INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

And the same applies when we throw a God into the mix.

That is not an argument and has nothing to be contended with.

 

[1robin]

And science deals with natural things, in other words, God is a natural thing, not a supernatural or non-natural.

Is cause and effect eternal or created? If it was created, the cause must've existed before cause was created, which makes it contradictory. If it was eternal, it was before God.

That is not how cause and effect work. If we have a thing X then X's chain of causation cannot possibly be eternal. It must end at an uncaused first cause. That applies only to things that come into being at least in this context. If I ask you for a dollar, you say do not have one but you will get one from Jim, Jim says he does not have one but will get one from Bill, and this keeps going back forever I will never get that dollar. There must have been someone that already had a dollar and did not have to go looking for one if I am ever to have gotten it.

That is cause and effect, another is explanation of existence.

An existing thing (all things not just things that come into existence) must have a reason for their existence either within themselves or external to themselves. The universe does not contain it's own explanation. WE must look outside the universe to explain it. The only thing outside the natural is the supernatural.

That is self explanation, another is state change.

For anything to change, begin to exist, change it's current existence, end, whatever. The current state of information must change. Before the universe existed no natural information existed to change. That is why non-being is causally impotent. It has no potential of any kind. There had to be something but it could not be natural. I vote for God.

 

[Ouroboros]

Don't forget the prefix ...'super'....

Like in Superman.

 

[1robin]

I used a consensus of 99.86% of American experts who accept macro evolution, and I used a 100% consensus of major medical organizations who say that homosexuality is not a mental illness, that homosexuals should be allow to adopt children, and would reject your utterly absurd claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence? What was wrong with that?

You cannot reject an appeal to popularity and authority and then use them your self.

When I refer to a consensus of experts, sometimes I know a fair amount about the topic, such as homosexuality, and sometimes I don't, such as biology, and physics. It is reasonable for laymen to accept the opinions of a consensus of experts if they do not know very much about an issue. It is also reasonable for laymen to accept the opinions of a consensus of experts if they do know a lot about an issue. It is not reasonable for people who do not know a lot about biology to question macro evolution like you have done, especially since one study says that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept it. Of the relative handful of creationist experts, a good number of them accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, so their scientific opinions about macro evolution are questionable.

Statistics are very very hard to use unless specifically designed to show a specific thing.

Even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, the vast majority of experts would still disagree with you, and most people at these forums do not know enough about biology to have informed opinions about macro evolution.

I do not think either is true. I think ever rational PhD in biology would agree there are still some gaping holes or hurdles in the theory, and I think most people I have debated have had an informed opinion. Some very informed.

It is interesting to note that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.

It must be interesting to you because you "note" it in every other post. If macroevolution, like static state models, flat earths, geocentric models, turns out to be wrong then it was only propaganda. It is no wonder those less exposed to the propaganda were less influenced. It is not a wonder that people less exposed to something are less convicted about it. Are you committed to Boolean differential calculus as used in M theory. Probably not because you probably know little about it.

You contradicted yourself since the words truest, most evidenced, and the greatest possibility of being true are words that are used to compare various things. In a thread at the General Religious Discussions forum that is titled "The right religion," you have spent a good deal of time comparing Christianity relative to other religions.

You did not get it. I as others do, am not arguing that whatever works the best is true. My argument is that whatever has the most evidence is most likely true. Theology is not a thing that needs to be chosen by taste like a pair of shoes. It needs to be examined like a historical narrative and decided if it is the best explanation. If it is it should be adopted whether it is "your favorite color" or not.

Regardless of any other religion, you have not provided reasonable evidence that the God of the Bible exists, and that he is moral.

I have shown that without him the universe does not make sense. It is like saying you have not shown that their are any cylinders in that piston engine, even though it would not function without them. I gave reasonable evidence that if morality does exist, God is it's source and that if God is then he is morally right, and that almost everyone apprehends an objective moral realm only God accounts for. Reasonable evidence is an ambiguous term which can mean anything. For example there is no claim of any kind you can give (beyond the fact we think) to which I can't claim it lacks reasonable evidence. People who hold no fundamental conviction's love to be ambiguous. It allows preferences to be kept and plausible denial to exist at least until judgment.

However:
The evidence for Christianity has been strong enough to convince 1/3 of an ignorant population of it's merit, and 2/3 of a knowledgeable population of the same. Think of convincing 2/3 of the people who investigated seriously of four apocalyptic horsemen, a guy rising from death, and that hell and heaven exist. The evidence must have been extremely strong. That is far above any burden it actually has no matter how grey you make your demands.

 

[1robin]

Like in Superman.

I am sure you know that in this context super means superior, primary to, and beyond.

 

[1robin]

Consider the following:





What I said in the first paragraph of this post was partly a reply to what I just quoted that you said. In other words, if Christianity had not come along, some other religion would be the largest, and that would not make any more difference than it does that Christianity is the largest. The truth is not reasonably proven by how many people believe it, and a religion is not reasonably proven to be true because of the achievements of its followers.

