I can prove God exists

[9sublime]

Thanks for the defenition, but I'm familiar with Aquina's teachings.

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.

No, you have not given a reasonable piece of proof. You have established:

1. DNA is complex
2. You think its too complex to have been created by chance - You have failed to scientfically prove this
3. I can't explain how it came about so... hey I know... It's God! - How about you accept there's a gap in your knowledge?

Now, if you don't mind, you seem to stubborn to accept that your 'proof' of God has been debunked from many angles by many members. Can we please keep the discussion fresh and not have you keep looping it back round to the same old point.

 

[numinus]

Thankyou

Your welcome.

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?

No.

On the contrary, it proves the NECESSARY EXISTENCE of god. The fact that the universe didn't come into being by itself LOGICALLY JOINS THE PREMISE OF CAUSATION TO THE CONCLUSION OF CREATION.

I simply cannot imagine how anyone can put this in simpler terms.

(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.)

Not really. It states the nature of contingent existence. Something exists contingently as the result of a necessary existence prior it it. Otherwise, this something wouldn't be contingent, would it?

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.

Being a moderator requires a certain degree of intellectual honesty. Otherwise, you have no business moderating anything.

So, to summarize your argument - you DON'T KNOW what something IS but you DO KNOW what that something ISN'T.

Such gobledygook is a very clear indication of DISHONESTY, and not a very good attempt at dishonesty at that.

 

[9sublime]

How was it dishonesty? That we don't know, and we that we know we don't know...?

Anyway, it doesn't prove God. It proves some creating force is neccessary, but I'm yet to see how it conclusivley proves God. Thus, it proves two things:

that the universe did not come into existence by itself, that it is finite.

that there is gap in our knowledge about what is outside of the universe, something we knew already.

 

[numinus]

How was it dishonesty? That we don't know, and we that we know we don't know...?

You cannot see how plainly dishonest you are?

Again: A statement and its CONVERSE must necessarily be true.

If you DON'T KNOW what it IS, you DON'T KNOW what it ISN'T.

Anyway, it doesn't prove God. It proves some creating force is neccessary, but I'm yet to see how it conclusivley proves God. Thus, it proves two things:

that the universe did not come into existence by itself, that it is finite.

that there is gap in our knowledge about what is outside of the universe, something we knew already.

Duh uh.

The cornerstone of ALL physical laws rest on the CONSERVATION OF MASS AND ENERGY. You can NEITHER CREATE NOR DESTROY these quantities.

When your inquiry has reached the notion that these quantities MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED, then your inquiry no longer operates within the scientific field. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PREMISES AND STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE YOU ARE EMPLOYING SIMPLY DO NOT APPLY.

If science describes a DETERMINISTIC reality, something that is beyond science is a NON-DETERMINISTIC reality. And when a phenomenon is non-deterministic, IT IS SO BY THE EXPRESS MANIFESTATION OF WILL.

Do you now understand?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You cannot see how plainly dishonest you are?

Again: A statement and its CONVERSE must necessarily be true.

If you DON'T KNOW what it IS, you DON'T KNOW what it ISN'T.
Duh uh.

The cornerstone of ALL physical laws rest on the CONSERVATION OF MASS AND ENERGY. You can NEITHER CREATE NOR DESTROY these quantities.

When your inquiry has reached the notion that these quantities MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED, then your inquiry no longer operates within the scientific field. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PREMISES AND STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE YOU ARE EMPLOYING SIMPLY DO NOT APPLY.

If science describes a DETERMINISTIC reality, something that is beyond science is a NON-DETERMINISTIC reality. And when a phenomenon is non-deterministic, IT IS SO BY THE EXPRESS MANIFESTATION OF WILL.

Do you now understand?

Sophistry: 1 : reasoning that is superficially plausible but actually fallacious (Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary)

Sophistry masquerading as erudition, I gotta hand it to ya' though, Num, you're world class bullsh1tter. "When a phenonmenon is non-deterministic, it is so by the express manifestation of will." Duh uh, is right, what twaddle. You've whipped up a semantic froth with little or no definition and want us all to bow before your 'manifestation of will'.

Sublime has been hanging in there with you pretty good. Tell me, do you just make this stuff up off the cuff or what? This stuff should be in the rant and rave section.

 

[numinus]

Sophistry: 1 : reasoning that is superficially plausible but actually fallacious (Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary)

Sophistry masquerading as erudition, I gotta hand it to ya' though, Num, you're world class bullsh1tter. "When a phenonmenon is non-deterministic, it is so by the express manifestation of will." Duh uh, is right, what twaddle. You've whipped up a semantic froth with little or no definition and want us all to bow before your 'manifestation of will'.

Sublime has been hanging in there with you pretty good. Tell me, do you just make this stuff up off the cuff or what? This stuff should be in the rant and rave section.

In three paragraphs, you have NOT substantiated any of your claims, nor DEBUNKED any of mine.

So, why not write an essay on why any reasonable person should even listen to you. Then, you can shove that essay where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[9sublime]

You cannot see how plainly dishonest you are?

Again: A statement and its CONVERSE must necessarily be true.

If you DON'T KNOW what it IS, you DON'T KNOW what it ISN'T.



Duh uh.

