INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Meow Mix]

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.

Your assumption is that there was a "first thing." Why?

Also, it's false that "before anything, there was nothing."

If there was a "before," then there was metatime. If nothing was exactly that -- nothing -- then logical identity (A = A) was there, and so not nothing.

The problem with your argument lies in its false and vacuous assumptions.

 

[Ouroboros]

Also, it's false that "before anything, there was nothing."

If there was a "before," then there was metatime. If nothing was exactly that -- nothing -- then logical identity (A = A) was there, and so not nothing.

Agree.

And, I can't understand the premise of "before time began". That's essentially what the "first cause" argument is based on. "Before" is a temporal reference. A before B means that A happened at T0 and B at T1. But of T1 is the first time, then T0 never existed and "before" is incomprehensible. There can't be a time before time began, if it did, then it didn't begin at that point but earlier. (head spin) I've discussed this before with some people, and some seem to think that the "first cause" was simultaneous to the event. The problem with that is I'm not sure how something can be a "cause" to something else if it is simultaneous. It could just as well be the other way around, the first event created the first cause, a co-existence, or co-come-to-being (if that makes any sense).

Another thing that I have a hard time understanding is the "first cause" to "personal God" reasoning. If God somehow planned and thought about this universe before he created it, the thought process must have taken some time. How can there be a process of thought without time?

 

[tumbleweed41]

How do you explain that a 79 year old man with missing limbs, weak heart, only one kidney, cancer and diabetes could live while a perfectly healthy 22 year old man could just go to sleep and not wake up the next morning. Life itself is proof that God exists. It is proof that there is someone out there deciding when someone's time is up, when someone deserves to get sick, and when someone deserves to heal.

No, it is an example of biology.

 

[Gui10]

How do you explain that a 79 year old man with missing limbs, weak heart, only one kidney, cancer and diabetes could live while a perfectly healthy 22 year old man could just go to sleep and not wake up the next morning. Life itself is proof that God exists. It is proof that there is someone out there deciding when someone's time is up, when someone deserves to get sick, and when someone deserves to heal.

Please do not start arguing on the morality of God with something like: "why he would keep a 90 year old criminal alive, and kill a newborn?" If you would like to argue on this specific subject, just start a new thread.

How do you explain a 57 year old dying of a brain aneurism after being in the best shape of his life and being a perfectly good father?

And how is it that someone decides that children die? You say not to talk about morality well I'm sorry but when you talk about ''deserving things'', it is a moral issue.

 

[fnord]

That, we call God.

That YOU call God.

I call that unknown.

 

[McBell]

145 posts later and still no indisputable proof has been presented...

 

[no-body]

Essentially you want to call this vague undefinable first thing God for no explainable reason when reality, universe, being, etc would do equally as well. It's not like you have a giant ax to grind with your biases, right?

Sounds like a bait and switch to me. I especially don't trust any religion that has to use salesman tactics.

The truth is most certainly not run like a business.

 

[1robin]

Your assumption is that there was a "first thing." Why?

Because an infinite regression is impossible. It also means that it would never have produced anything. If you ask a friend to borrow 20 dollars and he says he will get it from another. The person he went to says the same thing and so on forever you would never ever receive 20 dollars. If you have the 20 that means that that chain stopped somewhere.

Also, it's false that "before anything, there was nothing."

No it isn't. That is even a dominant secular theory besides being an obvious conclusion. Time, space, and matter are thought by all Christians, most other religions, and even a large portion of secular scientists to have begun a finite time ago.

If there was a "before," then there was metatime. If nothing was exactly that -- nothing -- then logical identity (A = A) was there, and so not nothing.

It is bad word choice yet still a logical deduction. I would say outside of time not before. The universe even by most secular theories did not always exist. It does not contain anything that explains its self. Natural law does not create from nothing. If you suggest the universe or some form of it has always existed then you have an unresolvable problem. You cannot traverse and infinite series of past events to arrive at this one. We could not have traversed an infinite series of seconds to get to this one. The universe should have reached heat death infinitely long ago.

The problem with your argument lies in its false and vacuous assumptions.

Please recalibrate. There is nothing illogical and almost nothing un necessary given by a claim that the universe is not eternal and there was a uncaused first cause. 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.

 

[Thief]

Your assumption is that there was a "first thing." Why?

Also, it's false that "before anything, there was nothing."

If there was a "before," then there was metatime. If nothing was exactly that -- nothing -- then logical identity (A = A) was there, and so not nothing.

The problem with your argument lies in its false and vacuous assumptions.

In mind and heart...in spirit...Someone had to be First.

 

[1robin]

Essentially you want to call this vague undefinable first thing God for no explainable reason when reality, universe, being, etc would do equally as well. It's not like you have a giant ax to grind with your biases, right?

