CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:215
Arguments:143
Total Votes:220
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 How to prove God is the creator of the observable universe. (141)

Debate Creator

Marius(16) pic



How to prove God is the creator of the observable universe.

I am a Christian.

To resolve the God debate, I invite atheists to first come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is as follows:

"Creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself."

That is the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the totality of existence which I understand by the concept of the universe.

Do you atheists know of that concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?

If you do not know that concept of God, then insofar as the Christian God is concerned you are in denying God's existence barking up the wrong tree at the wrong God.

Now, if you know the correct God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God.

 

Marius

 

Add New Argument
7 points

I am a Christian.

Uh oh, I'm have a sneaking suspicion I'm about to hear something completely one-sided, self-important and utterly rife with hypocricy and contradiction.

To resolve the God debate, I invite atheists to first come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is as follows:

"Creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself."

... I'm sorry, do you know an atheist who is not aware of this concept? Do you believe you've revealed some great secret only you intellectual Christians have considered?

That is the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the totality of existence which I understand by the concept of the universe.

Er, yeah, get on with it...

Do you atheists know of that concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?

._. ... yawn... Yeah, got it. Carry on.

If you do not know that concept of God, then insofar as the Christian God is concerned you are in denying God's existence barking up the wrong tree at the wrong God.

Er... okay. Good to know. Point yet?

Now, if you know the correct God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God.

Okay easy.

If god could have always existed without being created, god being even more complex than general matter,

Than it is far, far more likely for matter to have simply always existed.

If matter (being the far simpler thing) could not have simply always existed, than god could not have simply always existed and must have been created himself.

Disproving your own definition.

That is actually a better defense of atheism.

Marius

Nice try though, better than that Srom dude.

1 point

iamdavidh(3054) 2 points

"I am a Christian."

Uh oh, I'm have a sneaking suspicion I'm about to hear something completely one-sided, self-important and utterly rife with hypocricy and contradiction.

"To resolve the God debate, I invite atheists to first come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is as follows:

"Creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.""

... I'm sorry, do you know an atheist who is not aware of this concept? Do you believe you've revealed some great secret only you intellectual Christians have considered?

"That is the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the totality of existence which I understand by the concept of the universe."

Er, yeah, get on with it...

"Do you atheists know of that concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?"

._. ... yawn... Yeah, got it. Carry on.

"If you do not know that concept of God, then insofar as the Christian God is concerned you are in denying God's existence barking up the wrong tree at the wrong God."

Er... okay. Good to know. Point yet?

"Now, if you know the correct God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God."

Okay easy.

If god could have always existed without being created, god being even more complex than general matter,

Than it is far, far more likely for matter to have simply always existed.

If matter (being the far simpler thing) could not have simply always existed, than god could not have simply always existed and must have been created himself.

Disproving your own definition.

That is actually a better defense of atheism.

Marius

Nice try though, better than that Srom dude.

12hrs 21mins ago

-------------------

I think you have to define what is matter in its fundamental relation to the universe.

If you attribute to matter the creation of everything in the universe that is not matter itself, then I will grant that you have another name for the Christian God.

No need for you to quarrel with us Christians, you just have another name for God.

Is that okay with you, or you still will not accept God even by your name for God which is matter?

What we have to do now is to reconcile what you believe is the everything created by matter which is your God, with the everything that is created by God in the Christian faith, if you also attribute to matter the creation of everything in the universe that is not matter itself.

Do you comprehend my point now?

iamdavidh(4871) Disputed
7 points

Hey Marius.

Shift 8, that star thing, putting two of those around something you copy and paste will make it bold and one will make it italic. Click the "Show Help" below where you are entering an argument, you may have to scroll down on your browser, and it will show you how. That way you don't have to copy and paste the entire thing and you can keep the debate clearer.

So, to the important parts:

I think you have to define what is matter in its fundamental relation to the universe.

Matter is the Universe. It's all the stuff that makes up the Universe, earth, stars, you me, all the atoms, etc.

No need for you to quarrel with us Christians, you just have another name for God.

Is that okay with you, or you still will not accept God even by your name for God which is matter?

I do not have a god at all. I believe the natural state of the Universe is existence and creation is unnecessary for existence. We are a happy (for us) coincidence. But it's not that odd a coincidence considering the size of the Universe, and likely a lot of beings on planets with the right conditions have come to the point in evolution where they could ponder these things.

You seem quite agreeable, unfortunately I find the vast majority of Christians to be self-righteous and hateful toward others who don't believe what they believe. I find most of the social policies the majority of Christians champion to be forces for evil in the world, and humanity would be better off without this particular superstition.

Sorry, but I take it as something of a moral obligation to quarrel with Christians in hopes of making the world a better place. If the majority were as agreeable as you seem to be, I would not feel this need. Perhaps Christians should quarrel with one another more to fix this.

