How I prove God exists.

Dear Deluxe, you say:
"And since everything is made of matter and energy you haven't witnessed anything having a true beginning."

Pray, tell me what is a true beginning?

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius

Because we haven't witnessed energy having a beginning.
You claimed to witness things beginning all the time.

Actually you said everything you witness has a beginning.

And since everything is made of matter and energy you haven't witnessed anything having a true beginning.
edit on 20-3-2018 by Deluxe because: Adding more clarification.

Dear Deluxe: You have not proven that your NOT witnessing energy having a beginning extrapolates to energy NOT having a beginning.

Let's just keep to your saying that energy cannot be created nor destroyed extrapolates to energy has no beginning.

And then we will later go to my experience and your experience of all things having a beginning or all things not having a beginning or some things have a beginning and other things don't.

And but please tell me what is a true beginning and what is a not-true beginning.

And give examples of each.

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius

It doesn't mean energy and matter have no beginning but you claimed that everything you witness has a beginning. That is false.

So this line in your proof is false.

"3. And I find everything I experience to be in existence having a beginning to its existence."

a reply to: Pachomius

You are talking about two different beginnings.

1. the beginning of everything, the universe, all matter and energy. The first cause.

2. the beginning of things in the universe which are just matter and energy changing from one form to another.

Can you not distinguish between these two?

You start off trying to prove 1. and then use 2. as examples in your proof.

Dear Deluxe, I say that I experience everything to have a beginning.

Explain why you say that is false.

You mean it is a false experience by me or it is a false statement from me?

What about you, you extrapolate from having no experience of energy having a beginning to energy has no beginning.

You mean you have no experience of energy having a beginning, wherefore for you it is a fact that energy does not have a beginning?

That means that for you, when you don't experience something to have a beginning, then it has no beginning?

That is certainly in my thinking very deficient personal epistemology on your part.


I see that you can't think straight.

You still have not explained what is a true beginning, and what is a not-true beginning, and give examples of each kind.

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius

You are talking about two different beginnings.

1. the beginning of everything, the universe, all matter and energy. The first cause.

2. the beginning of things in the universe which are just matter and energy changing from one form to another.

Can you not distinguish between these two?

You start off trying to prove 1. and then use 2. as examples in your proof.

Dear readers here, we have got to, Deluxe and me, work to concur on what is the meaning of beginning, and give examples from experience of things with beginning.

I will give examples of things with a beginning.

And Deluxe will give examples of things without a beginning.

Then we will apply our concurrence on what is beginning and examples of, as also what is not beginning, and examples of, in order to infer to the existence of God, in my concept of God, namely:

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

a reply to: Pachomius

I've already explained it everything you are asking.
Please re-read my posts. I'm not going to endlessly type the same stuff again.

I think the issue here is you love your proof and are completely convinced it's logically sound and true.

I see you have resorted to the

"I see that you can't think straight" card.

Well done.

How can we continue when you've essentially ended the argument with personal insult.
My sister lost an argument with me once and then punched me in the face. Pretty much the same thing you just did.
You punched me in my mind.

a reply to: Pachomius

Do i really have tell you that number 1 is the true beginning?

Dear readers here, for the recall of everyone, I will reproduce the OP.

originally posted by: Pachomiusposted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 05:23 PM

Title of thread: How I prove God exists.

1. I define God as in concept first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.
2. So I search for everything with a beginning to its existence.
3. And I find everything I experience to be in existence having a beginning to its existence.
4. There, that is the evidence of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.
5. Wherefore God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Dear Deluxe, I will now give my concept of what is beginning, and examples of things with beginning; and what is no-beginning, and an example of thing with no-beginning.

In regard to existence, beginning means a point 'before' which point there was nothing of something which 'after' that point, it starts existing.

And no-beginning means no point at all 'before' which a thing was not existing, i.e. a thing with no-beginning exists 'always and everywhere': this means the thing is beyond before and after and beyond time and space, AND also encapsulating time and space and before and after, AS it transcends time and space and before and after.

Examples of things with beginning: the nose on our face, babies and roses, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the evening sky.

Example of thing without beginning or with no-beginning: God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.


Okay, dear Deluxe, please present your concept of what is beginning, and no-beginning.

And examples of both.

a reply to: Pachomius

One more time. You said.
"3. And I find everything I experience to be in existence having a beginning to its existence."
and I said you have not experienced energy or matter having a beginning. Nobody has.
I did not say matter and energy could not have a beginning. I said you have not seen it begin.
Your 3. is a false statement.

Have you ever seen energy being created?
Please answer that.

Dear Deluxe, you say that:

"I gave you an example of something that does not have a beginning (witnessed). Energy. It can neither be created nor destroyed.
Have you witnessed energy being created? Having a beginning?"

I still have not seen you proving that just because you say that energy cannot be created nor destroyed therefore it does not have a beginning.

Energy not being able to be created nor destroyed does not implicate that it has no beginning.

I read all your posts after this one below, and I don't see you proving that energy cannot be created nor destroyed equals to energy has no beginning.

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius

I analyzed your proof of God and found fault in it earlier in this thread.
I suggested you needed to come of with better axioms for your proof. Axioms that can be accepted as self evident and agreed upon.
I gave you an example of something that does not have a beginning (witnessed). Energy. It can neither be created nor destroyed.
Have you witnessed energy being created? Having a beginning?
You responded:
"I now give you the nose on our face, babies and roses, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the night sky, for examples of things with a beginning."
Noses, babies, roses, sun in the day sky, moon in the night sky. The are just configurations of matter and energy that had existence before they came to be.

