INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

Why not replace the word God with magical pink unicorn if you have no bias to push? The word God is loaded with so much history and background behind it that it becomes meaningless.

I concede there might be something there, but that means little in itself. Unless you want to get into rubbish like Pascal's wager which is just more sneaky proselytizing.

Man these tactics get old. Are you going to actually suggest that the concept of a pink unicorn is the equivalent of the concept of God in the Bible? If so why? They have nothing in common. Since some genius asked me a similar question about the Easter Bunny, just substitue that for unicorn in this copy from that thread.

When you produce the most profound, scrutinized, and cherished book in human history that was written by the Easter bunny then I will answer.
When the existence of the Easter bunny has arguments as solid as the cosmological, teleological, ontological, or Design and fine-tuning for his existence then I will answer.
When books on the Easter bunny equivalent with Summa theoligica are written then I will answer.
When Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Pasteur, Collins, Descartes, Bacon, Boyle, and Davinci plus a thousand other of the most brilliant men in history say they believe in the Easter bunny then I will answer.

When you can substitute Christ with Easter bunny and still have a meaningful statement in these quotes below then I will answer:

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine. No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes. He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

If the Easter bunny even hypothetically could cure the disease of sin we so obviously have then the issue might be worth mentioning. As it is it is a ridiculous appeal to the absurd and a reproach to the subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there a seminar where they give you these things to say or something?

I am talking about the God of the Bible and that is nothing if not well defined.

I think Pascals wager is stupid in it's original form. You can't get true faith by default. A possative does not arrive automatically with the rejection of a negative. However modified slightly it makes very good sense. There is no harm in giving faith in God as much chance as you can without sacrificing truth. Thatdynamic would apply until you are born again then there is no more need of it. The experiencing of God trumps all the former means to faith and exlains why that type of faith always grows stronger in trials.

BTW your unicorn point was a fallacy of appealing to the absurd and used a false equality.

 

[PolyHedral]

Because an infinite regression is impossible.

There's nothing logically inconsistent about an infinitely long past. Who are you to dictate what the universe may behave?

No it isn't. That is even a dominant secular theory besides being an obvious conclusion. Time, space, and matter are thought by all Christians, most other religions, and even a large portion of secular scientists to have begun a finite time ago.

No scientist, secular or otherwise, can tell you reliably what happened less than 10^-43 seconds after the start of the universe. Before that, everything is too wibbly for any physics to work.

It is bad word choice yet still a logical deduction. I would say outside of time not before.

That requires a meta-time, which is a thing. Specifically, a thing you have no evidence for.

The universe even by most secular theories did not always exist.

See above. The universe has always existed - but also might've had a beginning. There was no "before the beginning" in which the universe could fail to exist.

Natural law does not create from nothing.

But it does. Study quantum mechanics if you don't believe me.

You cannot traverse and infinite series of past events to arrive at this one.

If we had to traverse an infinite series of past events to get to this one, we'd have to start from the beginning. However, there is no beginning, and so we can't start from there. We must therefore start from somewhere else, and all the "somewhere else"s are a finite distance away from now.

 

[McBell]

Will you kindly tell me what in your infinate wisdom was impossible about what I said and explain how you know this.?

nah.
Just go ahead fly on home and claim your victory.

 

[Ouroboros]

First Cause is a Lost Cause. It's the reductionist approach to proving God's existence. If God needs proving, then it's the wrong God. With that, I'm done with this thread.

 

[no-body]

Man these tactics get old. Are you going to actually suggest that the concept of a pink unicorn is the equivalent of the concept of God in the Bible?

Yes

If so why? They have nothing in common.

To the non-believer your God is as ridiculous magical pink unicorn.

Since some genius asked me a similar question about the Easter Bunny, just substitue that for unicorn in this copy from that thread.

When you produce the most profound, scrutinized, and cherished book in human history that was written by the Easter bunny then I will answer.
When the existence of the Easter bunny has arguments as solid as the cosmological, teleological, ontological, or Design and fine-tuning for his existence then I will answer.
When books on the Easter bunny equivalent with Summa theoligica are written then I will answer.

