Prove God Exists - Version II!

[Birdjaguar]

No, I think that my version, makes more sense. I state that the universe is eternal. That means that everything in the universe is eternal. It does not have to come from anywhere. It has always existed, and will always exist.

Claiming the universe is eternal is tough to support. Evidence points to a clear beginning to the universe, so it can't be eternal. You would have to circumvent the big bang. If the big bang is true, you have to back up one level to something beyond the universe for eternal, infinite etc. to apply. This though, is the cleanest model for both the religious and non religious folks as long as you are not wedded to a literal genesis.

The problem for Curt & company is they now have to explain a "spontaneous" start to the big bang. I'm sure that the modeling and math that will go into proving such a thing will be very esoteric and interesting.

On the other side, it places god out of the universe and beyond the laws of the science, but leaves all these laws intact. A by-product is that you don't have to argue against evolution anymore.

There is a progression here. As reason and science learn more about the world, god moves further away. God cannot exist within a rational world. By definition he/she/it is outside reason.

Picture a small village surrounded by a huge encompasing forest full of wild beasts and scary things. People don't venture into the forest and imagine that it is home to gods and devils. As the village grows, the people enlarge their clearing pushing the unknown further away. After many generations, they have cleared a country and the scary forest is a long way from our first village. Science works in the same way. It pushes the border between the known and the unknown further and further away. God and all the scary things move with it.

That border is now at the very beginning of the universe. Beyond that line, god can have any characteristics you want. He is beyond time and space.

For those folks who cannot accept the seven days of creation as metaphor given by god to explain what's in the forest to primative villagers, you will have increasing difficulty dealing with an ever more scientific world. I expect that you (and future generations) will have to retreat more and more into arcane interpretations of Bible text to shape a view of the world that makes sense. More faith dictated by churches, less reason. Perhaps awkward and uncomfortable, but not necessarily bad.

The belief in god will never make more sense until there is tangible evidence for this god. That means that this god must manifest itself.

Hey God is omnipotent and beyond our rules. He could show up anytime anyplace and as often as he saw fit. Why limit him to one visit?

 

[Iggy]

The problem for Curt & company is they now have to explain a "spontaneous" start to the big bang. I'm sure that the modeling and math that will go into proving such a thing will be very esoteric and interesting.

If a scientific theory has not yet been developed to prove a happening then it must be the work of a god. Man has always had this thought process and unfortunately will do so for a while yet.
When you stay the night in a strange house sometimes you will hear a creak or a door bang shut. Some people think the noise is caused by temperature change or the wind, others "know" it was a ghost.
The psychology of man is that he must have knowledge / solutions to the world around him. In the absence of fact, man will provide the fiction to plug the gap. We are not very good at admitting, "we do not know the answer."

 

[CurtSibling]

Claiming the universe is eternal is tough to support. Evidence points to a clear beginning to the universe, so it can't be eternal. You would have to circumvent the big bang. If the big bang is true, you have to back up one level to something beyond the universe for eternal, infinite etc. to apply. This though, is the cleanest model for both the religious and non religious folks as long as you are not wedded to a literal genesis.

Present me the evidence that points to that conclusion, please.

The problem for Curt & company is they now have to explain a "spontaneous" start to the big bang. I'm sure that the modeling and math that will go into proving such a thing will be very esoteric and interesting.

Wrong.

I don't have to prove anything.

I have already mused several times on several threads that there may not be a set start point for the universe.

I se you challenge to that speculation is based on the fear of your god/myth being nullified out of the question.

Hey God is omnipotent and beyond our rules. He could show up anytime anyplace and as often as he saw fit. Why limit him to one visit?

Please.

You cannot talk about myths like this, as if they are real.

Tell me the proof of your god, or detail his substance and omnipotent properties before you proceed to gush about such an entity.

And don't try to retreat into the refuge of 'faith', as that is a non-starter to me.

 

[Pointlessness]

Maybe I can explain the evidence God thing better. Ok to see evidence for God you need to go to where God is. God is in the spiritual, so to see God you need to see in the spiritual. God created you with a spirit I don't know how to explain how to see through the spiritual but you need to have the Holy Spirit who shows you I know that much, now the Holy Spirit is is part of God (there are 3 parts of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Through the Holy Spirit is the only way that you can see where God is, so you have to trust in the Holy Spirit which is God, if you don't trust God how are you going to trust the Holy Spirit? So because you don't trust God you can not see the evidences, understand? So you are forced to believe some one who knows God because there is no other evidences that you can see. The thing is do you trust me? God is real I know Him.


I know it's a hard thing to understand let your mind just strech.

