Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

Well every church or bible group I have attended before becoming an athiest deny, reject the concept of evolution and say its not in the bible and is false teachings regardless of it being proven and demonstrated.Their logic.

One thing Jews, Christians and Muslims agree upon is that Adam was a man. This is consensus.

I'm not desperate for her apology.

You have the right mentality. You will go far in your quest for truth if you continue to think in this way.

The short answer to that is "none". We are not dealing with any kind of rational scientific inquiry here... only an irrational ideological assumption.

An excellent example of a specious no reply. A fatuous appeal to self-appointed prophets and idols that are assumed to be authoritative only because they will say whatever he wants to hear knowing that the "peer review" racket has been "stitched up" by his fellow ideologues.
http://www.principia-scientific.org/tra ... grows.html

I think the best bet is to try to carry on with a rational discussion ignoring the noisy hecklers and obscurantists, as suggested by someone else somewhere back.

Probarbly both, i'll admit i have skimmed a part of the thread.
I will provide you with the knowledge that proof consists of a internally consistent set of evidence, which in turn requires to be logical, falsefiable (possible to be proven wrong), and not possible to be used to support any other claim.
(the size of said 'set' is open for discussion, i'll accept 2 pieces to upgrade a diety from an idea to a hypothesis)


Nothing, i understand the claim; i just dont accept it as ultimate truth; there are hypotheses which do allow for infinite causal regression, among which are the cyclical universe and the multiverse.


Also, i must, apparantly, reiterate that i do not claim that a god is inpossible, i just refute the 'evidence' given so far which, reportedly, proves his existence.
And as a second note, simply proving the current theories and hypotheses wrong does not inherently provide proof for your own claims; "Not A" does not imply "B", unless there are only two options, which has to be proven in its own right.

It would be astonishing if I assumed that I was dealing with rational beings

Yeah and I understand that fire is hot but I just don't accept it as ultimate truth.

Seriously, go for a long walk and think about what you said in your post.

I'm more in the literalist camp. The problem with those you're referring to as being extreme is the Bible is largely self-interpreting and, as such, reveals about itself that it's not entirely to be read as a strictly literal book. So when I claim to be a literalist, I mean I take the Bible literally in its entire context--literally until proven otherwise.

In short: Figures of speech are literally figures of speech and should be interpreted as such. Hyperbole is a prominent feature in many languages and figures heavily into semitic speech. Anyone familiar with Jewish humor knows this, and the Bible is rife with this stuff. 1 Samuel 20:30 is probably an excellent example of foul language. Something else I find amusing is David's threat to execute everyone who pisses up a wall. I've actually heard some literalists interpret that as making it a crime to pee on a wall--um, no, it's called "euphemism." A psalm is LITERALLY a poem/song and to be valued as an artistic expression, not a science textbook of the behavior of celestial bodies (people still write songs/poems today that are very geocentric). A proverb is LITERALLY a proverb--a nugget of general wisdom that often gets results, NOT a guarantee of gain in money, power, or sexual prowess. Some proverbs actually are contradictory--which isn't a problem if a proverb is understood to be a riddle ("Answer a fool/Don't answer a fool"). Eschatological writings are by their very nature heavily coded and richly symbolic, and we may never know what the original intent was.

That is actually true; not all fires are hot, not by definition; a fire is an exothermic reaction with oxigen; just as iron rusting is. don't try to claim that rusting iron is hot.

but that is besides the point; everyone can feel that a wood fire is hot, that is an observable effect; infinite regression is not observable, therefore it is an unproven claim.

I know what you mean by stating that, and i know most of the argumentation for it.
I also agree that it is quite likely true, but it is not factual enough to use in the way you use it.

you state: "infinite regression is impossible, so everything has a cause" -> "there is an uncaused cause".
step one is not proven true, and the logic step is a large leap; i state that this step cannot be made, evidence for the statement must be given, and substeps need to be taken.

as an aside, the two are even mutually exclusive: "everything must have a cause, except for this one thing"

I've never said that everything has a cause.

But yeah, ice is cold, I just don't accept it as ultimate truth. See, anyone can convince himself that rational is irrational and that good is bad and up is down and the moon is made of cheese. Beware of lying to yourself because it will only kill you and nobody else.

Let's say you've committed a crime and I've arrested you .. but before I take you to the police station I must ask my supervisor for permission, and his supervisor must ask for permission from his supervisor, and his supervisor must ask for permission from his supervisor.... ad infinutum ... when will I get permission to take you to police station ? NEVER .

There number of supervisors must be finite other wise I will never be able to take you to the police station.

The chain of causes is always finite, it is never infinite.

If you say that there are is an infinite chain causes for the universe you are really saying that the universe does not exist.

there you go again in the first sentence; ice being cold is observable (and once again, not always the case, depending on the frozen material; a rock is "ice", chemically spoken)

i als will agree with your statement that everyone can convince him/herself of the reationality of his/her claim; and turn it back, you are also part of 'everyone'.

then again, i did say, earlier, that it is most likely that the causal regression is finite (yet unproven). however, there is no reason why it must start (or end) with a diety, let alone specifically the judeo-christian god.

and yeah, perhaps there is an infinite chain, the cyclical universe hypothesis puts time in a circle, meaning the universe caused itself; this hypothesis has the same amount of evidence and logic steps as a omnipotent creator living outside of time

We're still on the "I said, then he said" kind of "argument" as if there was no truth (reality) except that any opinion is "true" for the holder unless it directly challenges the Establishment ideological orthodoxy.

Perhaps a square has 7 corners ?

Contradictions, they don't exist.

I think we have established that a First Cause is a logical necessity despite irrational heckling from a rent-a-crowd of ideologically committed ignoramuses.

So far I've not heard any argument from the Materialist lobby that could not have been gleaned from any drunken bar-stool expert who didactically asserts what he has passively absorbed from the popular media and who can be found in any public bar.

So, purely natural science can establish an absolute necessity for a First Cause. Can natural science also discover some necessary attributes of this First Cause?

If there are no contradictions then there are no non-contradictions... i.e. there is no logic.