If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[Angry Floof]

Attempting to prove God exists has nothing to do with whether any god exists. It's just social dominance cult mentality. You can insert "L Ron Hubbard is a noncorporeal spirit traveling the universe fighting evil" instead of "God" and you have the same mentality, the same defense of the ridiculous, the same myths and assumptions about people who don't agree, the same drive to dominate society by either drawing people in or demonizing and punishing them until they can't fight back, the same conformity, the same authority worship, the same silly "proofs" of their beliefs, the same mechanisms for keeping the members loyal...

I mean, all the other discussion is interesting and fun, but really quite irrelevant to the question of God-belief.

 

[DBT]

The universe is eternal and cyclic, given an eternity of elements combining and recombining, anything that can possibly happen, happens....there you go, claims are easy to make.

Are you paying attention abaddon?
Because
This is for you too.

That is a prime example of the lazy belief that if you can simply just offer anything....... like an oscillation model….. against p2 then you can magically believe that you have defeated the argument.
Well…………
Reasoning doesn’t work like that. We need to compare the models and determine which better explains reality. In this case which model has a more reasonable representation of our universe?
So………..
The oscillation model flat out fails on these three accounts…..
1) There is not enough mass in the universe to reverse the accelerating expansion.
2) If a collapse was possible the radius of entropy would necessarily increases from cycle to cycle. Thus you would still have a beginning if you reason it through. Thus you are not creating an eternal past but simply kicking the can down the road.
3) It flat out fails the BGV.

Now I have shared this counter for years now. And every time I present the problems of that model..... the presenter goes COMPLETELY SILENT. They never defend their reasoning. They don’t try to rescue the model. They just go silent only to bring it up again at some future date. That is NOT how reasoning works. I have clearly demonstrated that the SBBM is by far more reasonable than your Santa. Thus you have not defeated p2. Grow up and find a new model already or defend that Santa, but don’t think for a minute you have even scratched the surface of the reasonability of the KCA with that fantasy.
Also
Your predicted silence will once again indicate that your attempted defeater is a failure.
Also……………
Your attempt to make the universe eternal…..demonstrates that you understand the important understanding that an eternal thing has no cause, and thereby is prime candidate as the first cause. Hence the motivation to present an eternal model of the universe in the first place.

So thank you for that admittance. And thank you for that failed model. For in principle its failure to reasonably challenge the SBBM strengthens the SBBM.

Try again?

You missed the point this time. Trying again will probably yield the same result.

The point was not that the oscillation model is correct, but that it is easy to make claims, ie, God is eternal.

Plus, for what it's worth, there is more than one cyclic universe model. Nor is anyone claiming that any of them is the final answer.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Remez must be fun to play poker against. All his betting is based on whether he believes each player has bupkes or an ace-high straight flush in spades.
If he has the jack of spades in his hand, logic shows that no one else has the royal spade flush, therefore they must have bupkes.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Could the cause of nature itself……… be natural?

Probably not. But since we don't know why the Big Bang started, it's more parsimonious to assume a natural source.

Just like since I don't know what's causing the noises in my attic, it's better to assume it's an unknown but natural source than to assume it's a ghost.

When it comes to the big unknown questions, declaring, "I don't know, so let's find out" is more courageous than declaring, "I don't know, therefore God."

Nature isn't eternal because only magic things are eternal.

 

[remez]

"Begin to exist" is scientifically meaningless,

In the context of the reasoning that I clearly presented….you by that statement there…… are divorcing the principle of cause and effect from science.

No, that is not accurate. You are applying temporal constraints without actually providing a case for why temporal constraints exist, as there is no point in time that the universe didn't exist. This sounds like a technicality, but it is a significant truth you are ignoring.

This sounds like fun, but I’m not exactly sure what you are getting at. Because I agree that there is no point in time that the universe didn’t exist. Time is a structural part of this universe. Thus the universe and time began at the same instant.

Up to this point, most things that were thought to have supernatural causes became reduced to having natural (but yet unknown then) causes.