What is this spiritual crap? I need to see god in the spiritual? So if god is only spiritual, then how did he create the universe? The tangible is all the matters; the spiritual is irrelavant. You can claim anything exists in the spiritual, what matters is if they exist in the physical world.

You also claim that I cannot see any evidence god because I do not trust him. So, by your reasoning, the reason I cannot see any evidence of radioactive monkeys is because I do not trust them.

 

[Iggy]

I know it's a hard thing to understand let your mind just strech.

I believe that is what is known as "imagination". I agree with you if you are saying that one must have a vivid imagination in order to believe in the existance of a god.

 

[polymath]

I find it interesting that creationists are scarcely ever familiar with 11-dimensional brane theory, or with the hypothesis (yes, hypothesis only I'm afraid, but one which seems to be necessary) that this universe was the result of a collision between branes. And if this hypothesis pans out, I wonder will they claim that God caused the branes to collide? Or will they just ignore it completely, because it doesn't fit in with the preconceptions?

Of course, if you refuse to consider that the larger multi-dimensional universe exists, it makes it much easier for them to cling to their 'God did it' hypothesis (though I don't like to dignify it with the word 'hypothesis'). But since they don't accept the fairly straightforward and, dare I say, blindingly obvious conclusions of the Theory of Evolution, it is fair to say that, maths or no, they won't accept brane theory either. No matter how obvious it may be to those whose minds are open to facts whether they challenge their beliefs or not.

After all, it's not in their silly book. Therefore, it is not to be believed.

 

[CurtSibling]

What is this spiritual crap? I need to see god in the spiritual? So if god is only spiritual, then how did he create the universe? The tangible is all the matters; the spiritual is irrelavant. You can claim anything exists in the spiritual, what matters is if they exist in the physical world.

You also claim that I cannot see any evidence god because I do not trust him. So, by your reasoning, the reason I cannot see any evidence of radioactive monkeys is because I do not trust them.

Good reasoning by Pointlessness, Polymath and Iggy.

You have creationism on the ropes it seems!

 

[Smidlee]

You can't accept the existance of God nor do you want any proof since this would force you to face the lake of fire issue. it's not about evidence but it's a issue with the heart.

Romans 3:10-11,18 "there is none rightous, no, not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.... There is no fear of God before their eyes. "

no unrightous person is going to seek out a Holy, rightous God since noone like to be judged. that's the whole problem that you know there is no way you can stand before a Holy, rightous God and not be condemned. ( God can and will uses our own judgment againest us) So it's alot easyer closing your eyes and stopping up your ears and shout " There is no God" than to live in fear knowing one day you have to give account for every thought, judgment , and action you ever made. This world religions also decieves people believing they can on their own efferts approach the rightous God with their own personal good deeds.

(When I was saved I wasn't looking for God but I'm so thankful He came to me and revealed himself to me. It took a few weeks for God to work on my heart before I was saved so I'm gald he didn't give up on me.)

 

[polymath]

If God exists, you can rest assured that it is I who will be judging him for his petty puppet morality-show. Smiting, destroying and sentencing to eternal torment is more akin to the work of a Stalin or Hitler. If God exists, you will almost certainly find him in Hell.

 

[Phydeaux]

Why can't the universe be eternal?

The stuff in the universe isn't falling apart, it's changing. There's a big difference but not always obvious.

So to have contact with God you would need to believe in God? How would I know to believe in God? You're saying to get the evidence you need to believe in God, you need to believe in God. A bit Catch 22 don't you think?

Ok the stars are burning, some day there will be no more star right? Lets say that your car has gass and it's the after some time the gass will run out right? So that means that the gass couldn't be burning forever right? Although the stars don't burn in the same way gass in a car does, it is simler some day the stars will burn up, so that means that the stars couldn't be burning forever.

What I am saying is that you don't really see the evidence untell you know God, to know God you need to first believe. Even if like with the stuff couldn't last forever thing does not show that my God is the true God, it could be any other god or gods. So to know that it is my God you need to believe first. Unless you will believe me which you havn't so...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Birdjaguar:
Claiming the universe is eternal is tough to support. Evidence points to a clear beginning to the universe, so it can't be eternal. You would have to circumvent the big bang. If the big bang is true, you have to back up one or more levels to something beyond the universe, beyond brane theory for eternal, infinite etc. to apply. This though, is the cleanest model for both the religious and non religious folks as long as you are not wedded to a literal genesis.

Curt: Present me the evidence that points to that conclusion, please.

I made four conclusions in the above post, so I?m not sure which you are pointing to.
1. If the universe had a beginning, it cannot be eternal
2. The Big Bang marked the beginning of the universe as we know it
3. Eternity & infinity must reside outside the universe if they exist
4. This model presents fewest problems for both sides in this debate unless you?re a bible literalist.

