My proof for God. Critiques please

[larkin31]

First of all, many proofs have been presented, but there are 11 pages of it. Have you read all 11 pages up to this point?

Secondly, I am not accusing you of being intellectually dishonest. I’m saying that if you’re honest with yourself you’ll find God. He’s suprisingly easy to find

I lost my faith.

ergo?

 

[coolduude]

I lost my faith.

ergo?

Ergo something is flawed somewhere in your thinking. God is really there. You just have to know how to find him

 

[larkin31]

All scientists have beliefs; they have beliefs about how we should conduct our lives. They have beliefs about what a good life would consist of. They have a belief about what ultimate reality consists of. They have beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. They believe that other minds exist. Some believe in God. A rational scientist would perceive science as revealing one aspect of reality alone and would not perceive the scientific principle as limiting them in developing an all encompassing rational inferential philosophy about the other aspects of life that are evident to us but cannot be touched by the scientific method.

The problem with you is that you present science as an all embracing measure of truth, outside of which no belief can be rationally or reasonably held or proven; but this contradicts the fact that we hold many beliefs that cannot be validated by science, and we perceive our selves as legitimately holding these beliefs.

No one claims that science can measure everything. That is absurd. There is much that science easily and readily concedes that it does not know. But we do challenge those who say they have “proof” or “evidence” because that is the language of logic and empiricism.

 

[curtish1947]

Hi.
Good Question.
You wrote:Before I show my proof for God, I just want to say that I’m building on the Kalam argument. This isn’t an original argument, just my expansion on a pre-existent one.

1. The past is finite
2. There was a point when the universe did not exist
3. Something had to create the universe
4. That something is God

Therefore,
5) God exists.

---

Premise 1). The past is finite.
Support: a) an actual infinite cannot be created by succesive addition (add one, add one, add one, etc.)
b) the past was created by succesive addition of events. Take, for example, your birth. At one time, it was in the future (i.e., when you were concieved). At the moment of your birth, it was in the present. Today, it’s in the past. So, the past was created by sucessive addition of events
c) Therefore, the past is finite.

Premise 2). There was a point when the universe did not exist.
Support: Based on the above proof (finitude of the past) there was a point when the universe did not exist. This conclusion is only logical once one accepts that the past had a definite beginning, and is therefore not infinite. There was a point when there was no existence then there was. Creation ex nihilo (sp.) if you will.

Premise 3). Something had to create the universe.
Support: Again, this is a logical conclusion once the finitude of the past is accepted. The universe could not have created itself if there was nothing there in the first place. Therefore, there must have been an outside force to create the universe. How am I doing so far?

Premise 4). That something is God.
Support: What else could it be? I know the support is lacking some on this premise, but I really don’t know how to formulate support. Once objections are raised, however, I’ll show better support. I just seem to be at a loss right now.

Premise 5). Therefore, God exists.
Support: After examining (sp.) the other 4 premises, this is a logical conclusion that can be drawn.

So, what are some objections and/or critques for this proof? I’m all ears!

---

“In hoc signo vinces”- “in this sign, you shall conquer”

---

I’ll start here.​

It seems to me a proof requires proof of every word and concept. No, not everyone has to be able to prove an item, as is sometimes stated. Very few people, as an example, could prove Einstein’s Theory’s at first. Very few people can prove them even now.​

Premise 1). The past is finite.
((((Really? By what definition of past can you state this fact as a proven fact.?)))

Support: a) an actual infinite cannot be created by succesive addition (add one, add one, add one, etc.)
(((( Really? By what definition of infinite can you state this as true?))))

b) the past was created by succesive addition of events. Take, for example, your birth. At one time, it was in the future (i.e., when you were concieved). At the moment of your birth, it was in the present. Today, it’s in the past. So, the past was created by sucessive addition of events
(((( Really. How do you know and can prove the concept of successive, except in the human frame of reference, and then even there it might fall apart.))))

c) Therefore, the past is finite.
( Ah! Is your definition of past only what is recorded, like birth?)

---

All proofs are things that to us, cannot be proven wrong by any of us, so far.
Most proofs are useful and indeed solve many issues, when the results are used.
If relative, could be applied to the word proof, then relative proof is what I think, you are
asking, because were it otherwise you would have to have proof of you presented sources and they would have to be proven right also.