Most.

Theism is so desperate for a supernatural cause that it is turning the clock back 13.7 billion years to try and prove God has to exist because we can't perfectly explain what led to the expansion 13.7 billion years ago.

What an act of desperation on your part to come up with something so insignificant to challenge the KCA. It is a first cause argument. So the beginning seems a like logical, not a desperate, place to start in a FIRST cause argument. Come on…..seriously……. you are the one that’s obviously getting desperate. Are you so desperate to avoid post 198 that you needed to make up this desperate red herring to get away from it?

 

[remez]

remez's argument isn't that we cannot perfectly explain what led to the BB, but that none of the possible naturalistic explanations match supernaturalism for reasonableness at this point in time, because he asserts that science indicates an absolute beginning to all material existence so that leaves no naturalistic alternative that's as "reasonably plausible".

Seriously, if you have to turn back the clock that far back to find an instance in history that demonstrates the existence of a deity, that deity ain't doing much.

THIS is what I wonder about more than the rest. Even if any abstruse EoG argument were air-tight it'd have no pragmatic significance. The universe remains a godless one except for some theists going on about there being a god anyway.

Left whole for context…parsed below…..

remez's argument isn't that we cannot perfectly explain what led to the BB,

Confusing. When you say “led”….which side of the BB are you on with that comment regarding my explanation. “Prior” or after the BB?
Because…….
Heading back to the BB the best natural explanation is the SBBM most plausibly inferring that the universe began.
And heading to the BB there is no nature to scientifically anchor to. But you can forensically (science) investigate this universe for the attributes the cause must have had and reasonably infer God.

Nothing I reasoned there was supernatural reasoning. The supernatural only enters the reasoning when you attempt to match the scientifically compiled set of attributes of the cause for the universe to its actual cause. Because the cause logically had to be beyond nature because nature didn’t exist…..thus the cause could only be supernatural. So the reasoning itself isn’t supernatural. It’s common reasoning, but the reasoning does logically lead to a supernatural cause.

but that none of the possible naturalistic explanations match supernaturalism for reasonableness at this point in time,

So again from which direction are you approaching the BB?
If nature began to exist then how could there be a natural explanation?
The reason must be beyond natural because nature couldn’t exist before it existed to cause itself.

Again what is so "supernatural" about the reasoning there?

because he asserts that science indicates an absolute beginning to all material existence so that leaves no naturalistic alternative that's as "reasonably plausible".

How is that reasoning…… in and of itself…… “supernatural” reasoning? It’s just common sense reasoning that logically infers the cause had to be supernatural, because nature did not exist to cause itself.

THIS is what I wonder about more than the rest. Even if any abstruse EoG argument were air-tight it'd have no pragmatic significance. The universe remains a godless one except for some theists going on about there being a god anyway.

Not quite getting you there. Are you asserting that even if God exists and created the universe….the universe would still be Godless?
How does that work without an equivocation somewhere between God and Godless?
Because….
I’m only trying to present and defend the evidence and reasoning that God exists. I’m not in any way claiming all will believe and practice Christianity.

 

[remez]

...because he asserts that science indicates an absolute beginning to all material existence so that leaves no naturalistic alternative that's as "reasonably plausible".

And here his assertion (made to support his acceptance of magic) demonstrates an ignorance of the actual cosmological models. At best, some cosmological models suggest a start of this particular phase of the universe.

The ignorance is yours. The best….the established cosmological paradigm…..is the STANDARD BBM and it infers and absolute beginning. No models attempting to turn the universe into a past eternal universe are viable. Go ahead and try to present one. But first show me you understand the model and I’ll show you where it fails to be viable….AGAIN. Because I’m tired of having to always explain your models to you. You tried this earlier and I crushed your knowledge of cyclic models with basic science in post 44. I even asked you to come back and rescue it. All you had to say is….of course….. that I was ignorant. Your baseless insults don't intimidate me.