What we have to do now is to reconcile what you believe is the everything created by matter which is your God, with the everything that is created by God in the Christian faith, if you also attribute to matter the creation of everything in the universe that is not matter itself.

Do you comprehend my point now?

I will not submit to this dogma. I do not believe the Universe was created by anyone, nor in the fundamental mentality which would allow one to submit to a god if one did exist.

People are smart and naturally good all in all when we think and do not allow ourselves to be controlled by such superstitions.

I think I have done these stupid God debates a billion times over now so I'm just gonna say a witty comment; If God was all knowing he should be able to beat himself at checkers or at chess, but in order to beat himself he has to outsmart himself, meaning that he really isn't all knowledgeable.

Suck me. I win. ;)

2 points

supremepizza(544) 2 points

I think I have done these stupid God debates a billion times over now so I'm just gonna say a witty comment; If God was all knowing he should be able to beat himself at checkers or at chess, but in order to beat himself he has to outsmart himself, meaning that he really isn't all knowledgeable.

Suck me. I win. ;)

8hrs 41mins ago

----------------------

Well, you are challenging God to play chess against Himself so that whether God loses or wins against Himself God is proven to you to be not all knowledgeable.

Do I get you correctly?

I ask you, why should it be that your conclusion is that God is thus not all knowledgeable whether He wins or loses in playing chess against Himself?

The conclusion should be God in playing chess against Himself God whether He losses or wins, He is still all knowing, because the same God Himself is winning as also is losing, so it's a draw between God and Himself, wherefore His all-knowing feature is not compromised.

Can you comprehend that?

Tell you what, you gamble your money against yourself, and see whether you lose or win against yourself you end up with less or more money than the money you got started with?

1 point

Seems like my intuition that you, Marius have no understanding of epistemology at all has been proven right. Let me show you why.

I believe you have said, "Tell you what, you gamble your money against yourself, and see whether you lose or win against yourself you end up with less or more money than the money you got started with?"

This statement, on its own, commits the 'false analogy' fallacy not once but twice.

First, you have given an analogy which compares a 'gambler' to God. Obviously this is bullshit (and I'm not afraid to call your bluff) because if God is, in your words, the creator of everything in the universe except for Himself, how can you compare a gambler to him? If there are two creators (I can safely say this since you're assuming the gambler has similar characteristics with God, which is why you used that analogy in the first place) , that would be a huge contradiction on your part. Why? Because if there are two creators 'of everything in the universe except themselves', then one must have created the other. But if one HAS TO create the other, then they both have to create each other. This will then lead you to an infinite regress, which inferior theist debators always fall into the logical trap of.

Second, in your analogy, you liken money to knowledge. This is another false analogy. Money is quantifiable, while knowledge isn't. Philosophers even go so far to argue that money is a metaphysical concept that does not exist.

Can you comprehend that?

cognismantis(21) Clarified
1 point

Actually, checkers has been found to be a tie( perfect play, using algorithms, from both players results in a draw.)Chess, is also likely a tie seeing that the most frequent score for the super gms of chess is a tie. Thus, if god was all knowing, he would tie with himself.

4 points

Let me see if I am correctly rephrasing your two premeses and the conclusion you have so far drawn from them.

P1: According to Christianity, God created everything except himself.

P2: Everything that exists or can exist is part of the universe.

C: Therefor, God created everything except himself.

Is this right?

1 point

zombee(775) 2 points

Let me see if I am correctly rephrasing your two premeses and the conclusion you have so far drawn from them.

P1: According to Christianity, God created everything except himself.

P2: Everything that exists or can exist is part of the universe.

C: Therefor, God created everything except himself.

Is this right?

15hrs 31mins ago

--------------------------

That is correct, you get me correctly

What do you say, can you also accept the conclusion "God created everything except Himself," i.e. God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

zombee(1028) Disputed
2 points

Not really, no. This isn't even a real argument form, it's just a tautology. If you're asking us to assume the truth of your premises for the sake of your argument, you have to deliver something more as a conclusion than repeating one of your premises.

I am a Christian.

We all have our faults, sir; I'm a bigoted, irascible lunatic who dearly wishes that he lived in the late 18th century.

To resolve the God debate, I invite atheists to first come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is as follows:

"Creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself."

And who created him?

I have dealt with the question before, but as this is the correct version of the concept, whereas all those that I had discussed and dismissed before had been spurious, I should think it prudent to ask the usual sort of difficult questions that we have all asked before, under surprisingly similar circumstances.

Though, you should perhaps be forewarned of the following logical trap: 'He does not need a creator because he is God'. I am sure that you have no intention of responding in a similar manner, as that is the 'incorrect' version of the faith, but as Mr. Berry once said, 'You never can tell'.

That is the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the totality of existence which I understand by the concept of the universe.

How can one be at once faithful and understanding?

