INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

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

I was unaware of your omniscience as your posts do not give any sign of it, great oracle of wisdom.

 

[1robin]

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.

No it isn't. Energy is a state of fluctuation. To be eternal an infinite amount of past fluctuations would have had to occur. A past infinite number of things are impossible to traverse in order to arrive at this one. How do you know what creative potential energy has. Are you a physicist? Not that that would solve all the infinite issues even if true. Energy can't ever state what should be "morals". If you believe just one moral objective value exists then energy is not all there is. A moral mind must exist.

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

For my argument it does not matter what kind of energy anything is. Unless you are positing some science fiction fantasy energy that has no evidence what so ever.

What do you mean by "abstract"?

Undetermined by material causes. Numbers and morals are abstracts and countless others.

What do you mean by "mind"?

Reasoning will.

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

That is an argument from silence as no evidence exists for them. In fact no evidence ever could because it would not exist here in this universe or it would be a part of this single universe. My argument did not state absolutes anyway. It stated what the prevalent cosmological model is.

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

That would make extra equal God's redundant or lesser God's unnecessary. An rule of logic is to never multiply causes beyond necessity but I guess it is possible.

What evidence do you have that God has free will?

He chose to act in time without a requirement of any kind. He is not caused, he is the primal uncaused cause.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I was unaware of your omniscience as your posts do not give any sign of it, great oracle of wisdom.

You don't have to know everything to know that the concept of "spirit" is a human fabrication.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

No it isn't. Energy is a state of fluctuation. To be eternal an infinite amount of past fluctuations would have had to occur. A past infinite number of things are impossible to traverse in order to arrive at this one. How do you know what creative potential energy has. Are you a physicist? Not that that would solve all the infinite issues even if true. Energy can't ever state what should be "morals". If you believe just one moral objective value exists then energy is not all there is. A moral mind must exist.

For my argument it does not matter what kind of energy anything is. Unless you are positing some science fiction fantasy energy that has no evidence what so ever.


Undetermined by material causes. Numbers and morals are abstracts and countless others.

Reasoning will.

That is an argument from silence as no evidence exists for them. In fact no evidence ever could because it would not exist here in this universe or it would be a part of this single universe. My argument did not state absolutes anyway. It stated what the prevalent cosmological model is.


That would make extra equal God's redundant or lesser God's unnecessary. An rule of logic is to never multiply causes beyond necessity but I guess it is possible.

He chose to act in time without a requirement of any kind. He is not caused, he is the primal uncaused cause.

LOL... William Lane Craig is a quack. Just stop...

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

[youtube]dac4LkG2i8A[/youtube]
Countering the Kalam - Done in Five Minutes - YouTube

 

[1robin]

You don't have to know everything to know that the concept of "spirit" is a human fabrication.

However you do at least have to know that is true. You could not possibly know it even if it was true, yet arrogantly insist you do anyway. If that was not bad enough you go from this claim based on nothing, to insist a person mentioned, predicted, or exhaustively expounded upon never existed based on (if possible) even less. Does reality consist of whatever you decide it does?

 

[1robin]

LOL... William Lane Craig is a quack. Just stop...

Was that an argument? Once again not even the obligatory half hearted attempt to show the argument was wrong. Simply dismissal of sound scientific philosophy based on personal animosity towards someone that has nothing to do with the argument. The argument goes back to the Greeks and is no more affected by time than your flimsy personal comments. I have a degree in math and know very well that you do not know anything about the infinite. No one does. It does not even exist outside the abstract. You have anything more relevant than disparagement of your scholastic betters to offer? Perhaps an actual point on the actual issue?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Was that an argument? Once again not even the obligatory half hearted attempt to show the argument was wrong. Simply dismissal of sound scientific philosophy based on personal animosity towards someone that has nothing to do with the argument. The argument goes back to the Greeks and is no more affected by time than your flimsy personal comments. I have a degree in math and know very well that you do not know anything about the infinite. No one does. It does not even exist outside the abstract. You have anything more relevant than disparagement of your scholastic betters to offer? Perhaps an actual point on the actual issue?

Calling William Lane Craig "sound scientific philosophy" is laughable. Watch the clip I provided that dismantles his "science"... The cosmological argument circular reasoning at its finest. That's something the Greeks got wrong.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

No it isn't. Energy is a state of fluctuation. To be eternal an infinite amount of past fluctuations would have had to occur. A past infinite number of things are impossible to traverse in order to arrive at this one. How do you know what creative potential energy has? Are you a physicist?

