A Proof That God Exists

[Frank Merton]

Yea -- if there is a God of some sort, it's more like the Tao, and the Tao is not God, just "something."

[Einsteinium]

Yea -- if there is a God of some sort, it's more like the Tao, and the Tao is not God, just "something."

Embracing Tao, you become embraced.

Supple, breathing gently, you become reborn.

Clearing your vision, you become clear.

Nurturing your beloved, you become impartial.

Opening your heart, you become accepted.

Accepting the World, you embrace Tao.

Bearing and nurturing,

Creating but not owning,

Giving without demanding,

Controlling without authority,

This is love.”

― Lao Tzu, The Teachings of Lao-Tzu: The Tao-Te Ching

[Ben Masada]

I'm not sure what 'go by default' means. You cannot produce factual evidence that matter needs to cause itself into existence, you haven't shown that there was ever a 'time' that matter/energy didn't exist; if God can be eternal so can anything else. About as far as we can take your point currently seems to be, "if matter/energy hasn't always existed in some form then something must have created it". You're still a good distance from any argument suggesting 'God' is a more likely answer than 'something'.

I think you have a problem with Logic. By default I mean: Since you cannot produce evidence for your assertions by default mine becomes relevant. I cannot produce factual evidence that matter needs to cause itself into existence because it is not logical that matter causes itself into existence. It cannot. It must exist and if it does, it does not need to. Another illogical argument of yours is to claim that I have not shown that there was ever a time when matter/energy did not exist. Before matter was caused into existence there was no time as time is an accident of matter. Another is to imply that matter can be eternal as God is eternal. For matter to be eternal God would be irrelevant. And to study this issue it is a matter of many lifetimes, let alone just being a good distance from complition.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Ben Masada

[Einsteinium]

I think you have a problem with Logic. By default I mean: Since you cannot produce evidence for your assertions by default mine becomes relevant. I cannot produce factual evidence that matter needs to cause itself into existence because it is not logical that matter causes itself into existence. It cannot. It must exist and if it does, it does not need to. Another illogical argument of yours is to claim that I have not shown that there was ever a time when matter/energy did not exist. Before matter was caused into existence there was no time as time is an accident of matter. Another is to imply that matter can be eternal as God is eternal. For matter to be eternal God would be irrelevant. And to study this issue it is a matter of many lifetimes, let alone just being a good distance from complition.

There is some debate over whether or not time existed before the big bang. And indeed whether or not space existed before the big bang. Time and space could have existed before the big bang- with the bang expanding into it, we just do not know. Also, matter and energy are essentially the same thing, hence the equation; or in the simpler form everyone has heard of; E = mc²

Matter can be thought of as condensed energy. So what you really should be asking to be precise- is can ENERGY be created from nothing, randomly, or is there more to the universe and the universe's environment than meets the eye? I think we can all agree that there are holes in our best scientific theories regarding creation, the question is what are we missing? Could be God, could be something we cannot at present even imagine, or it could be something so simple and so elegant that it is hiding right under our noses and we just have not discovered it yet.

[+Liquid Gardens]

I think you have a problem with Logic.

Perhaps, but I'll never know if you don't do a better job of following up your assertion that I'm being illogical with a specific explanation of what I'm illogical about.

By default I mean: Since you cannot produce evidence for your assertions by default mine becomes relevant.

Is that all you were arguing, that your assertion is 'relevant'? I thought you were arguing that there's a good reason to believe your assertion is actually true, my mistake.

Another illogical argument of yours is to claim that I have not shown that there was ever a time when matter/energy did not exist.

Ha, 'another'? What was the first illogical argument of mine again?

Before matter was caused into existence there was no time as time is an accident of matter.

Are you including 'energy' when you say 'matter'? If so you are just asserting the truth what is actually being questioned when you say 'before matter was caused into existence'.

Another is to imply that matter can be eternal as God is eternal. For matter to be eternal God would be irrelevant. And to study this issue it is a matter of many lifetimes, let alone just being a good distance from complition.

Okay, let's be clear, 'relevant' and 'irrelevant' are somewhat subjective terms; people can find astrology to be relevant but that is not reason to believe that the constellations and planets influence human behavior. I agree this has been studied for many lifetimes, millenia worth, but I'm hard pressed to think of much progress that has derived from it; depending on what exactly 'this issue' is, the progress in religions at least seems to come largely from science and Enlightenment thinking, not theological sources.

[laver]

Before the existance of modern science, people generally viewed the universe as being similar to bread dough. It had no definate shape, except for the shape God molded it to be. This stance is understandable considering how little they knew at the time. However now with Modern science, people have learned more and more that the universe is something more of a gigantic machine that runs on and on like a clock, and yet for some reason people suddenly assume based on this knew found truth that the universe must have suddenly created and designed itself. To me the fact that the universe undoubtedly has a beginning, and has laws that are ever so perfectly fine tuned to support life, is even more proof of the existance of God rather than the original "bread dough" idea.

God does exist and he can be scientifically proven, so that mankind is without excuse. The biggest evidence can be found simply in the air you breath every day, but nevertheless, more proof has, can, and will be given.

Jesus Christ - Matthew 28:18-20 said:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

...to the end of the age....

and when will that be??

[GoldenWolf]

Jesus Christ - Matthew 28:18-20 said:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

...to the end of the age....

and when will that be??

Did he say that before or after he was crucified?

[Doug1029]

A PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS.

According to Moses Maimonides, a Philosopher, Theologian and Medical Doctor in his book "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.

