You have no Case for Christ until you can Prove God exists

[brandx1138]

Instead of quibbling over scripture and when, where or if Jesus said what, let's start at the beginning. Christians claim that Jesus is God, but who is this "God"? It means nothing to say that Jesus is God if you cannot define, locate, detect or explain God. So who would like to be the first to answer this call:

Prove God exists.

First you must do that, then we can talk about Jesus. If God cannot be proven to exist, then this whole forum is a waste of everyone's time.

[MrWhy]

Instead of quibbling over scripture and when, where or if Jesus said what, let's start at the beginning. Christians claim that Jesus is God, but who is this "God"? It means nothing to say that Jesus is God if you cannot define, locate, detect or explain God. So who would like to be the first to answer this call:

Prove God exists.

First you must do that, then we can talk about Jesus. If God cannot be proven to exist, then this whole forum is a waste of everyone's time.

Yes, there is a dependency string in these ideas. Specifically the Jesus resurrection story depends on the existence of the Christian god, and that god depends on the Bible being the word of a god.

I tried to address this dependent hierarchy in the first and last post of this thread.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

[chibiq]

Taking all that into account, since it too has a time frame, there had to be a beginning to it, else eternity would be the rule and everything (including the end of everything) would've happened by now.

You insist on this point because you fail (refuse?) to acknowledge that whether a quantum event happened, and when it happened, are fundamentally different, and arguing about the beginning of a Universe that, hypothetically, emerges from a quantum field, becomes much more complicated.

I acknowledge that it's plausable, I just don't see how you're all coming up with the eternity of the universe, denying that there's a beginning. If there's no beginning, there's an eternal past. In other words, no beginning means there's no starting point that would've set anything into motion at all, and it just doesn't make sense that we would be where we are at this point in eternity.

If your theory is true, if past is eternal, I've already typed this sentence an infinite number of times, because we would need to be in a loop in order for eternity to be the rule. We've already been through this an infinite number of times, and every possible outcome has already happened.

Have you never heard of the Eternity Paradox? It states that:

1. If time flows like a stream, each event that happens will mark a midpoint of eternity.
2. A period of time exists before and after every event.
3. Eternity means there wasn't a beginning, so the time that was before the event had to be infinitely long, as does the time that follows it.
4. Every event that occurs would cut infinity in half and create two seperate eternities, which doesn't make sense because only one eternity by definition can exist.

Just a little edit to clear something up, I believe this discussion is to give a case for a creator/God. I'm trying to start from the beginning. Here's a list of requirements that I think we could all agree on for the need of an ambiguous God:

1. A need for a beginning of everything
2. A need for a cause of this beginning
3. A need for this cause to be a creator with a consciousness
4. A need for this creator to be intelligent (not a kid that accidentally kicked his paints over and created the Mona Lisa)

To me this seems to be what you think you need to feel confortable.

No, this is what is required of a God by Christian definition. It would make me comfortable to know that this God exists, because I'm a Christian (and I already believe he does), but that doesn't override the points I've made.

Judge me by the merit of my statements, not by my beliefs.

[brandx1138]

Just a little edit to clear something up, I believe this discussion is to give a case for a creator/God. I'm trying to start from the beginning. Here's a list of requirements that I think we could all agree on for the need of an ambiguous God:

1. A need for a beginning of everything
2. A need for a cause of this beginning
3. A need for this cause to be a creator with a consciousness
4. A need for this creator to be intelligent (not a kid that accidentally kicked his paints over and created the Mona Lisa)

To me this seems to be what you think you need to feel confortable.

No, this is what is required of a God by Christian definition. It would make me comfortable to know that this God exists, because I'm a Christian (and I already believe he does), but that doesn't override the points I've made.

Judge me by the merit of my statements, not by my beliefs.

Your beliefs inform your statements. Therefore your beliefs are at the very core of any judgment toward you.

If this is what is required of a God by Christian definition, then where does this definition come from? Once you realize that the source of this definition is based on nothing but retranslations, mistranslations, and nimble editing of stories about legends about myths....you'll discover that the foundation you once believed was made of stone upon which you've built your castle of beliefs is very much the stuff of vaporous smoke....blown very swiftly and forcefully up your unaware little backside.

