Proof of the existence of God

In my opinion it's a poster who isn't interested in sharing ideas, but intent on causing emotional rises and conflicts (drama).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then do so. You have not yet done so, despite all your words.
Put up, of for Pete's sake shut up!

No. That is the proposition you want us to have, but that is not the proposition at all, no matter how many times you have been told.

We don't. We merely await you to prove your proposition, as you claim to be able to do by "thinking on facts and logic".

We haven't come to any such certainty - or at least the vast majority of us have not - I do not wish to speak for everyone.
You are making the claim - support it or please shut up.
Do not force a position onto us, forcing us to defend that which we do not claim.
Merely support your own claim.

No, it's not necessarily impossible to prove a negative position. This is a strawman on your part.
Some negative propositions are not provable, sure, where we do not have knowledge of the relevant universe (universe as in totality of all possible scenarios where the proposition could be affirmed), and where the proposition is not self-contradictory. For example I can not prove that there is not a planet in another galaxy that has life on it remarkably similar to life on Earth, where they are having a conversation just like this.
But I can prove the negative proposition that there is no coffee in my mug... because I have access to all the possible knowledge I need to confirm it.
But maybe if you did some "thinking on actual facts and actual logic" you would know that you argued a strawman, and an incorrect one at that.

You can certainly not prove that you cannot write such a thesis or a dissertation, as while it may be that no such dissertation or thesis has ever been written, that in itself is not proof that it is impossible.
But either way, you would be wrong. What's that? A thesis on negative propositions?? So much for your "thinking on facts and logic".

It simply means that he who makes the assertion has the onus to support it.
You have yet to support it - beyond some woeful examples citing the age of the example and the fact your nose doesn't fall off - but someone else has covered the non-proof, and even non-support, that those examples are for your proposition.

Then try it yourself, if you deem yourself to be a rational entity, because as of yet you have shown precious little example of it.

So put up, or for the love of all that you think you believe in, shut up!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dear posters here, it appears and I could be wrong, but I am talking with atheists here almost exclusively.




I can't be replying to you all everyday.



So, I will just ask atheists who do see the big picture of things, namely, the universe and then our nose.



It is a fact that there is order and stability in the universe, and that accounts for the nose not falling off uncertainly from our face.



So, logically some entity is in charge.



When you write to reply to me, tell me what you think, an entity is in charge or no entity is in charge, or what.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is an invention, not logic.

There's no evidence of one.

 

Why couldn't we conclude that some entity must be in change if there was chaos? Someone must be messing things up right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm just thinking and facts and logic.

 

No. The universe does not have uniform characteristics. Parts are in violent disorder, e.g. exploding stars, colliding galaxies, black holes sucking in vast quantities of matter, etc. Other parts have planets being formed, stars generating new elements from immense pressures. Life evolving.

All of these activities can be explained entirely by natural physical attractive and repulsive forces of energy and matter.

There appears no necessity for such a thing. The laws of physics seem to be managing quite well all on their own.

 

Okay fine, I admit it.

You got me.

I am God. I exist.

Happy now?

 

We just ask that you reply with your proof. You have made the claim. You insist others "think on facts and logic", so we expect you to do the same. So far you have not.

And your logical reasoning for this is...??
Just stating the conclusion, calling a logical conclusion, and hoping that we accept it as such, is not going to fly.
Think on facts and logic, Pachomius, and provide the facts and then the logic that leads you to conclude that "logically some entity is in charge".

Merely claiming is not going to be sufficient.
Put up or shut up.

Personally I do not know whether an entity is in charge or not. But nothing has led me so far to believe that there is anything but natural laws at work within the universe, and I have no reason to think that analogous laws apply everywhere else, if such even has meaning.
Oh, sorry, do you find that too arrogant, for someone to conclude that they don't know?

Put up or shut up, Pachomius.
That's all we ask of you.

 

IOW you have a concept of God but you don't want to admit it.
I'm guessing it's not fashionable to do so.

You only need to search the internet for numerous presentations for the claim that God exists, some of which are a far better put explanations, than we can produce.
But I'm guessing you're not interested in hearing reason's for the claims of God existence.

Actually you're not waiting, you simply want to kill anything he has to say without actually engaging yourself, meaningfully, in the actual subject matter.

