Proof of the existence of God

Don't waste the time of readers here.

Number 1: if you don't comprehend the sentence: everything with a begininng has a cause, you don't belong here.

But the most important thing you can do yourselves atheists a favor, is to present an example of something with a beginning but without a cause.

It is useless for you to write volumes and volumes of words, just give an example.


Annex


{quote]
Pachomius, Yesterday at 7:37 AM #256

Somebody in the net says:
A cause in physics is a flow of energy from a region of higher energy to a region of lower energy. An effect is the change that results.​

That is still begging the issue, what is the cause of the flow?

Thinking on facts and logic requires us to always seek out the ultimate cause of everything with a beginning, otherwise it is all begging the question.

Okay, guys, don’t give any attention whatsoever to anyone redefining nothing so that it is no longer literally nothing but something, he is just into making us chase a wild goose, so don’t fall for it, even though he writes volumes and volumes of fictions.

Sorry, I can’t answer to everyone, I am only one writer, writing for myself; if you have a good thought, put it in brief language, concise, precise, and definite: don’t bring in links or authorities (just appropriate it and simply mention that you borrow it, but don’t have to put any link: your borrowed idea is valid on its own merit – and you have done your duty to give credit to the author even though you don’t bother with links and explicit attributions.

Okay, for guys who want to explain away that parents are not the cause of their children, please just stop quibbling.

It’s useless.

Let us just concentrate on this idea, everything with a beginning has a cause.

Now, do your own thinking on facts and logic, please stop already with evading the instant issue, everything with a beginning has a cause.

Everytime I reply to one of you guys I notice later that you have succeeded to take away my attention from the idea, everything with a beginning has a cause.

So, and no more links from any source whatever, give your own thinking and writing on this idea, everything with a beginning has a cause.

It is a self-evident idea.

Dear readers here, I will have to go to another board in this forum to see whether I can get posters to dialog with me on the idea, everything with a beginning has a cause -- the usual atheists here are always unremittingly into evasions, nothing else.

And don’t bring in as example whatever not of the realm where we actually exist in, live in, make a living in, die in, and get buried in: nothing like virtual particles, all these fictions are altogether nothing of the reality of our existence and life.

Give an example like the baby has a beginning, it has its cause in its parents.

Or like this one which is macabre, you commit suicide by hanging yourself, the suicide event has a beginning, and you are the cause.


So, present an example of something that has a beginning but no cause: please, nothing of fictions, your example must be in the realm where we exist in, live in, make a living in, die in, and get buried in.

If you insist on such fictions like virtual particles, then just set up your own thread to talk about the fiction of virtual particles.

Everyone, concentrate on this idea, it is self-evident that everything with a beginning has a cause.

If you don't find it self-evident, just give an example from the realm where we exist in, live in, make a living in, die in, and get buried in, of something with a beginning that does not have a caujse: no need to write volumes and volumes of words, one example proves your point perfectly -- if you can present one.

So write on this matter in your next post here.


{/quote]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It seems to me that's all that you've ever done here on Sciforums. You've complained endlessly because others refuse to speak the lines that you've already chosen for them.

What is a 'cause'? Must all causes be physical causes? (How does 'cause' differ from 'explanatory account'?) What is the scope of 'everything'? (Is the universe in its entirety included?) What does 'beginning' mean? (Coming into being ex-nihilo, or preexisting being assuming new forms?) None of those questions have 'self-evident' answers.

Why? Perhaps you should try to explain what your speculations about causality have to do with atheism? Why are you posting these ideas in the 'religion' forum?

You could do everyone a favor by writing a few more words, words that explaining what your argument is intended to demonstrate and outline how it unfolds.

Right now, you seem to me to be a rather manipulative (and decidedly odd) gameplayer. That's probably why nobody seems to want to play your game. People don't like feeling that they are being reduced to straw-men, speaking lines that you have already written for them to say. They want to express their own ideas, and not serve as a voice for expressing whatever it is that you already believe atheists think.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yazata, I like to dialog with you.

