Mathematical Proof of God?

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

In churches you mean surely?

But the difference is, the pretending of the Church is not at tax payers expense.

However, the pretending that goes on in biology classrooms and text books are.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Heh... maybe if you tell @shunyadragon, he'll listen this time.

Say what?

 

[F1fan]

The purpose of the argument is to provide an easy and intuitive mnemonic for his target audience, and to instill a façade of philosophical legitimacy to the apologetic. The KCA always precedes a list of assertions about what the cause in the conclusion must be. There is never a argument for what that cause must be. Just those bald assertions.

If theists are so sure that their God exists why did they bother to create arguments?

 

[ppp]

If theists are so sure that their God exists why did they bother to create arguments?

I cannot fault them there. I constantly create arguments and tests for conclusions that I have been sure of for years. It's not something I expect most people to do quite as obsessively as I do, but occasionally checking in with one's earlier brain states is a good thing.

 

[rational experiences]

I said the eternal creator never existed in created creation or space. As a human. Words I used to say it had always existed. Still exists. It hadn't changed. Part of it had changed.

Why it's still the same yet not really just the same.

I don't own any proof. I know I don't own any proof. I say by words there isn't any proof.

It's science that says it will prove the pre existing status not as created creation.

If you ask a human why did you come to believe that created creation had come from a spiritual place. The answer when I did satanic conversion science I saw conjured manifested spirits that emerged then disappeared.

Hence they were locked inside of fused mass.

That definition by human words said were hence evil as then it was entombed. Became rock sealed.

Pretty basic. Humans have existed having Multi experiences of that type of experience ever since science was practiced changing seals.

It's always science who tries to explain why. Not anyone else.

Science hence says its just a brain mind human deviation. Brother says yep told you we owned it personally.

Lying.

As being brain changed is not natural. As natural in first law says natural is highest.

So a human is with God by terminology...as I must express my human rights not to be caused to be bio changed by human science machine practices.

Mind controlled by humans only in every choice. The sciences.

Humans hence became possessed that they were creating. As thinking about exact presence some now believe they knew why presence had formed.

To change presence.

Yet the mind was taught how to change presence by sun rock star burn. Not the same inference of why I knew science converting mass.

Whereas in natural law they were always destroying attacking.

Pretty basic human teaching.

If a theist quotes I believe in life's sacrifice of humans as I want the eternal ....it's termed a humans confession. As it's what science in theory says it wants.

So scientists just humans before them proved by a humans documented summary they had wanted the eternal before. Claiming man had owned it already. Just because it said so.

The theist man had pretended he owned it just like he still does today.

It's not termed a humans theory.

Therefore humans.. remembering you are an equal mutual natural human first. You aren't a scientist self idolator first. Natural humans said no man is God. To stop scientific Satanism.

As the term before in man's science is not the eternal teaching at all.

It's about a type of substance they want for machine reactions. So they are directly lying. And it doesn't equal earths rock remaining as earths Rock.

Rock formed in empty space zero vacuum. Humans didn't.

 

[shunyadragon]

The purpose of the argument is to provide an easy and intuitive mnemonic for his target audience, and to instill a façade of philosophical legitimacy to the apologetic. The KCA always precedes a list of assertions about what the cause in the conclusion must be. There is never a argument for what that cause must be. Just those bald assertions.

False as cited in references which have chosen to ignore and not respond to.

 

[ppp]

False as cited in references which have chosen to ignore and not respond to.

All you did was post your reference. Which does not appear to support your claim.
You don't have to be elaborate. In fact it is best not to be. But be direct, succinct and informative. State your point. Provide the specific supporting excerpt. Connect the except to the point in explicit short sentences. Don't make us guess what you mean. Don't assume that your line of reasoning is obvious.

 

[shunyadragon]

Salam

He is not wrong. It proves a Creator, but you need additional arguments to prove it's the ultimate being. So he was correct, it's just a component to over all make one look at other arguments for God.

Itself proves a Creator that's it. Does not even prove it's one Creator, you need other arguments for that.

This is sufficient for me to argue that the Kalam (eternal in reference to God the only eternal) that the KCA is a sufficient argument in and of itself, even though it fails miserably as well as ALL related apologetic arguments that make a vain attempt to prove the existence of God.

It is a fact that many contemporary Christin apologists do argue that it is a stand alone argument to prove the existence of God as cited.

 

[shunyadragon]

All you did was post your reference. Which does not appear to support your claim.
You don't have to be elaborate. In fact it is best not to be. But be direct, succinct and informative. State your point. Provide the specific supporting excerpt. Connect the except to the point in explicit short sentences. Don't make us guess what you mean. Don't assume that your line of reasoning is obvious.

The references demonstrated that contemporary Christian apologists like Craig present arguments that KCA argument is sufficient in and of itself to prove the existence of God, and you failed to respond specifically by simply using a broad brush response without substance.

