INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

People believed in "visions" back then, and these could be in the form of dreams or daydreams, and it's often difficult to tell at times what was a real experience versus what was one of these visions.

Reminds me of the Buddhist koan: last night I had a dream I was a butterfly-- but wait, maybe I'm a butterfly now having a dream I'm a human.

This is true, but Acts records it as a voice being heard, not an actual meeting.

Somewhere in between the two stories is the truth.

 

[metis]

This is true, but Acts records it as a voice being heard, not an actual meeting.

Somewhere in between the two stories is the truth.

Or was it a vision? It's literally impossible to tell with any certainty. To me, whatever happened, happened.

 

[1robin]

According to Josephus, the Jews were angry about the death of James (despite James being the leader of the Jewish Christian assembly)

I've read up on ancient Judaism, prior and after the second temple restoration, and I'm not sure that what you stated actual fits with the mold of history. But I have more readings to do so I would rather finish reading up before I make a counter argument.

I missed this one. Which explains why I did not understand the following post of yours. I think Metis is a Jew or is in Judaism so maybe they can be of more help than I on this issue.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So we should be very careful about the most accepted science but we should endlessly discuss and consider valid the theories that come from the most unreliable part of theoretical science known.

1. The BGV is hardly "the most accepted science".
2. It is on par with other speculative pre-Big Bang cosmological models

Oops again.

The BGV as stated does point to a universe that began to exist.

Nope. It points to an inflationary period that began to exist. Not the same thing at all.

Ok, so this was your attempt to be clear and concise.



This is mine:

Unfortunately, what comments Vilenkin has made (especially those he later explained were over-simplifications) elsewhere do not supersede the conclusions of his formally submitted, peer-reviewed paper. The comment you just posted would likely not have survived a peer-review anyways, since its simply not an accurate or responsible characterization of the theorem.

I will offer this link one last time. Apparently Vilenkin got tired of two things. 1. People claiming his theorem allowed for an eternal universe. 2. People who claimed his theorem proves God exists. I have not done the latter nor do I remember Craig doing so.

Craig, like you, claims the BGV supports the premise of his causal argument that the universe began to exist. Since the BGV says no such thing, this is a mistake/misrepresentation/both.

 

[1robin]

1. The BGV is hardly "the most accepted science".
2. It is on par with other speculative pre-Big Bang cosmological models

No it is not. It's purpose was to be bullet proof. To not be affected by pre-big bang speculation. It's central claim is independent of the "singularity". It has no known flaws. It is widely accepted. It is consistent with the BBT and the Bible, and all other reliable cosmology.

Oops again.

You said it.

Nope. It points to an inflationary period that began to exist. Not the same thing at all.

No it doesn't. It uses the universe expansion rate to dictate a beginning.

Unfortunately, what comments Vilenkin has made (especially those he later explained were over-simplifications) elsewhere do not supersede the conclusions of his formally submitted, peer-reviewed paper. The comment you just posted would likely not have survived a peer-review anyways, since its simply not an accurate or responsible characterization of the theorem.

I do not care about cliques that push each others work through if they are in favor at the moment. The man who's theorem it is said it about his theorem. It does not get any better, concise, clear, or emphatic.

Craig, like you, claims the BGV supports the premise of his causal argument that the universe began to exist. Since the BGV says no such thing, this is a mistake/misrepresentation/both.

Do you not understand a chain of causation in a sequential argument? Some scholars work on one point, others on another, some do not like it when what they produced is used to derive a conclusion they did not intend, even if it is perfectly rational. I use Vilenkin exactly as he should be. To arrive at a finite universe. I do not care and he does not have any expertise outside of it so whatever his objections to it's use, are irrelevant to it uses rationality. It is as bad as using the latest statements of secular physicists concerning God. It is completely irrelevant. I use scientists where they belong, theologians where they belong, philosophers where they belong. Even if they object. Reliable cosmology and the Bible are consistent even if you spend another ten thousand words in an attempt to negate that fact.

BTW conversations about the singularity are as meaningless now as conversations about the dark side of a moon in another solar system were 5000 years ago.

Can you move on to another subject. This one has become monotonous?

 

[ImprobableBeing]

You're right-- it doesn't fit at all. Crucifixion was a Roman way of execution, and the Romans did not enforce Jewish Law but only their own. Pilate was very brutal, and Roman historians tell us he had to go to Rome to explain why he executed so many.

