INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

Welllllll
It's my own belief that it was not a big-bang of nothingness that started the universe, I think a species back then in a previous universe finally became so advanced they had created something that had the potential to totally annihilate and reshape their universe.
And wha'dya know.
Here we are.

That claim is based on far more faith and far less evidence than the Bible requires. However even if it was true you have not resolved anything and have only kicked the can down the road a bit. No matter what anyone says we are all left with a beginning and we need a beginner that has no need of an explanation. Wrong or right the only concept like that is God. I can get very very detailed but I am not sure you would get it (not that you stupid but just uninformed). Please see the William Craig's version of the Kalam cosmological argument then we can discuss why aliens are of no help what so ever. I don't care if you agree with Craig but simply want you to get familiar with what the issues is.

 

[Zanuku]

That claim is based on far more faith and far less evidence than the Bible requires. However even if it was true you have not resolved anything and have only kicked the can down the road a bit. No matter what anyone says we are all left with a beginning and we need a beginner that has no need of an explanation. Wrong or right the only concept like that is God. I can get very very detailed but I am not sure you would get it (not that you stupid but just uninformed). Please see the William Craig's version of the Kalam cosmological argument then we can discuss why aliens are of no help what so ever. I don't care if you agree with Craig but simply want you to get familiar with what the issues is.

Eh, I thought up that idea because I can't trust sciences idea for the origins of the universe and (No offence) but I can't trust that an almighty being created it either.
I'm not really interested in how the universe began anyway, I'm concerned about now and the foreseeable future

 

[1robin]

Eh, I thought up that idea because I can't trust sciences idea for the origins of the universe and (No offence) but I can't trust that an almighty being created it either.
I'm not really interested in how the universe began anyway, I'm concerned about now and the foreseeable future

You can't trust physics, math, or histories greatest theological text but you can trust aliens you have no evidence for what ever. Why?

 

[Zanuku]

You can't trust physics, math, or histories greatest theological text but you can trust aliens you have no evidence for what ever. Why?

I don't trust that my idea is right either, there's no way of telling.
It's just a thought I had because you can't accurately state anything from the events of 13 billion years ago.

 

[1robin]

I don't trust that my idea is right either, there's no way of telling.
It's just a thought I had because you can't accurately state anything from the events of 13 billion years ago.
It's just a thought I had

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. IMO an opinion made in spite of whatever evidence there is unwise but your right. You said you can't tell what happened 13 billion years ago but your first post did just that (opinion or not).

 

[Zanuku]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. IMO an opinion made in spite of whatever evidence there is unwise but your right. You said you can't tell what happened 13 billion years ago but your first post did just that (opinion or not).

There is no evidence whatsoever though, from any source
That's why I made up that.
I didn't mean to state something matter-of-factly btw, sorry about that.

 

[1robin]

There is no evidence whatsoever though, from any source
That's why I made up that.
I didn't mean to state something matter-of-factly btw, sorry about that.

No problem. There is not much point in arguing with what is based solely on preference so I will leave you with it. Selah,

 

[Agnostic75]

A rock so heavy an omnipotent being can't lift it is just as logically absurd as a perfect God who would lie.

I agree, but that does not reasonably prove that God has free will regarding his character.

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?"

No it doesn't since God cannot lie. Stated another way, God does not have the potential to 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.

No it doesn't since pitting one attribute of God against another is a logical impossibility.

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

No it isn't since those are logical impossibilities.

Consider the following from a Christian website:

PHIL 342 Handout 4

Aquinas: Omnipotence means God can do anything that is logically possible (i.e,, God cannot make married bachelors, etc.)

God can't defy logic (make square circles, etc.).

[SIZE=-1]God can't violate God's own nature (can't lie or be tempted, etc.).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]There are restrictions on God's omnipotence. As Aquinas noted, God can perform only logically possible feats.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1].......under the supposition that God is omnipotent, it's[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]contradictory to suppose that there's a stone God can't lift (Mavrodes' solution, see P 279).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]As the article shows, square circles, and the issue of whether or not an omnipotent God would be able to make rock that he could not lift are logical impossibilities.[/SIZE]

God cannot want to lie. Therefore, God cannot lie since lying must be preceded by wanting to lie. God's omnipotence is not an issue since, as Aquinas has basically said, God's omnipotence can only accomplish that which is consistent with the nature of God. Lying is not consistent with the nature of God.

 

[Agnostic75]

You quote a world famous [philosopher] and well accepted arguments and then simply claim no it isn't. On what basis am I to credit you with more reliability than all the legendary philosopher's that agree with Craig in principle.

