Proof of God

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'll take "Special Pleading" for $500, Alex.

[robvalue]

I'm starting to see the benefit of DeistPaladin's approach.

I give you your "creator", call it a god if you want to.

What can you do with it? Are you going to make the assumption that one of our man made myths about it must be correct? Because I've got some story books too.

I'll be away most of the day, so for those it may concern I won't be able to reply to stuff until later/tomorrow. (I see something going on in my blog thread but don't have time to check it out now!)

[Fidel_Castronaut]

No proof in OP.

Downvote.

[Pizza]

I'm starting to see the benefit of DeistPaladin's approach.

I give you your "creator", call it a god if you want to.

What can you do with it? Are you going to make the assumption that one of our man made myths about it must be correct? Because I've got some story books too.

That's more and less my approach. I'll grant a necessary thing exists but it needs to proven that said being has attributes like thinking and experiencing in anyway like a human that isn't obscure(I hate obscure analogies), all the omni attributes, and such.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nothingness means “not anything.” “Not anything” cannot produce something.

Feel that sharp, sick-inducing pain? That's vacuum fluctuation kicking you in the balls.

“But those in whose hearts is a disease,- it will add doubt to their doubt, and they will die in a state of Unbelief.”
At Taubah (9)
-Verse 125-

“O mankind! there hath come to you a direction from your Lord and a healing for the (diseases) in your hearts,- and for those who believe, a guidance and a Mercy.”
Yunus (10)
-Verse 57-

'If I give my heart to you / Then I'll have none and you'll have two.' - Spike Milligan

'I am the very model of a modern Major-General,
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical,
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;' - W.S. Gilbert, Arthur Sullivan

(My quotes have as much to do with the origin of the universe as do yours).

Boru

[pocaracas]

Al-Ghazali proposed:

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

Any power that is capable to create and sustain universe is God.

Hasn't this been dismissed already, in various occasions?

First premise: wrong!
The definitions employed are faulty. Our brains cannot grasp what it means "to begin to exist" in a real sense. We can grasp what it means to begin to exist in a transformative sense: things get transformed into other things - A few planks of wood get transformed into a chair or a table; two hydrogen nuclei get transformed into an alpha particle, a bunch of organic matter is transformed into a new baby, etc...
But nowhere in here is anything purely created, just transformed.
And, indeed, for a transformative event, you need some prior energy, something that acts on something else. But that is not where you want to apply this premise. You want magic to happen to nothing creating the building blocks of the Universe.

Second premise: Not necessarily! At best, you can claim that, at the big bang, all the particles that were later transformed into hydrogen, stars, planets, etc. were created... but... given that our understanding of "created" relies on a transformative event, that means that something would have to exist prior to the Universe... and that is what current physics is suggesting with virtual particles and fields that, under some conditions do cross into real particles... it is a possibility.
Can you safely say that the big bang wasn't itself a tranformative event from some unknown (very likely unknowable) state into what we call the known universe... the known particles?

If it was, then, just like the stars don't need a helping hand to become super-novae, then the universe too would need no help in becoming what we see now

Hence, "premise" 3 follows in the same way as any other event in the cosmos... it is as it is. No magic is required!

And your conclusion that the only power that could give rise to a Universe is god is completely erroneous. It could happen by purely natural means.
Unless you wish to call that process "god", but why carry all the baggage associated with all the gods that have ever been created by human imagination into that definition?

[Homeless Nutter]

---

Almost everyone is aware of a popular quarrel between theist and atheist concerning existence of God.

Atheist: Prove there is God
Theist: Prove there is no God

As being a theist, I have rather different approach to the question of atheist.

I say ok I agree with Mr. Atheist. I say there is no God. Nevertheless, is that the end of the story? I do not think so. If we say God does not exist then we are left with two options:

a. Nothingness or
b. Alternate of God

Nothingness:
Nothingness can only produce non-existence, and so it cannot be the foundation of any ideology. The universe can only function because it is not nothingness. Logically, nothingness cannot be expressed in any logical form because there is no way in which nothingness can be expressed in terms of being. Nothingness cannot be a subject for investigation in science. Since pure nothingness is an impossibility, there never was a time when Being did not exist. In short, Being is eternal. Thus, Being possesses the divine attributes of necessity, eternity, omnipresence, and infinity. Consequently, Being is God Himself.

Alternate of God:
If God has not created universe then there are three possible assumptions about the existence of Universe:

a. Universe is eternal
b. Universe popped out of nothingness
c. Universe created itself

a. The astronomical phenomenon Redshift negates the idea that universe has eternal past or eternal future.

b. If I say, X creates Y I am assuming the existence of X to explain the existence of Y but if I say X creates X (the universe creates itself) I am assuming the existence of universe to explain its existence, which is utterly absurd.

c. Nothingness means “not anything.” “Not anything” cannot produce something.

Conclusion: Universe is a created finite being

Al-Ghazali proposed:

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

Any power that is capable to create and sustain universe is God.

Logically, Nothingness does not exist and there is no alternate of God. Alternate of God is God.

“But those in whose hearts is a disease,- it will add doubt to their doubt, and they will die in a state of Unbelief.”
At Taubah (9)
-Verse 125-

“O mankind! there hath come to you a direction from your Lord and a healing for the (diseases) in your hearts,- and for those who believe, a guidance and a Mercy.”
Yunus (10)
-Verse 57-

---

[Dystopia]

You're basically saying that non existence is meaningless and therefore it cannot be the end. That's not how it works. Life is not fair lad

[paulpablo]

The short summery of this is that you don't know, and I don't how the universe began, but you say you definitely know god did it and I say I don't know.

You list a few things as being illogical, then replace them with a being that exists outside of space. A being who can be conscious, make decisions and actions outside of time. Someone who is none physical yet can affect the physical world. A being that had to have created everything out of nothing unless we are made from whatever god is made from.

[Jacob(smooth)]

The short summery of this is that you don't know, and I don't how the universe began, but you say you definitely know god did it and I say I don't know.

You list a few things as being illogical, then replace them with a being that exists outside of space. A being who can be conscious, make decisions and actions outside of time. Someone who is none physical yet can affect the physical world. A being that had to have created everything out of nothing unless we are made from whatever god is made from.