A Proof That God Exists

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1838 Jul 8, 2013
Very Cynical Person wrote:
<quoted text>
Not if everything needs a cause.
-----

Yes, everything that's part of the universe. God is not part of the universe.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1839 Jul 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, the BB doesn't *prove* the universe had a beginning. The BB theory works quite well for times past about a nanosecond into the current expansion, but we *know* it will fail before that. How do we know this? Because the basic BB theory is not a quantum theory and quantum effects become more relevant as we go back further in time.
Second, when we include quantum effects in the picture, it turns out that the BB may not have been the beginning of *everything*. Instead, it is the beginning of the current expansion phase of *part* of the larger multiverse. Depending on the details, the multiverse did NOT have a beginning, so your argument fails.
Third, even in those quantum gravity theories that have the BB as the beginning of everything, there was not a 'previous' cause because time itself began with the BB (as opposed to the multiverse theories which do have previous times).
Fourth, when quantum effects are included, causality itself is problematical: quantum mechanics is not a causal theory. Because of this, your argument fails even by known physics.
-------

Follow the Logic: The proof that matter ends is evidence that matter had a beginning. Since the universe is made out of matter it stands the reason that the universe had a beginning. If it had a beginning it is only obvious that it was not always there. Therefore it was caused to exist. Conclusion: The Primal Cause is implied.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1840 Jul 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, Aristotle believed in several different types of causality. Only the 'immediate' causality would correspond to our modern notions. But Aristotle also saw the 'form'(roughly the shape) of an item as being a cause. Also, the material cause was, essentially, what the item was made from. Most relevant to your question is the idea of 'ultimate causality', which the Christians picked up on and loved. This notion of causality refers to the *purpose* of the item. Because of this, ultimate causality was thought of as being a causality backwards in time, or even a sort of timeless causality.
Like I said, not at all what the modern view is of the matter. Yes, Aristotle believed in an eternal universe that was ultimately caused (given a purpose) by a 'prime mover' that eternally contemplated 'beauty and truth', but *inspired*(caused) the material world into being.
------

I do not know HOW the Primal Cause caused the universe to exist. I didn't and no man did it. It is here and it did not cause itself to exist. Even in spite of so obvious an evidence I still give all probabilities the benefit of the doubt by "Implying" the Primal Cause. That's me. Now, from outside I demand only the same fair treatment: A place on the map of probabilities.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1841 Jul 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But you cannot assume the existence of God if you are attempting to prove that very existence. You claim that *everything* has a cause, but that God is uncaused (by definition). That alone shows that no God exists. Be logical!
The only alternative is to allow that there are uncaused things (such as God), which *still* does not prove your basic claim because now the whole argument fails (there may be many 'first causes').
----

You are wrong. I cannot admit failure in my argument. I am not presenting proofs for the Primal Cause but evidences based on Logic for the probability of Its existence. And God cannot be included among the things caused to exist because God is not part of the universe.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1842 Jul 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is because 'esoteric logic' is illogical.
------
Wrong again as you contradict yourself. Esoteric logic according to Einstein is the knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate; of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty which are only accessible to our reason
in their most elementary forms - it is this knowledge and emotion that constitute true religious attitude. And in this sense I am a truly religious man.(From the "The World as I See it.") page 5.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1843 Jul 8, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can you people never pay attention to a question mark???????? When someone asks a question, and the other person has an answer, they tend to answer it. I have no desire to go into esotericism simply because it has no merit either.
-------

That's exactly the problem with atheists. They never have an intelligent answer to a question that's not from a bird of the same feather. The impression is that they are afraid to try a little harder to think.
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#1844 Jul 8, 2013
Are you really smearing the brilliant Atheist jew Richard Feynman with your sh!t accusation?
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
That's exactly the problem with atheists. They never have an intelligent answer to a question that's not from a bird of the same feather. The impression is that they are afraid to try a little harder to think.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#1845 Jul 8, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Yes, everything that's part of the universe. God is not part of the universe.
And you know this how?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#1846 Jul 8, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
That's exactly the problem with atheists. They never have an intelligent answer to a question that's not from a bird of the same feather. The impression is that they are afraid to try a little harder to think.
I know it happens on both sides of the fence, but I was actually directing this comment toward the theists. I get frustrated alot because when I ask a question, it is ignored, and I don't understand why.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1847 Jul 8, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
God is not part of the universe.
Then? Your god cannot **possibly** affect it in **any** way.

In order to affect the universe? It **must** be **in**(and therefore a part of) the universe.

So you are lying, here.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1848 Jul 9, 2013
Very Cynical Person wrote:
<quoted text>
And you know this how?
-------

By means of Logic. When the computer programmer programs a computer he is not in the computer but outside of it.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1849 Jul 9, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
I know it happens on both sides of the fence, but I was actually directing this comment toward the theists. I get frustrated alot because when I ask a question, it is ignored, and I don't understand why.
----

For the same reason why they never get a decent answer from an atheist. Hence their ignoring atheistic questions.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1850 Jul 9, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Then? Your god cannot **possibly** affect it in **any** way.
In order to affect the universe? It **must** be **in**(and therefore a part of) the universe.
So you are lying, here.
------

See what I mean now if you read my previous post just above? Your reply this time couldn't be more empty of substance. That's what happens when one aims at just to refute without thinking what he or she is writhing about. Let me remind you of your nonsense: You say that "To affect the universe God had to be in." Only to you this could make any sense. Does the computer programmer has to be inside the computer to affect the program? Got the sallowness of your thinking?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1851 Jul 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Follow the Logic: The proof that matter ends is evidence that matter had a beginning.
No, that does not at all follow.
Since the universe is made out of matter it stands the reason that the universe had a beginning.
Again, this does not follow. Even in every particular thing in the universe had a beginning, it does not follow that there is a common beginning. For example, no matter what negative integer you pick, there is a smaller one. But there is no smallest integer. This is a standard beginner's mistake.
If it had a beginning it is only obvious that it was not always there. Therefore it was caused to exist.
And this does not follow. Simply beginning to exist does not imply a cause for that existence.
Conclusion: The Primal Cause is implied.
Your argument failed at every stage.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1852 Jul 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
You are wrong. I cannot admit failure in my argument. I am not presenting proofs for the Primal Cause but evidences based on Logic for the probability of Its existence. And God cannot be included among the things caused to exist because God is not part of the universe.
So what? Why are things in the universe required to have causes? THAT is one of your fundamental assumptions, but it is contradicted by actual observations. Then you make the special pleading that God is outside the universe (outside of existence? Doesn't that mean non-existence?) and so does not need a cause.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1853 Jul 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Wrong again as you contradict yourself. Esoteric logic according to Einstein is the knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate; of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty which are only accessible to our reason
in their most elementary forms - it is this knowledge and emotion that constitute true religious attitude. And in this sense I am a truly religious man.(From the "The World as I See it.") page 5.
So Einstein was wrong. It has happened in other contexts also. His is an irrational belief, not a logical one.

In particular, I deny the existence of knowledge that is not verifiable or testable. For these are required for a belief to be knowledge.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1854 Jul 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
By means of Logic. When the computer programmer programs a computer he is not in the computer but outside of it.
But that proves nothing in your context. You have to prove the existence of the programmer, not assume that existence and then justify it.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1855 Jul 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
For the same reason why they never get a decent answer from an atheist. Hence their ignoring atheistic questions.
Coward theist with no proof of god and no morals.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#1856 Jul 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
By means of Logic. When the computer programmer programs a computer he is not in the computer but outside of it.
Again. And you know this how?

logic Does not dictate a god. You use circular emotional logic to try and prove your point.

Since: Nov 12

Pittsburgh, PA

#1857 Jul 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
By means of Logic. When the computer programmer programs a computer he is not in the computer but outside of it.
Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world.

Lol

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) 54 min positronium 87,410
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 5 hr Dogen 5,815
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 12 hr ChristineM 4,035
Christianity almost did not happen Feb 12 Quatsch22 1
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Feb 12 dollarsbillmom 19
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Feb 10 superwilly 5,154
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Feb 9 Eagle 12 - 257
More from around the web