Proof God Is Real

[polarbear6]

Originally posted by: BAMAVOO
All you have to do is SERIOUSLY search within yourself. You will KNOW for a FACT that God exists.

Well i partially agree with this . some times the answer is yes and some times its no.
And when it is no it is usually food material inside.

Get it i only believe when iam hungry or when i need something

 

[kstu]

same old story:

what you don't understand, you call god
what i don't understand, i call <shrug>

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEXGKzH0F9c&NR=1

Nothing finite can be infinite (eternal). Since the universe is made of finite things (matter, time, space), it therefor must be created by something without time (timeless), thus making it eternal. If it is eternal, it must be infinite, and if its the Creator, it must be God.

The universe changes, and time is the measure of change. How many changes have happened before right now? If you claim an infinite number of changes (which is impossible because you can not have an infinite amount of finite things), it is a logically impossible to conclude we could ever have reached this moment in time. In a world of cause and effect (which we live in), there can not be an infinite regress (an infinite amount of cause and effect reactions to get to a certain cause).

Allow me to rephrase. Imagine that the Earth orbits the sun every 365 days (it does). Now, on Mars, a year is much longer than an Earth year, being 687 Earth days (basically double). So, for every 2 years of Mars, Earth has circled the sun approximately 4 times. Now, imagine that this has been going on for eternity. By your logic, they would both have circled the sun the exact same amount of times, because its been going on forever (this is clearly impossible). This shows the impossibility of an infinite regress, whereby there could not have been an infinite amount of (x) before right now, in a finite universe based on time.

Now, back to God. God exists outside of time, in Eternity. God created time, and time is irrelevant to Him. God is Eternal, not created. Firstly, you have 2 choices; either everything came from nothing (which is impossible), or something always existed and created us. You have no other choice. Take a moment to think about that, remembering that it can not exist in time, that would be impossible. Time can not be eternal.

This thing that always existed would be considered Eternal, having transcended time, space, and matter, being everlasting, having always existed. If you argue this is impossible, I would argue the contrary; it is impossible for this Eternal 'thing' to not exist, because the alternative is that nothing existed, which could only produce nothing. So, something always existed, and is therefor Eternal.

Now, for something to be Eternal, it can not consist of time, because time must have had a beginning. We exist in a universe of causality, so an infinite regress is impossible; there could not have been an infinite amount of time before right now, because we never would have reached this moment in time. That means time had a beginning, and whatever created time exists without time, beyond time, in timelessness; Eternity.

So, this Eternal Creator, created time, and the universe. This Eternal Creator clearly is extremely powerful, because the energy of the trillions of stars in the known universe were created by this Creator. And obviously, the Creator is extremely intelligent, having created an intelligent being such as mankind and a world in which to populate with it

What do you think? I'm interested to hear the arguments against this logic.

well, the first half sentence started out well enough.

the most fail statements have been bolded

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: Kev
This is the easiest argument to prove wrong. It bases itself on the fact that the universe had to be created. If you think that is true, then why didn't god have to be created?

And if you say god didn't need to be created, you could say the same thing about the universe - it has just always existed.

Yep and the circle just keeps going round and round.

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: BudAshes
i think if we all just accepted that we were not created in a gods image and that we must evolve ourselves or die out something like heavon on earth might exist one day. If we continue these archaic, masochistic institutions of backwards thinking I'm pretty sure we will kill ourselves off.

A belief in God doesn't mean that Christians don't want "heaven on earth". Actually, the Kingdom of God is seen as the way that will bring it to pass. If we are more like Christ, and less selfish, then we will be closer to that reality. No level of advancement in technology, knowledge, or political movements alone can't do that as long as the human heart is wicked and desires to use those things for selfish purposes. People promise heaven on earth, but they can't deliver it.

To me wicked is a good thing. Wicked means something is sweet. Like that half pipe is wicked, or that chick is wicked in the sack. Wickedness has nothing to do with anything. Backwards thinking and lack of education are the only truly wicked things, for they create people that are vulnerable and easily manipulated. Unfortunately those are also the exact people that are most easily brainwashed by the words of selfish religions, therefore they will do nothing to change this and in fact stand in the way of progress towards these ends. For example the catholic churches stance against birth control even in overpopulated countries, or islamic extremists murdering children in schools in afghanistan.

 

[her209]

If God is all-knowing, does he know what he's going to know before he knows it?

 

[krylon]

Originally posted by: BAMAVOO
All you have to do is SERIOUSLY search within yourself. You will KNOW for a FACT that God exists.