The Kalam seems to have unsupported statements presented as facts. (Facts are those things which cannot be proven wrong by us, either in use (positive), or in what we observe (negative).) His theory you stated is:

1. The past is finite
2. There was a point when the universe did not exist
3. Something had to create the universe
4. That something is God

Therefore,
5) God exists.
ON point 1) How do you know the past is finite, and is it true?
point 2) How do you know the universe did not always exist? Can you prove it?
point 3) How do you know the universe was created?
point 4) Without assumptions (scientific ones) how do you know God is, or God did this?

There is the concept (mine) of correlation to what is. It starts from the idea of how do you know anything, first that is useful, second that is obvious, and then on to the infinities of thought that accurize our discussions and knowlege (Philosophy). In the world we use all concepts of what is.
There is a way to know what is in the world of God, but really, only by God letting you know if something is real or not. (There is the total Book ((Bible)) basis for this, and the total proofs of what happens after God, when He so chooses, let an individual know what is true about something. All other items we know in the world are relatively true (If I may be allowed to use that concept now.).
Does that help or not???

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No one claims that science can measure everything. That is absurd. There is much that science easily and readily concedes that it does not know. But we do challenge those who say they have “proof” or “evidence” because that is the language of logic and empiricism.

Please, do not put words in my mouth. I am not talking about real scientists who respect the limitations of the scientific method. I am talking about the atheists that come on this forum thinking they know what science is. They continually inflate the epistemological virtues of science, disguise their philosophical presumptions with the word science, and they ignore that there are other means by which we can obtain true knowledge.

Depending on what you mean by “empirical”, the “empirical method” is a principle based upon logical reasoning which is designed to ignore the question of purpose in order to understand “natural events” alone. I agree with this method so long as it remains within its proper sphere of knowledge. Valid proofs for Gods existence is based on metaphysical logic, which is the study of being as being (the act of being) rather than physical nature in its particularity (the particular powers and kinds of beings of which physical nature is comprised - the object of science).

 

[larkin31]

Please, do not put words in my mouth. I am not talking about real scientists who respect the limitations of the scientific method. I am talking about the atheists that come on this forum thinking they know what science is. They continually inflate the epistemological virtues of science, disguise their philosophical presumptions with the word science, and they ignore that there are other means by which we can obtain true knowledge. Who did all this? I sure did not.

Depending on what you mean by “empirical”, the “empirical method” is a principle based upon logical reasoning which is designed to ignore the question of purpose in order to understand “natural events” alone.

There has never been a valid metaphysical proof of the existence of a god, especially not the Judeo-Christian “God” in particular. Every one I have ever seen is based on at least one false premise.

 

[curtish1947]