So, what did Jesus do that got the ire of the Romans? Probably the overturning of tables at the Temple since that was a source of taxes for the Romans, plus Jesus talking about this other "kingdom" undoubtedly must have sent up red flags.

Way to make up history on your own. How many Romans do you reckon was in Palestine at the time? If you have read your bible and know your history you would know the answer to this.

Crucifixion was NOT a Roman way of execution either, it was an Assyrian way of execution and was only handed out for the worst of criminals except when Jesus was crucified for some reason, then there were common thiefs being crucified too.

The whole story reeks of rewritten history or possibly made up history. We will never know since there isn't even ONE record of Jesus or any of the others crucifixions in history.

I don't like to argue against the existence of Jesus (even though there is no record of him ever existing other than the Biblical record and tales of the followers thereof to others, not one contemporary record of his existence at all) but that he was crucified is in dispute, that he'd be allowed to be buried as pleased is incomprehensible, no criminal EVER was.

I think the Bible was just rewritten to make a nice story on that, there are no records of it apart from what biblical scholars agree are not records from their original authors.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

No it is not. It's purpose was to be bullet proof. To not be affected by pre-big bang speculation. It's central claim is independent of the "singularity". It has no known flaws. It is widely accepted. It is consistent with the BBT and the Bible, and all other reliable cosmology.

You said it.


No it doesn't. It uses the universe expansion rate to dictate a beginning.

I do not care about cliques that push each others work through if they are in favor at the moment. The man who's theorem it is said it about his theorem. It does not get any better, concise, clear, or emphatic.

Do you not understand a chain of causation in a sequential argument? Some scholars work on one point, others on another, some do not like it when what they produced is used to derive a conclusion they did not intend, even if it is perfectly rational. I use Vilenkin exactly as he should be. To arrive at a finite universe. I do not care and he does not have any expertise outside of it so whatever his objections to it's use, are irrelevant to it uses rationality. It is as bad as using the latest statements of secular physicists concerning God. It is completely irrelevant. I use scientists where they belong, theologians where they belong, philosophers where they belong. Even if they object. Reliable cosmology and the Bible are consistent even if you spend another ten thousand words in an attempt to negate that fact.

BTW conversations about the singularity are as meaningless now as conversations about the dark side of a moon in another solar system were 5000 years ago.

Can you move on to another subject. This one has become monotonous?

I use theologians to provide amusement, but it's not funny when i think that you may teach your children this garbage of a pre-school understanding.

By "reliable" cosmology i suppose you mean anything that doesn't contradict the Bible because that is "known truth" and if reality is different then reality is wrong.

It's hard not to insult you, i'm doing my very best but your understanding of these things relies on your understanding of the bible and nothing else and that makes you utterly misinformed about reality.

Well, i think i did it, i didn't insult you once in this post... yay me for this incredible show of restraint.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Way to make up history on your own. How many Romans do you reckon was in Palestine at the time? If you have read your bible and know your history you would know the answer to this.

Crucifixion was NOT a Roman way of execution either, it was an Assyrian way of execution and was only handed out for the worst of criminals except when Jesus was crucified for some reason, then there were common thiefs being crucified too.

The whole story reeks of rewritten history or possibly made up history. We will never know since there isn't even ONE record of Jesus or any of the others crucifixions in history.

I don't like to argue against the existence of Jesus (even though there is no record of him ever existing other than the Biblical record and tales of the followers thereof to others, not one contemporary record of his existence at all) but that he was crucified is in dispute, that he'd be allowed to be buried as pleased is incomprehensible, no criminal EVER was.

I think the Bible was just rewritten to make a nice story on that, there are no records of it apart from what biblical scholars agree are not records from their original authors.

Romans would hold Crucifixion for pretty terrible things, such as being a traitor, or ******* off a future emperor (Looking at you Caesar).

However thievery was punishable by death according to Roman law I believe...though I'm not sure they would go all the way to Crucifixion.

I think what Metis is pointing out is that given the little interaction of Romans in the affairs of their populace that was not related to Rome, they would have left Jesus's execution up to the Jews, who would have more than likely stoned him.

