INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Enai de a lukal]

How about design?

Energy or substance....not having form....then....BANG!

THEN the energy AND the substance have form.

Looks like design to me.

Unfortunately, since this is the only universe we've ever experienced, we don't know what the criteria for "looks like design" is for universes. We simply have no frame of reference. This is why saying that the universe "looks designed" doesn't really carry any force; we can just as easily, and just as correctly, say that it does NOT look designed- we just don't know either way what design looks like in the case of a universe.

 

[Thief]

Unfortunately, since this is the only universe we've ever experienced, we don't know what the criteria for "looks like design" is for universes. We simply have no frame of reference. This is why saying that the universe "looks designed" doesn't really carry any force; we can just as easily, and just as correctly, say that it does NOT look designed- we just don't know either way what design looks like in the case of a universe.

Well....start with a 'point' (the singularity will do)
Allow a secondary.....and infinity is simultaneous.
The 'expansion' is pending....

If you just let it go...it will expand as a shock wave in spherical form.
No rotation.

I've said so repeatedly over the past several years....
It's the rotation and spin that 'prove' God.

Pinch the 'point' between your fingers and give it a good hard 'snap'.....or bang...so to speak.

The expansion would then have an axis.

I say.....It's the spin that proves there is a God.

Without the rotation it would dissipate......much more so than we see it now.

 

[1robin]

Well of course you do, but since every major medical organization in the U.S. agrees with me that all homosexuals should not practice abstinence, I am satisfied with my arguments.

That argument is no inferior to my claiming that most of humanity has rejected homosexuality (in all professional fields) as a perversion of nature for thousands of years. That is if I was to want o debate this again which I do not.

In some thread, you complained that I left for a few weeks, but surely it is acceptable for everyone at these forums to come and go as they please. I have other priorities that are much more important than debating you, and sometimes I lose interest since life is much too short to spend too much time debating

. I did not say you are not allowed to, I said it makes a contiguous and free flowing debate hard to have. It is not against any rules, it is just very inconvenient.

 

[1robin]

Well, only because Craig has devoted so much effort and energy to misrepresenting the nature and consequences of the BGV theorem; if Craig was honest about the fact that the BGV theorem does NOT imply that, even for the models the BGV applies to, there must be a beginning of the universe, or that the BGV does not apply to all models of the universe (and likely does not apply to our own), then this point wouldn't have needed to be made at all.

Nope, Craig has the theory right as Vilenkin's statements make so clear. The BGV applies to our universe more certainly than any other theory. In fact it applies to any universe on average expanding. Me and you will not agree, but I have paragraphs of emphatic statement from Vilenkin leaving no doubt but to a finite universe and others than rule out most eternal models and you have a picture of a guy holding a tablet. Since I was unable to find one scrap of data on the other guys tablet based statement maybe you will have better luck.

my estimation, Carroll made many far better points, including completely undermining most of Craig's claims about cosmology; to which Craig has no counter-argument. After watching Craig shred debaters who are clearly in over their heads (Hitchens, Dawkins), it was extremely amusing to watch him get caught with his pants down for once (unfortunately, I'd imagine many in the audience were not familiar enough with either contemporary cosmology or philosophy to catch what had just transpired). But if I had to pick one, it would be his third thesis- that theism is essentially out of the running because it is not well defined- which is awfully similar to a point I've been stressing here for some time (regarding God/theism as an explanation, i.e. IF explanations are answers to questions AND explanations are propositional AND IF mysteries beg questions rather than answer them AND IF X is the greatest mystery (i.e. theos), then "X did it" neither explains nor justifies why anything occurs, and is metaphysically and ethically vacuous).

I do not share your opinion but do finally think I found an atheist debater that can put up a fight. The only problem with it was they kept talking past each other. Semantics reared it's ugly head because Craig used popped into existence for the universes beginning and Carroll being without an argument had to only object to the language. Regardless of the words chosen nothing existed and then everything did. That is the issue not the word used to describe it. But again Carroll has earned my respect. In a sea of arrogant, irrational, and overwhelmed non-theistic debaters he is a shining exception. In the Islamic realm Shabir Ally is as well. Check out Ally versus White and you can see two masters go at it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Well of course you do, but since every major medical organization in the U.S. agrees with me that all homosexuals should not practice abstinence, I am satisfied with my arguments.

