INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Thief]

"Something had to start the first thing?" Why? There are cultures and religions that believe the universe has always existed. There is no proof that it has not.

"Just as something can not create itself." Why? We now know that outer space is not the empty void that we thought it was. It is occupied by particles that come into existence and destroy themselves on their own in tiny amounts of time. They are not around long but are around long enough to measure.

"Before anything there was nothing." Would you like to explain this in detail instead of just stating it? It has no scientific backing.

Cause and effect.
The standard of scientific experiment.

When you start saying ....things just happen.....
experimentation goes out the window.

No proof can be rendered without the experiment having sure results.
No proof.

Such is faith.

 

[gilligan8914]

Faith - "Belief that is not based upon evidence or proof." Is this what god is? Only faith not based upon evidence or proof? Could bigfoot actually be god too?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts #1734, and #1735.

You are in no position to question common descent based upon your own personal knowledge of biology. Most any expert would demolish you in a public debate on common descent. Michael Behe says:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

It is amusing that you, a mere amateur, would presume to lecture Behe, and over 99% of other experts, on common descent. Regarding the relative handful of creationist experts, a good percentage of them accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, so their scientific opinions about other issues are questionable. Biblical literalism is not a rational basis for scientific research.

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent. In spite of that, you have said that all of macro evolution has problems. However, if those same experts accepted creationism, you would surely try to use that to your advantage in debates.

 

[Thief]

Faith - "Belief that is not based upon evidence or proof." Is this what god is? Only faith not based upon evidence or proof? Could bigfoot actually be god too?

A recent science documentary indicates...we humans can know God.
The rest of the animal world appears unable.
It's called 'theory of mind'.

And brain wave tests of believers in prayer show a difference as compared to....
atheists in deep meditation.

The brain lights up more so when we pray...compared to not believing.

 

[Agnostic75]

I would like to inform readers about my new thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/152276-debating-existence-god-waste-time.html, especially since it is pertinent to this thread, and since it might save everyone who is participating in this thread a lot of time. This thread has 177 pages. If I had started my new thread right after this thread was started, perhaps this thread would have been abandoned many months ago.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

because infinites can't be traversed.

Speaking of old Greek ideas, watch me disprove this canard; I stand in a football stadium, and plan to traverse it from one end to the other- now, before I may reach my destination, I must reach the halfway point, and before I reach the halfway point, I must reach the quarter point, and so on, to infinity. What we have here are an infinite amount of intervals, each of which requires some period of time to traverse- but now I walk from one end of the stadium to the other, traversing an infinite amount of intervals in a finite period of time... Imagine that!

A word of advice- you do NOT want to take William Lane Craig's word about ANYTHING relating to infinity or infinite collections; he's basically wrong about everything he says in this regard.

Not one known fact contradicts a single claim I made.

LOL... Good one.

 

[Ouroboros]

Infinites can't be traversed except using limits, integrals, Riehmann sums, or ...

 

[gilligan8914]

A recent science documentary indicates...we humans can know God.
The rest of the animal world appears unable.
It's called 'theory of mind'.

And brain wave tests of believers in prayer show a difference as compared to....
atheists in deep meditation.

The brain lights up more so when we pray...compared to not believing.

"Theory of mind" is just a theory. I haven't asked my dog lately if he knows of god. I don't believe I could understand him anyway. Animals have much higher developed senses than people. When a person with prostate cancer gets diagnosed, it usuall takes time and tests before people can be sure they have it. Some dogs can just sniff your butt and make the same diagnosis with high degrees of success. The brain waves you speak of also occur in people who worship satan and other assorted gods, and among Buddhists who have no god. Also among people watching movies. I think its called imagination.

 

[Willamena]

Speaking of old Greek ideas, watch me disprove this canard; I stand in a football stadium, and plan to traverse it from one end to the other- now, before I may reach my destination, I must reach the halfway point, and before I reach the halfway point, I must reach the quarter point, and so on, to infinity. What we have here are an infinite amount of intervals, each of which requires some period of time to traverse- but now I walk from one end of the stadium to the other, traversing an infinite amount of intervals in a finite period of time... Imagine that!

