INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

:biglaugh:

And yet "goddidit" is a legitimate answer?

:biglaugh:

If it is true then in what way is that answer invalid. I did not say terrifying, undesired, resisted at every turn. I said invalid. It in fact, at this time is the answer that fits the most evidence and requires less faith given more evidence than the alternatives. However that was not the subject of the discussion lately. I have been trying to get people to simply acknowledge that the most reliable science by far is what should be used.

If your civil I will continue this discussion (maybe you can make a case) but I have had all the sarcasm used to divert from failed argumentation I can take for one day, so it is up to you.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Nothing known has ever become infinite. No one in Earth's history knows a single thing you claimed, and probably never will, and very good reasons exist to think they are impossible.

Swing and a miss. Go back and read the post I was responded to- you've completely whiffed on the context of the exchange. (to wit: he claimed something to the effect that at a/the singularity infinity doesn't exist, despite the fact that a singularity in physics is, by definition, a point at which certain quantities become infinite- once again, I'm simply the housekeeper here, cleaning up after all the false claims and non-sequiturs everyone is spilling all over the place )

 

[Enai de a lukal]

My God you came back even more wrong than you left. I kept using BGV theorem as the most common model in cosmology.

Well, then you're still being wrong or dishonest because the BBT is, and has been for 30+ years, the dominant model in cosmology- and by a long shot.

Either way you slice it, you're still making false/dishonest claims about physics, simply to try to make your (untenable) religious beliefs seem plausible.

That is complete nonsense and there is a very easy way to prove me wrong. Give me an actual infinite.

Why? That has nothing to do with the point in dispute- the article you quoted claimed "few believe in an actual infinite set of physical things or that sets can be formed by successive addition", when really, this is an argument that a handful of Christian apologists (like Craig) find convincing. Many, if not most, philosophers and mathematicians dispute the arguments Craig and his ilk adduce against "actual infinities"- so this was an appeal to consensus, and a mistaken one at that.

That has nothing to do with my claims. I did not use a single Christian in these claims you mention but even if I did some of the greatest cosmologists, physicists, and mathematicians in history have been Christian.

The article you quoted claimed that the cosmological argument is "one of the better-respected" theistic arguments- when, in reality, this is once again only true of certain Christian apologists, and is not true generally.

The statement you responded to is not mine.

Duh!

The BBT has a beginning. It even has a duration.

Right- the beginning is a hot, dense, early state of the universe, and the duration is the amount of time that has passed since then.

I have no idea what that means.

What I said above- i.e. that the view of those like Craig, appear to be a minority view overall within the philosophy of religion, philosophy of mathematics, or mathematics.

 

[PolyHedral]

(2.11) An actual infinite cannot exist.

Why not?

 

[1robin]

Well, then you're still being wrong or dishonest because the BBT is, and has been for 30+ years, the dominant model in cosmology- and by a long shot.

I just can't believe this. There is something going on with you that needs explanation. I began by saying the BGV theorem is the most common because I was talking about the latest cosmology. You brought up BBT and so I switched to using what you claimed because it made no difference. The infinite is no less problematic, the beginning no less absolute, and the logic no less valid if I only used the BBT. I used your claims about the most prominent model in modern cosmology because I would rather deal with the reasons it was brought up than fight about what model was most popular in what decade. I gave you credit for being right just because you possibly could be and it makes no difference. So you see three things here. I will agree if I can do so without compromising evidence or logic - you won't at any cost. I will give you credit for being right if you make a reasonable case and it is not a meaningful difference - you won't at any cost, I have no problem granting anything that has good reasons to think it may be true because my primary case is so strong I do not fear allowing anything that is probably true in the debate - you won't at any cost because if anything gets through the whole thing is in danger of crashing to the ground. I have been giving you credit for the BBT claim since I think the first time you mentioned it even though I meant in the latest cosmology since your side equates old (even barely old) with wrong because the BBT does not posit the infinite any more than BGV.

Either way you slice it, you're still making false/dishonest claims about physics, simply to try to make your (untenable) religious beliefs seem plausible.

If so you still have 100% of the burden to prove that undone. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with cosmology but your denial that the dominant models in cosmology are not consistent with my faith arise from a more zealous faith given less evidence than even the Bible's supernatural claims do. Again I am going with the best science by far. Why aren't you?