That argument is no inferior to my claiming that most of humanity has rejected homosexuality (in all professional fields) as a perversion of nature for thousands of years. That is if I was to want to debate this again which I do not.

There was not a single topic in the thread on homosexuality. After debating all kinds of topics, you tried to limit discussions to the following two claims that you made:

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

I disagree with item one since homosexuality per se does not produce massive increases in suffering, death, and cost since many homosexuals are just as healthy as the average heterosexual is. A better way of putting what you said is:

"Male homosexuals increase suffering, death, and cost a good deal more than heterosexual men do."

I disagree with item 2 since all major medical organizations, and all other reasonable people, know that there is no need for all homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least five years to practice abstinence, and much less so for those who have been monogamous for at least ten years.

I showed that you are not a fair person since you said that a number of other high risk groups should not practice abstinence.

It is amusing that on a number of occasions you said that you do not need to provide any solutions for homosexuality, but frequently recommended abstinence as a solution, and reparative therapy on at least one occasion in another thread.

Common sense indicates that from a secular moral perspective, no action is immoral if there are not any reasonable solutions. Quite obviously, abstinence is not a reasonable solution for homosexuals who have been monogamous for many years, and are strongly committed to monogamy, and have no interest in promiscuity. They have surely earned to right to enjoy the great pleasures of having sex. Those homosexuals most certainly are not responsible for the actions of promiscuous homosexuals.

You always conveniently ignored my posts about the benefits of having sex, and the risks of long term abstinence.

Regarding "most of humanity has rejected homosexuality (in all professional fields) as a perversion of nature for thousands of years," that is nonsensical. First of all, today, all major medical associations have stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. Second, until recent decades, medical professionals were not in a position to claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder since they did not know enough about it to make such a claim.

For thousands of years, many people accepted all kinds of things that they should have accepted, such as colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women, so it is quite obvious that what people did thousands of years ago does not necessarily determine what people ought to do today.

Morality is best judge on an individual basis, not on a collective basis. Homosexuals who are monogamous for their entire adult lives are not immoral as far as their sexual actions are concerned.

I am not claiming that a large percentage of homosexuals have been monogamous for many years, and I am sure that the percentage is a good deal smaller than the percentage for monogamous heterosexuals, but whatever the percentage is, there is not any need for those homosexuals to practice abstinence.

Do you feel the same way about people who die prematurely from heart disease as you do about all homosexuals? Is their lifestyle also awful?

 

[Agnostic75]

Nope, Craig has the theory right as Vilenkin's statements make so clear. The BGV applies to our universe more certainly than any other theory. In fact it applies to any universe on average expanding.

It doesn't matter since even if a God exists, the odds are astronomical that a God did not inspire the Bible.

You have admitted that science alone cannot prove, or disprove the existence of God, and the theology must be used to do that. If Christian theology is valid, it should not need science to confirm it. The New Testament says that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." That does not say anything about science. If Christian theology is valid, the existence of God would automatically be implied, and inferred without mentioning science.

If the Bible is the best evidence that Christianity is true, then it is beneficial to skepticism for you to spend so much of time discussing science when you could using that time to discuss the Bible.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

We looked at three possible scenarios—all of which, by the way, were suggested by the ancient Hindus 3,000 years ago. In one scenario, which the Hindus called “the eternal universe,” multiple beginnings are happening in different places. In scientific cosmology, this more or less corresponds to an idea called eternal inflation. In this case, the universe is expanding very fast, and then Big Bangs happen here and there. These Big Bangs are localized, in bubbles. As these bubbles—each containing a discrete universe—are driven apart, space opens up between them, where new bubbles are created. We live in one such bubble. [All of these universe-containing bubbles make up what cosmologists call the multiverse.] Another idea is a cyclic universe, one that expands, collapses and then starts over again. The third possibility, and the main focus of this paper that I wrote with my student, Audrey Mithani, is the emergent universe, a static universe that sits forever and then somehow bursts open and starts expanding. The Hindus called this “the cosmic egg.” You need some mechanism that will trigger this event, but that’s doable.