Message to 1robin: In a Youtube video at William Lane Craig] Q&A - Does God have free will? - YouTube, William Lane Craig discusses whether or not God has free will. He says:

Well, I think that he has free will. And, I would say that to be free is to be free of causal determinants outside of oneself. Your choice is up to you. It is not determined by causal factors outside yourself. And clearly in the case of God, he's free in that sense since there are no causal factors outside of God in so far as he exists alone in the universe. There isn't even anything unless he creates the world, so God is obviously free to create the world or not because there are not any determining casual factors outside of him. And even afterwards, there is nothing that can cause God to choose the way that he does because he is omnipotent, he is the creator, he's over everything, so I think that God is the epitome of libertarian freedom.

Regarding "to be free is to be free of causal determinants outside of oneself," that is partly false. A more accurate statement would be "to be free is to be free of causal determinants outside, and inside of oneself."

Craig created a nonissue since few people would claim that God can be controlled by outside influences. God's nature is obviously about determining factors inside of him, not external factors. God is certainly not free to lie.

What Craig actually discussed was God's omnipotence, not his free will.

God did not choose to create the earth. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word "choose" as "to select freely and after consideration." Since God has always known everything, he has always known which option is best, and would thus never consider doing anything.

Following that same line of reasoning, God has always known that he will never lie, and will never want to lie, and will never consider lying. Thus, God's omnipotence, and his omnibenevolence are nonissues regarding whether or not he has the potential to lie since he clearly does not.

 

[1robin]

I agree, but that does not reasonably prove that God has free will regarding his character.

The point was that argument has no effect and so you will need to use another to make the case. You can't simply assert it even when I counter every argument you have used.

No it doesn't since God cannot lie. Stated another way, God does not have the potential to lie.

Then if that is true neither one of us claim his characteristics conflict so why are we discussing it? Either that is true of the issue of lying is irrelevant to freewill.

No it doesn't since pitting one attribute of God against another is a logical impossibility.

You just are not getting it. I think it is impossible, you claim it is, but your argument requires that they must to be true.

No it isn't since those are logical impossibilities.

Consider the following from a Christian website:

PHIL 342 Handout 4



[SIZE=-1]As the article shows, square circles, and the issue of whether or not an omnipotent God would be able to make rock that he could not lift are logical impossibilities.[/SIZE]

God cannot want to lie. Therefore, God cannot lie since lying must be preceded by wanting to lie. God's omnipotence is not an issue since, as Aquinas has basically said, God's omnipotence can only accomplish that which is consistent with the nature of God. Lying is not consistent with the nature of God.

That argument will work no better the third time either. You seem to be using the same arguments I have made for the same purpose but then drawing the opposite conclusion. Let's back the truth trolley up. On what basis do you claim God does not have freewill? To what purpose are you trying so hard to establish that?

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: In a Youtube video at [youtube]PDT7uuccR-s[/youtube]
William Lane Craig] Q&A - Does God have free will? - YouTube, William Lane Craig discusses whether or not God has free will. He says:



Regarding "to be free is to be free of causal determinants outside of oneself," that is partly false. A more accurate statement would be "to be free is to be free of causal determinants outside, and inside of oneself."

Craig created a nonissue since few people would claim that God can be controlled by outside influences. God's nature is obviously about determining factors inside of him, not external factors. God is certainly not free to lie.

What Craig actually discussed was God's omnipotence, not his free will.

God did not choose to create the earth. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word "choose" as "to select freely and after consideration." Since God has always known everything, he has always known which option is best, and would thus never consider doing anything.

Following that same line of reasoning, God has always known that he will never lie, and will never want to lie, and will never consider lying. Thus, God's omnipotence, and his omnibenevolence are nonissues regarding whether or not he has the potential to lie since he clearly does not.

You quote a world famous philosophy and well accepted arguments and then simply claim no it isn't. On what basis am I to credit you with more reliability than all the legendary philosopher's that agree with Craig in principle. If you are only wishing to register your opinion then it is noted and counter with my own. I note all your points why Craig is wrong concern only semantically and technical terminology disagreements and no actual reason to conclude God doe snot have freewill. Even if he did not to what end is that argued for by you? BTW I am on a DOD server and can't watch videos.

 

[Agnostic75]

On what basis do you claim God does not have freewill?

If God is completely good, he is omnibenevolent. If he is omnibenevolent, he does not have the potential to lie, or even to consider lying. The Bible says that God cannot lie.

If God is omniscient, he has always known that he will never lie. He did not initially choose never to lie since choice implies options, and God never had the option to lie.

