INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Enai de a lukal]

Cause and effect doesn't work for you?

Sure it does (so far as it goes). But extrapolating causal reasoning from within the domain in which it applies and is defined (i.e. the universe) to the entire domain itself, does NOT do it for me... and that being a textbook case of a compositional fallacy doesn't really help either.

In any case, its a self-defeating line of reasoning since causality still has one exception- God. (and there's no empirical basis for the distinction between things that began to exist and things that exist anyways- this switch in premises for the cosmological argument is completely ad hoc and measured for the desired conclusion)

 

[McBell]

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.


Can we get past this semantic diversions and back to the science and what is consistent with it? Every conversation is the same. The science all goes in a direction consistent with God and so to avoid that unallowable fact, I have to spend thousands of words on what the definition of is, is. Or counter theories who's only merits are that they can't be proven absolutely false. Something has gone wrong terribly wrong when the faith guy is the only person going with the best evidence. If you do not like the term law, then use principle, perfectly consistent theory, or even beige unicorn hippocampus. I do not care. The issue is that effects always have causes without any known exception.

So what caused your god?
Merely claiming to believe that god was not caused does not work.

I can't believe this 4th grade Sunday school question is still being asked. How could anyone know something they are this ignorant about exists or doesn't exist. Reminds me of a former PLO terrorist I know of. He said in 3rd grade he did not know what a Jew was but knew he hated them. God as the concept illustrated in the Bible is uncaused. Only things that begin to exist need a cause. That is how the law or principle is stated, specifically. In fact the universe and every real thing that has ever existed must have am uncaused first cause. There is no such thing as an infinite regression of causation that actually creates anything. If you have something there must be a first uncaused cause of some type of it.

Interesting how you just showed your own example of an exception to the one law you said had no exceptions.

Even more interesting how you seem to be completely unawares you ever so thoroughly proved my point while destroying your argument.

 

[Thief]

Sure it does (so far as it goes). But extrapolating causal reasoning from within the domain in which it applies and is defined (i.e. the universe) to the entire domain itself, does NOT do it for me... and that being a textbook case of a compositional fallacy doesn't really help either.

In any case, its a self-defeating line of reasoning since causality still has one exception- God. (and there's no empirical basis for the distinction between things that began to exist and things that exist anyways- this switch in premises for the cosmological argument is completely ad hoc and measured for the desired conclusion)

I see no cause to label God as an exception.
Especially when He IS the Cause.

The singularity had a Cause....I believe in Spirit first.

 

[1robin]

How about the singularity?
I say God did it.
You would agree?

The singularity (whatever it might be) has no known explanation of its self within it's self and no theoretical reason based on reliable evidence to suggest it ever could have. Yes I believe God did it, but the classical argument only indicates a cause identical to God did it. The tiny step from that to my God is reasoned faith.

 

[1robin]

There probably was no "singularity"- classical physics predicts a singularity, but we know classical physics is wrong. And saying "God did it" is not only completely unwarranted (completely speculative), its completely vacuous as well. Seriously, saying "God did it" adds exactly no more and no less than saying "a wizard did it"- or saying nothing at all.

Classical physics is as true as it ever was. We just found places it does not work. No one knows what governed the singularity but yet again no reasons exists to think it created its self or was eternal. God did it is faith but it a reasoned faith consistent with all reliable evidence, unlike eternal things, something from nothing (which is actually something in a scientists mind apparently), etc.. which defy reliable evidence.

 

[1robin]

Ah, now that wasn't so hard, was it? It only took you several sentences of irrelevant bluster before you got to answering the question. Unfortunately, axioms of classical logic have nothing to do with these so-called "philosophical laws" you're so confused about. For one thing, logical axioms, like those of classical logic, can be used or disposed of depending on what our purposes are- classical logic doesn't always work, and sometimes we need to employ a paraconsistent logic (one in which the law of contradiction does NOT hold generally)- so even as far as it goes, your example doesn't even work. But in any case, these are logical axioms, not a posteriori factual/empirical principles, such as the one in question regarding the universe.

I have no idea what your talking about. What was not so hard? What sentences? Someone asked a question and I gave an answer. The answer you took and placed in a new context and declared it a failure.

And BTW, holding forth on subjects you have not the slightest clue about tends to lead to this foot-in-mouth syndrome you keep contracting, not that you seem to care too much about that.

If you had any concept of where your credibility with me stands after all these shell games and semantic technicalities to avoid consistent and reliable science. You would not waste time typing out meaningless personal commentaries.

Idk, is it because making unwarranted and stupid comments is so prevalent in theism?

If rhetoric and person rants had any poser what so ever you would create your own singularity. There is not one argument or piece of evidence in your entire post, as usual.

Get some arguments or some evidence and quit this meaningless banter crap. Heck I would prefer even the usual false arguments at this point. This is not science, philosophy, logic, reason, or even an argument. It is white noise.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I see no cause to label God as an exception.

Oh really? So what was the cause of God? Oh wait, God is an exception... Which means that the universe could, by the same token, be an exception, which would leave God out of the picture entirely... Oops.

Classical physics is as true as it ever was. We just found places it does not work.

If we've found places where it does not work, then it is not "as true as it ever was" since, there didn't used to be any places where it didn't work (that we were aware of, at least).

What sentences?

All of the ones preceding the one I quoted.

Get some arguments or some evidence and quit this meaningless banter crap.

Nah, I'm perfectly content pointing out the flaws and misrepresentations in yours.

 

[1robin]

Oh really? So what was the cause of God? Oh wait, God is an exception... Which means that the universe could, by the same token, be an exception, which would leave God out of the picture entirely... Oops.