Do you atheists know of that concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?

I do not presume to speak for all atheists, but I am certainly aware of that nonsense; hence my atheism.

If you do not know that concept of God, then insofar as the Christian God is concerned you are in denying God's existence barking up the wrong tree at the wrong God.

Insofar as any God is concerned, I make no distinction between one species of fanciful delusion and another. That your cult is the largest of them all is neither here nor there.

Now, if you know the correct God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God.

No, I still cannot accept the proposition. Would you care to try arguing rather than simply thrice stating your premise?

Marius

Rupert. À votre service.

Marius(16) Disputed
1 point

I guess I have not replied to you before.

I am now asking everyone to agree that unless we get to agree on mutually concurring concepts and rules to abide by, we can argue forever and ever, and never come to any conclusion one way or the other.

What do you say, do you agree with my view that we must come first to concurrence on concepts and rules?

You might say that it is impossible to come to concurrence on concepts and rules.

Well, those who don't subscribe to the idea and actual engagement and succeed thereby to come to concurring concepts and rules, they can go their own way to argue among themselves each one with his own concepts and rules.

But I am sure that men of genuine reason and a sense of reality will come to agreement on concurring concepts and rules, and they will eventually sooner or later conclude together that yes God exists, or no God does not exist.

1 point

It's me again. Not letting you get away with your theistic waffle. Let me help my ally out here.

What do you say, do you agree with my view that we must come first to concurrence on concepts and rules?

You obviously do not understand the concept of "atheism". This is a lack of a belief of God(s) and/or a rejection of the notion of a god. Now, you are justified to expect us, as atheists, to recognise that your view/definition of God, but you can't expect us to agree that such a God exists. You can't even expect us to even agree that there is only a god as you have defined it. As an atheist, I have to recognise the fact that Muslims and Hindus define god differently (note that this is not a contention that I am expected to defend in the UoD here). So it would be irresponsible for you to invite atheists to debate with you and then dictate what they should or should not believe.

I am sure that men of genuine reason and a sense of reality will come to agreement on concurring concepts and rules, and they will eventually sooner or later conclude together that yes God exists, or no God does not exist.

I think you need to explain your claim here. What makes you so 'sure'?

Let me go back to the problem of existence here. The question 'what is existence?' is a deep philosophical question that has permeated the discussions of the best philosophers through the centuries. For example, the great German philosopher Leibniz famously asked the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" And the French philosopher Rene Descartes postulated a famous argument that can be simply summarised as "cogito ergo sum". Coming to the philosopher I most revere (aka the father of modern philosophy), the great Scottish philosopher David Hume postulated (what can be viewed as) an opposition to "cogito ergo sum", called the "Bundle Theory". Now, these are arguments familiar to anyone who has even bothered to seriously read through any introductory philosophy book. I invite you, Marius, the read through the arguments and then come and debate with me, instead of trying to sidestep the difficult questions posed by those who do not share all your views.

You cant prove that God is the creator or even that he exists at all. If He wanted you to have proof He would have given it to us, what He wants is for us to have faith, for that to work there can be no proof. Everything in the universe and earth (how it was all made how it works, floods, eruptions even seas splitting) can be explained through science but that doesn't mean that by accepting that, Gods existence is disproved. Did God not create science, math, gravity, atoms and energy all of which beautifully and amazingly make up and explain the universe.

One more thought for you, if God is the creator of the observable universe who or what is the creator of the unobservable universe?=)

I agree with everything you've said, except for the point that "everything in the universe and earth can be explained through science." I can give you two very short arguments against this claim. First, the Scottish philosopher David Hume famously postulated an argument called "the Problem of Induction. This basically goes something like this: even if something has been observed to occur many times in the past, it does not necessarily imply that the same occurrence will happen again in future situations, even if you assume ceteris paribus. Thus, according to this argument, all sciences are logical fallacies (I dare you to challenge David Hume's argument.)

Second, David Hume also postulated another argument called the 'is-ought problem' (more affectionately known as "Hume's Guillotine"). This goes as follows: just because something IS happening in one way, it does not follow that it OUGHT to occur in this manner. Why is this important? Because science derive theories and concepts based on observations (and by "the Problem of Induction", these are logical fallacies) and even though science can tell us what IS happening, it does not tell us what OUGHT to happen due to the slippery slope.

Having said that, I agree fully that whether or not science can (or cannot) explain everything, it does not have any bearing on whether God exists or not. By its own nature, such an 'argument from science' is a red herring.

2 points

Because something hasn't been explained by science doesn't mean it cant be, it just means we haven't figured out how to YET. I don't see how the these arguments/ideas contradict my point. Just because something happens that has never happened before or happens differently than we expect it doesn't mean that the fabric of science is flawed or wrong it just means we haven't interpreted thing correctly.

