LOGICAL PROOF A GOD EXISTS

[Slashin8r]

This proof is so simple that a 2-year-old can follow it.

Science is all about finding answers to questions. A few of the big questions are, "Why do we exist?", "Where did matter come from?", "Why does gravity work the way it does?", etc.

Now, imagine that there was a scientific breakthrough and we answered one of those important questions. We only find ourselves asking more questions about the new answer, "Why that answer?".

Every time you find an answer, you will follow it with more questions to be solved. It is a never ending cycle of questions and answers and questions.

Where does it end? The only logical answer is GOD. Sooner or later, even science will find GOD.


More evidence:
Steven Hawking and other physicists have theorized that the universe was spontaneously created by laws such as gravity. They then theorized that these laws were created by the universe.

This means the creation of the universe works in a cycle:
Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> Universe -> Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> etc.

Where did the cycle start? The most logical spot to start the cycle is to define the Laws. How did the Laws get defined without a current Universe? The only logical answer is GOD.


Now, I don't speak of a Christian GOD or Greek GODs, or any GOD that we know of. It is far more logical that the GOD that does exist has never had any influence on our creation at all except for the fact that this GOD created the Laws in which everything is governed.

[Greylorn Ell]

This proof is so simple that a 2-year-old can follow it.

Science is all about finding answers to questions. A few of the big questions are, "Why do we exist?", "Where did matter come from?", "Why does gravity work the way it does?", etc.

Now, imagine that there was a scientific breakthrough and we answered one of those important questions. We only find ourselves asking more questions about the new answer, "Why that answer?".

Every time you find an answer, you will follow it with more questions to be solved. It is a never ending cycle of questions and answers and questions.

Where does it end? The only logical answer is GOD. Sooner or later, even science will find GOD.


More evidence:
Steven Hawking and other physicists have theorized that the universe was spontaneously created by laws such as gravity. They then theorized that these laws were created by the universe.

This means the creation of the universe works in a cycle:
Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> Universe -> Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> etc.

Where did the cycle start? The most logical spot to start the cycle is to define the Laws. How did the Laws get defined without a current Universe? The only logical answer is GOD.


Now, I don't speak of a Christian GOD or Greek GODs, or any GOD that we know of. It is far more logical that the GOD that does exist has never had any influence on our creation at all except for the fact that this GOD created the Laws in which everything is governed.

One would naturally expect two-year old kids to follow an argument devised by one of their peers.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

This proof is so simple that a 2-year-old can follow it.

Science is all about finding answers to questions. A few of the big questions are, "Why do we exist?", "Where did matter come from?", "Why does gravity work the way it does?", etc.

Now, imagine that there was a scientific breakthrough and we answered one of those important questions. We only find ourselves asking more questions about the new answer, "Why that answer?".

Every time you find an answer, you will follow it with more questions to be solved. It is a never ending cycle of questions and answers and questions.

Where does it end? The only logical answer is GOD. Sooner or later, even science will find GOD.


More evidence:
Steven Hawking and other physicists have theorized that the universe was spontaneously created by laws such as gravity. They then theorized that these laws were created by the universe.

This means the creation of the universe works in a cycle:
Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> Universe -> Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> etc.

Where did the cycle start? The most logical spot to start the cycle is to define the Laws. How did the Laws get defined without a current Universe? The only logical answer is GOD.


Now, I don't speak of a Christian GOD or Greek GODs, or any GOD that we know of. It is far more logical that the GOD that does exist has never had any influence on our creation at all except for the fact that this GOD created the Laws in which everything is governed.

One would naturally expect two-year old kids to follow an argument devised by one of their peers.

Greylorn

[thedoc]

One would naturally expect two-year old kids to follow an argument devised by one of their peers.

Greylorn

That was mean, True, but mean.

[ReliStuPhD]

One would naturally expect two-year old kids to follow an argument devised by one of their peers.

