INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

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

Why can't eternal, naturalistic energy have existed before the Big Bang?

Why can't more than one God exist?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[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 itself.

Aren't the texts enough evidence for you? You admitted that you believe that lying is imperfect.

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.

Consider the following Scriptures:

2 Corinthians 1:20-22

"For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God. Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."

Ephesians 1:13-14

"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-to the praise of his glory."

James 1:12

"Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him."

1 John 2:24-25

"See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us-even eternal life."

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. The assurance that Christians have cannot change. You have taken clear, simple texts, and tried to make them say something that they do not say.

You said:

"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 itself."

If I had argued that God might be a liar instead of arguing that he cannot have free will, you would not have said that since that would have helped my arguments.

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

 

[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?

But your argument for only one God 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.

You have not provided reasonable evidence that God is omnipotent.

Your arguments would require omnipotence if one God is not sufficient to create, and maintain the universe. It might take as much, or more power to maintain the universe as it did to create it.

If a God exists, there is not any valid evidence that his power will never diminish.

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

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

Any mentally competent person would want to enjoy a comfortable eternal life if they believed that such a life was possible, including atheists.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

1robin: What exactly am I "qualified to do", in your expert analysis of what I know and don't know? So far it seems the only thing I'm qualified to do is agree with you...

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Cosmological Kalamity

 

[Thief]

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



What is your argument for this stance?



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

Makes sense to me.

I've said so repeatedly through out this debate section......
Let there be light....and I AM....are synonymous.

 

[nash8]

Makes sense to me.

I've said so repeatedly through out this debate section......
Let there be light....and I AM....are synonymous.

Indeed, and with the discover of biophotons, it brings a whole new meaning to the word "enlightened" lol.

 

[1robin]

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

There are only two possibilities here.

1. This concept exists and is similar enough to recognized natural processes to be evaluated. If so it has the same problems with infinity and causation that everything else ever known of the natural does.
2. It is not part of the recognized natural order of things and is therefor not accessible and is less meaningful than any fantasy you wish to cloth in scientific terminology.

Energy of all types known also obeys thermodynamics. The means thing in all of the universe are on average slowing down, burning out, getting cold, etc.. Yet when the universe is examined things are in a very young would up state. The only things that gets you out of this is oscillating universes which besides having no evidence only kicks the can down the road because oscillations are not perfectly efficient.

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

I don't even know what you mean but it can't be true. What are you talking about? Neither orthodox Catholics nor protestants belief this and there are not billions left after they are gone.

 

[1robin]

Aren't the texts enough evidence for you? You admitted that you believe that lying is imperfect.

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.

Consider the following Scriptures:

2 Corinthians 1:20-22

"For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God. Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."

Ephesians 1:13-14

"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-to the praise of his glory."

James 1:12

"Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him."

1 John 2:24-25

"See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us-even eternal life."

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. The assurance that Christians have cannot change. You have taken clear, simple texts, and tried to make them say something that they do not say.

You said:

"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 itself."

If I had argued that God might be a liar instead of arguing that he cannot have free will, you would not have said that since that would have helped my arguments.

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

Let this serve as my response to every lying freewill point you have made. Lying is a logical impossibility in God's case. As nonsensical as his making himself nonexistent or making round squares. However it was the one challenging point you made so far and I intend to investigate it once you give me time and give a far more exhaustive reply.

 

[Agnostic75]

There are only two possibilities here.

1. This concept exists and is similar enough to recognized natural processes to be evaluated. If so it has the same problems with infinity and causation that everything else ever known of the natural does.

2. It is not part of the recognized natural order of things and is therefor not accessible and is less meaningful than any fantasy you wish to cloth in scientific terminology.

Energy of all types known also obeys thermodynamics. The means thing in all of the universe are on average slowing down, burning out, getting cold, etc.. Yet when the universe is examined things are in a very young would up state. The only things that gets you out of this is oscillating universes which besides having no evidence only kicks the can down the road because oscillations are not perfectly efficient.

Energy caused the Big Bang to occur. That energy either came from a conscious, self-aware being, or from naturalistic energy that is not conscious, and is not self-ware as humans, and as God is. It all gets down to what attributes eternal, naturalistic energy might have. You cannot reasonably prove that it could not have the same creative attributes that God has.

 

[Agnostic75]

Lying is a logical impossibility in God's case.

