INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Falvlun]

I believe in evolution etc all of that, yes science repeatedly proves religion wrong but I'm not saying religions are right by any means. I believe science will eventually prove everything in the universe, except for the creation of it. Science will never be able to prove that, so that's why i rationally conclude that something unscientific started or created the universe.

You can't claim to "rationally conclude" that something "unscientific" (whatever that means) created the universe merely from your belief that "science will never be able to prove what caused the universe". First you must prove that a) science will never be able to prove what caused the universe and b) that humans must have the ability to discover the cause in order for the cause to be natural.

I mean, a thousand years ago, humans had no idea about evolution. Should they have then "rationally concluded" that humans were created by God?

Your argument is one from ignorance, and is basically just another "God of the gaps" sort of argument. The rational conclusion to "I don't know how the universe could have been created" isn't "Therefore, God must have done it". It is "I don't know."

 

[Koldo]

Well one of the attributes of god is that he is un-created and the creator of all things.
Logic does say that there has to be something that is eternal because something had to came to existence.
It comes to the basic that nothing cant create something and even random quantum mechanic do not come out of nothing or exist of nothing.

What do you mean by 'eternal'?

 

[F0uad]

So in other words, your logic is circular. You believe the universe must be created because you believe God must have created it therefore the universe must be created.

How is this circular please clarify? It makes perfect sense you just repeated yourself twice.. i see no error.

First, you must show that the universe must have been created.

Ill repeat myself again we cannot have a infinite history and every scientist agrees that the universe came to existence.

But you aren't using logic. You are only using belief, as shown above. I'm saying that God isn't a necessary hypothesis. Is it possible that God created the universe? Of course. But is it necessary that a God did this? That has not yet been proven.

I see where you are getting at however do you have a better explanation?
Are you saying that its not more rational to belief that Something created Something then designed it instead of believing that nothing created something and that chaos lead to harmony? Do you even know that the chances of our solar-system alone is over the number of 10 to the power of 10? Could you also show me how chaos can lead to harmony?

Just because you can't imagine an eternal history doesn't make one impossible. I mean, you can imagine an eternal God, no? Does that mean that it was impossible for God to create the universe since he always existed? If your answer is no, then there's no reason an eternal universe is any less plausible.

The problem here is that we know that the universe came to existence. As i said if there is a infinite history there would be no progress so it makes no sense to belief in it any logical person would agree.

Show me then. But from everything I've heard, physics rarely agrees with itself and there's much that is not understood and the things that we think we know are incredibly strange.

This will take to long we would have to take astronomy in the discussion.

 

[F0uad]

What do you mean by 'eternal'?

That something what is uncreated had to create the something, i am not going to discuss with everyone on this thread.

 

[Koldo]

That something what is uncreated had to create the something, i am not going to discuss with everyone on this thread.

You didn't answer my question.
What do you mean by 'eternal' on that sentence?
What definition are you using for that term?

 

[F0uad]

You didn't answer my question.
What do you mean by 'eternal' on that sentence?
What definition are you using for that term?

Something that existed for always outside the time-boundaries.

 

[kevino434]

You can't claim to "rationally conclude" that something "unscientific" (whatever that means) created the universe merely from your belief that "science will never be able to prove what caused the universe".

I mean, a thousand years ago, humans had no idea about evolution. Should they have then "rationally concluded" that humans were created by God?

Your argument is one from ignorance, and is basically just another "God of the gaps" sort of argument. The rational conclusion to "I don't know how the universe could have been created" isn't "Therefore, God must have done it". It is "I don't know."

There's plenty of stuff science can't explain today that I believe science will eventually prove. But the point is that science will eventually be able to prove everything except for what created the universe.

If it's ignorant to conclude that God created the universe, how isn't it ignorant to conclude that science will eventually prove how the universe was created? Both statements are opinions and neither are proven true.
However, saying "I don't know" is the exact opposite of the point of this disucssion/debate.

 

[Falvlun]

There's plenty of stuff science can't explain today that I believe science will eventually prove. But the point is that science will eventually be able to prove everything except for what created the universe.

How do you know the bolded part?

If it's ignorant to conclude that God created the universe, how isn't it ignorant to conclude that science will eventually prove how the universe was created? Both statements are opinions and neither are proven true.

You claimed that your conclusion was "rationally concluded", and an "indisputable rational proof". If you had merely said that it was your opinion, then yes, the two would be equivalent.

That is not my position, however. My position is that "We don't know". Seeing as how this is manifestly the case, I believe that this position is in fact more rational to hold than any opinion that hypothesizes an answer with insufficient evidence, and especially those that are merely based upon faith.

To be clear, I have not claimed that it is my opinion that science will find the answer. I am saying that we don't know whether science will or not, and your edict that it will not is a bit premature and unfounded.

 

[kevino434]

What domino set your supreme being in motion?

No domino. That's why its a supreme being.

 

[kevino434]

I don't see why it can't be said that it's the universe itself that has always existed, in some form or another. And quantum physics is getting us closer to explaining existence apart from the need for a god. If the original state of the universe was a vacuum, we used to know that nothing could exist in a vacuum, until it was discovered that small particles of electro-magnetic energy can, in fact, exist in a vacuum. So there we see that we are one step closer to explaining existence apart from the need to resort to the god-idea. This, and like I said earlier, the idea that the universe has always existed, albeit in different forms over time. Much simpler explanation.

What created the vaccuum? What created the electronegative particles? What created the laws of the universe?

 

[Koldo]

Something that existed for always outside the time-boundaries.

'Always' and 'existed' are within time-boundaries.
Your definition is self-contradictory.

 

[Revoltingest]

No domino. That's why its a supreme being.

If everything must have a cause, wouldn't the supreme being need one too?

