A Proof That God Exists

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#62 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
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.
Which is perfectly possible if no Primal cause exists.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#63 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
We can't even think of a possibility because possibility is inapplicable to the one Primal Cause,
Which is, as yet, unproven---this is what you are *attempting* to prove the existence of.
obviously more than one uncaused cause could not exist.
Not obvious to me. In fact, the opposite possiblity seems quite likely.
So, the possibilitly of ascertaining the existence of more than one uncaused cause is here confounded with potentiality of existence.
Simply restating your mistake.
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.
Who said a Primal cause, or even an uncaused cause, must be 'perfect'? Again, this is an unproved assumption.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#64 Apr 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have and yes, I am familiar with them. They were also wrong.
<quoted text>
Actually, this is still a possibility given that an infinite series of positive terms can still be finite.
<quoted text>
This does not follow. There are many events that are caused by more than one previous event without those two causes impeding each other.
<quoted text>
This also does not follow. It is quite possible for two causes to be completely unrelated.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
An unproved, if irrelevant, assumption.
<quoted text>
As pointed out, your conclusion is not proved by your assertions.
<quoted text>
All irrelevant because you have yet to show the existence of a Primal cause. Also, the redundancy does not show the impossibility.
<quoted text>
The timing of any radioactive decay. Almost all quantum events are probabilistic in nature and are therefore uncaused.
<quoted text>
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.
-------

Do you know something Polymath? You remind me of an animal against the corner ready to use its fangs to defend itself without understanding why he is being attacked. It is embarrassing to repeat over and over again: "Prove it... but you have not proved it... you still need to prove it..." and so on and on almost ad infinitum. No substance in your attempt to refute me. Come down your horse and change your tactics.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#65 Apr 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
--------

Time cannot be caused!!! I can't believe you! Time is caused and to
tell you something you will love, not by God. Time is caused by motion or by mindful convention. Time is an accident of matter in motion. IWO, cause by matter in motion. Have matter in the state of inertia and time will be non-existent. Let me give you an example that is given to kids in elementary schools. Set a marble on the top of a hill and ask them how long it will take for the marble to reach the bottom of the hill. Nobody knows until the marble is not pushed to move down the hill. Therefore, without motion there is no time. It means that time is caused.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Do you know something Polymath? You remind me of an animal against the corner ready to use its fangs to defend itself without understanding why he is being attacked. It is embarrassing to repeat over and over again: "Prove it... but you have not proved it... you still need to prove it..." and so on and on almost ad infinitum. No substance in your attempt to refute me. Come down your horse and change your tactics.
No need to change my tactics. You claimed to have a proof. I have shown where that 'proof' fails and how. Since you cannot use a conclusion until it is proved, you cannot use the existence of a Primal Cause before proving its existence.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#67 Apr 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is perfectly possible if no Primal cause exists.
----------

Since you love the game, "Prove it!" can you prove that the Primal
Cause does not exist? I am kidding! Of course I know nobody can. How can the Primal Cause not exist if the cause does? Since nothing
that has been caused has caused itself, how could not the Primal Cause exist?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#68 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
Time cannot be caused!!! I can't believe you! Time is caused and to
tell you something you will love, not by God. Time is caused by motion or by mindful convention.
Wrong. Time is not caused by motion. It can be *measured* by motion, but that is not a causal connection.
Time is an accident of matter in motion.
Wrong again. Time is simply one of the coordinates of our universe, similar to space, but different in specifics.
IWO, cause by matter in motion. Have matter in the state of inertia and time will be non-existent.
Wrong yet again.
Let me give you an example that is given to kids in elementary schools. Set a marble on the top of a hill and ask them how long it will take for the marble to reach the bottom of the hill. Nobody knows until the marble is not pushed to move down the hill. Therefore, without motion there is no time. It means that time is caused.
No, motion *measures* time, but is not the same nor a cause of time. This is a basic mistake.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#69 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
Since you love the game, "Prove it!" can you prove that the Primal
Cause does not exist? I am kidding! Of course I know nobody can. How can the Primal Cause not exist if the cause does? Since nothing
that has been caused has caused itself, how could not the Primal Cause exist?
First, define precisely what you mean by the term 'Primal Cause'.

I do not have to disprove the existence, since *you* are the one claiming you have a proof of existence.

And no, your argument does NOT show that a Primal cause exists. It shows that there are uncaused causes if there are no infinite sequences of causes, but you have not shown that either.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#70 Apr 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is, as yet, unproven---this is what you are *attempting* to prove the existence of.
<quoted text>
Not obvious to me. In fact, the opposite possiblity seems quite likely.
<quoted text>
Simply restating your mistake.
<quoted text>
Who said a Primal cause, or even an uncaused cause, must be 'perfect'? Again, this is an unproved assumption.
-------

Nothing can be obvious to you if you don't set aside your preconceived notions and give logic the benefit of the doubt. You are somehow scared Polymath. That's okay. Sometimes it is not a shame to give in.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#71 Apr 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to change my tactics. You claimed to have a proof. I have shown where that 'proof' fails and how. Since you cannot use a conclusion until it is proved, you cannot use the existence of a Primal Cause before proving its existence.
------

