• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I can't help it. I knew and expect that you will use my mistrust as a point about my being bias.

I use your apparent derision toward gay people to gauge your mistrust of such studies.

Still won't change the fact that anything that is a political hot button I just can't trust studies on it. Especially something studied for such a short period of time.

To me, it just sounds like you are choosing not to accept the findings of such studies, due to your derision toward gay people and your religious beliefs.

There are plenty of longitudinal studies you could look over that have nothing to do with politics. That’s why we look to scientific studies instead of just believing whatever some political or religious group has to say about it.

However as I said I gave you a way, that should exist if your studies are true, that I can't not trust. Provide it or let this one aspect drop as your complaints will not change my mind.


What is this way you speak of?

The only source needed for my claims came from the CDC and did not involve interpretation of data that allows speculation to be claimed as fact.


I’m not sure what you’re referring to.


Mine, by far. It is simple numbers. It is also perfectly simplistic common sense.


Okay, I actually LOL’d here. You can’t be serious. You’re pulling my leg, right?
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I use your apparent derision toward gay people to gauge your mistrust of such studies.
When you find some derision towards gay people I display then have at it.


To me, it just sounds like you are choosing not to accept the findings of such studies, due to your derision toward gay people and your religious beliefs.
Did you not find any derision so you created some by assertion alone? I told you that I expect you to use my mistrust as evidence of bias so I have nothing to add here.

There are plenty of longitudinal studies you could look over that have nothing to do with politics. That’s why we look to scientific studies instead of just believing whatever some political or religious group has to say about it.
It's a political hot button. It makes no difference if they are not political people. It is polarizing and usually people are committed to whatever side their own. But the biggest issue is everything is inferential. I would have to take someone's word that this chromosome or that gene causes what they claim it does. It is also very young academically and invariably will change quite a bit. There is no need anyway since if they were right they should be able to easily provide sound predictive models as I have requested. It is as if there were a test for God but I would not provide it.


What is this way you speak of?
Use those same genetic markers and use them as predictive models.


I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
The information that shows unavoidably homosexuality vastly increases human suffering through disease etc...



Okay, I actually LOL’d here. You can’t be serious. You’re pulling my leg, right?
Since you asked above what the number meant and did not know what I was talking about (why I will never know) then your derision concerning those numbers is premature.

I forgot what I said. I will no longer be discussing homosexuality outside a thread on it unless I forget again.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
The point is, just because you can't think of a good reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.
Then by all means give me the good that compensates for the massive increase in lives lost to disease, human suffering through non disease issues, and the billions in increased health care costs etc...



I don't really care how icky you think homosexuality is, and I doubt homosexuals care either. Maybe they think the sex you engage in is icky. Do you care?
You care over what I type is not the criteria I use to decide whether to type it or not. I don't care about 50% of the stuff typed to me.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
1robin said:
Then by all means give me the good that compensates for the massive increase in lives lost to disease, human suffering through non disease issues, and the billions in increased health care costs etc.

But you agreed to discuss homosexuality only in the relevant thread on homosexuality. Why did you break your word? I easily refuted all of your arguments in that thread in my five most recent replies to you. Why haven't you gone to that thread like you promised to? Obviously, because you know that that is where the majority of my arguments are, and you know that some of my arguments are excellent.

I transferred many of your arguments in this thread to that thread.

I request that everyone in this thread who is interested in homosexuality go to the thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-87.html#post3431751 and discuss homosexuality there.
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
1robin said:
There is nothing illogical and almost nothing unnecessary 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 sufficient theory but that is far less than an indisputable theory.

Consider the following:

Victor Stenger: Did the Universe Come From Nothing?

huffingtonpost.com said:
Victor Stenger, Ph.D., physics, best-selling author

.......modern cosmology suggests that the universe was not created, that it is eternal in time.

I do not know of a single working cosmologist today who says the universe began with a singularity.

Some Christian authors and debaters also refer to other more recent calculations claiming these require the universe to have a beginning. To give the shortest possible rebuttal, I will just quote the Cal Tech cosmologist Sean Carroll, who wrote me in an email: "No result derived on the basis of classical general relativity can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn't right. You need to quantize gravity."

So the universe need not have had a beginning. But let's suppose for a moment that it did. That fact alone would not prove it was purposefully created. Another premise must be made to show that. The assumption must be added that everything that begins has a cause. Once again, this ignores quantum mechanics, where events commonly occur without cause. This is the case for the atomic transitions that give us light and the nuclear decays that give us nuclear radiation. They all happen spontaneously, without cause. In short, all attempts to prove that the universe had to have a beginning caused by God fail on several fronts.

