• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged A Proof of the Existence of God / Did Someone Create the Universe?

Buddha said:
I can easily modify my proof be getting rid of the tape. Here it is:

1. The Universe is of infinite age.
There must be an observer or observers to verify that. But their evidence, whatever it might be, cannot be viewed in its entirety, so it cannot be accepted.

2. The universe came to be by itself, so to speak, as a result of some empirical process.
However, there was no observer to verify that, so this claim is baseless.

3. Someone created the universe.
In this case that someone is the Creator (or Creators) and the Observer at the time, so this hypothesis can be confirmed.
End of proof.

There are several theories regarding creation of the universe that do not involve God (or Gods), the theory of quantum fluctuation is one them, that contradict each other. Without the observer, how can anyone tell which one of them is correct?
Click to expand...

Wow, OMFSM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't believe we have never seen this argument before.
Color me shocked!

1. You are assuming that the universe is of infinite age, I suggest you read up on the fact that our universe is not of an infinite age. It has a finite boundary for a 'start of the universe'.
The current theories as to what our universe came from abound (inflationary bubbles, colliding branes, etc..)
However the answer to Where did the universe come from? is We don't know.

But the universe is of a finite age.

2. You assume that
3. You base your conclusion of an assumption.
 
Last edited:
Buddha said:
This might surprise you but I used similar example in one of my debates that you use here -- I wrote that it is impossible to tell the sex and the color of a pre-historic animal based on its skeleton.
Click to expand...

No, it is not surprising to anyone that you know nothing of sciency stuff like palaeontology. (Although, you know, you could at least google it).

Unlike your failed "proof" of god(s) we actually have proof that you know nothing of (among other things) palaeontology, since you have your 'Theory of Anti-evolution' book for everyone to laugh about see.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Buddha said:
I could reproduce that proof in another thread. I didn't see it on the Internet. But before that I would have to prove that the reincarnation exists, which I am going to do at another thread after this one runs out.
Click to expand...

Then your premise in starting this thread was fraudulent. If your proof for the existence of God depends on reincarnation being proven, and you decline to prove reincarnation until after discussion of your proof of the existence of God is concluded, then you've made it clear that you want the discussion of your proof of the existence of God to go on for ever without reaching a conclusion.

Dave
Click to expand...

Don't forget he loves circular logic, so he can jump into and out of the merry-go-round at will.


But he already realized that this thread is not coming to an end unless he leaves, so he's taking advantage of his own decision and promising a lot of things that will never happen.
 
Buddha said:
Do not expect me to depart from this website in a near future. I have a plenty of other ideas that I would like to test in front of specific audiences including this one. Currently I am also testing my controversial ideas that go against Christian faith at the Christian websites.
Click to expand...


Testing requires to acknowledge what you have been said and to reply to it in style, what you haven't done here and I think you'll never do. I don't think this site is an exception either.

You're just collecting bits that pass under the radar of others, and little more than rounding up your stale narrative with references to caveats we are indirectly providing so you can act like you're a thorough thinker and have something to say on the inescapable criticism your notions are going to attract.
 
Dancing David said:
Wow, OMFSM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't believe we have never seen this argument before.
Color me shocked!
Click to expand...

It's basically "Witnessing" with a thin veneer of bad apologetics spread over it, this idea that you have to talk to "non-believers" as if they've never heard the story before.
 
Buddha said:
He is defined as omnipotent by the Judeo-Christian theologians who grossly misinterpreted the Bible. But this is their problem, and I do care about their opinion. In this case the only person whose opinion matters to me is myself. I am not a member of Christian denomination so I can say anything I want without the fear of being excommunicated.
Click to expand...

Don't you worry. You're no Miguel Servet so no Jean Calvin will rat on you.

So far your modus operandi seems to be the appropriation of any "sacred" text available and push away any authority that had a saying on each of them in order to put yourself in their place through "your opinion".
 
Buddha said:
Apparently you misunderstood my position on so called omnipotence, so I'll make myself perfectly clear -- I reject it. Even God doesn't have it, whatever the word "omnipotence" means. When I express my own ideas I prefer not to use this word. When I refer to someone else's ideas I have no choice but to use it.
Click to expand...

Then explain yourself better: you said "god" was "someone who can do anything he wants", but that according to you isn't omnipotence.

See, this one of the moments you came looking for.
 
Buddha said:
I can easily modify my proof be getting rid of the tape. Here it is:

1. The Universe is of infinite age.
There must be an observer or observers to verify that. But their evidence, whatever it might be, cannot be viewed in its entirety, so it cannot be accepted.

2. The universe came to be by itself, so to speak, as a result of some empirical process.
However, there was no observer to verify that, so this claim is baseless.