I'm not here to prove God exists or not. I'm in this thread to tell you your proof is wrong. I have every right to post in this thread.

a reply to: Pachomius

That's because i did not say that because energy can neither be created nor destroyed it can't have a beginning.
I'm saying you haven't witnessed it having a beginning.

How many times do I have to type that before you read it correctly.

Let me simplify it for you.

It appears we humans in this universe cannot create or destroy energy.
It seems to be a rule in the universe we live in. Where did the energy come from. I do not know, perhaps your God, or perhaps energy always existed.

The point is you have not seen energy created.

Dear Deluxe, don't be getting into silly semantics, on whether I experience or you experience no-beginning or yes-beginning of energy, the fact is that you have not proven that energy not being able to be created and neither destroyed is equivalent to energy having no beginning.

Why don't you just prove in your next post that energy has no beginning, and then infer from there that God does not exist, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

The fact is that you are not cognizant on what it is and how to prove something to exist to be with a beginning or not with a beginning.

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness when and how Deluxe will finally give his proof that energy has no beginning, and infer from there that God does not exist, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

a reply to: Pachomius

I did not say energy had no beginning.
I said you have not experienced it beginning.

For the love of your God.

Dear Deluxe, even the whole Wiki article does not even have any mention of the word beginning!

Please stop playing the silly semantic game, that I have not experienced energy having a beginning, that is no ground for your groundless statement that energy is without beginning because it cannot be created nor destroyed.


Okay, you are now saying: "I did not say energy had no beginning."

Dear readers here, so from the beginning Deluxe has no example of something in the universe studied by scientists to have no beginning.

Wherefore you Dear Deluxe have not presented at all any serious objection against God existing: in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So, what the heck are you doing here in this thread which is about: How I prove God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

en.wikipedia.org...

“In physics, the law of Conservation of Energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, it is said to be conserved over time.[1] This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another.”

[Etc.]

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius

I did not say energy had no beginning.
I said you have not experienced it beginning.

For the love of your God.

a reply to: Pachomius

I object to your proof of the existence of God. Not God.
It's as simple as that.

There may be a God or may not. I never in this thread said there was or wasn't.

This thread is about your proof.
The thread is titled "How I Prove God Exists."
So I came here to talk about how YOU prove God exists. Not me. YOU.

Anyhow, time for others to chime in. I've exhausted my patience for you and your pseudo-philosophical word salad.

Dear Deluxe, you say:
"I object to your proof of the existence of God. Not God.
It's as simple as that."

No, it's not as simple as that, unless you specify intelligently what is that you are referring to.


You say that you have come to something in the universe that exists without a beginning, namely, energy.


After I have pursued your thinking, I come to conclude that you have not proven anything in the universe to not have a beginning.

All you have is something about energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but you already inanely claim that the energy you refer to is without beginning.

And I keep insisting that it does not follow that because you can utter energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it does not follow that energy is without beginning.

You see, you are into what you think to be pretty smart silly semantics, as with your present post, like with these words from you:

"I object to your proof of the existence of God. Not God.
It's as simple as that."

Okay, so that you can appear to be into speaking without silly semantics, tell readers here what is my proof for the existence of God: for you cannot be objecting to something you don’t know about at all, in the present case, my proof for the existence of God.

Hint: Read the OP, and tell me what you understand of it, as to object to it, without silly semantics.

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius

I object to your proof of the existence of God. Not God.
It's as simple as that.

There may be a God or may not. I never in this thread said there was or wasn't.

This thread is about your proof.
The thread is titled "How I Prove God Exists."
So I came here to talk about how YOU prove God exists. Not me. YOU.

Anyhow, time for others to chime in. I've exhausted my patience for you and your pseudo-philosophical word salad.

Dear readers here, you see, atheists the way I have penetrated into their way of 'arguing', they are always inside their brain spinning and weaving obfuscation and obscurantism, but never ever coming into the objective world of empirical reality of like the nose on our face, babies and roses, the sun in the day sky, and the moon in the evening sky, to investigate the evidence for God's existence.

So, dear atheists here, how do you organize an expedition to, say, investigate the existence of Bigfoot?

Dear readers, I predict atheists here will retort that they see God to be no different from Bigfoot.

And their master, one Bertrand Russell, started the trend of evasions, by this unjustified ridiculous analogy, calling God an orbiting teapot in space.

Today's atheists use these analogies to God:

Flying spaghetti monster
Invisible pink unicorn
Santa
Tooth fairy
Magic daddy in the sky
Etc. ridiculous images on God

a reply to: Pachomius

No, it's not as simple as that, unless you specify intelligently what is that you are referring to.

Are you doing this on purpose?

here let me actually quote the whole thing.

Dear Deluxe, you say: "I object to your proof of the existence of God. Not God. It's as simple as that." No, it's not as simple as that, unless you specify intelligently what is that you are referring to.

"that" what they were refering to is what you quoted them saying.

You quoted this, 2 sentences

"I object to your proof of the existence of God. Not God.
It's as simple as that."


"that" is what the first sentence is.

Its very simple English and after a while of thinking about it its almost impossible to interpret any other way other than what it means.

After I have pursued your thinking, I come to conclude that you have not proven anything in the universe to not have a beginning.

Why would someone do something like that, its not the topic of your thread.

Hint: Read the OP,

hint: read your title.

Okay, so that you can appear to be into speaking without silly semantics, tell readers here what is my proof for the existence of God: for you cannot be objecting to something you don’t know about at all, in the present case, my proof for the existence of God. Hint: Read the OP, and tell me what you understand of it, as to object to it, without silly semantics.

the irony.


silly semantics is what you began with when you want use your own definitions of words.