Proof there is a God

[James R]

BrianHarwarespecialist:

I keep telling the humans about the manipulation but they will just hand wave me away and dismiss this yet again, sight...

Well you should know about your masters the Archons alien reptilians but hey if you believe they don't exist then you belong together. I flipped a coin so you get this. But they are the parent of Elohim imposters I told you about in the first proof of God thread that has now halted. Yeah just business as usuall energy sucking vampires the literal devil yes Billy you are right this world is currently run by a demon thier father this is why you are all confused. It's a clandestine plan with clandestine offspring. The Tarians are just considered slaves.

http://www.ascensionhelp.com/blog/2012/01/31/never-call-them-archons/

This looks like it is off topic for this thread. If you want to start a separate thread on Archon alien reptilians, I suggest the ghosts and monsters subforum would be more appropriate.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes most all Christians will agree god is defined by their holly book(s) and so would most all followers of other religions.

That's not what I said.

Problem is there are huge differences. For example, Christians believe your soul goes beyond Earth after death (to heaven, hell or limbo for child who died three days after birth). Vs all the religions that believe in re-incarnation. They believe you soul stays on Earth. They obviously are preferred by Ockham as we know earth exist, but the existence of heaven, hell & limb are only unsupported postulates.

What makes you think religions that believe in re-incarnation believe that heavens and hells don't exist?
Why do you think they believe the soul stays on Earth?

Unsupported by whom?

I said I will take your definition of God as the "Supreme Being that is responsible for the material world" as your better defined definition of God. (rather than your "scripture describes God" version). Your current reply, just quoted, supports more the other meaning of "responsible" (I. e. caretaker, or over seer of activities on earth) instead of "creator of the universe."

Which is why it is better to quote scripture.

I know you like to avoid clear answers, but that does not help progress in understanding you. So I'll ask again. Is the god you speak of:
A. Responsible for the creation of the universe?
or
B. Responsible for maintenance of it all? (I.e.. god is just what many call the "natural laws.") I'm reasonable sure you do not mean God is responsible for all the evil on earth (mass murders, ethnic cleansing, wars, mass starvations, etc.).
or
C. Both A & B

The God I speak of is responsible for everything except the actions of humans (on this planet). They have a free will, so are responsible for their own actions.

Does this imply that 10,000 years ago, before writing was possible (no scriptures) God had no characteristics? He first got Characteristics when the Jews wrote the Tora. etc.

BTW, their holly books do not postulate any heaven or hell.

Are you sure about that?

Yes he could. Ockham was only making the point that if two different explanations for universe are possible, the one with the least unsupported postulates was more likely to be correct. That does not assure that it is.

Are there really two different explanations?
Let's take your explanation for example.
Can you know that these fluctuations aren't the result of the Complete Whole mentioned in the text I gave?
You cannot say that to propose an initial cause of these fluctuations is a violation of Occam's Razor, unless you propose the fluctuations are the absolute beginning of the universe.

I suppose the only tool we are left with, is our intelligence, to decide how this universe was created. So the question is ; can something just spontaneously pop into existence without any cause or prompt?

In times gone by scientists thought that life spontaneously formed, until they knew better. So can we really trust that something can pop into existence out of nothing?
What is nothing?
Is is something that has no substance, time, and space?
Obviously it cannot be, because it would be something.
So please explain how nothing is independent?

The concept of Brahman is a more comprehensive explanation in my opinion, and it doesn't violate Occam's Razor.
Unlike the popping into existence without any prompt or cause, gig.

Jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

How about the same sources as whoever wrote the scriptures?

What sources did they use?

God.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I did. By supplying the context. Twice. The part where I explicitly say I am not asserting the statement to be true:

"Either both are true or neither is true. I'm not offering an opinion on which it is; that is up to you."

This underhanded tactic of misquoting should have been beneath you, jan.

Oh so because you say so I must believe you.
I don't think so mate.

You believe God doesn't exist, and try to hide it behind the teapot nonsense.
But you slipped up in a bid to get accolade from your fellow like minds, and I was there to catch you out.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

The concept of Brahman is a more comprehensive explanation in my opinion, and it doesn't violate Occam's Razor.

Have we progressed from God to a deity like Brahma? I find that encouraging.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh so because you say so I must believe you.

No, because applying two different rule sets to otherwise identical issues is known as hypocracy.

You believe God doesn't exist,

I do personally believe God doesn't exist. I also know that that is merely a belief - objectively unproveable. It's just not relevant to the issue at-hand.

