INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Enai de a lukal]

Nay.
Your denial is based on the lack of 'proof'.

No. This is simply a mischaracterization of my view.

If there was 'proof' your choice of belief would be gone.

Again, not true. Any proof requires presuppositions, and one can reject proof on the grounds that one rejects the presuppositions.

But you also choose to not believe that the body renders unique spirit.
And you choose to deny that anyone one of us might survive the last breath.

I think such line of thought to be.....irrational.

That's fine- but you're using "irrational" in a fairly peculiar way, since I can support my belief with sufficient and compelling evidence. This is normally what people refer to as "rational", not its opposite.

 

[Thief]

No. This is simply a mischaracterization of my view.


Again, not true. Any proof requires presuppositions, and one can reject proof on the grounds that one rejects the presuppositions.



That's fine- but you're using "irrational" in a fairly peculiar way, since I can support my belief with sufficient and compelling evidence. This is normally what people refer to as "rational", not its opposite.

You cannot support 'proof' there is not God.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You cannot support 'proof' there is not God.

I can provide compelling and sufficient evidence and arguments to conclude that there is no God, whereas one cannot do the same for the converse. Not proof, but good enough.

 

[Agnostic75]

Yeah....well enough.
But having seen the miracles .....then they believed.

Blessed are they who believe....and have not seen.

But God was also pleased with people who accepted Jesus partly because they saw him perform miracles.

When God parted the Red Sea for the Hebrews, how much faith did it take to believe in him?

 

[nash8]

Indisputable rational proof only exists in mathematics. There is no such thing as proof in any other intellectual endeavor.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Indisputable rational proof only exists in mathematics. There is no such thing as proof in any other intellectual endeavor.

Exactly, which is why the question is ill-posed to begin with. Rather, ask whether there is sufficient and compelling empirical evidence, or sound deductive reasoning, supporting the existence of God (as it happens, there is none)...

 

[1robin]

I can provide compelling and sufficient evidence and arguments to conclude that there is no God, whereas one cannot do the same for the converse. Not proof, but good enough.

Good enough for what? Rationalizing a belief that would be maintained without it anyway. BTW what is that evidence? 2 billion Christians, and another 2 billion theists would be interested to know.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Good enough for what?

Um... For reasonably holding that belief. That's the standard in this domain, not proof.

Rationalizing a belief that would be maintained without it anyway.

No. My intellectual integrity is, and has long been, something I will not compromise. For many years I was a Christian until an assesment of the evidence led me to adopt what basically amounted to a form of deistic ignosticism. As I got older and more familiar with the matter, I eventually to inclined towards fullblown positive atheism. If there were any compelling evidence for the existence of God, then I would unhesitatingly change my view once again.

But thanks for your absolutely speculative and baseless assessment.

BTW what is that evidence? 2 billion Christians, and another 2 billion theists would be interested to know.

You and I were in the middle of that very discussion on another thread (I think it was called "Evidence"? I don't remember for sure...) when you sort of just disappeared...

 

[Thief]

I can provide compelling and sufficient evidence and arguments to conclude that there is no God, whereas one cannot do the same for the converse. Not proof, but good enough.

This you cannot do.

 

[Thief]

But God was also pleased with people who accepted Jesus partly because they saw him perform miracles.

When God parted the Red Sea for the Hebrews, how much faith did it take to believe in him?

Are you moving to miracles as 'proof'?

 

[Thief]

Indisputable rational proof only exists in mathematics. There is no such thing as proof in any other intellectual endeavor.

This is not true.

It seems when equations form there is something left out.
Then back to the chalk and blackboard.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This you cannot do.

I can, and have on this very forum. I would do so again here, but judging by your borderline incoherent responses, I'm not convinced it would be worth my time (especially since its extremely unlikely that your religious commitment, which has predetermined your conclusions for you, would allow you to acknowledge anything as sufficient evidence for the non-existence of God, even were it presented to you)

This is not true.

It seems when equations form there is something left out.
Then back to the chalk and blackboard.

Yes, his comment was absolutely true. Mathematics and logic are really the only domain which produces truths capable of 100% apodictic certainty, because its truths are usually tautologies-necessary truths, truths which cannot possibly be false. "2+2=4" is a necessary, analytic, and a priori truth which could not turn out to be false.

Of course, this is one of the crucial differences between deductive and inductive reasoning- deductive reasoning deals with logical relationships, such that its truths are logically necessary, but NEVER factually informative (logic and mathematics can never tell us how things are in the world), whereas inductive reasoning deals with probability, such that its truths are NEVER logically certain (and thus not susceptible of 100% certainty) but are factually informative.

 

[Agnostic75]

I would only claim God as the leading and most suffecient theory but that is far less than an indisputable theory. However there are only two choices a abstract concept as creator or a mind. Abstracts create nothing on their own and we are left with mind until some intrepid scientist invents a new fantasy.

Do you mean the leading scientific theory? If so, the National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God, and the majority of leading physicists do not believe in God.

