist to some extent.

How did he do what?

Evil is a label or quality not a thing. If a car is good then a car that is ran into a nitroglycerin factory by a drunk would be bad or "evil". We changed good into evil by misuse. God gave the poppy plant, you can make morphine and use it for good things or you can make heroine and use it for evil.

 

[1robin]

Why would Christian values be the best solution to poor morality? What is wrong with deist values? I think that deism makes much more sense than any other religion does.

Deism makes no sense. It posits what it theoretically can never have any evidence of. It also posits what in theory has no use or benevolence concerning us. Deism might be true but even being true it would be useless.

Presidents James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were all deists. Madison is often called the "Father of the U.S. Constitution," and had a good deal to do with the Bill of Rights, and was a very strong proponent of the separation of church and state.

Every single founding father was a product of and heavily influenced by Christian morality. There is not even a theoretical source or possibility of accessing that source even if it did exist, outside theism. The God of Spinoza is undetectable, does not care about us, and never told us what was right or wrong if it even exists. The separation of Church and state is one of the most misunderstood founding issues. They came from a country that had institutionalized the Church and made it into something no one wanted and were powerless to change. They wished to make certain that that would never happen here. Nothing is more misused than this concept. The words separation of Church and state do not even exist in the constitution or bill of rights. It all comes from the law that congress will never establish a single faith as official or persecute others.

Are you suggesting that Christian values should be legislated?

That is an application issue and is an episomological one. My argument is ontological. Application would get messy. However legislating Christian laws is far less problematic that legislating laws based only in human preference.

If not, how do you propose to get people to follow them? Who would be in the best position to interpret Christian values since there are many versions of Christianity regarding certain issues. Millions of Christians accept divorce, but millions do not. Millions of Christians accept women pastors, but millions of Christians do not. Millions of Christians approve of the death penalty, but millions do not. Many Christians do not object to allowing openly homosexuals people to become church members, but many do not. Millions of Christians want creationism to be taught in public schools, but millions do not.

This is going beyond the scope of what I have researched or claimed. I will put it another way. There is no basis, even theoretically possible to determine what is actually right and wrong without God. You may derive human ethics but ethics are not about absolute right and wrong. They are about accepted and not accepted and the death of almost one billion babies so far is not a track record that inspires faith in what is accepted by us.

I could mention many more issues, but if you are proposing that Christianity should dominate the U.S. to the exclusion of all other worldviews, you are violating the kind of country that James Madison thought he was helping to set up, not to mention many court precedents regarding the separation of church and state.

I have argued applications and would require time to think on it first. However at this point I only argue that the far more Christian values of the 40's and 50's were far more moral than the years since then. You only have to look at a TV program list to see we have went from "leave it to Beaver" and "Gidjet" to "sex in the city" and "saw". On no general moral scale are we better off in secularville than when the nation was Christian, not completely broke, and the most powerful and benevolent nation in history.
Continued:

 

[1robin]

As far as government is concerned, secularism makes much more sense than a marriage of church and state does. As far as individual morality is concerned, how specifically do you propose to change individual morality regarding people who morals you disapprove of? Many of the most moral, kind, and productive people in the world are not Christians. The world, and the U.S., are continuing to become more diverse, and it seems that you are trying to get your religious beliefs to be predominant in the U.S. In a democracy, all groups of people have the right to practice their own world, and even many Christians in the U.S. support the separation of church and state.

Again this is application and beyond what I have been arguing for. It is no problem I can see but something I wish to think on before comment. However which makes more sense?

Murder is wrong because a think tank decided murder (without being able to even attempt to prove it) was wrong (except for babies), or we voted on it.
Or
Murder is wrong because God endows us with absolute value, life with absolute sanctity, and humanity with absolute dignity. Not only that but Murder is against the very moral nature of the universe and it's creator and we will all be responsible to him whether we believe it or not.
In the former murder is declared wrong without any reason to think it actually is. In the latter it is demonstrated wrong by the most effective means theoretically possible.
Which is a better basis for law.

You used the word "compromised." Who has generally compromised gay rights in the world? Consider the following:

What?

