INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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

Because eternal, naturalistic energy would have to exist in time, and time cannot be extended to eternity past.

Why can't more than one God exist?

Two reasons..

1. Ockams Razor. We don't need to go beyond necessity. Only one God is necessary and to go beyond that is unecessary.

2. The life, death, and Ressurection of Jesus Christ. If Jesus rose from the dead, then he was who he said he was, which according to Christian theology, implies one God.

 

[1robin]

Because eternal, naturalistic energy would have to exist in time, and time cannot be extended to eternity past.

I am interested in the whether two people in a forum backed up by a few hundred philosophers claiming the exact same obvious thing concerning this claim has the slightest effect on the one making it.

Two reasons..

1. Occam's Razor. We don't need to go beyond necessity. Only one God is necessary and to go beyond that is unnecessary.

I wish you had been here more often recently. Agnostic must have a team of secretaries or those imaginary monkeys typing random posts. I do not have the time alone to keep up and I believe the sole hope for Agnostic's case is primarily my exhaustion.

I will give a funny one I heard the other day. While it may be theoretically possible a team of monkeys could eventually produce Hamlet. Only an atheist would find a copy of Hamlet and declare: Look what a bunch of monkeys did! Rock on.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Two reasons..

1. Ockams Razor. We don't need to go beyond necessity. Only one God is necessary and to go beyond that is unecessary.

...Under the assumption that said god is omnipotent.

2. The life, death, and Ressurection of Jesus Christ. If Jesus rose from the dead, then he was who he said he was, which according to Christian theology, implies one God.

Assuming that this story's true. This is why William Lane Craig is not a valid scientist.

 

[Agnostic75]

Ockams Razor. We don't need to go beyond necessity. Only one God is necessary and to go beyond that is unnecessary.

But that would only be true if only one God was able to create, and maintain the universe by himself. What scientific evidence do you have that only one God would be able to create, and maintain the universe by himself?

What evidence do you have that God has free will?

 

[1robin]

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

That is pure or at the very least primarily faith. Nor does it even if true have the slightest impact concerning the actual issue.

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.

Energy needs a place to exist even if it is a small place. God does not. Nor time, nor structure, nor anything.

You cannot rule out the plausibility of other universes.

Find a single statement where I did. I said there is no evidence for them and they conflict with well established principles in science.

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.

That's a new one. What did you do with the inexhaustible agnostic?

 

[1robin]

...Under the assumption that said god is omnipotent.



Assuming that this story's true. This is why William Lane Craig is not a valid scientist.

What does credibility as a scientist have to do with the historicity of Jesus or metaphysical extrapolations? Why re you obsessed with him? Your the only one who ever mentions him? He as Harris has said must be the only theist that can scare the Jesus out of an atheist.

 

[1robin]

But that would only be true if only one God was able to create, and maintain the universe by himself. What scientific evidence do you have that only one God would be able to create, and maintain the universe by himself?

What evidence do you have that God has free will?

God as a concept is perfectly able to maintain a infinite number of universes. You must argue with a concept on it's terms.

 

[Agnostic75]

That's a new one. What did you do with the inexhaustible agnostic?

Since I am an agnostic, I should not have spent so much time debating the existence of God, but I am glad that I spend a good deal of time defending common descent.

Also, I realized that I have a good argument that God does not have free will regarding his character, so I do not need to spend any more time debating the existence of God.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Neither is Craig a valid historian or philosopher. He's just a theologian; no different than a bum in a subway with a "the end is coming" sign.

 

[1robin]

Neither is Craig a valid historian or philosopher. He's just a theologian; no different than a bum in a subway with a "the end is coming" sign.

He has many degrees and sits on a few boards that make you the one without credibility here. The academic community officially regards him as a competent philosopher. He is in no way even a dooms day theologian even in private. He speaks of hope (and the only possible hope available) for human kind in every debate. His opponents never even try. It takes concerted effort to be as you wrong as you are.

 

[1robin]

But that would only be true if only one God was able to create, and maintain the universe by himself. What scientific evidence do you have that only one God would be able to create, and maintain the universe by himself?

What evidence do you have that God has free will?

This is a reply to your freewill and lying issue. Note how eerily similar what I said and the first site I viewed are.

