God Exists

[The Architect Of Fate]

First, very few things can be “proved.” Proofs are in mathematics.

You couldn't “prove” to me that the universe wasn't made five minutes ago with the appearance of being 13.8 billion years old, for instance.

What I'm doing instead is analyzing the possible explanations for the origin of all things using contemporary scientific evidence and reason. I see only two possible explanations. One is logically incoherent. The other one is logically incoherent if atheism is true. Therefore, one must either abandon atheism or choose a logically incoherent explanation for the origin of all things.

"Prove" atheism is true? Well that is easy. I am an atheist. I believe in no gods. This is true.

Your problem is that you fail to understand that atheism is a privative.

Of course, you likely do not understand what a privative is either.

That's plainly false. A being who created all of matter and energy would need to be non-physical and space-less. A being who created all of matter and energy would need to be at least powerful and intelligent enough to create a universe like ours. A being who created space-time would need to be timeless. Finally, the finitude of the universe suggests that the being chose to create it; otherwise, the effect (the universe) would have been past-eternal like its cause is.

That is a wild claim. Justify it. Why can it not be universe forming pixies who perished in the effort of creating the universe?

Big true. But didn't I say that right in the beginning of my post?

And you obviated it by dragging in WLC and his bovine Kalam argument.

No, not any “god.” Just the definitions of God that include the properties described up above.

This is merely the dishonest "wedge" tactic.

If the God described above exists, then theism is true and atheism is false. The next question should be did God reveal Himself to His creation?

Still can't figure out what atheism is, then?

No it hasn't. And if it has, not in the way you think. If cause and effect were really abandoned, then that would render science impossible. Ironically, the abandonment of cause and effect would point us to the inexplicable, magical, or supernatural. I thought you were against these types of things?

So you are not a scientist, then. OK.

The Bible does teach us that we have free will, so I wouldn't be surprised. Also, I'm not sure why you're equivocating determinism with causality. Imagine a random number generator and each number represents a cause and each one of these causes has its own effect. Now imagine this underlying all of reality. There, I've married causality with indeterminism. I could also say that this randomness is only apparently random in the same way a random number generator is inside a computer. Random number generators are not truly random because they all have underlying algorithms. The same may be true about quantum mechanics. Regardless, I don't see how any of this refutes the main points in my original post.

The bible teaches nothing to anyone. Didn't take long for you to abandon your dishonest "wedge" argument and run, nay sprint, to the bible. Why you would cite the ramblings of anonymous goat herders is a mystery. Let me guess. You likely think the gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, right?

Furthermore, if one can cite the bible as authoritative then slavery is OK, right? And human sacrifice, right? And incest, right? And genocide, right? And so on through the atrocities that the risible tome mandates.

Actually, when A is the cause of B that means A is sufficient for B and B is necessary.

Moving on...

Yes, you want to move on from the difficult questions as fast as possible, don't you. You can just feel Occam breath on your neck.

First of all, Victor Stenger is an atheist and a bad one at that. Second, no credible scientist truly believes the quantum vacuum ACTUALLY disobeys cause and effect. If scientists believed that, then they'd abandon science altogether, or at least the portion that focuses on the behavior of subatomic particles. I guess they'd have to say “it's magic” or a “miracle”? Don't you atheists hate this kind of language?

Massive strawman. You should read up on Sean Carroll.

Perhaps the quantum field is God's typewriter. Regardless, none of what you wrote refutes the main points in my original post. A quantum field producing seemingly random events isn't nonbeing producing being, now is it?

Can you produce a sample of absolutely nothing for us to examine?

No? OK then how did you determine what absolutely nothing can or cannot do? Or what properties it may or may not have?

ETA: Oh, right, it is Sunday. This is clearly some naive kid doing his Sunday School homework. It is the only explanation for such a naive line of thought.

May i also point out his views of cause and effect in science are hilariously naive . Oh and Victor Stenger was a credible  scientist .

[possibletarian]

That's plainly false. A being who created all of matter and energy would need to be non-physical

Firstly you cannot show it was created at all, and even if it were true that being created it, why would it have to be non/physical to create a universe ?
Unless you can show our universe is the only matter and energy in existence.

and space-less.

Why ?

A being who created all of matter and energy would need to be at least powerful and intelligent enough to create a universe like ours.

Unless you can demonstrate nothing existed before the universe it may have been natural causes, in fact it would question everything you have said about the definitions of your god, and why would intelligence be needed ?

A being who created space-time would need to be timeless.

We don't know there was a being who created space time. Maybe it didn't need creating , or B Theory time is true, which is becoming a more popular way to describe time.

Finally, the finitude of the universe suggests that the being chose to create it;

How ?

otherwise, the effect (the universe) would have been past-eternal like its cause is.

Again why ? you assume one cause, there could be many and again if B -theory time is correct as many physicist believes it could be, then none of which you mentioned above is either likely If you are going to have one eternal cause, why not ,many.

No, not any “god.” Just the definitions of God that include the properties described up above.

That's a faith position, it could for instance be an evil god who just wants us to Christians to believe that way they do and built our minds that way. And is a evolved physical being from a different universe.

If the God described above exists, then theism is true and atheism is false.