Hi, (This will be unedited, and done in one pass or writing.)
While I await your thoughts. I’ll dream that the post did help. I’ll dream that my intentions, of showing the possible flaws of unproven or erroneous thoughts being presented as facts and then commented upon have no merit,without, the possible problem of your emotions thinking this is anything but a intellectual discussion.
Does God exist. Yes. How do I know this. He showed Himself to me, in actions, in my own life and in others. Some people I know actually have amazing experiences, but they are usually not shared, as that is not the usual purpose of God revealing himself to you or me or to anybody. When it is, his purpose to reveal something to everybody, then items like Abraham’s conversation is written down. Modern day equivalents are Faustina, Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe.
Is my story beyond the pale, per se? It fits the normal, way God does things as found in the Bible.
For me, God really did what I am about to say, yet when I was doing it, I felt it was all due to my wishes. It does involve a proof. The timing was such, that at the time working in Semiconductor Production as a research technician, I was not allowed to make a mistake, in honesty, or in logic.
So, when two people were threatened by what turned out to be later revealed as “Wolves in Sheeps Clothing”, I had to find out if their outrageous assertions were perhaps true. They claimed to be following the Bible. I a wandering Nomad of sorts, originally Baptized a Roman Catholic, knew perhaps nothing of the Bible, and did not know if God was Real. The quest though was to find if the Bible was real, and all I had was a Science Background to do this with.
First, all scientific work that I know of starts with a study, and then to understand something a question is asked and then I and everyone else try to prove that question wrong. That simple item, and the later use of controlled experiements either proving something wrong or supporting something is true is the core of science, except.
The exception is Rogues in Science do not limit their realm of study and proofs to only the material world. (That which we can see feel or touch.) Einstein, I feel, and think, also,
knew enough of God to use that information in at the very least his idea of photon synchronization, as what must be, rather than any calculations such as the diameter of an atom or electron and the known characteristics of a photon. He simply said, after I think knowing something of God, what way would God do this, for His (God’s) reasons.
He then said and we later proved, without the Laser’s you see now everywhere in existence then, that photons would come out of atoms in the same way another photon entered a atom. They would come out together.
In the exception, when God is helping us, I and others hide this fact. We hide that the reason we know or do or prove something is because, God helps us, or lets us know the way He did, or would do something. We, all of us, hide this to avoid the new heresy.
The new heresy is knowing or believing in God in Science.
I am a Science heretic, yet, I could not prove scientifically that The Bible was wrong. I spent 12 years or so on this, in secret. (A condition for controlled experiments.) When I stumbled on a point, I went for help. I calibrated everything. I even calibrated me, for accuracy. Soon, (11 years later) I had two things that were possibly wrong. I presented my findings to the world at large (Everyone who would listen). Eventually, even those two items did not prove the Bible wrong.
I rested. (It is required for all of us after a big project is finished. It prevents burnout.)
I then started on a series of controlled experiments. The results of these would now, either prove the Bible wrong or correct or “I am unable to ascertain, that question, either because it is my inadequacies, or some other factor.”
I ran 5 controlled experiments, at first. (It was enough) I collected the results and compared the results looking for negative and positive anomolies. (There were no negative anomolies per se. There was a huge lack of variance in the results, which is impossible, normally. With the question being tested, it was not anomolous. The other anomoly was the presence and concept of “More out than was there to begin with.” The third anomoly was the presence of an almost seen presence, during each and every test done within the contolled experiment. The last anomoly can only be guessed at for others, yet since I cannot prove this what this anomoly was, it remains a mystery and an ‘also included item’ but was not used in the results.)
So, in detail, after the first controlled experiment, I knew the Bible is Real. For scientific rigor only, I did the other 4 controlled experiments. When after a few years I had completed all 5 experiments I was done, by the rigors of my professions. I collected the data. It did converge, as it said when there is a poitive result. The Bible is Real was the result.
Now, what I had is The Bible is Real (It is right where it says it is right. It is wrong where it says it is wrong.)
If you want to try this proof. I’ll give you more details on how to do it, if we can touch bases, yet it is not I but God that calls anyone to Himself, and therefore, if you are called, He will provide the proof.

 

[curtish1947]

Oop!
I took so long that I didn’t read your post. Please, you and I seem to have the same truths. I will not ever put words in your mouth and any possible ways that I might seem to be doing this are wrong and unintentional.
I am impressed and have found your observations to be quite the same as mine. It seems as though truth is not understood by many peole like those.

 

[In_Spiration]

There has never been a valid metaphysical proof of the existence of a god, especially not the Judeo-Christian “God” in particular. Every one I have ever seen is based on at least one false premise.

What are your criteria for proof and what are your standards for an attempt’s refutation? I’ve read arguments for the existence of God that employ very basic and reasonable premises and are valid in form, but they would certainly not instantly, often ever, convert an atheist to theism after a full read.

Does that even suggest that the argument fails as a proof? If not, the one who rejects the argument’s conclusion presumably ought to be able to offer a counter-argument that shows (1) that one or more term is ambiguous, (2) that a conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises given, and/or (3) that one of the premises is – hopefully false on the basis of argumentative proof. You seem to claim (3), so my question is: Are you sure you hold your own counter-argument to the same standards of proof, and perhaps compulsion, to which you hold the original demonstration? How is the dispute resolved if a lot of folks don’t find your counter-argument compelling?

 

[In_Spiration]

For the record, I don’t find the original post’s argument ultimately compelling or demonstrative of God’s existence.

 

[greylorn]

Can you tell us what it means?

I could, if I wanted to waste a lot of time. You’ve never understood anything I’ve written, as best I can determine.

 

[larkin31]

What are your criteria for proof and what are your standards for an attempt’s refutation? I’ve read arguments for the existence of God that employ very basic and reasonable premises and are valid in form, but they would certainly not instantly, often ever, convert an atheist to theism after a full read.

Does that even suggest that the argument fails as a proof? If not, the one who rejects the argument’s conclusion presumably ought to be able to offer a counter-argument that shows (1) that one or more term is ambiguous, (2) that a conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises given, and/or (3) that one of the premises is – hopefully false on the basis of argumentative proof. You seem to claim (3), so my question is: Are you sure you hold your own counter-argument to the same standards of proof, and perhaps compulsion, to which you hold the original demonstration? How is the dispute resolved if a lot of folks don’t find your counter-argument compelling?

conversion is not the issue. Logic has nothing to do with conversion.

