Logical proof for the existence of holy god.

[جوري]

"There is sufficient evidence in the natural world to prove God exists"
Sounds a lot like a proposition to me. Oh well, my mistake.

I don't initiate propositions and frankly you are not my type!

I know, I'm aware of the reason. If it had been something really worth a ban I probably wouldn't still be here.

lol.. I guess we'll wait and see on that one!

all the best

 

[Supreme]

Discussing atheism with atheists is like preaching to the choir

I don't understand why you would to 'preach' atheism to anyone. You're hardly going to be rewarded in the afterlife (in fact, in most religions, preaching atheism would be seen as a sin with a punishment of Hell), and anyway, what can you gain from it? A morally corrupt society is really all.

Religion for me is something I am truly proud of and can identify myself by. It is a blessing. I really do see atheism as nothing more than a curse.

 

[MSalman]

But now I want to get back to lightening bolts, here we go:

1.) Everything which begins to exist requires a cause.

2.) Lightening bolts began to exist.

3.) Therefore, lightening bolts requires a cause.”

Now let us talk about causal chains:

1.An actual infinite cannot exist
2.A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
3.Therefore, lightening bolts cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.

from the Evidence from not seeing lightening bolts then seeing lightening bolts and then not seeing lightening bolts we know that that lightening bolts are not infinite in the past, but had a finite beginning which necessitates a cause for its existence.


If lightening bolts have a cause to their existence then that cause is Thor.
Therefore:Thor exists. Voila!

actually these sorts of arguments do not help your cause. Even though, they bamboozle the theists, using this line of argument, for a second and they come up with "this is a false analogy, this does not work for your god, this is what you made up" etc. As a result, the atheists have won the battle and jumping with joy. However, it does not work when the argument is properly constructed. Allow me to demonstrate:

Everything which begins to exist came from something which has always been there, whether it be an event or actual physical object, because there are only two possibilities: 1) either a thing has always been around or 2) it came from something which has always been there. There is no third possibility! For sake of making my point short, we assume that it is shown that there is only one thing which has always been around forever and we call it "the Creator". So, every thing which had a beginning, we call it "the creation", its cause is "the Creator". Since lightening bolt, for example, is a "creation" (it had a beginning), it follows that it must have come from "the Creator".
​

Now you atheists cannot bring out these silly arguments of "thor god", "pink unicorns", "spaghetti monster", etc., in response this argument because the difference in only in naming. Whether you call "the Creator" thor god or God or Allah do not have much value at this point since you more or less agree to argument or at least the logic behind it. However, we call the Creator with His most beautiful and best Names. So whether you wanna call your Creator with Names He has asked you to call Him with or gibrish names you come up with is simply up to you and you will get what you deserve.

 

[I<3Bush]

Should we consider that an argument from authority or an ad populum?
I'm sure you'll arrange that, though I don't see the point, it takes less than 2 minutes to open new mail and forum accounts. I suppose you have to get your jollies somehow.

I don't see the point of taking 2 minutes to open a new mail account, when it probably takes one click of the mouse to ban you. Sorry I have to label this as a /fail on your part.

 

[KAding]

I don't understand why you would to 'preach' atheism to anyone. You're hardly going to be rewarded in the afterlife (in fact, in most religions, preaching atheism would be seen as a sin with a punishment of Hell), and anyway, what can you gain from it? A morally corrupt society is really all.

Religion for me is something I am truly proud of and can identify myself by. It is a blessing. I really do see atheism as nothing more than a curse.

With all due respect, but isn't that a bit of a bigoted attitude? As if atheists are morally corrupt and religious people are not. As if secular ethics cannot be used to promote justice.

How would you feel if I declared that Christianity has brought nothing but a "morally corrupt society" and that it is nothing more than a "curse" on mankind? Such extremist and uncompromising attitudes surely don't help improve understanding?

 

[marwen]

Such extremist and uncompromising attitudes surely don't help improve understanding?

yes, I see that the discussion is becoming a criticism of conversational attitudes :hiding:, and that's not our topic here . So let's rather focus on the arguments and logical facts and ignore the other things :hmm:

I just want to add a last words about the proof of existence of God :
As a believer, I think understanding that God exists is a way of reasonning superior than the simple logical (or mathematical) proving. We must be more human to believe in God, not just logical thinking automata. As some brothers said, our existence is a good proof that we are created by a great divine Entity which cannot be other then a God.