The third creationist argument called the anthropic cosmological principle, made by a whole army of Christian theologians and authors, is that the universe is fine-tuned for life, in particular, human life. Here the story is even more complicated because several notable physicists think such fine-tuning does exist, although they attribute it to natural causes rather than a creator God. I identify with an opposition group of physicists who see no need to invoke the anthropic principle at all. We can offer natural explanations for all the values of all parameters claimed to be fine-tuned (see The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, in press).

In other words, many physicists agree with you that something has to be eternal, but not necessarily a conscious being like the gods of many religions.

Earlier in this thread, you greatly praised Roger Penrose, but you quote mined him. Consider the following:

http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/Olive/OD...pageno=NDI.&entity=QXIwNDIwMA..&view=ZW50aXR5

Julian Barbour said:
In the years following his hugely successful book The Emperor’s New Mind, in which he argued that there is a quantum aspect to human consciousness, Roger Penrose has acquired a reputation among his peers for writing beautiful books that advocate controversial ideas. His latest book, Cycles of Time, is no exception. Its central idea is that one universe follows another in eternal recurrence on the grandest scale, and Penrose himself alerts the reader in his prologue (and epilogue) that this is a little crazy. However, the amazing facts revealed in quantum mechanics have turned “crazy” into an almost positive rather than pejorative epithet in physics, so perhaps the “health warning” should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Wikipedia defines quote mining as:

"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position."

Quite obviously, Penrose does not believe that God is the leading and most sufficient theory for the origin of this universe. Neither do the majority of other leading physicists. You dismiss the opinions of the majority of leading physicists, but you would be quick to agree with them if they agreed with you. You merely use science as a convenience when you believe that it agrees with you. The same goes for common descent. An article at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm shows that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent. If they accepted creationism, you would definitely use that as evidence in debates.

The same article shows that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.

Since you have refused to have public debates with experts about common descent, you will also refuse to have public debates with experts about the origin of the universe. That is because you know that you would lose the debates. The best that you could achieve in this thread would be to show that you know more about physics than some other laymen do, but that would not have any significance since thousands of skeptic physicists know a lot more about physics than you do.

Even if you were right, you still do not personally know enough about physics to win debates with skeptic experts.
 
Last edited:

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
Yawn. First cause arguments have been around forever, and they've never been particularly convincing, let alone indisputable. For one thing, if everything needs a cause, then wouldn't God require a cause as well?

No, the argument is not everything needs a cause. The argument is that everything that BEGINS TO EXIST needs a cause. In other words, things just don't pop in to being uncaused out of nothing. This is very intuitive and to deny this is to deny logic.

And if you propose that God is an exception, that means exceptions are allowed, so why not just make things simpler and claim that the Universe is an exception to things requiring causes?

That won't work because we know that the universe is CONTINGENT. So based on this the universe can't be the exception, nor can anything else in the universe be.

There's also always the strange conclusion, that doesn't follow from any of the previous premises, that we should just call this first cause "God". Why? What if the first cause was just some random quantum mechanic event. Why do we call that God? Should that really be considered God?

That won't work either because even quantum events presupposes an existing universe to occur in. Nothing in the universe is "self caused". Everything is explained by something that preceded it. Second, how do you get morality, life, and consciousness from a blind and mindless "quantum event"? Makes no sense.

So these objections that you think are so strong are very weak and the First Cause argument still stands.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Call_of_the_Wild said:
No, the argument is not everything needs a cause. The argument is that everything that BEGINS TO EXIST needs a cause. In other words, things just don't pop in to being uncaused out of nothing.

My post #1606 discusses that.

Call_of_the_Wild said:
This is very intuitive and to deny this is to deny logic.

Consider the following:

Counterintuitive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia said:
Counterintuitive means contrary to what seems intuitively right or correct. A counterintuitive proposition is one that does not seem likely to be true when assessed using intuition or gut feelings.

Scientifically discovered, objective truths are often called counterintuitive when intuition, emotions, and other cognitive processes outside of deductive rationality interpret them to be wrong. However, the subjective nature of intuition limits the objectivity of what to call counterintuitive because what is counter-intuitive for one may be intuitive for another. This might occur in instances where intuition changes with knowledge. For instance, many aspects of quantum mechanics may sound counterintuitive to a layman, while they may be intuitive to a particle physicist.
Flawed understanding of a problem may lead to counter-productive behavior with undesirable outcomes. In some such cases, counterintuitive policies may then produce a more desirable outcome.

Many scientific ideas that are generally accepted by people today were formerly considered to be contrary to intuition and common sense.

For example, most everyday experience suggests that the Earth is flat; actually, this view turns out to be a remarkably good approximation to the true state of affairs, which is that the Earth is a very big (relative to the day to day scale familiar to humans) oblate spheroid. Furthermore, prior to the Copernican revolution, heliocentrism, the belief that the Earth goes around the Sun, rather than vice versa, was considered to be contrary to common sense.