For the eternal inflation model, what we can show mathematically is that there is no end to this process. Some people thought maybe you could avoid a beginning, too. But our 2003 theorem shows that [avoiding a beginning] is impossible for this scenario. Although inflation may be eternal into the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past. So that was that. A cyclic universe runs into the second law of thermodynamics, which says that any system left to itself eventually reaches the state of maximum disorder, called thermal equilibrium. So if the universe were cyclic, then in every cycle, the disorder in the universe would increase. Eventually the universe would reach this thermal equilibrium state, which is a totally featureless mixture of everything—this is not what we see around us. One hypothesis about a cyclic universe avoids this problem of thermodynamics, though. There are models of a cyclic universe in which the volume grows in every cycle. This way, the universe expands and contracts, but contracts to a larger volume than in the previous cycle. So even though disorder increases, disorder per unit volume doesn’t change. That’s possible, but then our 2003 theorem poses a problem because if the volume of the universe grows, then there must have been a beginning. So the cyclic universe scenario doesn’t avoid a beginning either. And the cosmic egg? There are classical physics models for this static universe to sit there forever and then suddenly start expanding. But what we showed is that, quantum mechanically, this universe is not stable.

Please note:

"The third possibility, and the main focus of this paper that I wrote with my student, Audrey Mithani, is the emergent universe, a static universe that sits forever and then somehow bursts open and starts expanding. The Hindus called this 'the cosmic egg.' You need some mechanism that will trigger this event, but that’s doable."

"Although inflation may be eternal into the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past."

"There are classical physics models for this static universe to sit there forever and then suddenly start expanding."

That clearly shows that Vilenkin believes that the universe is eternal, and began to expand about 14 billion years ago. When he has said that the universe had a beginning, he actually meant the beginning of the inflation of the universe, not the beginning of the universe. If you do not believe that, you can contact Vilenkin at Tufts University and find out for yourself, or ask another physicist there what Vilenkin believes.

 

[shawn001]

Vilenkin had said you can't use "fantasy" as a scientific explanation.

"Vilenkin is a prominent exponent of the multiverse hypothesis"

He also supports a universe created from quantum fluctuations and virtual particles.

 

[1robin]

There was not a single topic in the thread on homosexuality. After debating all kinds of topics, you tried to limit discussions to the following two claims that you made:



I disagree with item one since homosexuality per se does not produce massive increases in suffering, death, and cost since many homosexuals are just as healthy as the average heterosexual is. A better way of putting what you said is:

"Male homosexuals increase suffering, death, and cost a good deal more than heterosexual men do."

I disagree with item 2 since all major medical organizations, and all other reasonable people, know that there is no need for all homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least five years to practice abstinence, and much less so for those who have been monogamous for at least ten years.

I showed that you are not a fair person since you said that a number of other high risk groups should not practice abstinence.

It is amusing that on a number of occasions you said that you do not need to provide any solutions for homosexuality, but frequently recommended abstinence as a solution, and reparative therapy on at least one occasion in another thread.

Common sense indicates that from a secular moral perspective, no action is immoral if there are not any reasonable solutions. Quite obviously, abstinence is not a reasonable solution for homosexuals who have been monogamous for many years, and are strongly committed to monogamy, and have no interest in promiscuity. They have surely earned to right to enjoy the great pleasures of having sex. Those homosexuals most certainly are not responsible for the actions of promiscuous homosexuals.

You always conveniently ignored my posts about the benefits of having sex, and the risks of long term abstinence.

Regarding "most of humanity has rejected homosexuality (in all professional fields) as a perversion of nature for thousands of years," that is nonsensical. First of all, today, all major medical associations have stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. Second, until recent decades, medical professionals were not in a position to claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder since they did not know enough about it to make such a claim.

For thousands of years, many people accepted all kinds of things that they should have accepted, such as colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women, so it is quite obvious that what people did thousands of years ago does not necessarily determine what people ought to do today.

Morality is best judge on an individual basis, not on a collective basis. Homosexuals who are monogamous for their entire adult lives are not immoral as far as their sexual actions are concerned.