Marius(16) Disputed
1 point

ReventonRage(45) Supported 1 point

I agree with everything you've said, except for the point that "everything in the universe and earth can be explained through science." I can give you two very short arguments against this claim. First, the Scottish philosopher David Hume famously postulated an argument called "the Problem of Induction. This basically goes something like this: even if something has been observed to occur many times in the past, it does not necessarily imply that the same occurrence will happen again in future situations, even if you assume ceteris paribus. Thus, according to this argument, all sciences are logical fallacies (I dare you to challenge David Hume's argument.)

Second, David Hume also postulated another argument called the 'is-ought problem' (more affectionately known as "Hume's Guillotine"). This goes as follows: just because something IS happening in one way, it does not follow that it OUGHT to occur in this manner. Why is this important? Because science derive theories and concepts based on observations (and by "the Problem of Induction", these are logical fallacies) and even though science can tell us what IS happening, it does not tell us what OUGHT to happen due to the slippery slope.

Having said that, I agree fully that whether or not science can (or cannot) explain everything, it does not have any bearing on whether God exists or not. By its own nature, such an 'argument from science' is a red herring.

8hrs 52mins ago

-------------------

Well, I would tell Hume that even though there is a problem in logic with induction so that we can never say that something is certain to exist or to not exist or to occur again or to not occur again, I will tell him to not dispense with intelligent self-guidance.

Suppose he sees that people are getting themselves killed by shooting themselves in their heads, so to prove that the next occurrence of shooting oneself in the head will not get oneself killed, he accepts the challenge to shoot himself in his head, because he is not sure that the next shooting in this case of himself by himself will get himself killed.

I submit thinking people who care for him should stop him, unless like Hume they have become un-intelligent, have become stupid, and worse, crazy; the government should put all such crazies in an asylum for their own safe keeping.

So, dear ReventonRage, even though to the mind of a Hume there is a problem with induction, that does not mean that you can dispense with intelligence in your mind and become stupid or worse crazy.

There is a distinction between logic and intelligence, and in everyday life I hope you always choose to act intelligently instead of acting logically, when you do have a choice to act intelligently instead of logically.

Now, what about the existence of God, well you can go on and on and on with logic that God does not exist, but if you use your logic intelligently, God exists.

Anyway, I like you to tell me what is it according to you to prove something to exist in objective reality from the part of man to man -- or man to animals.

Marius(16) Disputed
1 point

I have already mentioned about the need for man to distinguish between logic and intelligence: if your logic is going to make you act un-intelligently then it is about time you choose to act intelligently than keeping to your logic.

Thinking on Hume more carefully I see clearly the man did not give importance to the fact that the input of man's senses is restricted to the access of his senses in the actual situation mankind finds himself to be living in.

For example, when mankind was living without any telescope, etc., it was obvious to mankind that the sun goes around the earth, and that occurs everyday, so that mankind then concludes that it is a fact that the sun goes around the earth.

Coming to the problem of induction, if all the inputs of man's senses in his actual situation in time and in space confirms repeatedly his observation that every swan he sees is white, then it is obvious that he should conclude every swan is white.

But the color of swan is not any crucially important piece of information for mankind, in order for mankind to guide himself so as to survive and to continuously enhance his life and his knowledge of the world.

Before anything else about the color of swans being only white or also black, the power of man's mind to imagine things, that is a very crucial endowment in man from the Creator, that enables man to survive and to enhance his life situation and also increase his knowledge of the world.

If man had imagined that color in a swan need not make up the true nature of a swan, that it is something that can change and a swan is still a swan, then he could have gone to as much as possible all places to try to meet a swan that is not white but of another color for example black.

When man did go to other places and saw black swans even just one, then he realized that there are also black swans.

So, I submit Hume was very poor in thinking, he forgot to use his intelligence but he stuck to his mastery of logic, that is the reason why some people never get to know better things, and do better things by being most most most logical but neglecting the habit of thinking intelligently which intelligent thinking starts with an open mind.

Marius(16) Disputed
1 point

sierrastruth(204) 2 points

You cant prove that God is the creator or even that he exists at all. If He wanted you to have proof He would have given it to us, what He wants is for us to have faith, for that to work there can be no proof. Everything in the universe and earth (how it was all made how it works, floods, eruptions even seas splitting) can be explained through science but that doesn't mean that by accepting that, Gods existence is disproved. Did God not create science, math, gravity, atoms and energy all of which beautifully and amazingly make up and explain the universe.

One more thought for you, if God is the creator of the observable universe who or what is the creator of the unobservable universe?=)

7hrs 50mins ago

-----------------------

I disagree with you, unlike you I know that man with his reason and sincerity can prove to himself and others who are reasonable and sincere that God exists as creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

You also say:

"Everything in the universe and earth (how it was all made how it works, floods, eruptions even seas splitting) can be explained through science but that doesn't mean that by accepting that, Gods existence is disproved. Did God not create science, math, gravity, atoms and energy all of which beautifully and amazingly make up and explain the universe."