That "same period of time" is no period of time. Zeno's Paradox allows you to cross the field by standing still, which is an absurdity. Seems consistent with Robin's claim.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts #1734, and #1735.

You are in no position to question common descent based upon your own personal knowledge of biology. Most any expert would demolish you in a public debate on common descent. Michael Behe says:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

It is amusing that you, a mere amateur, would presume to lecture Behe, and over 99% of other experts, on common descent. Regarding the relative handful of creationist experts, a good percentage of them accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, so their scientific opinions about other issues are questionable. Biblical literalism is not a rational basis for scientific research.

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent. In spite of that, you have said that all of macro evolution has problems. However, if those same experts accepted creationism, you would surely try to use that to your advantage in debates, so you merely use science as a convenience when you believe that it agrees with you.

From an entirely scientific perspective, since you are far from being an expert in biology, there is no way that you could know that creationism is true even if it is true. And that is even more of a large percentage of creationist laymen who know very little about biology.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That "same period of time" is no period of time.

Maybe this is just a typo, but its "some period of time", not "same"- and yes, the point is that, on this construction of the stadium paradox, which is the standard one (i.e. that of Aristotle), each interval takes some non-zero period of time to traverse; the paradox arises when we are (apparently) forced to admit that we traverse an infinite amount of intervals, each taking some non-zero amount of time to traverse, and do so in a finite period of time- which is supposed to be contradictory. The idea is that if we take an infinite amount of non-zero periods of time, we should have an infinite period of time- and yet, we want to say (since it is a fact) that we traverse the stadium in some finite period of time.

Zeno's Paradox allows you to cross the field by standing still, which is an absurdity. Seems consistent with Robin's claim.

I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate because prima facie, this is false. The standard construction of the paradox is as I mention above. There are other ways to construct the paradox- such as that it forces us to claim we traverse all the intervals within a given distance (such as the stadium), and do so successively, and yet never traverse any first or last interval such that the traversal of which either begins or ends our jouney- but that the paradox "allows you to cross the field by standing still" does not seem to be a possible interpretation. But we'll see, perhaps.

 

[Willamena]

Maybe this is just a typo, but its "some period of time", not "same"- and yes, the point is that, on this construction of the stadium paradox, which is the standard one (i.e. that of Aristotle), each interval takes some non-zero period of time to traverse; the paradox arises when we are (apparently) forced to admit that we traverse an infinite amount of intervals, each taking some non-zero amount of time to traverse, and do so in a finite period of time- which is supposed to be contradictory. The idea is that if we take an infinite amount of non-zero periods of time, we should have an infinite period of time- and yet, we want to say (since it is a fact) that we traverse the stadium in some finite period of time.


I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate because prima facie, this is false. The standard construction of the paradox is as I mention above. There are other ways to construct the paradox- such as that it forces us to claim we traverse all the intervals within a given distance (such as the stadium), and do so successively, and yet never traverse any first or last interval such that the traversal of which either begins or ends our jouney- but that the paradox "allows you to cross the field by standing still" does not seem to be a possible interpretation. But we'll see, perhaps.

Ah, I did misread "some" as "same." My apologies.

 

[1robin]

Cause and effect.
The standard of scientific experiment.

When you start saying ....things just happen.....
experimentation goes out the window.

No proof can be rendered without the experiment having sure results.
No proof.

Such is faith.

Is the causal relationship not proven even in the Quantum?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That's why I provided the link for the evolution of nervous systems. Action potentials (using calcium rather than the usual sodium and potassium) -- necessary for neurons -- first showed up in early Eukaryotes. Colonial Eukaryotes like Obelia actually propagate electrical signals through these and through epithelial cells between one another. Multicellular Eukaryotes such as Cnidarians (jellyfish and such) take it one step further with diffuse "nerve nets," which is essentially a nervous system without a brain.