You've missed my point so completely you became an example of it.

When Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Pasteur, Collins, Descartes, Bacon, Boyle, and Davinci plus a thousand other of the most brilliant men in history say they believe in the Easter bunny then I will answer.

Even geniuses are still human they aren't immune to the fear of the unkown. Many smart succesful people have believed ridiculous things; misogyny and racism for instance is comparable.

When you can substitute Christ with Easter bunny and still have a meaningful statement in these quotes below then I will answer:

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine. No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes. He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

All this tells me is that secular people respect the history and richness of the bible. We can learn much from the mythology of the bible as any other classic literature, but that is all it is, literature.

If the Easter bunny even hypothetically could cure the disease of sin we so obviously have then the issue might be worth mentioning. As it is it is a ridiculous appeal to the absurd and a reproach to the subject.

You can't prove Jesus actually cured sin. All you have is your personal opinion and dogma.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there a seminar where they give you these things to say or something?

I am talking about the God of the Bible and that is nothing if not well defined.

I think Pascals wager is stupid in it's original form. You can't get true faith by default. A possative does not arrive automatically with the rejection of a negative. However modified slightly it makes very good sense. There is no harm in giving faith in God as much chance as you can without sacrificing truth. Thatdynamic would apply until you are born again then there is no more need of it. The experiencing of God trumps all the former means to faith and exlains why that type of faith always grows stronger in trials.

To get back to the original point why your God, why not hinduism or buddhism or Islam?

BTW your unicorn point was a fallacy of appealing to the absurd and used a false equality.

Of course it's absurd that is the point. It is only a false equality to you because it threatens your faith.

 

[1robin]

There's nothing logically inconsistent about an infinitely long past. Who are you to dictate what the universe may behave?

Who are you to dictate what I must claim or not claim? It is not my claim, it the dominant claim in philosophy and a major claim in science and mathematics. There are countless arguments that show an infinite regress of events. It is an illogical concept. If you would simply show how that if time was running at a point infinitely long ago it could ever even hypothetically reach now then the issue would be concluded. The universe no matter how subdivided owes its existence to causes outside its divisions. That mandates an infinite regress of cause and effect. I can see why someone might believe they can claim that time is infinite (time is very abstract), I can't fathom how anyone can believe and infinite regression of cause and effect would ever result in this event. If I asked you for $20 and you said you did not have it but you would get it from someone else, and they said the same thing and this went on forever I would never get the $20. The fact that I have $20 would necessitate that that chain of people was finite. The fact we have a current universe (event) means necessarily the chain of causation is finite.

No scientist, secular or otherwise, can tell you reliably what happened less than 10^-43 seconds after the start of the universe. Before that, everything is too wibbly for any physics to work.

That is somewhat true. I would say that no scientist can accurately explain anything that happened longer than 5000 years ago but I digress. I have no idea what context this was in so have no idea what it was supposed to show. Your statement has nothing at all to do with what is used to rather indisputably imply the universe had a beginning. In fact you indicate a start is a given.

That requires a meta-time, which is a thing. Specifically, a thing you have no evidence for.

What? I was making a theological or philosophical claim. I am not restricted to your terms and natural law has no role in the former and none in many aspects of the latter. I even said at some point no one has any idea what outside of time means specifically. I only illustrated the concept. I care not for what arbitrary label you apply to it. What small percentage of natural law we understand is not the arbiter of all truth. If science can't prove something that in no way even suggests it does not exist. Many things that are true are shown to exist by methods other than natural law and that exhibits the very reason your almost reverential dependence on science as almighty is misplaced.

See above. The universe has always existed - but also might've had a beginning. There was no "before the beginning" in which the universe could fail to exist.

That was so contradictory I have no idea what to do with it. I reject labels arbitrarily applied to concepts that restrict them. Before time is not a reasonable term. Outside of time is more reasonable even if just as unfathomable.

But it does. Study quantum mechanics if you don't believe me.

