Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

A Proof That God Exists


  • Please log in to reply
364 replies to this topic

#331    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:26 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 29 April 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

I do not discard any opinion. I treat each opinion as just as likely, but if I see one opinion being stated as truth, when there is not enough evidence to back up that assertion- I am compelled to offer the counter to that opinion so that it is also represented.

Good for you, I like that attitude, so I may be seeing you defend the opposite view to the one you had with me one of these days?

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#332    Euphorbia

Euphorbia

    Odd Plant Grower

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,244 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere east of San Francisco

  • You can't just choose to believe something.

    Believing in something doesn't make it true.

Posted 29 April 2013 - 11:18 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 29 April 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

Very good! You talk about "actual proof of God" as if you have cornered me into a checkmate.  Whatever you mean by that I'll show you what you ask but only as soon as you show me "actual proof" of the BB. Go right ahead for I am all ears.

Did I ever say that I had "actual proof" of the BB? Nobody can say with absolute certainty how the universe came into existence. It is just the current excepted model of the beginning of our universe.

All ears huh? No actual brain? Just kidding.....or am I?

All I've said all along is that nobody has any absolute proof of how it all came to be. Your reasoning is that a creator made the universe........based on nothing but assumptions. God did it, or so you say. I simply say that a god was not necessary for our creation and that we may never know exactly how it all began.

I don't know, you don't know, nor does anyone on this planet know exactly what processes formed our universe.

Yet there you are, stating that you have "evidence" that god did it and that it is a "fact". Again, you are very liberal with the term "Fact".

Oh, and from one of your previous posts.....I'm not trying to "get you to consider atheism" or make you see it our way. We do just fine without you......

When is this going to sink into your head?

Get three coffins ready.

My mistake, four coffins.

Separation of corporation and state!

#333    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:00 AM

View PostJor-el, on 29 April 2013 - 10:26 PM, said:

Good for you, I like that attitude, so I may be seeing you defend the opposite view to the one you had with me one of these days?

You just might! ;)


#334    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 30 April 2013 - 07:58 PM

View PostJor-el, on 29 April 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

In order to recognize that an explanation is the best, you don’t have to be able to explain the explanation.

I have always liked the simple logic of that statement. There are only two possible solutions, either there is a creator or there isn't and what we have is a natural cause. Of the two the most elegant and the simplest explanation is that of a creator. The complicated rigmarole that is needed to justify a natural cause simply defies explanation.

Of course it is absoltutely essential (if one is to deny the simpler explanation) that any explanation that does not have a creator has to be correct.

Indeed, any explanation that does not have an active cause must be either corrected or demonstrated by means of logical evidences. Only the Primal Cause has not been caused.


#335    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 30 April 2013 - 08:01 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 29 April 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

I do not discard any opinion. I treat each opinion as just as likely, but if I see one opinion being stated as truth, when there is not enough evidence to back up that assertion- I am compelled to offer the counter to that opinion so that it is also represented.

And I am still waiting for the counter opinion to the assertion that something cannot cause itself into existence. If you can provide me with I'll have only words of praise.


#336    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 30 April 2013 - 08:13 PM

View PostEuphorbia, on 29 April 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

Did I ever say that I had "actual proof" of the BB? Nobody can say with absolute certainty how the universe came into existence. It is just the current excepted model of the beginning of our universe.

All ears huh? No actual brain? Just kidding.....or am I?

All I've said all along is that nobody has any absolute proof of how it all came to be. Your reasoning is that a creator made the universe........based on nothing but assumptions. God did it, or so you say. I simply say that a god was not necessary for our creation and that we may never know exactly how it all began.

I don't know, you don't know, nor does anyone on this planet know exactly what processes formed our universe.

Yet there you are, stating that you have "evidence" that god did it and that it is a "fact". Again, you are very liberal with the term "Fact".

Oh, and from one of your previous posts.....I'm not trying to "get you to consider atheism" or make you see it our way. We do just fine without you......

When is this going to sink into your head?

If you cannot provide actual proofs for the BB why do you demand of me actual proofs for the existence of God?  Don't ask if you cannot give anything back. If God the Primal Cause was not necessary to give origin to the universe, obviously you know that the universe caused itself into existence. If you cannot give any evidence to that effect, don't declare that there was no need for the Primal Cause. Be at least fair enough to admit the probability. Unless the impression you give off is that of one who knows what he is talking about when indeed you don't.


#337    Euphorbia

Euphorbia

    Odd Plant Grower

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,244 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere east of San Francisco

  • You can't just choose to believe something.

    Believing in something doesn't make it true.

Posted 30 April 2013 - 09:03 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 30 April 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

If you cannot provide actual proofs for the BB why do you demand of me actual proofs for the existence of God?  Don't ask if you cannot give anything back. If God the Primal Cause was not necessary to give origin to the universe, obviously you know that the universe caused itself into existence. If you cannot give any evidence to that effect, don't declare that there was no need for the Primal Cause. Be at least fair enough to admit the probability. Unless the impression you give off is that of one who knows what he is talking about when indeed you don't.

Obviously it hasn't sunk in.  :hmm:

You can't prove your god exists.  I can't prove he doesn't.

I can't prove that the BB is definitively what happened or under what circumstances our universe came into existence.

You most definitely can't prove that the universe was created by a god.

Please Mr. all ears, tell us why the universe had to have a creator, yet not be created himself. And who created him?

Why do you keep sidestepping the issue?

Because you have no evidence!  :no:

Nobody knows for sure........

You can climb off of your high horse now. I'm done trying to battle your religious based opinions as you will never try to understand anything that doesn't fit in with your preconceived ideas......

Goodbye!   :st

Get three coffins ready.

My mistake, four coffins.

Separation of corporation and state!

#338    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 30 April 2013 - 09:25 PM

View PostEuphorbia, on 30 April 2013 - 09:03 PM, said:

Obviously it hasn't sunk in.  :hmm:

You can't prove your god exists.  I can't prove he doesn't.

I can't prove that the BB is definitively what happened or under what circumstances our universe came into existence.

You most definitely can't prove that the universe was created by a god.

Please Mr. all ears, tell us why the universe had to have a creator, yet not be created himself. And who created him?

Why do you keep sidestepping the issue?

Because you have no evidence!  :no:

Nobody knows for sure........

You can climb off of your high horse now. I'm done trying to battle your religious based opinions as you will never try to understand anything that doesn't fit in with your preconceived ideas......

Goodbye!  

Of one thing you are right: That noghing has sunked into you either. Have I ever said that I can produce actual proofs that God exists? No, I said that I can produce the logical evidence that he does at least as long as you fail to produce the evidence that something can cause itself into existence. You can't because it would be illogical. The universe could not cause itself to exist because it had to exist to do so. Since it didn't the existence of the Primal Cause is implied. I did not say "Is proved", I said is implied. I think you are the one in need to come down your high horse. You are looking too funny up there.

Edited by Ben Masada, 30 April 2013 - 09:26 PM.


#339    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012

Posted 30 April 2013 - 09:49 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 30 April 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

And I am still waiting for the counter opinion to the assertion that something cannot cause itself into existence. If you can provide me with I'll have only words of praise.

I have already mentioned quantum physics and the fact that the vacuum of space is full of particle-antiparticle pairs that appear and then within a tiny fraction of a second annihilate each other. There is no apparent cause for these particles, they just pop out of space at random. This is a real example showing that at the quantum level things can happen that have no cause. Therefore since the 'big bang' would have originated from a quantum sized area of space, one can draw the conclusion that the big bang would be governed by these same laws of probability, and thus could happen with no apparent cause.


#340    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012

Posted 30 April 2013 - 09:56 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 30 April 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

Of one thing you are right: That noghing has sunked into you either. Have I ever said that I can produce actual proofs that God exists? No, I said that I can produce the logical evidence that he does at least as long as you fail to produce the evidence that something can cause itself into existence. You can't because it would be illogical. The universe could not cause itself to exist because it had to exist to do so. Since it didn't the existence of the Primal Cause is implied. I did not say "Is proved", I said is implied. I think you are the one in need to come down your high horse. You are looking too funny up there.

But your logic makes no sense. So you are asserting that the universe cannot cause itself, yet you assume that there is in fact something that exists without cause and that something to you is God. What if that something is the universe itself? If God does not need a cause, then by your logic not everything needs a cause. You call God the 'primal cause'. I could call the big bang itself the 'primal cause' being causeless and essentially it is the exact same thing. You just call it God, What do you mean by God exactly? If God is simply just the cause, then God could be nothing more (and nothing less) than laws of nature that lead to creation. If all you mean by God is the creator, then the laws of nature themselves suffice for God. Mathematics could be God. What is your concept of God?


#341    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 May 2013 - 08:12 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 30 April 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

I have already mentioned quantum physics and the fact that the vacuum of space is full of particle-antiparticle pairs that appear and then within a tiny fraction of a second annihilate each other. There is no apparent cause for these particles, they just pop out of space at random. This is a real example showing that at the quantum level things can happen that have no cause. Therefore since the 'big bang' would have originated from a quantum sized area of space, one can draw the conclusion that the big bang would be governed by these same laws of probability, and thus could happen with no apparent cause.

Quantum physics does not answer the question. You are simply implying "creatio ex-nihilo" without any logical explanation. It only sets you akin to the common "creatio ex-nihilo" of Theism. No wonder Einstein saw quantum physics as "mumbo jumbo".


#342    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 May 2013 - 08:30 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 30 April 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

But your logic makes no sense. So you are asserting that the universe cannot cause itself, yet you assume that there is in fact something that exists without cause and that something to you is God. What if that something is the universe itself? If God does not need a cause, then by your logic not everything needs a cause. You call God the 'primal cause'. I could call the big bang itself the 'primal cause' being causeless and essentially it is the exact same thing. You just call it God, What do you mean by God exactly? If God is simply just the cause, then God could be nothing more (and nothing less) than laws of nature that lead to creation. If all you mean by God is the creator, then the laws of nature themselves suffice for God. Mathematics could be God. What is your concept of God?

I cannot replace God with the BB because God is not composed of matter and the universe is. Matter cannot cause itself into existence as nothing can. God is a Spiritual Entity or Esoteric Being which in the words of Heguel cannot be explained but felt if one exercises his attribute of spirituality. He is the only Spiritual Entity akin to being without beginning and without end; matter can't exhibit that attribute. Then somehow by way of designing the universe started and through natural laws has kept on expanding to this day.


#343    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012

Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:02 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 02 May 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

Quantum physics does not answer the question. You are simply implying "creatio ex-nihilo" without any logical explanation. It only sets you akin to the common "creatio ex-nihilo" of Theism. No wonder Einstein saw quantum physics as "mumbo jumbo".

Yup, and a lot of people see the religious explanations as mumbo jumbo too, also with no logical explanation just a belief and a subjective spirituality that makes it true to you, but not in any way objectively true.

View PostBen Masada, on 02 May 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

I cannot replace God with the BB because God is not composed of matter and the universe is. Matter cannot cause itself into existence as nothing can. God is a Spiritual Entity or Esoteric Being which in the words of Heguel cannot be explained but felt if one exercises his attribute of spirituality. He is the only Spiritual Entity akin to being without beginning and without end; matter can't exhibit that attribute. Then somehow by way of designing the universe started and through natural laws has kept on expanding to this day.

Nobody knows what God is composed of but you are free to believe whatever dogma you wish. Matter most likely cannot cause itself into existence based on observations of matter itself, but the universe could be caused by any number of things that we just do not understand. The cause, therefore, is a mystery. Nobody knows for sure. Again here you are stating that subjective experience is evidence for objective reality. This is not the case in science and subjective experience does not prove or even qualify as actual evidence for objective truth. Which is why we can argue back and forth all day. You saying it was God, me saying we just don't know. I am keeping an open mind- I admit it could be God, but I also admit that right now there is no possible way to objectively know and that it might not have been God. That is the truth.


#344    xxxch00bxxx

xxxch00bxxx

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 23 posts
  • Joined:09 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:ireland

  • There is one thing i do know is that i know nothing

Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:48 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 30 April 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

Of one thing you are right: That noghing has sunked into you either. Have I ever said that I can produce actual proofs that God exists? No, I said that I can produce the logical evidence that he does at least as long as you fail to produce the evidence that something can cause itself into existence. You can't because it would be illogical. The universe could not cause itself to exist because it had to exist to do so. Since it didn't the existence of the Primal Cause is implied. I did not say "Is proved", I said is implied. I think you are the one in need to come down your high horse. You are looking too funny up there.

Actually ben yes you did you made a thread saying "A Proof that God Exists" then on your first few sentences say this:

According to Moses Maimonides, a Philosopher, Theologian and Medical Doctor in his [color=#009900 !important]book[/color][color=#282828] "The Guide for the Perplexed," there would be no need for a Creator if the universe was eternal, without beginning or end. In other words, God would not exist. "However, if the universe did have a beginning, God by necessity would exist."[/color]

So yeah you talk about it like it's a fact make a thread saying it's proof that god exist's so it's safe to say you place it as a fact.

Edited by xxxch00bxxx, 03 May 2013 - 02:49 AM.


#345    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 03 May 2013 - 08:32 AM

Everyone assumes that everything that happens has to have a prior thing that also happened that "caused" it.  Why?  As an observation about the way things seem to be in the world, this seems to be true, at least much of the time, although most of the time things just happen and we assume there was a cause, but don't really check, and quite a few times when we say something is the cause and others check, it turns out we were wrong.

Another question is exactly what is meant by one event "causing" another.  If you think about it there is not much difference between that and magic.  I wave my magic wand and a pixies appear and fly off.  My waving the wand "caused" the pixies.  Just what is the link between my waves of the wand and these pixies?

I sprinkle some salt on my salad, and what had been boring old lettuce and tomatoes becomes tasty lettuce and tomatoes.  Is there something about my wrist motion on the salt-shaker?  Well, no, so maybe the wand had nothing to do with the pixies.  My shaking the salt-shaker is needed to get the salt onto the salad, but it is not what causes the change in the taste.  You reply of course that it is something about the reaction of salt on our taste buds that cause or "stimulate" different taste receptors on our tongue that our brain interprets as interesting rather than boring.  Sounds suspiciously magical to me.  

Science is all about tracing these chains of causation and showing which ones are real and which are not, and doing all this has proven to be an extremely useful enterprise, but it never resolves this thing everybody just takes for granted and never questions -- what exactly is "cause?"  Two molecules getting within a certain distance of each other "causes" electrostatic forces to take over and bring about a certain chemical reaction.  It is possible to determine how close, what reaction, and all sorts of other details, but why?  That things happen we know, but we just assume cause -- because it is so part of the furniture that we sit on it and don't notice that its a chair.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users