[chibiq]

Just a little edit to clear something up, I believe this discussion is to give a case for a creator/God. I'm trying to start from the beginning. Here's a list of requirements that I think we could all agree on for the need of an ambiguous God:

1. A need for a beginning of everything
2. A need for a cause of this beginning
3. A need for this cause to be a creator with a consciousness
4. A need for this creator to be intelligent (not a kid that accidentally kicked his paints over and created the Mona Lisa)

To me this seems to be what you think you need to feel confortable.

No, this is what is required of a God by Christian definition. It would make me comfortable to know that this God exists, because I'm a Christian (and I already believe he does), but that doesn't override the points I've made.

Judge me by the merit of my statements, not by my beliefs.

Your beliefs inform your statements. Therefore your beliefs are at the very core of any judgment toward you.

If this is what is required of a God by Christian definition, then where does this definition come from? Once you realize that the source of this definition is based on nothing but retranslations, mistranslations, and nimble editing of stories about legends about myths....you'll discover that the foundation you once believed was made of stone upon which you've built your castle of beliefs is very much the stuff of vaporous smoke....blown very swiftly and forcefully up your unaware little backside.

Really, that's very poetic of you and everything, but if you're not going to add anything with a point to the debate other than your opinion of where I'm getting my conclusions, then I suggest not adding anything at all.

Tell me something, how do you actually know that there are black holes? How do you know there are galaxies besides our own? How do you know we're in a galaxy? How do you know the moon isn't made of cheese? How do you know "shooting stars" are really asteroids? You don't really do all of the experiments yourself, do you?

That being said, Einstein refused to believe that the universe had a beginning because of how inconvenient it would be to science. Ironically, his own findings and the data he accumulated from those findings helped the "Big Bang Pioneers" to reach their conclusion. I could say that they're a bunch of quacks listening to an old man who was obviously wrong to deny the universe started with the big bang, but where would that lead us?

The same could be said about Fred Hoyle, whose Steady State theory was disproved also, due to the noise the universe makes. Although he got that wrong (and died defending his position), his contributions to cosmology can't be overlooked. That said, even though he was wrong, would you call him a quack?

Do your beliefs not inform your conclusions and statements? Isn't that the way of the scientific method, coming up with a possible conclusion first (hypothesis) and finding out if the evidence backs it up?

You're being prejudice because of your beliefs (even in a hostile way), isn't that a little hypocritical?

And isn't that against the forum rules?

Where I get my conclusions from mean nothing. Read the last sentence of my last post: Judge me by the merit of my statements, not by my beliefs.

Can we please get back on topic now?

[brandx1138]

Tell me something, how do you actually know that there are black holes? How do you know there are galaxies besides our own? How do you know we're in a galaxy? How do you know the moon isn't made of cheese? How do you know "shooting stars" are really asteroids? You don't really do all of the experiments yourself, do you?

Knowledge is not black and white. It is a gradation of grey. I know that I exist with MUCH more certitude than I know that black holes exist. But here's the kicker, if black holes didn't exist, it really wouldn't affect my life all that much. By the same token, if a god existed, it would make my life exactly 0% different from when I didn't believe he existed.

But to answer your question more pointedly, I know those things you mentioned because I've seen how the people who came to those conclusions did so. I've seen the outcomes of the methods they used to make those claims and the predictions that came true of other findings based on those same methods. My "faith" in the methods of science is based on its track record. What is your "faith" in the Bible based on?

That being said, Einstein refused to believe that the universe had a beginning because of how inconvenient it would be to science. Ironically, his own findings and the data he accumulated from those findings helped the "Big Bang Pioneers" to reach their conclusion. I could say that they're a bunch of quacks listening to an old man who was obviously wrong to deny the universe started with the big bang, but where would that lead us?

Einstein was wrong about many things. He was only human, not some superman to be revered and never doubted. He took us to places we hadn't been before, but scientists since then have stood on his shoulders to take us even further. That's how knowledge in society works. Arguments from authority are not relevant. You must always be skeptical of a person's claims unless they can prove by empirical scientific methods that their claims are likely to be true.