Ok, so God should not be complimented if he keeps his word to give Christians eternal life since he does not have any other options. In addition, God should not be complimented for doing anything that is good since he does not have any other options.

 

[1robin]

1robin: What exactly am I "qualified to do", in your expert analysis of what I know and don't know? So far it seems the only thing I'm qualified to do is agree with you...

You may claim to know what you have access to. You may still be wrong but it at least is possible you are right. You do not hear me stating that proof exist that God exists. Think of it this way in a formal debate any claim to absolute knowledge has the burden of absolute proof.

 

[1robin]

Cosmological Kalamity

You can find massive amounts of people on both sides. The argument is still relevant and debated today. A link to an opposing opinion is not an argument. If you wish pick an aspect of the contention and post it. The claim is so dang simple it is almost bullet proof. Normally only semantic based opposition even exists. Give me you best one.

 

[1robin]

Ok, so God should not be complimented if he keeps his word to give Christians eternal life since he does not have any other options. In addition, God should not be complimented for doing anything that is good since he does not have any other options.

I do not go around telling God great job too often. That does not really apply to omnipotent things. Being perfect is a designation of quality not one of accomplishment at least for a God. Is you argument what we are allowed to say about God at this point?

 

[1robin]

Energy caused the Big Bang to occur. That energy either came from a conscious, self-aware being, or from naturalistic energy that is not conscious, and is not self-ware as humans, and as God is. It all gets down to what attributes eternal, naturalistic energy might have. You cannot reasonably prove that it could not have the same creative attributes that God has.

Not according to the current models. The Big bang produced energy it did not result from energy. As I have said so often one microsecond before the big bang is no longer a physics issue. They are done and the theologians and philosophers must be consulted. Before the Big bang occurred the best information suggests space, matter, energy, nor even time existed but came into being at that moment. What produced it is a big mystery but God is the best solution so far. The facts or best information is consistent with God not proof of him. I think you misunderstand the arguments from both sides.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

The curious clause "everything that begins to exist" implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty[2], but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is equivalent to "everything except God has a cause." As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God's existence, and we are back to begging the question.

.....

 

[1robin]

.....

That was exactly what I said it would. A word fight over terminology and nothing whatever to do with the argument. First the classic argument does not posit God it posits a non natural source. Or the transcendent. Some have argued that this is God but the term is irrelevant. Second to fault something for being divided into two classes is only a fault if there are additional classes. There aren't. Things either begin to exist or always have. Third the cause is defined by attribute as well. It just so happens that ignorant men gave God the exact same attributes that philosophy and cosmology have indicated that whatever the cause may be, must have. In short that was one of the worst arguments in a long line of bad arguments against the cosmological issue. I have seen a good one and will see if I can find it. Semantic word fits do nothing.

 

[Agnostic75]

I do not go around telling God great job too often. That does not really apply to omnipotent things. Being perfect is a designation of quality not one of accomplishment at least for a God. If your argument what we are allowed to say about God at this point?

My argument is that since God does not have free will regarding his character, no one should love him. You can only love another human, or a God, if he has the option not to love you. God does not have that option. You can still be pleased if God gives you good things, but it would not be logical for you to love him unless he had the option not to love you. God must keep his promise to give eternal life to Christians. He should not be loved, or complimented, because of that.

 

[Agnostic75]

Not according to the current models. The Big bang produced energy it did not result from energy. As I have said so often one microsecond before the big bang is no longer a physics issue. They are done and the theologians and philosophers must be consulted. Before the Big bang occurred the best information suggests space, matter, energy, nor even time existed but came into being at that moment. What produced it is a big mystery but God is the best solution so far. The facts or best information is consistent with God not proof of him. I think you misunderstand the arguments from both sides.

Roger Penrose believes that energy existed for a microsecond before the Big Bang.

Where was God before the Big Bang occurred? Wherever that was, maybe that is where eternal, naturalistic energy was. God must be made of some kind of energy since he could not be made of nothing. If God cannot be observed, why must eternal, naturalistic energy always be observed? When quantum particles briefly come into existence, why must that mean that they previously did not exist? Maybe they simply came from somewhere else, or were always in this universe, but were not yet assembled.

You cannot rule out the plausibility of other universes.

Anyway, since I would not become a Christian even if most scientists said that God exists, there is no need for me to discuss the origin of the universe with you any more.