I built this argument proving God necessitates his existence using astronomy, mathematics and ontology. If anyone can contribute i would appreciate it, otherwise don't bother saying anything please

My honest advice, brother, is to always provide a verifiable link or source when starting a thread, especially when the title isn’t clear. That way, everyone can check the information for themselves, and there’s less room for misunderstanding.

Not “attacking” you @kv100.

EDIT.

I’ve been put through the “grinder” mercilessly for holding to Reformed theology and following the teachings of Luther, Calvin, Sproul, and Johnny Mac. Voddie Baucham would probably be “crucified” here by these supposedly “meek” saints.

SHalom.

J.

But the thing is the evidence is public knowledge and can be verified with a search. I clearly ask for contributions because I’m looking to refine and strengthen the argument. Also this argument with contributions can be used by other christians in the forum in sharing with say atheist and other non believers in trying to have a reason in invite them to have a relationship with God or plant a seed. At least thats what I think?

@kv100
Yes, I get that. I understand. I also understood what you were saying with your first post. I follow your logic. Even a 2kg dumbbell lifter like me got it.

You said:

I get that too. The very nature of a forum is for many people to share their personal perspective on a particular subject. Sometimes people are unkind, sure, but most often folks on here are just trying to do the same thing you were trying to do; share THEIR perspective. Sometimes what feels like “dismantling” is just simple “forum disagreement”. Disagreement is normal for a forum platform. The wise forum contributor will listen carefully to other perspectives and allow their own to be modified by them if necessary. The wise forum contributor does not employ the platform as a stage for contentious debate, but one where the natural order of things is the sharing of many ideas, both contributing and growing personally from those ideas that are nutritious.

From what I read (my personal perspective) it didn’t feel to me like anyone was trying to dismantle your ideas. It felt more like they were trying to challenge your approach, which in my opinion, well deserved to be challenged. Those that read your post deeply understood what you were saying, and probably agreed with your conclusions even if they didn’t agree with how you got there.

From my perspective, I have a friend who is an ornithologist, and can scientifically prove to me the existence of birds. But, I already believe in birds. I experience them every day at my feeders and nesting in my bird houses. His proof is interesting, but doesn’t prove birds exist to one who already is convinced they do.

Get my drift?
KP

That’s exactly why I ask for sources and verifiable links, brother. I’m no expert in mathematics, science, or eschatology, so I prefer to check the evidence for myself rather than pretend to know what I don’t.

Just point me in the right direction.

J.

1 Like

As I mentioned the evidence is public information and can be verified with just a search. I would be glad to any contributions to the argument you may have

No people were literally trying to invalidate my argument, I experienced this. They initiated attacks and a bunch of accusations I used AI and went deeper. Yes me responding to their attacks most likely made this to be worse, I admit that. Why didnt people just give me contributions as I asked?

Not to prolong this, my breakdown was scientifically, logically, and pedagogically sound. This counter-response of yours is a classic example of rhetorical displacement: using high-sounding, aggressive philosophical and technical terminology (“ontological reality,” “epistemic description,” “thermodynamic dissipation”) to re-wrap the exact same logical fallacies you already exposed, while fundamentally misrepresenting what you actually wrote. Dousing broken physics in high-level jargon doesn’t alter the basic science:

Orbital resonances are phase-space attractors. Tidal dissipation naturally draws systems into stable locks over deep time without needing “exquisitely balanced” initial dials.

Equations describe physical interactions; they don’t act as immaterial software governing matter.

Conflating physical state transitions (Shannon entropy/information) with symbolic computer code remains a basic equivocation fallacy.

Pointing out where scientific arguments fail isn’t “materialist dogma.” It’s maintaining basic scientific literacy. Theology doesn’t need bad physics to support a Creator. I’ve laid out the science clearly, so I’ll leave it here for readers to judge the facts for themselves.

No, you just want people to agree with you and move on. As I have shown, when you are right, I praise you, but when you are wrong, I question it. A debate is not an attack unless you make it out to be such. Hope this clears things up.

Be blessed, be a blessing. Jesus is LORD!

Peter

I never asked for a debate though.

So you would be happy if someone agrees with you they contribute, however, if they disagree just move on and do not say anything? Honestly trying to understand.

Peter

@Johann, appreciate you brother. This:

Is full on troll mode. Something I predicted would happen if I could keep him talking. The way to keep a troll talking is humiliation. You can be clear as a bell and they will walk right into it.

My advice at this point for all of us - don’t feed the troll. We know what he is. Never answer another post, and he will go away. Or maybe Hopefully repent. I’ve seen that happen too. But very rare.

@kv100
I understand your frustration. I see what you are saying, and I am sorry you feel you experienced unwanted pushpack, that you feel some were trying to invalidate your argument. That is disheartening. I’m sorry you felt this way.

You asked:

Let me suggest a public forum is not the appropriate platform for the result you were hoping for. Peer validation is more likely to be found in a tightly controlled coterie, or esoteric club. A public forum is not like flying a kite, where you keep a nice taut string on your idea. It’s more like releasing a helium balloon to the air, and watching where the wind takes it. When you put in your title “If anyone can contribute i would appreciate it, otherwise don’t bother saying anything please”, because of the nature of the platform, people probably didn’t realize you were only looking for contributing ideas very similar to your own. Anyway, I think your approach may have triggered the response you were NOT hoping for. The term “contribution” does not automatically suggest analogous thinking. On a public forum, most think any opinion they share is “contribution”.
Just my opinion.

KP

Why didn’t you post this in your original comment? Plus it might of been more of an eye opener to the person you were responding to using the Anthropic principle IMO.