God cannot want to lie. Therefore, it is impossible for God to lie since lying must be preceded by wanting to lie.

In an article at Perfect Being Theology | Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig says:

To say that I tacitly endorse Anselmian Perfect Being Theology is an understatement, Aditya. I am an enthusiastic proponent. As I explain in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, I see the conception of God as the greatest conceivable being as one of the guides for systematic theology’s formulation of the doctrine of God:

Two controls have tended to guide this inquiry into the divine nature: Scripture and Perfect Being theology. For thinkers in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, God's self-revelation in Scripture is obviously paramount in understanding what God is like. In addition, the Anselmian conception of God as the greatest conceivable being or most perfect being has guided philosophical speculation on the raw data of Scripture, so that God's biblical attributes are to be conceived in ways that would serve to exalt God's greatness.

Regarding "the greatest conceivable being or most perfect being," there is no doubt that Craig believes that it is impossible for God to lie, or to even consider lying. Obviously, it would be impossible for the greatest conceivable being to lie if the word "greatest" includes always telling the truth.

To what purpose are you trying so hard to establish that?

If God does not have free will, it would not be logical to love him since he does not have any choice except to be good. Jesus said that in order to become saved, a man must love God with all of his heart, mind, and soul. That would not make any sense if God does not have free will.

 

[Agnostic75]

You quote a world famous [philosopher] and well accepted arguments and then simply claim no it isn't. On what basis am I
to credit you with more reliability than all the legendary philosopher's that agree with Craig in principle.

How about replying to what I said? I said:

Regarding "to be free is to be free of causal determinants outside of oneself," that is partly false. A more accurate statement would be "to be free is to be free of causal determinants outside, and inside of oneself."

Craig created a nonissue since few people would claim that God can be controlled by outside influences. God's nature is obviously about determining factors inside of him, not external factors. God is certainly not free to lie.

What Craig actually discussed was God's omnipotence, not his free will.

What is wrong with what I said? Craig tried to reasonably prove that God has free will, but all that he did was try to reasonably prove that God is omnipotent, reference his comment about external causal determinants. Regarding free will, the main issue is obviously internal causal determinants, not external causal determinants.

Please stop appealing to authority and start addressing what I say. I refute your sources, and all that you do is brag about their reputations. If I had a discussion with Craig, he would at least show me the courtesy of addressing what I said. He would not claim that I had no business questioning someone with his reputation.

Craig made a perfectly good argument about God's omnipotence, but he did not address the issue of whether or not God has free will.

 

[Agnostic75]

You seem to be using the same arguments I have made for the same purpose but then drawing the opposite conclusion.

We have been discussing whether or not God has free will. What does square circles, and whether or not God can make a rock that he cannot lift, both of which are logical impossibilities, have to do with that? My gracious, we are discussing what is possible for God to do, not what is impossible for him to do. Your own source Aquinas basically says that God is only able to do that with is consistent with his nature. Therefore, God's omnipotence is not an issue regarding his inability to lie, which deals with his omnibenevolence.

 

[Agnostic75]

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

Not according to William Lane Craig.

The evidence suggests he will not do so.

Of course, and the evidence also suggests that God cannot change his nature.

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 not God. You are not perfect, and you are a sinner.

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.

But that is not an example of God changing his mind since he has always known that he would created the universe. When he created the universe, he did not choose to create it since choice implies options, and God had no other option since he always does the right thing. The right thing for him to do was to create the universe.

How can an imperfect being know what perfection means?

I am merely going with what the Bible says, and with what William Lane Craig says about God being the greatest possible being.

How do you know (beyond the fact the Bible says so) that lying is imperfect?

William Lane Craig will tell you that lying would be imperfect in God's case.

He may be perfectly evil. He may be perfectly ambiguous. He may be able to change the nature of truth itself.

Not according to the Bible, and William Lane Craig.

I believe lying will fall under logical impossibilities like square circles.

You just refuted your previous comments, which were:

He may be perfectly evil. He may be perfectly ambiguous. He may be able to change the nature of truth itself.

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.

But you said:

I believe lying will fall under logical impossibilities like square circles.

If you were to argue that that does not reasonably prove that God does not have the capacity to lie, I would tell you that the Bible, and William Lane Craig, say that God does not have the capacity to lie, and that Aquinas basically said that God is only able to do, or to want to do, that which is in accordance with his nature.

If God has the capacity to lie, he does not "necessarily" have to tell the truth. If he does not necessarily have to tell the truth, he cannot be the standard for telling the truth since the word "standard" implies consistency. If God cannot be relied upon to be consistent regarding his morality, he has no business requiring anyone else to do that which he does not have to do.