My post was in reply to one by Pointlessness about the universe being eternal. Since the big bang would negate an eternal universe, I was merely pointing out that eternity and infinity could only be worked into the equation by moving them out of the physical universe. The last sentence, which I presume to be the one you object to, is my opinion about how to best model the cosmos if you don?t want to limit the possibilities. Some people feel more comfortable with known boundaries, so they create safe zones where their thinking will not be challenged. The bible literalists are a perfect example of this.
Most people put up some kind of fence around their thinking that includes certain items and excludes others. It?s how we order our world.

I presume that your model of the cosmos is not the same as the one presented above, but, no doubt, you have one. But it is just a model. Nothing in your model or mine eliminates the possibility that our universe might be nothing more than a terrarium on the desktop of some larger seven legged entity which is trying to seduce its secretary.

Let me know which conclusion troubles you.

Birdjaguar:
The problem for Curt & company is they now have to explain a "spontaneous" start to the big bang. I'm sure that the modeling and math that will go into proving such a thing will be very esoteric and interesting.

Curt: Wrong.
I don't have to prove anything. I have already mused several times on several threads that there may not be a set start point for the universe. I se you challenge to that speculation is based on the fear of your god/myth being nullified out of the question.

Curt & company was a stand in for modern science. Using your name was a way to identify the larger target group and still keep the CFC flavor. Science is an active force and is striving to provide an explanation for how the big bang (and the universe) happened. I certainly do not know enough to attempt such a proof. I will leave that to my son who is an astrophysicist and mathematician. At the moment, all we know is that the universe began at some point. We have ideas, but don?t know for sure how or why. Science, much like evolution, does not move in a straight line. It goes down many dead ends in its search for truth. The story of how our thinking about dinosaurs has changed is a perfect example and there is still more to learn.

Birdjaguar: Hey God is omnipotent and beyond our rules. He could show up anytime anyplace and as often as he saw fit. Why limit him to one visit?

Curt: Please. You cannot talk about myths like this, as if they are real.
Tell me the proof of your god, or detail his substance and omnipotent properties before you proceed to gush about such an entity.
And don't try to retreat into the refuge of 'faith', as that is a non-starter to me.

Pointlessness had made the point that god must manifest himself. I was merely trying to point out that if you are going to accept that god can/must show himself in the world you cannot limit him to one visit. Religious people and churches like to box their gods in. They want to limit his actions to make sure he fits into their knowledge base. Christianity limits god to two visits: one in 1st C AD and one TBD. I think you would have to agree, Curt that such a position is silly, especially if you give god attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience, and eternal life.

All this brings me back around to the theme of my previous post: IF you choose to believe in a god, you have to place he/she/it outside of the current borders of scientific thinking. By definition god and magic are outside of reason and have always been. Now if you want to say that reason and science can encompass all the cosmos and can explain (if not now, in the future) Everything, then you have staked your boundary. Beyond that boundary belief will always lie in wait. And the problem for science, and all of us who believe in it, is that at the moment there are still ?wild forests full of scary things? that are close by and unexplained. The battle is not against belief. It is for greater knowledge.

 

[betazed]

(When I was saved I wasn't looking for God but I'm so thankful He came to me and revealed himself to me. It took a few weeks for God to work on my heart before I was saved so I'm gald he didn't give up on me.)

I am really intrigued with the definiteness of your belief here. So please tell me a little more. I am really interested.

and revealed himself to me.

How did he reveal himself to you?

It took a few weeks for God to work on my heart before I was saved so I'm gald he didn't give up on me.

What was the difference between the beginning of the few weeks and at the end?

I am really curious.

 

[polymath]

"What I am saying is that you don't really see the evidence untell you know God, to know God you need to first believe. Even if like with the stuff couldn't last forever thing does not show that my God is the true God, it could be any other god or gods. So to know that it is my God you need to believe first. Unless you will believe me which you havn't so..." - Phydeaux

I have proven time and again on these forums that belief with no evidence counts for nothing. Why is your rock-solid belief better than the rock-solid belief of a Sikh? Do you have anything better than a proven irrelevance to add to the debate?

 

[Phydeaux]

I find it interesting that creationists are scarcely ever familiar with 11-dimensional brane theory, or with the hypothesis (yes, hypothesis only I'm afraid, but one which seems to be necessary) that this universe was the result of a collision between branes. And if this hypothesis pans out, I wonder will they claim that God caused the branes to collide? Or will they just ignore it completely, because it doesn't fit in with the preconceptions?

