Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Ben Masada

A Proof That God Exists

365 posts in this topic

All that is implied by your logic is that there was a cause. That cause does not have to be God or a creator- we do not have enough information to be able to answer this question.

And how do you call this? When you don't have an opinion of your own you discard all other opinions. What has happened to the concept of probability? Is this concept subject to preconceived notions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man has created many, many gods. People just choose which ones they want to believe in.

And who has created the men who have created many gods? See what I mean now? We are back on the saddle of the vicious cycle and because of preconceived notions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ammunition?

All you've given on this thread is your opinion......and I don't think you know what "evidence" actually is.

The creator is implied only in your mind.........do you know what facts are?......you know.....things that can actually be proven, things that stand up to scientific scrutiny. You are very liberal with the term "fact".

And again, I find it to be total hypocrisy to state that everything had to have a creator yet you conveniently leave your god out of the equation.

Who created your god? And who created your god's creator etc.

You may have those that are already religious on your side, but your going nowhere with us atheists........so why bother? I'm done with you unless you can show actual proof......no opinion....no YouTube video's, but actual proof!

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how do you call this? When you don't have an opinion of your own you discard all other opinions. What has happened to the concept of probability? Is this concept subject to preconceived notions?

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 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."

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

You don't need matter to cause itself into existence under your framework; you only need something that can create matter. You appear to also ultimately need something that was not caused, but considering that the evidence we have that allows us to evaluate the question, 'what kind of things have always existed and do not require a cause', amounts to zero, there's no reason to single out God and place him in opposition to anything else. There's no more likelihood that, 'the thing that is uncaused and can create matter/universes', is God as opposed to a non-God; there is no data to evaluate.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

That's the idea! Let's keep an open mind. Besides I am not discussing Science but Logic in Theology. At least we have achieved a common denominator that matter cannot cause itself into existence. Since the universe is matter that goes for it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 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."

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.

Yes, but I said later in a post to someone else that I don't like the word "proof" but evidence. Therefore I had made a mistake to use proof instead of evidence. In fact we cannot prove anything but work on evidences.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need matter to cause itself into existence under your framework; you only need something that can create matter. You appear to also ultimately need something that was not caused, but considering that the evidence we have that allows us to evaluate the question, 'what kind of things have always existed and do not require a cause', amounts to zero, there's no reason to single out God and place him in opposition to anything else. There's no more likelihood that, 'the thing that is uncaused and can create matter/universes', is God as opposed to a non-God; there is no data to evaluate.

Well, in that case I go by default. Since you cannot produce a factual evidence that matter can cause itself into existence and the universe is composed of matter, the immaterial in God in implied. Again, I said implied and not proved although by Logic I can't see why not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in that case I go by default. Since you cannot produce a factual evidence that matter can cause itself into existence and the universe is composed of matter, the immaterial in God in implied. Again, I said implied and not proved although by Logic I can't see why not.

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'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.