Now the Bible does point out that they brought up false charges, but despite that, it would have taken days to actually formulate a trial that would pin Jesus as an actual threat to Roman rule, though apparently Pilate was rather kill happy according to what little history I know of him.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Romans would hold Crucifixion for pretty terrible things, such as being a traitor, or ******* off a future emperor (Looking at you Caesar).

I put that poorly, it was not an invention of the Romans nor was it generally used against non-Romans.

However thievery was punishable by death according to Roman law I believe...though I'm not sure they would go all the way to Crucifixion.

I think what Metis is pointing out is that given the little interaction of Romans in the affairs of their populace that was not related to Rome, they would have left Jesus's execution up to the Jews, who would have more than likely stoned him.

Now the Bible does point out that they brought up false charges, but despite that, it would have taken days to actually formulate a trial that would pin Jesus as an actual threat to Roman rule, though apparently Pilate was rather kill happy according to what little history I know of him.

Thieves were commonly punished by exclusion and nothing else, it was only thieves that committed theft against the empire (or those representing it) that would be sentenced to death (locally per the testimony of the Roman they wronged) there isn't a single historical record of a thief being crucified.

As i said, i don't really care to argue the story, it's actually quite irrelevant to the religion.

Oh and yeah, blame the Mormons for killing Christ if you must, all i know is that he likely never got crucified.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I put that poorly, it was not an invention of the Romans nor was it generally used against non-Romans.

Thieves were commonly punished by exclusion and nothing else, it was only thieves that committed theft against the empire (or those representing it) that would be sentenced to death (locally per the testimony of the Roman they wronged) there isn't a single historical record of a thief being crucified.

As i said, i don't really care to argue the story, it's actually quite irrelevant to the religion.

Oh and yeah, blame the Mormons for killing Christ if you must, all i know is that he likely never got crucified.

Despite the fact that the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, as well as other sources, refers to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans, there is only a single archaeological discovery of a crucified body dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus. This was discovered in Jerusalem in 1968. It is not necessarily surprising that there is only one such discovery, because a crucified body was usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved. The only reason these archaeological remains were preserved was because family members gave this particular individual a customary burial.

I thought that was an interesting excerpt from wiki, though I didn't see any foot notes attached to it to confirm this.

As for Crucifixion it was considered a pretty crappy way to die right? It was saved for slaves, pirates (Julius Caesar had some executed for not showing him hospitality...and because he was Julius Caesar), and enemies, but I don't think Roman Citizens were usually crucified. So if Jesus was not a Roman Citizen, then yes I can see him being crucified.

High Ranking Jews were also at times crucified.

 

[1robin]

I use theologians to provide amusement, but it's not funny when i think that you may teach your children this garbage of a pre-school understanding.

By "reliable" cosmology i suppose you mean anything that doesn't contradict the Bible because that is "known truth" and if reality is different then reality is wrong.

It's hard not to insult you, i'm doing my very best but your understanding of these things relies on your understanding of the bible and nothing else and that makes you utterly misinformed about reality.

Well, i think i did it, i didn't insult you once in this post... yay me for this incredible show of restraint.

I have as metis example the other day set the tone, resolved not to argue with people who use sarcasm and arrogance as a crutch. However you have packed so much wrong into a few sentences I can't help myself.

1. I really do not give a crap about what you think of theologians. It says more about you than them and so does the arrogance required to claim what you did.

2. By reliable cosmology. I mean reliable cosmology. The BBT is the most accepted model in cosmology by a huge margin, and BGV is one of the most excepted theorems coming out of modern cosmology. Both are reliable and both are consistent in countless ways with the Bible. Every single scrap of "cosmological science" used to contend with the Bible is contained in the most unreliable end of the most unreliable section of science, (Theoretical cosmology). Since I expect an emotionally based response to this because it is inconvenient I will give you a way to show me wrong. I will supply at least 10 pieces of reliable cosmological evidence consistent with the Bible or what can easily be inferred from it, for every piece of even unreliable (but rational and reasonable) cosmological evidence you can find that is inconsistent with it. No games, just evidence. If I see the first game or the first sign of insincerity, I will end that offer and discussion. Deal?

3. Personal commentary that is not true but even if it was can't possibly be known by you is not worth responding to.

4. You were not overt but if you do not see any derision in your post you are not looking.

Anyway one last offer and way to show your right and I am wrong. It's go, time. What are you going to do?

