INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[roman2819]

How could millions of creatures, plants and all in the creation be there? Happen by itself? Or by design of God?
It just take too much to believe that all the millions of varieties happen all by themselves.

 

[McBell]

How could millions of creatures, plants and all in the creation be there? Happen by itself? Or by design of God?
It just take too much to believe that all the millions of varieties happen all by themselves.

Who claims that the millions of varieties happen all by themselves?
I mean other than those like yourself who try to use it to justify their belief in god?

 

[tumbleweed41]

How could millions of creatures, plants and all in the creation be there? Happen by itself? Or by design of God?
It just take too much to believe that all the millions of varieties happen all by themselves.

Argument from incredulity.

 

[McBell]

Argument from incredulity.

seems to me you are missing the strawman part somewhere

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Argument from incredulity.

Just thought i'd throw this in here for the sake of Roman so he/she knows where things went wrong:

Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.
The general form of the argument is as follows.

• Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
• Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
• Conclusion: Not-P.

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies in the unstated major premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

seems to me you are missing the strawman part somewhere

Straw man - RationalWiki

A straw man, or straw person for the politically correct inclined among us, is an intentional misrepresentation[1] of an opponent's position, often used in debates with unsophisticated audiences to make it appear that the opponent's arguments are more easily defeated than they are.

I wouldn't say it was entirely strawman'ish because i seriously doubt Roman has the knowledge of evolution to intentionally lie about it.

 

[JustWondering]

Well i don't belief that the universe is un-created i rather belief it is created, its impossible for nothing to create something, its impossible that we had a infinite history and i can go on and on..
As for the attributes i think we should use logic and reasoning to determine what they are. For example if we are going to say that he is un-created and on the same time claiming that he is the creator of all things then there cant be more then one god.

If the universe is created I think it'd take more than just one god to do it. That's just common sense.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How could millions of creatures, plants and all in the creation be there? Happen by itself? Or by design of God?
It just take too much to believe that all the millions of varieties happen all by themselves.

How could millions of people still have zero understanding of evolutionary theory in this day and age, when information is freely available at your fingertips?

 

[Ouroboros]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

Problem:

According to you "Some-thing had to start the first thing." But God can't be a thing. God can't be a person. For God exist before anything, then God must've been nothing, since nothing existed before anything. Your concepts and definitions make your argument stumble and fall flat.

The First Thing was a First Thing. The First Cause was the First Cause. Neither the First Thing or the First Cause was the First Mind.

 

[Ouroboros]

How could millions of people still have zero understanding of evolutionary theory in this day and age, when information is freely available at your fingertips?

I know. It irritates me to no end too.

 

[F0uad]

If the universe is created I think it'd take more than just one god to do it. That's just common sense.

Nope an all powerful god doesn't need help.

 

[Ouroboros]

How could millions of creatures, plants and all in the creation be there? Happen by itself? Or by design of God?
It just take too much to believe that all the millions of varieties happen all by themselves.

"Happen by itself" is a bit overstating it. Nature is complex. There is evidently constant change in everything and the selection process is obvious. It has been observed and documented many times over.

And how do you get to a million dollars? A cent at a time. The sum of many small changes is a large change. Many generations and many mutations, with constant environmental pressure, you will get millions of varieties, not by "themselves" but by natural process.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nope an all powerful god doesn't need help.

According to the design argument, anything that looks designed must've been designed. We know that everything humans design is designed by the help of many people. Even an artist is dependent on someone making the paper, pen, ink, etc. It's a collaboration of many. So logically, if we follow through with the design argument for God, God must be a collaboration of many.

 

[Gui10]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

I think this is a problem. I, as a non-believer, agree with this proposition. However, I do not call it ''god''. When you start calling ''whatever started the universe'' ''god'', it leads to think that I believe in god, well I don't, at least not one that sends messengers to earth. It is only in that way that I am an atheist, so maybe I use the term wrong, but maybe you use the term ''god'' wrong.

Whatever that transcendant thing that started this universe is, I call it nature. That is actually a much more appropriate word, because nature refers to ''what it is'' or ''it's essence''.

 

[F0uad]

I would like to know your source for the bolded part.

What do you mean as source? Its well known or theorized that time was created when the Bang was created simply because existences as we know it came to live. The Bang was the place were our universe started when it either imploded or exploded it has to do with atoms, potential gravity and so forth. If you follow anything in our Universe backwards in time, you will eventually arrive at the Big Bang.

As for Time-Fluxes learn Physics and Mathematical models it has to do with space-time continuum's i actually learned this stuff when i was younger after watching to many Star-Trek. Lol! I can try to explain it if you want.

Outside of this time-line rather than outside of any time-line?

Out-side of time is out of our comprehension in practical ways but in theory it works however these theories have to do with super-galactic and subatomic levels, in the end it has to do with 3 to 4 dimensions that acquire typically three spatial dimensions (length, width, height), and one temporal dimension (time).

Do you even know that Time slows at a higher speed?

 

[F0uad]

According to the design argument, anything that looks designed must've been designed. We know that everything humans design is designed by the help of many people. Even an artist is dependent on someone making the paper, pen, ink, etc. It's a collaboration of many. So logically, if we follow through with the design argument for God, God must be a collaboration of many.