 

[remez]

I don't see how those are different. Where I say that something has a beginning if blah blah, you say it begins at that moment if blah blah. I have no problem with that.

We’re good. As I said before.

Then you added a bit about how tense.

No worries. It does not affect anything we have touched upon.

If I'm right in my interpretation, then our two definitions are effectively one.

You’re right.
But then you reasoned further…….bold added…..

If I'm right in my interpretation, then our two definitions are effectively one. They don't change the outcome. Gods existed (if they existed at all) at some time X, and they didn't exist before that. So therefore these gods began. By definition.

I’m thinking how could you say that? Because….I’m thinking….. Of course God existed without time. (note…I did not say God existed before time, because the word “before” could not apply if there was no time….hence the perfect word sans…without) This is plain reasoning to the argument for over a thousand years. So……How can you say that?....but…then I saw where we were missing each other……

With reason…I ask you……. how does “begin” relate to “eternal.” Seriously if something is eternal does it have a beginning?

If something is eternal, it has existed for all of time, which is an infinite amount of time because time is an infinite regress. If time is not infinite and unbegun, then nothing is eternal.

That what I was wondering about and why I asked you repeatedly. This time you finally addressed it. You reason that eternity is limited to time. Eternity and time are the same set for you. I, as well as the ancient argument, reason that time is a small subset of eternity. So yes eternity encompasses all time ….AND MORE existence. But time does not encompass all eternity. Let that sink in. I mean that politely. I’m not making up anything new here. Theists and philosophers and even scientists have reasoned this through the millennia. That is what was meant by God is timeless sans the universe. I responded earlier to you with this…..

Once again, we have equivocation, two definitions of "eternal." And neither one of them works for your purposes.

If we stick to any single definition of "eternal," then gods are no more eternal than burgers.

And again you are conflating definition with reason.
Here…….
Definition………..I accept all 6 concepts as the same definition.

in American English
(iˈtɜrnəl ; ɪˈtɜrnəl )
ADJECTIVE
1. without beginning or end; existing through all time; everlasting
2. of eternity
3. forever the same; always true or valid; unchanging
the eternal verities
4. always going on; never stopping; perpetual
eternal rest
5. seeming never to stop; happening very often
her eternal complaints
6. Philosophy and Theology
outside or beyond time or time relationships; timeless
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/eternal

You’re reasoning both God and hamburger need time to exist. The problem isn’t the definition it is your reasoning that everything eternal needs time.
Particularly number 6 in the definition above labeled theology and philosophy…..” outside or beyond time or time relationships; timeless“ There is no contradiction or equivocation.

Before you attempt to raise contradiction between number 1 and number 6…… God exists through all time is fine. But that doesn’t mean time has always existed or that God’s existence is limited to time.

….time is a subset of eternity. God sans the universe, sans time still existed. Again this is not new. This is a common understanding….number 6.....and has been for a very long time. God is supernatural meaning beyond nature. Nature is limited to time which began to exist.
So…
We agree on the meaning of begin. We just don’t agree with the understanding that time is a subset of eternity. So I can easily reason that everything that begins to exist has a cause…..and not be in contradiction with time beginning. Time did begin, eternity did not.

Now you can of course reject the common reasoning there. But that would be less reasonable. I’m willing to hear your case that eternity and time are one in the same. Because if you can’t reasonably make that case, then your objection to p1 has been exposed as flawed and the KCA remains unaffected by your objection.
Also……….

And you have stipulated that time began. And you have almost stubbornly declined to offer any other meaning of "eternal."

How could you assert that? I obviously provided you with definition and reasoning as REquoted above. Did you even read the post?
So…..
Take your time. Look it up. I’m not presenting anything new here. You were actually the one presenting a new reasoning here that…….. time and eternity were one and the same.

As always that is how I interpreted your reasoning from what you wrote, I’m not attempting to put words in your mouth.

 

[remez]

Could the cause of nature itself……… be natural?