LGBT rights by country or territory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The least gay rights are in the red, and orange countries. Most of them are predominantly Muslim, or predominantly conservative Christian, and many people in many of those countries live in poverty, and have poor education. In general countries that accept gay people the most are more prosperous, people have more money, and have better education.

That is not even a little true. Canada, the US, most of South America and to a large extent are Christian and are tolerant of Gay rights. Did you look at your own map? Not that this is the least relevant to this discussion. Gay rights are not necessarily good and I have no responsibility for anything Islam does. Stats are tricky anyway. Are you bound by the fact that the conservative Christian demographic is the most generous group on Earth or will you explain it away?

Who has compromised the further acceptance of macro evolution the most in the U.S.? According to an article at Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation, it is women, people who have no high school diploma, and people who make less than $20,000 a year.

What does mean?

Who is mostly responsible for divorce in the U.S.? Well, a study by the Barna Research Group, which is a Christian organization, showed that Baptists have a higher divorce rate than atheists do. In addition, in Denmark, heterosexuals have a higher divorce rate than atheists do.

I am not going to look all these up but instead will posts a similar stat that is used by your side all the time as an example of stats used without merit. I get the fact used all the time that there are more theistic abortions than secular abortions in the US. However the fact is that secular groups get a far higher percentage of abortions and that, not total numbers (in a country that is 80% Christian) is the relevant fact. Which is more damning, getting a divorce or killing a child. The divorce rates from 1860 until today have increased over 500 percent. Are we going towards God or towards secularism over the same time frame? I believe that secularism has compromised the values of even Christian morality. The percentage of children (not the bogus number of children) living with no parent has doubled; the number living with one instead of two has almost quadrupled from 1970 to 1996. In fact almost every statistic on any level has gotten worse since secularism has started to dominate the media and institutions in the US, but stats are very tricky things.
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p20-496.pdf

 

[Agnostic75]

Application would get messy. However legislating Christian laws is far less problematic that legislating laws based only in human preference.
This is going beyond the scope of what I have researched or claimed. I will put it another way. There is no basis, even theoretically possible to determine what is actually right and wrong without God.

That is fine, as long as God is the more liberal version that is practiced by the majority of democracies that are predominantly Christian. I refer you to my new thread on atheism, and crime.

 

[Agnostic75]

Do you have reasonable proof that any Old Testament supernatural events happened?

I will illustrate this another way. Keep in mind reasonable faith is the criteria in theology, NOT SCIENCE.

Actually, many Christian support Christian apologetics, including your highly touted Ravi Zacharias. Consider the following from his website:

"The primary mission of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries is to reach and challenge those who shape the ideas of a culture with the credibility of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Distinctive in its strong evangelistic and apologetic foundation, the ministry of RZIM is intended to touch both the heart and the intellect of the thinkers and influencers of society through the support of the visionary leadership of Ravi Zacharias."

Consider the following:

Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology which aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections. Christian apologetics has taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul the Apostle in the early church and Patristic writers such as Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, then continuing with writers such as Thomas Aquinas and Anselm of Canterbury during Scholasticism, Blaise Pascal before and during the Age of Enlightenment, in the modern period through the efforts of many authors such as G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, and in contemporary times through the work of figures such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig. Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and arguments from other disciplines. Christian polemic is a branch of apologetics aimed at criticizing or attacking other belief systems, e. g. the Disputation of Barcelona at the royal palace of King James I of Aragon (July 20–24, 1263).

Please note:

"Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and arguments from other disciplines."

If you are not interested in Christian apologetics, just say so. If you are interested in it, then please provide historical, philosophical, and scientific arguments that supernatural events happened in the Old Testament.

Two of the greatest if not the greatest scholars on testimony and evidence in human history (Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst) both concluded that the Gospels meet every modern test in modern law and the historical method. I can literally add pages and pages of reasons I believe in the supernatural. One being that I have personally experienced it myself. However meeting you on the common ground of scholarship if those two names are not enough to justify faith no 1000 page tomb would be. If there was ever a greater scholar than these two on evidence and testimony I know not who. I think this would apply to any example you ask about as it is specifically applies to the most important and extraordinary supernatural events in the Bible. After all one supernatural event is just as improbable or likely as any other.