BTW just based on probability I would bet I have had at least twice as many hours in advanced science and mathematics than you. I work in military avionics. I go to seminars at my college on cosmology and read the latest views of RELIABLE cosmology. That is where my claims come from. My grandfather was one of the first 100 engineers to work on space flight at the local arsenal. My father is an Apollo engineer, my younger brother is a national merit scholarship winner (top .5% in the US) and works in space flight communication. The college I graduated from was where Von Braun recruited and I live in the rocket city (you know the ones that built space stations, rockets, and shuttles). I was trained in aeronautics (or some specific applications of it) by the military. So that wild speculation about me is out.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Have you posted anything in this thread from an entirely scientific perspective that you believe reasonably proves that a God exists?

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Have you posted anything in this thread from an entirely scientific perspective that you believe reasonably proves that a God exists?

Nope. I have posted mainly on one part of one argument. The evidence chain for God has thousands of arguments or millions of similar ones. They all together are not proof but are very close. This one alone is just interesting. I have no burden or claim that requires proof.

 

[McBell]

Message to 1robin: Have you posted anything in this thread from an entirely scientific perspective that you believe reasonably proves that a God exists?

He can't.
It does not exist.

 

[1robin]

He can't.
It does not exist.

I never said it did, theologians do not normally say it does, no one has claimed it does from my side that I have seen, here. I even made a long and emphatic indication of this a while back before I posted anything. Nothing helps those who do not wish to be.

Depending on how tight the criteria you wish to have, nothing of any type ever claimed has proof. You may be a brain in a vat being fed this crap. Reality may have been created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. There is no proof possible except that we think. Some of us anyway.

This is like saying. I told you faith was not proof. When no one claimed it was and faith is devoid of that burden anyway. Great argumentation there. Quit putting burdens science has but often does not meet on faith claims. I bet I have stated what burden faith has half a dozen times today. Why bother, if you don't care?

 

[McBell]

I never said it did, theologians do not normally say it does, no one has claimed it does from my side that I have seen, here. I even made a long and emphatic indication of this a while back before I posted anything. Nothing helps those who do not wish to be.

Depending on how tight the criteria you wish to have, nothing of any type ever claimed has proof. You may be a brain in a vat being fed this crap. Reality may have been created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. There is no proof possible except that we think. Some of us anyway.

This is like saying. I told you faith was not proof. When no one claimed it was and faith is devoid of that burden anyway. Great argumentation there. Quit putting burdens science has but often does not meet on faith claims. I bet I have stated what burden faith has half a dozen times today. Why bother, if you don't care?

You really need to get a new sermon.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Have you posted anything in this thread from an entirely scientific perspective that you believe reasonably proves that a God exists?

Nope. I have posted mainly on one part of one argument. The evidence chain for God has thousands of arguments or millions of similar ones. They all together are not proof but are very close. This one alone is just interesting. I have no burden or claim that requires proof.

I do not understand. What you posted from Borde, Guth, and Vilenken deals only with science, and dealing with science was their only intention. What do their scientific arguments have to do with theological arguments? What have they said that reasonably proves that a God exists?

 

[1robin]

I do not understand. What you posted from Borde, Guth, and Vilenken deals only with science, and dealing with science was their only intention. What do their scientific arguments have to do with theological arguments? What have they said that reasonably proves that a God exists?

My argument has components that are strictly scientific. Those components that exist in several different fields are compiled and a theological claim is evaluated given the argument. I use scientists for the science part, theologians for theological parts, philosophers for philosophical parts, etc.... Maybe you were asking is their an argument that is 100% science from A to Z that proves God? Was that it? The answer would be no, for proof. The answer would also be yes, for evidence.

 

[1robin]

You really need to get a new sermon.

Sermon? How in the world do you get sermon from that? I did not even mention Christ, one scripture, or a doctrine. What kind of sermons are you used to? I don't think the word means what you think it does?

I will get new claims when the ones I have do not work. I do not expect to any time soon because they have worked for thousands of years and have buried all their critics along the way.

 

[McBell]

Sermon? How in the world do you get sermon from that? I did not even mention Christ, one scripture, or a doctrine. What kind of sermons are you used to? I don't think the word means what you think it does?

I will get new claims when the ones I have do not work. I do not expect to any time soon because they have worked for thousands of years and have buried all their critics along the way.

you should look up the definition of the word "sermon" and keep reading after you read the definition you limit your self to.