Why? That has nothing to do with the point in dispute- the article you quoted claimed "few believe in an actual infinite set of physical things or that sets can be formed by successive addition", when really, this is an argument that a handful of Christian apologists (like Craig) find convincing. Many, if not most, philosophers and mathematicians dispute the arguments Craig and his ilk adduce against "actual infinities"- so this was an appeal to consensus, and a mistaken one at that.

I know Craig well, and I know Christian apologists in general pretty well. I have never heard one of them mention that argument. That is not some theological doctrine it is absolute scientific fact. If you think not for preference reasons then maybe your preference can find a single example of it being wrong.

The article you quoted claimed that the cosmological argument is "one of the better-respected" theistic arguments- when, in reality, this is once again only true of certain Christian apologists, and is not true generally.

As I said (though I am wondering if posting anything matters, you never seem to read anything I say) the argument has existed longer than Christianity, began in Greece, supported in Pagan Rome, and it's most popular form is Islamic. The argument works because it has no weakness and what group uses it does not change it even if that group contains most of the greatest scientists in history. Even being generous the only fault that argument has is it falls short of proof. Not very short and less short than any other but still a little short.

Duh!

Exactly why are you asking me to explain the genesis of a statement I did not make. Duh.

Right- the beginning is a hot, dense, early state of the universe, and the duration is the amount of time that has passed since then.

Let me get this right. The BBT has a beginning, it concerns the beginning of the universe. However two things with beginnings are inconsistent with a finite past. Whatever occurred before the big bang is unknown. Whatever and no matter what it is there is no reason to think it infinite or that that even possible in general but even if there were god reasons to think so the BBT does not contain them. The BBT is, as I have said, perfectly and almost exclusively (actually not almost it is) consistent with finites. Any infinites that defy impossibilities and possibly exist do not come from the accepted models of cosmology but from the deepest end of theoretical (fantasy) science.

What I said above- i.e. that the view of those like Craig, appear to be a minority view overall within the philosophy of religion, philosophy of mathematics, or mathematics.

What is your obsession with Craig? I have not used him for any of this. Do you see if he is under your bed when you go to sleep? The three prominent issues similar to these Craig subscribes to are BGV, BBT, and the cosmological argument. They are anything but fringe concepts and none have the slightest reason to suggest they are wrong and all are consistent with each other and modern cosmology.

 

[1robin]

Why not?

That depends on what infinite you are supposing does exist. I need one to consider what stands in it's way. BTW that does not look like my statement anyway. I believe it is probably true but I state it a different way. No known actual infinites exist (which makes me wonder why in the world non-theists think it worth constantly talking about), most infinites are impossible, and most of the rest probably are. I shy away from absolutes but there is no good reasons too think actual infinites exist and no evidence they do and all the evidence we have points to 100% finites. The last likely chance was probably space, but Einstein and modern cosmology have all but eliminated it as well.

 

[1robin]

Swing and a miss. Go back and read the post I was responded to- you've completely whiffed on the context of the exchange. (to wit: he claimed something to the effect that at a/the singularity infinity doesn't exist, despite the fact that a singularity in physics is, by definition, a point at which certain quantities become infinite- once again, I'm simply the housekeeper here, cleaning up after all the false claims and non-sequiturs everyone is spilling all over the place )

This appears to be another semantic objection and I am on my way out and do not have time to get un-mired from that swamp once I get into it. Tell you what since I feel like you need a break I will assume I made some mistake concerning his question and just give you this one for the heck of it as I cannot remember what it was anyway.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I shy away from absolutes but there is no good reasons too think actual infinites exist and no evidence they do.

I shy away from absolutes but there is no good reasons [sic] too [sic] think actual gods exist and no evidence they do.

 

[1robin]

I shy away from absolutes but there is no good reasons [sic] too [sic] think actual gods exist and no evidence they do.

That is perfectly wrong. That is why the Bible is the most scrutinized and cherished book in human history. Books about non-fictional claims with no evidence do not inspire histories greatest minds to study them over and over. That is also why its primary character is the most influential person in human history. It is also why billions even when guaranteeing hardship and persecution became convinced it was true. That is also why many of histories most intelligent, logical, rational, scientific, mathematic, critical, legal, and historical experts have adopted its claims. In fact by far most of the worlds inhabitants by far have believed the evidence made the lack of a God a logical absurdity.

I will go against my usual shyness of absolutes. There is absolutely no way your claim is even remotely justifiable.

