A Proof That God Exists
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1263 Apr 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you made up a claim and attributed it to me.
That's why I refer to you as a liar.
Let me try to unwind your little brain.
The two questions:(1) Does God exist?; and (2) Does the universe require a cause? are separate lines of inquiry.(1) is a question of deduction from evidence, or a conclusion that is implied.
(2) is a question of logic and metaphysical necessity. It is necessary that the universe is caused.
Your opinions are noted.
Buck Crick wrote:
I believe that God exists, but it is certain that the universe requires causation. One statement does not depend on the other.
They do if your opinion re God is to have any relevance whatsoever. Otherwise if God is dismissed as unverifiable belief then you propose a definite cause of the universe. Leading us back to an infinite series of causes which you claim isn't possible, or an uncaused cause which you deny us but allow for yourself.
Buck Crick wrote:
Further, even if I made the claim "God caused the universe to begin to exist", your former claim would still be a lie. You specifically characterized my conception of "God" was the Jewish magical god, and that I claimed that specific being created the universe.
So, you are a liar either way.
Since you have clarified your baseless religious opinions a couple of posts previous to this one, I now retract my statement that the invisible magic wizard is Jewish. It is now in your case the non-denominational invisible magic wizard.
Buck Crick wrote:
Welcome to Buck School, Dud.
Have a seat in the back next to Polymouth. He's the one eating the infinite length donut.
And you *still* in no way appear out of place in a Village People video.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1264 Apr 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If time is required for causality, how would you discuss the cause of time?
I don't. I conclude that time is uncaused.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1265 Apr 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that Jesus rode dinosaurs??
...Dude,...is that you?
Me and Skippy? Nay, man! On the contrary, Skip is YOUR alter-ego. Opposite sides of the same coin. One theist (or deist perhaps), one atheist. But both fundies.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1266 Apr 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
My thinking is that "God" is an element of consciousness - present to a greater or lesser degree in all things. It's highest presence is in humans, as the evolved brain is the most advanced earthly vehicle for this consciousness. When the human became self-aware, self-conscious, he looked around and contemplated "Why?...there must be a god speaking to me".
I think interaction occurs with awareness. I think this is what the Galilean prophet tried to teach. He was the "son", or in the nature of God; of the same consciousness.
Oh. So it IS the invisible magical wizard of Jewish origin.

Sheesh!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1267 Apr 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The universe beginning to exist uncaused is logically impossible.
Why is that?
Making such a claim of that possibility renders you logically incoherent.
I disagree.
By beginning to exist, the universe had to not exist. Otherwise it could not BEGIN to exist.
That is part of your trouble. If exist, then a later *time* when it does exist, then the universe did not 'begin' to exist since time is *part* of the universe.