Greylorn

That was mean, True, but mean.

Can the truth ever be mean? I mean, it can hurt, but speaking it is kind of a favor, right?

[Greylorn Ell]

One would naturally expect two-year old kids to follow an argument devised by one of their peers.
Greylorn

That was mean, True, but mean.

Doc,

Come on. You and I had a few ornery moments until we decided to take a closer look at one another, but mean?

I am ornery, pissed-off, and frustrated at the inability of people who apparently have functional minds to actually use them, but am rarely mean. In this instance, I was merely annoyed.

Consider the handle of the nit to whom I responded. Translated, Slashin8r reads, in modern abbreviated parlance, Slash an' ate her.

This is a philosophy forum, Doc. What's most important to you? Bringing out the truth or treating potentially evil jerks sweetly?

Greylorn

[uwot]

I wouldn't read too much into things Grey Lore 'n' Hell.

[ReliStuPhD]

Probably supposed to be "Slashinator" too. Not that it moves us that far up the ladder.

[thedoc]

One would naturally expect two-year old kids to follow an argument devised by one of their peers.
Greylorn

That was mean, True, but mean.

Doc,

Come on. You and I had a few ornery moments until we decided to take a closer look at one another, but mean?

I am ornery, pissed-off, and frustrated at the inability of people who apparently have functional minds to actually use them, but am rarely mean. In this instance, I was merely annoyed.

Consider the handle of the nit to whom I responded. Translated, Slashin8r reads, in modern abbreviated parlance, Slash an' ate her.

This is a philosophy forum, Doc. What's most important to you? Bringing out the truth or treating potentially evil jerks sweetly?

Greylorn

I suppose it's the way I was brought up and being mean or unkind wasn't part of that. Bringing out the truth is important to me but just as important is that the other person will hear it and accept it. Sometimes I just don't see the use or need to lay the truth out before those who can't grasp it. Perhaps Slashin8r is deeper than he appears at first glance, I'll wait and see, but it seems to me that claiming that a 2 year old could follow his proof is a bit of a put down of those reading this thread. You must admit that some here will state the truth whether it hurts or not and there are a few that would just as soon hurt as not. I know I've done it at times, but hurting others seems just a bit unnecessary, I usually reserve mine for when the other seems to have earned it. And don't you think that calling him a peer of 2 year old's was just a bit mean?

[Greylorn Ell]

That was mean, True, but mean.

Doc,

Come on. You and I had a few ornery moments until we decided to take a closer look at one another, but mean?

I am ornery, pissed-off, and frustrated at the inability of people who apparently have functional minds to actually use them, but am rarely mean. In this instance, I was merely annoyed.

Consider the handle of the nit to whom I responded. Translated, Slashin8r reads, in modern abbreviated parlance, Slash an' ate her.

This is a philosophy forum, Doc. What's most important to you? Bringing out the truth or treating potentially evil jerks sweetly?

Greylorn

I suppose it's the way I was brought up and being mean or unkind wasn't part of that. Bringing out the truth is important to me but just as important is that the other person will hear it and accept it. Sometimes I just don't see the use or need to lay the truth out before those who can't grasp it. Perhaps Slashin8r is deeper than he appears at first glance, I'll wait and see, but it seems to me that claiming that a 2 year old could follow his proof is a bit of a put down of those reading this thread. You must admit that some here will state the truth whether it hurts or not and there are a few that would just as soon hurt as not. I know I've done it at times, but hurting others seems just a bit unnecessary, I usually reserve mine for when the other seems to have earned it. And don't you think that calling him a peer of 2 year old's was just a bit mean?

I was also brought up to be nice, and learned that the result was to get screwed. I've adapted by learning that the humans on our planet are a mixed bag, a few of them thoughtful, trustworthy, and competent; another larger segment anxious to do evil (note how easily ISIS manages recruiting by merely posting images of beheaded infidels-- or learn how easily Hitler found members of the Gestapo and SS). The vast majority of people are mindless shmoos (as defined and characterized by the cartoonist Al Capp) who will do pretty much whatever their current version of an authority figure tells them to do.