Another counterintuitive scientific idea concerns space travel: it was initially believed that highly streamlined shapes would be best for re-entering the earth's atmosphere. In fact, experiments proved that blunt-shaped re-entry bodies make the most efficient heat shields when returning to earth from space. Blunt-shaped re-entry vehicles have been used for all manned-spaceflights, including the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle missions.

The Michelson-Morley experiment sought to measure the velocity of the Earth through the aether as it revolved around the Sun. The result was that it has no aether velocity at all. Relativity theory later explained the results, replacing the conventional notions of aether and separate space, time, mass, and energy with a counterintuitive four-dimensional non-Euclidean universe.

The article shows a number of other examples of scientific discoveries that are now widely accepted that were previously believed to be impossible.
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
My post #1606 discusses that.

Quoting Vic Stenger, of all people. I am very well aware of that guy. I am also aware that he sucks at debating and Dr. Craig ran circles around him in both of their debates.

And to speak more on my awareness, I am also aware that this whole "New Atheists" rendition of the word "nothing" does not mean "a state of nothingness"..or "non-being". It is always in reference to the quantum vacuum and blah blah blah.

The argument is simple; something cannot come from a STATE of nothingness. The universe did not spring in to existence from a state of non-existence. That is about as non-empirical as you can get...so much that attempting to empirically prove how something can come from a state of nothingness is...well...absurd.


Wait a minute, so you are saying it is counterintuitive to believe that something can't come from nothing? Is that the price of atheism? Believing in absurdities?

The article shows a number of other examples of scientific discoveries that are now widely accepted that were previously believed to be impossible.

Well, Christians believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and there is no scientific discovery that will ever disprove that.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Call_of_the_Wild said:
Well, Christians believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and there is no scientific discovery that will ever disprove that.

As the National Academy of Sciences has said, science cannot prove, or disprove the existence of God.

Eternal naturalistic energy with certain attributes is just as reasonable a possibility as an eternal, conscious, self-aware God. Eternal naturalistic energy would not have a purpose, and goals like the gods of various religions do. Such energy would simply do what its nature requires it to do, just as the God of the Bible's nature requires him to do what he does.

Where did possible eternal naturalistic energy get its attributes from? From nowhere since it always had them, just like the supposed God of the Bible has always had his attributes.

Victor Stenger is not the main issue. The main issue is that the majority of leading physicists do not believe in God.

If a moral God exists, wonderful. Who would object to that?
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Are we now prepared to discuss....which came First?
Spirit? or substance?

It's one or the other with consequence in terms.
 

nash8

Da man, when I walk thru!
Are we now prepared to discuss....which came First?
Spirit? or substance?

It's one or the other with consequence in terms.

Does it have to be one or the other? Is it not possible that they both have always existed?

Substance

What is your argument for this stance?

No such thing as spirit, so substance wins by default.

How can you say theres no such thing as spirit. I personally qualify spirit as photonic energy, without it life as we know it would not exist, although it is debatable to what level it actually drives existence.

My personal belief is that ancient peoples did not have the ability to qunantitatively measure "light" so they named it spirit, and it flows through everything, save for maybe black holes, and even with that we are not totally sure.

So in other words spirit = light
 

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
How can you say theres no such thing as spirit. I personally qualify spirit as photonic energy, without it life as we know it would not exist, although it is debatable to what level it actually drives existence. My personal belief is that ancient peoples did not have the ability to qunantitatively measure "light" so they named it spirit, and it flows through everything, save for maybe black holes, and even with that we are not totally sure.
So in other words spirit = light
Light already has a name... I like the name and see no need to change it. Especially not to "spirit".
 

yoda89

On Xtended Vacation
Are we now prepared to discuss....which came First?
Spirit? or substance?

It's one or the other with consequence in terms.

Substance. Spirituality was something eventually developed into the point of self realization due to survival techniques.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Message to 1robin: It is plausible that naturalistic energy has existed eternally, and has the same "creative" attributes as the God of the Bible does regarding causing the Big Bang to occur, but lacks consciousness, and self-awareness like humans have, and like God supposedly has, and lacks the ability to have audible conversations with humans in their own languages.

Simply stated, no science reasonably proves that eternally existing energy must be the kind of energy that you believe it is.

1robin said:
There is nothing illogical and almost nothing unnecessary 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 sufficient theory but that is far less than an indisputable theory. However, there are only two choices, an 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.

What do you mean by "abstract"?

What do you mean by "mind"?

What about the possibility of other universes, which your own source Roger Penrose believes is reasonably possible?

What about the possibility of the existence of more than one God?

What evidence do you have that God has free will?
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Substance. Spirituality was something eventually developed into the point of self realization due to survival techniques.

Chemical reactions should not confused with life.

The more complex the chemistry...the more complex the life.....true.

But chemistry does not beget life.

Some of us are born dead.

Many of us die that way.

So I know and believe.
 
Top