INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[kevino434]

omg i give up this is too much. and yeah ik the title is idk.

But basically.

All we definitely know is the universe. Everything we currently know of obeys the laws of the universe that we know of. IF we can all agree that the big bang happened, then ok the big bang was the known start of the outbranching chain of causes and effects that made the universe what it is today. These causes and effects also obey the laws of the universe. Back to the big bang. Something had to create, start, whatever the big bang. And there may have been something before the big bang, but lets just generalize the start of the chain of the causes and effects as the big bang. Could a vaccuum cause the big bang? what made the vaccuum? Could the laws of the universe interacting in certain ways cause the big bang? what made the laws of the universe? hopefully we can all agree that something cannot come from nothing. Let's say before the big bang, before the chain of causes and effects, there was nothng. Because eventually if you go back far enough there was nothing (unless you believe the endless loop of whatever theory which im not gonna get into..) So since something cannot come from nothing, theoretically since nothing existed in the beginning then nothing should exist now. but something does. Then something that disobeys the known laws of the universe (the only laws we know of), must have created something from nothing. This thing that created something from nothing is called God. Whatever, deity or not, we will call it God. What created God? nothing. because God is something we cannot and will not ever understand, God doesn't obey any of the laws we know of, God actually created them. God is something that we cannot explain scientifically. We can only use philosophy to conclude that, using the theorys given in this post, God must exist. If you believe that in the beginning of time, before the universe, there was nothing, then God must exist because there is something now. I rest my case.

 

[Revoltingest]

We know nothing of the nature & origin of the universe.
To make pronouncements about how this or that presumption must be universally true is fruitless.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

omg i give up this is too much. and yeah ik the title is idk.

But basically.

All we definitely know is the universe.

Agreed. So how can you extrapolate from the Universe facts about what happened "before" the Universe existed?

Everything we currently know of obeys the laws of the universe that we know of.

That we know of, yes.

IF we can all agree that the big bang happened, then ok the big bang was the known start of the outbranching chain of causes and effects that made the universe what it is today. These causes and effects also obey the laws of the universe. Back to the big bang. Something had to create, start, whatever the big bang.

You lost it at the end. How can you demonstrate that the big bang required "something" to start it?

And there may have been something before the big bang, but lets just generalize the start of the chain of the causes and effects as the big bang. Could a vaccuum cause the big bang? what made the vaccuum? Could the laws of the universe interacting in certain ways cause the big bang? what made the laws of the universe?

The rational answer to these questions, as they currently stand, is "we don't know". It is not "something 'outside' the laws of the Universe did it and - by the way - we should name that thing God".

hopefully we can all agree that something cannot come from nothing.

I don't agree. How can you demonstrate that something cannot come from nothing? We don't have any examples of "nothing" to test.

Let's say before the big bang, before the chain of causes and effects, there was nothng.

If there was nothing, then there was no time, therefore "before the big bang" is an oxymoron.

Because eventually if you go back far enough there was nothing

Wrong. The furthest we can go back is to the singularity. We don't know what, if anything, came before that, or even if there was a "before" that.

So since something cannot come from nothing,

False premise.

theoretically since nothing existed in the beginning then nothing should exist now.

Second false premise.

but something does. Then something that disobeys the known laws of the universe (the only laws we know of), must have created something from nothing.

This is a non sequitur. Even if we granted your premises (which I don't), it doesn't lead to this conclusion. You cannot invent things without basis in order to explain something you don't yet understand.

This thing that created something from nothing is called God.

Why? We could called it Lord Xenu, or the quantum flux, or Kevin Bacon.

Whatever, deity or not, we will call it God. What created God? nothing.

How do you know? Again, even if we granted all your premises, how could you possibly claim nothing created them?

because God is something we cannot and will not ever understand,

Then how can you make any claims about them whatsoever?

God doesn't obey any of the laws we know of,

Then how did God create anything? Creation is an act requiring physical laws.

God actually created them. God is something that we cannot explain scientifically.

Then you have no basis to make the claim God exists.

We can only use philosophy to conclude that, using the theorys given in this post, God must exist.

Except philosophy doesn't explain, it questions. And your logic is full of holes. And you commit several fallacies including arguments from incredulity and special pleading.

If you believe that in the beginning of time, before the universe, there was nothing, then God must exist because there is something now. I rest my case.

Your case has already been put to rest. Pretty permanently.

 

[McBell]

omg i give up this is too much. and yeah ik the title is idk.

