I can prove God exists

Miltiades

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
20
And what would you say to a situation where the rules of physics simply cannot and does not apply, hmmm? All physical equations are reducible to the fundamental units of mass, lenght and time, are they not? And physics merely measures these quantities and apply their mathematical relationships, does it not?

How, then, can a law of physics apply to a situation where these fundamental units do not exist, or are themselves unquantifiable? Does it not also follow that the rules of acceptable physical evidence - those that result from measurement - cannot exist as well?


Then maybe then we don't fully grasp the laws of physics. But could you give an example for this situation?
I BELIEVE in God so if your trying to prove him to me your wasting your time. One, you can't. Two, I already believe so why bother?
 
Werbung:

Mare Tranquillity

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
3,477
Just answer the question.

Does the equation for energy in this version of electrodynamics violate conservation or not?

Are you even aware of the meaning of the integral of the radiation volume (dV) of vacuum? You have to look at far away stars to observe the hubble constant, an effect of expansion of the universe, hence attributed to the energy density of vacuum.

Or are you prepared to discuss tensor fields with me to demonstrate my ignorance?

Though it pains me to admit it, Num, I made a mistake and I need to apologize for it. I mis-judged you, you are more angry and less intelligent than I gave you credit for. I realize that this must be an uncomfortable place for you to be, but I can't help you. Nor do I have to live with your anger and intransigence.

It doesn't matter what I say in response to your posts you will always argue with me. Even the one time I AGREED with you, you argued with me. I'm sorry you are too angry to think and read, but if I leave you alone maybe you'll calm down. Rant and rave and call me names if you wish, the website has a vast fund of information and anyone who wants to know about it can go there and read it for themselves just as I did. Adios Tonto... and the horse you rode in on.:)
 

numinus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
2,525
Though it pains me to admit it, Num, I made a mistake and I need to apologize for it. I mis-judged you, you are more angry and less intelligent than I gave you credit for. I realize that this must be an uncomfortable place for you to be, but I can't help you. Nor do I have to live with your anger and intransigence.

It doesn't matter what I say in response to your posts you will always argue with me. Even the one time I AGREED with you, you argued with me. I'm sorry you are too angry to think and read, but if I leave you alone maybe you'll calm down. Rant and rave and call me names if you wish, the website has a vast fund of information and anyone who wants to know about it can go there and read it for themselves just as I did. Adios Tonto... and the horse you rode in on.:)

Why am I not surprised?

I know you do not comprehend your own posts - but it needed to be asked in a way that leaves no room for doubt.
 

numinus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
2,525
Then maybe then we don't fully grasp the laws of physics. But could you give an example for this situation?

All big bang cosmology assumes a singularity - a situation where the fundamental quantities of physics neither exist nor is quantifiable.

The quantum uncertainties defined by planck constant expresses the limits of fundamental quantitites of physics to be defined in any exact way.

If there are inherent limitations in our grasp of physics, then there is simply no reason for it to be the absolute standard for logical proof, now, is there?

I BELIEVE in God so if your trying to prove him to me your wasting your time. One, you can't. Two, I already believe so why bother?

It has already been proven in philosophy.

And believing without logical proof is just as bad as not believing without logical proof.
 

9sublime

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
2,620
Location
Bristol
It has already been proven in philosophy.

And believing without logical proof is just as bad as not believing without logical proof.

Just out of interest, which philosophers do you think proved the existence of God, and with which argument?
 

9sublime

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
2,620
Location
Bristol
Ah well, where do I start. The arguments are so fundamentally flawed.

Well, I'll let you have bash with this objection and give you some more once you've dealt with this one.

The argument is not a posteriori, as Aquinas claimed it was, because it is not based on observation and proof. Until I find someone who experienced the Prime Mover and the start of the universe. Therefore, it will have to be taken as an unproved given based on some kind of flawed logic that there was a first uncaused cause, thus making it a priori.

Please, please, please keep the technical terms to an absoloute minimum, for the sake of my understanding!
 

numinus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
2,525
Ah well, where do I start. The arguments are so fundamentally flawed.

