Proof that God exists, without faith
Offline I originally heard of the RRS, through the proof of God's existence without faith debate RRS vs the way of the munters
I decided to work out if this was technically possible before the debate took place, and I succeeded I think . in another forum, knowing the way the Internet works this may have cropped up already but just in case it hasn't here it's is
Fundamental questions that nobody can answer... until now
This answer pre-assumes that what we perceive as reality is reality
Question .... does God (intelligent creator of everything) exist ....... Answer... yes
And here is the proof
The universe in which we live. is an enclosed system.The properties of everything in the universe .. are the properties of the universe and vice versa
There is gravity in the universe .... the universe has gravity...... the universe is gravitational
There is intelligence in the universe .... the universe has intelligence .... the universe is intelligent
Universe = intelligent
Universe = creator (the universes existence has created the opportunity for life ect ect )
Universe = everything
Universe = intelligent creator of everything
God = intelligent creator of everything
Universe = God
God = Universe
The description of intelligent creator of everything. only works from the point where intelligence emerges in the universes existence
Of course you could also use these parameters to prove the universe is a bowl of minestrone. this wouldn't cancel out the above proof it would simply add to it.
? could somebody show me the error in this ( this is just a piece of fun 
and should not be taken seriously by any theist because this God has an IQ of approximately 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1
and he/she/it has fleas )
- Login to post comments
Every object in the universe has a gravitational force that it exerts on every other object but not every object in the universe has intelligence. That doesn't apply to intelligence so I don't think saying the universe is is intelligent is like saying that it is gravitational.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
This wouldn't be entirely true with gravity. not everything in the universe exerts a gravitational field
And the universe is connected in far more ways than I can describe on the quantum level, thus it becomes impossible to separate one part of an enclosed system as all parts are connected to describe one part of the universe describes the universe
Kinder like reading the ingredients on a can of soup " warning this can of soup may contain intelligence "
The universe is gravitational? Not is't not, what does that statement even mean? You can describe a force as gravitational, you can describe a movement as gravitational (as the result of the gravitational force). but you cannot describe an object as gravitational. An object has mass, which exerts gravitational force.
I'd also coreect the second part to be "the universe contains gravity" the word "has" can be read in the wrong way, which is what leads to the erronious last statement. A glass bottle that has a vacuum inside is not a vacuum, it contains a vacuum. If you consider it and it's contents as a whole then part of it is a vacuum.
For something to exert the force of gravity it needs to be within the universe. Gravity is the bending of space-time. The cuniverse contains space-time, there is no space-time outside of the universe so what can the universe bend?
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
According to Relativity, gravity works in all dimensions.
I don’t know enough about quantum mechanics to really comment on that but it is pretty obvious that everything on the macro scale exerts a gravitational force and almost nothing possesses intelligence. So that’s why I don’t understand how you can make this connection. Perhaps you could elaborate a little and I will try to keep up.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
This pre-assumes that our universe isn't expanding inside another universe
Or " what can the universe bend" Itself would be another possible answer
We do not know this is true.
In regards to what? For the universe to be gravitational, it would seem that there must be something outside the universe that gravitates. Which would imply the universe is not necessarily a closed system, but more akin to a galaxy amongst galaxies.
Ironically this would mean we created god, in a literal sense. Which would make us even more powerful than god. We would be the god of god.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Not everything in universe has mass, certain forms of energy has no mass ie energy doesn't exert a gravitational field
On a quantum level tap your mouse button and the effects of this action reaction could be felt on the other side of the universe. everything is that connected on a quantum level
You may have spotted a potential error. I shall contemplate this thanks
Whoops. You have just made a non-sequitur.
Because something is in something else and has something else does not mean that it IS that something else.
What denotes intelligence?
What denotes universe?
They are different terms to describe different things. Here is the problem.
Universe = Universe
Intelligence = Intelligence
WHOA, big daddy. As Richard Carrier pointed out, the universe is great at making black holes. In other words, perhaps the universe is a better opportunity for black holes and life is a sort of side effect.
Nope. The universe is the sum of the pieces within it if you declare it to be a closed system.