IF the universe had a beginning, then nothing existed before the universe, not even time, because time is part of the universe. As such, there was nothing before the universe, not even god. That means that god had a beginning. SO: who or what created god?

Doug

[Ben Masada]

There is some debate over whether or not time existed before the big bang. And indeed whether or not space existed before the big bang. Time and space could have existed before the big bang- with the bang expanding into it, we just do not know. Also, matter and energy are essentially the same thing, hence the equation; or in the simpler form everyone has heard of; E = mc²

Matter can be thought of as condensed energy. So what you really should be asking to be precise- is can ENERGY be created from nothing, randomly, or is there more to the universe and the universe's environment than meets the eye? I think we can all agree that there are holes in our best scientific theories regarding creation, the question is what are we missing? Could be God, could be something we cannot at present even imagine, or it could be something so simple and so elegant that it is hiding right under our noses and we just have not discovered it yet.

Einsteinium, as we say in Hebrew, "Kall hakavod lecha" which means all my respects. That's a great post. I have never read from an atheist a post with the probability: "it could be God..." Usually God is absolutely discarded off the equation. Okay but back to the wagon, E=mc2 rather supports the assertion that energy is an accident of matter. Space is the length between matter and matter; therefore an accident of matter. And as we have said before, time is an accident of matter in motion. Therefore, directily an accident of motion. From here we can deduce that before the beginning of the universe there was neither space nor time. Only the cacuum in the expectation to be occupied and to grow with the occupation of the elements within. Hence expansion of either the BB or from the original "Creatio ex-nihilo."

[Ben Masada]

Perhaps, but I'll never know if you don't do a better job of following up your assertion that I'm being illogical with a specific explanation of what I'm illogical about.

It is all explained in the following ups. You could have erased the above when it became irrelevant by reading the rest of the post.

Is that all you were arguing, that your assertion is 'relevant'? I thought you were arguing that there's a good reason to believe your assertion is actually true, my mistake.

Yes, your mistake. At least, I am cautious to use the word "relevant". You guys discurse what you do not know. What can you tell me that's true? Nothing can be proved true and I thought you knew about these things.

Ha, 'another'? What was the first illogical argument of mine again?

Nothing. I see no Logic in arguments too crowded with hostilities against the probability that God could be considered.

Are you including 'energy' when you say 'matter'? If so you are just asserting the truth what is actually being questioned when you say 'before matter was caused into existence'.

No I am not. Energy is an accident of matter. When matter was caused into existence energy "made its entrance" as part of the universe.

Okay, let's be clear, 'relevant' and 'irrelevant' are somewhat subjective terms; people can find astrology to be relevant but that is not reason to believe that the constellations and planets influence human behavior. I agree this has been studied for many lifetimes, millenia worth, but I'm hard pressed to think of much progress that has derived from it; depending on what exactly 'this issue' is, the progress in religions at least seems to come largely from science and Enlightenment thinking, not theological sources.

"That the constellations and planets influence human behavior" that's influence of matter over matter. After all we are part of the universe if I am to remind you. I see you are only too fast in discarding Theology notwithstanding the benefits Judaism through Theology has contributed with the moral development of humanity. What role has Science effected in the laws to promote peace and understanding among peoples? Almost all nations have applied the Decalogue as the basis for their possibility to live in society. How much is that part of atheistic influence? I think you should think twice before fighting the theistic theology.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

IF the universe had a beginning, then nothing existed before the universe, not even time, because time is part of the universe. As such, there was nothing before the universe, not even god. That means that god had a beginning. SO: who or what created god?

Doug

If you had made that "nothing" with a capital letter I could have taken as another name for God. You are right again. Time did not exist because time is part of the universe as an accident of motion. The motion of matter.

"Not even God!" When Moses needed a name of reference to answer questions about Who had sent him to free the Jewish People from slavery in Egypt the name given was "I AM". Tell them that I AM sent you. God is before the universe was caused into existence and still is. He does not operate within the frame of time and space. I understand you cannot walk in that realm of perception. Your mind cannot conceive the esoteric attribute of Metaphysics. If God had had a beginning He could not be God. We would have either to quit on Him or go for something else to explain how the universe came about if it could not cause itself into existence. Could you? How could you! The only thing you know is that there is no God, that's all.

[borntosurf2]

The youtube video was very interesting, thank you for posting 120 decimal places, that s more than a google from large number theory

We never once heard about this in 4 year honours physics program lol

we were too busy in quantum mechanics the flavour of the month at the time

[Ben Masada]

The youtube video was very interesting, thank you for posting 120 decimal places, that s more than a google from large number theory

We never once heard about this in 4 year honours physics program lol

we were too busy in quantum mechanics the flavour of the month at the time.

Then what happened to quantum mechanics, did you recover from it?

[Doug1029]

If you had made that "nothing" with a capital letter I could have taken as another name for God. You are right again. Time did not exist because time is part of the universe as an accident of motion. The motion of matter.

I'm starting to question the understanding of the universe that I had when I wrote that. At any rate, the problem involves black holes and such and as I am not a cosmologist, I'll have to rely on somebody else to do the prep work. I am withdrawing from this particular argument.

Doug

[Ben Masada]

I'm starting to question the understanding of the universe that I had when I wrote that. At any rate, the problem involves black holes and such and as I am not a cosmologist, I'll have to rely on somebody else to do the prep work. I am withdrawing from this particular argument.

Doug

Why, afraid of the Truth?