I just read it and that stuff is vague as best. It states

“Neurons developed as specialized electrical signaling cells in multicellular animals, adapting the mechanism of action potentials present in motile single-celled and colonial eukaryotes.”

It developed? How? Why? It is telling me what happened, not how and why it happened.

Once species started to emerge with bilateral symmetry, it started being really advantageous for such diffuse nervous systems to centralize along a stem following the bilateral body plan. A brain would be the result of further centralization at one end of the body rather than equal distribution along the length of the body cavity.

This is hocus pocus stuff, MM. “One species started to emerge…” “It started being really advantageous”. These are wild assumptions. Look, if we know all of this stuff, how come we aren’t able to make a brain from “scratch”. If you are telling me what happened and how it happened (which you are not, but for arguments sake), why aren’t we able to go into a lab and create the same conditions that were present when all of this stuff started to happen, and create a brain? Why aren’t we able to do it??? Not only should we be able to do it (since we “know” so much), we should be able to do it rather quickly. Remember, it took oh so long for this stuff to happen, but since we know how it happened, it shouldn’t take so long. Why aren’t we able to do it??

Most of the stages of evolutionary development required for brains to emerge are still extant in
various species around the world, such as the ones I described. (For an idea on what the centralization of the nervous system would have been like in various ancestors, you can draw an analogy with worms and even arthropods; which have nervous systems centralized along their body cavity and a very slight bulking of nervous material in one end -- a necessary step for brains to emerge should selection pressures call for it).

Well, that is your opinion. My opinion is God made the worms that way. Neither one has been proven.

As for how thoughts emerge from brains, we're not entirely sure -- yet. Very recently we've been able to implant instructions into rat brains using biocircuitry -- which is creepy. But the point is that just because we don't understand possibly the most complex emergent phenomenon on the planet doesn't mean it's therefore magic; and this is especially the case when we're making very clear and obvious progress towards understanding how thought emerges.

You call a supernatural intelligent designer using his power to create life magic. But to think that inanimate matter began mindless and blind, and then all of a sudden not only come to life, but to be intellectual thinking matter, I think that is worse than magic.

The universe didn't "come into existence from nothing." That's not what Big Bang cosmology postulates.

Well, that is what the original big bang model (the standard model) implies. That was the leading view in cosmology until physicists realized the implications of “a universe from nothing” would suggest a supernatural hypothesis. So they started coming out with all of these wacky models that would precede the standard model, these Pre-Big bang models. Not only that, but postulating pre-big bang models have philosophical problems, such as the contingency problem and the problem of infinity.

And actually, the sequence of events re: cosmic, stellar, and solar evolution are very well understood -- all the way back to the first Planck time after the BB event.

But what isn’t understood is, how on a naturalistic view, could the universe, based on the cosmological constants, how could our entropy level be so low as to make human life permissible? You don’t get that kind of precision from chaotic random and completely misguided processes. That would suggest that the low entropy was an INITIAL condition that was in place from the very moment of the big bang.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

From left to right, can you tell me exactly where green begins and where green ends?

I may not be able to tell you where green begins, but I do know what two colors make the color green. Just like I may not be able to tell you as an absolute fact where all animals came from (but I do have my belief), but I can tell you that based on observation, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Just like blue and yellow makes the color green. So why am I to think things were in any way different in the distance past?

Life, much like the definition of species, isn't a binary yes/no property. It's a fuzzy thing: we try to define it by a set of characteristics, such as "self-replicates," "seeks homeostasis," "response to stimuli," etc. Life didn't just appear in a puddle of slime one day -- there was no day where there was no life and then a following day where there was life.

So on a naturalistic view, there was life at the moment of the big bang?

We have all but already created life both deliberately and by simply trying to replicate early Earth conditions -- what I mean by that is that we have observed things that exemplify some or even most of the qualities that define life -- we just don't have the privilege of time for the possibility of the rest of the qualities to emerge; and that's for several merely technical reasons (do you know anything about how much we have to guess about even folding proteins right now simply because we're so macroscopic compared to them?)

