Disproving God? part1

[Detales]

I’m just saying, Sailor, that if I’m someone who is not an atheist and I perceive your responses to an atheist as exceptionally weak, perhaps your stance could use some adjustment. In other words, what good is your own faith if all you can come up with in its defense are vagueness and silliness?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Nope.

I no longer argue with the militant atheists. I can prove nothing to them or to you. Only God can.

 

[Detales]

QED

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Merry Christmas to you , and to all those oh-so-clever atheists.

 

[Detales]

Yes, and happy Solistice to you. The Sun King has arisen again from His three days in the grave!

 

[Louemma]

I’m just saying, Sailor, that if I’m someone who is not an atheist and I perceive your responses to an atheist as exceptionally weak, perhaps your stance could use some adjustment. In other words, what good is your own faith if all you can come up with in its defense are vagueness and silliness?

You seem to have all the answers or so it seems
Care to give a hand to the poor atheists that is lacking the foundational stone of the existences of God,that being Faith?
However after reading some of your post you seem to have issues of your own,so perhaps you shouldn’t be trying to help one who is lacking faith.The blind leading the blind will result in you both being lost,together.Also if you believe the Christian God is a figment of the imagination then I must ask"Do you have a personal relationship with the Lord?Because in John 14 Jesus plainly says that if you know him you know the Father.
If you think the Christian God is imaginative then you need to be searching for him to and like I told Lucy go learn of Jesus and you’ll find the Father.Strange you call Jesus a sun king because if you study Greek Mythology Sun God is very Pagan.Jesus is King of it all

 

[Detales]

Thanks, Louemma, for your concern. And no, I don’t have all that answers. and it was Catholics of faith on here that I was trying to help by pointing that such lame answers as were posted were not only of little use, but probably helped confirm the atheist in their ways. And I have studied of Jesus for some 55 years now, even winning prizes in Catholic theology, and am more convinced of my position than ever, again thanks to the help of folks like yourself an thorough research. And though I am not a Sun worshiper myself, Sun worship is where Catholicism originates, in case you haven’t read. The Church just can’t afford to admit what it knows about that. And if you look closely enough, you might find where The Sun and the Son coincide in symbolism. But thank you again for your kind thoughts.

 

[Louemma]

Thanks, Louemma, for your concern. And no, I don’t have all that answers. and it was Catholics of faith on here that I was trying to help by pointing that such lame answers as were posted were not only of little use, but probably helped confirm the atheist in their ways. And I have studied of Jesus for some 55 years now, even winning prizes in Catholic theology, and am more convinced of my position than ever, again thanks to the help of folks like yourself an thorough research. And though I am not a Sun worshiper myself, Sun worship is where Catholicism originates, in case you haven’t read. The Church just can’t afford to admit what it knows about that. And if you look closely enough, you might find where The Sun and the Son coincide in symbolism. But thank you again for your kind thoughts.

The Athestist can blame no one but themselves when they choose not to believe in God.That blame can not be laid on any one’s doorstep but the one who lives in disbelief, thinking that they exist for no reason at all.
The problem with this particular atheists that I see from her post is not only does she not believe in God,she makes it very clear that she don’t like God either.That is because she don’t know him and how do you show someone something they don’t believe exists but at the same time they don’t like what it is they think don’t exists.Pretty messed up,wouldn’t you say?
Also let me add that in the years of your study on Jesus,how do you feel comfortable with the fact you , instead of telling people like Lucy how to find a break through in her disbelief,you agree with an atheists by you yourself claiming that the Christian God is only a figment of one’s imagination?
Years and years of Bible and prizes won are only works,to place a stumbling block in the way to spreading the good news to a lost person and showing them the way to the Father by way of the son is the most important work that a child of God could do for the Father.
You claim to know Jesus but Jesus plainly says in John 14 that if you know him,you know the Father.Here you claim to know the Lord but yet you turn around and say something such as The Christian God is Imaginative and you say this in the defense of an Athestist And turn around and blame others for the reason the Athestist is in disbelief.

 

[exoflare]

I’m just saying, Sailor, that if I’m someone who is not an atheist and I perceive your responses to an atheist as exceptionally weak, perhaps your stance could use some adjustment. In other words, what good is your own faith if all you can come up with in its defense are vagueness and silliness?

A silly answer for a silly question. (though even that is a bit too much effort IMO) If the OP were open to civil debate, that would be one thing, but wasting your time coming up with serious answers for a troll who doesn’t care either way is just pointless.

 

[TinaG]

The OP ought to read fightagainstsatan.com/Documents/docterman.html.

Lucy’s stuff is cut and paste from positiveatheism.org/writ/imposs.htm.