What existed before the Big Bang? If God existed before the Big Bang, where was he? If he was outside of time and space, why do you exclude a reasonable possibility that some naturalistic eternally existing energy existed outside of time and space? Such energy might have eternally existing attributes just like God supposedly has.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

Again, homosexuality itself is not a practice. It is a sexual identity and an orientation.

I know what it is you claim and I have given you an absolute way to prove it. I wish you would do that instead of repeat this claim again. I however do not have the slightest idea what you posted the claim to that statement by me. The two are totally unrelated.

 

[Agnostic75]

I would only claim God as the leading and most sufficient theory but that is far less than an indisputable theory. However there are only two choices a abstract concept as creator or a mind. Abstracts create nothing on their own and we are left with mind until some intrepid scientist invents a new fantasy.

Do you mean the leading scientific theory? If so, the National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God, and the majority of leading physicists do not believe in God.

What existed before the Big Bang? If God existed before the Big Bang, where was he? If he was outside of time and space, why do you exclude a reasonable possibility that some naturalistic eternally existing energy existed outside of time and space? Such energy might have eternally existing attributes just like God supposedly has.

What do you mean by "abstract"?

As a Wikipedia article says, what is often counterintuitive to laymen is often not counterintuitive to quantum physicists.

We can at least be reasonably certain that common descent is true. Michael Behe agrees with Charles Darwin about that. He only disagrees with Darwin about the mechanisms of common descent. Behe said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

It is amusing that you would presume to lecture Behe, and over 99% of other experts who accept common descent. You are not nearly qualified to debate common descent with an expert.

What about the possibility of other universes? Please make a post in my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151019-do-other-universes-exist.html.

 

[Agnostic75]

Again, homosexuality itself is not a practice. It is a sexual identity and an orientation.

I know what it is you claim and I have given you an absolute way to prove it.

I must agree with you. Wikipedia says:

"Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender."

In my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html, I showed that sexual identity can only rarely be changed. A change in sexual identity by a gay man would be indicated if he no longer had moderate, or strong same-sex attractions to men. That rarely happens, partly because Alan Chambers, the founder and former president of the recently disbanded Exodus International, said that 99.9% of the time, homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. He also admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity.

In that same thread, I provided conclusive evidence, partly by referring to a
well-known gay twin study by Dr. Bailey, that genetics play an important role in sexual identity. If genetics did not partly account for the origin of homosexuality, why did it first originate? It had to have originated among humans for the same reason that it originated among animals, which was that participants derived pleasure from it. Sometimes, animals engage in homosexuality as dominance behavior, but other times, they enjoy it entirely as sexual pleasure that is enjoyed by both animals. All bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual, and experts say that their bi-sexuality provides them with important benefits. A good deal of same-sex behavior among bonobo monkeys is definitely not dominance behavior.

When I told you that lots of homosexuals do not have any STDs, and will never have any STDs, you said that they have other problems that are too awful for you to talk about. I told you that unless you state what the problems are, you cannot use them as evidence.

When you said that monogamous homosexuals cannot guarantee that they will stay monogamous, I told you that you did not have any evidence that monogamous homosexuals give up monogamy a good deal more than monogamous heterosexuals do. Even if they did, having safe sex is the main issue, not monogamy. Many promiscuous homosexuals practice safe sex, as evidenced by a documented research study in 21 American cities that showed that 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV.

Research has shown that many promiscuous homosexuals who practice safe sex are happy, and content with their promiscuity. And, promiscuity is common among many animals, so promiscuity is natural since it frequently occurs in nature. What
frequently occurs in nature is not necessarily beneficial, but neither is what frequently occurs among humans, such as wars, and murder. It all gets down to whether an individual practice by an animal, or by a human, is beneficial as compared with the consequences of not doing the action. Having sex has proven benefits. Long term abstinence has proven risks. Having sex is normal. Long term abstinence is abnormal.

Research has shown that lesbians who do not have any HIV risk factors other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risks than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women.

In one of my threads, I showed that Dr. Bailey, who conducted the well-known gay twin study, said that proponents of the predominantly environment theory regarding what causes homosexuality could have a chance to easily prove their theory if they provided him with adequate funding since he has scientific ways to conclusively settle the issue even to the satisfaction of people who support the predominantly environment theory.

Regardless of what causes homosexuality, 1) sexual identity can rarely be changed, 2) having sex provides significant benefits, 3) long term abstinence has proven health risks, 4) there is no need for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years to practice abstinence, 5) having sex is normal, 6) long term abstinence is abnormal, 6) the majority of homosexuals will not die from any STD, and 7) many homosexuals will never get an STD.

Assuming that 2% of the people in the world are homosexuals, if only 1% of the homosexuals in the world were monogamous, there would be about 1.4 million monogamous homosexuals in the world.

Some of the biggest health problems are heart disease, which is the leading cause of death for heterosexuals, and for homosexuals, cancer, and obesity. Heart disease, and obesity, are often preventable. Cancer is sometimes preventable, but less so than heart disease, and obesity. If there were not any homosexuals in the world, heart disease, cancer, and obesity would still be major problems. In addition, so would global warming, which might one day cause the biggest financial depression in history by far, and might eventually kill most of, or all of, the people in the world.