So let's make our way of reasonning more vast and more flexible, and understand that shallow logic can be not sufficient to deal with some advanced concepts like the existence of God. I'm not good in physics but I think it's like the classic newtonian physics which needed to be changed and completed to fit with new advanced problems.

Peace on you all, :wa:

 

[Pygoscelis]

God belief is faith based, the religions themselves state this. There is no room for logic in faith. Just as there is no room for science in religion. The two approaches are from opposite ends of the spectrum and are entirely different means of "knowing" things. If you know that Jesus is your saviour, or you know that there is but one god and Mohamed is his prophet, that is your faith and logic is not needed.

As for the hostility shown towards atheism, it is common and I don't think surprising. The mere existence of atheists, that somebody could fail to see another's truth, makes that other's truth less obvious than many would want. Add to that teachings within religions (no doubt there to protect the religions from criticism) that non-believers lack morality and that all morality comes from the religion and I think the attitude is explained in full.

 

[Supreme]

With all due respect, but isn't that a bit of a bigoted attitude? As if atheists are morally corrupt and religious people are not. As if secular ethics cannot be used to promote justice.

How would you feel if I declared that Christianity has brought nothing but a "morally corrupt society" and that it is nothing more than a "curse" on mankind? Such extremist and uncompromising attitudes surely don't help improve understanding?

No, it is an attitude with historical legitimacy. I know atheists are not, for the most part, 'morally corrupt', but any chimp with a keyboard and access to Wikipedia can see just how morally corrupt the atheist communist states of old were when they weren't destroying mosques and churches, enforcing huge purges and annexing territory. I suppose what I'm trying to say, is atheists can be morally righteous people, but the morals they follow were set in stone by religion.

Atheism includes no hope for the afterlife, no moral framework (especially in the sex department) and encourages people to abandon their culture and identity. I couldn't imagine a more cursed set of beliefs if I tried.

 

[IAmZamzam]

If a scientific theory is rejected then it is perfectly rational to believe that any theoretical posits associated with that theory do not exist, as there is no longer any reason to think they do. For example, nobody today believes phlogiston exists, although not so long ago a great many scientists did.

If you're trying to tie this into what I said using some analogy of your own, it is extremely unclear at best and supremely weak at worst.

In what way? You could perfectly well argue that the supernatural is merely the natural that is not yet understood on the basis of a huge number of precedents alone. For example there are certain forms of human behaviour that might once have been attributed to the supernatural, say to 'evil demons'. They are now attributed to diagnosable medical conditions, the natural explanation replacing the supernatural. In exactly the way I have just described, with the rejection of the 'theory' of demonic possession there is no longer any rational reason to think the theoretical posits associated with it - the demons - exist.

Look up the difference between supernatural and preternatural.

________________

Jaffacake: I'm not going to bother giving you a proper response if you're just going to chop up what I said and regurgitate little bits and pieces, all without the substance of the whole and every bit completely and utterly out of context, without which nothing you said would even have the illusion of possibly holding any water.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Here I am, giving primary testimony to the existence of my pet dragon, and there's no way in Hell you would ever believe me.

How does that fair against a copy of a copy of a rearrangement of a translation of a writing based on the testimony of someone who may or may not have witnessed the event described?

Earlier I asked what the next cliche would be in the old tradition of these eye-goungingly-unfair-to-those-hard-to-find-yet-still-existent-mature-and-kind-atheists-who-argue-with-reason-instead-of-jejune-insulting-analogies-like-this-one childish barrage of comparsions that invariably sound like a five-year-old's mudslinging: maybe the God-Santa Claus chestnut, maybe the "leprechauns in my attic" chestnut, maybe the "fire breathing dragon in my garage" nonsense parable. Nope, back to the pet dragon. When wil you people grow up?

 

[Trumble]

If you're trying to tie this into what I said using some analogy of your own, it is extremely unclear at best and supremely weak at worst.