Getting the right proteins together to form a living cell is tough cookies. This has never been successfully done and despite the Miller experiment, he was far from creating life. Why was a blind and mindless process able to do something millions of years ago that intelligent human beings aren’t able to do? You keep stating what we can’t do, but nature, in its un-intelligent ways, DID do.

Teleology is poor metaphysics, for one -- completely different things. Secondly, I don't deny the existence of "evidence for a common designer" outright -- I don't say "it doesn't exist." It just isn't very compelling.

Every time I see design and specified complexity, it always comes from a mind. You believe things like computers, cars, books, televisions, etc, you believe all these things were designed (even if you lived in the 1300’s, you still wouldn’t think that these things were created by mere chance), but yet something like the human body, which consists of all these specified parts, each part which has a function, WASN’T designed. That is the taxicab fallacy, which is basically saying that you are riding around in a taxi all day and stopping at all these cool places, but once you reach a place you don’t “like”, you don’t stop. You don’t “like” the idea of God intelligently creating the human body, so you deny that he did it, but you will gladly concede the idea that a automobile, with all its parts and functions…you will agree that this was intelligently designed, but the human body, despite the same concept of its specified complexity as the automobile, you believe that the automobile was designed yet the human body wasn’t. That is because you don’t like the implications of the human body being designed, but the automobile doesn’t carry the same implications.

All you're doing is setting yourself fuzzy goalposts though. If you were from a culture hidden in a hole somewhere and I showed you a great dane and a chihuahua, you would probably assign them different species names rather than the same.

I probably would, but I wouldn’t assume that they came from a common ancestor either.

There's also the matter that we have a very good understanding of evolutionary ancestors of some "kinds" of animals that are very different from their far future offspring: for instance, whales' evolutionary history is one of the most clearly understood and researched; and their ancestors looked a bit like wolves! But someone is free to use fuzzy goalposts and say, "Oh, but they're still mammals! Aha! Nothing really changed!"

Whales’ ancestors looked like wolves? Based on that assertion alone, you’ve just immediately left science and jumped right into the realm of religion. It happened so fast you didn’t even know it. It was a blur. If that is what you believe, cool beans. But that certainly isn’t science.

Look at this guy:
The "fuzzy goalpost" strategy here would be to say, "Aha! Even though this lizard has recently started evolving to give live birth, and a snakelike body plan is clearly advantageous to it in its habitat over lizard arms (ha look at those adorable things!), at least it's still a reptile! Its population is just changing within its 'kind'!"

Photo shopped

...I'm not trying to insinuate you sound like that, I'm trying to be funny here. But can you see why this notion of "nothing evolves out of its kind" business is fuzzy nonsense?

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, bears produce bears, turtles produce turtles. Neither you nor I have ever seen anything contrary to this.

 

[1robin]

Speaking of old Greek ideas, watch me disprove this canard; I stand in a football stadium, and plan to traverse it from one end to the other- now, before I may reach my destination, I must reach the halfway point, and before I reach the halfway point, I must reach the quarter point, and so on, to infinity. What we have here are an infinite amount of intervals, each of which requires some period of time to traverse- but now I walk from one end of the stadium to the other, traversing an infinite amount of intervals in a finite period of time... Imagine that!

I take it you found an infinitely long football field somewhere. Why don't you do something a little more relevant and start counting and let me know when you reach infinity. I have a degree in math and know infinity is poison to reality and is usually a boundary condition for reality.

A word of advice- you do NOT want to take William Lane Craig's word about ANYTHING relating to infinity or infinite collections; he's basically wrong about everything he says in this regard.

That statement is almost an indictment of anyone who makes it. Especially someone who has no credentials to challenge that which they condemn. However it is the arrogant tone in which it is claimed in that is the most appalling. Not to mention the same boundary condition have been known for thousands of years before Craig existed and I did not get them from him.

LOL... Good one.

Good night nurse.

