How God could prove that He is the creator?

[ericc]

There could be an imposter who claim that s/he is God. How could we know the truth?

That’s why I added the last person standing qualifier.

Perhaps that’s why philosophers spent effort on defining what/who God is. Lay people try to figure out God’s claims and performances to distinguish who the real God is and who is credible and worthy of worship.

For me, he is Alpha and Omega. The real God would be Omega i.e. the last one standing. Ancient gods have come and gone for the most part. For other religions, it is not clear the position of gods in their worldview. Are they are needed, not necessary, various opinions are out there. The Abrahamic God remains standing. If the Abrahamic God is an imposter, the real God isn’t doing much to topple him or spoken out against him. Silence is a good indicator on how much a god cares for his worshipers. The Abrahamic God set up shop since day one with a string of Prophets to guide us and culminating with the sending of his Son to live with us and setting up his institution The Church to be with us forever. If the Church ever dies, yep, that would be an imposter god. It’s not gonna happen though because the Abrahamic God keeps his promises. I see no reason to disbelieve Him.

 

[STT]

That’s why I added the last person standing qualifier.

Perhaps that’s why philosophers spent effort on defining what/who God is. Lay people try to figure out God’s claims and performances to distinguish who the real God is and who is credible and worthy of worship.

For me, he is Alpha and Omega. The real God would be Omega i.e. the last one standing. Ancient gods have come and gone for the most part. For other religions, it is not clear the position of gods in their worldview. Are they are needed, not necessary, various opinions are out there. The Abrahamic God remains standing. If the Abrahamic God is an imposter, the real God isn’t doing much to topple him or spoken out against him. Silence is a good indicator on how much a god cares for his worshipers. The Abrahamic God set up shop since day one with a string of Prophets to guide us and culminating with the sending of his Son to live with us and setting up his institution The Church to be with us forever. If the Church ever dies, yep, that would be an imposter god. It’s not gonna happen though because the Abrahamic God keeps his promises. I see no reason to disbelieve Him.

I understand what you are saying but that does not provide an proof for that the person who claim to be God is God, the creator.

 

[ericc]

I understand what you are saying but that does not provide an proof for that the person who claim to be God is God, the creator.

What is acceptable proof to you? History tells us God came and lived with us and told us stuff. I accept that as historical proof. We couldn’t be there when the world was created because we are in it. But we also know existence needs a creator. And a highly intelligent and powerful being at that. Statistically we shouldn’t exist (yet), but we do. So it is reasonable to conclude that someone tweaked some buttons to make it happened. Some one claims he is the one and shown us supernatural powers over life and death, winds and water etc. In the absence of other challengers, a reasonable conclusion can be reached. And other miraculous performances of visions, healings, miracles over the past centuries reinforced that belief that this is somebody one can put one’s faith in.

So, what degree of proof were you expecting? God appearing in front of you proving he exist and performing supernatural acts for your eyewitnessing? Been there, done that 2000 yrs ago, sorry, no repeats. But you can visit me and get to know me if you wish.

 

[SalamKhan]

The fact that creation is done, is proof of His existence as creator. Both of creation’s existence and non existence are equally possible in the mind, as creation is contingent; that which came into existence after non existence but had the possibility of not coming into existence and has the possibility of ceasing into non existence. Allah is necessary, meaning His non existence is impossible in the mind. That creation would come into existence without a cause is impossible, for the possibility of its existence would be preponderant over the possibility of its non existence. That creation would come into existence without a necessary cause, would entail a infinite regression of contingent causes, which would be subject to time and thus, impossible, for it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present moment; and it is self evident that is not the case.

 

[STT]

What is acceptable proof to you? History tells us God came and lived with us and told us stuff. I accept that as historical proof. We couldn’t be there when the world was created because we are in it. But we also know existence needs a creator. And a highly intelligent and powerful being at that. Statistically we shouldn’t exist (yet), but we do. So it is reasonable to conclude that someone tweaked some buttons to make it happened. Some one claims he is the one and shown us supernatural powers over life and death, winds and water etc. In the absence of other challengers, a reasonable conclusion can be reached. And other miraculous performances of visions, healings, miracles over the past centuries reinforced that belief that this is somebody one can put one’s faith in.