I find that very edifying for myself, thanks.

About your question:

"One more thought for you, if God is the creator of the observable universe who or what is the creator of the unobservable universe?=)"

My answer is that God is also the creator of everything in the unobservable to man universe, everything that is not God Himself.

You see, let us understand the universe as the totality of existence where anything that exists or can exist, exists in, even God Himself exists in the universe understood by me as the totality of existence.

That makes the universe greater than God, because I say that God also exists in the universe?

First: when I say that God Himself exists in the universe which I understand as the totality of existence where everything that exists or can exist, exists in, I am not denying that God is greater than the universe.

I would be denying that God is greater than the universe if I were to say that God is imprisoned in the universe as like a convict is imprisoned in a jail.

Second: the totality of existence is a mental concept of a collection, a collectivity, that concept exists in my mind; in my mind the totality of existence is like an imaginary big shopping bag where I put my concepts of everything that exists or can exist, including the concept of God and everything else that is not God but created however by God.

So God is not in any way imprisoned in my imaginary big shopping bag, except my concept of God as of my concepts of everything that is created by God.

Hope you can comprehend that.

In the Christian faith God is transcendent to the universe and also immanent in the universe; for myself I will say that God is both inside and outside the universe He has created.

An atheist keeps insisting that I am saying something ridiculous when I say that God is also outside the universe because for him there is no outside of the universe; I keep telling him that by outside I do not mean as like one is outside one's house which house is in a neighborhood, by outside I mean that God is not imprisoned inside the space in which the material universe is located; but the atheist keeps on and on and on insisting that I mean outside as like outside one's house which house is located in a neighborhood.

Well, that is one very stubborn atheist who just insists that you must mean what and how he wants you to understand things the way He wants it.

One irrational atheist.

Now, I ask everyone, can a human be inside his house and also outside his house?

Sure, the way I see it, a human like myself can be inside his house like inside his bedroom inside the house and also outside, if he is in control of the whole house inside and outside, with closed circuit television cameras everywhere inside and outside the house, and remote control instrumentation.

3 points

You cannot prove this claim. I happen to believe it to be true, but even I acknowledge that it is simply not possible to 'prove' that God is the creator of the universe, let alone that he exists.

Any claims related to God or his existence should be treated primarily as a religious one. Religions are, by definition, based on the concept of faith. If it was possible to legitimately prove the existence of God, faith would no longer play a role, as it would become a fact. However, quite contrarily, it will always remain a theory with minimal concrete evidence to support it.

I'm being realistic here.

Religion = faith

Science = evidence, proof

Having these constant debates about God is so utterly pointless, see that it will forever be unfalsifiable as well as unprovable.

Marius(16) Disputed
1 point

Aside from religious faith, man can prove the existence of God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, by his reason.

But we must everyone keen on the God debate by reason agree to first work together to come to mutually agreed on concepts and rules to abide by from the part of everyone.

What do you say, isn't that logical, instead of each one talking endlessly but with no agreement on the concepts and rules that everyone should agree on?

Now, perhaps at this point we have to agree that it is illogical for people to debate without first having come to agreement on concepts and rules binding on all parties engaged in the debate.

You agree to that, or you don't agree to that, in which latter case I cannot see how you can be logical in talking here.

Troy8(2431) Disputed
1 point

Could you try to repeat that a little more concisely? I honestly don't think I know what you mean.

2 points

Perhaps I am missing something. What is it that is being offered as proof? Making the assertion that "God is the creator of everything that is not God himself" does not provide any evidence, proof, or reason why we should accept this as true. Should we simply take your word for it?

Make an argument for Godsake!

Marius(16) Disputed
1 point

That is what I have been doing, giving arguments.

Now that you mention evidence, will you agree with me to work together as to come to a mutually agreed on concept of what is evidence?

Niko(127) Disputed
2 points

Evidence, noun: 1) that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2) something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was evidence of his fever. 3) Law: data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Proof, noun: 1) evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief that in it s truth. 2) anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have? 3) the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof. 4) the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration. 5) Law: (in judicial proceedings) evidence having a probative weight.

Above from Dictionary.com

Below from Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary

Evidence, noun: 1) SIGN OF PROOF something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion: There is no evidence that the disease is related to diet. 2) PROOF OF GUILT the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime: The police have no evidence. 3) STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry.

Proof, noun: 1) CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something 2) TEST a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true 3) STATE OF HAVING BEEN PROVED the quality or condition of having been proved 4) TRIAL EVIDENCE the evidence in a trial that helps to determine the court's decision

Here are definitions from two different sources; there are even example sentences if you need them. If these don't help, let me know. We can work together to help you understand that they are so that you can apply them to your statement; putting proof or evidence into your statements turns sentences into arguments.