Sounds like a bait and switch to me. I especially don't trust any religion that has to use salesman tactics.

The truth is most certainly not run like a business.

Many things can be derived without leaving consistent philosophy that indicates God as the most likely candidate for the necessary uncaused first cause. Natural laws did not exist and can't create until they do, if they ever can anyway. That only leaves abstract concepts that have never created anything on their own and a mind which potentially can. There is no other game in town and no selling is required. Maybe if you explain why you reject the idea (in additional to desire and preference) I can elaborate.

 

[Ouroboros]

Because an infinite regression is impossible. It also means that it would never have produced anything. If you ask a friend to borrow 20 dollars and he says he will get it from another. The person he went to says the same thing and so on forever you would never ever receive 20 dollars. If you have the 20 that means that that chain stopped somewhere.

Can your God think and reason?

 

[McBell]

Because an infinite regression is impossible.

So you substitute on thing that is impossible with something that is just as equally impossible and see no problems with that?

Interesting.

 

[1robin]

Can your God think and reason?

Since you are not debating him I can't possibly think of a reason this would matter in this context. However yes the God of the Bible can think and reason and I feel pretty sure you knew the answer I would give before you even asked the question so I am suspicious of the reasons for the inquiry but rock on anyway.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

An inability to imagine or conceive of the possibility of no beginning doesn't render it impossible. It merely displays a lack of imagination.

 

[Ouroboros]

Since you are not debating him I can't possibly think of a reason this would matter in this context. However yes the God of the Bible can think and reason and I feel pretty sure you knew the answer I would give before you even asked the question so I am suspicious of the reasons for the inquiry but rock on anyway.

I'm asking because reasoning is a process where thoughts are built upon thoughts. Did God's thoughts have First Thought or are they infinitely regressing backwards?

Here's a link to an article about some problems with the Hilbert's Hotel Paradox as applied by Kalaam: http://philoonline.org/library/guminski_5_2.htm

Not saying that's the answer, but... using the paradox for past time, it actually should apply for future time as well. We won't live for eternity. We can't according to the paradox. Time must end.

 

[1robin]

So you substitute on thing that is impossible with something that is just as equally impossible and see no problems with that?

Interesting.

Will you kindly tell me what in your infinate wisdom was impossible about what I said and explain how you know this.?

 

[1robin]

I'm asking because reasoning is a process where thoughts are built upon thoughts. Did God's thoughts have First Thought or are they infinitely regressing backwards?

This will be unproductive. Examining what goes on in a natural mind that we do not understand to any great degree will not give you anything that can be implied to what an infinate, perfect, and supernatural mind must do or not do. That would be like looking at how a lever works and extrapolating any principles observed to electron oscillation. There is no way to know if God's thought processes require time as we know it.

Here's a link to an article about some problems with the Hilbert's Hotel Paradox as applied by Kalaam: The Kalam Cosmological Argument: The Question of the Metaphyasical Possibility of an Infinite Set of Real Entities

Not saying that's the answer, but... using the paradox for past time, it actually should apply for future time as well. We won't live for eternity. We can't according to the paradox. Time must end.

I will have to get out of this quote screen to access the link so I will not comment on it now. I will only say there exists nothing in philosophy to indicate a mandatory end to time once started that I am aware of but will look into the link.

 

[Ouroboros]

This will be unproductive. Examining what goes on in a natural mind that we do not understand to any great degree will not give you anything that can be implied to what an infinate, perfect, and supernatural mind must do or not do. That would be like looking at how a lever works and extrapolating any principles observed to electron oscillation. There is no way to know if God's thought processes require time as we know it.

The same goes for us knowing what time and space is. Don't assume time and space is understood because you have a clever paradox based on a classical view of "time".

Some are suggesting that time itself breaks down on quantum level. Meaning, "time" is an illusion rather than a reality.

Or put it this way, you say that we don't know what a mind is or how it works or how god's mind works etc, but yet the way we experience time is through our minds. So if the mind is something else than you think, then time is experienced by something we don't understand.

Besides, it's not logically defensible to argue that "we don't know God's mind" as a premise for an argument that God exists. You must start with assuming no attributes to God.

I did ask you, do you think God can think and reason, and your answer was yes. Your answer now suggests no.

I will have to get out of this quote screen to access the link so I will not comment on it now. I will only say there exists nothing in philosophy to indicate a mandatory end to time once started that I am aware of but will look into the link.

A paradox is a paradox. Why should paradoxes only apply when convenient?

Do you know anything about fractal geometry? For instance the concept of an infinite border but finite area fractal curve? Time and space could be something multidimensional fractal. We don't know. To assume something based on our very limited human knowledge doesn't mean that all other assumptions are wrong. Assuming is assuming. Guessing is guessing. Throwing paradoxes around for fun won't convince anyone. The only thing you're proving is your own God, your own definition of your God.