Well, I'll let you have bash with this objection and give you some more once you've dealt with this one.

If you are going to engage me in a debate, you should at least demonstrate some fortitude in conviction. And so, you THINK that the cosmological argument is 'fundamentally flawed' for making use of a priori reasoning? Is that the gist of your objection?

The argument is not a posteriori, as Aquinas claimed it was, because it is not based on observation and proof. Until I find someone who experienced the Prime Mover and the start of the universe. Therefore, it will have to be taken as an unproved given based on some kind of flawed logic that there was a first uncaused cause, thus making it a priori.

Please, please, please keep the technical terms to an absoloute minimum, for the sake of my understanding!

The operation of causality is an 'a priori' reasoning employed by science also. The cosmological argument merely demonstrates the consequences of such a premise. Reduced to a simple logical statement - IF all phenomena are causal, THEN there must be a FIRST CAUSE - INCONTINGENT, INFINITE AND NECESSARY.

And while we are in the topic of 'a priori' reasoning, are you not aware that the whole of mathematics is founded on it as well, hmmm?

Now, is it your intention to raise fundamental objections on science and mathematics (not to mention the very operation of logic) as well, hmmm?
 

9sublime

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
2,620
Location
Bristol
The operation of causality is an 'a priori' reasoning employed by science also. The cosmological argument merely demonstrates the consequences of such a premise. Reduced to a simple logical statement - IF all phenomena are causal, THEN there must be a FIRST CAUSE - INCONTINGENT, INFINITE AND NECESSARY.

And while we are in the topic of 'a priori' reasoning, are you not aware that the whole of mathematics is founded on it as well, hmmm?

Now, is it your intention to raise fundamental objections on science and mathematics (not to mention the very operation of logic) as well, hmmm?

I do not know very much about science and maths, and it seems from previous discussions to do with quantam foam :confused: you do, so please, keep it as much to philosophy as we can.

But we all know that whilst maths and the cosmological argument may both be a priori, when I look at maths I can see every step, every logical regression from the answer to the question. I can see the set in stone rules, the basic fundamentals that make maths what maths is and make it possible. This almost makes it a posteriori, because my observation has proven it, the rules that I can see, and the workings of the sum, prove it to me.

However, I can accept that everything has a cause, and this regression will lead to the start of the universe, but not neccessarily the start of existence. How do we know nothing exists outside of this universe, totally out of human comprehension and space and time and the rules of this universe?

We don't, is the simple answer. But we do know that we don't know. And when humans don't know, they make up stuff, and when it comes to making stuff up about why we exist, its called a deity.

If one is to believe in heaven, and a creator who is outside of all space and time, by the same acceptance, one must accept that there could be something else out there. The cosmological argument simply convinces me that the universe is finite.

The gap in logic from this priori kicks in at the point where it is proven that the universe must have a cause independent of itself, but it is not proven that it is a God. There is a void in humanitys knowledge, and numinus, you seem smarter than to fill it with a God.
 

numinus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
2,525
I do not know very much about science and maths, and it seems from previous discussions to do with quantam foam :confused: you do, so please, keep it as much to philosophy as we can.

Very well. No math or science - a purely philosophical discussion (although science is, itself a philosophical school of thought).

But we all know that whilst maths and the cosmological argument may both be a priori, when I look at maths I can see every step, every logical regression from the answer to the question. I can see the set in stone rules, the basic fundamentals that make maths what maths is and make it possible. This almost makes it a posteriori, because my observation has proven it, the rules that I can see, and the workings of the sum, prove it to me.
From wiki:

The cosmological argument is a metaphysical argument for the existence of God, or a first mover of the cosmos. It is traditionally known as an "argument from universal causation", an "argument from first cause", and also as an "uncaused cause" or "unmoved mover" argument. Whichever term is used, there are three basic variants of this argument, each with subtle but important distinctions: the argument from causation in esse, the argument from causation in fieri, and the argument from contingency. The cosmological argument does not attempt to prove anything about the first cause or about God, except to argue that such a cause must exist. This cause is known in Latin as "causa sui".