 

[ppp]

The references demonstrated that contemporary Christian apologists like Craig present arguments that KCA argument is sufficient in and of itself to prove the existence of God

How did the references demonstrate that? This is the problem. I am happy to discuss your position. Provided that you are able to articulate your position in more than just vague terms. I'm not going to put more work into responding to you, or anyone, than you put into your statements in the first place.

 

[KWED]

Nonsense. We dont need to see outside of the physical universe to know that the cause of physical reality cannot itself be a product of physical reality.

This is elementary school logic.

If I asked you to explain the origins of your computer, but the catch is; the answer you give has to lie within the computer.

Can you do it? No, you cant.

Or, maybe the computer popped in to being uncaused out of nothing. Why not?

If whole universes can, then why not computers.

It is amazing the lengths people will go through just to not believe in God hahaha.



No, I cited differing views AND I gave mention to at least two philosophical problems with it.

Combined together, it is all one giant pot of IT AINT HAPPENING.

Now, you can believe things pop into being uncaused out of nothing, but i don't have enough faith to believe that nonsense.



I stand by those claims.



I call it how I see it.



I already addressed this. Your anger and smugness isnt allowing you to gain the correct reading comprehension.



The First Cause is God. Maybe you missed that memo, I will send it again.

The First Cause is...GOD.



Professor Dawkins? Who is that??

Ohh, I remember...isnt that the guy who has been ducking WLC in a debate for over a decade?

Whatever happened to the fella? I haven't heard from him since John Lennox gave him an intellectual spanking in their debate.

hahaha

Just to be clear - you accept that we have zero knowledge of "Pre Big Bang", get you also claim that there was a specific version of god there and it set off the Big Bang.
Does that just about cover it?

 

[KWED]

Your superstition: Dead (inanimate life), suddenly and/or gradually, came to life and began to talk, think, and have sex.
.

Oh dear god, not another religionist who doesn't understand evolution, abiogenesis, or the difference between them.


But to answer your question, if the choice is between an explanation that relies on natural processes, and one that relies on magic, then the natural one is better because we know natural processes exist and work, but there is no evidence that magic exists.
Hope this helped.

 

[KWED]

But the difference is, the pretending of the Church is not at tax payers expense.

Erm, yes it is. The church gets massive tax breaks from the government. It is one of the wealthiest organisations on the planet yet pays zero tax.

However, the pretending that goes on in biology classrooms and text books are.

Ooh, another religionist who is going to win a Nobel prize and gain fame and fortune from disproving evolution.
I look forward to the publication of your paper.

 

[KWED]

If theists are so sure that their God exists why did they bother to create arguments?

To bolster the faith of those with doubt (including themselves).

 

[shunyadragon]

How did the references demonstrate that? This is the problem. I am happy to discuss your position. Provided that you are able to articulate your position in more than just vague terms. I'm not going to put more work into responding to you, or anyone, than you put into your statements in the first place.

{;ease read them and respond.

 

[shunyadragon]

But the difference is, the pretending of the Church is not at tax payers expense.

However, the pretending that goes on in biology classrooms and text books are.

What pretending are you talking about?

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

If theists are so sure that their God exists why did they bother to create arguments?

If atheists are so sure that God doesn't exist, why do they bother creating arguments against God's existence?

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Just to be clear - you accept that we have zero knowledge of "Pre Big Bang", get you also claim that there was a specific version of god there and it set off the Big Bang.
Does that just about cover it?

I don't know how many times I have to say this (no disrespect to you)...but..

1. We have both empirical and philosophical evidence that physical reality began to exist.

2. Whatever caused physical reality to exist, could not itself be a product of physical reality.

Now, that is just elementary school logic..and circular reasoning should one decide to go that route.

So, since physical reality lacks the explanatory power to produce the effect, then you cannot logically appeal to any naturalistic cause...and at that point, the supernatural is the only game left in town.

Gen 1:1, Judeo-Christians have been saying it for thousands of years. Either jump on board, or get left behind...and I don't mean that figuratively, either.

I mean it literally.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Oh dear god, not another religionist who doesn't understand evolution, abiogenesis, or the difference between them.

I don't reject evolution/abiogenesis based on what I don't understand....I reject them based on what I do understand.

But to answer your question, if the choice is between an explanation that relies on natural processes, and one that relies on magic, then the natural one is better because we know natural processes exist and work, but there is no evidence that magic exists.
Hope this helped.

Natural processes? I'm not sure evolution/abiogenesis is even a natural process.

But, no need to get in a lengthy discussion on those things...at least, not on this thread.

But here is what you need to come to grips with...

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

Hope that helps.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

What pretending are you talking about?

Poor thing, what I said went over your head lol.

Never mind, amigo.