But basically.

All we definitely know is the universe. Everything we currently know of obeys the laws of the universe that we know of. IF we can all agree that the big bang happened, then ok the big bang was the known start of the outbranching chain of causes and effects that made the universe what it is today. These causes and effects also obey the laws of the universe. Back to the big bang. Something had to create, start, whatever the big bang. And there may have been something before the big bang, but lets just generalize the start of the chain of the causes and effects as the big bang. Could a vaccuum cause the big bang? what made the vaccuum? Could the laws of the universe interacting in certain ways cause the big bang? what made the laws of the universe? hopefully we can all agree that something cannot come from nothing. Let's say before the big bang, before the chain of causes and effects, there was nothng. Because eventually if you go back far enough there was nothing (unless you believe the endless loop of whatever theory which im not gonna get into..) So since something cannot come from nothing, theoretically since nothing existed in the beginning then nothing should exist now. but something does. Then something that disobeys the known laws of the universe (the only laws we know of), must have created something from nothing. This thing that created something from nothing is called God. Whatever, deity or not, we will call it God. What created God? nothing. because God is something we cannot and will not ever understand, God doesn't obey any of the laws we know of, God actually created them. God is something that we cannot explain scientifically. We can only use philosophy to conclude that, using the theorys given in this post, God must exist. If you believe that in the beginning of time, before the universe, there was nothing, then God must exist because there is something now. I rest my case.

I have to say that this post here pretty much sums up your merry-go-round reasoning.

And where is the indisputable rational proof mentioned in the title?

 

[tumbleweed41]

First of all, I myself am a believer in the "Uncaused Cause, however, this is based on faith and not on any circular reasoning based on cause/effect.

The "cause/effect" argument fails in that it cannot be shown that cause is necessary at a quantum level or "prior" to the existence of space/time and matter/energy.

Cause and effect are physical laws that are dependent upon time/space.
On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual rules of cause/effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles pop in and out of existence with no apparent cause.
Just look at a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences.
So that even when looking at the physical laws within our own space/time observances, cause/effect on a subatomic level is not necessary. It is only when we reach a level of interaction with time/space that the cause/effect law is demonstrable.

Space and time came about only a few plank times after the initial expansion. And only within the Singularity. All the known laws that govern space, time, energy and matter exist within the Singularity.
Asking where the Singularity originated from, or if it originated at all is irrelevant as we simply cannot apply reasoning based on natural laws beyond the Singularity/Universe.
We cannot say any cause is necessary for the existence of the Singularity because the necessity for existence is only a product of natural laws within the Singularity/Universe.

 

[Falvlun]

First of all, I myself am a believer in the "Uncaused Cause, however, this is based on faith and not on any circular reasoning based on cause/effect.

The "cause/effect" argument fails in that it cannot be shown that cause is necessary at a quantum level or "prior" to the existence of space/time and matter/energy.

Cause and effect are physical laws that are dependent upon time/space.
On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual rules of cause/effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles pop in and out of existence with no apparent cause.
Just look at a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences.
So that even when looking at the physical laws within our own space/time observances, cause/effect on a subatomic level is not necessary. It is only when we reach a level of interaction with time/space that the cause/effect law is demonstrable.

Space and time came about only a few plank times after the initial expansion. And only within the Singularity. All the known laws that govern space, time, energy and matter exist within the Singularity.
Asking where the Singularity originated from, or if it originated at all is irrelevant as we simply cannot apply reasoning based on natural laws beyond the Singularity/Universe.
We cannot say any cause is necessary for the existence of the Singularity because the necessity for existence is only a product of natural laws within the Singularity/Universe.

I told you physics was weird!

(So much awesome!)

 

[crocusj]

I have to say that this post here pretty much sums up your merry-go-round reasoning.

And where is the indisputable rational proof mentioned in the title?

Sucked me into seven pages of "he" to "it" to "something".

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Science is a tool, we can tell that it started when we started figuring things out and testing those things.

How something came from nothing, you cannot explain that, even with your god theory. If you want to prove God's existence, it comes naturally, not by force.

 

[crocusj]

Not to be mean to athiests but every time i see an athiest rip on a religious person i just wanna slap them with this statement.

Do you? We don't know how the universe began and you posit an idea that you yourself admit must be outwith human knowledge as an absolute truth (because it works for you) and you want to slap an atheist with it? You are - of course - assuming that an atheist requires an alternative to your ideas but you're just flattering your own argument there. Besides, saying what cannot be is hardly proof of what can be, I understand that you think that if you fill your imaginary (as in unproved) vacuum with a - surprisingly - well supported idea, of that which we cannot conceive, as somehow concrete then it is lended weight but is is not. It is lended nothing at all. I am an atheist, I have no -as in none - idea how the universe started. I have no reason to posit an idea. I have no reason to believe in your idea.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes but the first thing was caused by something. Whatever that thing is, it transcends (not in religious context) the natural laws of the universe. That thing is called God.

That thing is called "God" by you, and for no other reason than you have arbitrarily decided to call it "God". I could call it "zippy" with no more or less reason then you have for calling it "God".

So this thing (zippy) may or may not be intelligent, may or may not be eternal, may or may not still exist. You can ascribe absolutly no attributes or characteristics to zippy, other than "first cause".

So from the assumption of first cause, an assumption I consider not unreasonable but not indisputable either, you end up with the conclusion of first cause. Calling it "God" or "zippy" changes nothing. When your conclusion is identical to your assumption you have no argument, much less indisputable proof. It is pointless.

 

[Falvlun]

That thing is called "God" by you, and for no other reason than you have arbitrarily decided to call it "God". I could call it "zippy" with no more or less reason then you have for calling it "God".

So this thing (zippy) may or may not be intelligent, may or may not be eternal, may or may not still exist. You can ascribe absolutly no attributes or characteristics to zippy, other than "first cause".

So from the assumption of first cause, an assumption I consider not unreasonable but not indisputable either, you end up with the conclusion of first cause. Calling it "God" or "zippy" changes nothing. When your conclusion is identical to your assumption you have no argument, much less indisputable proof. It is pointless.

This is a great point that hadn't really been fully addressed before in this thread. Frubals!

 

[arthra]

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.

Before the Big Bang » Scienceline

http://phys.org/news126955971.html

 

[F0uad]

Before the Big Bang » Scienceline

Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?

Those do not support what you have said earlier sorry..

 

[F0uad]

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

Well the general idea is that he created time so therefore he had to exist before time came to existence as we belief that this occurred after the Bang.

 

[Klerkie]

a spur of the moment thought; what if time is circular, not linear, so it ends up being that the beings created it? I mean this could obviously be wrong, but can there not be a chance?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Yes but the first thing was caused by something. Whatever that thing is, it transcends (not in religious context) the natural laws of the universe. That thing is called God. It could be a random event, and the cause of that random event is God. Not saying God is anything more than the cause of the first thing. I'm completely fine with people believing anything they want, and i believe in science but science will never be able to prove that the universe was created through science because the first thing created will never have a creator that obeys the laws of the universe and science. (btw by science I mean the laws of the universe etc.)

Okay. You call 'the first event' god. That is fine. Now, why would you worship this god?

Welcome to the forums! :icon_smil

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Yawn. First cause arguments have been around forever, and they've never been particularly convincing, let alone indisputable. For one thing, if everything needs a cause, then wouldn't God require a cause as well? And if you propose that God is an exception, that means exceptions are allowed, so why not just make things simpler and claim that the Universe is an exception to things requiring causes?

There's also always the strange conclusion, that doesn't follow from any of the previous premises, that we should just call this first cause "God". Why? What if the first cause was just some random quantum mechanic event. Why do we call that God? Should that really be considered God?

Oh, and P.S., humans started science. And last I checked, we ain't gods.

THIS!:yes:

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Also, the reason "God" is "God" is because it/he doesn't have a creator. That's what makes him above all laws of the universe, thus being this transcendent being.

I've heard so many people say "So what created god?" That's the whole point of God! He didn't have a creator and that's what makes him matter. And that's why there's so many different interpretations of God. He doesn't have a creator, so doesn't obey any natural laws, so could be anything. We just don't know and will never know. We can only rationally conclude that he exists.

[youtube]LQL2qiPsHSQ[/youtube]
"Lawrence Krauss - Life, the Universe, and Nothing: A Cosmic Mystery Story " - YouTube

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

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."

Just needed to correct one tiny mistake in your argument, Falvlun. The size of the purple text was not large enough

 

[Koldo]

Well the general idea is that he created time so therefore he had to exist before time came to existence as we belief that this occurred after the Bang.

How can something exist before time?
The term 'before' requires 'time' to be a meaningful word. If you don't have 'time', you can't have a 'before'.