Look if you do not like God or despise Christians that is fine with me (we are very used to it) but when emotion motivates claims about evidence this absurd it serves no purpose and reflects very poorly on the one who makes it. Do not reach for the fallacy get out of jail free crutch either because it only applies to fact claims not sufficiency of evidence claims.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I began by saying the BGV theorem is the most common because I was talking about the latest cosmology.

Claiming or implying that anything other than the BBT is the "major", "dominant", etc. theory in cosmology is simply false or misleading.

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with cosmology

:sarcastic
Riiiiiiight.

your denial that the dominant models in cosmology are not consistent with my faith

I've never said this. For one thing, so far as I can tell your faith is consistent with absolutely everything- meaning it is vacuous, and explains nothing.

I know Craig well, and I know Christian apologists in general pretty well. I have never heard one of them mention that argument.

That an "actual infinite cannot exist" or "be arrived at by successive addition"? You're joking right?

you never seem to read anything I say

Then I must have magical powers or ESP or something; responding to posts I haven't read would be pretty impressive.

the argument has existed longer than Christianity, began in Greece, supported in Pagan Rome, and it's most popular form is Islamic.

Ok... and? An argument that has been used to prove, variously, the existence of something like 20 gods (Aristotle, I forget exactly how many), the Islamic god (kalam), and the Christian god (various), should probably be suspicious in the first place- if it proves all these different conclusions, something fishy is going on.

The argument works because it has no weakness

Wow... That's funny. Except for, you know, all the weaknesses people have been using to refute it for centuries. Doh!

and what group uses it does not change it even if that group contains most of the greatest scientists in history.

Some of those "scientists" also held to now refuted scientific notions, such as Aristotelian physics. A poor spot to appeal to authority my friend.

Exactly why are you asking me to explain the genesis of a statement I did not make. Duh.

I didn't ask you "to explain the genesis" of it, duh.

What is your obsession with Craig?

We're talking about the cosmological argument, and he is arguably the leading (and one of the only) proponents of this argument.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This appears to be another semantic objection

Pointing out that his claim that at a singularity, which is defined as a point of infinite density/temperature/curvature, infinity doesn't exist, is a "semantic objection"? I suppose, in the sense that what he claimed was false, as a matter of definition. But that's his problem, not mine. If you claim that a square has only 3 sides and someone points out that this is wrong as a matter of definition, that this is a "semantic objection" is hardly a bad thing.

 

[1robin]

Pointing out that his claim that at a singularity, which is defined as a point of infinite density/temperature/curvature, infinity doesn't exist, is a "semantic objection"? I suppose, in the sense that what he claimed was false, as a matter of definition. But that's his problem, not mine. If you claim that a square has only 3 sides and someone points out that this is wrong as a matter of definition, that this is a "semantic objection" is hardly a bad thing.

Can I not even agree with you if you find anything objectionable in the same post? I gave you as much credit as possible in my response. Why not leave your one victory (even if conceded for laziness and time constraints) as it is?

 

[Thief]

Why not?

Some where in the forum someone posted a link to a discussion made by a theoretical scientist by the name of Kaku.
(I think I got the name right.)

In that display he explains that infinity is not desired by the theoretical physicist.
When it occurs in equation, it becomes another problem....of mind.
He then demonstrates an equation that results with... infinity+infinity+infinity.

The camera then shows Dr. Kaku in a thoughtful pose.

I say it's not a problem.
At the 'point' of singularity there is only one 'point'.
Without a secondary there is no space or movement.
No time.
No infinity.

The 'problem' is a matter of decision.

Is there Spirit?

 

[1robin]

Claiming or implying that anything other than the BBT is the "major", "dominant", etc. theory in cosmology is simply false or misleading.

Are you still obsessed with this even after out of sheer futility granted it? When I originally made the first statement about cosmology I implied I was addressing the most modern cosmology. BGV is the most excepted theorem in the latest cosmology. You guys always equate old with wrong for some bizarre reasons why are you ignoring atheist prime directive 5 here.

For the record:
1. BBT is the most accepted model in cosmology. It covers only absolute specific finites.
2. BGV is the most accepted theorem and it posits a universal finite.
3. Many of the possibilities for an actual infinite are impossible.
4. There are good reasons to think that of the few infinites that are not impossible they do not exist.
5. Compared to theology, science means little and it is far more boring. I am primarily interested in God and so is this thread. The reliable science concerning cosmology is all consistent with God. A fraction of science that lies in the most unreliable part of theoretical science has no relevance to my main interest and since no one ever uses the worst information for every other decision it is of no use in that context. Speculate until your head explodes it has no relevance to theological issues.