Please reply to my previous three posts.

 

[1robin]

We have been discussing whether or not God has free will. What does square circles, and whether or not God can make a rock that he cannot lift, both of which are logical impossibilities, have to do with that? My gracious, we are discussing what is possible for God to do, not what is impossible for him to do. Your own source Aquinas basically says that God is only able to do that with is consistent with his nature. Therefore, God's omnipotence is not an issue regarding his inability to lie, which deals with his omnibenevolence.

He will not lie AND (not because) lying is not a logical possibility for him (the same as square circles). Therefor that is not an argument that he has no freewill. I just remembered that capacity and possibility are also independent. Even if I could not lift a rock, lie, or anything other action you could name that does not mean I could not will it. Freedom to choose has nothing to do with the capacity to carry it out. Even if God can't actually lie does not mean that he could not will to do so. That is not a statement of facts about God but is a statement about the facts of freewill. You can't use an argument about ability to dictate a claim about will. I know for a fact you are not going to get this, and make a point about that not being true of God but it is true of freewill. You have used todays allotment of time and so with that have a good one and let your keyboard cool off.

 

[Agnostic75]

He will not lie.......

Better stated, he will not lie, and he does not have the capacity to lie, partly because the Bible says that he cannot lie, and partly because William Lane Craig says that God is the greatest conceivable being. Craig obviously believes that God does not have the capacity to lie.

.......AND (not because) lying is not a logical possibility for him (the same as square circles).

Lying is not a logical possibility for God, as Craig, and many millions of other Christians would tell you.

Square circles is not a logical possibility.

Omnibenevolence by definition requires consistency, as does Craig's "greatest conceivable being" argument.

Therefore that is not an argument that he has no freewill.

Yes it is.

I just remembered that capacity and possibility are also independent. Even if I could not lift a rock, lie, or anything other action you could name that does not mean I could not will it.

But God is not even able to want to lie since his omnibenevolent nature consistently prevents him from wanting to oppose his own nature.

Freedom to choose has nothing to do with the capacity to carry it out.

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word "choose" as "to select freely and after consideration." That does not apply to God since choice implies options. Since God must tell the truth, he has no other options. Since God has always known everything, there has never been anything for him to consider since he has always known which option is best.

Even if God can't actually lie does not mean that he could not will to do so. That is not a statement of facts about God but is a statement about the facts of freewill. You can't use an argument about ability to dictate a claim about will.

God is not even able to want to lie since his omnibenevolent nature consistently prevents him from wanting to oppose his own nature, and since William Lane Craig says that God is the greatest conceivable being.

If for the sake of argument God can want to lie, but is not able to lie, you still would not have a rational basis for loving him since he has no choice except to keep his promise to give Christians eternal life.

As you probably know, distinguished scholar, college professor, and author J. P. Moreland is a close associate of William Lane Craig, and that they have co-authored at least one book together. Moreland has very impressive academic credentials. In a Youtube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtOL0P3Fz7Y, he discusses the perfection of God. He says that God is the greatest possible being, and cannot improve. That certainly implies that God is not able to lie, and is not even able to want to lie.

An article at http://readingthesumma.blogspot.com/2009/12/question-4-gods-perfection.html says:

"Aquinas argues.......that since God is the first efficient cause of created things, and since causes contain their effects, therefore God must contain the perfections of all created things in the highest manner possible."

Aquinas' "in the highest manner possible" is similar to Craig's "greatest conceivable being," and Moreland's "greatest possible being." Such a being could not possibly ever want to lie, let alone ever tell a lie.

 

[Thief]

But free will is what I have been discussing with 1robin.



For humans, yes, if they have free will, but not for God since he does not have free will.



God does not need restraint since he is perfect, and cannot sin, and knows everything. God is not able to act against his nature.

I don't believe that.

Forgiveness and mercy are contrary to consequence of sin.

If God has no freewill.....no one can stand with Him.
All have failed.....all die.
Eternal darkness for all.

Hence your belief?

 

[Agnostic75]

I don't believe that.

Forgiveness and mercy are contrary to consequence of sin.

If God has no freewill.....no one can stand with Him.
All have failed.....all die.
Eternal darkness for all.

Hence your belief?

If God has no choice except to be good, what is wrong with that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Ahh, the old "atheists don't believe in god because they don't want to be accountable to anyone" garbage.

I'm not even sure why I dignified such a terrible argument with a response, except to expose it for what it is. Garbage.