My stance all along has simply been to dismantle your flawed argument.

and try to hide it behind the teapot nonsense.

Now it's nonsense? When it was working for you, you agreed with it. You agreed that an orbiting teapot was so implausible that we could essentially 'know' it doesn't exist while knowing virtually nothing about it. Yet, when applied to something you wish to exist, you've flip-flopped to calling the same logic 'nonsense'.

You're being hypocritical. That's how you win a debate. Demonstrate a self-contradiction in your opponent's own logic.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Have we progressed from God to a deity like Brahma? I find that encouraging.

Why don't you do your homework before butting in with your nonsense?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Now it's nonsense? When it was working for you, you agreed with it. You agreed that an orbiting teapot was so implausible that we could essentially 'know' it doesn't exist while knowing virtually nothing about it.

That wasn't what I agreed to at all.

It is because we know what a teapot IS, why we know an orbiting teapot cannot exist.

What is nonsensical is you keep bringingi t up in this discussion, as though it means anything.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

Why don't you do your homework before butting in with your nonsense? Jan.

I have and that's why I am an atheist. But apparently you are still a work in progress, citing scripture, but unwilling to commit to any religious philosophy that contains the word God . Not surprisingly, because you speak from *belief* and not from knowledge at all.

Jan Ardena said:
"God couldn't have possibly made it, because it violates Ockham's Razor"

Jan Ardena said:
"The concept of Brahman is a more comprehensive explanation in my opinion, and it doesn't violate Occam's Razor. Unlike the popping into existence without any prompt or cause, gig". Jan

 

[DaveC426913]

It is because we know what a teapot IS, why we know an orbiting teapot cannot exist.

As you keep saying, we cannot have a meaningful discussion about God until we have a good description of it.

By the same logic, we cannot meaningfully have a discussion about the teapot without having a good description of it. So, what colour is it? How big is it?

The entire point being:
How much does one need to know about X before one can conclude that X is unlikely to exist?

Answer: only as much as is necessary and no more.

 

[Billy T]

In post 942, I gave a brief outline of how a stastical fluctuation created the universe. (No God postulated.) Here is a graphical reprensation of that:

Deists want their postulated God to have always existed and to have "kick started" it all, but we know statistical (or quantum) fluctuation still occur in much smaller scale by the trillions each second - making electron / positron pairs out of the "nothingness of the vacuum." I speculated in post 942 that the kick start fluctuation made equal amounts of positive and negative energy (Keeping the total still zero.) but unlike the positrons & electrons "popping out of the vacuum” now, these two energies did not recombine to nothingness as the extremely rapid inflation made that impossible.

The positive energy first made quarks, then with still more cooling they (3 at a time) formed protons and neutrons, which with electrons in number equal to the protons, made an unimaginably hot 100% ionized plasma; however with more expansion and cooling it became a neutral gas of mainly hydrogen but some Helium too. Like today, these neutral atoms rarely absorbed any photons, especially as their density was falling and only certain wave lengths could be absorbed. Note that when an atom absorbs a photon its energy just makes an "excited state" which re-radiates but in a random direction. Some times the energy re-apears in more than one photon with a cacade down thru several of the atom's energy levels. (This is a mechanism for the peak temperature of the radiation's Black Body radiation to lower with expansion.)

There were many photons, during the part of the diagram labeled "Dark Ages" but no visible light - those photons were very high energy gamma rays. They have now greatly cooled (their black body distribution temperature) and are the "cosmic background radiation." About 400 million years after the Big Bang, kick start, the mutual gravitational attraction of atoms then formed large relative dense "gas clouds" and that accelerated their gravitational condensation into stars, then galaxies, etc.

I speculated that this negative energy is now called Dark Energy and has the opposite gravity - a "pushing gravity" but only in the last few billion years, when the mutual attraction forces between the galaxies grew weaker (due to the inverse square law and their increasing greater separation) has the Dark energy been much stronger that the matter's attraction gravity, so now the expansion of the universe is now accelerating.

PS: Like LaPlace told Napoleon, When ask: “And where is God in all this?” I also reply: “I have no need of that hypothesis.” Note also that after more than 1000 posts in this thread, there has not been presented one proof of God's existence - thus I conclude that is not possbile because he does not exist. Some posting here do appear to have a psychological need for the hypothesis LaPlace rejected. I can not prove them wrong, but it would be nice if they could unify around one fable, instead of dozens that confict.