Logical proofs are judged by clear, accurate, and true premises and then orderly conclusions from them.

I make NO counter argument about God. I NEVER argue that God does not exist. That is a futile logical argument as well. Logic has no bearing on the existence of the supernatural either way. None whatsoever.

 

[greylorn]

I lost my faith.

Would you be willing to explain why you lost your faith? It is none of my business, of course, but my curiosity is genuine, arising from your choice to mention this.

I promise not to use your statements to convince you to recreate your faith, but of course cannot speak for others, so if you prefer to reply via PM or email, fine.

I believe that this would be within the context of the thread, as counters to the OP.

 

[larkin31]

Would you be willing to explain why you lost your faith? It is none of my business, of course, but my curiosity is genuine, arising from your choice to mention this.

I promise not to use your statements to convince you to recreate your faith, but of course cannot speak for others, so if you prefer to reply via PM or email, fine.

I believe that this would be within the context of the thread, as counters to the OP.

The OP asked us to critique his proof. We have been doing that. His item #1 has several false assumptions in it and is far too vaguely defined, and his whole argument is based on the claim that the past cannot be infinite. This is a conclusion, not a premise, so he must first establish the thinking upon which this conclusion rests, and we have shown how that thinking contains false assumptions. There is no reason of any kind that energy could not have existed “forever.” All signs point to the fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Ever.

 

[larkin31]

I lost my faith over about a year’s time. Don’t know why, really. Just happened. No single event.

 

[Ed_CA]

One still requires a leap of faith to affirm that the various “proofs” of the existence of God make sense intellectually as well as in the heart. Judas was with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry, yet Judas lost faith in Jesus despite of the fact Judas witnessed all the miracles and heard all His teachings. Although we can carefully examine and study the “proofs of God’s existence”, we still require a leap of faith to go from the finite universe to an infinite eternal God. Atheists say there is nothing wrong with an infinite chain of events, such as an infinite progression of movement. The atheists whom I encountered repeatedly say “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. Quoting from either the Hebrew bible or the New Testament means nothing to atheists or agnostics.

 

[larkin31]

One still requires a leap of faith to affirm that the various “proofs” of the existence of God make sense intellectually as well as in the heart. Judas was with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry, yet Judas lost faith in Jesus despite of the fact Judas witnessed all the miracles and heard all His teachings. Although we can carefully examine and study the “proofs of God’s existence”, we still require a leap of faith to go from the finite universe to an infinite eternal God. Atheists say there is nothing wrong with an infinite chain of events, such as an infinite progression of movement. The atheists whom I encountered repeatedly say “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. Quoting from either the Hebrew bible or the New Testament means nothing to atheists or agnostics.

It’s not true that it “means nothing.” That is too absolute. But to simply say something is true because it is written in the Bible really just demonstrates this truism: “I believe because I believe.”

 

[Benedict_777]

-We can define God as “that perfect thought which nothing greater can be thought of”.

-Some nessecary attributes of something which nothing greater can be thought are that it must be All-Knowing, All-Good, All-Present, All-Powerful(For somthing to be greater than everything else it must not have a begginig as everything else does or else its not all-powerful)

-If existence is nessecary for perfection than we can conclude that this “perfect thought wich nothing greater can be thought of” must exist.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

One still requires a leap of faith to affirm that the various “proofs” of the existence of God make sense intellectually as well as in the heart. Judas was with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry, yet Judas lost faith in Jesus despite of the fact Judas witnessed all the miracles and heard all His teachings. Although we can carefully examine and study the “proofs of God’s existence”, we still require a leap of faith to go from the finite universe to an infinite eternal God. Atheists say there is nothing wrong with an infinite chain of events, such as an infinite progression of movement. The atheists whom I encountered repeatedly say “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. Quoting from either the Hebrew bible or the New Testament means nothing to atheists or agnostics.

And you don’t think that its an extraordinary claim to say that there is an infinite number of potential events in the past?

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey! It’s been a while, and I’ve kind of missed you. Thank you for the opportunity to re-engage and annoy you only half as much as I must have done during our last set of exchanges.

