Computer Scientists "prove" God exists

[FallentoReason]

Oh goody! I see we're talking about the nature of faith again. Godschild, I'll introduce to you my lawn-growing gnomes again, alongside what secular faith looks like:

Secular faith (along with belief and knowledge):

(1) I have the knowledge that not one bus in my city has crashed.
(2) From (1), I have formed the belief that buses in my city are safe.
© Given (1) & (2), I am justified in putting faith on my bus driver next time I get on a bus - that he won't crash.

Religious faith, illustrated by lawn-growing gnomes:

(1) I have faith that lawn-growing gnomes exist (an unjustified assumption already).
(2) From (2), I have formed the belief that these gnomes interact with my garden.
© Given (1) & (2), I have gained the knowledge that lawn-growing gnomes make my grass grow.


It's evident that starting with faith and ending with knowledge can lead the individual to think *anything* is true, because they've already compromised themselves by putting faith/trusting something for *no apparent reason*. Once that first unjustified step is accomplished, falsehoods can be tacked on to that faith like there's no tomorrow. That's why a secular application of faith is more rational, because all steps are justified - more so than religious faith anyways.

[Godscreated]

He does, I've already explained that.

Which means that you're contradicting yourself, as I said. Faith in God's existence doesn't give you knowledge of God's existence: only God can do that if he exists. I agree.

Your skill at comprehension lacks much, I've never said faith gives knowledge. What I have continually said without deviation, is that by faith God leads us to belief and through belief He leads us to knowledge. So you see your only adopting what I've already made plain, please try and read more carefully in the future.

---

God has revealed Himself to all in some way, I'm not privy to how He does this, nor do I need to be. I've never said He hasn't as you are suggesting everyone will have God revealed to them at some point in their lives. God has not fail, those who reject Him are exercising their choice within their free will, God will force no one to choose Him.

---

So in other words, you say God has revealed himself to EVERYONE in some way that you yourself admit you don't know how, yet you still assert it as true, knowingly without evidence? THAT is what dishonesty is. And to say that God has revealed himself to everyone in some way, and yet there are people who don't realize that (ex: me) is just a demonstration of what I said before: If God exists he's either impotent, incompetent or both.

Why should I be privy to all God does? I know God and in God's word He says He makes it apparent to all He exist, this is through nature. His word also says God does not lie. So knowing God exists and that His word is truth I have no reason to doubt.

I do not have to, God does that for everyone, it's not His responsibility to force one into a decision.

So something you cannot evidence the existence of and do not know the operations of does things that you don't know of, yet you know it exists and does certain things?

Some deity you've got there.

I know quite a bit about what God does, just not how He chooses to personally interact with others unless they share it. I do not have to evidence God's existence to you or anyone else, that's God's work, I testify what He has done for me. I have the One and only God and He is very special, to bad you rejected Him before you found out who He is.

You haven't sought Him out have you? Of coarse you would say He exist when you have absolute proof, only an idiot wouldn't. That's why I said at the judgement everyone will bend on knee and bow their head and call God the LORD of all.

As a former fundamentalist, "born-again" Christian, to say I haven't 'sought out God' is quite hilarious and blatantly false. And now that you admit that I would in fact accept that God exists if there were powerful evidence for it, I hereby request that you retract your claim that I'm simply denying he exists because it would ruin my life.

You were being dishonest and drawing me into answering a question without knowledge of your Christian experiment. You like to be dishonest, now I see why you decided to leave, church was cramping your life style. Word games I see, I said as you did, absolute proof. I will not retract what I said, what I see from you, my statement is true.

Further, your second point that God will demonstrate his existence and supremacy on Judgement Day is a demonstration that God could reveal himself everyone such that they would accept he exists, yet chooses not to. Hence, he allows them to go to Hell by not doing so.

Now you're being most dishonest, I never said God would reveal His existence at judgement, that's what you keep harping. God will show His supremacy at judgement. God reveals Himself so that everyone can understand He exists, and they have the choice to make.

You haven't sought out God for a reason, could it be that if you were to find Him you would have to give up the life you're so happy with for one you seem to deny as worth to live.

There is nothing in life so precious to me that evidence that I would choose it and accept infinite torture over.

Apparently there is, to reject Christ is to choose eternal punishment. God does not torture and you can not prove it through scripture.

Actually, I think the threat itself would be one of the only things that would make me hesitate. "Accept me as lord and savior or, in my infinite benevolence and justice, I will torture you for eternity!"

Again, some god you've (supposedly) got.