Tell me, do you accept that this sentence is a self-evidently true statement, namely, everything with a beginning has a cause.

A self-evident statement does not need any proving, it just needs an explanation by way of its proponent presenting an example.

Now, if you challenge its self-evident status, then you need not write volumes of words, just present an example of its opposite, namely, there are things with a beginning but no cause.

So, Yazata, work on your example of something with a beginning but no cause.


See you tomorrow.

 

I almost forgot, if you atheist guys have an example of something with a beginning but no cause, just mention it right away at the top of your post in big font and in bold.

Now, have some of you guys presented as example virtual particles which pop in and out of existence without cause from nothing?

That is a fiction, tell me who told you that fiction?

But if you only examine the sentence, virtual particles pop in and out of existence from nothing without cause, you will notice that it tells you about virtual particles having a beginning and an ending: they pop into existence, that is their beginning, and they pop out of existence, that is their ending.

Now, suppose you do some serious thinking on facts and logic, and then ask yourselves, pray, as they have a beginning and an ending, what entity must be accredited with their popping in and popping out of existence, or who pops them into existence and thrn pops them out of existence?

Think about that, instead of swallowing everything your fellow atheist pseudo thinkers dish out to you, swallowing everything from them: hook, line, and sinker, and without any bait at all. Hahahahaha!

 

No, it's not self evident. If the universe had a cause, then the existence of that cause means something existed before the universe existed, which means it wasn't really the beginning. Show me anything with a cause and I can explain how it didn't begin.

You are asking what is the cause of something with no cause?

 

Still no proof...

 

So Pachomius just turns the wheel again, this time with his appeal to ignorance: "you can't prove the statement incorrect therefore it is self-evident".

And this is from the same person who insists we "think on facts and logic".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"What entity"? "Who pops them into existence"?
Not begging the question, are you, Pachomius.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(so much for thinking on logic!).

How can "thinking on facts and logic" get you from the existence (if indeed they do exist as anything other than mathematical representations) of virtual particles to a conclusion, nay proof, of God?

Most that didn't have a grounding in that realm of physics would conclude, through "thinking on facts and logic" that they simply do not know.
You clearly think you do know.
So you tell us what facts, and what sound logic, leads you to conclude that there is a "who" that "pops them into existence"?

I won't hold my breath, though.
I'll just wait for the inevitable monotonous turning of your wheel of drivel.

 

A reality. This implies self-evidence. In wave-particle duality, consciousness is the cause of wave-function collapse for instance.

Yes. The word "physical" and its rhythmic sounding is synonymous with "reality". Physicality makes something interactive or real. Whether that be spirit or matter. It includes supra-physical entities such as God and spirit, otherwise there would be zero interaction with these realities or reality. On page 24 of the CTMU, Langan states: We can plainly see the medium containing the objects but we cannot see the objects containing the medium.

 

You should always keep a can of self-evidence in the cupboard for those times when you run out of real evidence.

 

No it's not.

"Spirit" (whatever you mean by that) isn't demonstrably physical. Nor can it be shown to be real.

What's "supra-physical"?
"God" and "spirit" have not been shown to exist, therefore ANY claim about them is unfounded speculation.

So what?
Langan is deluded nutcase, just because he says something doesn't mean it's fact.

 

No.

That presumes that everyone else already understands the example well enough that it presents no mysteries to them. I think that your sentence raises no end of philosophical problems.

Everything with a beginning has a cause. Does 'everything' refer individually to each and every physical being in the universe? Or does it also include the universal set, the sum total of all the individual beings along with the space and time that contain them, as well as the principles of logic, mathematics and physics that seemingly govern all of it? I'm not convinced that the concept of causality applies to the entire universe in the same way that it applies to individual physical events within the universe. The answer to that one certainly isn't self-evidently obvious.