Probably not. But since we don't know why the Big Bang started, it's more parsimonious to assume a natural source.

PROBABLY NOT…..probably not……right!
Because logically……..
How could there be a natural source if nature didn’t exist?
So against the better reasoning……
You are emotionally reasoning that a nonexistent nature created itself out of nothing……probably NOT.

I can rest my case with you on that.

Just like since I don't know what's causing the noises in my attic, it's better to assume it's an unknown but natural source than to assume it's a ghost.

Not like that at all. Because the origin of the sound could reasonably be natural, but the origin of the universe could not reasonably be natural. In the case of the universe…..You don’t have an unknown natural source, because nature didn’t exist to be the cause.

When it comes to the big unknown questions, declaring, "I don't know, so let's find out" is more courageous than declaring, "I don't know, therefore God."

1) My reasoning is not IDK therefore God. That is a straw man of the reasoning I provided as to why God.

2) What you are espousing is similar to this….give me enough time and I will provide a scientific explanation as to how I genetically fathered my own grandfather. Not only is that impossible it is a nature-of the gaps reasoning fallacy, by volitionally placing your full faith that nature despite the logic must have did it.

3) I in no way would espouse that we should stop investigating. Because every failed fantasy to make the universe eternal or self-existent strengthens my case. By all means keep dreaming.

 

[remez]

The point was not that the oscillation model is correct, but that it is easy to make claims, ie, God is eternal.

That was not the point.
But I’ll run with it.
So.....right back at you.......
So all you have to offer against the KCA is your claim that theistic God is not eternal?

Plus, for what it's worth, there is more than one cyclic universe model. Nor is anyone claiming that any of them is the final answer.

Then give me one that is viable and in reasonable contention to replace the SBBM. You can’t and you know it. So you have faith against the evidence the nature is eternal or magically created itself from nothing. That is overtly a nature-of-the-gaps reasoning fallacy.

 

[DBT]

The point was not that the oscillation model is correct, but that it is easy to make claims, ie, God is eternal.

That was not the point.
But I’ll run with it.
So.....right back at you.......
So all you have to offer against the KCA is your claim that theistic God is not eternal?

Plus, for what it's worth, there is more than one cyclic universe model. Nor is anyone claiming that any of them is the final answer.

Then give me one that is viable and in reasonable contention to replace the SBBM. You can’t and you know it. So you have faith against the evidence the nature is eternal or magically created itself from nothing. That is overtly a nature-of-the-gaps reasoning fallacy.

Maybe you can read what I said and try again? Just a hint, the issue is not about cyclic models of the Universe.

 

[skepticalbip]

...because he asserts that science indicates an absolute beginning to all material existence so that leaves no naturalistic alternative that's as "reasonably plausible".

And here his assertion (made to support his acceptance of magic) demonstrates an ignorance of the actual cosmological models. At best, some cosmological models suggest a start of this particular phase of the universe.

The ignorance is yours. The best….the established cosmological paradigm…..is the STANDARD BBM and it infers and absolute beginning. No models attempting to turn the universe into a past eternal universe are viable. Go ahead and try to present one. But first show me you understand the model and I’ll show you where it fails to be viable….AGAIN. Because I’m tired of having to always explain your models to you. You tried this earlier and I crushed your knowledge of cyclic models with basic science in post 44. I even asked you to come back and rescue it. All you had to say is….of course….. that I was ignorant. Your baseless insults don't intimidate me.

Silly goose. We have gone through this before. As usual, when shown your error you just deny it and move on to strawmen or red herrings so I have no desire to repeat it. You have demonstrated that you know diddly squat about cosmological models and only have heard watered down lay descriptions that you don't really understand.

So you go ahead and continue to offer your argument that, when faced with an unknown, devout belief in magic is more reasonable than educated guesses.

 

[Rhea]

Remez uses an interesting rhetorical trick here to conflate the verb “to reason,” which is agreed upon to mean, “to use your thought process to work something out,” with “reasonable” which is generally aggeed upon to mean, “logical, sensible, consensus - and even - likely to be true.”