This is one of the biggest errors attributed to Quantum Mechanics. Nothing comes from nothing is about the most immutable statement possible. What quantum mechanics allows is that something can come from something that previously was unknown to allow for it. In this case energy. It allows energy to create matter. There was not a nothing and then a something. There was energy and then there was something else. I will not comment further as I am out of my depth but heard what I stated above from two experts in quantum mechanics.

If we had to traverse an infinite series of past events to get to this one, we'd have to start from the beginning. However, there is no beginning, and so we can't start from there. We must therefore start from somewhere else, and all the "somewhere else"s are a finite distance away from now.

Are you actually justifying non faith by a claim that we started during an ongoing process. That would be self-contradictory if it were coherent. In general the level of desperation needed to justify its self by claims so desperate is quite revealing. IMO no one on the face of the earth or in all of history understands clearly or even at all what you have claimed here. I think it has more in common with pink noise than coherent logic. You are either a unique super genius or off your rocker and I have not seen your picture on time magazine.

 

[1robin]

nah.
Just go ahead fly on home and claim your victory.

Your usual rapid capitulation is not much of a victory. So fly home (whatever that is supposed to mean) and claim your surrender is a result of my lack of _______________. Fill in the blank with the innacurate claim of your choice.

 

[1robin]

First Cause is a Lost Cause. It's the reductionist approach to proving God's existence. If God needs proving, then it's the wrong God. With that, I'm done with this thread.

I did not say God being the uncaused first cause is not supportable with logic and reason. I said it does not need supporting to be true. It does not even need supporting to be logically made. If I see a computer, the fact that my claim that a person or persons built it being the best explenation does not require that I explain where the man came from. So I guess Humans being responsible for computers is a lost cause and reductionist. I would not wait around for the fallout from that logic, either.

 

[McBell]

Your usual rapid capitulation is not much of a victory. So fly home (whatever that is supposed to mean) and claim your surrender is a result of my lack of _______________. Fill in the blank with the innacurate claim of your choice.

Thank you for further demonstrating my point.

Pigeon Chess

 

[McBell]

I did not say God being the uncaused first cause is not supportable with logic and reason. I said it does not need supporting to be true. It does not even need supporting to be logically made. If I see a computer, the fact that my claim that a person or persons built it being the best explenation does not require that I explain where the man came from. So I guess Humans being responsible for computers is a lost cause and reductionist. I would not wait around for the fallout from that logic, either.

The watchmaker fallacy is entertaining, but seriously lacks convincing power with those who are not already in your choir.

 

[Gui10]

I did not say God being the uncaused first cause is not supportable with logic and reason. I said it does not need supporting to be true. It does not even need supporting to be logically made. If I see a computer, the fact that my claim that a person or persons built it being the best explenation does not require that I explain where the man came from. So I guess Humans being responsible for computers is a lost cause and reductionist. I would not wait around for the fallout from that logic, either.

Unfortunately it does need supporting and it also needs to be logical. The fact that is was written in the bible does not make it true. Like every one says: the bible was man written.

 

[1robin]

The watchmaker fallacy is entertaining, but seriously lacks convincing power with those who are not already in your choir.

I am not responding to any more of your posts that are less than three sentences long and contain more than personal opinions. That was meant as mostly humor but I meant it. I also insist it include any statement I have ever made on any thread that includes the words "watch maker". Cause and effect is what I have been discussing and it is absolutely unchallengeable. Is there any word in existence that a disbeliever will not put in front of "fallacy" whether it is a legitimate fallacy or not or whether it was actually being used or not?

 

[1robin]

Unfortunately it does need supporting and it also needs to be logical. The fact that is was written in the bible does not make it true. Like every one says: the bible was man written.

Far from being illogical or unsupported it is currently the only theory known to man that compehensively fits every requirement for what caused the universe and why it is the way it is. This is a very well reasoned seldom question topic in professional debates. It is so lopsided and implied so substantially that desperatio has forced "scientists" (ones who are supposed to stick with facts) to invent fantasys like multiverses to escape what reality makes so obvious. If necessary and worth doing I will provide many quotes from secular scientists that confirm this. I do not mind and even encourage good debate but I can't stand insinuations of irrationality of absurdity for concepts recognized by countless professional secular scholars to have great merit. God is a perfect fit for whatever the creator must be. Without him there exists no second choice nor with him is there any need of one. All of this can be concluded without ever cracking a Bible. However right now we are under a winter weather alert and are being required to leave work and my therefore my debateing computer.

 

[Gui10]

Far from being illogical or unsupported it is currently the only theory known to man that compehensively fits every requirement for what caused the universe and why it is the way it is. This is a very well reasoned seldom question topic in professional debates. It is so lopsided and implied so substantially that desperatio has forced "scientists" (ones who are supposed to stick with facts) to invent fantasys like multiverses to escape what reality makes so obvious. If necessary and worth doing I will provide many quotes from secular scientists that confirm this. I do not mind and even encourage good debate but I can't stand insinuations of irrationality of absurdity for concepts recognized by countless professional secular scholars to have great merit. God is a perfect fit for whatever the creator must be. Without him there exists no second choice nor with him is there any need of one. All of this can be concluded without ever cracking a Bible. However right now we are under a winter weather alert and are being required to leave work and my therefore my debateing computer.

Dude I do not know which ''professional'' debates you have listened to but the idea that secular scientists agree that god is a logical cause for the universe is COMPLETELY BOGUS! Some humans, recognized as some of the smartest humans in the world, according to international communities, argue the opposite! Carl Sagan, Chritopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss!!!

Listen, I'm not even saying that there is no god FOR SURE. But I am saying that the theory of a creator is NOWHERE near superior to ANY OTHER THEORY for that matter as it has absolutely no scientific evidence, it is not logical at all. You say it it the only ''comprehensive'' answer man has come up with well that is only because science has only begun in the last 50 years barely to understand the cosmos and its possible origins. Religion and the concept of god, however, has been around for thousands of years.

Actually, I would argue that the concept of a god creator is the SIMPLEST theory which even a CHILD could of thought of.

You are saying that the universe must of come from something, why so? IF you say god came from nothing, then why can't the universe come from nothing

 

[McBell]

I am not responding to any more of your posts that are less than three sentences long and contain more than personal opinions. That was meant as mostly humor but I meant it. I also insist it include any statement I have ever made on any thread that includes the words "watch maker". Cause and effect is what I have been discussing and it is absolutely unchallengeable. Is there any word in existence that a disbeliever will not put in front of "fallacy" whether it is a legitimate fallacy or not or whether it was actually being used or not?

Except when you make your god an exception.
Then you completely undermine your whole argument.
I wonder if you are even able to understand that little factoid...

 

[McBell]

Far from being illogical or unsupported it is currently the only theory known to man that compehensively fits every requirement for what caused the universe and why it is the way it is.

This is nothing more than wishful thinking presented as fact.

Your dishonesty is almost as entertaining as your hypocrisy which is almost as entertaining as your reliance on the watchmaker fallacy.

Pigeon Chess anyone?

 

[1robin]

Except when you make your god an exception.
Then you completely undermine your whole argument.
I wonder if you are even able to understand that little factoid...

Since you managed three sentences I will respond but I noticed you did not include a single statement I made any where that contained "watch maker" as you insinuated. Anyway, no I do not understand your opinion (that you classified as factoid for some reason). An exception to what?

 

[1robin]

This is nothing more than wishful thinking presented as fact.

Your dishonesty is almost as entertaining as your hypocrisy which is almost as entertaining as your reliance on the watchmaker fallacy.

Pigeon Chess anyone?

I guess one post without obvious sarcasm is all you can manage so I am back to not responding to things that do not merit it. This post being a classic example.

 

[McBell]

Since you managed three sentences I will respond but I noticed you did not include a single statement I made any where that contained "watch maker" as you insinuated. Anyway, no I do not understand your opinion (that you classified as factoid for some reason). An exception to what?

one cannot help but wonder if your ignorance is genuine or artificial.

 

[McBell]

I guess one post without obvious sarcasm is all you can manage so I am back to not responding to things that do not merit it. This post being a classic example.

Pigeon Chess it is!