There goes the leap again. The everything intelligently creating everything needs an everything to create it. Infinite regression breaks down the presupposition.
Precept fails due to invalid steps.
Exactly. Human intelligence(or the lack thereof lol) created god belief, but not a god itself. If humanity did create a god then it would be defined as a creation of humanity not the other way around as asserted by theists.
No. I couldn't I could only prove what a bowl of minestrone was and that it was in the universe by denoting its parameters and giving it mass and loci.
The above proof fails due to the initial non-sequitur made followed by the allowance of presuppositions.
It is fun because arguments like this are held as truth and proof for people that will willingly allow that leap from one thing to another without defining either.
A decent hypothesis for a god must contain the testability factor and that requires definition.
Incidentally, they make apologists to groom the fleas off of gods. One day when they're all gone, the god fleas will take over. lol.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Who wrote this?
Textbook philosophical pantheism, dude.
This is close to your same (erm...) stuff.
Objectification of concepts, anthropomorphization of natural phenomenon, poetic license, and presupposition are all tools of the evangelical pantheist in my opinion.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
There's a textbook on philosophical pantheism?
Ah... I see it now...
Beans + a couple of hours = gas
gas is gaseous
gaseous = imminant flatulence
flatulence = passing energy
passing energy = magical energy
magical energy = tweedle dee and tweedle dum
tweedle dee + tweedle dum = Congress
congess is congessional
congressional is mockery of intelligence
mockery of intelligence is pseudo intelligence
pseudo intelligence may be actual intelligence
actual intelligence is intelligent
intelligent = god
Me myself and I.
? who's asking
It was just a bit of fun to see whether I could do it.
and for this to work you have to concede that god is just a word
You have reached a stage of true enlightenment
My essays are better >_>
No problem.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Pahh and humbug
let's see you prove God's existence in less than 20 lines. in perfectly understandable no jargon English then, I am currently making the sound of a raspberry in your general direction 
hmmm it's an idea of my own making a years ago I posted this on a physics forum, ( I was just starting to understand the rudimentary of quantum physics, after a year of study I now know considerably less than when I started
)
http://www.ilovephysics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=2598#p2598
quotes me " I wonder if anybody has covered the possibility.that the mass of our universe is affected by the mass of possible previous universe's ? " ie dark matter
If so then stuff like entanglement wouldn't be applicable to this dark matter and the intimately connection on a quantum level would contain large gaps
I'm still trying to clarify this in my mind this might take some time
? do you have some ideas on this yourself
'Cuz tha Bible says so.
Sweet tits!
Now all I must do is figure out how to make all women desire to tell me to have sex with them...
No No No No!!!
why do people keep refering to the universe as though it is an entity.
THE UNIVERSE IS NOT AN ENTITY it is a completely empty void of nothingness, with things in it, to that end a void cannot have properties. There is no gravity in an empty vacuum and so the universe itself has no gravity, the things inside the universe do, however.
It's easy, Just be strong but sensitive, emotional but stoic, open with your feelings but silent, intelligent but not smarter than them, funny but serious, tall but short, black but white, up but down, left but right....
But most of all never point out that women want a contradiction.
I'm going to find somewhere to hide now.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
I disagre, slightly. While I don't think you can treat the universe as an entity I don't think you can treat it as a container (as you seem to imply). It does not just have things in it. It is the sum of everything, not just the non-entity that everything is inside of.
How can you be inside of a container that does not exist?
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
i agree, i should have said that although i say "inside" i'm not supposing that there is an outside. Looking more in to the definition of the universe, the term actually refers to all the energy and matter within this void, therefore refering to only a tiny part of this endless vacuum. When people say the universe is expanding they simply mean that the matter and energy is getting more spread out.
It's important to understand that "the universe" is not the vacuum itself, only the contents.