 

[1robin]

Do you mean the leading scientific theory? If so, the National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God, and the majority of leading physicists do not believe in God.

I will illustrate this one last time.

1. The Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe is the cosmological model most consistent with God.
2. A scientists acting as a scientists is not allowed to infer God on that basis. His being an authority only concerns his competence concerning the natural. That is all that academy is to comment upon. At T = 0 all of science is done.
3. Now as a person of faith and theology I and others can link God with exactly the type of universe Genesis posits with the most prevalent cosmological model.
4. It appears it took science 4000 years just to get to the cosmological model that has been generated from Genesis alone, written by ignorant bronze age men.

What existed before the Big Bang? If God existed before the Big Bang, where was he? If he was outside of time and space, why do you exclude a reasonable possibility that some naturalistic eternally existing energy existed outside of time and space? Such energy might have eternally existing attributes just like God supposedly has.

If you read up on that theorem you would find it was desired to be robust and comprehensive. It posits a finite universe that composes all of nature and it's laws. Nature did not exist to create its self. Even after it existed it can't create (it can rearrange but never bring into existence from nothing). That leaves only abstract concepts like numbers and whatever is beyond nature (the supernatural). Numbers never created anything so we are only left with the Supernatural as a possibility.

What do you mean by "abstract"?

Things that are true as brute facts but are not concrete realities. Objectively true ideas.

As a Wikipedia article says, what is often counterintuitive to laymen is often not counterintuitive to quantum physicists.

Quantum physics is still too new to be understood or to be binding. However nothing known about it is a threat to anything I claimed here. Ignorant people claim it gets something from nothing but that is wrong. It posits a quantum fluctuation energy field and then converts that into matter. That is something. Before the big bang there was literally nothing. No-thing.

We can at least be reasonably certain that common descent is true. Michael Behe agrees with Charles Darwin about that. He only disagrees with Darwin about the mechanisms of common descent. Behe said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

I am sure some comment descent is true. That is no threat to God or anything I have stated here. I will give you one interpretation for genesis that resolves all evolutionary conflicts real or supposed. Adam was the first primate with a soul. I am not saying I believe this but many do. There are all kinds of barriers to evolution alone creating what we have and so a combination of God and evolution is probably the truth and what I defend.

It is amusing that you would presume to lecture Behe, and over 99% of other experts who accept common descent. You are not nearly qualified to debate common descent with an expert.

What about the possibility of other universes? Please make a post in my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151019-do-other-universes-exist.html.

Look you are at least going to have to base your illogical debate evaluations on stuff I have claimed. I have never contended with anything Behe has said specifically. In fact he is used by Christians more that non-theists. You keep inventing conflicts between faith and science where none exist and then yelling gotcha. Not one thing reliably known to science is incompatible with the Bible.

 

[1robin]

I must agree with you. Wikipedia says:

"Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender."

Let me ask you this. There are people that have strong sexual attractions to animals. Is that biological as well? Should that be accepted?

 

[1robin]

Um... For reasonably holding that belief. That's the standard in this domain, not proof.

There are several problems here.
You gave a qualitative claim not a faith based claim. You basically said the evidence against God is so much better that the evidence for him. Please prove this unless you meant that you have faith that that is true. You are also adopting the by far more risky conclusion. To use Pascal's terrible wager in a not so terrible way. So the evidence for even faith in your conclusion would have to so much better than for God that it justifies the far more disastrous if wrong, conclusion.

No. My intellectual integrity is, and has long been, something I will not compromise. For many years I was a Christian until an assesment of the evidence led me to adopt what basically amounted to a form of deistic ignosticism. As I got older and more familiar with the matter, I eventually to inclined towards fullblown positive atheism. If there were any compelling evidence for the existence of God, then I would unhesitatingly change my view once again.

Boy you have just stepped all in it now. You have put forward the most self contradictory claim I know of. First things first. On what basis do you claim you were a former Christian? What made you so?

But thanks for your absolutely speculative and baseless assessment.

Do you understand the concept of hyperbole used as humor. I was be sarcastic and dramatic to illustrate a very real cognitive dissonance that exists on both sides but far more so on yours. You seem to never ever get humor.

You and I were in the middle of that very discussion on another thread (I think it was called "Evidence"? I don't remember for sure...) when you sort of just disappeared...

I can grant that I lost track of a discussion. As an orthodox Christian I am a rarity in this forum and the favorite target of many a non-theist. I have great difficulty keeping up with all the wrong claims made by your side and if I spend a day or two apart from the computer lose much ground and sometimes so much that I can't go back and catch up. If you remember what pot it was give me the number and I will go back. I however can say that if I was asked to give evidence that God does not exist I would be hard pressed to even think of something that potentially could indicate he did not exist. You have a far worse task in providing evidence something does not exist but if that is where you wish to go then be my guest.