Proof of the existence of God

Sarkus said:
If you accept that there are things that do not need a beginning you thus accept that God is not necessary, as that without a beginning has no need for an "original cause".
If you claim that God is necessary then everything is caused by "an original cause".
Which are you claiming, as you have certainly claimed that God (as "original cause") is necessary, which implies that you have stated that everything needs a beginning.
I'm assuming within this you understand what it means for something to be necessary?
Click to expand...

Original - present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest.

Cause - a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.

jan.
 
You all already know but when it hits you the light turns on... Why do you think God is always associated with light and perpertual qualities. I personally can see you all are talking about the same thing I garantee it but you all just can't see it yet.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Original - present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest.

Cause - a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
Click to expand...
Well done. But merely giving the individual terms does not change an apple into an orange.

So please explain what is the original cause of something that has no beginning?
Do you not see how "original cause" is not applicable to something that has no beginning? Or does your stubbornness prevent you from agreeing, because there is nothing rational that is stopping you agreeing.
 
Jan Ardena said:
I'm quite okay with the Vilenka quote that I posted, thanks very much.
Click to expand...
Everyone is allowed a little bravado about their own work, but the claims of it being a proof by one of the authors is not evidence that it is the proof he claims, especially when it doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny as such.
It's an important piece of work, no doubt, but not the proof that our universe had a beginning that you think it is, or seem to want it to be.
 
Just because you're defining God as "something that exists", doesn't mean that it actually exists.
 
Sarkus said:
So please explain what is the original cause of something that has no beginning?
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're pertaining to.

Sarkus said:
Do you not see how "original cause" is not applicable to something that has no beginning? Or does your stubbornness prevent you from agreeing, because there is nothing rational that is stopping you agreeing.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand your question, in light of what the original cause pertains to.

jan.
 
Baldeee said:
Everyone is allowed a little bravado about their own work, but the claims of it being a proof by one of the authors is not evidence that it is the proof he claims, especially when it doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny as such.
It's an important piece of work, no doubt, but not the proof that our universe had a beginning that you think it is, or seem to want it to be.
Click to expand...

I'll keep that in mind.

thanks
jan.
 
Sarkus said:
Well done. But merely giving the individual terms does not change an apple into an orange.

So please explain what is the original cause of something that has no beginning?
Do you not see how "original cause" is not applicable to something that has no beginning? Or does your stubbornness prevent you from agreeing, because there is nothing rational that is stopping you agreeing.
Click to expand...

The answer you seek is evolution, this is the method used by God to override the system He has built and change it when He see's fit. Like when Einstien was sent to update scientist, Jesus was sent to update people of God.

You see creation is a message a piece of art like a song written with notes...

Matter represents those notes of creation...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top