God's existence proven

[createdtoworship]

This is a carryover from another thread. I could only post this to the christian only section of the site for some reason. I would love skeptics views of it. However it's more philosophical and not really life scienves. But anyway someone made another comment about God not existing and I asked for evidence He did not exist. See its one thing to say there is no evidence for God existing and quite another to say He in fact does not exist due to the nature of evil or other philosophical issues with His existence. Then someone said to me can you prove that he didn't prove you wrong? And that was a shifting the burden of proof. More on this below as well as a cut and paste from the discussion . I do prove God's existence so bear with me to the end.

1. Well I am under the impression negative or critical statement don't need proof. For example if I say God exists, and you say you don't think there is evidence. Then you are not required to provide evidence of the critical statement, they however must provide evidence of the positive statement mentioned however. I have seen some negative statements that do need validation but most do not, again generally speaking. I said most things cannot be proven, be it scientific theory (hence the theory in its description), or scientific law for that matter. Math can be proven and logic can be proven, but 97% of most statements conservatively speaking here or in peer reviews, are not proven. I say conservatively speaking because the percentage is more like 99.99% unproven statements. They are unproven for the reasons I mention. I don't have to prove those critical statements of others proofs, rather the burden lies on those making the positive claim. God exists, evolution is true, the Bible is true....for example. And I have not made those statements. At least not here anyway. I am debating an athiest on youtube right now, and I said...."if you see something that is made, you know it had a maker." remember i said laws of logic can be considered proof. Then I said, the universe was made (as most scientists conclude it was made by a big bang.), there fore since the universe was made, it has a maker. Be it the big bang or however you wish to define it. And then he said. "a maker implies an agent." a Big bang is not an agent. Then I said...."do you have proof the big bang is not an agent?" Were you there, and took pictures of the Big bang and took lab samples and your data suggests there was no agent there at the big bang? Of course he has no evidence. he simply used an appeal to authority in stating that the definition of the big bang according to cosmology implies no agent is there. But that needs citation as well, which is very very hard to do. So I won that debate simply because my statement was proven by logic, logical law and he needed external evidence for his rebuttal of the logic, which he didn't have. So I proved a maker of the universe exists, granted cosmologists are correct regarding the big bang, and there are a lot of evidence for that, expanding universe etc.

 

[public hermit]

Is there more? So far, it doesn't appear that you have proven God's existence. You have argued that the big bang "made" the universe. In addition, you have stated that no one knows if the big bang is an agent, or not. The conclusion that God exists doesn't follow from those premises.

 

[Quartermaine]

I don't think you won the argument as much as he didn't try very hard


you just asserted that the maker of the universe exists. The logical question stemming from that is who made the maker?
If you attempt to say the maker of the universe doesn't need a maker then you fall to your own argument because citation is needed here just as much as when you made your argument.
There is no evidence that maker of the universe was made or not made.
To claim the maker did not need a maker is just an appeal to authority

 

[SkyWriting]

This is a carryover from another thread. I could only post this to the christian only section of the site for some reason. I would love skeptics views of it. However it's more philosophical and not really life scienves. But anyway someone made another comment about God not existing and I asked for evidence He did not exist. See its one thing to say there is no evidence for God existing and quite another to say He in fact does not exist due to the nature of evil or other philosophical issues with His existence. Then someone said to me can you prove that he didn't prove you wrong? And that was a shifting the burden of proof. More on this below as well as a cut and paste from the discussion . I do prove God's existence so bear with me to the end.