So, what degree of proof were you expecting? God appearing in front of you proving he exist and performing supernatural acts for your eyewitnessing? Been there, done that 2000 yrs ago, sorry, no repeats. But you can visit me and get to know me if you wish.

I accept supernatural act of creation as a proof. All supernatural acts performed 2000 years ago cannot be considered a proof of being God.

 

[STT]

The fact that creation is done, is proof of His existence as creator.

Have you witness the act of creation? How do you know that the creation is done?

Both of creation’s existence and non existence are equally possible in the mind, as creation is contingent; that which came into existence after non existence but had the possibility of not coming into existence and has the possibility of ceasing into non existence.

These are all speculations. What is your proof that the universe is contingent?

Allah is necessary, meaning His non existence is impossible in the mind.

Why He is necessary?

That creation would come into existence without a cause is impossible, for the possibility of its existence would be preponderant over the possibility of its non existence.

You can think of the universe that has been existing since beginning.

That creation would come into existence without a necessary cause, would entail a infinite regression of contingent causes, which would be subject to time and thus, impossible, for it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present moment; and it is self evident that is not the case.

Just think that beginning has no cause. That is feasible since there is no point before beginning. In fact the act of creating something out of noting leads to infinite regress considering the fact that time is a part of universe.

 

[SalamKhan]

Have you witness the act of creation? How do you know that the creation is done?

It has already been demonstrated that it is rationally impossible for the creation to come into existence without a cause.

These are all speculations. What is your proof that the universe is contingent?

Theworldis obviously composed of many components each of which must have a beginning. To see this, consider the fact that the world is constantly changing, these components move, grow, die, etc. Everything that changes must have a beginning.In order to prove that the world is necessary and not contingent, you must first prove that it is immutable.

Why He is necessary?

Because a contingent cause leads to infinite regression, which is impossible.

Just think that beginning has no cause. That is feasible since there is no point before beginning. In fact the act of creating something out of noting leads to infinite regress considering the fact that time is a part of universe.

The judgment of the intellect concerning both the existence and non- existence of the world are equal, as both are merely possible(not true by necessity).The existence ofthe world thus clearly indicates that there absolutely must be something (notinherentinit) that has power allowingit to overrideits non-existence. Otherwise one would be saying that one possibility overrode the other without a reason, and that is absurd.

Time is part of creation, which Allah is not subject to. A necessary cause does not lead to infinite regression.

 

[STT]

It has already been demonstrated that it is rationally impossible for the creation to come into existence without a cause.

You cannot possibly prove that. Think of a universe in which its first point just exist at the beginning. The rest of point after beginning are caused by points before. This is an counter-example of a universe which doesn’t need a first cause to exist.

Theworldis obviously composed of many components each of which must have a beginning. To see this, consider the fact that the world is constantly changing, these components move, grow, die, etc. Everything that changes must have a beginning.In order to prove that the world is necessary and not contingent, you must first prove that it is immutable.

Your observation cannot be generalized to everything (everything which changes has a beginning). Consider the example of universe provided in the previous comment.

Because a contingent cause leads to infinite regression, which is impossible.

Why universe is contingent?

The judgment of the intellect concerning both the existence and non- existence of the world are equal, as both are merely possible(not true by necessity).

The universe could have a cause or not (the example of universe given in the first comment).

The existence ofthe world thus clearly indicates that there absolutely must be something (notinherentinit) that has power allowingit to overrideits non-existence. Otherwise one would be saying that one possibility overrode the other without a reason, and that is absurd.

I cannot follow you here. Could you please elaborate?

Time is part of creation, which Allah is not subject to. A necessary cause does not lead to infinite regression.

