There are No Conscientious Explanations to Disprove the Proof for God and Jesus Being God

[revivin]

I am satisfied in knowing that which does not exist can't cause anything since it doesn't exist and there is no evidence for such a ridiculous idea, therefore, the universe can't start up from nothing. I am also at peace knowing that infinite regress of nature is impossible, because if there was this alleged infinite past of cause and effects of nature, by that definition you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, logically speaking, nature needs a cause outside of it self, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God. Since God has revealed this about Himself, what else has He revealed?

We know that Jesus is God because nobody the past 2000 years has been able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead. Therefore, we know salvation is in Christ alone, there is no other name under heaven by which one can be saved, and if you don't want to receive forgiveness by what He did for you on the cross then you are saying as much that you want to go to Hell, that is, you want to be eternally separated from the love of God and God Himself. What a deplorable and pathetic person that would reject Christ for his salvation! After all Jesus created you. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1.3).

 

[KeepTalking]

I can't help but laugh at the notion that infinate regress is impossible, because "now" would never have happened. I guess it "proves" the imposiblity of the existance of "infinity"... afterall, if the universe is infinite, then by that same logic, there is no "here".

What I really like about his exceptionally silly "argument" against infinite regress is this part:

And there can't be an infinite regress of cause and effects, because if there was you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you that you are now should have already happened.

Which makes the extremely obvious mistake of assuming that there can be no finite sets within an infinity. The amount of time that humanity has existed is that finite set within the possible infinity, so there has not be infinite time for me to have already happened. There has only been about a million years or so. It's one of the most inane arguments to which I have been exposed, but I do give Troy credit for coming up with a rather unique argument in favor of theism. That does not happen very often these days.

 

[revivin]

That which is finite has a cause.

 

[KeepTalking]

I am satisfied in knowing that which does not exist can't cause anything since it doesn't exist

Well, case closed then. Your god does not exist, so it can't have caused anything.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am satisfied in knowing that which does not exist can't cause anything since it doesn't exist and there is no evidence for such a ridiculous idea,

You use 'knowing' funny, and you clearly haven't examined the evidence for the diea.

therefore, the universe can't start up from nothing.

You have no basis for this except your preconceived notions.
Not compelling for anyone who actually questions your assertions.

I am also at peace knowing that infinite regress of nature is impossible, because if there was this alleged infinite past of cause and effects of nature, by that definition you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.

You've never offered 'the definition' in 'by definition.'
You've never shown how me occurring before would be a problem for me recurring now.
You've never shown how cause/effect relationships inside a universe can be shown to apply to the universe itself.
More opinionated dreck.

Therefore, logically speaking,

Actualy, a complete abscence of logic. Your assertions do not support this conclusion.

Since God has revealed this about Himself, what else has He revealed?

Your trust that one document out of many is authored by or inspired by the beings you want it to be is pitiable, but not compelling as evidence.

We know that Jesus is God because nobody the past 2000 years has been able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead.

Unless the apostles are fictional beings.

Therefore, we know salvation is in Christ alone,

Except that Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications to be considered the Christ.

What a deplorable and pathetic person that would reject Christ for his salvation!

Nope. Just rejecting Jesus, who did not meet the messiah's prophecies.
If you want to pretend that he'll meet them on the next trip, then you are tacitly admitting that he's not met them YET.
And still you worship him. Funny, that.

After all Jesus created you. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1.3).

More quoting The Books to people who have no trust in The Books.

 

[funinspace]

Zeus! Bolding random shit is fun

I am satisfied in knowing that which does not exist can't cause anything since it doesn't exist and there is no evidence for such a ridiculous idea, therefore, the universe can't start up from nothing. I am also at peace knowing that infinite regress of nature is impossible,<snip>

Yes, you can be satisfied by a 5th grade “knowing” of very complex constructs, but such knowing will remain childlike.

We know that Jesus is God because nobody the past 2000 years has been able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead.