I have also learned in the course working several forums to never give a jerk the benefit of the doubt that he/she/it might be an even bigger jerk in real life than in forum appearance. If wrong, the presumed jerk will correct the opinion.

You wrote, "I'll wait and see, but it seems to me that claiming that a 2 year old could follow his proof is a bit of a put down of those reading this thread. " If my memory is still working, it was Slash'er who declared that a 2-year old could follow his proof. I did not make that claim.

You have an odd way of being "nice." Here you've decided that I am in the wrong because I may have incorrectly categorized someone. To support your opinion you have falsely attributed that pinhead's words to me. That is typical of progressive liberals and religionists who freely misappropriate another's words to further their own agenda. Such misquotes are lies, far worse than being mean. I will accept your apology.

Inasmuch as his "proof" was incompetent, my comment seems fair. I'll stand by it. If it offended Slash, he might man-up and deal with it. What I'm curious about is, why might you be offended? Why are you so quick to rise to the defense of an incompetent whose handle suggests even worse? This forum is, of course, just a high-tech version of Dogpatch, but have I transcended its boundaries and inadvertently stepped into Shmooville?

Perhaps the next installment of this cartoon will tell all. Or, as is more likely, nothing.

Greylorn

[thedoc]

You wrote, "I'll wait and see, but it seems to me that claiming that a 2 year old could follow his proof is a bit of a put down of those reading this thread. " If my memory is still working, it was Slash'er who declared that a 2-year old could follow his proof. I did not make that claim.
Greylorn

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression but I was referring to Slash'er making that statement. I did suggest that your repeating it might have been mean, but that was a joke.

[thedoc]

Inasmuch as his "proof" was incompetent, my comment seems fair. I'll stand by it. If it offended Slash, he might man-up and deal with it. What I'm curious about is, why might you be offended? Why are you so quick to rise to the defense of an incompetent whose handle suggests even worse?
Greylorn

But now I'm confused, I'm not sure where I indicated that I was offended and I certainly wasn't defending Slash'er. I was questioning his post, and again perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

[Greylorn Ell]

Inasmuch as his "proof" was incompetent, my comment seems fair. I'll stand by it. If it offended Slash, he might man-up and deal with it. What I'm curious about is, why might you be offended? Why are you so quick to rise to the defense of an incompetent whose handle suggests even worse?
Greylorn

But now I'm confused, I'm not sure where I indicated that I was offended and I certainly wasn't defending Slash'er. I was questioning his post, and again perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

Doc,

The matter of whether or not someone is taking offense to a statement is not so formally defined as the days wherein duels to the death clarified such issues. These days, one must attend to inferential information. For example, if B gets on A's case, and C takes up A's case (without a word of self-defense from A), a socially rational individual might figure that C was offended by B's getting-on. And he might be completely mistaken in that figuring. Given the wiggle-room involved in all things social, who will know for sure? And, who gives a shit?

Clarity is always helpful, and often in haste to make a point we do not see how our words might be interpreted by others. Seemed to me like you were questioning my post rather than Slash'er's, and I must reply according to my best understanding of a post. Else I'd be making shit up, which seems unphilosophical.

Unless you think that there is a tidbit of cheese at the end of this tunnel, I'm happy to move our conversations elsewhere.

Greylorn

[SpheresOfBalance]

This proof is so simple that a 2-year-old can follow it.
No, it's not! And a 2-year-old knows not the alphabet, let alone any of these words.

Science is all about finding answers to questions. A few of the big questions are, "Why do we exist?", "Where did matter come from?", "Why does gravity work the way it does?", etc.
I don't necessarily agree on these specific questions being the definitive cutting edge of current science, but OK, they seek answers to questions!