1. Of course there is no need to rule out the idea that the cause of the universe was due to intelligence as opposed to matter. Why would there be? That would mean you would have to discard your current indoctrination.

2. Why is it solely on the theist?
Why would you be interested in such an idea? Especially if it forces you to accept ideas contrary to your own.

3. The atheist natural position is one that God does not exist, as there is no way to demonstrate that one neither believes ore disbelieves the existence of God, outside of lip-service.
Please feel free to demonstrate a practical expression of agnostic-atheism, one that we can say ''Yeah that dude is an agnostic atheist''?

That's a fair point if your only interest is to kill all inquiries, and keep your head firmly planted in that bucket of sand around your neck.
There is no point in entertaining the idea the God does not exist, in a discussion about God's existence, unless your aim is to kill all discussion.
The concept of God is not about God existing separately to us, as such an agent falls short of the definition of God, ie, The Supreme Being. Our very existence, in light of the concept of God, is born out of God's Will. Much like this response is born out of my will, by manifesting the symbols in a precise way.

He may not be here to defend himself, but his thoughts are, and they are up for grabs. Regarding his dancing teapot nonsense (with regard to revealed scripture that explains God, and some of God's activities), he himself is not required to be here.

jan.

 

I admit that in this case we are using the concept of God that Pachomius keeps referring to. We are discussing that concept.
Do I have any other? I have many - as I am happy to discuss any concept that is presented.
I have none that I believe in, or adhere to, or fall back on. Which is what you seem to require of me.
So I have a concept in this discussion - it is Pachomius' concept - and I have not only admitted it now but many times in this thread previously.
Perhaps you have simply not read this thread in all its glory from the beginning?

On the contrary, we have heard Pachomius' concept; we have accepted Pachomius' concept for the purpose of this discussion; and we are not only interested but insistent that he actually puts forth reasons for his claim of God's existence.
And not only that he put forth reasons but that he shows, given his penchant for such, how they follow from "thinking on facts and logic", and that he supports his reasons against the criticisms levied against them.
He has failed to do so.
Perhaps you would care to take up the his baton?

There is no subject matter here.
You seem to be affirming my view that you haven't read this thread but merely picked up a couple of posts.
Pachomius has offered nothing of worth. Maybe you can point out where you think he has?

First - please do not put numbers into my quote... I didn't put them, so please don't add them.
I don't rule out the idea that it was due to intelligence, or Xanu, or God, or anything else. There is nothing I have read that leads me to believe that such is the case. At best it reinforces my conclusion that we can not know.
Again, as with every time you debate with atheists, you seem to ignore their agnosticism and consider all atheists to be of the "God does not exist" variety. Maybe one day in the future you will stop doing so. I wait in hope.

It's not solely on the theist, but solely on the person making the claim, whatever that claim may be.
Don't think for one moment that my position is due to him making theistic claims he can not support - it is due to him simply making claims that he can not support.

The "atheist natural position"?? What is that supposed to mean?
The atheist practical position - i.e. how they live their life - is as though God does not exist. But their intellectual position might be one of either "God does not exist" or "I do not know". But if you assume the intellectual position from the practical position, when you know that the same practical position can be the result of more than one intellectual position, is to be fallacious in your reasoning.

Yet in a discussion about "proof of the existence of God" - as this is - it is sufficient to kill the "proof" presented if it is not supported logically, as is claimed.
And any "proof" that starts with the a priori assumption that God exists is already going to struggle.

So the point is more than sufficient for the purpose intended within the context of this thread.
Maybe you have confused this thread for a general discussion about God, rather than about "proof of the existence of God"?
Maybe you want to offer your own concept of God for discussion, and offer a "proof" of your own that we can examine?

If you intend to offer your own concept of God, as opposed to the one to which I was responding in those quotes, feel free. But please do not quote responses to one concept as though they are responses to other, unless you can show how those responses are necessarily encompassing of your concept as well.

The discussion - which again you appear not to have read in any meaningful detail so as to inform your response - was with regard accusations of flippancy on the part of Russell specifically in his debate with Copleston.
With regard his teapot, I have not suggested he need be here.