The Big Bang was caused by energy. No science reasonably proves that that energy had to have come from a conscious, self-aware being.

Human morals have nothing at all to do with these discussions.

That would make extra equal God's redundant or lesser God's unnecessary. An rule of logic is to never multiply causes beyond necessity but I guess it is possible.

But your argument would only be valid if God is omnipotent, and no science can reasonably prove that.

The lack of sufficient evidence that other universes exist does not mean that it is not plausible that they exist. A hundred years from now, perhaps there will be sufficient evidence that they exist.

He chose to act in time without a requirement of any kind. He is not caused, he is the primal uncaused cause.

No, God cannot have free will since his character has always been the same. His methods sometimes change, but his character never changes. Therefore, he cannot possibly have free will. If he did, he would be able to lie, but that is impossible. No being should get credit for acting like he has to act. The word "choose" implies that options are available. God does not have any options regarding his character. When God created humans, he had no choice except to love them since that is his nature.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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

Amen to that.

Eternal naturalistic energy with certain attributes is just as reasonable a possibility as an eternal, conscious, self-aware God.

First off, you are calling the universe eternal when it has been proven to be contingent. Second, you are telling me that this eternal naturalistic energy, which has no mind, no brain, no thoughts, no intellect…created a world full of humans with minds, brains, thoughts, and intellect. This energy created eyes to see, ears to hear, blood, veins, teeth, etc. We get all of these things from a mindless and brainless process?

If that is the price of atheism, I will gladly stick to my theism.

Eternal naturalistic energy would not have a purpose

So if your young child asks you what are eyes for and you tell him/her “to see”. Aren’t you basically saying that the purpose of your eyes is to provide vision? Based on the human body and its many systems, each which provides a SPECIFIED function…how can you say the naturalistic energy doesn’t 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.

Newsflash: if there is a requirement, there is a purpose.

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.

Once again, the universe is contingent. It didn’t have to be here. There is no way something that is contingent can have “necessary” conditions.

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

My argument is not based on what the majority of physicists believe in.

 

[1robin]

The Big Bang was caused by energy. No science reasonably proves that that energy had to have come from a conscious, self-aware being.

There is not the slightest scrap of evidence making energy as the cause more than just a fantasy. On what basis do you state it as fact? You can't assume reality into existence. I gave you reasons why what I said is likely. You have simply dismissed them and asserted the opposite. BTW that model I gave stated that any universe on average expanding was finite. That includes the energy in it. The energy did not create it's self.

Human morals have nothing at all to do with these discussions.

I did not mention human morality nor any other kind in that statement that I can tell.

But your argument would only be valid if God is omnipotent, and no science can reasonably prove that.

No my argument is evidence that he is omnipotent not the other way around. BTW it is does not require omnipotence anyway.

The lack of sufficient evidence that other universes exist does not mean that it is not plausible that they exist. A hundred years from now, perhaps there will be sufficient evidence that they exist.

However as of now it is an argument from science. I never said they would not be true I said that we would have no way of knowing. That is their claims not mine. No evidence outside this universe can be detected, if inside it then it is part of this universe. The word universe is defined as everything that is anyway.

No, God cannot have free will since his character has always been the same. His methods sometimes change, but his character never changes. Therefore, he cannot possibly have free will. If he did, he would be able to lie, but that is impossible. No being should get credit for acting like he has to act. The word "choose" implies that options are available. God does not have any options regarding his character. When God created humans, he had no choice except to love them since that is his nature.

You make the same mistake every time. he may have the capacity to change his nature. The evidence suggests he will not do so. I have the capacity to change the color of my car and the fact that I have not does not affect that capacity. You are getting will mixed up with capability. If the Universe is a product of a God without freewill it would never have existed or always have. Evidence suggests it came into being. There for God has freewill.

 

[Agnostic75]

.......you are calling the universe eternal when it has been proven to be contingent.

If God is eternal, there are not any good reasons why some other source of creation could not be eternal.

.......you are telling me that this eternal naturalistic energy, which has no mind, no brain, no thoughts, no intellect…created a world full of humans with minds, brains, thoughts, and intellect. This energy created eyes to see, ears to hear, blood, veins, teeth, etc. We get all of these things from a mindless and brainless process?

If that is the price of atheism, I will gladly stick to my theism.

I am an agnostic, not an atheist. I hope that a loving, moral God exists. So would any atheist if he had sufficient evidence that such a God exists. Any mentally competent person would want to enjoy a comfortable eternal life.