But those two meanings are definitely NOT synonymous, nor does one always follow from the other, as one can easily see in this example from my son, then 4:
DS: “well, I wanted to reduce the air in the balloon, and i knew if I stuck in a pin, it would pop, so I reasoned that if I warmed it up it would make the latex more flexible and I could poke it and release air wihtout popping, so I reasoned that heat would help, and that’s why I shoved the balloon under the faucet with hot water running and then went to read a book for a while.”

My son “reasoned” out how this would work, but I think we can all agree that his conclusion was not “reasonable.”


Remez uses this trick constantly to claim that his conclusion is “reasonable” because he “reasoned” his way to it.

Remez is just as wrong as the boy who put 15 gallons of hot water on the floor of the bathroom.

 

[abaddon]

THIS is what I wonder about more than the rest. Even if any abstruse EoG argument were air-tight it'd have no pragmatic significance. The universe remains a godless one except for some theists going on about there being a god anyway.

Not quite getting you there. Are you asserting that even if God exists and created the universe….the universe would still be Godless?
How does that work without an equivocation somewhere between God and Godless?
Because….
I’m only trying to present and defend the evidence and reasoning that God exists. I’m not in any way claiming all will believe and practice Christianity.

I was saying that I am curious about where the God is NOW. Theists trying to stick their God in little pockets of mystery here and there is not strong support of EoG, when EoG arguments and the believer's holy texts are the only places their God ever shows up here IN the universe.

As for the rest of what you were going on about, I wasn't describing any of the reasoning to be supernatural. "Supernatural reasoning"... that's nothing but bizarre to me. What the heck would "supernatural reasoning" even look like??

 

[skepticalbip]

Remez uses an interesting rhetorical trick here to conflate the verb “to reason,” which is agreed upon to mean, “to use your thought process to work something out,” with “reasonable” which is generally aggeed upon to mean, “logical, sensible, consensus - and even - likely to be true.”

Good insight. Remez does rely on word play rather than rationality in his 'arguments'. I just haven't been able to determine if he really believes his 'arguments' or if he just enjoys playing at arguing for argument's sake.

 

[abaddon]

This KCA seems to have a powerful "WOW! I'm justified!" effect on believers, more than the other EoG arguments. It's the end of doubts about their weird mythology for many theists, that they have what looks to them like an atheism-killer of an argument. It's likely a thrill, even, to argue it when it seems to be impossible for atheists to "eliminate" it. That'd serve as a reason to argue for the sake of arguing, and be totally convinced by it as well.

 

[Iznomneak]

The ignorance is yours. The best….the established cosmological paradigm…..is the STANDARD BBM and it infers and absolute beginning. No models attempting to turn the universe into a past eternal universe are viable. Go ahead and try to present one. But first show me you understand the model and I’ll show you where it fails to be viable….AGAIN. Because I’m tired of having to always explain your models to you. You tried this earlier and I crushed your knowledge of cyclic models with basic science in post 44. I even asked you to come back and rescue it. All you had to say is….of course….. that I was ignorant. Your baseless insults don't intimidate me.

Silly goose. We have gone through this before. As usual, when shown your error you just deny it and move on to strawmen or red herrings so I have no desire to repeat it. You have demonstrated that you know diddly squat about cosmological models and only have heard watered down lay descriptions that you don't really understand.

So you go ahead and continue to offer your argument that, when faced with an unknown, devout belief in magic is more reasonable than educated guesses.

This is an important point that I think Remez is not willing to accept. I cringe when I see shows on the Science channel that say something to the effect, "The universe started with a Big Bang". This stems from the show being a lay presentation of very technical scientific findings to a lay audience.

A more descriptive way to express the Big Bang:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.

Until we have more data and a means to test it, anything we propose beyond that is speculation, which leaves the 2nd premise of KCA speculative at best. The idea that science says the universe has an absolute beginning is a misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory.