We know that there isn’t any naturalistic explanation to account for the miraculous birth of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, as you have repeatedly failed to proffer one; therefore the LDS is the one true Church of God.

Therefore, < Blah, blah, blah> .

Zzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Underseer]

[...]
We know that there isn’t any naturalistic explanation to account for the miraculous birth of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, as you have repeatedly failed to proffer one; therefore the LDS is the one true Church of God.
[...]

This is a bad analogy because we do have a naturalistic explanation for the accounts in the New Testament: people were either wrong, or they just made shit up.

A better analogy would be: we don't have a naturalistic explanation for snowflakes, therefore Hinduism is true and Christianity is false. This also underscores the argument from ignorance fallacy in Revivin's post: his ignorance about A can never prove B. If he wants to prove B, he has to actually prove B.

 

[funinspace]

[...]
We know that there isn’t any naturalistic explanation to account for the miraculous birth of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, as you have repeatedly failed to proffer one; therefore the LDS is the one true Church of God.
[...]

This is a bad analogy because we do have a naturalistic explanation for the accounts in the New Testament: people were either wrong, or they just made shit up.

A better analogy would be: we don't have a naturalistic explanation for snowflakes, therefore Hinduism is true and Christianity is false.

I disagree. I think the LDS is a great analogy. Yeah of course the LDS dogma history is BS and has a naturalistic explanation, much like the fundagelical theology. The point is that this latest poster of fundagelical tripe, needs to explain why the LDS does have a “naturalistic explanation” at the same time trying to pretend his dirty shirt is crispy white. Anything he posits against the LDS, can pretty much be thrown right back at his version of Christianity verbatim.

PS I suspect he already knows this, so he will most likely refrain from engaging the point. Though even non-responses can be a form of response to be noticed.

 

[revivin]

Latter Day Saints

The reason LDS or Mormons are going to Hell is because they reject the uncreated Creator. They worship a God the Father whom they claim use to be a man, and that man use to have his God the Father, on and on in an infinite regress of cause and effects just like in atheism. Crazy stuff!

If there was this infinite regress of cause and effects you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.

A lot of people don't realize at the core of Mormonism is Atheism as they hold the same false teaching of infinite regress.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, people who worship gods and hope to one day become gods are atheists because revivin doesn't understand physics.
That one might actually go on the wall at FSTDT....

 

[funinspace]

Latter Day Saints

The reason LDS or Mormons are going to Hell is because <blah, blah, blah>.

Wow….talk about avoiding the question by spouting out random fundagelical shit against the LDS. Here is the question again, care to try again, this time actually addressing the question?

We know that there isn’t any naturalistic explanation to account for the miraculous birth of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, as you have repeatedly failed to proffer one; therefore the LDS is the one true Church of God.

PS doesn’t the Bible say something about being forthright? At least it used to when I read it regularly…

 

[funinspace]

Yeah, people who worship gods and hope to one day become gods are atheists because revivin doesn't understand physics.
That one might actually go on the wall at FSTDT....

No, no, no....People who worship gods and hope to one day become gods are atheists because revivin has a fundigelical understanding of physics.

And Christianity is right, because what else could have a creator who is infinite in time, but choose a creation he knew would fail, so he took a part of himself, and gave that part a 3 day really shitty vacation as a sacrifice, for the failings of his creation. Now that is crazy stuff.

 

[revivin]

creator who is infinite in time

The uncreated Creator exists outside of time. So He created time out from Himself.

 

[Mageth]

creator who is infinite in time

The uncreated Creator exists outside of time. So He created time out from Himself.

At what time outside of time did this uncreated Creator create time?

 

[George S]

There is a naturalistic explanation for LDS. A con-man made it up.

The how does a cult grow up to become a religion? In a cult the leader knows it is false. He dies and his followers believe what he preached.