The first question to ask when looking at the question of 'Can God lie?' is a look at which God or god this is being asked of. Many old religions have a trickster god as part of the pantheon. Such a being as Loki, the Coyote, or Hermes has it as part of the very nature of the being to lie, cheat, and be a general trickster. In these stories, it is not only the trickster gods that lie or deceive, but a fair portion of the pantheon too (as Hera asks Zeus "Honey, have you impregnated any more young maidens today?").

This changes when the pantheon is reduced to one supreme being as it is with the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian branch of religion as this question implies, one must look at the nature of the supreme being and the attributes that are ascribed to it.

The JIC God has three key components as part of His being:

• Omniscient
• Omnipotent
• Omnibenevolent

While there are debates as to if any or all of these are contradictory in nature, the question of omnibenevolance and omnipotence comes into play with the question of "Can God lie?".

To an extent, the question of "Can God lie?" pits the ability of being able to lie (mandated by omnipotence) with His omnibenevloant nature prohibiting Him from doing so. This is similar to the question of "Can God make a square circle?" or "Can God make a rock that He can't lift?"

Descartes works from this in several of his arguments for the existence of material objects (the world) - that God exists, and that God is not a deceiver.

1. God is no deceiver
2. He created me and gave me reason which tells me that my ideas come from external corporeal things.
3. If they do not come from external objects, then God must be a deceiver. But this is an absurdity
4. Therefore - Material objects exist

The classic definition of omnibenevolence with regard to God is that God is perfectly good. There are a fair number of examples in the Old Testament where one may reasonably call into question the aspect of omnibenevolence (casting out of Eden, the flood, Tower of Babel to name a few). Assume for the sake of argument that God is omnibenevolant - if he isn't, then there is less of an argument for that God is not a deceiver and the very computer that you sit in front of reading this will disappear in a puff of logic as you find yourself to be awaken as a brain in a vat.
If God is perfectly good, then He will not lie. This can be reasonably upheld given the works available (I can't think of any instances in the Bible where God didn't uphold His side of a deal - though this can easily be countered with it just may not be recorded). Just as a vegetarian has the free will choice of to exercise the power of eating meat or not, God has the free will choice of exercising the power of deceiving or not. The outcome of this should be fairly apparent to even someone without omniscience. Yes, God can lie and deceive us. However, doing so is not in His nature. The ability to do so exists and is not in conflict with omnipotence. Nor does this refusal of deception contradict His free will. One may accept on faith (the same faith that presupposes the existence of God) that God will not lie or deceive us.
Can God lie? - Everything2.com

When you give proof of credentials to contend with Aquinas, Descartes, or Zacharias then I will take your claim more seriously. The only issue left is what did the Bible mean by impossible in those verses. I can clear that up as well if needed, however you can do so at Blue letter Bible.com and a quick original language search.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

His "proofs" continue to be refuted and only the stubbornly religious and willfully ignorant pay him any mind at all.
Pantheism Unites
ARIZONA ATHEIST: William Lane Craig's Arguments for God Refuted
Debunking William Lane Craig | examining Christian apologetics
Refuting William Lane Craig’s Proofs of God
Refuting William Lane Craig
The Religion Virus: Dishonest Christian: Dr. William Lane Craig Swindles Audiences
Refuting William Lane Craig’s ‘Moral Argument’ for the Existence of a Good God | Thinking Leprechaun
Debunking Christianity: An Update on Why William Lane Craig Refuses to Debate Me
William Lane Craig - RationalWiki
Refuting William Lane Craig's Resurrection Argument

 

[1robin]

His "proofs" continue to be refuted and only the stubbornly religious and willfully ignorant pay him any mind at all.
Pantheism Unites
ARIZONA ATHEIST: William Lane Craig's Arguments for God Refuted
Debunking William Lane Craig | examining Christian apologetics
Refuting William Lane Craig’s Proofs of God
Refuting William Lane Craig
The Religion Virus: Dishonest Christian: Dr. William Lane Craig Swindles Audiences
Refuting William Lane Craig’s ‘Moral Argument’ for the Existence of a Good God | Thinking Leprechaun
Debunking Christianity: An Update on Why William Lane Craig Refuses to Debate Me
William Lane Craig - RationalWiki
Refuting William Lane Craig's Resurrection Argument

Are you engaged in a link war I was unaware was declared or mattered. You obviously did not give that many links (as no one would ever read them all and you know it) as proof of anything in content. Was it sheer volume that interested you? How many links do I have to give to win? The fact world renowned colleges pay him large amounts of money to consult for their universities kind of ruins your links all in one lump.