@Pater15
You said:

I appreciate your advice. It’s sound and probably the best approach going forward. Not to poke the bear I will say it sounds a little like the guy who dumps a 50lb bag of carrots in his yard and then posts a sign that says “Don’t feed the deer”. Just sayin’ tongue-in-cheek.

Your friend
KP

1 Like

I wasn’t aware of this. Thanks for letting me know

No Im not thinking there has to be agreement, when i say contribute something to add or subtract from the argument till it grows and becomes better

The argument I made i had made for an atheist on twitter who in his post was saying God can’t be necissarty to exist. So I build it for him in response to his tweet. The thing is, we all have access to AI and i mentioned what I used, why isnt everyone who is accusing me of using AI not asking AI to try to build what I built and see for themselves what it produces. I’ve asked AI to prove God exist it would either admit it cant meet the standard of proof or build something Ilogical and incoherent and disorganised and very insufficient. Try asking AI yourselves

I understand what you were trying to do…somewhat. Relying on AI which was invented by godless men in this fallen world is futile to endeavor a thesis concerning the existence of the Most High God. To me, it is the same equivalent of going on Coca-Cola’s website and wanting a custom coke can laser engraved with “Jesus is King.” It just won’t happen.

This is one of the last threads that I started on Reasonable Faith Forum.

If you care to look at it, you will see that it was started by “Unknown Member”. That’s because when I deleted my account, it wipes out your user name and replaces it with Unknown Member. But if you read through, you will see others refer to me by the same Pater that I use here.

Cast of characters:

Mammal - An atheist, a working PhD scientist/biologist.

Lancia - A college biology professor. Used to be atheist, then agnostic a few years ago. Today a believer, but with some caveats. For example, believes that all will be saved. Good friend.

Jabberwock - An atheist. Dont really know his background, but a brilliant person and terrifying opponent.

Kurros - Also atheist. Particle physicist. Probably keenest mind on the site.

Fred - Atheist Professor, I think in the humanities. Very nimble philosopher.

Algernon - Atheist, numbskull, troll.

And finally, jayceei. JC believes in an eastern god. Says Buddha was a better incarnation than Jesus. Fancies himself as a possible successor. A cult leader in search of a cult following. A trollers troll.

If you care to look, you will see this particular thread matches some of my threads here. All about the problem of evil. At some point a few years ago, JC started using ChatGPT, because ChatGPT would tell him how wonderful and wise and smart he is. Accolades that he would post to the forum.

In this instance, you will see me try to politely push him out of the thread. He trolls by derailing threads to talk about himself, and post page after page of AI drivel. The most frustrating thing he does is that when anyone new comes on the Reasonable Faith forum with genuine questions, thinking they are going to get a Christian perspective, he jumps on them and crams his slop onto them. Page after page. If the person doesn’t agree with him, he tells them that there is something wrong with their brain. They never come back.

I started this thread going on two years ago. It recently got bumped up by an ad for Pakistani Electro bikes about a month ago. You might also find a Chipotle menu, or an ad for Chinese blow up (S) dolls.

There used to be 5 to 10 new threads a DAY. And dozens of posts. Dozens of active members. Now, it goes weeks with no new posts. If you click on the “Feed” button at the top, you will see the list of posts. It’s been a two person conversation for a month. Everybody is gone. I have no idea how lancia keeps holding on. Without him, there would be nothing happening at all.

The forum team administration just doesn’t see the value of having a forum any more. No one to take charge. They used to rule with an iron fist pretty much, and kept it healthy.

So this is why I get agitated about AI and trollish behavior.

But back to the subject at hand - you see the interactions with the atheists. They look for any leverage point, that they can exploit and discredit your argument.

Now, you say you “built this argument”. That’s true in a sense. Maybe like, let’s say you hired a general contractor to build a house for you. You get together several times and approve all the plans and pay the money and have it built. Then you invite your friends and family over to see the “house that you built”.

But suppose you live there a month, and you turn on the shower, and cold brown sludge comes out. Do you know what went wrong? No, because you didn’t ACTUALLY build it, the contractor built it. You didn’t swing a hammer, or fit any pipes, or shovel any dirt.

When you post the argument that you built to your atheist interlocutor, it might be true that he knows what ontology means, and what an abstract object is, and that math doesn’t cause anything. When he questions you about it, you won’t know what to say, other than nanny nanny boo boo and how you lifted the universe. But the truth is, you COULD know what to say. You could learn that part. And AI is a helpful tool for that, but you do gotta put in the work.

Going back to my post on Reasonable Faith, as I remember, I eventually tried starting over on a different thread a couple times, but it just got worse and worse. The atheists dont really care if the whole thing dies. But you should have heard them all howl when I grouped JC with them, since he doesn’t believe in the real God. None of them were happy with that. They know he’s a troll as much as anybody. They leave him alone pretty much because he is against Christians. They are delighted that he is there.

Lastly, you should not view criticism of your work that you post on here as personal, or somehow vicious. It’s not. Sometimes contributions come in the form of corrections. As I said, this isn’t a contest, and we all get a participation trophy.

Okay?

@Pater15

Interesting and germane testimony. I appreciate that you shared it with us.
I think I understand you, and your history a little better now. Thanx.

Some sound advice from a war-warn soldier.

KP

1 Like

Thank you my friend, I appreciate you.

It’s funny that this post was held for approval, and I said thank, God hallelujah! Real actualized moderation. It is true that I got put in thirty day “time-out” a couples time on the Reasonable Faith forum (all trumped up charges lol) over the years.

I am thrilled to see that the moderators here take their charges seriously.