:sarcastic
Riiiiiiight.

Right. I am going with by far (light year far) the most reliable science available to cosmologists. Your the one going against all known and reliable evidence.

I've never said this. For one thing, so far as I can tell your faith is consistent with absolutely everything- meaning it is vacuous, and explains nothing.

No that would be evolution. If I asked what evolution explains, a non-theist if they were honest should reply, "whatever you have" The universe could have been of a billion different types. What type it appears to be is the exact type the Bible posits. Sorry if that is inconvenient but it is certainly not vacuous. In fact the Bible must line up with thousands upon thousands of historical facts that have corroborating archeology and independent textual records. Nothing I can think of (though there might be a few) would be as impossible to justify as the Bible would be if wrong. The Bible is 750,000 of the most scrutinized words in history and contains the most exact historical detail by far than any book in ancient history.

That an "actual infinite cannot exist" or "be arrived at by successive addition"? You're joking right?

Provide one in infinite form then we can decide who is joking. No they are absolutely impossible except as abstract concepts. Start counting and tell me how close to infinity you get. If every one who ever lived counted a billion numbers a microsecond for 100 million years it would not even get out of the starting gate. No actual infinites are known. Not one. No reason exists to even think they might.

Then I must have magical powers or ESP or something; responding to posts I haven't read would be pretty impressive.

You might as well do that since you often respond to nothing I said or to something I never said.

Ok... and? An argument that has been used to prove, variously, the existence of something like 20 gods (Aristotle, I forget exactly how many), the Islamic god (kalam), and the Christian god (various), should probably be suspicious in the first place- if it proves all these different conclusions, something fishy is going on.

Yes it is consistent with I am sure far more Gods than you mentioned but what it is not consist with is no God. That is one step in a hundred thousand or more step case that justifies belief in the Christian God.

Wow... That's funny. Except for, you know, all the weaknesses people have been using to refute it for centuries. Doh!

You are confusing the semantic objections, the theological preferences wrapped in scientific rhetoric, and the sheer stupidity of claims against it with actual weaknesses. Just like the Bible its detractors come and god but are trampled into the dust of thousands of years of inexorable and uncontestable truth.

Some of those "scientists" also held to now refuted scientific notions, such as Aristotelian physics. A poor spot to appeal to authority my friend.

Well by all means if any scientist was wrong lets deny the massive, impressive, and inexhaustible correct science they did. Good grief what an argument. Christians have done more in science by far (that was correct) than any other similar group there is. Every Johnny come lately atheist scientist that coughs up a theory scientific enough to generate grant money is standing on Christian shoulders. Do you have any other areas of reality other than Christianity where you deny obvious reality at all costs?

I didn't ask you "to explain the genesis" of it, duh.

Then what did you want?

We're talking about the cosmological argument, and he is arguably the leading (and one of the only) proponents of this argument.

No we are talking about cosmology and God. I attached the cosmological argument to it for context and because a paper indicating why very few believe infinites are even possible included it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Are you still obsessed with this even after out of sheer futility granted it? When I originally made the first statement about cosmology I implied I was addressing the most modern cosmology. BGV is the most excepted theorem in the latest cosmology. You guys always equate old with wrong for some bizarre reasons why are you ignoring atheist prime directive 5 here.

For the record:
1. BBT is the most accepted model in cosmology. It covers only absolute specific finites.
2. BGV is the most accepted theorem and it posits a universal finite.
3. Many of the possibilities for an actual infinite are impossible.
4. There are good reasons to think that of the few infinites that are not impossible they do not exist.
5. Compared to theology, science means little and it is far more boring. I am primarily interested in God and so is this thread. The reliable science concerning cosmology is all consistent with God. A fraction of science that lies in the most unreliable part of theoretical science has no relevance to my main interest and since no one ever uses the worst information for every other decision it is of no use in that context. Speculate until your head explodes it has no relevance to theological issues.

1) What do you mean by this? Or at least re-explain what you mean by this.

2)By BGV do you mean the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem? If so it is not the most accepted theorem in the scientific community. Maybe in creationst encampments but no one really considers them to be scientists other than themselves.

3) Where is your evidence for this?

4) Whre is your evidence for this?

5) If your here to discuss god and not science then why would you try to use science? More or less science has nothing to do with god. It doesn't actively disprove it but in no way does it allign itself to the "theory of god".

 

[1robin]

1) What do you mean by this? Or at least re-explain what you mean by this.