None of that will do you any good since even if supernatural events happen, that does not show "which" supernatural events have happened. In addition, even if supernatural events happen, that does not mean that, for example, God inspired, and preserved biblical writings about specific things, such as homosexuality, and divorce. Even many conservative Christian Bible scholars have admitted that the Bible contains a number of interpolations, and those are only the ones that are obvious to many Bible scholars.

You might claim that it would not make any sense for God to inspire writings that he did not intend to preserve, but many things that God supposedly does do not make any sense, such as telling Christians to tell people about the Gospel message, but refusing to tell people about it himself, and telling Christians to give food to hungry people, but refusing to give food to hungry people himself.

If a God did not inspire the Bible, that easily explains why human effort is the only way that people hear the Gospel message, and get enough food to eat.

Even the Bible implies that it is possible to change the texts. The last page of the book of Revelation warns against adding or subtracting from the texts. If adding or subtracting from the texts was not possible, there would not have been any need for the warnings.

If a God inspired the Bible, he withholds additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him. Spending eternity in hell without parole would be immoral for anyone, but especially people who would have accepted God if he had provided them with additional evidence. Such people would not have rejected God at all. They would only have rejected limited evidence. Today, most people know that eating lots of greasy food is unhealthy, but centuries ago, many people did not know that, and suffered a lot, and died premature deaths. Some of those people would not have eaten lots of greasy foods if they had known about the risks. That group of people could not fairly be blamed for rejecting evidence that they would have accepted if they had been aware of it.

It would be completely impossible for any Bible scholar to reasonably prove that Paul wrote all of First Corinthians, including the famous passage First Corinthians 15: 3-8. I know that many if not the majority of skeptic Bible scholars believe that Paul wrote all of First Corinthians, but you can bet that they know they are just guessing. Surely no one living today can know which of all of the original texts have been changed.

You could easily spend years just debating the authors of the Gospels, and the dates of composition, and get nowhere. You could try to provide historical evidence of the empty tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, but there is not any such evidence other than in the Bible. Christianity was much too small, and much too uninfluential in about 35 A.D. to warrant posting guards at the tomb, if Jesus was even buried in a tomb. Well-known conservative Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright says that in the first century A.D., there were not enough Christians around "to mount a riot in a small village." In the best-selling book "The Rise of Christianity," sociologist Rodney Stark, who has written over 50 books, says that the Christian presence in the first century A.D. was very small, as indicated by archaeological, and papyrological evidence.

It is well-known that Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark, that most Gospel accounts are not claimed eyewitness testimonies, and that John was written much too late to be of much value to Christian apologetics.

So, let's get down to discussing lots of specific evidence for supernatural events in the Old Testament that you have expertise debating.

You really do need to pay a visit to the Biblical Criticism and History Forum at the FRDB (Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Boards). Most members of that forum have forgotten more about biblical textual criticism than you will ever know. You would not even be able to have basic conversations there, let alone win a debate. Perhaps within a few years you will realize how little you know at this time compared with what you think you know.

 

[Repox]

Since science can't explain God, why can't we go to personal witnesses? In a court of law, they count. We have several personal witnesses in the Old Testaments who claim to have personal experiences with God. Don't witnesses count?

 

[Ouroboros]

Since science can't explain God, why can't we go to personal witnesses? In a court of law, they count. We have several personal witnesses in the Old Testaments who claim to have personal experiences with God. Don't witnesses count?

Only if they can show up for court and be questioned by both sides of the court. The reason being that the witness might have forgotten to reveal pertinent information that only the attorney can bring out. We have eyewitness accounts of Harry Potter, why won't they count? Who can say if the stories in Harry Potter are real or not unless we actually can interview a real witness in person?

 

[Repox]

Only if they can show up for court and be questioned by both sides of the court. The reason being that the witness might have forgotten to reveal pertinent information that only the attorney can bring out. We have eyewitness accounts of Harry Potter, why won't they count? Who can say if the stories in Harry Potter are real or not unless we actually can interview a real witness in person?

