• Sections
A Proof That God Exists

A Proof That God Exists

Posted in the Atheism Forum

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#82 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.
No, you made that claim and gave an argument. But the argument was faulty and I pointed out the faults.
And
"Primal Cause" I thought it would never be necessary. Primal Cause
is the first cause. The Cause before which there was none.
There are two different concepts here:
1. A first cause, in the sense that it is temporally previous to all others.

2. An uncaused cause. So there is no cause of this specific event prior to that event.

Now, something verifying the first definition would also verify the second, since causes are always previous to their effects.

But the converse is not true. It is quite possible to have many uncaused causes.

It is even logically possible that there are many uncaused causes that happen at the same time and previous to all other causes. Such would show the non-uniqueness of even definition 1.

This shows why it is important to have precise definitions.

Finally, your causal argument only applies to definition 2. The logic goes as follows:

1. There are events.
2. The cause of an event is different than that event and also different than any of the effects of that event.

3. Statements 1 and 2 show that there are two possibilities for any given event:

a. there is an infinite sequence of causes prior to that event
b. there is an uncaused cause prior to that event.

Now, you want to claim that the universe has finite age, so the possibility a. cannot happen. This does not follow as can be seen thus:

Original event (event 1) happens at time t=1.
The cause of event 1 (i.e. event 2) happens at time t=1/2.
The cause of event 2 (i.e. event 3) happens at time t=1/4.
The cause of event 3 (i.e. event 4) happens at time t=1/8.

Continuing in this way, and halving the time for each previous event, would give an infinite number of causes in a finite time.

So, you have NOT shown there is no infinite sequences of causality.

Now, even if that *had* been proven, there is still the issue of possibility b. We have to show there is a *unique* uncaused cause. But this is also an unproved statement.

In particular, you claims that any two causes have something in common without any demonstration of this and, in fact, it being contrary to common experience. So your claim of the uniqueness of uncaused causes is unproved.

In point of fact, most quantum level events are uncaused, and so we do have many uncaused causes. this shows the *non-uniqueness* of uncaused causes, which destroys your whole argument. It also shows that uncaused causes do not have to be 'perfect' or 'intelligent' or have 'will'.

Want to try again?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#83 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
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.
I'm not scared at all. And, as a mathematician, I am much more familiar with logic than you will ever be.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#84 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.
You have not shown that the universe is caused.

You did not show that any cause of the universe had to be uncaused.

So you failed in two distinct ways.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#85 Apr 3, 2013
goliah wrote:
"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...
Spam.

Unless you have proof of this "jesus" character in a HISTORICAL way?

That is, non-bible proof that this "jesus" actually existed even a LITTLE BIT like your ugly book describes?

You are just whitewashing a fence that isn't even there in the first place....

So, I without checking, declare your book -- spam.

Not worth the dead trees it's printed on.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#86 Apr 3, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I'm sticking with British Gas.
<quoted text>
LOL!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#87 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
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.
Yes-- your "heart" is full of arrogance, that much is true.

Thanks!

You prove my statements accurate!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#88 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
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.
Look: you cannot have a square-circle.

That would be a logical impossibility.

Omniscience is incompatible with free will in the same universe-- you cannot have one and also the other.

An omniscient god-- a god who knows THE future? Eliminates any possibility of free will--to 100%.

The ONLY way free will can work? Is if your god is as surprised at the future as we humans are.

Which is NOT omniscience-- which means?

Your bible is false on that point.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#89 Apr 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
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.
He cannot possibly demonstrate mentality without first....

... getting some himself.

I'm just sayin'...

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#90 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.
You have failed to demonstrate that the initial cause has to be sentient in any way.

Assuming that there MUST be an initial cause?

It could just as easily be non-sentient, a purely natural process.

You keep jumping to unfounded ... "conclusions" that fit your personal...

... bias.

I know-- the irony is delicious.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#91 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.
Ad Hom attacks by this True BelieverÂ™

A tacit admission of defeat--and an unwillingness to face up to the arguments which so resoundingly defeated him.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#92 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. 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.
100% bogus BS.