This was more of a parrot than a troll.

-Tina

 

[Logos385]

First of all, I understand what Lucy Fur is saying from the OP. Maybe not agree, but much of the underlying logical processes have not escaped my view before. Some are valid, some close to valid, and some slightly misleading. But some combination of that, the world, and honestly my life cause me to not believe.

Moving on however…

There is a very simple way to prove God’s existence (maybe not the biblical version).

I hope so : ).

1. We are here, therefore we must have been created, following this logic we take it back to the beginning of creation, and following it back we come to this question, if God created everything what created God, effect must have cause. We take this back and back until our heads get dizzy and we say forget about it. So we’ve established that all things must have a creator or this law must be broken.

I really think you failed to establish this law… and it’s not in any scientific literature.

So lets go back to the beginning of time(and before) There is nothing absolute nothing. There is only one nothing since 2 nothing are both something.

If 2 “nothings” are both somethings, then wouldn’t it follow that one “nothing” was a something? Thus there is no nothing according to your statement. I feel you need to revise some.

Now since we are here on earth, we can assume that we were created, and that if the beginning of the universe was nothing, that nothing had to be a some sort of creating force to get us from that nothingness to where we are today.

Why does being here on Earth assume a creation? The law of Conservation of Massenergy, in fact, would dictate the opposite. That massenergy in some form has always existed. Hence, the Big Bang was the creation of our specific SpaceTime, utilizing vacuum energy (Zero Point Energy) to create a string theorist’s unseeable fluctuation. This says nothing about before the Big Bang, but if the energy/mass in our Universe came from the fluctuation and subsequent conversation of pure energy to mass, creating the spacetime we experience, your assumption of creator is completely unnecessary.

Hence it don’t matter what we think since we are here we must have been created(or there wouldn’t be anything) and we must have been a creator.

I disagree, as seen above.

1. God Created himself:
   We can assume that all things were created by God. God created many complex things. We can assume that God is very knowledgeable, hence his creations. Now we need to figure out how he came upon this knowledge. ether:
2. He already had it or
3. He acquired it

I will ignore this section because of my above objections.

Oh and Merry Christmas

You too! Love for all : ).

PS. I promise I am not here to flame or hate, I just love discussion. Especially civil ones. Thanks, and cheers!

 

[TinaG]

See this relevant thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=404031

-Tina

 

[I_Seek_2]

First of all, I understand what Lucy Fur is saying from the OP. Maybe not agree, but much of the underlying logical processes have not escaped my view before. Some are valid, some close to valid, and some slightly misleading. But some combination of that, the world, and honestly my life cause me to not believe.

Moving on however…

I hope so : ).
I really think you failed to establish this law… and it’s not in any scientific literature. If 2 “nothings” are both somethings, then wouldn’t it follow that one “nothing” was a something? Thus there is no nothing according to your statement. I feel you need to revise some. Why does being here on Earth assume a creation? The law of Conservation of Massenergy, in fact, would dictate the opposite. That massenergy in some form has always existed. Hence, the Big Bang was the creation of our specific SpaceTime, utilizing vacuum energy (Zero Point Energy) to create a string theorist’s unseeable fluctuation. This says nothing about before the Big Bang, but if the energy/mass in our Universe came from the fluctuation and subsequent conversation of pure energy to mass, creating the spacetime we experience, your assumption of creator is completely unnecessary. I disagree, as seen above.

I will ignore this section because of my above objections.

You too! Love for all : ).

PS. I promise I am not here to flame or hate, I just love discussion. Especially civil ones. Thanks, and cheers!

You’ll have to run that by me one more time cuz that was way over my head. :hypno:

 

[Logos385]

You’ll have to run that by me one more time cuz that was way over my head. :hypno:

Haha, I’m sure I was just unclear.

I’ll lay this out in a more sensible format.

1.) The Law of Conservation of Massenergy is accurate. This means that massenergy cannot be created or destroyed.

2.) Mass and Energy are simply different expressions of the same substance (hence massenergy). The conversion is shown in the famous equation e=mc^2.

3.) If massenergy cannot be created or destroyed, it logically follows that it was never created and will never be destroyed.

4.) Following that, massenergy has always existed in some form. Since the total amount of massenergy can never change, the only thing that can change is what form it takes. Whether, at any point in cosmological history, the Universe is filled with mass and energy (as we see today), just mass, or just energy.

5.) Energy does not require a medium in which to exist, while mass does. The medium required by mass is spacetime (the 3 Dimensions we observe +time).

6.) Since energy requires no medium in which to travel, and can exist in a spaceless state (absolutely impossible to imagine), it is possible (and necessary due to the law of Conservation of Massenergy) that energy existed before our spacetime did.

7.) Our specific spacetime, not our Universe, was created at the Big Bang.

8.) The question: what came before the Big Bang? Answer: Energy, equal to the total combined amount contained in all of the mass and energy of the Universe we see, independent of nonexistent space.

Make more sense now? : ).

 

[StrawberryJam]

My heart goes out to you Detales.

I’m not sure you can do much about this millitantism. Love them, as you do.

Have a Happy Holy Day Detales.

One day, I may believe. In the meantime, I need to thank many who have helped me along the search I have been on. You were one of the first I can really remember that did of those who believe.

See the comments for what they are, and from who they are from.

Be at peace knowing it is what it is.

Don’t let them beat you up.

 

[StrawberryJam]

A silly answer for a silly question. (though even that is a bit too much effort IMO) If the OP were open to civil debate, that would be one thing, but wasting your time coming up with serious answers for a troll who doesn’t care either way is just pointless.

Let the man decide who is worth HIS time, and who is not.

You can’t decide these things. You can’t rule his mind or thoughts. Nor can you ignore things by simply saying they are “silly” and thinking that is an adult response to any kind of question.

 

[exoflare]

Let the man decide who is worth HIS time, and who is not.

I guess you forgot to pull out that line a couple of posts back, when Detales was lecturing Sailor Kenshin for not making enough effort to reach out to a troll.

 

[I_Seek_2]

Haha, I’m sure I was just unclear.

I’ll lay this out in a more sensible format.

1.) The Law of Conservation of Massenergy is accurate. This means that massenergy cannot be created or destroyed.

2.) Mass and Energy are simply different expressions of the same substance (hence massenergy). The conversion is shown in the famous equation e=mc^2.

3.) If massenergy cannot be created or destroyed, it logically follows that it was never created and will never be destroyed.

4.) Following that, massenergy has always existed in some form. Since the total amount of massenergy can never change, the only thing that can change is what form it takes. Whether, at any point in cosmological history, the Universe is filled with mass and energy (as we see today), just mass, or just energy.

5.) Energy does not require a medium in which to exist, while mass does. The medium required by mass is spacetime (the 3 Dimensions we observe +time).

6.) Since energy requires no medium in which to travel, and can exist in a spaceless state (absolutely impossible to imagine), it is possible (and necessary due to the law of Conservation of Massenergy) that energy existed before our spacetime did.

7.) Our specific spacetime, not our Universe, was created at the Big Bang.

8.) The question: what came before the Big Bang? Answer: Energy, equal to the total combined amount contained in all of the mass and energy of the Universe we see, independent of nonexistent space.

Make more sense now? : ).

Much better.
But it begs the question where did the energy come from?

 

[Drawmack]

What did God do during that eternity before he created everything?

This entire argument rests on time existing before the Universe was created. Prior to the universe there is no time and thus there is no before in the sense that you are trying to use it here.

If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete–it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be.

This is simply not true. When you eat is it because you are seeking the perfect meal? When you watch TV is it because you are looking for the perfect show. This is another false assumption.

If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do.

You have offered no proof that perfection is free from desire. Therefore this is a completely baseless assumption and until such a time as you offer proof for the fact that perfection is free from desire your argument is resting on thin air.

A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.

Your premises are flawed because they are not proven or even argued for they are simply stated as fact. Therefore there is no reason to accept your conclusion.

 

[I_Seek_2]

This entire argument rests on time existing before the Universe was created. Prior to the universe there is no time and thus there is no before in the sense that you are trying to use it here.

And there is a huge debate topic in it self

This is simply not true. When you eat is it because you are seeking the perfect meal? When you watch TV is it because you are looking for the perfect show. This is another false assumption.

Your comparison is human to food, human to TV. He comparing God to creation, in order for you comparison to be good God would have to be equal to Humans in some way, their needs perhaps, but since God has no needs, as he is perfect, there can be no comparison. My thoughts are that perfection itself interferes with free well. Does God have free will? If, so can he make mistakes; What is wrong with God making mistakes: 1. its how knowledge is gained 2. If he does make mistakes then he will do the human thing and try again, the human race has been highly successful with this formula.

You have offered no proof that perfection is free from desire. Therefore this is a completely baseless assumption and until such a time as you offer proof for the fact that perfection is free from desire your argument is resting on thin air.

If your perfect the way you are then why would you seek anything, need anything. The meaning of perfection, is that nothing is wrong with you, why would you do anything at all, you have no need to you are Perfect

Your premises are flawed because they are not proven or even argued for they are simply stated as fact. Therefore there is no reason to accept your conclusion.