 

[no-body]

Many things can be derived without leaving consistent philosophy that indicates God as the most likely candidate for the necessary uncaused first cause. Natural laws did not exist and can't create until they do, if they ever can anyway. That only leaves abstract concepts that have never created anything on their own and a mind which potentially can. There is no other game in town and no selling is required. Maybe if you explain why you reject the idea (in additional to desire and preference) I can elaborate.

Why not replace the word God with magical pink unicorn if you have no bias to push? The word God is loaded with so much history and background behind it that it becomes meaningless.

I concede there might be something there, but that means little in itself. Unless you want to get into rubbish like Pascal's wager which is just more sneaky proselytizing.

 

[1robin]

The same goes for us knowing what time and space is. Don't assume time and space is understood because you have a clever paradox based on a classical view of "time".

I would not think so. Time and space are properties of the natural world. The natural world is the only one that we can access. I would say conclusions about the natural world have a much higher degree of applicability that natural claims about a supernatural dimension. Besides space and time in the natural are defined by us however that definition would only be applicable in the natural. Whatever uncertainties exist in our uncertainty about the natural are exponentially greater in the supernatural. I have a math degree but derive little of my own theories along these lines. My claims are always centered around arguments made by people who far exceed me in education. One I like is who that link you gave argued against (Craig) and it will take some time for me to comb through that extremely dry paper. I can't read the end of each sentence anyway because they let it overlap the border but I am working on it. In my opinion outside the very basic claims I have made (space time, much of quantum mechanics etc...) is beyond anyone’s understanding but as I said my claims are very simple and require no complex theories.

Some are suggesting that time itself breaks down on quantum level. Meaning, "time" is an illusion rather than a reality.

And away we go. I do not discuss fantasy or little evidenced theory. It is not productive mainly because no one or only a few understand any of it. It is pretty certain that a person with the education and mental ability to comprehend these issues if they are even issues at all would not expend his energies in a forum. I just do not hold the same confidence in theoretical science you might. I used to and went to many of their talks at my engineering dept. until I started noticing they were adopting different premises in order to guarantee certain conclusions and actually contradicting one night what they said the previous night. In short I do not think either of us able to understand quantum time well enough for it to be useful and I do not think anyone does. That paper you gave me the link to is within the range of what I am willing to wager on something as faulty as human intelligence but quantum time is a quantum bridge too far.

Or put it this way, you say that we don't know what a mind is or how it works or how god's mind works etc…., but yet the way we experience time is through our minds. So if the mind is something else than you think, then time is experienced by something we don't understand.

I did not say our mind is not quantifiable, even though it may be in part. I said God's mind was. I do not get the relevance here. Time is an abstract concept I equate with duration or endurance. It is not something tangible that can be experienced even though effects related to it can be. I can't go get a handful of time or take a picture of it.

Besides, it's not logically defensible to argue that "we don't know God's mind" as a premise for an argument that God exists. You must start with assuming no attributes to God.

I never said anything about God's existence being contingent on our knowing his mind. I said your counter argument against my claim was ineffective because it was based on knowing something that is unknowable. My argument has no need to understand how God thinks.

I did ask you, do you think God can think and reason, and your answer was yes. Your answer now suggests no.

This is getting quite silly. I said you do not know HOW he thought process works that has nothing to do with whether it exists or not. You are illustrating very erratic and illogical links between permise and conclusions here.

A paradox is a paradox. Why should paradoxes only apply when convenient?

I never said anything about it's application and convenient.

Do you know anything about fractal geometry? For instance the concept of an infinite border but finite area fractal curve? Time and space could be something multidimensional fractal. We don't know.

I have studied boundless but finite concepts and they do not help with this argument. You are right you do not know. That is my point. I do not know either yet it is usually only my side that equates it's claims with faith and your that equates claims that require more faith given less evidence at times with science. You have the right to believe whatever you wish but stating that the argument for God does not have a case that is more than sufficient for faith is incorrect and should not be made.

To assume something based on our very limited human knowledge doesn't mean that all other assumptions are wrong. Assuming is assuming. Guessing is guessing. Throwing paradoxes around for fun won't convince anyone. The only thing you're proving is your own God, your own definition of your God.

I am not attempting to prove God exists so I threw no paradox. I presented logical impossibilities based in simple principles that do not require that we are able to quantify how God thinks or how quantum time behaves. My position has always been one of faith and since it is clear yours is as well I would only ask that it be labeled as such. I do not claim as the thread says that there is undeniable proof for God. I claim there is none against God and that the evidence for him more than justifies reasonable faith. The claims made in the Bible are so rediculous that if made up it should be very easy to prove. It should not be necessary to venture into the rarified air of quantum theories no one fully understands to make it obvious.