Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

Quite true, and yet another concept that we will never get into their thick heads. My only criticism is the concept of a "good" atheist



No you are not alone. Many of us have tried to reason with him but to no avail. Occasionally he will write in what many of us see as a legible format, but he see's this as him doing us a favour. What I don't think he gets is that many of us just scroll past his posts. Added to this if you do bother reading them you will invariably read the same BS self aggrandising nonsense regarding his near super human abilities. Other than this he does seem to be a decent person with admirable ethics.

Neoliberalism needs counterpoints sometimes so that entrepreneurs don't feel that they have free reign to kidnap slaves for the auction block. Religion can be a powerful counterpoint.

Very easy.

An infinite chain of causes is impossible, therefore God must exist.

Everyone knows that God exists, some of us choose to conceal this truth, it is supposed to make them feel big or something.

There is no Easter Bunny there is no Santa Clause, there is no Tooth Fairy or Boogie Man, or Sand Man, Jack Frost is not real either and neither is God it is all mythology. Last of all there is no such thing as magic! Faith is a gamble and according to religion gambling is a sin and faith holds the same chance value as gambling! Oooh another contradiction right there faith equates gambling and gambling is a sin in the bible oh my another flaw right there but yet the invisible man who has no proof or evidence and is nothing more than a metaphore both encourages faith but yet forbids it! Remember folks faith is a gamble like playing Russian Roulet with a pistol to your head with half the rounds in the revolver loaded and the other half not! You pray you live on that game based on faith but that is well a gamble with your life right there I wouldn't put faith right there I simply wouldn't do it because I am smarter and wiser and wish to live another day!

(emphasis mine)

So, we do know this of the classical gods. How exactly did we find that out? Because i am quite sure that if we apply that same process to the judeo-christian god, we will come to the same conclusion.

and indeed, i have stopped trying to read ahogday's posts.
if he doesn't make an effort to make his posts readable, i don't make an effort to read them

It is very easy to see why other people's gods are not real, but somehow it is very hard for people to see their own god is made up as well. I'm fairly sure that to the believers at the time the Greek gods were real to them.

There's yer proof, folks. Well done! QFT.

There are still three problems:
1- I didn't see any proof that an infinite chain of causes is impossible.
2- I didn't see any proof that uncaused causes are impossible.
3- I don't follow the "therefore --> God".

And of course, it does not mean that the "God" is YOUR God, it could just as well be someone else's God(/s)

It depends on the society and period you live in, In times past it was perfectly ok to go out and kill and pillage, heck the frigging pope ordered the crusades. In the bible, god tells the Israelite's to annihilate whole cultures. The illegal invasion of Iraq and consequent slaying of tens maybe hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by coalition forces was hardly ever described as murder. So no I do not see killing or murder is objectively immoral. Unsurprisingly the term "murder" often refers to the slaying of someone from your own country or culture, and it is seen as wrong for quite obvious reasons to do with community cohesion. Yet the murder of people in other lands for the benefit of the community doing the murdering has historically been seen as ok, eg European imperialism.

In Deuteronomy the earliest writing of the ten commandments is fairly clear that thou shalt not kill a fellow Israelite. it translates

"Thou shalt not kill, neither shalt thou commit adultery, neither shalt thou steal, neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.

Once it was seen as acceptable to own slaves (it still is in many parts of the world), forcing your spouse to have sexual intercourse was not seen as rape until the latter part of the 20th century(and again it is still perfectly acceptable in some parts), old men having sex with young teenagers was not only condoned it was applauded as a sign of virility. The list of what we now see as immoral that was once seen as perfectly acceptable is vast.

Morals are dynamic, they change constantly and the ones that hang around the longest are there due to proven usefulness for society.

It's not entirely true. There scientists who study the evidence and conclude "God", and there are most likely dogmatic atheists too. Assuming anyone who posts here falls into either category would be a leap of faith, however - or disingenuous foolishness.



I disagree with the last, but I skip them for much the same reasons posted. Aghogday is here to preach, not debate. If he was interested in discourse he'd have got the message long ago.

You've reached the moment in the discussion when the smart thing is to step away and watch the echo chamber from afar. It nearly always comes down to the god of the gaps, at which point you've hit a wall of obstinate, wilful ignorance that can only be penetrated from the other side.

But...it's fun to Argue! Why do you think we have 82 pages here?

I don't mind a good discussion--but belief in God/gods/goblins/spirits/whatever is a personal matter.

These speculations lead us on the path towards excellent scholarship--and the vast gamut of human response--but no "answer," really, to the Original Question.

Scripture quoted out of context.

The question was how one can prove there is a God. A logical proof was given. This response is an example of goalpost-moving. You got your proof, so now you're going to demand proof for something tangential?

This is interesting, well…almost…because it demonstrates how quick one can be to unreasonably hand-wave something that is reasonable.

I responded to this: "An infinite chain of causes is impossible, therefore God must exist."
No evidence is given for the first half of the sentence, so I'll just dismiss it for now.
The second half does not follow from the first half, so we are left with pretty much nothing.