 

[Agnostic75]

To an extent, the question of "Can God lie?" pits the ability of being able to lie (mandated by omnipotence) with His omnibenevolent nature prohibiting Him from doing so. This is similar to the question of "Can God make a square circle?" or "Can God make a rock that He can't lift?"

Omnipotence cannot mean that God has the potential to lie, but it would apply to him being able to do anything with the laws of physics that he wanted to, meaning the known, and unknown laws of physics.

God's omnipotence would work in "conjunction" with his omnibenevolence regarding not being able to lie, not "against" it, so one quality of God being pitted against another is impossible.

 

[1robin]

Omnipotence cannot mean that God has the potential to lie, but it would apply to him being able to do anything with the laws of physics that he wanted to, meaning the known, and unknown laws of physics.

Not even a little bit. Reality is not defined by physics or even natural law. As Gödel has stated science by it's nature is never more that infitesimally complete. It does not bind or have the potential to bind omnipotence.

God's omnipotence would work in "conjunction" with his omnibenevolence regarding not being able to lie, not "against" it, so one quality of God being pitted against another is impossible.

I am going with Aquinas, who has been widely said to have written the most profound theological/philosophical text outside the Bible and Descartes "the father of modern philosophy" instead of Agnostic the "father of redundancy and rationalization". Just kidding, but on what basis are you the more credible?

 

[Agnostic75]

God's omnipotence would work in "conjunction" with his omnibenevolence regarding not being able to lie, not "against" it, so one quality of God being pitted against another is impossible.

I am going with Aquinas, who has been widely said to have written the most profound theological/philosophical text outside the Bible and Descartes "the father of modern philosophy."

Whoever you wish to quote doesn't matter since they are wrong, and everyone is wrong at least some of the time, even Aquinas, and Descartes.

Your example of one of God's attributes being pitted against another is utter nonsense because you know very well that that is impossible.

If there were two Gods, one who was omnipotent, and another who was omnibenevolent, would the former be able to force the latter to lie? Yes, because the latter would be all-good, but not all-powerful, and could be forced to act against his own will, assuming, of course, that he had free will. However, since we are discussing a single God, who cannot compete against his own self, your comments are nonsense.

 

[Agnostic75]

This is similar to the question of "Can God make a square circle?" or "Can God make a rock that He can't lift?"

There is no such thing as a square circle, unless you want to redefine those words.

Logically, either God can, or cannot lift a rock of any potential size. If the former is the case, he cannot make a rock that he cannot lift. If the latter is the case, he is not omnipotent.

Whether God can, or cannot lift a rock of any potential size, whichever is true, that would not have anything to do with whether or not he has free will.

 

[Willamena]

There is no such thing as a square circle, unless you want to redefine those words.

Logically, either God can, or cannot lift a rock of any potential size. If the former is the case, he cannot make a rock that he cannot lift. If the latter is the case, he is not omnipotent.

The rock problem is no less logically unsound than the circle square. If we define "God" as a being that can do anything and a rock that cannot be lifted as an impossibility (something that cannot be done), we have done nothing more than define ourselves into a corner.

 

[Agnostic75]

The rock problem is no less logically unsound than the circle square. If we define "God" as a being that can do anything and a rock that cannot be lifted as an impossibility (something that cannot be done), we have done nothing more than define ourselves into a corner.

Sure, and as I just added to my previous post, "Whether God can, or cannot lift a rock of any potential size, whichever is true, that would not have anything to do with whether or not he has free will."

 

[1robin]

There is no such thing as a square circle, unless you want to redefine those words.

Now you are getting it. They are mutually exclusive terms. A perfect God who lied is just as impossible. God can't do what can't be done.

Logically, either God can, or cannot lift a rock of any potential size. If the former is the case, he cannot make a rock that he cannot lift. If the latter is the case, he is not omnipotent.

Good Lord. I posted an argument of mine and of another that specifically said that argument is nonsensical and why. Your response was to restate the nonsensical claim in response. Why?

Whether God can, or cannot lift a rock of any potential size, whichever is true, that would not have anything to do with whether or not he has free will.

It is a similar example of a meaningless argument.