1. Well I am under the impression negative or critical statement don't need proof. For example if I say God exists, and you say you don't think there is evidence. Then you are not required to provide evidence of the critical statement, they however must provide evidence of the positive statement mentioned however. I have seen some negative statements that do need validation but most do not, again generally speaking. I said most things cannot be proven, be it scientific theory (hence the theory in its description), or scientific law for that matter. Math can be proven and logic can be proven, but 97% of most statements conservatively speaking here or in peer reviews, are not proven. I say conservatively speaking because the percentage is more like 99.99% unproven statements. They are unproven for the reasons I mention. I don't have to prove those critical statements of others proofs, rather the burden lies on those making the positive claim. God exists, evolution is true, the Bible is true....for example. And I have not made those statements. At least not here anyway. I am debating an athiest on youtube right now, and I said...."if you see something that is made, you know it had a maker." remember i said laws of logic can be considered proof. Then I said, the universe was made (as most scientists conclude it was made by a big bang.), there fore since the universe was made, it has a maker. Be it the big bang or however you wish to define it. And then he said. "a maker implies an agent." a Big bang is not an agent. Then I said...."do you have proof the big bang is not an agent?" Were you there, and took pictures of the Big bang and took lab samples and your data suggests there was no agent there at the big bang? Of course he has no evidence. he simply used an appeal to authority in stating that the definition of the big bang according to cosmology implies no agent is there. But that needs citation as well, which is very very hard to do. So I won that debate simply because my statement was proven by logic, logical law and he needed external evidence for his rebuttal of the logic, which he didn't have. So I proved a maker of the universe exists, granted cosmologists are correct regarding the big bang, and there are a lot of evidence for that, expanding universe etc.

Nope. Logic is not considered proof in any area of civilization.
There are millions of facts that defy all logic.

 

[createdtoworship]

Is there more? So far, it doesn't appear that you have proven God's existence. You have argued that the big bang "made" the universe. In addition, you have stated that no one knows if the big bang is an agent, or not. The conclusion that God exists doesn't follow from those premises.

I don't think you won the argument as much as he didn't try very hard


you just asserted that the maker of the universe exists. The logical question stemming from that is who made the maker?
If you attempt to say the maker of the universe doesn't need a maker then you fall to your own argument because citation is needed here just as much as when you made your argument.
There is no evidence that maker of the universe was made or not made.
To claim the maker did not need a maker is just an appeal to authority

Nope. Logic is not considered proof in any area of civilization.
There are millions of facts that defy all logic.

Thanks for the replies. The OP only proves a maker. It is usually the athiest that implies at that moment that I mean God. But you can define your maker after that part. And it's not to far logically removed to define an initial cause maker or starter to be God. This is such an obvious natural deduction that God declares in proverbs we are a "fool" not to believe it. He would only say that if their was solid proof of His existence. And that is provided here with logic. Logic and math so far are the only branches of science (if you could call it that) that can even remotely offer proof. One person said that logic defies some scientific facts. If that is the case then that is evidence they don't truly understand the science involved and thus its not a fact as the proof of the science cannot be relayed logically speaking if it defies it outright. I hope that helps. If you disagree how the OP dies not prove God's existence, by all means let's hear it.

 

[public hermit]

And it's not to far logically removed to define an initial cause maker or starter to be God. This is such an obvious natural deduction that God declares in proverbs we are a "fool" not to believe it. He would only say that if their was solid proof of His existence.

If you are going to say that the proof of God's existence is a logical deduction, then you need to make that deduction. Simply saying it is logical doesn't make it so. What are the steps in your argument? What are the premises from which the conclusion "God exists" follows?

You may already be aware of this, but Christians have been working with so-called "proofs" for God's existence for centuries. This is well-worn territory, so you don't have to try and reinvent the wheel on this. If you are unfamiliar, the links below refer to some well-known approaches. Considering these as you develop your proof may be to your advantage.

Ontological argument - Wikipedia
Five Ways (Aquinas) - Wikipedia
Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't think you won the argument as much as he didn't try very hard


you just asserted that the maker of the universe exists. The logical question stemming from that is who made the maker?
If you attempt to say the maker of the universe doesn't need a maker then you fall to your own argument because citation is needed here just as much as when you made your argument.
There is no evidence that maker of the universe was made or not made.
To claim the maker did not need a maker is just an appeal to authority