The naturalistic explanation for the "eyewitness" testimony of the Apostles is that it is a story. A piece of fiction. A just-so story. A fireside myth believed by children (my children did believe in fire elves; they had seen them in the fireplace). And knew as well just how the leopard got the spots. -- Thanks Rudyard.

My daughter proclaims that "What or Who is God?" is the wrong question, but the answer is the same as to the question "What is Love."

When they were children my children thought as children. When they grew up they made decisions for themselves.

Grow up revivin; grow up, or --your choice-- remain childlike forever.

 

[jonJ]

creator who is infinite in time

The uncreated Creator exists outside of time. So He created time out from Himself.

OK, how? If you know enough about the process to be sure that it happened, you must have some idea of how it took place. So let's have the details. What did it look like when your uncreated, infinite creator made time with himself?

No, hang on, that's not what I meant...

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously if there is nothing, it will not give arise to anything. If fact, the only thing nothing does is it utterly doesn't oppose what exists. Note that the whole "zero=nothing" is way off track.

There's an awful lot of nothing out there in space-time, and we've only observed a teeny-tiny fraction of it. I don't have any problem with the idea that out there in the bits we can't see, new Something is gradually forming, a bit at a time.

 

[George S]

creator who is infinite in time

The uncreated Creator exists outside of time. So He created time out from Himself.

Creation is an action, and actions take time. There must have been time (perhaps not our kind of time, imaginary time*) for this Creator character to do the action of creating.

If we imagine the time and space are interlinked (as Einstein did) as a whole 4-dimensional structure, we find that space comes for free when time began. Absolutely empty space with no energy, no photons, no matter has a weird property. In such a state of nothing a universe quite like ours would naturally emerge over time. (See Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing)

_____
* Definition (1) The kind of time that takes place in a story. Imagined time. (2) A physics time idea in which there are two orthogonal t axes t and it.
Random bold is fun!

 

[jonJ]

That which is finite has a cause.

What proportion of things that are 'finite' have you observed? What proportion of the ones you have observed did you take the trouble to establish the causes of? How big is your sample size compared to -- oooh, say, a sphere with a radius of 46 billion light years, existing over 14 billion years?

This is dogma. And it's not even Christian dogma, since most Christians believe the (finite) universe was created by an immaterial undetectable God -- i.e. something with no causal properties.

 

[Bomb#20]

Something comes from nothing all the time, everywhere.

I don't get this whole something from nothing claim- I've seen this comment a few times recently on the forum, and I'm wondering at its justification? Maybe a new thread? It's just something that I'd like to read more about- see if there is any logical loophole, or interesting trick, that can be used to justify it?

Obviously if there is nothing, it will not give arise to anything. If fact, the only thing nothing does is it utterly doesn't oppose what exists. Note that the whole "zero=nothing" is way off track.

This looks like "being deceived by grammar". Regrettably, the words English commonly uses for talking about this topic are ambiguous. To say "X comes from nothing" could mean "The cause of X is nothing", which as you note is absurd. But it could also mean "There is no thing that X comes from", i.e. "X has no cause", which isn't absurd at all. Lots of possible universes contain uncaused events and uncaused objects; whether the real universe is one of them is simply one more unproven hypothesis.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I remember a fundy on the boat who tried to read the Thomas Covenant series.
Part of the (fictional) mythos of that (fictional) world was that the (fictional) Creator had placed the (fictional) world 'under the Arch of Time.' Meaning that things had a before and after, time passed, events were separated.
The (fictional) Creator, however, did not live under the Arch of Time, so he was not bound by Time and its effects. He could see the future and the past and access each with equal ease.

Fundy shipmate tossed the book down and said 'that doesn't make any sense. God can't be 'outside of time.' If he were, then the days of creation wouldn't be days, they'd have all happened at the same time!
Of course, i had to point out, if the being is out side of time, then everything happens at the same non-time.
Same thing, he insisted. You'd still get everything piled up and confused.
Couldn't argue with him. He KNEW what he was talking about.