A Proof That God Exists

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#123 Apr 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Look: you cannot have a square-circle.
That would be a logical impossibility.
Your bible claims your god is omniscient-- this is without question.
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.
What ELSE did your bible LIE about?
-------

Wrong again! Omniscience is not incompatible with free will but intervention in the affairs of man is. God may be Omniscient but He
can't intervene in human affairs. What's the use to know events before they happen if one cannot interfere with them or prevent them from happening? That's what atheists don't like about learned
theists: A God clean of anthropomorphism.

My Bible does not lie about anything. The lie is in the eye of the
beholder who is a member of the literal interpretation club.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#124 Apr 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
----------

The Primal Cause does not have to be anything. He is what He is.
Even Moses who wanted to know Who He was, He said "I AM."

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#125 Apr 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Ad Hom attacks by this True Believer™
A tacit admission of defeat--and an unwillingness to face up to the arguments which so resoundingly defeated him.
Sad.
----

You! Talking about "ad homs"! Atheists are famous for that. Why don't you try to count how many times you have used "BS" in your responses to me? Start by post #92. That's an indecent ad hominem.
But that's okay yet. When you cross the board you will know. That's
when I will stop answering your questions.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#126 Apr 4, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
So everything isn't created?
-----

Right. The Primal Mover was not created. Therefore He is proved only by the things created and by the Logic that events cannot be
caused by themselves.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#127 Apr 4, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't proved anything. In fact you claim to have used logical principles when, in reality, as everyone else recognizes, you commit one logical fallacy after another. Worse than that you don't even attempt to lay out the formal structure of an argument; when your 'premises' are challenged you engage in gainsaying, and when your inferences are shown to be flawed you resort to ad hominem. As for your 'conclusions'? They are nothing more than your childish beliefs restated as 'certainties'.
-----

It very ironic when atheists accuse theists with ad hominems when they themselves are the experts in those kinds of insults. Polymath
and all of you haven't proved a thing but love to demand proofs from others. This is really embarrassing.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#128 Apr 4, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't proved anything. In fact you claim to have used logical principles when, in reality, as everyone else recognizes, you commit one logical fallacy after another. Worse than that you don't even attempt to lay out the formal structure of an argument; when your 'premises' are challenged you engage in gainsaying, and when your inferences are shown to be flawed you resort to ad hominem. As for your 'conclusions'? They are nothing more than your childish beliefs restated as 'certainties'.
--------

And what have you proved? This is childish alright. "Prove it" "I
will prove it if you prove first" "No, you go first." That's not even funny anymore. This happens only with atheists.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#129 Apr 4, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Than I can say that the universe has always been.
You can't play by two sets of rules.
There is zero evidence of a creator. If the best argument that you have is that the unverse exists, and had to be created, than you have nothing.
----

Gosh! I can almost predict what your response will be before you write it. That's disgusting!

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#130 Apr 4, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Mythology at best.
------

No, this is metaphorical language if you know what metaphor is.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#131 Apr 4, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it???
You are the one claiming that a creator exists. You have failed to prove your claim. Your only "proof" is that the universe is real.
Failure on your part.
--------

One more chance to you: Did the universe create itself? Impossible!
That's the evidence you need that a Creator from outside the universe caused it to exist. If not, here is your turn to produce the evidence that the universe caused itself to exist.

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#132 Apr 4, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree the universe exists.
<quoted text>
You are jumping to conclusions in two different ways:
1. You are assuming the universe, as a whole, was caused.
2. You are assuming the word 'who' applies to whatever cause there is for the universe.
<quoted text>
Which does not refute the idea that the universe is uncaused. I can give arguments that suggest that it is, in fact, uncaused.
<quoted text>
Irrelevant because nobody claims this.
<quoted text>
Yikes! You *really* have to learn something past the time when Aristotle was writing. The reason a brick and a feather fall at different rates is air resistance. If there was no air, they would fall at the same rate. This experiment was even done *on the moon* with a feather and a hammer.
Now, go to the top of that building, but in a location without air. What do you say will happen? Or, take two objects that are of different masses, but have minimal drag.
------

I know that but you did not specify the conditions. You just said that it was erroneous to claim that all objects fall at the same rate and I have proved to you that's not true.

Now, for the universe as a whole having been caused, go ahead and tell me what kind of matter in the universe caused itself?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#133 Apr 4, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
I have indeed shown that the universe is caused.
Where?
You have not refuted me. If you don't know what refutation is, it is not only to say "No, it is not."
You are correct. A refutation shows how the argument proposed can fail. That is what I did.
You must give your debator a different option for discussion. Where is the beef? I still don't have it.
OK, let's do this again. What is you *exact* argument? Please include definitions for the main concepts (causality, for example).