 

[remez]

Remez uses an interesting rhetorical trick here to conflate the verb “to reason,” which is agreed upon to mean, “to use your thought process to work something out,” with “reasonable” which is generally aggeed upon to mean, “logical, sensible, consensus - and even - likely to be true.”

But those two meanings are definitely NOT synonymous, nor does one always follow from the other, as one can easily see in this example from my son, then 4:
DS: “well, I wanted to reduce the air in the balloon, and i knew if I stuck in a pin, it would pop, so I reasoned that if I warmed it up it would make the latex more flexible and I could poke it and release air wihtout popping, so I reasoned that heat would help, and that’s why I shoved the balloon under the faucet with hot water running and then went to read a book for a while.”

My son “reasoned” out how this would work, but I think we can all agree that his conclusion was not “reasonable.”


Remez uses this trick constantly to claim that his conclusion is “reasonable” because he “reasoned” his way to it.

Remez is just as wrong as the boy who put 15 gallons of hot water on the floor of the bathroom.

Rhea uses an interesting smoke and mirrors trick here to appeal to her follow atheists because they won’t see it. She charges, without direct evidence, that remez is guilty of some bogus reasoning tactic and instead provides as evidence of an example of her son to seal the deal. Remez cannot directly redress this charge because she provides no example from remez. But skep will buy it….and she can now sleep happy at night. Provided the water isn’t running.
So….
Indirectly let’s try to play this out……assuming the story is accurate…..I sincerely “reason” the DS is a brilliant thinker. Now he was incorrect but given the incredible depth of his knowledge for that age, he made a reasonable effort to reasonably test his then worthy hypothesis. And also I reason that it is reasonable to reason that he did learn from the experience. So I ask you was my reasoning regarding DS reasonable?

You should be proud.....of your son that is.

 

[remez]

Theists trying to stick their God in little pockets of mystery here and there is not strong support of EoG, when EoG arguments and the believer's holy texts are the only places their God ever shows up here IN the universe.

The context was a single argument. How does that infer that is the only place God shows up?
And
If you consider the cause of the universe a little matter then simply move on and ignore us.

As for the rest of what you were going on about, I wasn't describing any of the reasoning to be supernatural. "Supernatural reasoning"... that's nothing but bizarre to me.

Good….because it was bizarre to me as well. But that is what it seemed like you were asserting. Hence the defense. We’re good.

And…………

This KCA seems to have a powerful "WOW! I'm justified!" effect on believers,

Why wouldn’t a valid and sound argument provide justification for what one believes?
But…
It is my experience that most Christians do not know the argument. Heck many are still fighting the big bang and believe in a young earth.

that they have what looks to them like an atheism-killer of an argument.

Have you given me any reason to doubt it?

It's likely a thrill, even, to argue it when it seems to be impossible for atheists to "eliminate" it.

Absolutely.

That'd serve as a reason to argue for the sake of arguing, and be totally convinced by it as well.

Come on…how shallow….just for the sake of argument. Theists have the burden like everyone else to justify their beliefs. Why would you bemoan such proper epistemic duty?

 

[remez]

The idea that science says the universe has an absolute beginning is a misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory.

Read it again. I never said the science absolutely proves that the universe absolutely began. I have addressed this many times. The science we have in hand now reasonably infers an absolute beginning. The term “absolute beginning” means that all space, matter and time began to exist not that it absolutely began.

Until we have more data and a means to test it,

Absolutely. But that doesn’t mean we have to ignore the reasonable inference that it began. Hawking and Krauss wrote books attempting to address a beginning universe. Simply crying IDK therefore all reasonable inference is shallow speculation has no virtue at all. It’s burying your head in the sand…..for the purpose to deny the obvious. Was the inference of a Higgs Boson 10 years ago unreasonable?
So again……

The idea that science says the universe has an absolute beginning is a misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory.

The idea that you think that is what I was asserting is a misunderstanding of all the reasoning and evidence I have provided in this thread.