Framed as an informal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.

In light of the Big Bang theory, a stylized version of cosmological argument for the existence of God has emerged (sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument, the following form of which was put forth by William Lane Craig):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Is that proof step by step enough for you? Or do you need me to post variations of it?

However, I can accept that everything has a cause, and this regression will lead to the start of the universe, but not neccessarily the start of existence. How do we know nothing exists outside of this universe, totally out of human comprehension and space and time and the rules of this universe?

We don't, is the simple answer. But we do know that we don't know. And when humans don't know, they make up stuff, and when it comes to making stuff up about why we exist, its called a deity.

Please do not diminish whatever is left of your 'moderator' credibility by attempting to fool your readers. What you are saying here is that you don't know the nature of the first cause but it certainly isn't a deity.

If you don't know a thing, then you certainly do not know what it is. Conversely, you do not know what IT ISN'T.

If one is to believe in heaven, and a creator who is outside of all space and time, by the same acceptance, one must accept that there could be something else out there. The cosmological argument simply convinces me that the universe is finite.

The gap in logic from this priori kicks in at the point where it is proven that the universe must have a cause independent of itself, but it is not proven that it is a God. There is a void in humanitys knowledge, and numinus, you seem smarter than to fill it with a God.

You are fiddling with semantics. The thread asks for PROOF OF EXISTENCE - nothing more. We have not only proven existence, we have also proven NECESSARY EXISTENCE.

And if you are not inclined to call the first cause god, then, by all means, don't. FIRST CAUSE or the CAUSE OF EVERYTHING IN EVERYTHING is more correct for academic purposes. Although any distinction is futile, imo, since you are merely substituting the definition for the word.
 

9sublime

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
2,620
Location
Bristol
Very well. No math or science - a purely philosophical discussion (although science is, itself a philosophical school of thought).

Thankyou ;)

From wiki:

The cosmological argument is a metaphysical argument for the existence of God, or a first mover of the cosmos. It is traditionally known as an "argument from universal causation", an "argument from first cause", and also as an "uncaused cause" or "unmoved mover" argument. Whichever term is used, there are three basic variants of this argument, each with subtle but important distinctions: the argument from causation in esse, the argument from causation in fieri, and the argument from contingency. The cosmological argument does not attempt to prove anything about the first cause or about God, except to argue that such a cause must exist. This cause is known in Latin as "causa sui".

Framed as an informal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.

In light of the Big Bang theory, a stylized version of cosmological argument for the existence of God has emerged (sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument, the following form of which was put forth by William Lane Craig):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Is that proof step by step enough for you? Or do you need me to post variations of it?

So you are saying that the cosmological argument doesn't prove the existence, but explains that the universe didn't come into being by itself?

(The Kalam argument I know is that one of infinity. Nothing can be added to infinity, and so if the universe is infinite today cannot be added to it, so today should not exists. As a result, the universe must be finite.)


Please do not diminish whatever is left of your 'moderator' credibility by attempting to fool your readers. What you are saying here is that you don't know the nature of the first cause but it certainly isn't a deity.

What I said had nothing to do with me being a moderator, I don't know what point you are trying to prove by mentioning it.
 
Werbung:

invest07

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
550
Thomas Acquinas and the logical proofs for God's existence

The following was written circa 1250 AD by Thomas Acquinas.

"I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.

1. The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something[/B]; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

2. The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

3. The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

4. The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

5. The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God. "

The underlinings are mine and they represent what I think is the central core of each of Acquinas' arguments. Acquinas' language is a little crpytic today but his concept is understandable.

My proof for the existence of God is physical in nature. I contend that there is no reasonably probable method for DNA to exist without intelligent design. So far, no one in this forum has proposed any reasonable method that 6 billion complex chemicals can arrange themselves in a highly specific order and position using only natural forces which are by definition, undirected and unfocused.

The ordering of DNA was a purposeful act and was not an accident.
 
Top