Practical Proof of God Existance !

Practical Proof of God Existance !!!

Does God Exist?

A: In order to answer that question we must establish these facts:
1. You must have an overall basic comprehension of what "God" is or else the word God could mean anything like the word "xyshvhjfj". So since you are trying to prove if God exists, you must already have some kind of basic understanding, established meaning, or pre-assumption of what God is or else you wouldn't be asking if "God" exists.

God is usually attributed to the following generic definition:

All Unlimited and Unmeasurable Powerful

All Knowing
All Present
Super Natural "Thing"
Creator

Now keep in mind that the purpose of this discussion is not intended to prove the personal characteristics of God such as loving father, personal savior, an ethical being, a white bearded man in the clouds with lightning, Christian, Muslim, or Jewish version, one or many, but only that such an outside personal force or entity must logically exists.

2. Also, in order to proceed, we have to establish the fact that there is such thing as a "Truth" as a premise for this question. If there is no absolute truth then it would all be opinions. If the Truth is absolute then it would only leave us up to 2 different options: either God exists or God does NOT exists.

3. Even more, you must be completely open minded and enter from a neutral standpoint, leaving all predispositions behind about God not existing because a close mind would immediately dismiss all possibilities of a God ever existing. No matter how much evidence mounts up, a close mind already from the beginning does not allow a God to exists.

Dr. Richard Lewontin, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science some how compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28).

4. Now, we must also look at the following that science alone can NOT always prove the Truth and that we can also rely on other sources such as intuition, philosophy, and logic for the truth. Here is a limiting belief:

False belief: Only Science proves everything -
Science can't prove a God, therefore a God does not exist.

Does Science and physical observation prove everything? (No) Here is why:

a. Science can not prove what history can. Can it prove what you were doing last New Year's Eve? (No)
b. Can you scientifically prove what you are thinking? (No)
c. Can Science prove the statement itself, " science can prove everything" using scientific methods? (No)
d. Can Science prove why science is there to begin with to prove things? (No)
e. Science can not account for creativity, representational art, or self reflection merely from interaction from matter.

I just showed you that science can not prove everything. However, it can prove some things to be true or false sometimes. And just because science can't prove it, does not mean that it is true or false. Science presupposes philosophy and logic.


Now if you are relying on science, then you would know that "luck" and "chance" are insufficient explanations and is not allowed. Then if the universe was created using a philosophy of science, "luck" and "chance" would be ruled out. So since science points out that the universe was created and "luck" and "chance" would be out the picture, we are left with the only following options which are "purpose", "reason", and/or a "cause".

Here's the contradiction with science. Scientific method is built on logic and philosophy that the method itself will provide the absolute truth. Also, Scientific method is about observation, testing, and repeating the tests to yield the same results. The problem is that NO ONE saw Earth being created, no one can tests that, and no one can repeat that, so when we scientifically explain how the Earth was created we are not actually using scientific method but faith and reasoning for which it was built!! The same faith and reasoning that religion uses. That's the paradox of it. So faith and intuition is something that we can use to point out whats true or not which brings us to our next step, faith.

5. What is faith? Do things require faith? (Yes) Does having faith in something make it true or false? (No)

a. Do you always prove everything to be true or do you use faith and assumptions? Ex: when you consume food, do you scientifically experiment it to ensure that is it not poisonous or do you eat it because you believe (have faith) that is proper to eat? Of course.

b. Have you studied every single science out there for yourself to ensure that what they say is true? Have you ever witnessed a black hole or super particle like a quark? Of course not! Then why do you use faith in the textbooks, faith in science, the teachers that teach them, and scientists that studied them?

So when someone says that God requires faith, that's true, but not to be mistaken with the other way around that with the only reason why God's can exists is because of faith.
.

B. Nature of the universe

a. (Kalam principal) Everything that came to be had a cause. If you go against this, you go against logic. There is nothing in this physical universe that appears today without having a "cause" behind it. Things just don't simply pop into existence without a cause.

The Universe is a "thing", it came to be being, it was created so therefore it was caused by something.

b. (Argument from Design) In this physical world, can you logically conclude that with creation, comes a creator; with design comes a designer? (Yes) Without any physical evidence, scientific experiments, or observation, and just pure logic, can you assume that a painting came from a painter and that an airplane was designed by engineers? (Yes) No one looks at an airplane in the sky and says "look at that accident". Do you believe that the universe is by far more complex than both the chair and airplane? (Yes) If the universe was created then it must have an intelligent creator!

c. (Cause-and-Effect) Can you prove that your great-great-great grandfather existed without any observation or any physical evidence such as records, pictures, or videos? (No) You know using logic of cause-and-effect that without him existing, you wouldn't have existed either. (Yes) Since the universe is the effect, it must of had a "cause."

d. Is it logical to believe anything your mind thinks if it were a mere product of accident, luck or chance? (No) Is it logical to believe that "nothing logical" can create minds with logic? (No). So can something impersonal create something personal like humans? (No) So it only makes sense that something personal could create something personal.

The Universe is the totality of all matter, animate and inanimate, throughout space and time.

Space- is a 3 dimensional region consisting of height, length, and width

Matter- anything that takes up space

Time- A non-spatial continuum in which events occur in a succession from one proceeding another.

Some would like to rule out a God by stating that the universe is eternal. A problem with the universe being infinite years old is that science indicates that the universe is expanding. Words like "expanding or "increasing" can not fit with the words "infinite". Because going backwards in time would only mean that the universe would infinitely be contracting. Something can not be infinitely contracting because it would have to eventually hit a point of singularity. So this proves that the universe is not eternal.

Another problem with this is that the universe is space/time curvature.It is space of the universe that is actually expanding not the universe expanding into space. Distance is a measure of space between 2 points.You can't have distance without space and space only exists in our universe. You can not have anything outside of the universe because there is no space outside the universe since it is space itself that is expanding. This can only mean that the universe has to be a closed system.

It also means that it is impossible for multiple universes to exists because what would be in between them? It can't be distance because that would imply space and its space that only exists in our universe!

According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy can not be created nor destroyed just altered in form. There are fixed amount of matter in the universe meaning there are fixed amount of energy in the universe.

According to Einstein's theory of relativity it would take a huge amount of energy to create matter. If there is fixed amount of matter in our universe where would that extra energy come from now in a closed system?

We also know that energy that is loss is actually energy we can not detect, being useless ( a majority is usually in the form of heat) We call that state from useful energy (order) to useless energy (disorder) entropy. As more energy is being used, entropy increases. It would require more work and energy to organize and convert that useless energy to useful energy. But where would that extra energy come from if we recall that the universe is a closed system? As of right now we see that the universe is exhibiting disorder.

So if we know that the universe has a fixed amount of energy and that things reach towards disorder then the universe can not be eternal since all things by now would be in a form of useless energy. That has not happened yet and we still see things today heading towards disorder. This only indicates that time has to be linear and the universe is not infinite. If time is linear and disorder happens overtime, then going backwards would mean that at time 0 there would have to be a maximum order. But who or what started that order?

Proton Decay

As we have seen, the belief that matter is eternal has been a common explanation put forth by materialistic philosophers to get around an exnihilo (out of nothing) creation. Until the twentieth century, however,there has been no scientific evidence to verify or nullify this claim.In the last 100 years a growing body of scientific evidence has accumulated that has convinced the physics community that matter is not eternal. The first part of this evidence is proton decay.

Protons are positively charged particles which reside in the nucleus of every atom. Each proton consists of at least three quarks. For decades it was assumed that protons were eternally stable. However, physicists now believe that quarks decay irreversibly into antiquarks, pions and positive electrons, and electromagnetic radiation. This decay process occurs at a rate of only once per proton per 1032 years. Consequently,since this process is irreversible, all the atoms in the universe will eventually decay into irretrievable matter and energy. Even though this process of decay will take an enormously long period of time, it is not infinite.

