Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[AK4]

First, lack of belief is not belief.
Second, the only thing claimed so far in this thread to be immune from the laws of physics is a supernatural god.

If one believes in freewill then it is a belief. If one dont believe in freewill then they have a belief in predestination. If you dont have belief in one thing then its almost a given you believe its opposite.

 

[AK4]

Again you have ignored the many other possible scenarios. Leaving open only the equaly improbable ideas of "eternal universe" and "created universe".

And how you equate both a lack of belief and admitting that one is does not know to religious faith is beyond reasonable comprehension.

Belief and religion are like saying the same thing is it not? You believe in something, you have faith in something, that is your religion on that something.

re·li·gion

   /rɪˈlɪdʒ

ən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uh

n] Show IPA
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

 

[AK4]

I'm going to guess that not attaining salvation is what they have in common.

(Did I win?)

They still are in some form or another are trying to attain salvation though. You are pretty close though. Heres a clue---if they cant attain salvation through some deity then where else would they get it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So the verses supporting a expanding universe---is this an unsupported assertion?
things being made by things unseen---is this unsupported also?
the earth being older than 6000 years----unsupported?

Yes, but that's not the only issue. In terms of these specific claims, you need to show a few things:

- first, that the verses mean what you claim they do. I think all three things you mentioned were either taken completely out of context or are so vague as to not really be meaningful factual statements at all.

- if you get that far, then you have to demonstrate that the Bible was correct because of correct knowledge, and not because of chance. You pulled three statements out of a very large book and claimed that they're meaningful... well, what about all the other statements in the Bible? What about the verses that imply that the Earth is flat, or that rabbits chew cud? If you throw a whole bunch of claims out there, by sheer chance, some will be coincidentally correct. As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

That deals with those specific claims. If you want to make an inference from those claims to the reliability of the Bible as a whole, you have another hurdle to clear:

- you need to show that the reliability of those verses somehow implies that the Bible as a whole is reliable. As an analogy, the book the Wizard of Oz was completely correct about all sorts of things: Kansas, tornadoes and small dogs all exist. Oil really does work to loosen rusty joints. Scarecrows are often stuffed with straw. However, this doesn't mean that we can therefore conclude that munchkins, flying monkeys and the Emerald City actually exist. It's not enough for a source to be right on a few items for us to conclude that the source as a whole is reliable.

But that's not even the real situation, is it? I mean, the Bible's not one source; it's many. Its various books were written by many different authors over a span of centuries. Does the reliability (or lack thereof) of Genesis really have anything to do with the reliability of Isaiah or Revelation? Personally, I'd say that it's not clear that the one does have anything to do with the other, which is another hurdle you'd have to clear if you want to establish that the Bible is reliable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If one believes in freewill then it is a belief. If one dont believe in freewill then they have a belief in predestination. If you dont have belief in one thing then its almost a given you believe its opposite.

But they're not opposite.

Free will is the belief that we have the ability to choose between different future alternatives. Predestination is the belief that only one future exists and there are no alternatives. There's a third option: many future alternatives exist, but the thing that determines which one will occur is something other than our own choice.

Your dichotomy only works if you've determined ahead of time that the universe is deterministic, but you haven't given any reason why we would need to assume this. In fact, some evidence suggests that the universe is not deterministic (at least not at the quantum level, anyhow).

Edit: also, your other assumption is incorrect. The rejection of one claim does not imply the acceptance of its opposite. You always have the option to reject both claims... i.e. to remain uncommitted.

 

[tumbleweed41]

At the same time you may not feel bound by the concept of a god or "holy books" it still is a belief, not a lack of belief that one is free to do whatever one whims and is not bound even by the laws of physics[/b]. Although i dont think a scientist who believes in freewill would admit it like that but that is exactly what they are saying.

First, lack of belief is not belief.
Second, the only thing claimed so far in this thread to be immune from the laws of physics is a supernatural god.

If one believes in freewill then it is a belief. If one dont believe in freewill then they have a belief in predestination. If you dont have belief in one thing then its almost a given you believe its opposite.

To "believe" in freewill, you assume that their is some force or entity that grants this freewill.
To lack belief in predestination, as in lacking belief in a deity, you are relying on evidence before belief. Therefore using reason instead of faith.

Belief and religion are like saying the same thing is it not? You believe in something, you have faith in something, that is your religion on that something.

And lack of faith based belief is also lack of religion.

 

[cottage]

This is the thing, Hes not external. Only in the sense of creation is He external. We are in Him and He is in us. A good analogy is picture God pregnant and the universe is the baby growing inside of Him and He is having billions upon billions of babys growing inside of Him. Just as the baby is in Him, He is in the baby also.


non-physical Creator he is absolutely dependent upon causation, which is a non-necessary phenomenon of the physical world. This graphically demonstrates the problem of inferring a world beyond experience, while claiming to use the same tools. And if the same tools are necessary then it is proved God cannot work (ie be the Creator) without them!


So here is the conundrum: If God exists, then the physical world is contingent upon his necessary existence, which means the world and everything within it can be conceived to be non-existent.

So here is the conundrum: If God exists, then the physical world is contingent upon his necessary existence, which means the world and everything within it can be conceived to be non-existent.

I really dont get this reasoning. I dont understand how it then would be conceived to be non-existent. Unless you are saying its like God is having a dream and this all is just a dream for Him?

The argument from contingency says that the world doesn’t have to exist (there is no logical contradiction or absurdity in conceiving there to be no world, now or tomorrow), and yet the world does exist: so there must be a reason to explain its existence. And (the argument continues) we will finally account for the world’s existence by identifying something that cannot itself fail to exist: a necessary existence. But causality is a worldly phenomenon, and if the world doesn’t have to exist (everything in the world can be conceived not to exist) then causality can also be conceived to not exist, which means the world’s existence cannot be explained by reference to further causes, since causality must exist outside the physical world in order for God to bring the world into existence. But the argument from contingency has demonstrated that no feature of the world has a necessary existence: hence no necessary cause and thus no God.

 

[AK4]

I never posited that is was. However, it does carry more weight individually than the currently suggested "Theory of Everything"

have you not based most of your argument and position on this one theory, As if it is a stand alone?

Obviously God does not fit into your cause/effect argument.

But as I demonstrated before, from our perspective He does. But it takes a higher understanding to be able to see it from Gods perspective to see that ultimately He doesn’t.

• • Quantum effect without cause.
  • Lack of necessity for cause beyond the boundaries of our universe.

Now if there is a lack of necessity for a cause in our universe, what does that say of the universe? Is this not saying the same thing I said you were saying, just in a more clever way of disguising it?

I am asking you to posit the cause. You brought up Super Relativity and how it explains the uncaused effects in Quantum Physics.
So explain it.
Why does a given nucleus decay at one particular moment rather than some other?
What "cause" is given for this action, according to Super Relativity?

As far as science knows, there is no answer. Now that there is no answer right now or no way to explain it, does that make it uncaused?
As for the second, I believe they say its ether.

 

[Charity]

My nickel is infallible, as it told me it was and the nickel never lies.

My nickel says your magic rabbit is evil and that it spreads lies. You should cast down your magic rabbit foot and pick up a nickel!!

I found a nickel that is how I bought the lucky rabbit's foot......

Don't rely on the nickel they said the Titanic was infallible also....

 

[tumbleweed41]

have you not based most of your argument and position on this one theory, As if it is a stand alone?

It stands above your either/or argument.

Now if there is a lack of necessity for a cause in our universe, what does that say of the universe? Is this not saying the same thing I said you were saying, just in a more clever way of disguising it?

Tell me, what does it say about our universe? In your learned opinion.

As far as science knows, there is no answer. Now that there is no answer right now or no way to explain it, does that make it uncaused?

Unless a verifiable or reasonable cause is found, then yes, that makes it uncaused.

As for the second, I believe they say its ether.

So, you posit that Super Relativity states that the cause for nucleus decay at one particular moment rather than some other is.......ether? An organic compound?

Or perhaps you meant aether, a supposed physical medium occupying every point in space. (Metaphysics)

Or the ambiguous aether in reference to physics, better known as quintessence which can be associated with free space, spin foam, Planck particles, quantum wave state (QWS), zero-point energy, quantum foam, or vacuum energy.


Or did you just make that up to look like you knew what you were talking about?

 

[cottage]

No but it does make us wonder if there is something more to the story than meets the eye and so we speculate and theorize and experiment until we get an answer

Yes, it certainly makes us wonder. But of course we can only get answers to questions that come within the bounds of experience.

 

[cottage]

The proof is where there must be an ultimate starting point. To disprove this would disprove of a God. The proof that this God is personal is that we have no freewill and that though revelation He communicated to His creation and made a book speaking to them. These are concrete proofs. One can deny the communication or personal God thing but then they ignore the proof of prophecy being fulfilled. Its just being plain stubborn to the facts of these things athiests are doing.

I’m sorry but over and over again you refer to the notion of disproving a metaphysical proposition. It is nonsense because it cannot be done! And that applies to God, a self-existent world, solipsism, mind/body dualism, or anything else, because we cannot go outside experience. But what can be shown, however, is that a supposed first cause is utterly, logically and undeniably dependent upon a single feature of the material world. The absurdity we arrive at is that God’s attributes are ‘omnipotence’ – and ‘causation dependence’! He cannot be the former unless he is also the latter. But if he is the latter then he cannot be the former! Stymied!

And it is the laws of the universe that determine our will. There is no proof whatsoever that we answer to a personal, external agency.

Bible prophecies are believers' proofs, those who have a disposition to accept them rather uncritically, or who are naturally inclined to acknowledge anything which appears to confirm their faith. Perfectly understandable.

This is wrong too. Judaism puts reason before faith. Christianity puts faith before reason. They both are supposed to go hand to hand. Its easy to see where these two both fail. God doesnt want us to just blindly believe in Him, thus He proves it to those who reason AND believe that what He says is true

.

I’m sorry but that cannot be correct. If it were reason before faith it would be metaphysical belief and not a religious commitment. And Judaism varies greatly from the ultra-orthodox to the liberal, but ‘God’ exists’ is held as an article of faith. To quote from the Judaism 101 site: ‘Proof is not needed and is rarely offered.’

And if you cant justify it without contradicting scripture then something about your faith or doctrine that you believe is wrong.

If that were the case then ‘wrong’ would likely be the universal conclusion. Exegesis and arguments from theodicy are frequently used to explain all sorts of apparent biblical contradictions and inconsistencies. And there is no authoritative decree as to what is indisputably the correct explanation for these grey areas.

But its not just written words and the proof is in prophecy. Point 9 just shows atheists denying concrete evidence and that there has to be something more to these written words.

What concrete evidence? It seems to me that the only people who accept it as such are believers of the particular religion. If evidence were ‘concrete’ you would not have to convince me: it would in the public domain as an irrefutable fact. As Doctor Johnson said: ‘If the people are pleased then it is well, but if they are not pleased then it is of little use telling them why they should be pleased.’

 

[What is the Bible]

Can't do it.
Now please prove that Allah, Krishna and Thor are not God.
Prove there is no tooth fairy. Prove there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Good work--you've elevated your God to the status of a mythical being. Congratulations.

No reason to have to prove one thing or another. I am comfortable taking it on matters of faith. If you could prove one thing or another, what's the use in having faith in something?

 

[godnotgod]

No reason to have to prove one thing or another. I am comfortable taking it on matters of faith. If you could prove one thing or another, what's the use in having faith in something?

The nature of God is such that it is impossible to prove. Were it possible, God would not be God. He would be a dead God, because God cannot be encapsulated by explanation and definition. It is like trying to capture the wind in a box.

Discounting belief and doctrine, what is your direct experience with the divine essence?..as in...you know that the water is cold when someone pushes you into a mountain lake. That is to say, what is your mystical experience of union with God?

Faith in something does not make it true. That is only Belief.

But simply realizing the faith that you already possess (or that possesses you), without connecting it to any doctrine, is the key to understanding. That allows you to see directly into the nature of things without formulating ideas, concepts, beliefs, etc. It is the huge difference between reading about the Pentecost, then going to an open window and having tongues of fire descend upon your own forehead.

Belief clings,
Faith lets go.

 

[godnotgod]

No reason to have to prove one thing or another. I am comfortable taking it on matters of faith. If you could prove one thing or another, what's the use in having faith in something?

What is important is not so much that you can prove or disprove the existence of God, but your reasons for believing the way you do in the first place. You say that you are 'comfortable', but what does that mean? Since there is no final confirmation of God's existence, what, exactly, is it, that makes you feel so secure?

 

[AK4]

No, you have it wrong.

It is:

1. There is an origin of existence.

2. There is no origin of existence.

3. We don't know if or if not there is an origin of existence.

It has nothing to do with religion or gods.


"We have only evidence of the universe/creation having a beginning."

There is no such evidence.

My bad let me rephrase it. All evidence we have so far leads to the understanding of the universe having a beginning

 

[AK4]

Yes. This is called reading into a verse what you want it to say.

Yes. See above.

Nope, you got that one right.

No reading into a verse what you want to say is like when theologians tell us that in the verses where it says God will save ALL men, that this only means as many as. The ones i showed were blanket statements and there is no need at all to read anything else into them. That is one of you guys worst arguments.

 

[tumbleweed41]

My bad let me rephrase it. All evidence we have so far leads to the understanding of the universe having a beginning

Yes, we call it the Big Bang.
What we have no evidence of is whether or not there is actually any source for the Singularity, and if there is, what that source may be.

 

[cottage]

Yes, we call it the Big Bang.
What we have no evidence of is whether or not there is actually any source for the Singularity, and if there is, what that source may be.

Exactly! And that is precisely where it must stop. We cannot go further and announce the beginning (if indeed there was a beginning) of the physical world.

 

[Jeremiah]

My bad let me rephrase it. All evidence we have so far leads to the understanding of the universe having a beginning

No, it does not.

Our universe, may be said to a have a start, but existence does not.The Big Bang theory is just a theory of how everything got spread out; not where it came from.