Everything with a beginning has a cause. This raises the problem of what beginnings are. None of the physical objects that we see around us came into existence ex nihilo, out of nothing. They are all rearrangements of preexisting being to which we have, rather arbitrarily, assigned new names and identities. That raises the thorny problems of explaining how reality is individuated temporally into discrete individuals as well as accounting for those individuals' temporary membership in applicable general classes, such as 'table' or 'person'. These questions have been with us since the time of the ancient Greeks and the answers are anything but self-evident.

Everything with a beginning has a cause. That raises the age old question of what causes are and how it is that human beings can know about them. Aristotle used 'cause' very broadly to mean something like 'explanatory feature'. A 'cause' was whatever contributed to a full and complete account of something. He recognized material cause (what something is made of), formal cause (how that material is shaped and configured), efficient cause (how that shaping and configuration came about), and final cause (the intention, purpose or goal for whatever happened). Pretty clearly, Aristotle was imagining the work of a craftsman and using it as an analogy. It's questionable how well that analogy applies to natural events in the inanimate physical world.

In modern Western thought, 'cause' is generally understood to mean what Aristotle would have called 'efficient cause'. David Hume famously wrote about the nature of efficient causation, the idea that preceeding events produce or somehow bring about temporally subsequent events, concluding that causation seems to us to be nothing more than constant conjunction, in which one kind of event is observed to always be preceded temporally by another kind of event. What's more, Hume's skepticism about induction cast serious doubt about how human beings can ever really know about the 'constant' part of 'constant conjunction'.

Don't posture and pose as if you are the forum's professor. I don't think that you are in any position to lead the rest of us in discussion.

If you have a point, or an argument that you want to make, then tell us what it is. Stop playing games in which all of the rest of us are expected to speak the lines that you have already written for us, before you will tell us what your own ideas are.

As for me, I'm going to continue to write whatever I feel like writing.

I've just expressed some of my ideas about why I don't think that your sentence 'everything with a beginning has a cause' is self-evident. It begs too many deep and fundamental questions.

 

Yazata, you write too much to say nothing of any substantial idea meriting thinking on facts and logic.

You don't find the statement everything with a beginning has a cause to be self-evident, then produce an example of something with a beginning but without a cause.

Simple as that.

It should be like this, present your example of something with a beginning but without a cause at the top of your post, then we will examine it together on facts and logic.

 

And again the wheel is turned, still on his path of arguing from ignorance, and still refusing to address any issues raised.
I guess trolls will do what trolls do.

 

That's rich.

 

Nothing with a beginning has a cause. If you think this statement is not self-evident, give me an example of something with a beginning and a cause.

 

It is so simple, just present an example of something with a beginning that does not have a cause, then it will be the case that everything with a beginning has a cause is not a self-evident truth or fact.

Better let us all work together* to comprehend how it is self-evident that everything with a beginning has a cause.

First, I will give another example of a statement that is self-evidently true or a fact, namely, "The whole is greater than any of its part."

Another example? Here, "The number 2 is greater than the number 1."

Study the three examples which I present as self-evidently true or a fact, and you can also produce similar statements which are self-evidently true or a fact.

Just think on facts and logic.

*Including guys I find to be incompatible with me: because they don't think on facts and logic but I do, you guys can contribute your inputs but if you proceed again skirting facts and logic, then I will just not give you any attention to reply to you -- that is the sign to you to examine where you fail in thinking on facts and logic. ​

 

This might have been mentioned already but existence itself is an example of something which exists without a cause.

Does it make sense to say existence itself began to exist?

Would it make sense to say existence itself did exist prior to the existence of the universe?

It looks to me like all of this is stepping outside the boundaries for human language. I'm not sure it's meaningful to make statements about such things.

 

I think I said a variation; a cause means something already exists, which means the universe existed before it's creation. And that's not thinking on facts and logic.