We also know that time, matter, space were created when the universe was created according to Einstein's theory of relativity. We can NOT use natural laws governing the universe to explain its own existence since it was not created then. (Time, matter, space are natural laws. Time can not explain its own existence) Something outside of natural laws mean "super natural".

Some state that the universe is eternal meaning that time is essentially infinite. We know that time can not be infinite because of the following:

If time is infinite then it would mean that the past is infinite. If the past is infinite then it would mean that the future is infinite. However that is not the case because tomorrow does not exist until the end of today. Adding another day proves that time is linear not infinite since infinite has no end and you can't add on to infinite.

Another problem with "infinite" is that it is completely abstract, theoretical, imaginary, conceptual, and does not properly reflect our physical reality. For example, you can't fit infinite books in an actual finite book shelf. That would be impossible.

Here is another problem using infinite. We will use 3 different scenarios using marbles as an example. Lets say that each marble represents infinite.

If I had 5 marbles and took away 4, I would have 1 left (5-4=1)
If I had 5 marbles and took away 4, I would have infinite left

(5 - infinite = infinite)
If I had 5 marbles and took away 4, I would have 0 (infinite-infinite=0)

All 3 of the same scenarios produce a different answer so its not practical to use abstract numbers to represent the actual physical world. Infinite is not a number so it does not share same properties and behave as a number.

Another problem with the universe being infinitely old is because of Hydrogen, the fuel for the universe. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, there by reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. If the universe is infinitely old, we would already have ran out of hydrogen. But that is not the case because we still have 98% left of the original.

So now we know that time, at least in our physical universal dimension MUST be finite. If time is finite, it had to either come before matter or at the same time matter started because "when" could have matter existed before time? "When" is a property of time. Also if matter didn't exists, neither would space because there would only be a vacuum. Space is the calculation of matter. We all know that space, time, and matter are co-dependent. So since it is outside and unbounded by time, space, and matter it must be outside of time, non-spatial, and invisible. So if something has those attributes that is ungoverned and outside of this physical dimension, then it can possibly be invisible and be everywhere at the same time!!
.

C. LOGIC TEST

1. Answer the following:

Are feelings like love, patriotism, logic, or conceptual ideas (things that we physically can't see or that can't be materialized but only feel its effects) a "something"? (Yes)

- Can "nothing" create a "something"? (No)
- Does "something complex" require "something powerful" to create it? (Yes)

Is the universe a "something"? (Yes)

- Was the universe created? (Yes)
- Is the universe complex? (Yes)
- Is it logical to believe that the universe created itself before it was created? (No)

If the universe was created, then wouldn't it mean that the natural laws of time was created? (Yes)

If our physical universal dimensional time was created then wouldn't that mean that something that created it had to be "outside of our time"? (Yes)

Now, knowing that universe was created means that it had to have a reason for its creation. So at this point, we proved that whatever created the universe is abstract. There are 2 things that are abstract: the mind and numbers

Numbers can not create things and can not reason but a mind can. Therefore this something had to have a mind and free will to reason.

2. Look back at your definition of God and answer the following:

- Is God something? (Yes)
- Is God, by your definition, a Creator? (Yes)
- Is God, by your definition, powerful? (Yes)
- Is God, by your definition outside of time? (Yes)
- Must God have a mind to freely think and reason? (Yes)
- Can something impersonal create something personal? (No)
- Since personal things like humans were created then should this creator be personal? (Yes)
- Since it exists outside of space then is it non-spatial? (yes)
- Since it exists outside of matter then is it immaterial? (Yes)

D. CONCLUSION:


So, all together with the Kalam principal, Argument from Design, Law of Cause-and-Effect, your definition of God, and without any direct physical evidence or direct observation, can you logically and philosophically conclude that the "complex" universe was "created" by "something" "powerful", "supernatural", "personal", "reasonable", "non-spatial", "immaterial", and "outside of time"? Who else has these attributes besides God?

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-His eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

Perfect Topic Miro

.

I am not saying that I believe or do not believe in God, I am simply giving arguments for you to counter. If you do not fight and destroy all counterpoints, you have not truly won a debate. I have put all of your writing in Indigo and mine in red. Please remember I am merely trying to put up some options and am not biased.