Realy! Have you indeed showed me that my evidence for the existence of the Primal Cause has failed? Try again. Here it is: Since the universe did not create itself because it could not have existed before creating itself, it is only obvious that an Uncaused Cause had to cause the universe to be created. Refute that. I don't recall to have been refuted before. Thanks.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#72 Apr 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Time is not caused by motion. It can be *measured* by motion, but that is not a causal connection.
<quoted text>
Wrong again. Time is simply one of the coordinates of our universe, similar to space, but different in specifics.
<quoted text>
Wrong yet again.
<quoted text>
No, motion *measures* time, but is not the same nor a cause of time. This is a basic mistake.
------

Twice only here you have insisted that time measures motion but is not caused by motion. All right, let me give you the benefit of the
doubt. Back to the marble on the top of the hill, can you measure the time taken for that marble to reach the bottom of the hill? Be
careful not to make a full of yourself! Can you or can you not?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#73 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
Since you love the game, "Prove it!" can you prove that the Primal
Cause does not exist? I am kidding! Of course I know nobody can.
That is not a good thing for your position. If it is non-falsifiable (and I agree) then it is not scientific. If it's not scientific then there's no way of distinguishing it from BS. No-one can falsify the Cosmic Sheep of Dimension Zog either, but few people would take me seriously if I said they must disprove it. Especially when it's rather silly to demand that someone falsify non-falsifiable concepts.

When your position relies on non-falsifiable concepts it's a sign you have little ammo.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#74 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Realy! Have you indeed showed me that my evidence for the existence of the Primal Cause has failed? Try again. Here it is: Since the universe did not create itself because it could not have existed before creating itself, it is only obvious that an Uncaused Cause had to cause the universe to be created. Refute that. I don't recall to have been refuted before. Thanks.
Your God is an uncaused cause yet you claim it therefore does not need any causes because it exists in eternity. If so, the universe could also existed for eternity in some form or another too, rendering your God unnecessary. The other advantage here is that we have evidence of the universe. Unlike a God.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#75 Apr 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, define precisely what you mean by the term 'Primal Cause'.
I do not have to disprove the existence, since *you* are the one claiming you have a proof of existence.
And no, your argument does NOT show that a Primal cause exists. It shows that there are uncaused causes if there are no infinite sequences of causes, but you have not shown that either.
--------

Are you asking me to go over all my posts thus far? I have proved that the existence of several uncaused causes is inadmissible. And
to answer your question about a precise definition of the term
"Primal Cause" I thought it would never be necessary. Primal Cause
is the first cause. The Cause before which there was none.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#76 Apr 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not a good thing for your position. If it is non-falsifiable (and I agree) then it is not scientific. If it's not scientific then there's no way of distinguishing it from BS. No-one can falsify the Cosmic Sheep of Dimension Zog either, but few people would take me seriously if I said they must disprove it. Especially when it's rather silly to demand that someone falsify non-falsifiable concepts.
When your position relies on non-falsifiable concepts it's a sign you have little ammo.
----------

Agreed! That's why I said I was kidding with Polymath when I asked him to prove what cannot be proved.
He is Coming Soon

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#77 Apr 3, 2013
Know your eternal destiny, here & now: www.scribd.com/doc/31322017 ...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#78 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
Are you asking me to go over all my posts thus far? I have proved that the existence of several uncaused causes is inadmissible. And
to answer your question about a precise definition of the term
"Primal Cause" I thought it would never be necessary. Primal Cause
is the first cause. The Cause before which there was none.
And if intelligent, that cause is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Or if not intelligent, it was the Primal Fart of the Cosmic Sheep from Dimension Zog.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#79 Apr 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Your God is an uncaused cause yet you claim it therefore does not need any causes because it exists in eternity. If so, the universe could also existed for eternity in some form or another too, rendering your God unnecessary. The other advantage here is that we have evidence of the universe. Unlike a God.
-------

That goes hand-in-hand with the thread. If the universe was eternal
there would be no need for the Primal Cause. Now, if you have evidence of an uncaused universe which is tantamount to its eternity, I am all ears. Shoot!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
I don't recall to have been refuted before.
The typical fundie creationist has selective memory loss problems.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#81 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
Agreed! That's why I said I was kidding with Polymath when I asked him to prove what cannot be proved.
Which is why the FSM and Cosmic Sheep are every bit as valid as your claim.
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
That goes hand-in-hand with the thread. If the universe was eternal
there would be no need for the Primal Cause. Now, if you have evidence of an uncaused universe which is tantamount to its eternity, I am all ears. Shoot!
Currently there is not enough information to determine the specifics of how our current expansion phase started. What we DO have is evidence that the universe exists. What we DON'T have is evidence that your "Primal Cause" is responsible, or in fact even necessary. This is why rather than provide scientific evidence of your position you are attempting a philosophical argument based on your own logic so you can do nothing but sit in your chair and pretend you've "proven" something. However logical models are only as good as the axioms they are built upon. And your axioms may or may not tally up with reality. This kind of thinking is what led to the erroneous claim that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. There is a reason why Aristotle and Plato were left behind in the fourth and fifth centuries.

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 1 min Dogen 4,331
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 17 min The FACTory 927
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 21 min The FACTory 32,301
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 26 min The FACTory 77,117
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr waaasssuuup 258,483
Atheists are subhuman filth that need to be exe... 22 hr Roec 1
Religion sux ? Tue Eagle 12 - 4
More from around the web