I am not claiming that a large percentage of homosexuals have been monogamous for many years, and I am sure that the percentage is a good deal smaller than the percentage for monogamous heterosexuals, but whatever the percentage is, there is not any need for those homosexuals to practice abstinence.

Do you feel the same way about people who die prematurely from heart disease as you do about all homosexuals? Is their lifestyle also awful?

Your stubbornly wasting a lot of your time.

 

[1robin]

It doesn't matter since even if a God exists, the odds are astronomical that a God did not inspire the Bible.

Is that why billions believe the exact opposite and some of the greatest universities on earth study it. Since maybe half the population has seriously studied the bible. That means out of those that can know 2/3 believe your wrong and half the rest just don't know.

You have admitted that science alone cannot prove, or disprove the existence of God, and the theology must be used to do that. If Christian theology is valid, it should not need science to confirm it. The New Testament says that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." That does not say anything about science. If Christian theology is valid, the existence of God would automatically be implied, and inferred without mentioning science.

It does not need science to prove it. It merely uses it because it is a trusted arena and a popular one. People believed in God that could not add or even write.

If the Bible is the best evidence that Christianity is true, then it is beneficial to skepticism for you to spend so much of time discussing science when you could using that time to discuss the Bible.

In the Beginning Was the Beginning | Tufts Now

I discuss the bible when I discuss science and I discuss the bible alone, and with philosophy, and with history. And you really have no role in telling me how to defend my faith.

Please note:

"The third possibility, and the main focus of this paper that I wrote with my student, Audrey Mithani, is the emergent universe, a static universe that sits forever and then somehow bursts open and starts expanding. The Hindus called this 'the cosmic egg.' You need some mechanism that will trigger this event, but that’s doable."

Yes modern cosmologists including Vilenkin called that theory impossible. I can give you quotes if you want.

"Although inflation may be eternal into the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past."

Now that is true but static universes can't change. Only things that change burst open. Only a state change in information produces actual changes but your universe has no cause to change and can't unless it was changing before hand.

"There are classical physics models for this static universe to sit there forever and then suddenly start expanding."

Yeah, Einstein held to that and said it was the biggest professional mistake in his career. Regardless time does not stand still. How did we get from eternity past through an infinite number of seconds to arrive at this one? Infinities and nature don't work.

That clearly shows that Vilenkin believes that the universe is eternal, and began to expand about 14 billion years ago. When he has said that the universe had a beginning, he actually meant the beginning of the inflation of the universe, not the beginning of the universe. If you do not believe that, you can contact Vilenkin at Tufts University and find out for yourself, or ask another physicist there what Vilenkin believes.

No one that says this thinks that:

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

That link will also have your old cracked egg ruination.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:


It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).


Read more: Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe | Reasonable Faith
Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe | Reasonable Faith

 

[1robin]

Vilenkin had said you can't use "fantasy" as a scientific explanation.

"Vilenkin is a prominent exponent of the multiverse hypothesis"

He also supports a universe created from quantum fluctuations and virtual particles.

As far as I have ever heard Vilenkin believes in one universe and a finite one in time.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:


It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).



If he believes in multiverses then he believes in fantasy. They may exist but our predicting they do is at best fantasy.

 

[Agnostic75]

It doesn't matter since even if a God exists, the odds are astronomical that a God did not inspire the Bible.

Is that why billions believe the exact opposite and some of the greatest universities on earth study it? Since maybe half the population has seriously studied the Bible, that means out of those that can know 2/3 believe you're wrong and half the rest just don't know.

That is an example of the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum." Logic indicates that how many fallible, imperfect humans accept colonization, slavery, the subjugation of women, or any particular religion, does not necessarily have anything to do with the truth.

If a certain store has the best tomatoes in the world, that does not necessarily mean that those tomatoes are the "best possible" tomatoes," only that they are the "best available" tomatoes in the world. Similarly, if Christianity is the best religion in the world, that does not necessarily mean that it is the "best possible" religion in the world, only that it is the "best available" religion in the world.

If Christianity had not come along, some other religion would have been the best available religion in the world, and centuries from now, a new religion might be the best available religion in the world.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 7

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Those Scriptures indicate that only a few people will become saved, and implies that there are not anywhere near 2 billion Christians in the world today.

Common sense indicates that there is not any correlation between professing Christians, and actual Christians who will have eternal life. If a God inspired the Bible, it is impossible for any human to guess how many Christians there are in the world today to the nearest billion.

At Matthew 7:14 Commentaries: "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it., there are a number of Bible commentaries that agree with me. One of the commentaries mentions Matthew 22:14, which says "For many are called, but few are chosen."

Obviously, the God of the Bible prefers quality over quantity.

 

[Agnostic75]

That clearly shows that Vilenkin believes that the universe is eternal, and began to expand about 14 billion years ago. When he has said that the universe had a beginning, he actually meant the beginning of the inflation of the universe, not the beginning of the universe. If you do not believe that, you can contact Vilenkin at Tufts University and find out for yourself, or ask another physicist there what Vilenkin believes.

No one that says this thinks that:

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

But the link that you mentioned promotes intelligent, so we can dispense with what it says about Alexander Vilenkin.

Here is what Vilenkin said again:

In the Beginning Was the Beginning | Tufts Now

The third possibility, and the main focus of this paper that I wrote with my student, Audrey Mithani, is the emergent universe, a static universe that sits forever and then somehow bursts open and starts expanding. The Hindus called this “the cosmic egg.” You need some mechanism that will trigger this event, but that’s doable.

Vilenkin definitely promotes a static, eternal universe [prior to the beginning of the expansion of the universe about 14 billion years ago] since he said “The third possibility, and the main focus of this paper that I wrote…….is…….a static universe that sits forever then somehow bursts open and starts expanding.”

For the eternal inflation model, what we can show mathematically is that there is no end to this process. Some people thought maybe you could avoid a beginning, too. But our 2003 theorem shows that [avoiding a beginning] is impossible for this scenario. Although inflation may be eternal into the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past.

Vilenkin’s eternal inflation model addresses the beginning of the inflation of the universe, not the beginning of the universe. That is why he said “For the eternal inflation model, what we can show mathematically is that there is no end to this process.”

…….if the volume of the universe grows, then there must have been a beginning…….

Meaning that if the volume of the universe grows, it must have begun to grow, not that it must have began to exist.

There are classical physics models for this static universe to sit there forever and then suddenly start expanding.

That is more proof that supports my arguments.

I actually know very little about physics. I am just using common sense to try to interpret what he said. I might be wrong. If I am wrong, that does not change any of my arguments in other threads, and does not change some of my other arguments in this thread.

Please reply to my posts 3376, 3377, and 3378.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: In my previous post, I said:

"But the link that you mentioned promotes intelligent, so we can dispense with what it says about Alexander Vilenkin."

I meant to says "intelligent design."

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I have decided not to discuss physics anymore since I prefer to discuss topics that I know more about, and that would leave more time for me to discuss other topics.

Please reply to my posts 3376, 3377, and 3378.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Actually.....really......I did quite well in science studies.
A nation wide comparison test in my youth ranked me as 'superior'.

That said.....I find my fellow man caught up in what he considers a 'basic grasp'.

I can't help but noticed.....once my fellowman thinks he has a handle on it...
he then can't let go.

Who then is in control?.....you?.....or the other guy that told you so?

Note my signature.

I don't know how old you are nor do I care what you grades were. You haven't supported your arguments scientifically. Instead you tend to say things in what I assume is your idea of a "mystical" or "wise" way.

 

[Thief]

I don't know how old you are nor do I care what you grades were. You haven't supported your arguments scientifically. Instead you tend to say things in what I assume is your idea of a "mystical" or "wise" way.

Then make no further assumptions about my science abilities.
and this a theological discussion.

Science can take you just so far.
At some 'point'...you have to think about it.

It helps to use science.
I believe in God ..because.....of science.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Then make no further assumptions about my science abilities.
and this a theological discussion.

Science can take just so far.
At some 'point'...you have to think about it.

It helps to use science.
I believe in God ..because.....of science.

I make assumptions based on your misinformation or misuse of science to further a point that the science does not support. That is all.

 

[Thief]

I make assumptions based on your misinformation or misuse of science to further a point that the science does not support. That is all.

Confused?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Confused?

A question or an answer?

 

[Thief]

The assumptions on my part...I consider reasonable.
Are you confused?