If you do intend to jump into a thread and respond to a post, it behooves you to at least understand the context of the comments to which you are responding. You seem to have not done so.

So, do you intend to put forward a concept of God that differs from Pachomius', and do you intend to provide a "proof of the existence of God" as per the thread title? Or is your sole intention to try to argue against atheism wherever you find it, irrespective of the context of their on-going discussion?

 

Oh atheists, the trouble with you is that you don't have a thesis.

Read this below and know what is a thesis and how to prove it in few words.


I say:

Just perhaps scrambling together all your pseudo arguments, you are trying to put forth this thesis which is a most deficient statement of your heart, but no mind so it matters not.

I see that you atheists are of the idea [your pseudo thesis] that the universe has always existed, therefore it could evolve into what we now see, etc.

But science tells us that the universe has a beginning.

Even then, granting though not conceding that the universe has always existed, that does not mean that it is the totality of existence, unless you can prove that the universe makes up the totality of existence.

Besides, granting though not conceding that the universe makes up the totality of existence, still we know only 4% of the universe; so there are still 96% of the universe we do not know: wherefore there is the evidence from the 4% we know to infer to the existence of God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning: of the 4% we know and of all the remainder we do not know, of which remainder there exists God the creator and operator of the universe in all the percentage that is not God Himself.

Think about that on facts and logic, no need to go into verbosity in aid of self-pomposity but vacuous altogether no matter the hot air.

 

Pachomius - I edited your post to fix your quote tags (you used a { instead of [ )

 

Oh Pachomius, the trouble with you is that you don't realise we don't need one.
It is not a competition of competing theories, but of you (or other theists) putting up their concept of God and providing "proof of the existence of God".
Do so, and we can all move along, knowing that these aren't the droids we're looking for.

You don't get to decide what our thesis is, for to do so is to raise a strawman, unless you can logically show how it follows from what we do say.

Not necessarily. Not all atheists have the same view of things. They merely share the same lack of belief in gods.
Some undoubtedly might consider the universe to have always existed. Some undoubtedly do not.

No, science tells us that what we consider to be space and time began at what we consider t=0. But it can not tell us whether this is just one of many cycles, or the absolute beginning of the universe.
Are you aware of science that can comprehensively answer this question for us?
If not then you are already onto a loser. So I expect you to ignore this criticism of your position as you do with every other. And no doubt you will just press the reset button again.

We don't need to prove anything. You do. You are the one making the claim. "Burden of proof" etc.
If atheists decide to make a claim, such as "the universe has always existed", then the burden of proof would be on them with regard that claim.
That's how it works. We expect, and have expected from the outset, for you to follow this.

If we only know 4%, as you suggest (please provide a reference to support this) then that is quite possibly sufficient to establish many things, such as the relative uniformity of the universe, that there are universal laws, that the universe in that 96% operates in the same way, with fundamentally the same concentrations of matter, energy etc.
If you want to do more than argue from ignorance (given that you are always harking on about "thinking on facts and logic" I am confident that you know what it is to fallaciously argue from ignorance - of which you seem quite adept) then perhaps you can support your notions with more than something akin to "well, you can't prove it isn't the case!".

Put up or shut up, Pachomius.
That's all we have ever asked of you.

Ooh, is that your hand hovering over the Reset Button?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My thesis is that your definition of God, "Creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning" is unsatisfactory, because it leaves out what most theists believe is most important about God, namely his being a 'person' and his moral and soteriological qualities. It doesn't tell us why a metaphysical function should be worshipped as being divine.

My thesis is that I don't know of any plausible reason to believe that any existing being corresponds to 'creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning'. I don't know of any good reason why everything with a beginning would need to have the same creator and operator, instead of countless different ones in each case. Nor is it clear how the meaning of your word 'creator' differs from 'cause', and how 'operator' differs from 'laws of physics'. And finally, I'm not even sure what 'beginning' means. Potters fashion pots out of pre-existing clay, they don't create them ex-nihilo.

Those are just two propositions. Tossing in the magic words 'so logically' doesn't demonstrate that the second proposition is a logical consequence of the first. What you have produced here appears to be what logicians call a 'non sequitur'.