Not necessarily since we cannot have a infinite history as logic, physics and scientist say and as i clearly shown before.
I rather not repeat myself i was talking to someone else making a entirely different point also.

An artists who posses the Paper, Pen, Ink without in need of others can create it without help so your argument is flawed.
If God is all-powerful, un-created and the creator then he is not in need of other creatures, creators or inspiration.

 

[F0uad]

I think this is a problem. I, as a non-believer, agree with this proposition. However, I do not call it ''god''. When you start calling ''whatever started the universe'' ''god'', it leads to think that I believe in god, well I don't, at least not one that sends messengers to earth. It is only in that way that I am an atheist, so maybe I use the term wrong, but maybe you use the term ''god'' wrong.

Whatever that transcendant thing that started this universe is, I call it nature. That is actually a much more appropriate word, because nature refers to ''what it is'' or ''it's essence''.

Yet you bind yourself to circular reasoning since you still didn't solve the problem that nothing.. Zero (Completely nothing) created something so impressive with those ''Laws''. Just a question to add on do you belief that Chaos can create harmony? (Just a question).

 

[Ouroboros]

Not necessarily since we cannot have a infinite history as logic, physics and scientist say and as i clearly shown before.
I rather not repeat myself i was talking to someone else making a entirely different point also.

Which creates even more problems. We don't know what non-temporality is. It's a concept we can't comprehend. We don't know if non-temporal causality exists. So even with the problem of infinite past, something infinite beyond a past that began is still a logical incomprehensible.

An artists who posses the Paper, Pen, Ink without in need of others can create it without help so your argument is flawed.

Sure. And they can also create wood, trees, water, rocks, and everything they get things from. Right? Any designer can create matter from nothing. That's what God supposedly did, and if the design argument is consistent, then any designer must too, or the argument would be begging the question.

The issue is that you can't use logic with premises based on human experience to prove God. The only thing you're doing is to create a God of your own mind and shaped after human nature. Nothing else.

If God is all-powerful, un-created and the creator then he is not in need of other creatures, creators or inspiration.

There's no "power" to have in a non-existence. Beyond time, space, energy, and existence itself, there's no existence or inspiration.

It's flawed logic to argue that before anything existed there was something or someone. Or even to say "before" since it's a temporal term.

 

[F0uad]

Which creates even more problems. We don't know what non-temporality is. It's a concept we can't comprehend. We don't know if non-temporal causality exists. So even with the problem of infinite past, something infinite beyond a past that began is still a logical incomprehensible.

I am sorry but we know that something had to first exist its basic logic. If we have a infinite history there would be no progress its the same as asking your father to drive a car and he has to ask hes father and hes father and this continues for a infinite time you will never be able to drive the car.

Sure. And they can also create wood, trees, water, rocks, and everything they get things from. Right? Any designer can create matter from nothing. That's what God supposedly did, and if the design argument is consistent, then any designer must too, or the argument would be begging the question.

I don't get it clarify? God is all powerful an artist isn't..

The issue is that you can't use logic with premises based on human experience to prove God. The only thing you're doing is to create a God of your own mind and shaped after human nature. Nothing else.

How and where? I never shaped anything i actually repeated myself over and over that we cannot shape him its beyond our comprehension as i stated before. You would understand my argument if you accepted the fact that i wasn't even talking to you in the first place.

There's no "power" to have in a non-existence. Beyond time, space, energy, and existence itself, there's no existence or inspiration.

It's flawed logic to argue that before anything existed there was something or someone. Or even to say "before" since it's a temporal term.

This is not even a reply but simply stating something ridiculous based on nothing and has no value in the discussion at all.
You can belief in a myth that mothers can give birth to there-selves let me rephrase that nothing (absolutely nothing) can create mothers i hope you get the point.

 

[Ouroboros]

I am sorry but we know that something had to first exist its basic logic. If we have a infinite history there would be no progress its the same as asking your father to drive a car and he has to ask hes father and hes father and this continues for a infinite time you will never be able to drive the car.

Which means, nothing existed before that first thing. The first thing, think about that, the first thing that existed in a universe of things. God must be a thing. The first thing, not the first mind, not the first thought. It's also simple logic. The first number in the natural number set is 1. It's still a number. You can't say the first number in the set is blurghurgy because he is a powerful mind who exists beyond number sets. God must be part of the universe or the logic is faulty.

I don't get it clarify? God is all powerful an artist isn't..

Therefor a "designer" comparison/analogy/allegory is flawed. Can't argue that apples exist because they're more awesome than oranges.

How and where? I never shaped anything i actually repeated myself over and over that we cannot shape him its beyond our comprehension as i stated before. You would understand my argument if you accepted the fact that i wasn't even talking to you in the first place.

Sure. Agree.

This is not even a reply but simply stating something ridiculous based on nothing and has no value in the discussion at all.

You can belief in a myth that mothers can give birth to there-selves let me rephrase that nothing absolutely nothing can create mothers.

Whatever. Your logic is still flawed.