Greylorn, I’m touched! I’ve been keeping an eye on you, wondering how long you would escape from being banned but it seems the mods regard your humour as harmless! It is good to have some one to lighten the proceedings…

Why did God create human beings, which are pretty much a bunch of nitwits?

Does that include you?
Absolutely! It was from comparison of myself with admirable human beings that I came to realize my own unworthiness to exist.

Which of us does deserve to exist? What could we possibly do to merit the immense gift of life?

From that perspective, I asked why a God who had proven his ability to create truly wonderful and extraordinary people had also created me. I became rather upset with Him for doing so.

You are too modest, my dear fellow In any case it is trite but true that it takes all sorts to make a world…

Then I realized that His creation of me was an act of incompetence. This left me with the option to believe that the Creator of this magnificent universe was incompetent, or that He did not create me (and by inference, anyone else).

You are entitled to a low opinion of yourself - even though it is unmerited - but not of everyone else! Such an evaluation is a very poor reason for denying that the Creator created human beings. You seem to imply that He created everything except us…

Have you a better explanation for the First Law of Thermodynamics (constancy of energy) other than the usual, “God made it that way,” nonsense?
Do you have a superior explanation? You take it for granted that you owe your existence to such laws - a fact that should be taken into account in any adequate interpretation of reality if you are not to fall into the trap of deriving that which is purposeful from that which is purposeless…

Yes, I actually do have an explanation which I regard as effective, on the grounds that it allows no conflict between God and thermodynamics. I’ve expressed it several times on CAF but few seem capable of understanding the simple concept. It is outside of dogma. I don’t figure that there’s any point in reiterating. However, my book should be published by the end of summer. It will explain the relationship of the conservation of energy law to the nature and even the physical origin of the Creator, plus a few other minor ideas.

If the Creator had a physical origin there must have been another creative Power…

Whatever I am, in some parts of this universe, I’m dreadfully ordinary. Both my friends will agree. But I appear to have non-ordinary thought processes. I’ve made my living solving problems which others had written off as insoluble— but I did not know that when I set to work. Insofar as I can tell, this is not an ordinary ability, although it is certainly shared by many individuals— who are formally noted as being extraordinary.

But I’m not extraordinary. I’m simply, not ordinary. Except in basic things, brain driven aspects of life. I’ve loved and been heartbroken. I’ve failed and cried. I’ve done wrong, and some right that never fully compensates. I’m an imprinted Packer fan with a #4 jersey (ordinary) who thinks that Brett Favre did the right thing by doing something else (not quite so ordinary). I’m an Ice Bowl veteran, one of the few left alive (ordinary). The Packers’ last superbowl win came because of me (and an assistant) using psychic stuff (on the far edge of ordinary).

I don’t buy products sold with cartoons or tom-toms, I live alone in some mountains, cut my firewood, shoot some food, write books about how the universe came into existence. Others do these things, making them ordinary.

The planet has offered many examples of extraordinary individuals. Jesus Christ comes to mind. Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Feynman. Bach, Vivaldi, Beethoven, Brahms. You get the idea.

In terms of properties, that is quite simple. Instead of having a tendency to be imprinted with the first set of beliefs they are taught, like baby ducks, human beings might be born with enough intelligence to quickly see through nonsense and arrive at ideas that made sense.

A simpler variation which would be welcome. They might not be so programmable. They might buy beer that tastes good instead of beer which is advertised to make them think that if they drink it, they are more manly. Or whatever.

Non-ordinary is watching a stupid car commercial and thinking, “Is there a manufacturer who put its $10,000 into vehicle quality instead of the mindless ad I just watched?” Is there a voter who demands that a “None of the Above” option be placed on all ballots?

Of course, if everyone actually thought for himself and refused to follow the crowd, and rap was not regarded as music, the standard for “ordinary” would be shifted upward, in the direction of independent intelligence. I would love to live in a world where coherent thought and general honesty and diverse, creative intelligence was ordinary, where neither Bible thumpers nor bobble-headed Darwinists exist.

In spite of your physical disabilities you succeed in enjoying life, far from the madding crowd. Yet, as I remarked last year,you underrate the vast majority of people on this planet. Are you acquainted with the Third Man by Grahame Greene? The protagonist looks down at the dots far below and dismisses them as insignificant - forgetting that like him they have their own desires and ambitions.

That means, if by some clerical error I’m invited into heaven, I won’t go.

No one is compelled to accept the invitation… That’s why we’re here