What threat, it's a choice, thus eliminating what you refer to as a threat. I'm thinking that's why you got into church to start with, you did not and probably never cared to experience God's awesome love, it's certainly to bad you missed what God wanted to give you the most. I have a wonderful God who is love.

Yes, that's what I said and have presented nothing to indicate differently.

Good, I'm clarifying to demonstrate the incoherence of your position.

No, I believe everyone can make decisions due to the facts at hand, spiritually or physically. I've changed greatly over my life and foresee changing in the future.

Er, you just agreed with me. To say that people can choose based on the "facts at hand" just means they analyze a given set of facts (reason) based on the way they've built up said ability to reason (background information).

No, you're wrong I said I can and have change my life by changing what I previously believed to be relevant.

I try and deal with life as honestly as possible.

GC

Until you've been shown not to have been entirely honest, or at least a history of misunderstanding posts.

I've not been dishonest with you or others on this forum, you're perceiving only what you want to see, just like you did with God.
We are going around in circles and getting nowhere, mainly because you are trying to twist what I say into something you want to believe, so I suggest we agree to disagree and go on to other things.

[Zen Badger]

Aren't you going to answer me GG?

Where is Madeline?

[Godscreated]

Aren't you going to answer me GG?

Where is Madeline?

I don't know what did you do with her, tell us since you seem to know the answer.

GC

[Sejanus]

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, before it was mercilessly derailed;

in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist.

Actually, I contest this argument due to the fact that once god exists in reality, his "greatness" has reached a finite, measurable point, whereas if god only exists as a concept, it is only then that his greatness is infinite.

If the counter to this is that in reality, god's greatness is infinite, then the argument falls in on itself intrinsically.
In bold: I'm assuming that 'as' was intentional, because it changes the meaning of the sentence entirely if it is omitted.

Besides, there is still, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, the problem of infinite regress; who made god?

Its theorems and axioms -- assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.

In bold: key word.
In Italics: the nature of mathematics is abstract; the same equation that models the growth of a population of bacteria on a medium can be used to model a similar situation, such as continually compounding interest. Another example would be exponential decay situations, such as nuclear decay of radioactive elements and damping due to external forces in systems which show simple harmonic motion.
I can easily form an equation with a variable and call it god, solve the equation and hey presto, I've proved god exists. I don't think so.

[Zen Badger]

Aren't you going to answer me GG?

Where is Madeline?

I don't know what did you do with her, tell us since you seem to know the answer.

GC

That has to win the internetz for lamest comeback ever!!!.

But come on GC, you're so palsy walsy with god, surely he can share that little snippet of info with you.

Unless of course he's not omnisentient, or omnipotent or for that matter...real.

[orogenicman]

So, Godschild, are you ever going to respond to MY posts?

[Godscreated]

He does, I've already explained that.

You've claimed it. You've provided no reason to believe that it is true. Revelation is, by definition, first person. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe your first person revelation over that of anyone else. You may be the most honest person anyone has ever met, but we still need real evidence that God talks to you. Otherwise, it is the rubber room for you.

The revelations are for me not you, if they were for you I would have told you. I do not have to prove my God's revelations to you, they are a part of my relationship with God. If you are wanting to experience revelations from God I suggest you come to know Him as your Lord and savior.

GC

[orogenicman]

You've claimed it. You've provided no reason to believe that it is true. Revelation is, by definition, first person. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe your first person revelation over that of anyone else. You may be the most honest person anyone has ever met, but we still need real evidence that God talks to you. Otherwise, it is the rubber room for you.

The revelations are for me not you, if they were for you I would have told you. I do not have to prove my God's revelations to you, they are a part of my relationship with God. If you are wanting to experience revelations from God I suggest you come to know Him as your Lord and savior.

GC

If you expect us to believe that your personal revelations are true, then you are going to have to prove to us that they are true. If you don't believe that you are under any obligation to prove them to be true, why tell us in the first place - what's the point? You do realize that no one is under any obligation to believe unsubstantiated claims, right? So why waste everyone's time?

[Godscreated]

The revelations are for me not you, if they were for you I would have told you. I do not have to prove my God's revelations to you, they are a part of my relationship with God. If you are wanting to experience revelations from God I suggest you come to know Him as your Lord and savior.

GC

If you expect us to believe that your personal revelations are true, then you are going to have to prove to us that they are true. If you don't believe that you are under any obligation to prove them to be true, why tell us in the first place - what's the point? You do realize that no one is under any obligation to believe unsubstantiated claims, right? So why waste everyone's time?

For someone so well educated and great at space photographs, you are having trouble understanding what I said, right?

GC