A Proof That God Exists

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#163 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.
It is embarrassing to YOU.

You keep repeating the lie that you were NOT soundly refuted...

.. when you were on multiple points.

It's as if you think that repeating a lie magically transforms it into a not-lie.

Here's a clue: a repeated lie is still a lie.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#164 Apr 4, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, the universe is uncaused.
Perhaps your difficulty is thinking there was a *time* before the universe. But time is *part* of the universe. That means that the universe existed whenever there was time (and, by extension, causality). That is precisely why it could not be caused.
And, I also want to point out your denigrating way of describing 'popping out of the hat of a magician'. No, there was no magician. A magician would be a cause and there could not have been a cause. Furthermore,'popping' also requires a previous time. Once again, the point is that time and the universe are co-existent.
Sorry if that hurts your head.
I suspect his head is fine-- it is all but impossible to get water through that much concrete, you see...

:D
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#165 Apr 4, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If you thought that was bad, take a look at the first sentence of this post:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Thinking

UK

#166 Apr 4, 2013
jesus shitting christ - NZ has gone batshit!
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If you thought that was bad, take a look at the first sentence of this post:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#167 Apr 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If you thought that was bad, take a look at the first sentence of this post:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Oh.... my.

That is some seriously brain-damaged posting, that's what that is...

... really sad.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#168 Apr 5, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.... my.
That is some seriously brain-damaged posting, that's what that is...
... really sad.
Why do so many people take the question 'how stupid can you be?' as a challenge?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#169 Apr 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do so many people take the question 'how stupid can you be?' as a challenge?
I wish I knew.

I truly do... back in the 50's some science fiction writers postulated a "knowledge pill" of some sort.

I sometimes wish that fictional tech was actually possible: think how many stupid people could be fixed...

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#170 Apr 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
----

Forget Aristotle by now. The point is that the Cosmologists in general have adopted the proposition of Lemaitre that the BB proves
the origin of the universe. Since Logic dictates that matter cannot
cause itself into existence the universe is an evidence for the existence of the Primal Cause.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#171 Apr 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
------

I have provided an evidence for the Primal Cause since the universe
could not have caused itself. But what is the use? It goes into one
of your ears and gets out of the other. Next post you will be asking for the same thing.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#172 Apr 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The theological particulars of your position are irrelevant when your position when boiled down to its basic form is ultimately the very same thing. That is why you are merely regurgitating creationist arguments.
-----

Yes, the very same thing that you cannot refute. Hence I have to
repeat over and over again.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#173 Apr 5, 2013
To "The Dude"

The Dude: If you only had evidence to discard.

Shibolet: You discard my evidence because of your preconceived notions but you can't refute it. Typical of atheists.

The Dude: You presume a "who" is necessary. It could simply be a "what".

Shibolet: Okay, let it be "what". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Refute my evidence of an outside Cause if the universe could not have caused itself.

The Dude: No need for me to claim the universe caused itself for I have not made that claim. All I observe is that the universe is here.

Shibolet: Does one have to have a PhD in Atheism to know that the universe is here? Aren't we part of it? Embarrassing isn't it?

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#174 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
I have provided an evidence for the Primal Cause since the universe
could not have caused itself. But what is the use? It goes into one
of your ears and gets out of the other. Next post you will be asking for the same thing.
And yet you want a special exception for your god. Again, you commit the logical fallacy of special pleading.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#175 Apr 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not shown the universe is caused. It may or may not be. And even if it was, you have also taken an unfounded extra leap by claiming it was caused an intelligent agent, an entity for which you have no evidence that it even exists. And then further, you have taken yet another extra leap by claiming that this undemonstrated entity of yours does not require a cause. Ergo you've just slammed straight into the infinite regression fallacy, meaning that if your cause does not require a cause then neither does ours. To suggest otherwise is a hypocritical double-standard.
--------

See what I mean? You are asking again to repeat what I have been posting for more than several times. Is it a game or what? All right, I will "show" that the universe was caused as soon as you "show" me the BB. See how illogic you guys can be?

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#176 Apr 5, 2013
To "The Dude:"

Dude: If you've ever read the Bible you would see that it intervened in human affairs rather frequently.

Shibolet: For you yes because you do not understand metaphorical language.

The Dude: Of course you could be arguing for a completely different God that we are unaware of or one you've proposed yourself.

Shibolet: No, the God I am speaking of is the same of the Bible. The problem is that the concept of God you convey to yourself is of
a man-like god. Hence anthropomorphism. The same foolishness of common theists.

The Dude: But either way as I said earlier the theological specifics are pretty much irrelevant to us. What IS important here is that you have claimed your god has limits.

Shibolet: See what I mean? Putting words in my mouth that were never in my mind. To grant man with free will and let them fend for themselves is rather a sign of unlimited power.

The Dude: This means it is not the "all-powerful" God proposed by the vast majority of ancient myths, including the one of the Abrahamic religions.

Shibolet: How about the god-myth of the atheists aka the BB? Carl Sagan referred to it as "Our morder myth of the big bang." From
"Cosmos" page 285.

The Dude: Therefore I would like to know how you determined the limits of God in an objectively verifiable manner via the scientific method.

Shibolet: And I would like to know how atheists claim that the quasi-god BB gave origin to the universe when a famous Cosmologist
recognized it as a myth.