Of course, if you refuse to consider that the larger multi-dimensional universe exists, it makes it much easier for them to cling to their 'God did it' hypothesis (though I don't like to dignify it with the word 'hypothesis'). But since they don't accept the fairly straightforward and, dare I say, blindingly obvious conclusions of the Theory of Evolution, it is fair to say that, maths or no, they won't accept brane theory either. No matter how obvious it may be to those whose minds are open to facts whether they challenge their beliefs or not.

After all, it's not in their silly book. Therefore, it is not to be believed.

The "multi-dimensional" is I think just a way that they try to explain the spiritaul. Of corse it is not any more scientific than the idea of a Spiritaul. I have seen the Spiritaul there for I believe it, why should I believe in somebuddys idea when I have seen what it really is?

 

[polymath]

The "multi-dimensional" is I think just a way that they try to explain the spiritaul. Of corse it is not any more scientific than the idea of a Spiritaul. I have seen the Spiritaul there for I believe it, why should I believe in somebuddys idea when I have seen what it really is?

Pretty much all of that post is wrong, Phydeaux. I've certainly never heard anyone claim that mathematically-derived hypotheses are a way of explaining the spiritual before. It simply doesn't make sense on any level.

 

[CurtSibling]

@Smidlee:
Like a hallucigenic wine, you just get better with time.

Allow me to blow your arguments out of the brine.

You can't accept the existence of God nor do you want any proof since this would force you to face the lake of fire issue. it's not about evidence but it's a issue with the heart.

I am not afraid of any myth.
The heavy yoke of proof is upon your shoulders.

So let's drop the pretence of wisdom and power, Smid, and get with the
convincing of myself and others that your god is anything more than thin air.

I am not knocking your life, but you are knocking my right to freedom, so kindly give me proof!

Or fall silent!

Romans 3:10-11,18 "there is none rightous, no, not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.... There is no fear of God before their eyes. "

This is not any use in the debate.

I could quote some Tolkien or Huxley - But that would just be words from more old books.

no unrightous person is going to seek out a Holy, rightous God since noone like to be judged. that's the whole problem that you know there is no way you can stand before a Holy, rightous God and not be condemned.9 God can and will uses our own judgment againest us) So it's alot easyer closing your eyes and stopping up your ears and shout " There is no God" than to live in fear knowing one day you have to give account for every thought, judgment , and action you ever made. This world religions also decieves people believing they can on their own efferts approach the rightous God with their own personal good deeds.

This is meaningless to me.

You cannot just hold up a myth and expect me to cow into submission.
Do you think me some 1700's third-world serf, easily terrified into abasing myself at your boots?

No, sir!
I can see through what in all the world are thin air myths.
To which creationists and a myriad other religionists of all types offer no proof, only dusty platitudes!

You merely shut your eyes to the logical world and scream: "There is a god!".

Good for you, but I do not live in fear of some assumed holy status.

One day you will see how empty all that dogma is.

Then, sir, you will have to face the folly of your inactions.

(When I was saved I wasn't looking for God but I'm so thankful He came to me and revealed himself to me. It took a few weeks for God to work on my heart before I was saved so I'm gald he didn't give up on me.)

That leaves hardly a dry eye in the house.

But let me tell you, personal experience of a god does not count in my arena.

I reject the auspices of religion that we, in this modern world cannot really hold ourselves party to.

I say again,
Your claims to divine wisdom would be more credible to my eyes if you presented some proof beyond self-motivational rap.

Any time you are ready.

 

[eyrei]

Religion has little to nothing to do with logic. I honestly don't even see why those of you are religious even engage in discussion like this with atheists. They simply want to tie you to a whipping post to give their rather empty existence some meaning...

 

[betazed]

I honestly don't even see why those of you are religious even engage in discussion like this with atheists. They simply want to tie you to a whipping post to give their rather empty existence some meaning...

Or it could be the other way round too, don't you think?

 

[eyrei]

Or it could be the other way round too, don't you think?

Sure, but this thread was started by an atheist.

 

[Phydeaux]

What is this spiritual crap? I need to see god in the spiritual? So if god is only spiritual, then how did he create the universe? The tangible is all the matters; the spiritual is irrelavant. You can claim anything exists in the spiritual, what matters is if they exist in the physical world.

What I mean is that the real evidence doesn't come in untell you can see in the Spiritaul that is where the big evidence is. God created the universe by commanding it to be so. God is not going to cammand you to be saved because He gave you a free will, you choose not Him. That is why they go to hell not because they didn't do good enough but because they didn't want to be with God, you can choose to be free or not but you choose now... God does things on earth but you don't believe you call them lies or dimensions. You can grasp hold of the spiritual but how are you going to do that if you don't believe in the spiritual? You must believe in the one who takes you to the spiritual (God) before you can get there. God isn't physical you can see what He does in the physical but you can not see Him unless you look with the spiritaul.