The same could be said about Fred Hoyle, whose Steady State theory was disproved also, due to the noise the universe makes. Although he got that wrong (and died defending his position), his contributions to cosmology can't be overlooked. That said, even though he was wrong, would you call him a quack?

No, I wouldn't call him a quack. I would call him an imperfect person. I would call him a dogmatic scientist on that one point. But isn't that the beauty of science? To knock us down off our self-made pedestals and show us where we're wrong? It's the closest thing we have to an objective Overseer, if used correctly.

Do your beliefs not inform your conclusions and statements?

Yes, that's why I made that claim about you. I wasn't excluding myself. That would have been ignorant and egotistical, however...

Isn't that the way of the scientific method, coming up with a possible conclusion first (hypothesis) and finding out if the evidence backs it up?

...my beliefs do not inform my conclusions like you said. That's what theists do, not scientists. An hypothesis is a possible outcome, but it is NEVER adhered to as fact until the evidence changes it to a falsehood. If the experiment or data collected show that the hypothesis is wrong, then it is discarded. What hypothesis are you suggesting that you are experimenting with? Isn't your claim to be a Christian already a conclusion and not a hypothesis?

You're being prejudice because of your beliefs (even in a hostile way), isn't that a little hypocritical?

And isn't that against the forum rules?

I was merely trying to grab you emotionally. It was a tactic, I'll admit, but it got us talking didn't it? It was my proposal, and I intend to show you why I support it. I have come to my beliefs due to things I have read, as you have done. However, I want to show you why the things I have read show your reading material (the Bible) to not be what it claims to be. If you're willing to allow that, let me know, and I'll be glad to do it in my next post. It will take a while to type out, which is why I don't want to go to the trouble if you're not interested.

Where I get my conclusions from mean nothing. Read the last sentence of my last post: Judge me by the merit of my statements, not by my beliefs.

Can we please get back on topic now?

And that was the point of my "poetic" statement. You still seem to be missing it. Where you get your conclusions from -- the source material -- is what informs your conclusions/beliefs, which in turn inform your statements (and actions). It goes like this: Source --> Conclusions/Beliefs --> Statements to others about those beliefs. We are still very much on the topic, my friend.

[brandx1138]

And by the way, a "shooting star" is not an asteroid, it is a meteor.

[bernee51]

Taking all that into account, since it too has a time frame, there had to be a beginning to it, else eternity would be the rule and everything (including the end of everything) would've happened by now.

You insist on this point because you fail (refuse?) to acknowledge that whether a quantum event happened, and when it happened, are fundamentally different, and arguing about the beginning of a Universe that, hypothetically, emerges from a quantum field, becomes much more complicated.

I acknowledge that it's plausable, I just don't see how you're all coming up with the eternity of the universe, denying that there's a beginning. If there's no beginning, there's an eternal past. In other words, no beginning means there's no starting point that would've set anything into motion at all, and it just doesn't make sense that we would be where we are at this point in eternity.

If your theory is true, if past is eternal, I've already typed this sentence an infinite number of times, because we would need to be in a loop in order for eternity to be the rule. We've already been through this an infinite number of times, and every possible outcome has already happened.

Have you never heard of the Eternity Paradox? It states that:

1. If time flows like a stream, each event that happens will mark a midpoint of eternity.
2. A period of time exists before and after every event.
3. Eternity means there wasn't a beginning, so the time that was before the event had to be infinitely long, as does the time that follows it.
4. Every event that occurs would cut infinity in half and create two seperate eternities, which doesn't make sense because only one eternity by definition can exist.

The interesting thing about paradoxes is change one (or more) of the parameters and the paradox may disappear.

Does time flow like a stream? Does time exist outside of our perception of it? Or is time merely a human construct? Time is how we measure the distance between two 'nows'.

Are there 'events' - or merely an observation of the memory of an infinitely emerging 'now'? There is, in reality, no 'before' or 'after'...these are only a reflection of either our anticipations or our memories.

Now what was that paradox?

[Goat]

Taking all that into account, since it too has a time frame, there had to be a beginning to it, else eternity would be the rule and everything (including the end of everything) would've happened by now.