Classic defeat of the True BelieverÂ™ too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#93 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
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.
Irony. Again.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#94 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
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.
The above is not an argument of any sort-- but IS ad homenem attacks.

And demonstrative of a highly biased world-view.

Irony.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#95 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
Are you asking me to go over all my posts thus far?

And as you do?

You know: proof.

That would be a welcome change.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#96 Apr 3, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
Agreed! That's why I said I was kidding with Polymath when I asked him to prove what cannot be proved.
If you agree your "primal mover" cannot be proved?

Then you admit right there-- that it is more likely bullsh7t than anything reasonable.

Thanks!

It's what we've been trying to TELL you all along!

Judged:

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#97 Apr 3, 2013
He is Coming Soon wrote:
Know your eternal destiny, here & now: www.scribd.com/doc/31322017 ...
No.

You failed to prove your Jesus actually existed at all, in the historical record.

Until you manage that?

It is safe to dismiss your silliness as bullsh7t.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#98 Apr 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you made that claim and gave an argument. But the argument was faulty and I pointed out the faults.
<quoted text>
There are two different concepts here:
1. A first cause, in the sense that it is temporally previous to all others.
2. An uncaused cause. So there is no cause of this specific event prior to that event.
Now, something verifying the first definition would also verify the second, since causes are always previous to their effects.
But the converse is not true. It is quite possible to have many uncaused causes.
It is even logically possible that there are many uncaused causes that happen at the same time and previous to all other causes. Such would show the non-uniqueness of even definition 1.
This shows why it is important to have precise definitions.
Finally, your causal argument only applies to definition 2. The logic goes as follows:
1. There are events.
2. The cause of an event is different than that event and also different than any of the effects of that event.
3. Statements 1 and 2 show that there are two possibilities for any given event:
a. there is an infinite sequence of causes prior to that event
b. there is an uncaused cause prior to that event.
Now, you want to claim that the universe has finite age, so the possibility a. cannot happen. This does not follow as can be seen thus:
Original event (event 1) happens at time t=1.
The cause of event 1 (i.e. event 2) happens at time t=1/2.
The cause of event 2 (i.e. event 3) happens at time t=1/4.
The cause of event 3 (i.e. event 4) happens at time t=1/8.
Continuing in this way, and halving the time for each previous event, would give an infinite number of causes in a finite time.
So, you have NOT shown there is no infinite sequences of causality.
Now, even if that *had* been proven, there is still the issue of possibility b. We have to show there is a *unique* uncaused cause. But this is also an unproved statement.
In particular, you claims that any two causes have something in common without any demonstration of this and, in fact, it being contrary to common experience. So your claim of the uniqueness of uncaused causes is unproved.
In point of fact, most quantum level events are uncaused, and so we do have many uncaused causes. this shows the *non-uniqueness* of uncaused causes, which destroys your whole argument. It also shows that uncaused causes do not have to be 'perfect' or 'intelligent' or have 'will'.
Want to try again?
I am so bookmarking this.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#99 Apr 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not scared at all. And, as a mathematician, I am much more familiar with logic than you will ever be.
As demonstrated quite aptly with your recent posts, too.

It's not as though you were hitting him on the head with a logical two-by-four, is it?

Wait...

... yes.... yes it is.

And he still doesn't get it, even then...

...!!

LMAO!
Lincoln

United States

#100 Apr 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Spam.
Unless you have proof of this "jesus" character in a HISTORICAL way?
That is, non-bible proof that this "jesus" actually existed even a LITTLE BIT like your ugly book describes?
You are just whitewashing a fence that isn't even there in the first place....
So, I without checking, declare your book -- spam.
Not worth the dead trees it's printed on.
2000 years ago is difficult to prove.

Proof that you post the same nonsense over and over does not take more than looking at your last 250 posts...
just saying.

Judged:

3

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#101 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.
So everything isn't created?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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

Scientist Richard Dawkins weighs in on Malaysia... 1 hr nanoanomaly 1
Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 2 hr Frindly 3,243
High School Atheism 3 hr Eagle 12 - 40
The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 4,965
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 132
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Frindly 83,830
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... 4 hr Eagle 12 - 17

Atheism News

More Atheism News from Topix »

More from around the web