The Philosopher wrote:

Practical Proof of God Existance !!!

Does God Exist?

A: In order to answer that question we must establish these facts:
1. You must have an overall basic comprehension of what "God" is or else the word God could mean anything like the word "xyshvhjfj". So since you are trying to prove if God exists, you must already have some kind of basic understanding, established meaning, or pre-assumption of what God is or else you wouldn't be asking if "God" exists.

God is usually attributed to the following generic definition:

All Unlimited and Unmeasurable Powerful

All Knowing
All Present
Super Natural "Thing"
Creator

Now keep in mind that the purpose of this discussion is not intended to prove the personal characteristics of God such as loving father, personal savior, an ethical being, a white bearded man in the clouds with lightning, Christian, Muslim, or Jewish version, one or many, but only that such an outside personal force or entity must logically exists.

2. Also, in order to proceed, we have to establish the fact that there is such thing as a "Truth" as a premise for this question. If there is no absolute truth then it would all be opinions. If the Truth is absolute then it would only leave us up to 2 different options: either God exists or God does NOT exists.

3. Even more, you must be completely open minded and enter from a neutral standpoint, leaving all predispositions behind about God not existing because a close mind would immediately dismiss all possibilities of a God ever existing. No matter how much evidence mounts up, a close mind already from the beginning does not allow a God to exists.
You are not promoting your argument in any way by saying "close mind" in this context it should be closed mind.

Dr. Richard Lewontin, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science some how compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28).

4. Now, we must also look at the following that science alone can NOT always prove the Truth and that we can also rely on other sources such as intuition, philosophy, and logic for the truth. Here is a limiting belief:

False belief: Only Science proves everything -
Science can't prove a God, therefore a God does not exist.

Does Science and physical observation prove everything? (No) Here is why:

a. Science can not prove what history can. Can it prove what you were doing last New Year's Eve? (No) Yes it can, how do you think police catch criminals? They even have forensics teams. There is evidence of what you have done all of you, no matter how small. With enough time, scientists could use the chemicals (food is made of chemical elements like anything else) in my clothes and body, the state of my mind, and many other things to eventually get EXACTLY what I was doing on New Year's Eve. All police agree that "there is no perfect crime". In such a way, everything you do, criminal or not, leaves evidence. On the other hand, history cannot prove what you were doing on New Year's Eve. How can you use history to prove what I was doing?
b. Can you scientifically prove what you are thinking? (No)
Yes you can. They have developed lie detectors already. Also, they have been able to make machines that are connected to the brains of paralyzed people that let them interact with a computer screen and type out things or show colors that they are thinking. These things have developed only within the last few years. Just think of how far science will get us in another decade.
c. Can Science prove the statement itself, " science can prove everything" using scientific methods? (No)
Ah, the scientific method:
Question: Can science prove everything?
Background Research: Science has proved most phenomenon and over time, more and more things have been proven.
Hypothesis: Science can prove everything
Test: Science can prove that two people are related and by how much. Science can prove that the "prophets" of Greece were inhaling incense that made them hallucinate. Science can prove that Romans were paler skinned than they are today because of their lead plumbing.
Conclusion: Although Science has not proved everything, it has the potential to.

Hm, is that well made enough?
d. Can Science prove why science is there to begin with to prove things? (No)
Not everything is "there" with a purpose. Science's purpose is not to prove things, but to explain them. Science can explain how science started. If you are referring to the beginning of science in human minds, it happened because people wanted to explain things. They have even begun to unravel the beginnings of the human brain and have been able to date back when human sentient thought began.
e. Science can not account for creativity, representational art, or self reflection merely from interaction from matter.
Yes it can. Science merely uses data and logic. Here is data and logic: Humans who are more creative can survive better in extreme circumstances, thus over time, only more creative humans would be left. Creativity is merely the ability to come up with new ideas. Self reflection has much the same explanation. Only humans who can reflect on and correct themselves have the capacity to survive in the long run.
I just showed you that science can not prove everything. However, it can prove some things to be true or false sometimes. And just because science can't prove it, does not mean that it is true or false. Science presupposes philosophy and logic.