Having re-read my post I'm afraid I'm not responsible for any comprehension difficulties you might be experiencing. It was a perfectly clear response to your claim that

to think that something does not exist is as unscientific a mindframe as anyone could conceivably hold about anything

There was no 'analogy'. I observed that it is quite rational to think that something does not exist as soon as the only reason for ever thinking it might have done, a particular theory, is discarded, and gave a historical example. The only thing 'supremely weak' is posting a response like yours rather than attempting to actually address the point raised.

Look up the difference between supernatural and preternatural.

I don't need to look it up, thank you. If you actually have a substantive point to make, please make it.

BTW, thanks for that note on 'Givoogle' in your sig, I wasn't aware of that one. I'll be using it from now on.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Trumble, in case you didn't notice, my post on the actual original point in this thread, which the disbelievers here seem to have cheerfully ignored, was given on about the first page.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Earlier I asked what the next cliche would be in the old tradition of these eye-goungingly-unfair-to-those-hard-to-find-yet-still-existent-mature-and-kind-atheists-who-argue-with-reason-instead-of-jejune-insulting-analogies-like-this-one childish barrage of comparsions that invariably sound like a five-year-old's mudslinging: maybe the God-Santa Claus chestnut, maybe the "leprechauns in my attic" chestnut, maybe the "fire breathing dragon in my garage" nonsense parable. Nope, back to the pet dragon. When wil you people grow up?

I would very much like you to present us with a polite and non "five-year-old" analogy that you would like us to use instead. One that makes the point intended in the analogies you find so offensive but does not offend. This would both demonstrate that you see the point being made and provide us with something else to say so not to offend you and your brothers in the faith.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Pygoscelis, it's not my task to choose how to express someone else's point. Of course that doesn't preclude me from taking offense if they express it in an offensive way, let alone offensive in such a typical, predictable, and unfair-to-other-atheists manner.

 

[Justufy]

I would very much like you to present us with a polite and non "five-year-old" analogy that you would like us to use instead. One that makes the point intended in the analogies you find so offensive but does not offend. This would both demonstrate that you see the point being made and provide us with something else to say so not to offend you and your brothers in the faith.

Here is where you are mistaken about all of these analogies to flying tea pots and leprechauns, evidence of absence is not absence of evidence, sure there is no physical evidence for God but it in no way follows that God does not exist because of that fact, it’s rather the evidence against something that we take into account to prove his being or his non being.

For example we have robust evidence that there are no trolls under bridge and we also have robust evidence that no such a flying teapot exists in our world it’s very easy to prove they do not exist, however there is not a shred of evidence that God does not exist and here is where your little childish examples fall flat.
You may argue that it’s impossible to prove that something does not exist, then again this would be wrong because it’s very easy to prove something does not exist, for example I can prove there are no married bachelors.

 

[IAmZamzam]

You may argue that it’s impossible to prove that something does not exist, then again this would be wrong because it’s very easy to prove something does not exist, for example I can prove there are no married bachelors.

Who wants to bet one of the atheists in this thread is going to use this as a segue into their own absurd "incompatible properties" arguments for God's nonexistence?

 

[Justufy]

Who wants to bet one of the atheists in this thread is going to use this as a segue into their own absurd "incompatible properties" arguments for God's nonexistence?

Im just waiting to see that argument come up, and il shred it with glee.:statisfie

 

[dragonofzenshu]

God almighty can not be proven or dis proven. He's the ultimate enigma.

Threads like this, will only end up in Justufy winning by default because atheists take a position of ignorance on the matter and Justufy simply has to state his case at the beginning regarding the workings and products of God, and post away from there defending that position. The atheists actually have to logically prove that God does not/can not exist, which is impossible.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Threads like this, will only end up in Justufy winning by default because atheists take a position of ignorance on the matter and Justufy simply has to state his case at the beginning regarding the workings and products of God, and post away from there defending that position. The atheists actually have to logically prove that God does not/can not exist, which is impossible.

Who wants to bet one of the atheists in this thread will use that comment instead/additionally as a segue into the atheistic "burden of proof pushing" tactic? In fact, I may save them the time and make that the subject of my next "Atheistic Chestnuts Refuted" article.

 

[dragonofzenshu]

Who wants to bet one of the atheists in this thread will use that comment instead/additionally as a segue into the atheistic "burden of proof pushing" tactic? In fact, I may save them the time and make that the subject of my next "Atheistic Chestnuts Refuted" article.

They better watch out, they might suffer the same fate as me