Now, imagine that there was a scientific breakthrough and we answered one of those important questions. We only find ourselves asking more questions about the new answer, "Why that answer?".
Why not that one? One can only follow the string of clues to their end.

Every time you find an answer, you will follow it with more questions to be solved. It is a never ending cycle of questions and answers and questions.
You cannot say this, you cannot know they are "never ending," just because they are not the last in the chain of questions. Are you trying to say you are clairvoyant?


Where does it end? The only logical answer is GOD. Sooner or later, even science will find GOD.
That's an assumption on your part. That god exists at all, is an assumption. Where's your proof that god exists? What experiment did you perform in which you found that, certainly true, logical conclusion?



More evidence:
Steven Hawking and other physicists have theorized that the universe was spontaneously created by laws such as gravity. They then theorized that these laws were created by the universe.
You've provided no evidence yet, let alone now.


This means the creation of the universe works in a cycle:
Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> Universe -> Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> etc.
That you use our partial understanding of the universe to draw your conclusions, is being understood more and more as you go.


Where did the cycle start? The most logical spot to start the cycle is to define the Laws. How did the Laws get defined without a current Universe? The only logical answer is GOD.
That you have an imaginary catch all conclusion, for anything you don't yet understand, is becoming clearer and clearer.


Now, I don't speak of a Christian GOD or Greek GODs, or any GOD that we know of. It is far more logical that the GOD that does exist has never had any influence on our creation at all except for the fact that this GOD created the Laws in which everything is governed.
That is in fact a possibility, but you have not gotten there through logical conclusion based upon sound premises. You just want to believe it's true. I understand that, it's much easier that way!

[Greylorn Ell]

This proof is so simple that a 2-year-old can follow it.
No, it's not! And a 2-year-old knows not the alphabet, let alone any of these words.

Science is all about finding answers to questions. A few of the big questions are, "Why do we exist?", "Where did matter come from?", "Why does gravity work the way it does?", etc.
I don't necessarily agree on these specific questions being the definitive cutting edge of current science, but OK, they seek answers to questions!

Now, imagine that there was a scientific breakthrough and we answered one of those important questions. We only find ourselves asking more questions about the new answer, "Why that answer?".
Why not that one? One can only follow the string of clues to their end.

Every time you find an answer, you will follow it with more questions to be solved. It is a never ending cycle of questions and answers and questions.
You cannot say this, you cannot know they are "never ending," just because they are not the last in the chain of questions. Are you trying to say you are clairvoyant?


Where does it end? The only logical answer is GOD. Sooner or later, even science will find GOD.
That's an assumption on your part. That god exists at all, is an assumption. Where's your proof that god exists? What experiment did you perform in which you found that, certainly true, logical conclusion?



More evidence:
Steven Hawking and other physicists have theorized that the universe was spontaneously created by laws such as gravity. They then theorized that these laws were created by the universe.
You've provided no evidence yet, let alone now.


This means the creation of the universe works in a cycle:
Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> Universe -> Laws -> Spontaneous Creation -> etc.
That you use our partial understanding of the universe to draw your conclusions, is being understood more and more as you go.


Where did the cycle start? The most logical spot to start the cycle is to define the Laws. How did the Laws get defined without a current Universe? The only logical answer is GOD.
That you have an imaginary catch all conclusion, for anything you don't yet understand, is becoming clearer and clearer.


Now, I don't speak of a Christian GOD or Greek GODs, or any GOD that we know of. It is far more logical that the GOD that does exist has never had any influence on our creation at all except for the fact that this GOD created the Laws in which everything is governed.
That is in fact a possibility, but you have not gotten there through logical conclusion based upon sound premises. You just want to believe it's true. I understand that, it's much easier that way!

S.O.B.
No problem with your arguments. Dead on.

I wonder why you've bothered. There's an N.T. quote that goes like, "Cast not thy pearls before swine."

Greylorn