 

[1robin]

Calling William Lane Craig "sound scientific philosophy" is laughable. Watch the clip I provided that dismantles his "science"... The cosmological argument circular reasoning at its finest. That's something the Greeks got wrong.

I am on a DOD server and can't watch videos.

1. It is not his argument.
2. It exists in many forms beyond Kalam and he only had one version of it.
3. Even if Craig's argument was stupid you are not qualified to know it nor does that have the slightest affect on the argument its self.
4. I have read enough contentions with the argument to know they are based mostly on semantics and unknowable assumptions.
5. Probably the foremost cosmologist in history (Sandage) thinks the argument valid.
6. The most universal cosmological models (Big bang, and Velankin's) are perfectly consistent with it as well.

The argument still stands to this day and people on either side view it as a formidable issue in every debate I have seen that included cosmology. There is every reason to think it true, but even if ultimately false no one has the slightest idea why or if it is.

 

[Agnostic75]

You make the same mistake every time. He may have the capacity to change his nature.

Absolutely not. God is perfect. Therefore, it is impossible for him to lie since that would be imperfect.

Only humans have choice, since choice implies options. God has no options regarding telling the truth. He has no choice except to tell the truth.

Titus 1:2: "In hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began."

Hebrews 6:18: "It is impossible for God to lie."

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]

If God is eternal, there are not any good reasons why some other source of creation could not be eternal.

There are almost an infinity of reasons to think this. One example being everything but God is inside of time and a slave of it. That alone is quite enough but far from all.

I am an agnostic, not an atheist. I hope that a loving, moral God exists. So would any atheist if he had sufficient evidence that such a God exists. Any mentally competent person would want to enjoy a comfortable eternal life.

History shows that man does not want to believe in any accountability beyond himself. The sheer hatred of what can't be disproven is evidence. I also know that most resistance is probably not intentional. Pretty much every Christian would tell you that he did not intentionally deny God but their resistance to him was almost involuntary and that is consistent with the Bible's fall scenario as well.

 

[Agnostic75]

There are almost an infinity of reasons to think this. One example being everything but God is inside of time and a slave of it.

But how could you know what attributes eternal, naturalistic energy might have?

History shows that man does not want to believe in any accountability beyond himself.

Since billions of non-Christian theist believe in various gods, you must have been referring to atheists.

 

[Agnostic75]

You make the same mistake every time. He may have the capacity to change his nature.

Absolutely not. God is perfect. Therefore, it is impossible for him to lie since that would be imperfect.

Only humans have choice, since choice implies options. God has no options regarding telling the truth. He has no choice except to tell the truth.

Titus 1:2: "In hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began."

Hebrews 6:18: "It is impossible for God to lie."

 

[1robin]

Absolutely not. God is perfect. Therefore, it is impossible for him to lie since that would be imperfect.

How can an imperfect being know what perfection means. How do you know (beyond the fact the Bible says so) that lying is imperfect? He may be perfectly evil. He may be perfectly ambiguous. He may be able to change the nature of truth its self. People who can't add should not be telling Newton what the fundamental definition of a limit is.

Only humans have choice, since choice implies options. God has no options regarding telling the truth. He has no choice except to tell the truth.

That is only true within revelation. You only have revelation if God is true. You basically have to sit in God's lap to slap his face.

Titus 1:2: "In hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began."

Hebrews 6:18: "It is impossible for God to lie."

Again that is only true once declared but a reasonable point and I will look into it. I believe lying will fall under logical impossibilities like square circles. It certainly does nothing to prove God could not have freewill but I will tailor my investigation to that one issue. To say I will do X and then do it, does not mean it was impossible that either I could have never promised it nor did not do it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If God is eternal, there are not any good reasons why some other source of creation could not be eternal.

The concept of eternal time is logicall absurd. The concept of God existing before time is logically sound.

I am an agnostic, not an atheist. I hope that a loving, moral God exists. So would any atheist if he had sufficient evidence that such a God exists. Any mentally competent person would want to enjoy a comfortable eternal life.

The arguments are there, it is the acceptance that is hard.

 

[Agnostic75]

How can an imperfect being know what perfection means. How do you know (beyond the fact the Bible says so) that lying is imperfect? He may be perfectly evil. He may be perfectly ambiguous. He may be able to change the nature of truth its self. People who can't add should not be telling Newton what the fundamental definition of a limit is.

Consider the following:

Titus 1:2: "In hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began."

Hebrews 6:18: "It is impossible for God to lie."

The words "cannot", and "impossible" clearly show that you are wrong.

If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, he could not possibly ever lie. An all good, unchanging being cannot lie.