Ah... so... the women whom say they want an "honst man" really want to be lied to? so when she says what do you think of me, today? - I probably shouldn't say something to the affect of "you're awefully bitchy"? Perhaps come out with something a little less genuine, such as: "You're somewhat tolerable today, now shut up - or i'll be forced to choke you" :-P
No No No
couldn't resist
SamSexton you are a genius, you are also wrong about the universe, I'll explain why later, my head is dizzy with a concept you've give me, thanks
NarcolepticSun people generally desire the unattainable ie you only want what you cannot have
You're all in trouble now.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
That's a constant for me
I think this is one of the bigger flaws.
There is blue in green .... green has blue .... green is blue
I commend you upon your thinking. but I'm dubious about your chosen example. colors don't exist they are only perceived
I suppose it would all come down to whether you could differentiate between certain aspects in an enclosed connected environment ie heat the universe is warm, background radiation from the Big Bang it's everywhere, but then there's suft like life which isn't everywhere but it is part of the universe so could life be defined as the universe. ie the universe is alive, well by taking a large sledgehammer and an ample supply of ignorance to logic I believe I can
The universe is hot
The universe is gravitational
Gravity and radiation are prevalent throughout the universe so it is easy to define the universe as hot and gravitational
The universe is alive
Gravity is everywhere in the definable universe But it does not affect everything, and gravity does not exist by itself it is created by mass, mass only accounts for a small proportion of the universe but you cannot separate mass from gravity so the universe has mass and gravity, to describe the universe in its entirety you would need to say the universe has a gravitational mass or the universe is a gravitational mass, but this wouldn't be describing the entire universe. to describe the universe in its entirety you would also need to include everything in the universe including life, now life itself is quite hard to define although you consider you're self to be fully alive this isn't exactly true your fingernails hair ect are dead organic material, only a proportion of you is alive but you do not consider what proportion of alive defines life only that life itself is present to fit this definition of alive. thus the proportion of life is inconsequential to the definition of alive, the universe contains life life is made possible by the universes existence life itself is made by the material created by the universe life is created and sustained by the universes existence, the definition of life itself is the definition of the universe therefore the universe is life therefore the universe is alive
I sincerely hope I have confused the hell out of you with this vague answer
No No No
SamSexton , our universe is absolutely full of suft background radiation light, go take a look for yourself on the next cloudless night away from man-made light pollution, and find a large area of complete darkness where nothing exists go on
"When people say the universe is expanding they simply mean that the matter and energy is getting more spread out" although this is essentially true it is also in error, the light at the edges of our universe defines the edges of our universe that which exists beyond this has no time in this universe, there is a clear distinction between what is in our universe and what is outside it ie inside our light and our time
I suppose I should really pick an object and quality to be fair.
This is the formula as far as I can see it.
There is Q in O .... O has Q .... O is Q
Q = quality
O = object
Now lets see if there is a hole in this, I think I can find one.
Does limited aspects of an object really say something about the whole object?
Lets say we have a string of numbers, our object.
1713641873469861298 1123549 637402937
The highlighted section has a pattern.
For this O = number string and Q = pattern.
There is a pattern in number string .... number string has a pattern .... number string is a pattern
However if you look at number string as a whole it is not a pattern even though there is a pattern within it.
Try to pin me down with a sound logical hypothesis, using numbers ekkkkk
nobody can escape the undeniable truth of numbers. well there is one cowardly despicable BS escape, infinity tar..dar you forced me to use it and it means I'm on incredibly shaky ground from this point on. but I might just be able to pull this trick off. watch my sleeves carefully 
Although the known universe itself cannot be described as infinite ie it has a known size, certain aspects of the universe are consider infinite in quantum models. so a description of the universe becomes a description of infinity ie universe = infinity
There is Q in O .... O has Q .... O is Q
Q = quality = infinite
O = object = infinite
As both quantity and object are infinite they both hold the same value thus Q has the value of O, ie Q=O O=Q O+O=O O+O=Q Q+Q=Q Q+Q=O
I think I'm gonna go take a shit now...
Professor Irwin Corey lives!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
O RLY? Are you colorblind, by any chance?
There can be no proof of God because God orchistrated it that way. He gave evidence, but not proof. God could appear right now to everyone in the world, but that would violate our free will. God does not want us to be forced to believe. He wants us to chose to believe.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
[MOD EDIT - duplicate post removed]
1) What evidence?