What if you find gay inside yourself? Does God like gay?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: BAMAVOO
All you have to do is SERIOUSLY search within yourself. You will KNOW for a FACT that God exists.

So you're telling me to use the force?

 

[chalmers]

None of you know the actual answer to any of these questions.

There is no point in arguing about something that nobody can prove or disprove.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: chalmers
None of you know the actual answer to any of these questions.

There is no point in arguing about something that nobody can prove or disprove.

Can you prove that you exist?

 

[Iron Woode]

here is absolute proof God does not exist:

The Babel Fish has also lead some people to prove the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God. "For proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance.It proves you exist, and so therefore by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself
killed on the next pedestrian crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid from making a small fortune from it in his best-selling novel Well That About Wraps It Up For God.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JTsyo

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
A few things...

1.) Time, as best as we can tell, is continuous. That means that within every real duration in time, there are an infinite number of subsets of time between the beginning and endpoint of that duration.

Sure about that? I often heard that Planck time is the smallest step in time. Meaning that it is discrete.

According to quantum theory, 1 Planck time should be the smallest unit of time physics can reason about in a meaningful way. As of 2006, the smallest unit of time that was directly measured was on the order of 1 attosecond (10-18 s), or about 1026 Planck times.[3][4]

doesn't sound discrete to me

 

[chalmers]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: chalmers
None of you know the actual answer to any of these questions.

There is no point in arguing about something that nobody can prove or disprove.

Can you prove that you exist?

When I look into a mirror I see nothing. Is there something wrong with me?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: chalmers

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: chalmers
None of you know the actual answer to any of these questions.

There is no point in arguing about something that nobody can prove or disprove.

Can you prove that you exist?

When I look into a mirror I see nothing. Is there something wrong with me?

Well if you want to prove existence, just go back and read Descartes.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: her209
If God is all-knowing, does he know what he's going to know before he knows it?

But we wouldn't be able to answer that because we're not all knowing? Or if we can how do we know our answers are truly correct?

So I guess this begs the question of how do you know things are the way they are or what truth is? Knowledge?

 

[Insomniator]

ROFL at that "argument" if you can even consider it one.

The more I hear people argue about religion/god, the more laughable it gets.

We don't know how the universe started so GOD EXISTS!! LOOK WITHIN YOURSELF!!

Religion is simple proof of how stupid, weak and scared people can be, x100 in groups.

 

[Leafy]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Topic Title: Proof God Is Real
Topic Summary: Can you actually argue against this logic?

Definitely. What is astonishing is the fact that an amateur pseudo-intellectual is trying to do what the smartest people of all time have been trying to do, and failing without resorting to obscurity and logical fallacy. Good luck. You probably won't succeed.

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Nothing finite can be infinite (eternal). Since the universe is made of finite things (matter, time, space), it therefor must be created by something without time (timeless), thus making it eternal. If it is eternal, it must be infinite, and if its the Creator, it must be God.

The universe changes, and time is the measure of change. How many changes have happened before right now? If you claim an infinite number of changes (which is impossible because you can not have an infinite amount of finite things), it is a logically impossible to conclude we could ever have reached this moment in time. In a world of cause and effect (which we live in), there can not be an infinite regress (an infinite amount of cause and effect reactions to get to a certain cause).

Intuition alone is not sufficient to cause me to concede this point.

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
This shows the impossibility of an infinite regress, whereby there could not have been an infinite amount of (x) before right now, in a finite universe based on time.

I'll get this out of the way: Who created God. And do go special pleading and say "he doesn't have a creator."

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Now, back to God. God exists outside of time, in Eternity. God created time, and time is irrelevant to Him. God is Eternal, not created.

Please define with positive terms the ontology of "outside of time". What is the essence of that statement? It is meaningless outside of your deluded, poisoned mind.

As you said before, time is a measure of change, but additionally duration. God is not only unchanging in this respect, but also unconscious and cannot have existed "prior" to the Universe.

He could not have "created" the Universe because creation is a temporal event. Temporal events can only take place in the context of time, and before the Universe existed, time did not exist. Thus, QED, God is subject to time. If he is subject to time, h cannot be the author of time, and certainly cannot be "outside" of time - as if time was a bubble. It's not.

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Firstly, you have 2 choices; either everything came from nothing (which is impossible), or something always existed and created us.

No. The opposite of being caused is being uncaused. The Universe is uncaused. The opposite of being caused is not being caused by nothing. There is a difference.

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
You have no other choice. Take a moment to think about that, remembering that it can not exist in time, that would be impossible. Time can not be eternal.

God can't exist without time - our very concept of existence is tied to time.

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
So, this Eternal Creator, created time, and the universe. This Eternal Creator clearly is extremely powerful, because the energy of the trillions of stars in the known universe were created by this Creator.

No. That is an equivocation on the word "powerful". In the physical context, it means consisting of a lot of energy. In the context Christians use it, they mean (work / time).

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
And obviously, the Creator is extremely intelligent, having created an intelligent being such as mankind and a world in which to populate with it

What? This is unproven. The whole argument is against the big bang - doesn't address evolution (which is a fact).

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
What do you think? I'm interested to hear the arguments against this logic.

You could have gone to infidels.org or at least watched tooltime9901's relevant videos or TheAmazingAtheists's responses.


A counter-argument:

Let S1 = the state before the Universe began to exist (not U)
Let S2 = the state after the Universe began to exist (U)

1. If something is created, then we must be able to distinguish between the state in which it does exist, and state in which it does not exist, into two distinct events - S1 and S2.
1. 1. If we cannot, then it did not come into existence or be created.
2. They cannot be the same state, because S1 and S2 would be true at the same time
2. 1. S1 and S2 would be true at the same time - (U and not U) - a straight contradiction.
3. Using time as a way to distinguish between the two states will not work, because prior to the existence of the Universe, time did not exist.
4. "Atemporal" causation cannot be used to distinguish between the two states, because they would be true at the same time.
4. 1. Atemporal causation requires the two states to be simultaneous. The formulator of the argument VFX is using here - William Lane Craig - describes a Augustine's example that the universe was created at the same instant as time. This cannot be true (by 2.1)
5. Therefore, no presented method of distinguishing between S1 and S2 are coherent.

It is up to the theist to provide a method to distinguish between S1 or S2, otherwise it cannot be said that the Universe "began to exist" or was created.

Additionally, this just pushes back the question further.

"How did the Universe begin?"
"God did it."
"How did he do that?"
"With his magic." or "We can't understand God" or "God works in mysterious ways". [dead end]

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: WolverineGator

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Before time was created, there was no time. So when was time created?

Exactly right. Time and space started together. Nothing existed before time and before space. If you were a god you couldn't even sit back and look at that singular thing that turned into the big bang. Since time didn't exist, a god couldn't even think about creating Earth/us/etc!

On the contrary, time is a higher dimension than space - hence space exists within time. An easy "proof" of this is simply that space is expanding at a rate; it takes TIME for space to expand, hence space occupies time.

Of course the failing conjecture of this is that before space existed, time still existed, but no one knows for how long. Hence time can either be finite or infinite, thus within the context of space we will never know.

Now to have some fun...

Therefore, it is only a conjecture that god created time - because we do not know whether time is infinite or not, and by the previous argument, something eternal cannot be created from nothing. Therefore if time is indeed eternal (infinite: something we can not prove or disprove), then god can not have created it - it is impossible for something eternal to create something eternal, otherwise the created object would have a starting point and thus not be eternal.

We religious folk can not possibly have that can we?

So given the nature of this postulation - if there is a god then time can not be infinite. If time is infinite there can not be a god. So we can only assume then time is not infinite, but since time is a linear measure, when was time created? Time was created in "eternal time" (ergo: time was created before time). Therefore time is eternal. Therefore there can be no god, because of the previous argument that something eternal cannot create something eternal.

I win.

 

[chalmers]

Atheists, crazy religious radicals, and everyone in between share one common trait.

Nobody knows for sure.

Much time, effort, arguing, and war would be saved if people could more quickly come to this realization.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: actuarial
This doesn't answer anything.

Cliffs for article: We can't possibly understand all the functions of the universe, so anything we don't understand had to have been created by a powerful being, and that single powerful being did EVERYTHING we don't understand.

Problems with logic: Most people believe in God as someone who cares about what we do in our lives, and all this possibly 'proves' is that we are created. It takes an entirely massive, and non-logical jump from assuming a powerful creator to assuming that creator cares. Second, any question which inventing a creator answers, must immediately be re-asked of said creator. The only logic behind belief in God is if you are not comfortable admitting that there are aspects of life which we cannot understand.

To expand on this, humans seem to have a built in need to understand something. Things we can not understand tend to be given a mystical property, so the "God" label gets applied to it. As our scientific understanding of the universe expands, God keeps getting pushed back.

Early tribes looked up at the sky, saw lights, figured that's where God lives.
We found those lights are stars, so God must have put them there.
We found that stars were actually created from condensing gas, so God must have created the gas.
We found that gasses and other matter actually came from super novas and the Big Bang, so God must have created the Big Bang....etc.

Now we're suggesting that our universe may be a bubble floating in a sea of an infinite number of other universes. We're going to push God back to creating all of these bubbles. When everything is explained, the need for God disappears- some might even argue that when we understand everything, we ourselves will be Gods.

I believe God is actually physics. He created the laws of the universe, and we are the result of those laws.

 

[Leafy]

Originally posted by: chalmers
Atheists, crazy religious radicals, and everyone in between share one common trait.

Nobody knows for sure.

Much time, effort, arguing, and war would be saved if people could more quickly come to this realization.

Default position should be negative on claim of existence like god, which is why atheists are correct when they say for all intents and purposes they are correct, just like you don't know of the invisible pink unicorn in the corner of your room, it doesn't mean we should say "we just don't know"

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: krylon

Originally posted by: BAMAVOO
All you have to do is SERIOUSLY search within yourself. You will KNOW for a FACT that God exists.

What if you find gay inside yourself? Does God like gay?

Literally or metaphorically?

Cos if it was literally I'd probably be worrying about other things than the existence of god. :shocked:

 

[gorobei]

not going to go into the logical/math fallacies, everyone else has done thorough enough job of that.

but anyone thinking of reiterating this nonsense in an debate should know there are some glaring factual errors:

1. mars and earth will never have infinite revolutions/years-whatever. they will cease to exist after Sol goes red giant and expands past the inner planets orbits or at least they will lose enough mass to cease spinning in any regular way. so they will never be "infinite" in any argument.

2. a solar year has not always been 365 days, nor will it continue to be 365 days. the spin of the sol system from nebulous gas/matter into the accretion disk and the relative masses defined the rotational periods. the system started with a much faster spin and has slowly been slowing down. the earth is slowly losing speed and the period will change. variances in solar day and solar years are what require us to have leap years, minutes and seconds to realign to solar year positioning. even the moon is slowing down and will one day lose enough speed to maintain its orbit and collide with the earth(if tidal forces dont cause it to break up before that).

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Half of these people aren't even reading it and not actually trying to think about the logic that corners you into having to except that there was something before. It's cut and dry really. In order for something to have been before time, it would have to be eternal. If it's eternal, it wasn't created.

I think using time is a very odd thing to do here. Mostly because time doesn't physically exist as it's something we simply set based an "static" event in our life. Before they would simply use the sun for timing and now we can use atoms to help gauge time... but time still doesn't truly exist. We're merely judging some sort of "temporal distance" on another physical event occurring (note that I just made up this temporal distance term... I have no idea if it's even proper, but it sounds kinda cool ).

Some people like to think of time as something different.... Like that time is some sort of thing that allows us to have these temporal distances... like that without time it's not possible to have an action.

Originally posted by: yllus
Isn't the very definition of an orbit "the (usually elliptical) path described by one celestial body in its revolution about another"? Admittedly I don't know squat about this, but if we're going to nitpick the "facts" he brings up, by his own admission the Earth has a tighter (shorter) orbit around the Sun than Mars does - thus Earth will have circled the Sun more than Mars has. And why is this "clearly impossible" anyways?

I believe that's because he says that we say earth should have a greater number of revolutions around the sun, but we say they're both infinite, which cannot be true, because one must be clearly greater than the other. Something like that.

Originally posted by: yllus
Fallacy: False Dilemma

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:

1. Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
2. It is not the case that 1+1=4.
3. Therefore 1+1=12.

Looking at just your quoted portion looks a bit awkward... is (1) meant to be a axiom? Because if you state that A || B is verified, then that A is also false, that means B must be true or else A || B would be false (because both A and B would be false).

Because I mean, in that example you gave, we obviously know it's not true for either of them, but the wording of the initial statement leads me to believe that it is how I expressed it above. Frankly, 1 would simply be deemed as a false axiom .

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: Turin39789

I see you are new here.

Rule #48572 - Do not respond sincerely to anything Techboi says in one of his religious threads.

I'm sorry.

Will you be lenient if I promise never to do it again.

Also, I've lurked for many years. I'm just a sucker for being baited into a debate on God/religion.

Only if you can show an understanding of oldsmoboats law and provide some nice rule 34.