 

[arthra]

Baha'is would agree that the universe was created by God..actually we would say the creation process is continuous and God has not stopped creating..

This argument for the existence of God is not new that something had to say start the process...but it has problems to me:

From the Baha'i Writings:

For all existing beings, terrestrial and celestial, as well as this limitless space and all that is in it, have been created and organized, composed, arranged, and perfected as they ought to be; the universe

~ Abdu'l-Baha

I like the theory that proposed the universe as a hologram as in the wikipedia article:

In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies.

Holographic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This universe is not created through the fortuitous concurrences of atoms; it is created by a great law which decrees that the tree bring forth certain definite fruit. Verily, this universe contains many worlds of which we know nothing.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 138

Some associated the "Big Bang" theory with the creation... In our belief though the universe has always been there...the "creation" had no beginning:

Therefore, as the Essence of Unity, that is the existence of God, is everlasting and eternal -- that is to say, it has neither beginning nor end -- it is certain that this world of existence, this endless universe, has neither beginning nor end. Yes, it may be that one of the parts of the universe, one of the globes, for example, may come into existence, or may be disintegrated, but the other endless globes are still existing; the universe would not be disordered nor destroyed; on the contrary, existence is eternal and perpetual

~ Abdu'l-Baha

The issue to me is how we see things and man's perception of the universe has radically changed over the past century and will continue to change as advances in knowledge occur ... Trying to defend a theology that has God creating the universe in finite time in an ordinal fashion and then walking away... is to me irrational and maybe anthropocentric...looking at God as a clock maker.

The other interesting thing to me is that we really don't know what is the creation process... The way we're presently constituted it may be we'll never know.

 

[kevino434]

How do you know the bolded part?


You claimed that your conclusion was "rationally concluded". If you had merely said that it was your opinion, then yes, the two would be equivalent.

That is not my position, however. My position is that "We don't know". Seeing as how this is manifestly the case, I believe that this position is in fact more rational to hold than any opinion that hypothesizes an answer with insufficient evidence, and especially those that are merely based upon faith.

To be clear, I have not claimed that it is my opinion that science will find the answer. I am saying that we don't know whether science will or not, and your edict that it will not is a bit premature and unfounded.

Yeah sorry I accidentally thought you said science will prove it eventually. But you're right it's most rational to say you don't know what created the universe, because there isn't sufficient evidence for either side. But, if you had to pick between a God and science, it would be more rational to pick God, for all the reasons discussed here. Well, more rational in my mind anyways.

 

[F0uad]

'Always' and 'existed' are within time-boundaries.
Your definition is self-contradictory.

Maybe i should rephrase it because i don't think you fully understood me i meant to say that he "it" always existed in these time-boundaries and beyond.

 

[Koldo]

Yeah sorry I accidentally thought you said science will prove it eventually. But you're right it's most rational to say you don't know what created the universe, because there isn't sufficient evidence for either side. But, if you had to pick between a God and science, it would be more rational to pick God, for all the reasons discussed here. Well, more rational in my mind anyways.

What are you talking about?
Science isn't a 'thing'. How could science create anything at all?

 

[F0uad]

Baha'is would agree that the universe was created by God..actually we would say the creation process is continuous and God has not stopped creating..

This argument for the existence of God is not new that something had to say start the process...but it has problems to me:

From the Baha'i Writings:

For all existing beings, terrestrial and celestial, as well as this limitless space and all that is in it, have been created and organized, composed, arranged, and perfected as they ought to be; the universe

~ Abdu'l-Baha

I like the theory that proposed the universe as a hologram as in the wikipedia article:

In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies.

Holographic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This universe is not created through the fortuitous concurrences of atoms; it is created by a great law which decrees that the tree bring forth certain definite fruit. Verily, this universe contains many worlds of which we know nothing.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 138

Some associated the "Big Bang" theory with the creation... In our belief though the universe has always been there...the "creation" had no beginning:

Therefore, as the Essence of Unity, that is the existence of God, is everlasting and eternal -- that is to say, it has neither beginning nor end -- it is certain that this world of existence, this endless universe, has neither beginning nor end. Yes, it may be that one of the parts of the universe, one of the globes, for example, may come into existence, or may be disintegrated, but the other endless globes are still existing; the universe would not be disordered nor destroyed; on the contrary, existence is eternal and perpetual

~ Abdu'l-Baha

The issue to me is how we see things and man's perception of the universe has radically changed over the past century and will continue to change as advances in knowledge occur ... Trying to defend a theology that has God creating the universe in finite time in an ordinal fashion and then walking away... is to me irrational and maybe anthropocentric...looking at God as a clock maker.

The other interesting thing to me is that we really don't know what is the creation process... The way we're presently constituted it may be we'll never know.

Just to wake you up an infinite history doesn't exist in this time and scientist agree that the universe came to existence after the Bang.

 

[kevino434]

If everything must have a cause, wouldn't the supreme being need one too?

Because it's a supreme being. Everything needs a cause except for what set the first domino in motion. There must be one exception. If there wasn't an exception, then there would be an endless line of dominos because you'll always need one to knock down the next. And the dominos would never fall because there would need to be a cause for the first effect, that didn't have a cause. Or else that would need a cause and that would need a cause etc. There must be an exception.

 

[kevino434]

What are you talking about?
Science isn't a 'thing'. How could science create anything at all?

I mean whatever science will eventually conclude created the universe. Idk what to say to generalize the belief that something un-Godlike and that obeys the laws of science created the universe

 

[Koldo]

Maybe i should rephrase it because i don't think you fully understood me i meant to say that he "it" always existed in these time-boundaries and beyond.

These time-boundaries? Do you mean all of them?
What does it mean to 'exist beyond time-boundaries'? What meaning is in this sentence?