Or a evil (or no god) god who just wants you to think that and enjoys deceiving you. did not create the universe at all and is an evolved being.
After all does not the bible include a powerful deceiving creature, why not what you call god himself ?

Could it not simply be a physical evolved being who crafted a universe and you have misinterpreted everything ?  

The Bible does teach us that we have free will,

Can you show we have free will ?

Perhaps the quantum field is God's typewriter. Regardless, none of what you wrote refutes the main points in my original post. A quantum field producing seemingly random events isn't nonbeing producing being, now is it?

Doesn't help your position either. and why would the god you describe need 'being' as a typewriter ?

So far as i can see you've just thrown assertions out there about what must have caused what , thrown in made up definitions of a god to fit them the best you can but none of which you can show to be true or even needed.

[Fake Messiah]

You couldn't “prove” to me that the universe wasn't made five minutes ago with the appearance of being 13.8 billion years old, for instance.

I couldn't prove to an insane and/or retarded person that universe is more than 5 minutes old, which you seem to be, so this conversation is useless.

[brewer]

Only argument and assertion, never any concrete evidence. The result of his human emotional need that the origin of existence be his god. Then all of the promises made by his god (taught by humans) can be emotionally rationalized as true.

Face it brokenreflector, humans made your god, it's only a mental concept. That's the only rational conclusion.

If you need your version of god to be content with life, your welcome to it.

[brokenreflector]

You couldn't “prove” to me that the universe wasn't made five minutes ago with the appearance of being 13.8 billion years old, for instance.

I couldn't prove to an insane  and/or retarded person that universe is more than 5 minutes old, which you seem to be, so this conversation is useless.

Good argument. 

---

Can you produce a sample of absolutely nothing for us to examine?

This is a logically incoherent question. Nothing is not anything or the negation of all being. There wouldn't be anything to examine.

No? OK then how did you determine what absolutely nothing can or cannot do? Or what properties it may or may not have?

Because nothing is NOT anything. It's a logical contradiction to say not anything possesses properties.

[possibletarian]

This is a logically incoherent question. Nothing is not anything or the negation of all being. There wouldn't be anything to examine.

Then why assume there was anything other than material before the universe ?

[Pat Mustard]

By God I mean a necessary, non-physical, and personal being who created all things: seen, unseen, discovered, and undiscovered. Being a Christian, I believe God is more than that, but this post is about the general concept of God.

Have you any evidence for your assertion?

First explanation. Ultimately, nonbeing produced being. The problem with this explanation should be obvious. How could nonbeing produce being? What would be producing it? Nonbeing is the absence of any kind of existence.

Oh, dear the "everything must have a creator" assertion.  Fine then, what created god?

Second explanation. Something is past-eternal. This something could be the universe, multiverse, or one of its constituents. Or it could be something else entirely. Let's call it X. X would need to exist and there was never a point where the proposition "X exists" was false.

[citation needed]

Oh, and I'm sorry referring to the arguments of William Lane Craig, who knows exactly nothing of physics or the origins of the universe, is not evidence. He makes statements contstantly that he can't back up and is pretty much stuck with lying for Jeebus.

---

You forgot to add "according to my mythology"

This argument is purely based on reason and contemporary science.

No it isn't your argument is pure creationist nonsense with added "sciency" words. Not one bit of actual science is used, nor is reason within an asses roar of it.

[brokenreflector]

Then why assume there was anything other than material before the universe ?

Because we're talking about all physicality. A physical reality producing all physical reality is a logical contradiction.

[Pat Mustard]

How can an incorporeal entity interact with a real universe?

It's a non-sequitur to say because X is made up of matter and energy that therefore it cannot be produced or affected by an immaterial being.

How does something that is immaterial interact with material objects or energies? Everything in modern science says that that is impossible. So to prove your god, you're going to have to throw out every single explanation about everything and create, test, evidence and prove your own better explanations.

You'd better get cracking, pronto. Because it'll take you a couple of hundred generations to do all that.

[brokenreflector]

Have you any evidence for your assertion?

What do you mean? I'm describing a being that may or may not exist. I then go on to argue that this being must exist because if it doesn't, then we're left with two logically incoherent explanations for the origin of all things.

Oh, dear the "everything must have a creator" assertion.

I never claimed that.

Fine then, what created god?

God isn't a created being, so your question doesn't make any sense.

[citation needed]

What do you mean citation needed? I'm just describing what past-eternal means.

Oh, and I'm sorry referring to the arguments of William Lane Craig, who knows exactly nothing of physics or the origins of the universe

[citation needed]

He makes statements contstantly that he can't back up and is pretty much stuck with lying for Jeebus.

[citation needed]

No it isn't your argument is pure creationist nonsense with added "sciency" words.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Not one bit of actual science is used

That's not true. I referred to the contemporary scientific consensus that the universe is past-finite.

---

How does something that is immaterial interact with material objects or energies?

I have no idea how it works, but I don't see any good reason to believe that it cannot or doesn't happen.

In fact, esteemed mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose thinks there's good reason to believe there are three worlds: the physical world, the mental world, and the abstract world. And he believes these three worlds interrelate and interact with each other.

https://youtu.be/9wLtCqm72-Y?t=835

Everything in modern science says that that is impossible.

You better go tell Roger Penrose.