In essence, your whole argument is the 'first cause' argument proposed by Aristotle. The problem is that this argument is not strong enough to prove what it sets out to prove. At most, it shows the existence of at least one uncaused cause. In fact, it doesn't even do that because it is possible for an infinite sequence of causes to take a finite amount of time (as I showed before).

But, you have not shown the universe is caused. You have only shown it did not cause itself. Those are different claims.

You have also not shown that any uncaused cause has to be unique. In fact, it is *known* that there are many uncaused causes. Every radioactive decay qualifies.

You have next not shown that any uncaused cause has to be outside of the universe. Once again, we know of many uncaused causes that are physical events.

The upshot is that you have not demonstrated *any* of your claims. And simple counter-examples show your argument is not strong enough to prove you claims.

It looks like this is all going over your head, so please show that you have understood my counter-arguments before we proceed. Also, show where you have proved that the universe is caused (not merely that it is not self-caused).

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#134 Apr 4, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you have still failed to say who created the creator. Did he, as you put it, create himself?
As for the feather and the brick, they both fall at the same rate.....IN A VACCUUM. You left that part out. Yeah, you're quite the science wiz.
------

Now I am convinced that you have ceased being serious about this issue if you have ever been throughout the course of this discussion. If you have decided to play a game I will answer only posts that you are not repeating.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#135 Apr 4, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
I know that but you did not specify the conditions. You just said that it was erroneous to claim that all objects fall at the same rate and I have proved to you that's not true.
Now, for the universe as a whole having been caused, go ahead and tell me what kind of matter in the universe caused itself?
That is a different question.

Here's an easy argument to show the universe is uncaused: if there was a cause for the universe, then it would have to be *before* the universe in time. But time is part of the geometry of the universe, so that is impossible. Hence, the universe is uncaused.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#136 Apr 4, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
One more chance to you: Did the universe create itself? Impossible!
Correct. But that does not refute the possibility that the universe is uncaused.
That's the evidence you need that a Creator from outside the universe caused it to exist. If not, here is your turn to produce the evidence that the universe caused itself to exist.
No, the alternative is that the universe is simply not caused at all. That is a different proposition than to say that it is self-caused. Do you see the difference?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#137 Apr 4, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
And what have you proved? This is childish alright. "Prove it" "I
will prove it if you prove first" "No, you go first." That's not even funny anymore. This happens only with atheists.
YOU are the one that started this thread advertising that you have a proof that God exists. Up to now your arguments have fallen very short of being a proof. We do not have to prove that no God exists to refute your *argument*. We merely have to show how that argument fails logically. And that has been done in multiple ways.
Thinking

UK

#138 Apr 4, 2013
Caused by what?

http://www.uscloseup.com/sites/uscloseup.com/...
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
I have indeed shown that the universe is caused. You have not refuted me. If you don't know what refutation is, it is not only to say "No, it is not." You must give your debator a different option for discussion. Where is the beef? I still don't have it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#139 Apr 4, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Now I am convinced that you have ceased being serious about this issue if you have ever been throughout the course of this discussion. If you have decided to play a game I will answer only posts that you are not repeating.
The point you seem to be missing is that you claim the universe must have a cause because it could not cause itself, but you don't apply that exact same logic to your deity. Did your God create itself?

Since: Feb 13

El Monte, CA

#140 Apr 4, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where?
<quoted text>

But, you have not shown the universe is caused. You have only shown it did not cause itself. Those are different claims.
-------

If the universe did not cause itself, nevertheless it exists, what happened, did it pop out of the hat of the magician? You surely must be kidding!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#141 Apr 4, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
I know that but you did not specify the conditions. You just said that it was erroneous to claim that all objects fall at the same rate and I have proved to you that's not true.
No, the claim was that Aristotle was wrong when he claimed that heavy things *always* fall faster than lighter things. This was a part of Aristotelian physics and is simply false. You see, we have learned a few things since the time of Aristotle about the universe. In point of fact, Aristotle was wrong more often than he was right when discussing physics.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#142 Apr 4, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
It very ironic when atheists accuse theists with ad hominems when they themselves are the experts in those kinds of insults. Polymath
and all of you haven't proved a thing but love to demand proofs from others. This is really embarrassing.
Since you are the one that started this thread with a claim that you have a proof, your complaint here is simply a smokescreen attempting to hide the fact that your argument failed.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 min Aura Mytha 15,963
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min One way or another 40,433
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 50 min IB DaMann 215
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr ChristineM 255,959
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 2 hr Thinking 4,656
News Why I quit atheism 3 hr Nooooo 391
A Universe from Nothing? 3 hr Cujo 52
More from around the web