If it where possible, all OT Prophets would testify together. In this way, inconsistencies about God would be revealed.

 

[Agnostic75]

The data is far beyond anything that can be debated. A rise in secularism produces moral degradation in general.

I refer you to my new thread on atheism, and crime. It shows that generally, countries that have more atheists have good societal health, not to mention that generally, countries that have good societal health are more likely to accept homosexuals, including allowing openly homosexual people to join the military, which over 20 countries do, including Britain, and Israel.

 

[Repox]

Here is my take on God and morality. God created the universe as a prison for Satan. After paradise, a period 62 million years ago when the dinosaurs reigned on earth, Satan turned God's creatures away from Him. Then homo sapiens gained dominion over all other species. Humans never were God's favorite species. God attempted to communicate through his chosen people to save humankind. It didn't work out, humans rejected God. Subsequently, God has assumed a nonintervention policy. So, atheism is as good a religion as any. Mostly, morality is a human invention with little input from God. In the end, all humans end up the same. There is no salvation.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That is another topic. However, if you like here is my take on God and morality. God created the universe as a prison for Satan. After paradise, a period 62 million years ago when the dinosaurs reigned on earth, Satan turned God's creatures away from Him. Then homo sapiens gained dominion over all other species. Humans never were God's favorite species. God attempted to communicate through his chosen people to save humankind. It didn't work out, humans rejected God. Subsequently, God has assumed a nonintervention policy. So, atheism is as good a religion as any. Mostly, morality is a human invention with little input from God. In the end, all humans end up the same. There is no salvation.

Atheism isn't a religion. Atheist Buddhist makes sense. Atheist Christian, not so much.

 

[ruffen]

Since science can't explain God, why can't we go to personal witnesses? In a court of law, they count. We have several personal witnesses in the Old Testaments who claim to have personal experiences with God. Don't witnesses count?

What about the witnesses who will testify that they have found evidence for evolution or that the Earth is 4 billion years old or that the universe is almost 14 billion years old?

What about the witnesses who will testify that Jesus came in a UFO from Mars?

What about the witnesses who will testify that the Devil has told them that God is dead?

Which witnesses do we trust?

Also, what you speak of is not witness reports, but stories about witness reports. In a book that also says A LOT of things we today know didn't actually happen.

 

[Ouroboros]

So, atheism is as good a religion as any.

Atheism isn't a worldview or a religion. It's just the beginning of one. It's a component in a worldview or a religion, but in itself it is not. It's the first word or sentence in a book. Atheists can become buddhists (of the atheist kind), or naturalists, materialists, humanists, and much more, which include more of the worldview and religious parts. Atheism in itself doesn't solve the questions about morality, life, purpose, etc, but it's the beginning of the questioning. It's the starting point we all should start from. True faith must start with true doubt.

 

[1robin]

Since science can't explain God, why can't we go to personal witnesses? In a court of law, they count. We have several personal witnesses in the Old Testaments who claim to have personal experiences with God. Don't witnesses count?

Nothings counts to those who wish to believe. However to those of us that are consistent not ony are there Biblical witnesses there are billions of people who will testify they have experienced a risen Christ. No other religion even offers this.

 

[Repox]

What about the witnesses who will testify that they have found evidence for evolution or that the Earth is 4 billion years old or that the universe is almost 14 billion years old?

What about the witnesses who will testify that Jesus came in a UFO from Mars?

What about the witnesses who will testify that the Devil has told them that God is dead?

Which witnesses do we trust?

Also, what you speak of is not witness reports, but stories about witness reports. In a book that also says A LOT of things we today know didn't actually happen.

You changed the subject, I was talking about prophets being witnesses to God not to UFOs, science, etc. It was not necessary for them to be modern sophisticates to witness God.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Atheism isn't a religion. Atheist Buddhist makes sense. Atheist Christian, not so much.

Have you read Atheist Christian literature? Thomas Altizer is a good place to start.

Interesting that he thinks that God is dead and Christianity can only be saved through Buddhism.