However, if 'begin' simply means that it only goes back in time a finite distance, then it is not true that there was a time when it didn't exist (in particular, if time is finite into the past).
If something is capable of both not existing, then existing, it is "contingent". This means it does not exist without cause, or it would always exist, never "not existing".
You are conflating two distinct options: capability of non-existing and having a cause. You have not shown that one implies the other. Instead, you use the charged word 'contingent' which itself implies a cause.
Contingent entities are dependent, meaning they rely on cause.
That is part of the definition of 'contingent'. But you have not shown that having the capability of not-existing implies contingent in that sense.
If they did not, then they contain their own cause, and are necessary. If an entity is "necessary", it had to always exist and never "begin" to exist.
This does not follow. Once again, you are *assuming* that something that begins to exist must have a cause. You have stated such in a couple different ways, but you have not substantiated that claim.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1268 Apr 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Find the infinite, then add one. Your infinite disappeared, so it was not really infinite. Then repeat.
Why did my infinity 'disappear'? It is still infinite. And so is the result when you add one. So?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1269 Apr 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
My thinking is that "God" is an element of consciousness - present to a greater or lesser degree in all things. It's highest presence is in humans, as the evolved brain is the most advanced earthly vehicle for this consciousness. When the human became self-aware, self-conscious, he looked around and contemplated "Why?...there must be a god speaking to me".
I think interaction occurs with awareness. I think this is what the Galilean prophet tried to teach. He was the "son", or in the nature of God; of the same consciousness.("If you have seen me, you have seen the Father") He offered the Samarian Woman at the Well "living water", on the spot. No death on the cross, no atonement of blood. He offered her nothing but awareness, and indicated it was all she needed.("The kingdom is within you...") Important was his choosing of her - as she came to draw water when no one else was around, being looked down upon by others.(I can relate.) Yet, he chose her to make the first announcement of himself to the Samarians.
I think the purpose is evolution and interaction - all our millions of brain cells were present by the third trimester en utero, and what followed were connections among the many - this is recapitulated by the macro world. I believe life on the planet is connected by one matrix, and that connection is evolving, ever more intimately connected.
How else to explain Facebook?
You know, when you write about what you believe rather than assailing the beliefs of others, you do rather well. You should do it more often. Even when others don't agree with you, understanding you better makes for better conversations. I'm really glad I asked you to write this.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1270 Apr 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
My thinking is that "God" is an element of consciousness - present to a greater or lesser degree in all things. It's highest presence is in humans, as the evolved brain is the most advanced earthly vehicle for this consciousness. When the human became self-aware, self-conscious, he looked around and contemplated "Why?...there must be a god speaking to me".
I think interaction occurs with awareness. I think this is what the Galilean prophet tried to teach. He was the "son", or in the nature of God; of the same consciousness.("If you have seen me, you have seen the Father") He offered the Samarian Woman at the Well "living water", on the spot. No death on the cross, no atonement of blood. He offered her nothing but awareness, and indicated it was all she needed.("The kingdom is within you...") Important was his choosing of her - as she came to draw water when no one else was around, being looked down upon by others.(I can relate.) Yet, he chose her to make the first announcement of himself to the Samarians.
I think the purpose is evolution and interaction - all our millions of brain cells were present by the third trimester en utero, and what followed were connections among the many - this is recapitulated by the macro world. I believe life on the planet is connected by one matrix, and that connection is evolving, ever more intimately connected.
How else to explain Facebook?
An interesting perspective. I don't agree, but I do think your view here is interesting.
KJV

United States

#1271 Apr 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't. I conclude that time is uncaused.
Is or was there anything in existence when there was no time or if time ended?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1272 Apr 27, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, when you write about what you believe rather than assailing the beliefs of others, you do rather well. You should do it more often. Even when others don't agree with you, understanding you better makes for better conversations. I'm really glad I asked you to write this.
Not many ask.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1273 Apr 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did my infinity 'disappear'? It is still infinite. And so is the result when you add one. So?
I said that wrong.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1274 Apr 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is that?
<quoted text>
I disagree.
<quoted text>
That is part of your trouble. If exist, then a later *time* when it does exist, then the universe did not 'begin' to exist since time is *part* of the universe.
"Begin to exist" is given.

I have said nothing about a universe that does not exist.

From the impossibility of the infinite past regression, if the universe exists, it began to exist.

But again, we don't need that proof in this case, as the problem set forth contains "something THAT BEGINS TO EXIST requires a cause."

Now, with that deflection out of the way...



Time doesn't matter.

If something "begins to exist", it begins to exist.

To begin to exist requires non-existence, or it could not begin to exist.

If something does not exist, but begins to exist, it is logically contingent or dependent.

The alternative is that it is "necessary".

If it is necessary, it could not be non-existent. Therefore, since the universe exhibits non-existence and existence, it is not necessary, but dependent.

Therefore it requires a cause.
----------

Alternative to that, you have to claim it was not non-existent, or always existed, in other words, which is an infinite past regression of events, which is also impossible.

The claim also violates the definition of the proposition: "something that begins to exist requires a cause".

The universe logically requires a cause, and it is incoherent to claim otherwise.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1275 Apr 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh. So it IS the invisible magical wizard of Jewish origin.
Sheesh!
Are you insane?

You think what I described bears the slightest resemblance to Judaism?

