A Proof That God Exists
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#1858 Jul 9, 2013
Are you really smearing the brilliant Atheist jew Richard Feynman with your sh!t accusation?
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
For the same reason why they never get a decent answer from an atheist. Hence their ignoring atheistic questions.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1859 Jul 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
---

No, not outside of existence but outside of the universe. To be inside of the universe you are implying that the universe caused itself to exist which according to Logic is impossible. To cause itself to exist it had to exist. Since it existed it did not have to cause itself to exist.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1860 Jul 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
----

Perhaps because you are unable to reason esoterically. Einstein was
and so am I.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1861 Jul 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But that proves nothing in your context. You have to prove the existence of the programmer, not assume that existence and then justify it.
---

Sorry but it seems to me you are not thinking when you are posting.
The other day I had to take my computer to the computer repairman. Afterwards I could use my computer with ease. As an evidence to what I did I had to prove the existence of the computer repairman? I think you could make a good stand up comedian.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1862 Jul 10, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Coward theist with no proof of god and no morals.
------

I think you should see a Psychiatrist.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1863 Jul 10, 2013
Very Cynical Person wrote:
<quoted text>
Again. And you know this how?
logic Does not dictate a god. You use circular emotional logic to try and prove your point.
----

I took my computer to the repairman and I didn't have to prove that
he was inside for I saw him doing from outside. How does it go for a logical reply?

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1864 Jul 10, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Are you really smearing the brilliant Atheist jew Richard Feynman with your sh!t accusation?
<quoted text>
----

I have just decided from now on not to answer posts with ad hominem.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1865 Jul 10, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
Perhaps because you are unable to reason esoterically. Einstein was
and so am I.
And when Einstein did so, he was lead astray. That was when he stopped being able to do new physics because he was so wedded to one particular viewpoint that he could not admit the new quantum theory as true.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1866 Jul 10, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
---
No, not outside of existence but outside of the universe. To be inside of the universe you are implying that the universe caused itself to exist which according to Logic is impossible. To cause itself to exist it had to exist. Since it existed it did not have to cause itself to exist.
Once again, and to be quite clear.

The universe did not create itself. It is not self-caused. That is because it *has no cause*. It is *un-caused*, not 'self-caused'. In particular, time is necessary for causality and time is part of the universe. So, it is meaningless to talk about causality outside of the universe. In particular, the universe itself is uncaused.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1867 Jul 10, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
I took my computer to the repairman and I didn't have to prove that
he was inside for I saw him doing from outside. How does it go for a logical reply?
And you knew ahead of time that computer repair people exist. You know that computers do not fix themselves (like biological entities do). You know that computers are macroscopic, so causality works to a very good approximation.

Now, as for the universe, which you analogize with the computer. We do NOT know there is a creator of the universe: that is what you claim to want to prove, so you cannot assume it. The universe is not broken, so no fixing is required. But we *do* know that things in the universe change and interact. Unlike the computer, which is but a small part of known existence, the universe is *all* of known existence.

So, the problem is that you have no evidence for *anything* outside the universe. Your causality argument fails because causality only makes sense within the universe and certainly not for the universe as a whole. We know that no intelligence is required for stars to form, for chemical reactions to happen, etc. So why invent an intelligence to answer a question that is meaningless at its start?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1868 Jul 10, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
Does the computer programmer has to be inside the computer to affect the program? Got the sallowness of your thinking?
Yes. The computer program has to have access to tools which are **literally** connected to be inside the program: keyboard, monitor, mouse, etc.

Without those tools? Without being inside? The programmer could not have any affect at all.

So you are wrong.

Again.

(as per your usual)
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#1869 Jul 10, 2013
Ah diddums... earlier you ad homed all Atheists... and that includes the amazingly talented and much missed Atheist jew Richard Feynman.
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
I have just decided from now on not to answer posts with ad hominem.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#1870 Jul 10, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. The computer program has to have access to tools which are **literally** connected to be inside the program: keyboard, monitor, mouse, etc.
Without those tools? Without being inside? The programmer could not have any affect at all.
So you are wrong.
Again.
(as per your usual)
The exchange you and Polymath had with this guy made me burst out in laughter in the Library. His posts should listed in the "Dumb Things said by a Godbot" thread.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1871 Jul 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, and to be quite clear.
The universe did not create itself. It is not self-caused. That is because it *has no cause*. It is *un-caused*, not 'self-caused'. In particular, time is necessary for causality and time is part of the universe. So, it is meaningless to talk about causality outside of the universe. In particular, the universe itself is uncaused.
------

I have told you more than several times that the mistake for the uncaused universe was fixed in 1922 by George Lemaitre. Even Carl Sagan promoted Lemaitre's theory as the closest to the truth approach to the "Beginning of our universe." Be honest now and admit that you cannot acknowledge the truth because the priest was a theist. Most cosmologists who do not allow pride to speak louder than common sense have walked beyond that threshold.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1872 Jul 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And you knew ahead of time that computer repair people exist. You know that computers do not fix themselves (like biological entities do). You know that computers are macroscopic, so causality works to a very good approximation.
Now, as for the universe, which you analogize with the computer. We do NOT know there is a creator of the universe: that is what you claim to want to prove, so you cannot assume it. The universe is not broken, so no fixing is required. But we *do* know that things in the universe change and interact. Unlike the computer, which is but a small part of known existence, the universe is *all* of known existence.
So, the problem is that you have no evidence for *anything* outside the universe. Your causality argument fails because causality only makes sense within the universe and certainly not for the universe as a whole. We know that no intelligence is required for stars to form, for chemical reactions to happen, etc. So why invent an intelligence to answer a question that is meaningless at its start?
All right, I have no proofs for the existence of God; only evidences. Go you right ahead and prove to me that the universe was
uncaused or without a beginning. You can't. See now what I mean? So
what is it in your mental constitution to allow no place for the principle of probability to include the Primal Cause? I am not asking you to accept God's existence but to give that probability the benefit of the doubt. To let atheistic pride to speak louder than common sense is simply faithful arrogance.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1873 Jul 12, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. The computer program has to have access to tools which are **literally** connected to be inside the program: keyboard, monitor, mouse, etc.
Without those tools? Without being inside? The programmer could not have any affect at all.
So you are wrong.
Again.
(as per your usual)
------

You see? That's why I have lost confidence in the statements of atheists. They are committed to distort people's words in order to
spread their weed. I did not talk about the tools used by the computer programmer but literally the programmer himself to be inside the computer to program it. Even such metaphorical language you guys are unable to grasp.

Since: Nov 12

Pittsburgh, PA

#1874 Jul 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
All right, I have no proofs for the existence of God; only evidences. Go you right ahead and prove to me that the universe was
uncaused or without a beginning. You can't. See now what I mean? So
what is it in your mental constitution to allow no place for the principle of probability to include the Primal Cause? I am not asking you to accept God's existence but to give that probability the benefit of the doubt. To let atheistic pride to speak louder than common sense is simply faithful arrogance.
If I had a cookie laying on the table.... I walked out of the room... And the cookie is gone.... Even though I can't explain who or what took the cookie... Or if something else happened.... That does not mean that the idea that magical fairies made it disappear becomes a logical possibility.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1875 Jul 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
I have told you more than several times that the mistake for the uncaused universe was fixed in 1922 by George Lemaitre. Even Carl Sagan promoted Lemaitre's theory as the closest to the truth approach to the "Beginning of our universe." Be honest now and admit that you cannot acknowledge the truth because the priest was a theist. Most cosmologists who do not allow pride to speak louder than common sense have walked beyond that threshold.
Show where LeMaitre postulates a caused universe in his theory.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#1876 Jul 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>All right, I have no proofs for the existence of God; only evidences. Go you right ahead and prove to me that the universe was
uncaused or without a beginning. You can't. See now what I mean? So
what is it in your mental constitution to allow no place for the principle of probability to include the Primal Cause? I am not asking you to accept God's existence but to give that probability the benefit of the doubt. To let atheistic pride to speak louder than common sense is simply faithful arrogance.
Where is this evidence?

There has to be a clear and provable connection between the evidence and the claim in order to be valid and actually called evidence.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#1877 Jul 12, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>If I had a cookie laying on the table.... I walked out of the room... And the cookie is gone.... Even though I can't explain who or what took the cookie... Or if something else happened.... That does not mean that the idea that magical fairies made it disappear becomes a logical possibility.
Thank you, I've made the same statement in my post above, though in a completely different way.

Two seemingly unrelated events cannot be said to be related until that relation is proven.

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) 2 min Into The Night 69,856
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 1 hr The Wheeze of Trump 415
News Atheism and cowardice (Nov '11) 2 hr superwilly 12,672
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Into The Night 30,080
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 6 hr superwilly 579
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 21 hr Dogen 3,774
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 22 hr Eagle 12 258,469
More from around the web