Side: Proof please
Bohemian(3870) Disputed
2 points

An argument consists of both a conclusion and supporting premises. You have only a conclusion.

Side: Proof please
2 points

Sorry, maybe I'm confused, but you say that we can resolve the God debate if we accept that Christians believe, I repeat, believe, that God exists because of an unproven statement that God created everything there is except Himself. You haven't proven its validity in any way.

If you could please, would you explain how knowing what Christians believe proves that what they believe exists?

Side: Proof please
Marius(16) Disputed
1 point

I am at present most concerned with getting everyone to agree to work together on coming up with mutually agreed on concepts crucially involved in the God debate, and also on rules to abide by.

I have explained already that we are now into concepts, please keep that in mind.

Side: Proof please
1 point

[quote=Niko] Niko(115) 2 points

Sorry, maybe I'm confused, but you say that we can resolve the God debate if we accept that Christians believe, I repeat, believe, that God exists because of an unproven statement that God created everything there is except Himself. You haven't proven its validity in any way.

If you could please, would you explain how knowing what Christians believe proves that what they believe exists?

5 days ago | Tagged As: Proof please

[/quote]

before anything else, I say I am the author of this thread, what I mean is that I started this topic here in this CreateDebate forum, namely;

[quote=Marius]

[ Post 1 ]

Title of Topic: How to prove God is the creator of the observable universe.

I am a Christian.

To resolve the God debate, I invite atheists to first come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is as follows:

"Creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself."

That is the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the totality of existence which I understand by the concept of the universe.

Do you atheists know of that concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?

If you do not know that concept of God, then insofar as the Christian God is concerned you are in denying God's existence barking up the wrong tree at the wrong God.

Now, if you know the correct God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God.

Marius

[/quote]

That is the OP or first initiating post from the author of this debate topic which in other forums is called a thread.

I really must apologize for not using the codes here to make my writing more in accordance with the codes, but I am still looking for a page in this website where the codes are listed and examples of each given.

It is actually my intention to start a new debate topic as soon as everyone has agreed on concepts and rules, and as a matter of fact in order to quench the thirst of atheists who already wanted to plunge right away into disproving the existence of God, I did start a new topic but the powers that be here in effect required me to continue in the present topic, so I am now simultaneously getting people to agree on concepts and rules and also presenting my thoughts to show how God does exist in the totality of existence, which is my understanding of the universe, which universe is bigger than the observable to man universe.

Okay Niko, you ask:

"If you could please, would you explain how knowing what Christians believe proves that what they believe exists?"

First, if you know the correct information of the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is that:

"God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself,"

and second, if you agree with me to understand the universe as the totality of existence which contains also the observable to man universe,

then we can go forward in the totality of existence to look for God the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

And where do we look for God, or where do we start to look for God?

The question that atheists always ask is where is the evidence for God, so we will look for evidence for God in the observable to man universe; it cannot be otherwise since we cannot know the rest of the universe outside that portion we call and know to be the observable to man universe.

Do you follow me?

What I will do next, even though you atheists want to rush things and that is what I call haste is waste, what I will do next is to present propositions and also ask you atheists here to present propositions, and we work to agree to accept the propositions coming from us both.

That is the way to go to resolve the God debate, by agreeing on propositions one by one, instead of bringing in so many things to no purpose but to muddle up the issue or to divert it to all kinds of endless repetitious controversies.

Side: Proof please
1 point

Ok. Thank you for explaining that. Sorry, I completely misunderstood what you were saying in your initial description. Yes, I agree; haste is waste. I like to argue things carefully. Sorry if I presented myself as stubborn and jumpy when it came to debating.

I also agree that we need to work together to resolve the God debate on both ends, otherwise it isn't a mutual conclusion.

Side: Now I Understand
2 points

Ask yourself this question, why is my body made of such? Why are your eyes shaped like that? The reason is because God made you of such, as everybody is a special child of God in his eyes. Although there are twins on this earth, they still have differences, like their thumbprints and stuff like that. Do you think you are a coincidence with the big bang theory? Or did we evolve from MONKEYS!!!AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! So think about this, and think what reason you were made for.

Side: Proof please
Dremorius(861) Disputed
1 point

Well, the bible says we came from dust.

DUST!?!?!

Side: Proof please

I'm well aware of this concept, as are most Atheists I know, so, convert me.

Side: Proof please
Marius(16) Disputed
1 point

No, the idea is not to convert you but for us both to work our way into resolving the God debate.

Now, (1) you are aware of the concept of God in the Christian faith in God's fundamental relation to the universe as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, (2) are you also aware that the universe is the totality of existence in which everything at all that exists or can exist is a component of?

Once you are aware of these two concepts, that of God and that of the universe, it follows that God exists as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

Can you see that?

Side: Proof please
ricedaragh(2520) Disputed
1 point

No, the idea is not to convert you but for us both to work our way into resolving the God debate.