The Dude: However be aware that this would require you to scientifically demonstrate that this being even exists first.

Shibolet: I will prove that if you prove the BB. Can't you see what
we are doing? Playing a childish game and wasting our time.

The Dude: The last person who was able to do that died 2,000 years ago. And even that was hearsay.

Shibolet: Wow! So you believe that Jesus could have done that? Some Christian must be counting the blessings for having gone through you with that balderdash.

The Dude: No God is clean of anthropomorphism. Not even the one you propose, as ultimately you are attempting to make it match up to ancient notions of cause and effect. A real non-anthropomorphic God would not necessarily have to adhere to your presumptions.

Shibolet: Try me. Open the Bible and test me on the issue of an
anthropomorphic-free God. You will be surprised.

The Dude: If the Bible is not literal then it is simply inaccurate. This is why we know the Earth is not a flat square circle, there was never a global flood, and donkeys and lizards cannot talk.

Shibolet: Yes for atheists and the common theists believers of talking serpents.

The Dude: If it requires interpretation based on allegory and parable then all interpretations are subjective and are therefore just as valid as each other. This rules out the Bible as being a reliable document for determining the nature of reality.

Shibolet: Poetry and prophecies, are never written to be interpreted in a literal manner. One must have some expertise to understand metaphorical language. If this rules out the Bible as being a reliable document we would not have reliable history books.
History is written according to the power that be.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#177 Apr 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Therefore this primal mover of yours violates cause and effect. There is no getting around it.
Of course you have no idea whether or not this primal mover of yours is not also subject to cause and effect. However as things stand at the moment, even IF cause and effect was a requirement for the origin of our universe you have zero evidence from which to claim the cause was intelligent.
-------

The Primal Mover is not subject to the law of cause and effect. That was established for things created. And a law that does not pertain to someone cannot be violated by him. Behold, I got around it, didn't I? And how could the universe have been caused by a non-intelligent cause? Now you are juggling far away from Logic.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#178 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
Forget Aristotle by now. The point is that the Cosmologists in general have adopted the proposition of Lemaitre that the BB proves
the origin of the universe.
Yes, the universe (or at least the current expansion phase) is only finitely many years old. The BB describes the expansion for t>0.
Since Logic dictates that matter cannot
cause itself into existence
Right. I am not claiming otherwise. No piece of matter caused itself.
the universe is an evidence for the existence of the Primal Cause.
Wrong.

Once again, you did not show that the universe has a cause. Everything *inside* the universe could, potentially, be caused without the universe as a whole being caused. So your argument fails at this point.

The problem is that saying 'the universe could not cause itself' is not equivalent to 'the universe had a cause other than itself'. The difference between the two is the question of whether the universe is caused at all.

Second, even if the universe had a cause, you did not manage to prove that cause is itself uncaused.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#179 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
See what I mean? You are asking again to repeat what I have been posting for more than several times. Is it a game or what? All right, I will "show" that the universe was caused as soon as you "show" me the BB. See how illogic you guys can be?
The BB does NOT postulate a cause for the universe. In fact, it does quite the opposite. It says that it is impossible to extend time to before the BB, so causality is meaningless. So, the basic BB scenario has an uncaused universe.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#180 Apr 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, the universe is uncaused.
Perhaps your difficulty is thinking there was a *time* before the universe. But time is *part* of the universe. That means that the universe existed whenever there was time (and, by extension, causality). That is precisely why it could not be caused.
And, I also want to point out your denigrating way of describing 'popping out of the hat of a magician'. No, there was no magician. A magician would be a cause and there could not have been a cause. Furthermore,'popping' also requires a previous time. Once again, the point is that time and the universe are co-existent.
Sorry if that hurts your head.
------

No, it does not hurt my head. I was rather afraid it could hurt yours. Great discovery!!! But of course time and the universe are coexistent. The universe is made up of matter and time is an accident of matter in motion. Matter cannot be uncaused. Lemaitre proved it with the BB and almost unanimously all Cosmologists agreed with him but Polymath is a Mathematician who knows better than all the scientists put together.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#181 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
The Primal Mover is not subject to the law of cause and effect.
What, precisely, is the 'law of cause and effect'? It is never presented in any physics class I have ever seen. Perhaps you can define exactly what it means to be a cause as you explain and prove this 'law'.

Why is the 'prime mover'(the existence of which has not been shown) exempt from that law? make sure you state the law in such a way that this exemption is clear.
That was established for things created. And a law that does not pertain to someone cannot be violated by him. Behold, I got around it, didn't I? And how could the universe have been caused by a non-intelligent cause? Now you are juggling far away from Logic.
The problem with your analysis is that causality is dependent on time and time is part of the universe, so causality only makes sense *inside* the universe, not outside of it. Even more, causality requires the existence and operation of physical laws. So, once again, the universe as a whole could not have been caused.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#182 Apr 5, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Logical fallacy: Special pleading
------

All you all do is pleading with your foundless arguments by making
up excuses to safeguard your preconceived notions.

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 It aint necessari... 16,349
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min Regolith Based Li... 40,811
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 26 min ChristineM 256,103
A Universe from Nothing? 1 hr thetruth 94
Who Is Satan The Devil? Is He Real? (Jan '16) 2 hr Eagle 12 28
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr Eagle 12 20,622
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr thetruth 3,774
More from around the web