 

[1robin]

Here's Gödel's

(It doesn't work, but there it is)

More seriously, I doubt there are many theists who would go the empirical route in terms of attempting to provide evidence for one God. A majority of that is going to be ontological, such as the above.

Your mentioning of Gödel and empirical claims reminded me of something. BTW without my looking it up what is the math above supposed to be. I have a math degree and have never seen it.

1. Can you think of a better explanation for the claims in the Bible other than truth given the following information?
The Apostles burdened themselves with a massive empirical burden they had every reason to avoid if their claims were false. There was no expectation of a bodily rising Christ. Even they (even though they should have) did not expect Christ to actually physically resurrect. The Jews certainly didn't. They could have very easily claimed he spiritually arose from the dead and no one could have possibly proven otherwise. However they against all logic proposed he was not in his sealed and guarded grave any longer. Why? Issues with a theft claim only adds improbability onto improbability. Good luck. I can't event think of a bad explanation.

2. Gödel's incompleteness theory suggests that at any given time science has only grasped an infinitely small amount of truth. On that basis why is it good for anything and especially revelation claims?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I take it you found an infinitely long football field somewhere.

Nope. But every football field contains an infinite amount of intervals, just as any distance does.

Why don't you do something a little more relevant and start counting and let me know when you reach infinity.

Why?

I have a degree in math and know infinity is poison to reality

Lol... Ok.

That statement is almost an indictment of anyone who makes it.

The opposite of what you said is the case. Being aware of the fallacious and often just shameless nature of Craig's arguments against infinite collections is a mark of distinction; that one is familiar enough with the philosophy of religion to be aware of this patent fact. The fact is, Craig is a midget in his field.

Especially someone who has no credentials to challenge that which they condemn.

You don't know what my credentials are or are not, unfortunately.

Not to mention the same boundary condition have been known for thousands of years before Craig existed and I did not get them from him.

Whatever this "boundary condition" is supposed to mean...

Your mentioning of Gödel and empirical claims reminded me of something. BTW without my looking it up what is the math above supposed to be. I have a math degree and have never seen it.

It's modal logic.

2. Gödel's incompleteness theory suggests that at any given time science has only grasped an infinitely small amount of truth.

Um, Godel's theorem does NOT suggest any such thing, even though it may well be true all the same.

If there is anything more frequently misquoted and misrepresented than Godel's theorems, I'd sure like to know what it is.

 

[HeatherAnn]

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?

Oh, and P.S., humans started science. And last I checked, we ain't gods.

There's always the strange conclusions that doesn't follow logically. Just because God is defined by Atheist cult mentality as the "primary cause," (as Aristotle began the belief and the bible adopted) - only to be refuted... it doesn't logically follow that all other definitions must also be wrong. Out of the countless other definitions of God, why would all other definitions be thrown out, in the name of the Atheism cult, just because of the acknowledgement of how illogical ONE definition of God is? IE: There's no refuting Paul Tillich's definition that God is one's ultimate concern - & the more one passionately refutes it, the more one proves his definition.

Why would anybody be so arrogant as to know EVERY single definition of God there is, by conclusively claiming that none of them all are possible? The last I checked, we ain't gods.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts #1734, and #1735.

You are in no position to question common descent based upon your own personal knowledge of biology. Most any expert would demolish you in a public debate on common descent. Michael Behe says:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

It is amusing that you, a mere amateur, would presume to lecture Behe, and over 99% of other experts, on common descent. Regarding the relative handful of creationist experts, a good percentage of them accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, so their scientific opinions about other issues are questionable. Biblical literalism is not a rational basis for scientific research.

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent. In spite of that, you have said that all of macro evolution has problems. However, if those same experts accepted creationism, you would surely try to use that to your advantage in debates, so you merely use science as a convenience when you believe that it agrees with you.

From an entirely scientific perspective, since you are far from being an expert in biology, there is no way that you could know that creationism is true even if it is true. And that is even more of a large percentage of creationist laymen who know very little about biology.