The cornerstone of ALL physical laws rest on the CONSERVATION OF MASS AND ENERGY. You can NEITHER CREATE NOR DESTROY these quantities.

When your inquiry has reached the notion that these quantities MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED, then your inquiry no longer operates within the scientific field. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PREMISES AND STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE YOU ARE EMPLOYING SIMPLY DO NOT APPLY.

If science describes a DETERMINISTIC reality, something that is beyond science is a NON-DETERMINISTIC reality. And when a phenomenon is non-deterministic, IT IS SO BY THE EXPRESS MANIFESTATION OF WILL.

Do you now understand?

I understand that for the creation of the universe, it takes some bending of science as we know it. But (and I'm going to stick my neck out quite far out my field of knowledge now) things like tachyons and the reaction of matter vs. antimatter. This proves that amazing things go on to create the universe, and that possibly amazing things go on outside the universe/when the universe is not in existence, but it doesn't prove there is a loving being up there like the Christian God does it? it just proves the neccessity of some kind of creating force that can bend the acceptable laws of physics on Earth.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

In three paragraphs, you have NOT substantiated any of your claims, nor DEBUNKED any of mine.

So, why not write an essay on why any reasonable person should even listen to you. Then, you can shove that essay where the sun doesn't shine.

Sophistry: 1 : reasoning that is superficially plausible but actually fallacious (Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary)

Sorry you missed the definition, one cannot debunk that which is already bunk. You have provided nothing to support you fantastical verbal light-show here. Give us a source, quote somebody with some credentials, so far all you've done is use a lot of words with underlining and bolding--oh yeah, and "Duh uh" too, is that a family motto? Rereading you posts on this thread I realize that so far all the stuff you have posted is semantically null. Nobody can prove or disprove God's existence except God. You ain't Him/Her/It, I know this because God can write more succinctly and cogently and coherently and doesn't have to call people names or make nasty remarks like the one in your last sentence. Only verbally crippled people have to resort to that kind of thing on a civilized discussion site.

 

[numinus]

I understand that for the creation of the universe, it takes some bending of science as we know it. But (and I'm going to stick my neck out quite far out my field of knowledge now) things like tachyons and the reaction of matter vs. antimatter. This proves that amazing things go on to create the universe, and that possibly amazing things go on outside the universe/when the universe is not in existence, but it doesn't prove there is a loving being up there like the Christian God does it? it just proves the neccessity of some kind of creating force that can bend the acceptable laws of physics on Earth.

Your redemption came in one sentence. In one broad stroke, you have exposed the incongruence of a deterministically contrived reality. Determinism have very serious incompatibilities with the existence of FREE WILL.

Creation and the bending of immutable physical laws are both FUNCTIONS OF FREE WILL, and not the operation of some deterministic natural law. You don't need quantum mechanics nor cosmology to validate the existence of free will, do you?

 

[numinus]

Sophistry: 1 : reasoning that is superficially plausible but actually fallacious (Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary)

Sorry you missed the definition, one cannot debunk that which is already bunk. You have provided nothing to support you fantastical verbal light-show here. Give us a source, quote somebody with some credentials, so far all you've done is use a lot of words with underlining and bolding--oh yeah, and "Duh uh" too, is that a family motto? Rereading you posts on this thread I realize that so far all the stuff you have posted is semantically null. Nobody can prove or disprove God's existence except God. You ain't Him/Her/It, I know this because God can write more succinctly and cogently and coherently and doesn't have to call people names or make nasty remarks like the one in your last sentence. Only verbally crippled people have to resort to that kind of thing on a civilized discussion site.

I wasn't aware I needed to discuss the full extent of determinism as a philosophical model of reality, nor its incompatibility with free will.

But then again, I wasn't aware I'd be speaking to a complete moron when I started posting in this forum.

That is obviously my mistake.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I wasn't aware I needed to discuss the full extent of determinism as a philosophical model of reality, nor its incompatibility with free will.

But then again, I wasn't aware I'd be speaking to a complete moron when I started posting in this forum.

That is obviously my mistake.

Not your only one. At least the moron posted a site with real information by people doing the work--which the non-moron couldn't be bothered to read. But the stuff you're posting has no authoritative source cited, is convolute, obscure, and in the end makes one think that you may very well be quite befuddled or just a proboscidian prevaricator.

 

[vyo476]

Mare, Numinus, this is going nowhere fast. No one will think less of either of you if you don't get the last word in during a pointless bickering match. Just let it end.

 

[numinus]

Not your only one. At least the moron posted a site with real information by people doing the work--which the non-moron couldn't be bothered to read. But the stuff you're posting has no authoritative source cited, is convolute, obscure, and in the end makes one think that you may very well be quite befuddled or just a proboscidian prevaricator.

Only a moron would provide a source well beyond his puny comprehension. So you might feel intelligent to post sources on the intricacies of electro-magnetic dynamics - you might even fool other morons like yourself - but don't suppose that would make a wit of difference to what you ostensibly are.

 

[9sublime]

Awww, all bickering aside you kind of lost me again numinus. Anyway, fun whilst it lasted anyway?

 

[numinus]

Awww, all bickering aside you kind of lost me again numinus. Anyway, fun whilst it lasted anyway?

Suit yourself.