You insist on this point because you fail (refuse?) to acknowledge that whether a quantum event happened, and when it happened, are fundamentally different, and arguing about the beginning of a Universe that, hypothetically, emerges from a quantum field, becomes much more complicated.

I acknowledge that it's plausable, I just don't see how you're all coming up with the eternity of the universe, denying that there's a beginning. If there's no beginning, there's an eternal past. In other words, no beginning means there's no starting point that would've set anything into motion at all, and it just doesn't make sense that we would be where we are at this point in eternity.

If your theory is true, if past is eternal, I've already typed this sentence an infinite number of times, because we would need to be in a loop in order for eternity to be the rule. We've already been through this an infinite number of times, and every possible outcome has already happened.

Have you never heard of the Eternity Paradox? It states that:

1. If time flows like a stream, each event that happens will mark a midpoint of eternity.
2. A period of time exists before and after every event.
3. Eternity means there wasn't a beginning, so the time that was before the event had to be infinitely long, as does the time that follows it.
4. Every event that occurs would cut infinity in half and create two seperate eternities, which doesn't make sense because only one eternity by definition can exist.

The interesting thing about paradoxes is change one (or more) of the parameters and the paradox may disappear.

Does time flow like a stream? Does time exist outside of our perception of it? Or is time merely a human construct? Time is how we measure the distance between two 'nows'.

Are there 'events' - or merely an observation of the memory of an infinitely emerging 'now'? There is, in reality, no 'before' or 'after'...these are only a reflection of either our anticipations or our memories.

Now what was that paradox?

Also, there could be a frame of time 'outside' the universe that the 'singularity' was subject to. Hawkings calls this 'imaginary time'.

[realthinker]

Both logic and proof are characteristic of and dependent upon the attributes of this Universe. Since, if there is a God, He is separate from and "above" this Universe (in that He made it), neither His existence nor His nonexistence can by proven by logic.

Many questions ought to be considered before engaging in a debate about the truth of Christianity. The existence of God is not necessarily one of them.

I have started a thread on this subject over on the Apologetics forum.

On the other hand I think logic and proof are a function of language which we adapt to correspond to the characteristics or attributes of the universe and our experiences. Language maybe a given but the meanings are human constructs and it seem very fluid. It evolves. Depending what they might mean by "Christ" the existence of God should be one of the first considerations.
As wisdom there may not need be a God for it to be true.
The possibilities are endless.

This is simply wrong. Logic is fundamental, unequivocal, inescapable, and absolute. If your words don't make up a meaningful argument that's probably a factor of your understanding of what the words mean or simply a failure to acknowledge facts.

What is fluid are ideas that do not correspond to measurable facts, and which are accepted or used as facts. Those are not consistent through time or even from individual to individual. This is the failure in the application of logic to spiritual matters. Don't blame it on logic.

[cnorman18]

Both logic and proof are characteristic of and dependent upon the attributes of this Universe. Since, if there is a God, He is separate from and "above" this Universe (in that He made it), neither His existence nor His nonexistence can by proven by logic.

Many questions ought to be considered before engaging in a debate about the truth of Christianity. The existence of God is not necessarily one of them.

I have started a thread on this subject over on the Apologetics forum.

On the other hand I think logic and proof are a function of language which we adapt to correspond to the characteristics or attributes of the universe and our experiences. Language maybe a given but the meanings are human constructs and it seem very fluid. It evolves. Depending what they might mean by "Christ" the existence of God should be one of the first considerations.
As wisdom there may not need be a God for it to be true.
The possibilities are endless.

This is simply wrong. Logic is fundamental, unequivocal, inescapable, and absolute. If your words don't make up a meaningful argument that's probably a factor of your understanding of what the words mean or simply a failure to acknowledge facts.

What is fluid are ideas that do not correspond to measurable facts, and which are accepted or used as facts. Those are not consistent through time or even from individual to individual. This is the failure in the application of logic to spiritual matters. Don't blame it on logic.

Interesting how my thoughts have changed. I would still say that God cannot be proven through logic, but I no longer think logic and proof are peculiar to or dependent on this universe. I think they are characteristics of reality.

This must be from one of my very first posts, Zzyzx. I find that now I'm in agreement with what you have written here.