3. Someone created the universe.
In this case that someone is the Creator (or Creators) and the Observer at the time, so this hypothesis can be confirmed.
End of proof.
Click to expand...
In your first edition, a contemporaneous observer wasn't postulated, just a means of "recording" the events of the universe, which could then be viewed later. Dismissing Item (1) above as already scientifically disputed, we only need some means of recording a finite set of events which could "hypothetically" be viewed. We don't need a human or supernatural viewer. If there were something which could store and carry information about, like say, electromagnetic waves, then you have met the criteria for Item (2).
There are several theories regarding creation of the universe that do not involve God (or Gods), the theory of quantum fluctuation is one them, that contradict each other. Without the observer, how can anyone tell which one of them is correct?
Click to expand...
Seriously, doesn't this just contradict your entire "proof"? Without the observer, how can anyone tell whether it is God or some other process?
 
Crossbow said:
Therefore, your work is a failure just like all of the preceding works on this subject have been a failure.
Click to expand...

I reckon "Buddha" is probably only trying to come up with something that may attract and convince parishioners. That may be the reason he wouldn't pursue to tackle the criticism thrown at him. It's like he's just after things that may survive in certain environments.
 
aleCcowaN said:
I reckon "Buddha" is probably only trying to come up with something that may attract and convince parishioners. That may be the reason he wouldn't pursue to tackle the criticism thrown at him. It's like he's just after things that may survive in certain environments.
Click to expand...

He's not looking to write a Chick Tract that will convert people. He's looking to write a Chick Tract that Christians will buy.
 
aleCcowaN said:
-The universe started when god committed suicide. It's not its creation but its cadaver.

-The universe was born when good and evil dissociated.

There are lots of mythologies that can be used to satisfy the "logical necessity" of a crappy explanation in your style.

You cherry-picked your three options and failed to made a valid argument of them. And that basically summarizes all your work in this thread so far, once one gets rid of all the self-referential and off-topical padding you pumped in.
Click to expand...

Here are some more possibilities that haven't yet been ruled out:

Last Thursdayism - The universe is less than a week old. It is certainly possible for a video tape of that length to exist.

Closed time loop - Time may go on forever but still be composed of a discrete number of individual moments. This could be captured on a tape of finite length.

Reincarnation - This universe is the reincarnation of another universe that existed previously and died. (You believe in reincarnation, right?)
 
Buddha said:
I can easily modify my proof be getting rid of the tape. Here it is:

1. The Universe is of infinite age.
There must be an observer or observers to verify that. But their evidence, whatever it might be, cannot be viewed in its entirety, so it cannot be accepted.

2. The universe came to be by itself, so to speak, as a result of some empirical process.
However, there was no observer to verify that, so this claim is baseless.

3. Someone created the universe.
In this case that someone is the Creator (or Creators) and the Observer at the time, so this hypothesis can be confirmed.
End of proof.
Click to expand...


What. A. Mess.

Who created God?

And, assuming the universe was created, what difference should that make in the way we make moral decisions?

Do you have any proof of what your god got up to when he was done observing himself create the universe?

Also, how does your theory apply to, say, the set of whole numbers. The set of whole numbers can't be counted, so it cannot be accepted? The set of whole numbers came about by some empirical process, but nobody witnessed it so it never happened? God observed himself creating the set of whole numbers? But if God created the set of whole numbers, the set is infinite, so even God couldn't ever finish observing it?

Instead of "the universe," substitute "the set of whole numbers" and tell me whether your proof still works.
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
What. A. Mess.

Who created God?

And, assuming the universe was created, what difference should that make in the way we make moral decisions?

Do you have any proof of what your god got up to when he was done observing himself create the universe?
Click to expand...

Probably special pleading for the Great Trickster of Creation
 
Dancing David said:
It is a tired old ploy round these here parts
Click to expand...

"Witnessing" has always amazed me.

I mean we're adults in 2018 Western Civilizations. We're heard all the stories already, all the arguments, all passion. This isn't new to us. Nobody is hearing this crap for the first time.

Going into the discussion assuming you are so amazing that you can say the same things in the same way and have the non-believers 'get it' this time because you're just awesome is just... weird.
 
Loss Leader said:
Also, how does your theory apply to, say, the set of whole numbers. The set of whole numbers can't be counted, so it cannot be accepted? The set of whole numbers came about by some empirical process, but nobody witnessed it so it never happened? God observed himself creating the set of whole numbers? But if God created the set of whole numbers, the set is infinite, so even God couldn't ever finish observing it?

Instead of "the universe," substitute "the set of whole numbers" and tell me whether your proof still works.
Click to expand...
The set of whole numbers is "countably infinite", meaning we could count them, given infinitely long time. The set of fractions made up of x/y such that x and y are whole numbers is also countably infinite. The set of irrational numbers (pi, e, etc.) is uncountably infinite, meaning you cannot map a one-to-one correspondence with the integers. Inasmuch as the universe might be like a set of numbers, I would think it more like the set of irrational numbers, since at the quantum level you could not map each point in space-time to a (space, time) matrix. /return to today's drollery
 
//Slight hijack//

The internet channel Vsauce has an amazingly well done video about the different 'types' of infinity from the bog standard single Aleph-Null up to Cantor's Diagonal Argument and Pardox of the Grand Hotel.

Fascinating stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom