God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

[Crashland]

You just said that some things are in fact knowable... then you closed by saying that you "do not claim to know that [your opinion] is absolutely correct." Well, which is it? Are there absolute truths or aren't there? Why shy away from claiming unabashedly that there are absolute truths when you know this to be the case?

The reason I don't claim to be absolutely correct is because I am depending on my own imperfect capacity to think and reason, in order to even make such an observation. And also just merely from humility, I try not to make a habit of presuming, when it is always possible that there is something I have not yet considered that would change my mind.

 

[HVACTech]

It's really quite simple. There are only two options: Either the universe was created or it came into existence by itself. There are no other options. If you can name one, by all means do.

If you admit that you are borrowing from another worldview because yours doesn't make sense, then you are validating the opposite view by default. There really are only two.

Atheists are a trip. I used to think it was fair game to fuck with them.
my reason was because they are SO very rude to theists.
that irritates me.
over time, I learned to cool my jets.

 

[Crashland]

It's really quite simple. There are only two options: Either the universe was created or it came into existence by itself. There are no other options. If you can name one, by all means do.

If you admit that you are borrowing from another worldview because yours doesn't make sense, then you are validating the opposite view by default. There really are only two.

This is a false dichotomy -- the universe as we know it could have:
1. been started by a sentient cause that has always existed (this is your position)
2. been started by a non-sentient cause that has always existed
3. always existed
4. popped into existence by itself for no reason

(2) and (3) both seem much more likely to me than (1) or (4) which were your two options.

 

[Sola_Fide]

This is a false dichotomy -- the universe as we know it could have:
1. been started by a sentient cause that has always existed (this is your position)
2. been started by a non-sentient cause that has always existed
3. always existed
4. popped into existence by itself for no reason

(2) and (3) both seem much more likely to me than (1) or (4) which were your two options.

Don't you understand that the reason you think 2 and 3 are "more likely" to you is because you presuppose the non-existence of God?

 

[HVACTech]

Don't you understand that the reason you think 2 and 3 are "more likely" to you is because you presuppose the non-existence of God?

2,3 and 4 are all the same thing.

 

[HVACTech]

4. popped into existence by itself for no reason

huh? I thought the big bang theory had to do with fat girls.

you don't umm, think it is a "law"... do you?

 

[Crashland]

Don't you understand that the reason you think 2 and 3 are "more likely" to you is because you presuppose the non-existence of God?

1, 2, and 3 are all about the same, but 2 and 3 require one less assumption which gives them a slight edge in my view. But as I said earlier, I am agnostic with regards to a deistic god, as in, a "first cause" without claiming any particular attributes. But the more attributes are assigned to God, the more reasons there are to lean more towards one conclusion over another.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The reason I don't claim to be absolutely correct is because I am depending on my own imperfect capacity to think and reason, in order to even make such an observation. And also just merely from humility, I try not to make a habit of presuming, when it is always possible that there is something I have not yet considered that would change my mind.

In other words, you're saying somethings are knowable with certainty (an exact quote from you) but you don't know this for certain?

Do you believe absolute truth exists or not? If you follow your answer with "I could be wrong", then your answer is actually "no" and I will take it as such.

 

[robert68]

I am guessing that you are not a parental unit.

If you said part of one, then wrong guess. You seem to be suggesting kids receive the will of their parents. I don’t see why.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Atheists are a trip. I used to think it was fair game to fuck with them.
my reason was because they are SO very rude to theists.
that irritates me.
over time, I learned to cool my jets.

That's a useful skill. I'm going to have to learn that someday, too. To be honest, though, I'm on a bit of a hiatus, so I've got time on my hands.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

This is a false dichotomy -- the universe as we know it could have:
1. been started by a sentient cause that has always existed (this is your position)
2. been started by a non-sentient cause that has always existed
3. always existed
4. popped into existence by itself for no reason

(2) and (3) both seem much more likely to me than (1) or (4) which were your two options.

Two is the same as 3 and three fits into 4. Like I said, there are only 2.

Either the universe was created or it brought itself into existence by any method you choose. There are no other options. It is not a false dichotomy because it's true. Also, you have no metric by which to judge the likelihood you ascribe to 2 and 3. You just assume this because you're presupposing the non-existence of God.

It's really quite funny watching you do mental gymnastics to avoid saying that your view makes absolutely no sense.

 

[robert68]

True, I wouldn't give that answer because I don't believe that anyone can defy the rule maker.

Then why bring up "rules"?

 

[Crashland]

In other words, you're saying somethings are knowable with certainty (an exact quote from you) but you don't know this for certain?

Do you believe absolute truth exists or not? If you follow your answer with "I could be wrong", then your answer is actually "no" and I will take it as such.

Oh, decisions, decisions. Whether or not to follow my answer with "I could be wrong". If you want me to be honest with you, as opposed to humble, I really do not think that I could be wrong about those things I mentioned.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Don't you understand that the reason you think 2 and 3 are "more likely" to you is because you presuppose the non-existence of God?

Good point. They are not actually "more likely" because He has no metric by which to judge the likelihood of any of them.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Then why bring up "rules"?

You don't know what God has pre-ordained for you, so there's no reason you can't act like you have free will and choose to obey Him.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Oh, decisions, decisions. Whether or not to follow my answer with "I could be wrong". If you want me to be honest with you, as opposed to humble, I really do not think that I could be wrong about those things I mentioned.

So there are absolute truths?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

1, 2, and 3 are all about the same, but 2 and 3 require one less assumption which gives them a slight edge in my view. But as I said earlier, I am agnostic with regards to a deistic god, as in, a "first cause" without claiming any particular attributes. But the more attributes are assigned to God, the more reasons there are to lean more towards one conclusion over another.

These "attributes", as you call them, are actually just things that God must be in order to actually be God. If God really is God, then He must be sentient, independent of the natural universe, and the basis for all knowledge and existence. Without Him, there can be no existence unless you insist on believing that the universe brought itself into existence.

But hey, I really don't mind agnostics. Atheists, however, claim to not be superstitious when both believing in and not believing in God are each just as superstitious as the other.

 

[robert68]

You don't know what God has pre-ordained for you, so there's no reason you can't act like you have free will and choose to obey Him.

That's not an answer.

 

[robert68]

No it is not contradictary. It would only be contradictary if God had only one will. But God has 2 wills.

God has His revealed will: Don't do this.
And God has His decreed will: What I purpose is what will come about (including things against my revealed will).

More that one will is polytheism.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

That's not an answer.

Why not?