Where did I ever say being the largest made it true. I said being as large as it is indicates the quality of the evidence. I don't think in almost 10,000 posts I have even mentioned it being the largest a half dozen times. In law, science, the historical method, advertising, in statistical data, and governments we take what large numbers believe as indications but not proof of truth. In every extraordinary "I saw this happen claim" the very first question is how many saw it or how many find the evidence convincing and you have used that exact argument many times.

But a God did not inspire the Bible.

Now this is a statement of certain knowledge and must come with certain proof or be retracted. There is no grey area here.

 

[cottage]

That is cause and effect, another is explanation of existence.

An existing thing (all things not just things that come into existence) must have a reason for their existence either within themselves or external to themselves. The universe does not contain it's own explanation. WE must look outside the universe to explain it. The only thing outside the natural is the supernatural.

That is self explanation, another is state change.

For anything to change, begin to exist, change it's current existence, end, whatever. The current state of information must change. Before the universe existed no natural information existed to change. That is why non-being is causally impotent. It has no potential of any kind. There had to be something but it could not be natural. I vote for God.

There is no 'must', no logical law that says all things must have a reason for their existence. There is only one instance where a reason or explanation is required, and that is where it is proposed that God, a personal, conscious, self-sufficent, omnipotent, omniscient being is said to have created the world. It would clearly be incoherent to say he created the world for no reason or purpose, and if God has the aforementioned attributes then the world could not have come about by accident or without his knowledge. So what was the reason or purpose?

 

[Ouroboros]

I am sure you know that in this context super means superior, primary to, and beyond.

I thought we were ignoring each other.

If theif argues something according to science, then is that the same as argue for super-science?

Are you saying that causality has a scientific supernaturlistic explanation? That's what Thief claims.

Good.

Then supernatural causality is the cause for the universe. If you call that God, that up to yoy, but that supernatural causality would exist here in our natural world as well, and God would have to be part of this world as well. Can't separate causality in scientific-supenatural and say that's the same as scientific-natural, can you?

 

[Willamena]

An existing thing (all things not just things that come into existence) must have a reason for their existence either within themselves or external to themselves. The universe does not contain it's own explanation. WE must look outside the universe to explain it. The only thing outside the natural is the supernatural.

Purpose exists in only one place, the mind, so it is inward, not outward, that we need look. What you have presented is not evidence of anything other than our own universe.

 

[1robin]

There is no 'must', no logical law that says all things must have a reason for their existence. There is only one instance where a reason or explanation is required, and that is where it is proposed that God, a personal, conscious, self-sufficent, omnipotent, omniscient being is said to have created the world. It would clearly be incoherent to say he created the world for no reason or purpose, and if God has the aforementioned attributes then the world could not have come about by accident or without his knowledge. So what was the reason or purpose?

So anything may exist but have no reason for it's existence either in it's self or in something else. What normally defines a "must" or a "law" is a principle to which no known exception exists. Can you show me something that exists and has no explanation for it's existence? When the universe was found to contain less matter than was necessary to bind together with the force it has, did the scientists simply say well no explanation is necessary or did they based on the fact everything actually has an explanation invent a word (dark matter) as a place holder so necessary that it had to be there even if no one knew what it was or could detect it?

You made two points "I think" and we have beat the second one to death and I am leaving for lunch so I will leave that last one alone for the time being.

 

[1robin]

I thought we were ignoring each other.

If theif argues something according to science, then is that the same as argue for super-science?

Are you saying that causality has a scientific supernaturlistic explanation? That's what Thief claims.

Good.

Then supernatural causality is the cause for the universe. If you call that God, that up to yoy, but that supernatural causality would exist here in our natural world as well, and God would have to be part of this world as well. Can't separate causality in scientific-supenatural and say that's the same as scientific-natural, can you?

I can not recall that. Maybe I ignored it. Anyway your choice. Ignore or not?

 

[1robin]

Purpose exists in only one place, the mind, so it is inward, not outward, that we need look. What you have presented is not evidence of anything other than our own universe.

I was not implying reason to mean purpose, but instead explanation. I did not say the universe has a purpose (though I think it clearly does) I was saying it has an explanation of it's existence. We did not create the universe so how would looking into our selves help anyway?

 

[cottage]

So anything may exist but have no reason for it's existence either in it's self or in something else. What normally defines a "must" or a "law" is a principle to which no known exception exists. Can you show me something that exists and has no explanation for it's existence? When the universe was found to contain less matter than was necessary to bind together with the force it has, did the scientists simply say well no explanation is necessary or did they based on the fact everything actually has an explanation invent a word (dark matter) as a place holder so necessary that it had to be there even if no one knew what it was or could detect it?

Things in existence can be shown to have a causal explanation in terms of some other thing, so then we presume to extend this principle to things that can’t be shown to exist. Theists say if things in the world have a reason or explanation, then the world itself must have a reason or explanation for being what it is. But that reason or explanation for the world must by the same token have a reason or explanation to explain itself in terms of explaining the world. And this is the point where you’ve withdrawn from the argument. So I’ll wait for you to come back.

You made two points "I think" and we have beat the second one to death and I am leaving for lunch so I will leave that last one alone for the time being.

I've making one point. God, gods, Satan, or an eternally existing world need no reason to explain their existence. And even the contingent world can logically be uncaused. But if God, a personal, conscious, omnipotent, self-sufficient being created the world then he must have a reason or purpose for doing so. What is it, that's what I'm asking?

I

 

[1robin]

Things in existence can be shown to have a causal explanation in terms of some other thing, so then we presume to extend this principle to things that can’t be shown to exist. Theists say if things in the world have a reason or explanation, then the world itself must have a reason or explanation for being what it is. But that reason or explanation for the world must by the same token have a reason or explanation to explain itself in terms of explaining the world. And this is the point where you’ve withdrawn from the argument. So I’ll wait for you to come back.

I claim to extend what we find to be true in every observation and does not depend on what is being observed it is reasonable to believe it extends beyond what is observed. In fact science employs this same principle hyperbolically.

I did not withdraw. You must have blacked out when I said explanations either within themselves or externally. God is defined even by philosophically as self explanatory. This is easier seen in my other contention that things that begin to exist have causes. God is not among that category.

I've making one point. God, gods, Satan, or an eternally existing world need no reason to explain their existence. And even the contingent world can logically be uncaused. But if God, a personal, conscious, omnipotent, self-sufficient being created the world then he must have a reason or purpose for doing so. What is it, that's what I'm asking?

God is the explanation for his existence as is defined even by non-theological categories. That is part of what a god is. I am not one of those fortune telling machines, I am not a prophet, and I can't even spell. I am not going to know every thing about an infinite being. I couldn't. I think I know the purpose. I cant see that purpose conflicts with the biblical God. I can't see that creation indicates any lack in God. I can't find all merciful in the bible at all and I don't think I can answer the reason God had a purpose.

I

U

 

[Ouroboros]

I can not recall that. Maybe I ignored it. Anyway your choice. Ignore or not?

You ignored the ignore? LOL!

Anyway, I think it's enough for me for now to debate with Thief (if it can be called a debate or not). We can pick this up at a later time, you and I.

 

[cottage]

I claim to extend what we find to be true in every observation and does not depend on what is being observed it is reasonable to believe it extends beyond what is observed. In fact science employs this same principle hyperbolically.

And there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but I don’t think you’re quite getting my meaning (argument down the page).

I did not withdraw. You must have blacked out when I said explanations either within themselves or externally.

You said: “You made two points "I think" and we have beat the second one to death and I am leaving for lunch so I will leave that last one alone for the time being.”

And I said: “And this is the point where you’ve withdrawn from the argument. So I’ll wait for you to come back.”

God is the explanation for his existence as is defined even by non-theological categories. That is part of what a god is. I am not one of those fortune telling machines, I am not a prophet, and I can't even spell. I am not going to know every thing about an infinite being. I couldn't. I think I know the purpose. I cant see that purpose conflicts with the biblical God. I can't see that creation indicates any lack in God. I can't find all merciful in the bible at all and I don't think I can answer the reason God had a purpose.

Rather a muddled response. I’m not asking you to explain what God is; if God is eternal then he doesn’t need an explanation for his existence, no more than an eternal world would for example. But if God is a personal, conscious, omnipotent, self-sufficient being that created the world then he must have a reason or purpose for doing so.

Things in existence can be shown to have an explanation in terms of some other thing, so then we presume to extend this principle to things that can’t be shown to exist. So we say if things in the world have a reason or explanation, then the world itself must have a reason or explanation for being what it is. But that reason or explanation for the world must by the same token have a reason or explanation to explain itself in terms of explaining the world.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The assumptions on my part...I consider reasonable.
Are you confused?

Baffled is a better word. But why do you consider them reasonable?

 

[Thief]

Baffled is a better word. But why do you consider them reasonable?

Assumption is an excellent tool when used properly.
Moving from one idea to another is fine and good.

Waiting for 'proof' to remove the assumption will put you in your grave without a decision made.

I cannot 'prove' God did anything.
But the petri dish for the experiment will never be cast.

The experiment that some are waiting for will never happen.

That doesn't mean we get to stand still and not decide.

 

[newgodthinker]

I don't think experiences of God are predominantly intellectual. We engage with him emotionally, on a less heady level. We can talk about him in heady ways all we want but we miss the point when we try to give an 'argument' for his existence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Assumption is an excellent tool when used properly.
Moving from one idea to another is fine and good.

Waiting for 'proof' to remove the assumption will put you in your grave without a decision made.

On what basis have you determined that you are in fact using assumptions correctly?

I cannot 'prove' God did anything.
But the petri dish for the experiment will never be cast.

The experiment that some are waiting for will never happen.

That doesn't mean we get to stand still and not decide.

Its neither noble or wise to make rash life decisions from ignorance. I can make the assumption god is not real by looking at the lack of evidence. This is one of those cases in which assumptions can be very useful.