You're hopeless.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1276 Apr 27, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, when you write about what you believe rather than assailing the beliefs of others, you do rather well. You should do it more often. Even when others don't agree with you, understanding you better makes for better conversations. I'm really glad I asked you to write this.
Nice of you to say.

But you can see why I seldom describe personal beliefs - "Dude" just characterized it as the magical Jewish sky wizard.

Pearls before swine.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1277 Apr 27, 2013
Thinking wrote:
In my doughnut there are an infinite number of infinities.
<quoted text>
And infinite sprinkles, I am sure.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1278 Apr 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Begin to exist" is given.
I have said nothing about a universe that does not exist.
From the impossibility of the infinite past regression, if the universe exists, it began to exist.
But again, we don't need that proof in this case, as the problem set forth contains "something THAT BEGINS TO EXIST requires a cause."
Now, with that deflection out of the way...
Time doesn't matter.
If something "begins to exist", it begins to exist.
To begin to exist requires non-existence, or it could not begin to exist.
If something does not exist, but begins to exist, it is logically contingent or dependent.
The alternative is that it is "necessary".
If it is necessary, it could not be non-existent. Therefore, since the universe exhibits non-existence and existence, it is not necessary, but dependent.
Therefore it requires a cause.
----------
Alternative to that, you have to claim it was not non-existent, or always existed, in other words, which is an infinite past regression of events, which is also impossible.
The claim also violates the definition of the proposition: "something that begins to exist requires a cause".
The universe logically requires a cause, and it is incoherent to claim otherwise.
pig ignorant creationist who can't prove the god he's lying about.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1279 Apr 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Begin to exist" is given.
I have said nothing about a universe that does not exist.
From the impossibility of the infinite past regression, if the universe exists, it began to exist.
But again, we don't need that proof in this case, as the problem set forth contains "something THAT BEGINS TO EXIST requires a cause."
Now, with that deflection out of the way...
Time doesn't matter.
If something "begins to exist", it begins to exist.
To begin to exist requires non-existence, or it could not begin to exist.
If something does not exist, but begins to exist, it is logically contingent or dependent.
The alternative is that it is "necessary".
If it is necessary, it could not be non-existent. Therefore, since the universe exhibits non-existence and existence, it is not necessary, but dependent.
Therefore it requires a cause.
----------
Alternative to that, you have to claim it was not non-existent, or always existed, in other words, which is an infinite past regression of events, which is also impossible.
The claim also violates the definition of the proposition: "something that begins to exist requires a cause".
The universe logically requires a cause, and it is incoherent to claim otherwise.
Since the entire history of e earth, not a single shred of proof that god exists.

Yet here e failed cult member is, trying to sell us his hallucination.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1280 Apr 27, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I once passed a church on my way to church. I wasn't driving.
I found that odd.
In my city? There are so many churches (who clearly cannot get along with one another, or else there'd not be so many) that if you were to drive off the road?

You'd most likely hit a church as anything else.

I'm told, slinging dead cats into the air, to see if you hit a church or not, used to be a game back in the 60's.... the odds were usually 50:50.

Yet? Even with all those churches? There's just as much crime in my city as elsewhere, on a per-person basis.

Obviously, all those extra churches do not do anything useful...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1281 Apr 27, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
That could've been interesting Bob ;)
One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor?
When @John dies His family is leaving his carcass to science fiction.
There's a Christian-Mingle pizza place near where I live that sells only slices. in the back you can see a guy tossing a triangle in the air.
FAGIDABOUDIT!
Yeah.... but is the pizza Kosher?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1282 Apr 27, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
Autistic people are not atheists. I know a Christian who is autistic.
But you are a well-established liar.

So it hardly matters what you say, does it?

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) 27 min Samuel Patre 94,391
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 42 min Prince of Darkness 6,001
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing (Oct '17) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 147
News Geoff Robson is wrong about Richard Dawkins, th... 1 hr Eagle 12 - 12
News Christ, Atheism, Quantum Physics, and the Natur... Thu nanoanomaly 1
News Egyptian Parliament considers outlawing atheism May 21 Guest 6
Stephen Hawking, now a believer May 8 superwilly 20