This will mean more if the context of my and the one who this was a response to's history is taken into account. The discussion was about whether the universe was finite or infinite.

There is nothing in the BBT that can be claimed as evidence for any infinite actuality. It contains only 100% finite concepts. Even what is not known to be impossible as to be infinite (but most likely is impossible)lies outside BBT.

2)By BGV do you mean the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem? If so it is not the most accepted theorem in the scientific community. Maybe in creationst encampments but no one really considers them to be scientists other than themselves.

It is an overwhelmingly accepted theory of Cosmology (I do not know about science in general). The theorems main purpose was to be bullet proof and simple. If anyone disagrees with it's main contention then they are either an idiot or swimming in the deepest end of the theoretical fantasy science. It is overwhelmingly accepted by cosmologists. That theorem was not produced by Christianity and creationists have nothing to do with it.

3) Where is your evidence for this?

I have posted what Vilenkin said about them one after the other. I have posted why even the theoretical hypothetical infinites could not exist. If a person says X is impossible the evidence is the lack of evidence for it's existence. So until someone produces an example of an actual infinite my claim stands.

4) Whre is your evidence for this?

Pick a fantasy infinite (because no actual ones are available) and then I will tell you why it is likely to be impossible. I can't go through every claim to a hypothetical infinite and state why each is probably impossible. There are too many fictions in science to make that practical.

5) If your here to discuss god and not science then why would you try to use science? More or less science has nothing to do with god. It doesn't actively disprove it but in no way does it allign itself to the "theory of god".

It is perfectly valid to discuss science if it is reliable and has a role in the case for God's existence. It is invalid to instead discuss science that is 99% faith and unreliable in the same context or almost any context. Almost every historical, legal, and theological claim involves best explanations for what is reliably known. If I have a finite universe then it began to exist. Everything that begins to exist requires a sufficient cause. Nature did not exist to create its self. Only something beyond nature could exist to create nature. That is an almost certainty and I refused to be distracted from a virtual certainty by discussing a virtual impossibility. Through using philosophic principles about causation you wind with whatever caused everything else must be virtually identical to God as described by ignorant men 5000 years ago. For some reason that is very inconvenient for an atheist and they obsess on the vanishingly small likely hood infinites exist of any kind in nature and ignore the almost certain science. That was what I complained about not the use of science its self.

 

[metis]

It's utterly amazing how someone can so easily discount the science and then insist that the Bible is absolutely correct on matters that relates mostly to science.

 

[1robin]

It's utterly amazing how someone can so easily discount the science and then insist that the Bible is absolutely correct on matters that relates mostly to science.

If this was in response to me, one of us is nuts. Something hard to tell since you often do not quote what your responding to and because it assumed the opposite of what I said. Everything in my post was indicating I am using the latest most reliable science and it is consistent with Biblical cosmology. It also indicated that your side constantly (but only when God is involved) ignores the most reliable science and concentrates on the most unreliable science contained in the extremely parts of theoretical science. IOW what you said non-theists will do in every situation where God is involved and Christians do not do in any case.

The Bible is reliable and that has been demonstrated countless times.
Reliable science is consistent with it.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's utterly amazing how someone can so easily discount the science and then insist that the Bible is absolutely correct on matters that relates mostly to science.

Don't you know? A handful of sheep herders got it right 2,500 years ago. Not the thousands of scientists the last 200 years.

 

[metis]

If this was in response to me, one of us is nuts. Something hard to tell since you often do not quote what your responding to and because it assumed the opposite of what I said. Everything in my post was indicating I am using the latest most reliable science and it is consistent with Biblical cosmology. It also indicated that your side constantly (but only when God is involved) ignores the most reliable science and concentrates on the most unreliable science contained in the extremely parts of theoretical science. IOW what you said non-theists will do in every situation where God is involved and Christians do not do in any case.

The Bible is reliable and that has been demonstrated countless times.
Reliable science is consistent with it.

This is what I was referring to in regards to what you wrote: "It is perfectly valid to discuss science if it is reliable and has a role in the case for God's existence. It is invalid to instead discuss science that is 99% faith and unreliable in the same context or almost any context. Almost every historical, legal, and theological claim involves best explanations for what is reliably known."

I don't think it's really difficult to explain what's so bizarre about that statement, therefore, it is not I who is "nuts". "Infinity" is a hypothesis, therefore it's not based on "faith", and there is no such thing as "Biblical cosmology", which is terminology you claimed you never stated in an earlier post.