See more details than I gave here or in post 942 at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have and that's why I am an atheist.

You're an atheist because you don't believe in God. Homework has nothing to do with it.

But apparently you are still a work in progress, citing scripture, but unwilling to commit to any religious philosophy that contains the word God .

You know what I want you to know about my personal life. You know that I'm a theist, because I told you.

Not surprisingly, because you speak from *belief* and not from knowledge at all.

Really?
Now I know how you come up with your ideas.
Guesswork

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

By the same logic, we cannot meaningfully have a discussion about the teapot without having a good description of it. So, what colour is it? How big is it?

Really? You're gonna go there?

So if I blindfolded you and put some items in front of you, one of them being a teapot, you couldn't identify the teapot despite its size and colour?

Really?

The entire point being:
How much does one need to know about X before one can conclude that X is unlikely to exist?

One needs to know what is, or what is supposed to be.

Jan

 

[Write4U]

One needs to know what is, or what is supposed to be.
Jan

I see *castles in the air* and I can prove that I *know* this because we have architecture and therefore it is the way as it was supposed to be;

, or is it ....

 

[Jan Ardena]

I see *castles in the air* and I can prove that I *know* this because we have architecture and therefore it is the way as it was supposed to be;

, or is it ....

Yippee!

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

So if I blindfolded you and put some items in front of you, one of them being a teapot, you couldn't identify the teapot despite its size and colour?

Of course I could. What does determining that something does exist have to do with determining that something doesn't exist?

I'm not sure you're following the conversation.

Demonstrate how you can dismiss an orbiting teapot when we know virtually nothing about its details, yet you can't agree to dismissing a supernatural entity when we know virtually nothing about its details.

No wait. Don't. I've asked enough times, and your responses have been consistently evasive. That says enough.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Of course I could. What does determining that something does exist have to do with determining that something doesn't exist?

I'm not sure you're following the conversation.

Demonstrate how you can dismiss an orbiting teapot when we know virtually nothing about its details, yet you can't agree to dismissing a supernatural entity when we know virtually nothing about its details.

No wait. Don't. I've asked enough times, and your responses have been consistently evasive. That says enough.

I don't get what you mean by "details".
Are you saying that the colour and size of said teapot, is essential knowledge to have, in order to determine whether or not an orbiting teapot exists?
I am genuinely trying to grasp what you mean.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Of course I could. What does determining that something does exist have to do with determining that something doesn't exist?

If you can determine that a teapot exists, it is because you know what a teapot is .
We agree up to now. Right?

If you know what a teapot is, then you know that colour and size do not determine that it is teapot, and are therefore irrelevant details in determining whether it exists, or DOESN'T exist. We agree thus far. Right?

If you know what a teapot is, you know it is not designed (assuming you accept they are designed) for interstellar travel. Right?

If we explain to an unconnected tribe (to the modern world), what a teapot is, and what it is made of, and told them that it can fly, similar to a bird. I doubt they would believe you, unless you used some kind of magic.

So what details are necessary to determine that a flying teapot doesn't exist?

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you know what a teapot is, then you know that colour and size do not determine that it is teapot, and are therefore irrelevant details in determining whether it exists, or DOESN'T exist. We agree thus far. Right?

Perfect. That is precisely the point I've been making all along.

Any definition of God will start with the premise that it is supernatural - beyond the laws of nature. The moment you add that to your description of God, it matters not what particular flavor of God you prefer any more than it matters what colour the teapot might be.

My description of God: a "supernatural" entity.
No evidence of supernatural entities, therefore unlikely to exist. I also don't believe there is any substance to luck, fate or astrology, to name a few other supernatural concepts.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Perfect. That is precisely the point I've been making all along.

Any definition of God will start with the premise that it is supernatural - beyond the laws of nature. The moment you add that to your description of God, it matters not what particular flavor of God you prefer any more than it matters what colour the teapot might be.

You don't know the extent of the laws of nature, so you're not in a position to comment on 'beyond the laws of nature'. It is however, beyond the limitations of modern science to detect.

My description of God: a "supernatural" entity.
No evidence of supernatural entities, therefore unlikely to exist. I also don't believe there is any substance to luck, fate or astrology, to name a few other supernatural concepts.

IOW whatever can be (modern) scientifically verified, is all that can be said to exist. Anything that can be verified has to be termed natural. Hence you get a serpent eating it's own tail scenario, ergo, God can never exist, by default.

jan.