A Proof That God Exists

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#42 Apr 2, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
God is not He Who causes your problems but yourself. We have been granted with freewill and God does not intervene with that. So do not blame God for anyone's problems.
Lie.

Your Holey BuyBull refutes free will to 100%.

So you HAVE to toss out ALL of your bible here-- if you wish to preserve free will, that is.

If you do that?

What's left? You got ... nothing!

LOL!
Lincoln

United States

#43 Apr 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. YOU have the most arrogant attidude it is possible to have.
YOU presume that this Ultimate Creator ONLY talked to YOU, and YOU ALONE.
And cannot possibly have talked to ... me (for example).
That right there?
That: that is why you are an egocentric maniac.
Thought needed, but none, provided just atheist jargon.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#44 Apr 2, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Thought needed, but none, provided just atheist jargon.
The problem with your keyboard is that it is plugged in.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#45 Apr 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with your keyboard is that it is plugged in.
Indeed.

His motto: Who Would Jesus Hate?

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#46 Apr 2, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
If no one is able to know how the universe existed prior to the BB
Nobody knows what existed prior to the BB. Not you, not me, nobody. But if you want to just throw crap out there that MIGHT have created the universe then my claim that a mighty leprechaun did it is just as plausible as your god. You can't prove it wasn't a leprechaun.
Shibolet wrote:
and that nothing could have caused itself to exist how do you know that the idea of a divine Creator is impossible to be coneived?
Nobody is saying that a creator can't be concieved. You think that everything was created. If everything requires a creator, why doesn't your god? If your god doesn't require a creator, then everything doesn't require a creator. Right?

Since: Dec 10

New Tripoli, PA

#47 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
---------
He would not be the Primal Cause of the Philosophers if He had been
created.
Sorry, you do not get to move the goalposts now. Your creator would have had to have been created. As for your response, who says?

Since: Dec 10

New Tripoli, PA

#48 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
This proves the fact that if something cannot have caused itself it
constitutes an evidence for the existence of a divine Creator.
So how did your creator come about?

Since: Dec 10

New Tripoli, PA

#49 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
Too early to raise my reasoning standards. You are still not ready
for solid food. Thus I have no choice but to feed you milk.
In other words, you have no real answer, so you dodge the question. That's normal for people like you.

Since: Dec 10

New Tripoli, PA

#50 Apr 3, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Thought needed, but none, provided just atheist jargon.
Do youhave some evidence that there is a god?

Since: Jan 06

London

#51 Apr 3, 2013
"Do you have some evidence that there is a god?"

In a development that will eventually turn this debate inside out and upside down, such direct cause and efect evidence, proof and reproof is now on offer and I'm testing for it myself!

The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined, and predictable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!

Thus 'faith' becomes an act of trust in action, the search to discover this direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our flawed human moral compass with the Divine, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way.

So who has the courage to crack open history? To test or not to test, that is the question. More info at http://www.energon.org.uk ,
http://soulgineering.com/2011/05/22/the-final...
Thinking

UK

#52 Apr 3, 2013
I'm sticking with British Gas.
goliah wrote:

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#53 Apr 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant. The philosophers have not shown the existence of a Primal Cause.
There are several options:
1. An infinite sequence of causes. This could even happen in a finite duration of time. For example, if each previous cause takes half the time of the current one.
2. More than one uncaused cause. There is no reason to assume simply one. In fact, there is no reason to assume only finitely many.
3. An uncaused event that is not 'divine'. In fact, many physical events are uncaused.
4. An uncaused event that has no 'mind'. Again, in fact, many physical events are of this type.
----------

As I can see, you are not familiar with the classic Philosophers of BCE. The Primal Cause was what kept them restlessly. Read Plato.

Your options:
1. An infinite sequence of causes is tantamount to the Aristotelic concept that the universe had no beginning. Since the BB has proved
the beginning of the universe the Aristotelic theory is gone. And ince the first cause could not have caused itself the Primal Cause of the Philosophers is the same as the divine Cause.

2. Here is the reason for the non-existency of more than one uncaused cause: More than one uncaused cause would have been unable to produce the universe; one would have impeded the work of the other. More than one uncaused cause would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be the Primal Cause. More than one uncaused cause are moved to action by will; the will, without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in more than one cause. Therefore, the existence of one uncaused cause is proved; the existence of more than one cannot be proved. We can't even think of a possibility because possibility is inapplicable to the one Primal Cause, obviously more than one uncaused cause could not exist. So, the possibilitly of ascertaining the existence of more than one uncaused cause is here confounded with potentiality of existence. Again, if one uncaused cause suffices, a second or third will be supperfluous if one uncaused cause is not sufficient as it cannot be perfect, and therefore not an Primal Cause.

3. Please, provide an evidence of an uncaused cause besides the Primal Cause to substantiate your assertion that many physical events are not caused.