Oh I didn't seethis part before. An initial cause does not necessitate it needed a cause at all. But God would be the only initial cause we would be able to point to. But say that they are not satisfied with that answer....then I would say God is omnipresent according to the definition of God. That means He is everywhere at once. Which so far is proven by logic based on definitions commonly asserted for God. Lastly I would tie His omnipresence in with the theory of relitivity a scientific Law. According to Einstein without mass you had not time. See the universe is made up of matter, time and space, it's called a space time continuum I believe. If you create something as in initial causation where would you put it? You need space, if you created universe when would you put it? So you need time. So all three live in perfect harmony. God however had no mass which means he is not limited to the boundaries of the physical universe. Going outside the universe of time means He would not be affected by time, and thus the burden "what caused God?" Goes away.....in essence you have an uncaused cause. Or initial cause. This would be logically consistent with what most people believe when they look up at the vast starry night. THAT God hung those stars. Finally to prove that being massless does mean they don't need space or time for that matter one only need to research the theory of relitivity, which states that mass excellwrates in time, gravity and a host of things. But bother time and gravity require mass. Thus an omnipresent God would be eternal. And any soul of a human or angel or demon or spirit being would also be eternal. Hence the definitions of eternal heaven and eternal hell.

 

[createdtoworship]

If you are going to say that the proof of God's existence is a logical deduction, then you need to make that deduction. Simply saying it is logical doesn't make it so. What are the steps in your argument? What are the premises from which the conclusion "God exists" follows?

You may already be aware of this, but Christians have been working with so-called "proofs" for God's existence for centuries. This is well-worn territory, so you don't have to try and reinvent the wheel on this. If you are unfamiliar, the links below refer to some well-known approaches. Considering these as you develop your proof may be to your advantage.

Ontological argument - Wikipedia
Five Ways (Aquinas) - Wikipedia
Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia

If you see.something made you know it had a maker. THAT IS My Solid evidence. Now prove it wrong.

 

[public hermit]

If you see.something made you know it had a maker.

Okay, I'll play. Let's define our terms. What is your definition of "made" or "to make"?

 

[createdtoworship]

Okay, I'll play. Let's define our terms. What is your definition of "made"?

the word "made" is already defined in common language using standard dictionaries. Of which I can find many if you wish.

 

[public hermit]

the word "made" is already defined in common language using standard dictionaries. Of which I can find many if you wish.

It's general practice when making an argument to define one's terms. The reason you should define the terms you use is that it's your argument and you may have nuances that you want to make salient. Nonetheless...

Let's assume by "to make" you mean a process whereby something comes about as the effect of some cause. Will that do for you?

If so, your argument seems to be that if I see something that exists, then I will infer it is the effect of some cause. Does that sound right to you?

 

[createdtoworship]

It's general practice when making an argument to define one's terms. The reason you should define the terms you use is that it's your argument and you may have nuances that you want to make salient. Nonetheless...

Let's assume by "to make" you mean a process whereby something comes about as the effect of some cause. Will that do for you?

If so, your argument seems to be that if I see something that exists, then I will infer it is the effect of some cause. Does that sound right to you?

Unfortunately because "made" is such a common term, no dictionaries actually define it in a technical way, assuming most know what it means. But lets go to the synonym of made, which is make and lets define that for us.....

"make something
to make a table/dress/cake
to make bread/cement/paper
She makes her own clothes.
made in France (= on a label)
make something (out) of something
What's your shirt made of?
make something from something Wine is made from grapes.
make something into something The grapes are made into wine.
make something for somebody She made coffee for us all.make somebody something She made us all coffee."

that is from the oxford learning dictionary online. Does that help? I don't really think we need to define elementary terms only terms that can be questioned such as the definition of God for example. If what you are saying is that something was made from something else, we'll then that just postpones the problem to the other cause. If you ask "what made God." I answer that here:

God's existence proven

 

[public hermit]

Does that help?

It does helps me understand the nuance you want to draw out of the term. It seems to me you want to focus, as intimated in your OP, that "make" or "made" refers to an agent that makes something out of something else. At least, that is the kind of relationship that I draw from the examples you have given above. The problem is, if we limit our use of that term in that way, it doesn't cover every cause/effect relationship.

Would you say that the sun "makes" rays of light? Do seeds "make" the plants that grow from them. We can use "make" in that sense, but the agential aspect is removed. There is no obvious agent acting to make light rays from the sun. The rays simple emanate from the sun. I tried to point us the direction of a more general relationship of cause to effect, because if you are wanting to argue the existence of God from our observation of cause and effect, you will have to take into account those instances that don't (as far as our observation is concerned) involve a mediating agent who acts to bring about the effect from the cause. But, we can put that to the side for now.