2) How does presenting the truth violate free will. By that logic human beings had more free will before we discovered that it was bacteria that caused many illnesses. By your definition 'free will' requires complete ignorance?
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Care to share some of this "evidence"? How can "evidence" exist for something while "proof" of the same thing doesn't exist?
And in any case, if God DID reveal himself, and his existence were proven to be as true as the existence of Canada, how would that deprive us of free will? I most likely wouldn't worship any god, especially if it was the God of the Bible. But I would still have free will to worship or not worship as I see fit.
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
No I don't think so, although I maybe incorrect Let's see
looked at an object any object take a red ball for instance, now the ball itself doesn't contain any color, the ball itself will either reflect or absorbed different wavelengths of light, this ball reflect's the red wavelengths of light so it appears red although it isn't you perceive it as red when the reflected red wavelength of light hits you're eye, ie you only perceive it as red because it reflects that wavelength of light not because it is that color ? does this make sense to you
It is the properties of the ball that make it reflect mostly the red wavelengths. At any time if you shine light with a significant portion of red wavelengths (eg white light) onto the ball it will look red. A red ball is always a red ball, unless you paint it or it fades. Even in no light we would still consider it to be red because we know that the moment we shine some light on it it will reflect those wavelengths. When we say a ball is red that is what we means - It has properties that reflect red wavelengths.
So red is a property of the ball, just like inteligence is a property of some beings that make up an insignificant proportion of the universe.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
You know what the evidence is, but you have been taught to deny and ignore it. Search deep within and let that evidence speak to you. Its everywhere.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
First of all, nobody TAUGHT me to "deny and ignore" the "evidence." I may be an atheist, but everyone else in my (big) family is theist, 6-month-old niece and nephew* notwithstanding.
Secondly, if the "evidence" is "everywere," why are at least 4 billion people worldwide unable to see it; as opposed to the publicly available evidence that the sky is blue, gravity works and Russia is larger in size than Hong Kong?
The evidence is everywhere? Do show us! I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see it.
*twins
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
This is a new argument for me. "You already know I'm right you're just being difficult."
I guess all I can do is ask what specifically this evidence is that I'm denying and ignoring. What am I looking for here?
I have a strong feeling that we have different definitions of 'evidence' though.
Or I could just use your own tactic on you:
You have so much evidence that there is no god. It's all around you. You know what that evidence is but you have been indoctrinated to deny and ignore it.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
PA, you did a better job of pwning Apotheon than I did, although I think his comment was directed at me in particular
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
The modern phenomenon of naturalistic sciences and atheistic rationalism has indoctrinated society into believing that only things perceptible to the five senses exist. We have been taught to think this way, but it is false. Look around and look within. The evidence is all around and within you. Listen to the voice within you. God is within every man, nature, history, philosophy (the whole history of philosophy is an argument for God's existance) and religion (Christianity is the highest revealed truth in the world). There is a telological argument for God in nature, but also in history. History seems to be a fine tuned organism for the unfolding of the Divine revelation of God to man, primarily though the vehicle of the Jewish people and climaxed in the manifestation of His own Divine Son, Jesus Christ. God has not given modern man proof, but evidence. Proof would negate faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please Him." (Book of Hebrews). The evidence is in nature (cosmological and teleological arguments), in logic (law of causality. There are many logical arguments for God) in man (ethical argument), the history of the Jewish people and fulfilled biblical prophecies. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The human conscience, miracles, and life itself. Existance itself is evidence of God but we have been taught to deny this as evidence because the current paradigm of thought rests on materialism and naturalism. Man lost his sense of wonder at nature when he began to move into the concrete and smoke infested jungles called cities. Before the existance of these cities, men and women everywhere believed in God because God spoke to them in nature (Romans talks about this). Concrete and steel towers do not animate the spiritual energies in man but only produce lack of meaning and death. Death gives birth to death. Modern man is desperate for meaning, the one thing science cannot give him. We need to return to the roots, to ourselves--- a return to innocence. Fr. Seraphim Rose can explain this better than I can in his book "Nihilism: the Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age."
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur