A Proof That God Exists

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#183 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
No, it does not hurt my head. I was rather afraid it could hurt yours. Great discovery!!! But of course time and the universe are coexistent. The universe is made up of matter and time is an accident of matter in motion.
Actually, time is not an accident of motion. Time is another coordinate, like space, that has structure.
Matter cannot be uncaused.[QUOTE]
Unproven assertion. Also, known to be false.

[QUOTE] Lemaitre proved it with the BB and almost unanimously all Cosmologists agreed with him but Polymath is a Mathematician who knows better than all the scientists put together.
Not at all. I am pointing out what Lemaitre and others have shown. Causality is a part of the universe, so it is meaningless to talk about the 'cause' of the universe. More specifically, causality is dependent on time. It is *you* that is attempting to extend what the physicists have done beyond what the evidence shows.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#184 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
No, it does not hurt my head. I was rather afraid it could hurt yours.
You are nowhere close to hurting my head other than paining me with your ignorance.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#185 Apr 5, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
If you make a special exception for your mythological "prime mover"?
Why not make a SIMPLER claim about the universes?
Oh!
Your ego DEMANDS a "prime mover" in order to make you "special".
Is that it?
----

No, my Ego demands Logic which is what you guys don't have.

By the way Bob, every single post of yours although with material which I wish I could respond, I am deterred to do so if I find even one ad hominem. And this until you learn to be more civilized.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#186 Apr 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the universe (or at least the current expansion phase) is only finitely many years old. The BB describes the expansion for t>0.
<quoted text>
Right. I am not claiming otherwise. No piece of matter caused itself.
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Once again, you did not show that the universe has a cause. Everything *inside* the universe could, potentially, be caused without the universe as a whole being caused. So your argument fails at this point.
The problem is that saying 'the universe could not cause itself' is not equivalent to 'the universe had a cause other than itself'. The difference between the two is the question of whether the universe is caused at all.
Second, even if the universe had a cause, you did not manage to prove that cause is itself uncaused.
------

Hey Polymath, are you by any chance thinking of the universe without the things in it? I think we have been wasting our time
on different definitions of the univerve. Of course if I am right about your idea of the un-caused universe I have no problem
agreeing with you that it is uncaused. My definition of the universe is of a universe with all that it contains. A universe with all the universal bodies. Hence caused because they did not cause themselves.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#187 Apr 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The BB does NOT postulate a cause for the universe. In fact, it does quite the opposite. It says that it is impossible to extend time to before the BB, so causality is meaningless. So, the basic BB scenario has an uncaused universe.
---------

I know. According to Lemaitre the BB was the evidence that the universe had a beginning. IOW, that the universe had been caused.
Since it could not have caused itself it is implied the existence
of a Cause. I find that so simply.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#188 Apr 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What, precisely, is the 'law of cause and effect'? It is never presented in any physics class I have ever seen. Perhaps you can define exactly what it means to be a cause as you explain and prove this 'law'.
Why is the 'prime mover'(the existence of which has not been shown) exempt from that law? make sure you state the law in such a way that this exemption is clear.
<quoted text>
The problem with your analysis is that causality is dependent on time and time is part of the universe, so causality only makes sense *inside* the universe, not outside of it. Even more, causality requires the existence and operation of physical laws. So, once again, the universe as a whole could not have been caused.
------

Law of Cause and Effect. Voluntarily or by accident if we break that law we will suffer the consequences thereof. And that Law is learned by all beings even as a babe. For instance, let a babe stick its finger into fire and it will suffer the pain of a burning finger. It violated the law of cause and effect. All beings are subject to the Law of cause and effect. Another example if you are in a small boat and you throw a rope around a tree in the shore and pull it toward you, you will be pulled toward the shore. That's the law of cause and effect.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#189 Apr 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, time is not an accident of motion. Time is another coordinate, like space, that has structure.
<quoted text>
Not at all. I am pointing out what Lemaitre and others have shown. Causality is a part of the universe, so it is meaningless to talk about the 'cause' of the universe. More specifically, causality is dependent on time. It is *you* that is attempting to extend what the physicists have done beyond what the evidence shows.
-----

I am simply talking reality with basis on Logic.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#190 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Hey Polymath, are you by any chance thinking of the universe without the things in it? I think we have been wasting our time
on different definitions of the univerve. Of course if I am right about your idea of the un-caused universe I have no problem
agreeing with you that it is uncaused. My definition of the universe is of a universe with all that it contains. A universe with all the universal bodies. Hence caused because they did not cause themselves.
No, the universe has all of the things in it. I am pointing out the distinction between the universe as a whole being caused and each, individual, thing in it being caused. They are different concepts. Causality applies to the second, but not to the universe as a whole.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#191 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
---------
I know. According to Lemaitre the BB was the evidence that the universe had a beginning. IOW, that the universe had been caused.
Why does 'having a beginning' imply 'having a cause'?
Mary Magdalena

United States

#192 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
A PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS.