You still need to make your argument that my observation of the world should cause me to infer God's existence. You can't simply say, "Prove it wrong." Why not? Well, because I can provide possible alternative explanations. I don't need to prove your argument wrong. I only need to provide an alternative explanation. That alone is enough to function as a defeater for your argument. For instance, I could say that for every effect there is a cause and that goes back infinitely (i.e. there is cause after cause after cause, etc.). Or, I could say, the initial cause of what I observe is the big bang. None of those has led me to infer the existence of God, and certainly not the God of the scriptures. The onus of proof still lies with you. So, how would you respond to those potential defeaters of your argument?

ETA: I just saw your edit above and will reply to that.

 

[public hermit]

An initial cause does not necessitate it needed a cause at all. But God would be the only initial cause we would be able to point to. But say that they are not satisfied with that answer....then I would say God is omnipresent according to the definition of God. That means He is everywhere at once. Which so far is proven by logic based on definitions commonly asserted for God.

This is a definition, which is good. We need those.

Lastly I would tie His omnipresence in with the theory of relitivity a scientific Law. According to Einstein without mass you had not time. See the universe is made up of matter, time and space, it's called a space time continuum I believe. If you create something as in initial causation where would you put it? You need space, if you created universe when would you put it? So you need time. So all three live in perfect harmony. God however had no mass which means he is not limited to the boundaries of the physical universe. Going outside the universe of time means He would not be affected by time, and thus the burden "what caused God?" Goes away.....in essence you have an uncaused cause. Or initial cause. This would be logically consistent

This is a theory, which nicely tries to tie together a traditional understanding of God with current scientific understandings, but it is not a logical proof for God's existence. You can't start with a definition of God, tie that to current scientific understanding, and then call it a deduction. It is a construction, not a deduction. There is nothing wrong with such a construction, but it is not a proof.

 

[createdtoworship]

It does helps me understand the nuance you want to draw out of the term. It seems to me you want to focus, as intimated in your OP, that "make" or "made" refers to an agent that makes something out of something else. At least, that is the kind of relationship that I draw from the examples you have given above. The problem is, if we limit our use of that term in that way, it doesn't cover every cause/effect relationship.

I never said agent, you said agent. So the burden of proof lies on you, since you brought up the term. do you see? I said....this...."if you see something made, it had a maker" Nothing more, nothing less. That statement is logically valid, and need no further evidence since it is inherently true via logic itself. If you wish to bring an agent into the discussion you must prove that in the beginning of the universe there was said agent. So again you can see how trying to quantify this in terms of our understanding is out of our league. But God's existence is meant to be undebatable as I have proven. It was meant for any child to look at the night sky and say, that didn't just happen. It's not there for no reason. It's there for me, because whoever is out there loves me and wanted to bless me. Those are all natural implications one should draw from simply looking up. If they don't draw those conclusions then their natural logic that was endowed to them by their creator has been convoluted and diluted with other terms, such as "causes" and "agents" or "irreducible complexity." I get it all those are evidences, but I am not wanting some circumstantial evidence, I want direct proof. And this is it. If you see something made you know it had a maker.

Would you say that the sun "makes" rays of light?

in an untechnical answer, yes it does. For our practical answer, yes it does. If you want to get technical, it's the fire on the sun that makes the light, but for our purposes we can say informally that it does make the light.

Do seeds "make" the plants that grow from them.

This one is a little different. But I can see you are trying to convolute "making something from something, and making something out of thin air." God made the universe from nothing. The Big bang signifies a singularity that essentially came from nothing. So all these illustrations are non sequitur to our particular discussion. They may apply if I am making a house of of plant material that came from a seed. So then when I made the house, it technically was made from raw materials that I didn't make. I get your logic, but it simply does not apply here.

We can use "make" in that sense, but the agential aspect is removed. There is no obvious agent acting to make light rays from the sun. The rays simple emanate from the sun. I tried to point us the direction of a more general relationship of cause to effect, because if you are wanting to argue the existence of God from our observation of cause and effect, you will have to take into account those instances that don't (as far as our observation is concerned) involve a mediating agent who acts to bring about the effect from the cause. But, we can put that to the side for now.

there you have it "agent" again, so again prove there was an agent in the big bang. I will wait. If you cannot prove it, then we MUST toss it out. Again we are talking proof here, not theories.