That is the problem. Any act has a before and after therefore you need time in order perform it. How God could perform the act of creation knowing that any act is subjected to time and time is an element of universe?

 

[SalamKhan]

Why universe is contingent?

I cannot follow you here. Could you please elaborate?

That is the problem. Any act has a before and after therefore you need time in order perform it. How God could perform the act of creation knowing that any act is subjected to time and time is an element of universe?

You admit that the world has a beginning, yet ask how the world is contingent? You might want to see my explanation of what contingency is a couple of posts earlier. You should make sure you know what you’re talking about before posting in the Philosophy section, as these are philosophical terms I am using.

So your objections are based on you not understanding my points. Perhaps you shouldn’t rush to reply, and instead take your time to read, and contemplate carefully what I post. If the world came into existence without a cause, the possibility of its existence is greater to the possibility of its non existence for no reason, which is absurd. Prior to its existence it was obviously non existent, and therefore could not have had any control in the the possibility of its existence, so it is rationally impossible for the possibility of its existence to be greater than the possibility of its non existence for no reason.

Time is movement; this is evident from the fact that we derive our own time from the movements of the celestial bodies. Beginning, middle, and end are all moments in time. Allah is not subject to movement as He is immutable and is not a substance. Prior to the existence of the creation, there was no movement and thus no time, therefore no moments in time; thus, Allah had no beginning.

 

[STT]

You admit that the world has a beginning, yet ask how the world is contingent? You might want to see my explanation of what contingency is a couple of posts earlier. You should make sure you know what you’re talking about before posting in the Philosophy section, as these are philosophical terms I am using.

Lets use initial point instead of beginning.

So your objections are based on you not understanding my points. Perhaps you shouldn’t rush to reply, and instead take your time to read, and contemplate carefully what I post. If the world came into existence without a cause, the possibility of its existence is greater to the possibility of its non existence for no reason, which is absurd. Prior to its existence it was obviously non existent, and therefore could not have had any control in the the possibility of its existence, so it is rationally impossible for the possibility of its existence to be greater than the possibility of its non existence for no reason.

We could have my model: A universe with an initial point.

 

[SalamKhan]

Lets use initial point instead of beginning.

We could have my model: A universe with an initial point.

Initial means first, which would still entail a beginning for contingencies.

 

[STT]

Initial means first, which would still entail a beginning for contingencies.

Nah. You are just use to such kind of thinking.

 

[ericc]

I accept supernatural act of creation as a proof. All supernatural acts performed 2000 years ago cannot be considered a proof of being God.

Says who? Any supernatural acts done today can be be dismissed 2000 years from today by this reckoning too. What is deemed proof today may be viewed as non-proof tomorrow. So this method of reckoning proof won’t work permanently. Raising from the dead is a supernatural act as is instantaneous healing and exorcism. Even today the Church still perform exorcisms. (Read Fr Amorth “An Exorcist Tells His Story” for an insight on how they work. For those who have witnessed such acts can not fail to recognise the existence of the Devil and corollary God. As such, these are personal problems and not meant for public viewing and certain risks do exist for bystanders.) And there are medical miracles that stump scientific explanations. Kicking the can further down the road via the explanation “science will explain it in the future” is as good as disbelieving in perpetuity.

Those for have witnessed it wrote about it as is the norm for those times. Similarly, we use video cam and cameras for our times. And who knows what methods 2000 yrs from now. An eyewitness in ancient times that inscribed their experience in rock is the equivalent of someone who wrote it down in their diary yesterday/blog today.

Even if you are an eyewitness of a supernatural act and you become a believer, your skeptical buddies will NOT be convinced by YOUR accounts. Hence proving supernatural acts is a futile exercise in converting non-believers. However there are some indicators that those non-believers after experiencing a Near Death Experience do end up believing there is something out there at the very least. But all these require personal experiences and not scientific proofing. Very often these situations are not suitable for labwork nor peer review.