4. Events without a mind are caused by other causes going back all
the way to the Primal Cause.

Shibolet

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#54 Apr 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your arrogance is showing.
Again.
----

The mouth speaks of what the heart is full. The only reason for you to see my arrogance showing it is probably because yours is overflowing.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#55 Apr 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie.
Your Holey BuyBull refutes free will to 100%.
So you HAVE to toss out ALL of your bible here-- if you wish to preserve free will, that is.
If you do that?
What's left? You got ... nothing!
LOL!
------

Now, you are speaking without understanding. The attribute of free
will is the only one we have in absolute terms. I would be the last
one to be caught refuting free will. Prove to me that even 1% I could be at fault for refuting free will. You can't. You are just verbal juggling with words that make no sense.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#56 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
As I can see, you are not familiar with the classic Philosophers of BCE. The Primal Cause was what kept them restlessly. Read Plato.
I have and yes, I am familiar with them. They were also wrong.
Your options:
1. An infinite sequence of causes is tantamount to the Aristotelic concept that the universe had no beginning. Since the BB has proved
the beginning of the universe the Aristotelic theory is gone. And ince the first cause could not have caused itself the Primal Cause of the Philosophers is the same as the divine Cause.
Actually, this is still a possibility given that an infinite series of positive terms can still be finite.
2. Here is the reason for the non-existency of more than one uncaused cause: More than one uncaused cause would have been unable to produce the universe; one would have impeded the work of the other.
This does not follow. There are many events that are caused by more than one previous event without those two causes impeding each other.
More than one uncaused cause would have one element in common,
This also does not follow. It is quite possible for two causes to be completely unrelated.
and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be the Primal Cause.
Which is not a contradiction because you have yet to prove the existence of a Primal cause. In fact, you are committing the mistake of assuming your conclusion.
More than one uncaused cause are moved to action by will;
Whao there! Most causes are not willed in any sense of the word. You are again assuming your conclusion by bringing in 'will', which assumes a consciousness.
the will, without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in more than one cause.
An unproved, if irrelevant, assumption.
Therefore, the existence of one uncaused cause is proved; the existence of more than one cannot be proved.
As pointed out, your conclusion is not proved by your assertions.
We can't even think of a possibility because possibility is inapplicable to the one Primal Cause, obviously more than one uncaused cause could not exist. So, the possibilitly of ascertaining the existence of more than one uncaused cause is here confounded with potentiality of existence. Again, if one uncaused cause suffices, a second or third will be supperfluous if one uncaused cause is not sufficient as it cannot be perfect, and therefore not an Primal Cause.
All irrelevant because you have yet to show the existence of a Primal cause. Also, the redundancy does not show the impossibility.
3. Please, provide an evidence of an uncaused cause besides the Primal Cause to substantiate your assertion that many physical events are not caused.
The timing of any radioactive decay. Almost all quantum events are probabilistic in nature and are therefore uncaused.
4. Events without a mind are caused by other causes going back all
the way to the Primal Cause.
An assertion without a proof.

The upshot is that your claim is still unproved. You have not shown the existence of a Primal Cause. Even assuming the existence of an uncaused cause, you have not shown the uniqueness. And, even if you had existence and uniqueness, you have not shown mentality.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#57 Apr 3, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody knows what existed prior to the BB. Not you, not me, nobody. But if you want to just throw crap out there that MIGHT have created the universe then my claim that a mighty leprechaun did it is just as plausible as your god. You can't prove it wasn't a leprechaun.
<quoted text>
Nobody is saying that a creator can't be concieved. You think that everything was created. If everything requires a creator, why doesn't your god? If your god doesn't require a creator, then everything doesn't require a creator. Right?
--------

If God required a creator He would not be the Creator aka the Primal Cause of the Philosophers. You can't see this truth because of your preconceived notions.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#58 Apr 3, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, you do not get to move the goalposts now. Your creator would have had to have been created. As for your response, who says?
------

All creation of events beng caused must by necessity report back to the Primal Cause Who by Logic could not have been created. That's the Uncaused Cause of all causes.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#59 Apr 3, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
So how did your creator come about?
-------

The Creator aka Primal Cause did not come about. He has always been. When Moses was asked for the name of whoever had sent him, he answered and said: "I Am" has sent me to you.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#60 Apr 3, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you have no real answer, so you dodge the question. That's normal for people like you.
----

See what I mean by the need to feed you with milk? You still have a long way down from the top of your vanities.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#61 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
All creation of events beng caused must by necessity report back to the Primal Cause Who by Logic could not have been created. That's the Uncaused Cause of all causes.
1. You have not proved the existence of a 'Primal Cause'. The arguments that you have given are insufficient to prove this.

2. Because of the possibility of many uncaused causes, you have not shown that all events 'report back' to a single cause, whatever that means.

3. You have also neglected the temporal aspect of this. Any cause is *prior in time* to its effect. Because of this, time itself cannot be caused. Since time is part of the universe, this also shows the universe is uncaused.

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
is it ever right to hate Christians as a group? 27 min superwilly 21
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 30 min superwilly 462
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Subduction Zone 28,568
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Aura Mytha 67,023
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 6 hr Dogen 3,501
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Apr 22 IB DaMann 5,975
News Unholy? Atheists should embrace the science of ... Apr 20 Eagle 12 9
More from around the web