You still need to make your argument that my observation of the world should cause me to infer God's existence.

Yes there is absolute irrefutable proof of Gods existence, to not see it is to be a complete fool, or idiot in some translations, I can post them in various modern translations. God is not impressed with this discussion to be honest. It repulses him. So I will give you a few posts to prove me wrong, then I will move on.

You can't simply say, "Prove it wrong."

I can, and I will. Prove me wrong.

Why not? Well, because I can provide possible alternative explanations.

go ahead and prove even a rational alternative to "if you see something made, it had a maker."
This is not even a coherent argument to begin with, because to dismantle it, you must become illogical and incoherent.

I don't need to prove your argument wrong.

Then why did you post to this thread?

I only need to provide an alternative explanation.

Go ahead.

Just because you can say "just because the clouds make the rain, does not mean we attribute it to a cloud rain God." Let me help you out a little bit. The reason why this argument fails is because we know the causation of the rain, it's condensation in the clouds. To say a rain God did it is just silly.

I get it. But in our situation you don't know the causation. It's was a singularity that exploded. That's as technical as science gets. Some scientists go further and say a multiverse created the singularity. Some other scientists go even further and say a grandmother or grandfather universe created the singularity.

That is fine, we can have all the theories we want, but none of that is proven. What is proven is that if you see something made, it had a maker. Plain and simple.

solid proof.

 

[public hermit]

Yes there is absolute irrefutable proof of Gods existence, to not see it is to be a complete fool, or idiot in some translations, I can post them in various modern translations. God is not impressed with this discussion to be honest. It repulses him. So I will give you a few posts to prove me wrong, then I will move on.

I see. Well, I appreciate your taking the time to show me your argument. We both believe that God exists, but we disagree as to what constitutes a proof. I can tell by your style of argument that won't easily be persuaded that you could be wrong as to the effectiveness of your proof. That you are not persuaded by me is a small matter, as far as I am concerned. Integrity, in terms of our person or our arguments, is earned. If your argument is as persuasive as you believe, it will reap benefits without having to single out your opponent as a fool or an idiot. I hope you and yours have a blessed new year.

 

[createdtoworship]

Duplicate

 

[public hermit]

.....

 

[createdtoworship]

I see. Well, I appreciate your taking the time to show me your argument. We both believe that God exists, but we disagree as to what constitutes a proof. I can tell by your style of argument that won't easily be persuaded that you could be wrong as to the effectiveness of your proof. That you are not persuaded by me is a small matter, as far as I am concerned. Integrity, in terms of our person or our arguments, is earned. If your argument is as persuasive as you believe, it will reap benefits without having to single out your opponent as a fool or an idiot. I hope you and yours have a blessed new year.

Thanks for being kind. As far as earning respect, I don't need it nor do I deserve it. I just had an athiest confess today that this was a solid argument and that I won the debate in the OP. Christians however can be divisive. They want their arguments used and like their style of church and their translation of the Bible and their style of worship music. And if your not like them they fight with you and divide. I avoid all that usually. I am not saying you are not persuasive, you did a far better job than any athiest out there and I honestly had a difficult time responding. But then I realized that we have all sorts of theories. But little solid proof. But thank you. I don't mind revisting this. Sorry for a second I thought you were an athiest who infiltrated the christian section. My appologies. I would love to discuss this more, and you can reply to my last post if you want, if not that is ok too. Have a happy new year with your family!

 

[createdtoworship]

This line of argument against my faith is not acceptable. I take these kinds of discussions seriously. I take my faith seriously and I don't treat arguments about God in a trite manner. What you took as being hard on you, was my attempt to help. If you don't like my line of reasoning, then argue against my reasons. But, don't think you can judge my faith simply because I called into question your logic.

Sorry I edited and deleted that comment, please forgive me I thought you were someone else. Then in your last post you said you believed in God and that was all the evidence I need. I truly am not trying to judge ones faith we are all different and go to different churches. So again forgive any judgY posts that I may have posted and deleted they were truly not meant to get posted. It just didn't refresh at the right time.