There is no reason to think God finite. There is no reason to think the universe eternal. What is certain is that an uncaused first cause must exist. It must have the same characteristics ignorant men described for God 5000 years ago. This is not even interesting any more. If you do not understand what is true of the philosophy of cause and effect, what all the reliable cosmological evidence indicates, and what is true of the Bible's concept of God then we are talking past each other. Nothing can be settled if an opponent doe snot grant that common ground that is inconvenient is common ground. Why can't I get an atheist of all people to go with the evidence?

You do not often see a hypocritical emoticon.

If we've found places where it does not work, then it is not "as true as it ever was" since, there didn't used to be any places where it didn't work (that we were aware of, at least).

Yes it is. It works in every single place it ever worked. You are confusing a scientists faulty application with what is true in natural law. If it did not work in a place that we were unaware of exactly how is it not doing so since we are aware of it a loss? It does exactly what it has always done and no arrogant scientist's claims have anything to do with it.

All of the ones preceding the one I quoted.

This is not scientific or theological so I do not care.

Nah, I'm perfectly content pointing out the flaws and misrepresentations in yours.

So you would rather point out faults that do not exist than actually presenting any evidence or counter arguments. I believe this, at least. I see two swing and a misses' here, and two no shows. Evidence might be a helpful alternative for you, but have it your way, and your boring me silly.

 

[McBell]

So you would rather point out faults that do not exist than actually presenting any evidence or counter arguments. I believe this, at least. I see two swing and a misses' here, and two no shows. Evidence might be a helpful alternative for you, but have it your way, and your boring me silly.

Except that pointing out flaws in your argument that you either can not or will not see is in fact a valid counter argument, regardless of how much jumping up and down screaming otherwise you do to ignore it.

 

[1robin]

Except that pointing out flaws in your argument that you either can not or will not see is in fact a valid counter argument, regardless of how much jumping up and down screaming otherwise you do to ignore it.

is evidence just completely off your radar in general? Your team has lost and is in the field house blaming it on the fans and the refs. Cheerleading is no longer going to help.

 

[McBell]

is evidence just completely off your radar in general? Your team has lost and is in the field house blaming it on the fans and the refs. Cheerleading is no longer going to help.

again, it matters not how much you jump up and down screaming otherwise...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

What is certain is that an uncaused first cause must exist.

Only if its opposite day. Saying something like this is just embarassing for you; the causal argument's flaws are so well-known and so fatal that its a serious hit against one's credibility to claim not only that this long recognized as unsound argument is defensible, but that it is certain. Clearly, you've thrown all honesty and accuracy out the window at this point. And let's just note that we've covered the many reasons why the causal argument is not even possibly sound, both directly, and by referring you to several threads on that specific subject- and yet, your conveniently short memory once again allows you to repeat already refuted claims (claims that are patently false to begin with, and hardly even need any refutation...)

This is not even interesting any more.

Indeed. No reputable philosophers really even discuss the causal argument any more, much less try to defend it. It is purely of academic interest- it is no longer a live option (if it ever was, its basic flaws have been known for centuries- i.e. before modern science made it seem even more ridiculous).

If you do not understand what is true of the philosophy of cause and effect

Let me stop you right there before you put your foot in your mouth. You have no idea about "what is true of the philosophy of cause and effect".

Yes it is. It works in every single place it ever worked.

Riiiight- classical physics is as correct as it ever was, even though we now know that it is not correct, when before we did not. What an awesome argument.

This is not scientific or theological so I do not care.

Then you probably shouldn't have asked...

So you would rather point out faults that do not exist

No, I know you are- now what am I?

 

[Thief]

Oh really? So what was the cause of God? Oh wait, God is an exception... Which means that the universe could, by the same token, be an exception, which would leave God out of the picture entirely... Oops.




If we've found places where it does not work, then it is not "as true as it ever was" since, there didn't used to be any places where it didn't work (that we were aware of, at least).

Face palm yourself.
Someone had to be First in mind and heart.
Choosing ..spirit first...makes perfect sense to me.

Otherwise, all of life is a complete mystery without purpose or cause....
and it all ends in dust.

Without Spirit First, your existence is no more than a complex chemical accident....
with death as the only and final result.

 

[Thief]

again, it matters not how much you jump up and down screaming otherwise...

Could the same happen in the coffin?.....in the grave?

 

[McBell]

Otherwise, all of life is a complete mystery without purpose or cause....
and it all ends in dust.

And you have never presented anything other than your fear of the complete mystery without cause or purpose in support that it isn't a complete mystery without cause or purpose.

 

[Thief]

And you have never presented anything other than your fear of the complete mystery without cause or purpose in support that it isn't a complete mystery without cause or purpose.

No such fear...really.
I don't see Man (or myself) as a mystery.

I believe in God.

 

[McBell]

Could the same happen in the coffin?.....in the grave?

If you are wrong and all of life is a complete mystery without purpose or cause that ends in dust, it won't matter how much you jump up and down screaming you believe otherwise.

of course, if you are right then it still does not matter how much you jump up and down screaming....

 

[McBell]

No such fear...really.
I don't see Man (or myself) as a mystery.

I believe in God.

you have not presented anything other than your claim to not fear your fear of the complete mystery without cause or purpose in support that it isn't a complete mystery without cause or purpose.

 

[Thief]

you have not presented anything other than your claim to not fear your fear of the complete mystery without cause or purpose in support that it isn't a complete mystery without cause or purpose.

Word games?.....again

 

[McBell]

Word games?.....again

kettle, meet pot.

The lengths you are willing to go for your denial is most impressive.