 

[STT]

Says who? Any supernatural acts done today can be be dismissed 2000 years from today by this reckoning too. What is deemed proof today may be viewed as non-proof tomorrow. So this method of reckoning proof won’t work permanently. Raising from the dead is a supernatural act as is instantaneous healing and exorcism. Even today the Church still perform exorcisms. (Read Fr Amorth “An Exorcist Tells His Story” for an insight on how they work. For those who have witnessed such acts can not fail to recognise the existence of the Devil and corollary God. As such, these are personal problems and not meant for public viewing and certain risks do exist for bystanders.) And there are medical miracles that stump scientific explanations. Kicking the can further down the road via the explanation “science will explain it in the future” is as good as disbelieving in perpetuity.

Those for have witnessed it wrote about it as is the norm for those times. Similarly, we use video cam and cameras for our times. And who knows what methods 2000 yrs from now. An eyewitness in ancient times that inscribed their experience in rock is the equivalent of someone who wrote it down in their diary yesterday/blog today.

Even if you are an eyewitness of a supernatural act and you become a believer, your skeptical buddies will NOT be convinced by YOUR accounts. Hence proving supernatural acts is a futile exercise in converting non-believers. However there are some indicators that those non-believers after experiencing a Near Death Experience do end up believing there is something out there at the very least. But all these require personal experiences and not scientific proofing. Very often these situations are not suitable for labwork nor peer review.

To me that act of creation by far is different from miracles performed in the past. You need to create in order to show that you are God.

 

[ericc]

To me that act of creation by far is different from miracles performed in the past. You need to create in order to show that you are God.

Of course, you will not be able to witness it if you are in that creation. But He did demonstrate minor creation acts of multiplying fish/loaves, create wine from water. In any case, what do you have in mind the sort of proof you need to satisfy your requirement? Is it something feasible?

 

[STT]

Of course, you will not be able to witness it if you are in that creation. But He did demonstrate minor creation acts of multiplying fish/loaves, create wine from water. In any case, what do you have in mind the sort of proof you need to satisfy your requirement? Is it something feasible?

I think it is not feasible. Also miracle to me is different from creation.

 

[ericc]

I think it is not feasible. Also miracle to me is different from creation.

That’s a let down. If a proof is not feasible, then you would need to fallback to a surrogate proof. Creation of the world and miracles are indicators of his powers and capability. If you couldn’t think of a feasible proof that would meet your requirement, then I guess we won’t be able to know what you have in mind that would satisfy your requirement.

 

[STT]

That’s a let down. If a proof is not feasible, then you would need to fallback to a surrogate proof. Creation of the world and miracles are indicators of his powers and capability. If you couldn’t think of a feasible proof that would meet your requirement, then I guess we won’t be able to know what you have in mind that would satisfy your requirement.

How could you justify creation if it have already been done?

 

[ericc]

How could you justify creation if it have already been done?

Same as justifying existence. There is something instead of nothing. 14 billion years ago, there was nothing, no existence. Now there is something operating under laws of nature, and complex living creatures chemically coded that is aware of consciousness and insufficient time to get there by random forces.

You walked into a room and noticed that it was empty. Next day you walked in and you find a chair a chair there. That chair has an intelligent creator. The creator may choose to remain silent, anonymous or inform you that he is the creator. The Creator God did not choose to remain silent nor anonymous.

No one forcing you to believe that this Creator is bona fide. You may choose to believe that he is an imposter. But you can not deny that some Intelligent Being is responsible for the stuff you see around you. You may wish to deny that possibility and concoct even more unbelievable scenarios to exclude this Being. But having said that, were this Being be true, I’d want to be on the right side of this guy rather than known to be someone opposing him.

 

[STT]

Same as justifying existence. There is something instead of nothing. 14 billion years ago, there was nothing, no existence…

We don’t know that. One possible scenario is that there was something in the beginning, instead of nothing. We are just used to the fact that everything in this universe must have a cause for its beginning. Consider beginning as an exception.