I know, but you did state "then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God."

If I come to accept the existence of God, by your reasoning, have I then not been converted?

Now, (1) you are aware of the concept of God in the Christian faith in God's fundamental relation to the universe as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, (2) are you also aware that the universe is the totality of existence in which everything at all that exists or can exist is a component of?

Yep.

Once you are aware of these two concepts, that of God and that of the universe, it follows that God exists as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

Can you see that?

I can see that, that is what you believe, but it is clearly illogical. If the Universe is the totality of existence, then God must exist within it, if not, then God must not exist.

Can you see that?

Side: Proof please
1 point

Personally, for all that unlettered babble you've spent your time on so far, I think that you have not made any good arguments against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God (i.e. the God that you believe in). Yes, I am well aware of Christian theology, especially with the concept of the divine Creator, since I was a Christian myself for nearly 13 years.

Going straight to the point now. You've asked the question, 'How to prove God (again, I reinforce that I'm talking about the Judeo-Christian God) is the creator of the observable universe?' Okay fine, you have defined what "God" means to Christians. However, you have not proved (note the diction here) that God is the Creator. Here's is why.

When I read and/or participate in these debates, Christians (i.e. theists who believe in the Judeo-Christian God) put forth arguments for their own belief in a supernatural space daddy in a way that seems to ignore, denounce or suppress the beliefs of other theists of other faiths, and therein lies the arrogance camouflaged by humility. What you need to do to prove that the Judeo-Christian God is the creator of the observable universe is as follows:

(1) Prove that there are no logically sound and valid arguments against your claim (that the Judeo-Christian God is the creator of the observable universe).

(2) Prove that there are good, logically sound and valid arguments for your claim.

The above two requirements are not the same because in order to do (1), you need to logically tear down arguments against your claim and then do (2) give good, logically sound and valid arguments for your claim. Until you do that, I don't think you can prove that the Judeo-Christian God is the creator of the observable universe.

What you have said does not do anything to prove God is the creator of the observable universe. Let's look at your argument:

Premise 1: God in the Christian faith is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

Premise 2: The universe is the totality of existence in which everything at all that exists or can exist is a component of.

Conclusion: Therefore, it follows that God exists as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

I see two big problems in your above argument. First, in your conclusion you have made two claims - 1) God exists and 2) God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. I would say that you have attempted to prove the second claim, but not the first. Again, you need to prove that there are no good arguments against the existence of God and then prove that there are good arguments for the existence of God.

Second, look at premise one and your conclusion. They BOTH say that God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. This is a circular argument because to reach your conclusion, you have already ASSUMED that your conclusion is true. And, by disguising your definition of God as the 'Judeo-Christian God', it does not absolve you of the fallacy you are committing.

I suggest that you work harder at proving your claim by engaging in the rigour of logical debate.

Side: Proof please
1 point

I have question for all those fellow atheists. Have you ever thought who created this earth? It can't be made by its own. There has to be someone that creates something. In order for you to do a load of laundry you have to do it yourself. The load will not start on its own. Its the same thing with the earth the earth can't be made on its own there for someone needs to start it.

Side: Proof please
zombee(1028) Disputed
5 points

You consistently present juvenile and flimsy challenges to athiesm and by doing so, you're being a poor ambassador for your faith. It's not as if there are no serious arguments against atheism or no respectable supports for Christianity; if you really want to contribute to discussions about belief, at least try to familiarize yourself with a few of them. Edward Feser's book 'Aquinas' might be a good place to start.

Side: Proof please
Marius(16) Disputed
1 point

I submit that srom 1883 is making a good argument for the existence of God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

-----------------

srom1883(619) 1 point

I have question for all those fellow atheists. Have you ever thought who created this earth? It can't be made by its own. There has to be someone that creates something. In order for you to do a load of laundry you have to do it yourself. The load will not start on its own. Its the same thing with the earth the earth can't be made on its own there for someone needs to start it.

17hrs 18mins ago

-------------------

I will put it this way:

The observable to man universe cannot have created itself, can we agree to that?

But in the totality of existence that is the whole universe, not just the observable to man universe, there is an entity not directly observable to man unlike the observable to man universe part, that is the entity that always exists, and it is this entity that satisfies the concept of God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

If there is no such entity in the whole totality of existence that includes the observable to man universe part, then there is not always something, but there is nothing and we can stop talking once we postulate instead of there is always something, there is [sic] always nothing.

However, atheist cosmologists have another understanding of nothing, they understand nothing as something but they want you to wink both eyes of your mind to their very peculiar understanding of nothing as something anything, by which ultimately there is an explanation in the longest terms for the existence to them of the observable universe, they call it something like the laws of nature, etc.

Side: Proof please
iamdavidh(4871) Disputed
3 points

Why is every single initial comment you make automatically and instantly upvoted?

You know jesus tortures cheaters with hellfire for all of eternity don't you?

Side: Proof please

He has another account called srom1884 or something like that; $10 says he uses that account to upvote himself ;)

Side: Proof please
Niko(127) Disputed
3 points

The load of laundry won't start because it isn't made by the Earth; it's artificial. Nature made everything that was in the Old World, before the Technological Era began. For example, how is ice made? The freezing of water, which was originally something that could only happen naturally. Now we have technology, which allows us to freeze things on our own. The Earth isn't a machine (natural), which the laundry machine is (artificial).

Side: Natural vs Artificial
garry77777(1797) Disputed
1 point

"It can't be made by its own. There has to be someone that creates something. In order for you to do a load of laundry you have to do it yourself. The load will not start on its own."

You do realise this argument has about as much value as a peice my dried in stool.

Side: Natural vs Artificial

The description text is so small...even if you have a valid argument, probably it's not very good if you can't even handle typing.

Side: Natural vs Artificial
1 point

[ I don't know how this message is going to come out, but I just want to address everyone, not to support or to dispute anyone. ]

-------------------

Okay, everyone here, from the start this is what I have chosen to do here, a Perspectives Debate.

-----------------------

http://www.createdebate.com/about/faq

Debate Types

What is a For/Against Debate?

What is a Perspectives Debate?

A Perspectives Debate is an open question where the positions are tracked by tags. Perspective Debates are best used for an issue that can't be broken down easily in to two sides, such as "What's the greatest band ever? By default, any CreateDebate user can post in a Perspectives Debate.

-----------------------

I have said earlier that I would be presenting some propositions for us all to agree to, in order that we can get closer to the actual debate on God's existence or non-existence, and not be talking past each others' heads.

Here are the propositions, not all of them but the ones that I can see to be most important for us all to agree to:

1. We must agree to work together to come to concurring on concepts most crucially involved in the God debate, and also to concurring on rules which all will abide by.

2. We must agree on a concurring concept of God, though not admitting the existence of the God corresponding to the agreed on concept of God.

3. We must agree on a concurring concept of the universe.

4. We must agree on a concurring concept of what it is to prove the existence of something.

5. We must agree on a concurring concept of what is evidence.

6. We must agree to abide by the rule that God's existence or non-existence is in reference to only the universe where we live in and are parts of, and where we see also the stars and even the distant galaxies and other components making up the universe.

These are my proposed concepts to agree on, and with #6 one rule so far that I am proposing we all agree to abide by.

Now, everyone if you have any propositions that you desire must be agreed on by everyone, on concepts and also rules, please present them in your posts.

Side: Natural vs Artificial
Bohemian(3870) Disputed
2 points

To echo what zombee has already said, if you are waiting for everybody within this thread to come to an agreement in each of those criteria you will be waiting for quite some time.

Side: Natural vs Artificial

Agreed. A classic example of this is how the theologians (even within the three Abrahamic monotheistic religions) cannot concur on a precise definition of what the word "God" is supposed to mean. Now, reluctant as I am to appeal to authority, but I doubt that if the theologians haven't managed to come up with a working definition they can all agree on, then I don't think Marius is going to do any better.

Side: Natural vs Artificial
1 point
Side: Natural vs Artificial
1 point

While I realize your intentions were perhaps humorous, given the history of the people on the site I am inclined to think otherwise.

The child is justified in his position. Ignoring the Umbilical cord and the touchable womb membrane as these things don't have a counterpart in the outside world that fit the analogy, who's to say(in this scenario where no prior knowledge of human anatomy exist) that the individual carrying the children is a female and not an hermaphrodite creature with tentacles? Any imaginable result must be given equal ground if we concede that unjustified claims can be possible without giving them due burden of proof. The only thing the children can prove is their own existence and the plane on which this existence takes place.

Side: Natural vs Artificial
Th3ZViru5(149) Disputed
1 point

Interesting view. However, the point is that someone is incubating those children. Someone created them but, still yet, they still believe (even though infants don't have this cognitive ability) they will cease to exist after birth (which is used as a metaphor in this case for death).

Side: Natural vs Artificial
1 point

ATHEISTS, READ THIS:

Your logic sucks. Your god is a murderous child-killer.

-

CHRISTIANS, READ THIS:

So true. Atheists are sinners who need god. Only god can save these sinners. The bible is the word of god.

-

There. I summarized every god debate that has ever occurred.

Side: Natural vs Artificial
2 points

You forgot agnostics:

AGNOSTICS, READ THIS:

My ass is sore from all that fence sitting.

Side: Natural vs Artificial
Th3ZViru5(149) Disputed
1 point

I thought atheists didn't have gods? Interesting. And why are you angry? Don't you agree with the picture? It's pretty much the exact same thing you've been saying all along.

Side: Natural vs Artificial