I agree with you that there does seem to be order in the universe. The laws of nature seem to us to hold true everywhere in the larger universe that we can observe. We assume that mathematics and logic hold true as well, and we have no convincing reason to doubt that. Our assumptions of universal nomological homogeneity got a rude shock on the microscale, where different non-classical principles seem to hold sway. But quantum mechanics aren't a total break with classical physics, and certainly not with mathematics. Quantum physics is nothing if not mathematical. (That's the problem with QM, it's a mathematical formalism that works very well instrumentally, without an agreed-upon physical interpretation.)

Is it right to say that the laws of physics are "in charge"? It might seem that way. The problem is that the laws of physics appear to be inductive abstractions, that express the invariants in how countless individual physical events are observed to unfold. In a word, the laws of physics seem to be conceptual models, created by human beings, that summarize what we humans perceive to be the regularities in how physical events take place.

The laws of physics don't seem to me to be powerful if occult metaphysical "entities" that somehow control the universe. And it goes without saying that the laws of physics are very distant from traditional concepts of a monotheistic God. The laws of physics are impersonal, diverse, a-moral and seem to have nothing remotely to do with salvation. And the laws of physics don't seem in any way holy or divine.

OK, so what do I think about your idea that there must be an "entity in charge"? I don't know of any plausible reason to believe that, so I don't believe it. Your observation that there is order in the universe doesn't suffice, as I just argued.

Is English your first language?

I don't know whether the universe has an origin in time or whether it has always existed. I don't know why the universe displays the order and regularities that it does. Neither do you. I don't think that any human being possesses those answers.

Agreed. It's true that the word 'universe' is often used to mean 'totality of existence'. Other times it seems to mean 'this space-time-matter continuum'. And obviously many people confuse the two meanings, assuming that they are equivalent. Philosophers are often more interested in the stronger 'totality of existence' definition, since they want to address the ultimate question of why existence exists at all. Scientists are more apt to use the weaker 'this continuum' definition, since it defines the scope of their methods.

I don't know where you got your percentages, but I agree that current human knowledge is very limited. That would seem to be better justification for agnosticism, than for leaping to grand speculative metaphysical conclusions on the basis of nothing at all.

Sometimes the most intelligent and mature thing is to admit that we really don't know.

 

Dear atheists, no need to reply to your limited thinking, please consider that according to science time has a beginning so also space.

Are you into insisting that the existence status came forth from the non-existence status, meaning in plain language: there was literally nothing then something came forth?

You see, you keep on and on insisting in your understanding of beginning as a time concept, but beginning also means a causative beginning.

Now, you will ask, can causation occur outside time?

Yes, of course: because science tells us time has a beginning, so on causative antecedence in which antecedence there was no time, time itself by causation came into existence, so that all things in time existing are now subject to time.

But time itself is caused and it has a beginning, a causative beginning outside time itself.

The way I see you, you are banking all your thinking on the concept of beginning as only a time captive concept, in which case you are of the idea that everything in existence came forth from nothing -- which is an absurd idea.


Think about this idea, there has always (non-time always) been something in existence from which something everything in time came forth, and time itself began existing together with the everything that came forth from the causative agent which has always (non-time always) existed, i.e., in what we call for lack of a better term and concept, eternal existence.

That is a very old fallacious non-thinking tack of atheists, binding the word beginning to an exclusively time captive concept.


Here, think on facts and logic on this idea or distinction:

1. Time based causation which is what we humans observe all the time in time; let us call this chronological causation.

2. Timeless based causation which is what we can know even though we never experience any causation in which time antecedence is not involved; let us call this second case a-chronological causation.


The lesson you must always bear in mind is that you cannot without absurdity maintain that something came forth from nothing, i.e., you must maintain with certainty at the cost of going absurd: that something always exists even in the causative antecedence of time, meaning when time has not begun to exist by causation, it the something already and always (non-chronological already and always) exists.

So, the default foundation of all thinking is that there has always existed something beyond time and space, but when it created time and space, everything which it created in time and in space is subject to time and space.

And that something is what I call God, in concept the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a chronological and causative beginning -- and God Himself is not subject to time and space.

Answer this question before you go forth into verbosity in aid of fallacious thinking:

Has there already and always (non-chronological already and non-causative always) been the default status that something has already and always existed, instead paradoxically nothing?

 

The bs continues. Now we atheists suffer from limited thinking.

Evade, Pachomius, evade.

 

Pachomius... what, exactly, do you hope to achieve or prove by posting in this thread whilst ignoring any comments directed at you?

 

This is how you know that you are dealing with a liar. All these "I will prove God exists" types are liars. They want to control some aspect of the world or some group of people and they will gladly lie to do it.

 

Many atheists admit that they do not know. It could be that the universe always existed. You are right to say that simply making something up isn't a good solution. Sadly, saying that God-did-it is not better.

This doesn't make sense. All science has to say about cause and effect it says within spacetime as we know it. All the well-thought-out claims that I know of that involve a beginning to spacetime as we know it either say nothing about any cause outside of spacetime or imagine yet another spacetime, like the one we are in, in which cause and effect takes place. So none of these theories involve cause and effect outside of "time".

If you have some sort of scientific source about this, then it might be interesting to see. However, given your behavior, I doubt that you do.

I don't think that there is any lesson in that passage. It seems not to be coherent.

 

Sarkus,

He's asking for your concept. Maybe if you engage him, he'll make his point.

Anyone can have many concepts of God, but we're not discussing many concepts, we're discussing 'God', The Supreme Being, The All-Mighty, The First Cause, etc... Of course you can waste time with any concept your mind can muster, but it only comes across as an evasion tactic.

No one is talking about belief, or something to fall back on. You must have a concept of God, or not (which would beg the question as to why you are taking part in this discussion). He is simply asking you what it is. Why is that such a difficult task?

Why use his concept, when he ask's for your concept? How will he make his point if you don't participate

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

in his request?

I've read enough to get the jist.

I think it is hard to say whether or not he has failed, because from what I have read, no atheist has put forward a proper concept of God. It would seem that using his own concept, as your own defeats the object, holding up the progression. He may well fail, but you won't really know until you comply.

I wouldn't know how to prove God's existence to someone like yourself, and others. So I wouldn't make a thread like this. Also, I wouldn't approach it the way Pachomius has, but I am naturally interested in his claim, and would like to see where it goes.

Why did you feel the need to use Xanu?

What is it that you don't believe in?
Is it everyone else's ideas, or your own idea?
What is it that cannot be known?
Your idea of God?
What is your idea of God, and what is it about God that you conclude God cannot be known?

Is it me, or have you contradicted your position?

Then comply with his request and supply your concept of God, or admit you don't have one. This way he'll be able to make his point (as I stated before).

It is in reference to the word ''atheist'', which defaults the position to ''one who does not believe in God''

And like anyone else, how they live their life is based on their worldview. Intellectualism falls within that, and has no independent existence. You live your life as though God does not exist, because for you, at every moment, every decision, God does not exist.

It simply common sense. For you God does not exist (until such time that He does).

How have you killed the proof when he hasn't presented it yet?
Isn't your personal, honest concept of God required?

Well given the subject matter, one cannot say whether or not it is going to be a struggle, as observing God may not be the same as observing a star. One would think one would come to the table with an open mind, not a sledge hammer. Personally I don't know how he intends to prove God, to any atheist here, but I'm not going to knock him before he gets a chance. At least comply with him and see where it goes. Plus I would like to know what your concept of God is.

Why do you always ask this? I can work with any concept of God, because I comprehend who and what God is, from scripture.
I have already explained to you what God is, and from that, any concept you care to come with, lies within those aspects.
So simply remember what I've told you, then you needn't ask in future.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That is what ''God'' means. It's not a concept. The sun may be explained differently from different sources, but the sun is what it is without the various perceptions. If God isn't those attributes I put forward, then He isn't God. You could do well to keep that in mind. My concept of God has to keep those attributes in mind, or else I would be making stuff up.

There's no need for me to posit a concept, as I have told you what attributes God must have to be God. If you refuse to work with that, then you are clearly trolling.

I am not going to attempt to provide proof of God's existence to you or any atheist in these forums, but I am interested in hearing Pachomius's attempt.

Arguing against atheism is pointless. I'm more interested in the mental position of the modern atheist, the types that frequent forums like these.

jan.