Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

You have a very poor understanding of the dogma of your own religion if you don't even know the dictionary definition of "faith" as "belief in things unseen," which is to say, belief without evidence. The fathers of the Catholic Church, and many deeply religious authors like James Joyce and W.B. Yeats were quite specific in believing that faith is most valued when there's no evidence for it.





Why so many "mitigating" factors? I'm a pacifist. I believe killing is always wrong. It's the theists who make up all sorts of excuses for when it's okay to kill people. Look at all the stonings commanded in the Old Testament. Look at all the people burned at the stake for believing the "wrong" religion. Most of the Protestants I know (including all the evangelicals I know) support the death penalty, which is the killing of someone who has already been caught and confined to prevent their further crimes, but the Protestants with their absolute morality demand they be killed.


I'm 66 years old, though that's irrelevant. And your statements are just plain silly. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is capitalized because it's used as a proper noun, while the Greek and Roman gods are capitalized when we use their names.

But if the best you can offer as "proof" that your god is the only god, is the common convention of capitalizing the word God, then you have a pretty poor argument indeed.

By the way, your "God" began as one of those myriad "gods" of ancient times. In early Old Testament times, Jahweh was just one out of many gods. He never claimed to be the only god, or to be all-powerful. He was just the one god among many who chose the Israelites to worship him. It was not until much later that Jews and then Christians decided that he was the only god.

You cannot imagine how perfectly silly it sounds for a believer in one religion to insist so fervently that "everyone knows" that the gods of other religions are not real. I've got news for you: No gods are real, and that includes the one whose name you capitalize.



That sort of ridiculous self-aggrandizement is typical of religion. Humans are important to humans. In the grand scheme of the universe, we are less than a speck on a speck within an infinite volume of space. I think you must be very young if you think that simply asserting that "humans are important" is any sort of an argument for anything other than your own hubris.




You call that stuff poetry??? Well, I'm not surprised. There are people who throw buckets of paint at a canvas and call it art.

A typical straw man assault.

Hmm... let's see.

Atheists believe that in the beginning there was nothing - which exploded.

Agnostic = Atheist

as atheism is lack of belief in god's or deities - and agnostics - claiming to not know, obviously don't believe.

Is this the result of cognitive dissonance or do you genuinely believe that Atheists base their non-belief on the works of Terry Pratchett?

we are all atheists, some of us just go one god further.

Am I actually wrong about this?

I don't know who Terry Pratchett is. Is he from the U.S.? That might explain why I don't know him.

@Lintar: I've enjoyed reading your posts.

And yes, I understand you are NOT a Christian! lol

I am, however, and will likely have objections that are far too familiar to you to be deemed interesting. I will say this, though--even among Christians it is becoming increasingly obvious how untenable the atheist position is. We've noticed how easily rattled some tend to be. I truly feel guilty reading some of the posts here for the sad reason that they've become entertaining. The only thing that I find encouraging here is knowing I'm not alone in noticing a lot of the things you've pointed out. I may have to step away from the conversation from time to time, but by all means don't stop on my account!

I need to go to work now, but I'll be back, you can count on it

If I prove that an infinite chain of causes is impossible, will you openly acknowledge God ?

Let me help you. I've already done it in slightly abbreviated form (for all the use it was). It's a simple argument that doesn't require any fantastic speculations and is easily grasped by anyone with the use of reason.

Premise #1. A thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist. (Self evident. The only possible alternative is self-contradictory and thus absurd.)
Premise#2. An effect cannot be greater than its cause(s). (An extension of #1. For an effect to be greater than its cause requires the spontaneous addition of something that was not in the cause(s). i.e. the extra something that didn't exist suddenly came to exist without a cause).

Therefore, an infinite regression of causes (with each preceding being greater that its successor) will inevitably regress by an infinite number of steps to an infinite cause. An infinite succession of anything will take an infinite time so however far back you go it hasn't begun yet and however far forward from the (infinitely wayback) beginning you haven't got here yet.

In a nutshell, that's why an infinite regression of causes is impossible.

I will also contend that an infinite First Cause will not need an infinite succession of sub-causes to be the cause of anything that is not self-contradictory.

I actually have popcorn

"Cast not pearls…"