Now if you are relying on science, then you would know that "luck" and "chance" are insufficient explanations and is not allowed *The correct grammar would be "and ARE not allowed". Then if the universe was created using a philosophy of science, "luck" and "chance" would be ruled out. So since science points out that the universe was created and "luck" and "chance" would be out the picture, we are left with the only following options which are "purpose", "reason", and/or a "cause".
Me winning the lottery would have no reason, yet it would be luck and chance. Luck and chance can explain some things. For example, if you randomly picked up a rock, the chances are one in a billion that it would have diamond inside. Yet people (non-religious people I might add) have had that happen to them. They were not particularly kind-hearted or generous with their chance-found diamond either. Thus, they found a diamond by luck and for no apparent "purpose".

Here's the contradiction with science. Scientific method is built on logic and philosophy that the method itself will provide the absolute truth. Also, Scientific method is about observation, testing, and repeating the tests to yield the same results. The problem is that NO ONE saw Earth being created, no one can tests that (EHEM...you are 27, your grammar should be better than this! Correctly, it is "no one can test that), and no one can repeat that, so when we scientifically explain how the Earth was created we are not actually using scientific method but faith and reasoning for which it was built!! The same faith and reasoning that religion uses. That's the paradox of it. So faith and intuition is something that we can use to point out whats true or not which brings us to our next step, faith.
Well, if you saw that every day a plant was growing exactly one inch more by sprouting one more leaf (this is all hypothetical) you would reason that the first time it ever grew an inch, it was from sprouting a leaf. If you saw a ball going in a straight line, you would reason that some point down that line was where it came from. This, in a much more complex form albeit, is how science explains the Earth's creation. Also, we are able to see other planets' creations with our advanced technology these days.

5. What is faith? Do things require faith? (Yes) Yes, some things require faith, but not everything. I do not need faith to say that if I do not breathe for an hour I will die. I do not need faith to get full scores on my tests (which I do). I do not need faith to climb a rock without ropes helping me. Each of these things are things that come naturally, an need no faith, only logic. I know that humans need air. I know that I have studied and that I have a goo memory. I know that I am physically able to climb things. I do not believe that humans need air. I KNOW that they do. Does having faith in something make it true or false? (No) This has nothing to do with it. If I had faith in Evolution, you would still write it off as false. If I had faith in God (which I might or might not, I am not firmly decided) you would say that God really exists.

a. Do you always prove everything to be true or do you use faith and assumptions? Ex: when you consume food, do you scientifically experiment it to ensure that is it not poisonous or do you eat it because you believe (have faith) that is proper to eat? Of course.
If someone was poisoned every day, would they have faith in food? No. They would naturally assume that the food that you gave them was poisoned. Just because you have faith in something doesn't mean it's true. Assumptions, might I point out, come from reasoning. You only have faith in your food being non-poisoned because you know that people do not normally poison food without cause. THAT IS LOGIC.
b. Have you studied every single science out there for yourself to ensure that what they say is true? Have you ever witnessed a black hole or super particle like a quark? Of course not! Then why do you use faith in the textbooks, faith in science, the teachers that teach them, and scientists that studied them? Have you ever seen God? Have you ever seen Jesus? Have you ever seen a person come back from the dead? OF COURSE NOT! Then why do you believe in them? Faith in the bible, faith in religion, the priests that preach them, and the people that practice them? I am throwing your words right back at you :)

So when someone says that God requires faith, that's true, but not to be mistaken with the other way around that with the only reason why God's can exists is because of faith.
.

I am only in eighth grade at the moment, so do not judge me to harshly on the quality of my writing or reasoning, and I repeat, I am not particularly against or with the belief of God. Please give your best effort to combat these arguments in order to present a logically correct view instead of the view you are currently giving to others. I do not want all of America to be brainwashed to one view or another. They have the right to hear a logical argument.