According to Moses Maimonides, a Philosopher, Theologian and Medical Doctor in his book "The Guide for the Perplexed," there would be no need for a Creator if the universe was eternal, I mean without beginning or end. In other words, God would not exist. However, if the universe did have a beginning, God by necessity would exist.

From Abraham and until Aristotle God existed only for the pious who could exercise faith. For Cosmologists God had only been a probability; extremely small nevertheless a probability. At the time of Aristotle that small probability had been erased as Aristotle discovered that the universe was eternal; no beginning and no end. The pious went on with their faith but as Science was concerned, the non-existence of God had been proved.

The line of thought that God's existence was depending on the universe having had a beginning lasted from about 330 BCE with Aristotle and until 1922 ACE with Georges Lemaitre a Catholic priest who brought the news about the Big Bang to the whole world as the beginning of the universe.

Cosmologists throughout the world had to adopt Lemaitre's discovery as the nearest approach to the truth they had ever achieved. Now, since the universe had indeed a beginning, a proof had been established for the existence of God, blessed be He.

Shibolet
Simple but dead on.

Thank you for sharing it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#193 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Law of Cause and Effect. Voluntarily or by accident if we break that law we will suffer the consequences thereof. And that Law is learned by all beings even as a babe. For instance, let a babe stick its finger into fire and it will suffer the pain of a burning finger. It violated the law of cause and effect. All beings are subject to the Law of cause and effect. Another example if you are in a small boat and you throw a rope around a tree in the shore and pull it toward you, you will be pulled toward the shore. That's the law of cause and effect.
These are examples, but not a general definition. They also serve top point out the problem with your argument. In each case, the 'effects' are produced by the action of physical laws on an initial condition (the cause) to get a final condition (the effect). So causality requires the existence of physical laws. Also, the effects are later in time than the causes, so time must be active to talk about causality.

The conclusion: every physical event with a cause has a physical cause.

But this conclusion destroys your argument. You are attempting to deduce a non-physical cause from a physical effect. This violates the conclusion.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#194 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
I am simply talking reality with basis on Logic.
The problem is that you have many hidden assumptions about causality, beginnings, etc. Many of these hidden assumptions are known to be wrong. And the falsity of those assumptions destroys your argument.

Among the incorrect assumptions:

1. Being of finite age implies a finite sequence of causes.

2. Everything that begins is caused.

3. The universe (as a whole) is capable of being caused.

4. Any two causes have an overlap.

5. It is possible to have non-physical causes.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#195 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
No, my Ego demands Logic which is what you guys don't have.
On the contrary, we have pointed out the flaws in your arguments in various ways. That you ignore those flaws and cannot answer them shows your lack of logic.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#196 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
I am simply talking reality with basis on Logic.
And yet, you have been very poor in presenting an actual, logical argument. In particular, you frequently produce false dichotomies. When other alternatives are presented, you ignore them.

For example, one claim that you made is that the fact that the universe has a beginning implies that there cannot be an infinite causal sequence.

I showed how it is possible:

Event 1 at time t=1 caused by event 2.
Event 2 at t=1/2 caused by event 3.
Event 3 at t=1/4 caused by event 4.
Event 4 at t=1/8 caused by event 5,
etc.

This, together with the fact that LeMaitre and the BB theory only allow t>0 (i.e, time does not exist prior to the BB) destroys your argument for a cause before the universe 9as any cause of the universe must be).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#197 Apr 5, 2013
Mary Magdalena wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple but dead on.
Thank you for sharing it.
I should also point out that LeMaitre, a Catholic priest, warned the Pope against attempting to use the BB as an argument for the existence of God.
Mary Magdalena

United States

#198 Apr 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>I should also point out that LeMaitre, a Catholic priest, warned the Pope against attempting to use the BB as an argument for the existence of God.
With all you typing you do daily spelling out the word Bible to tough for you?

This is not the Bible proving God exist this is common sense and the universe.

Allow me to quote the starting post on this board.

"PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS.

"However, if the universe did have a beginning, God by necessity would exist. "

According to Moses Maimonides, a Philosopher, Theologian and Medical Doctor in his book "The Guide for the Perplexed," there would be no need for a Creator if the universe was eternal, I mean without beginning or end. In other words, God would not exist. However, if the universe did have a beginning, God by necessity would exist.

From Abraham and until Aristotle God existed only for the pious who could exercise faith. For Cosmologists God had only been a probability; extremely small nevertheless a probability. At the time of Aristotle that small probability had been erased as Aristotle discovered that the universe was eternal; no beginning and no end. The pious went on with their faith but as Science was concerned, the non-existence of God had been proved.

The line of thought that God's existence was depending on the universe having had a beginning lasted from about 330 BCE with Aristotle and until 1922 ACE with Georges Lemaitre a Catholic priest who brought the news about the Big Bang to the whole world as the beginning of the universe.

Cosmologists throughout the world had to adopt Lemaitre's discovery as the nearest approach to the truth they had ever achieved. Now, since the universe had indeed a beginning, a proof had been established for the existence of God, blessed be He.

Shibolet"

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#199 Apr 5, 2013
Mary Magdalena wrote:
<quoted text>
With all you typing you do daily spelling out the word Bible to tough for you?
This is not the Bible proving God exist this is common sense and the universe.
BB stands for the Big Bang, not the Bible.
Allow me to quote the starting post on this board.
"PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS.
"However, if the universe did have a beginning, God by necessity would exist. "
According to Moses Maimonides, a Philosopher, Theologian and Medical Doctor in his book "The Guide for the Perplexed," there would be no need for a Creator if the universe was eternal, I mean without beginning or end. In other words, God would not exist. However, if the universe did have a beginning, God by necessity would exist.
And Maimonides was wrong. That happens a lot when you read medieval philosophers.
From Abraham and until Aristotle God existed only for the pious who could exercise faith. For Cosmologists God had only been a probability; extremely small nevertheless a probability. At the time of Aristotle that small probability had been erased as Aristotle discovered that the universe was eternal; no beginning and no end. The pious went on with their faith but as Science was concerned, the non-existence of God had been proved.
Historically inaccurate. Scientists did not claim that. At most, they pointed out that the assumption of a deity was not required.
The line of thought that God's existence was depending on the universe having had a beginning lasted from about 330 BCE with Aristotle and until 1922 ACE with Georges Lemaitre a Catholic priest who brought the news about the Big Bang to the whole world as the beginning of the universe.
Cosmologists throughout the world had to adopt Lemaitre's discovery as the nearest approach to the truth they had ever achieved. Now, since the universe had indeed a beginning, a proof had been established for the existence of God, blessed be He.
Shibolet"
And I was simply pointing out that this argument is faulty. The simple fact that the universe had a beginning does not mean it was created by an intelligent being on purpose. it doesn't even prove that the universe had a cause at all. In fact, in the Big Bang (BB) theory, time itself begins at the Big Bang so causality for the universe as a whole simply does not apply.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#200 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
Forget Aristotle by now. The point is that the Cosmologists in general have adopted the proposition of Lemaitre that the BB proves
the origin of the universe.
blah-blah-- preamble ignored; doesn't contribute to the discussion.
Shibolet wrote:
Since Logic dictates that matter cannot
cause itself into existence
Really? Logic? LMAO!

You state this as if it's a given-- but it's not.

You have not established this claim-- you did not even try...
Shibolet wrote:
the universe is an evidence for the existence of the Primal Cause.
False dichotomy. You presume it's EITHER OR, when it is not.

There are other possibilities you failed to consider.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#201 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
I have provided an evidence for the Primal Cause since the universe
could not have caused itself. But what is the use? It goes into one
of your ears and gets out of the other. Next post you will be asking for the same thing.
"evidence"?

Really?

WHERE?

I looked back-- and you failed to do that.

Hmmmm....

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#202 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
No, my Ego demands Logic which is what you guys don't have.
If only you HAD this.... "logic" you speak of... that concept seems to be quite foriegn to all of your posts, here...

... sad.
Shibolet wrote:
By the way Bob, every single post of yours although with material which I wish I could respond, I am deterred to do so if I find even one ad hominem. And this until you learn to be more civilized.
You do noting BUT ad hom to me-- from the start, that's all you did.

This final paragraph? Is yet another example....

.... hypocrite, much?

LOL!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min Dogen 77,153
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 18 min Frindly 1,098
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 21 min Frindly 32,304
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr Frindly 948
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 10 hr Aerobatty 258,484
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 11 hr The FACTory 4,334
Atheists are subhuman filth that need to be exe... Wed Roec 1
More from around the web