A Proof That God Exists

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 13)

Showing posts 241 - 260 of1,922
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#246
Apr 6, 2013
 
Mary Magdalena wrote:
<quoted text>Simple but dead on.

Thank you for sharing it.
I agree. Nice post Shibolet!
I really think you nailed it.

God bless

"PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS.

According to Moses Maimonides, a Philosopher, Theologian and Medical Doctor in his book "The Guide for the Perplexed," there would be no need for a Creator if the universe was eternal, I mean without beginning or end. In other words, God would not exist. However, if the universe did have a beginning, God by necessity would exist.

From Abraham and until Aristotle God existed only for the pious who could exercise faith. For Cosmologists God had only been a probability; extremely small nevertheless a probability. At the time of Aristotle that small probability had been erased as Aristotle discovered that the universe was eternal; no beginning and no end. The pious went on with their faith but as Science was concerned, the non-existence of God had been proved.

The line of thought that God's existence was depending on the universe having had a beginning lasted from about 330 BCE with Aristotle and until 1922 ACE with Georges Lemaitre a Catholic priest who brought the news about the Big Bang to the whole world as the beginning of the universe.

Cosmologists throughout the world had to adopt Lemaitre's discovery as the nearest approach to the truth they had ever achieved. Now, since the universe had indeed a beginning, a proof had been established for the existence of God, blessed be He.

Shibolet"

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#247
Apr 6, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
If something cannot be the cause of itself, the Creator is implied.
Please prove this implication.
That's an evidence for the existence of God. And the only way to refute this is to prove otherwise.
The fact that something cannot cause itself means it either is caused by something else or that it is uncaused. That is logic applied to this situation. Neither possibility implies the existence of a Creator-an intelligent caused that planned the effect.
Imhotep

Windermere, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#248
Apr 6, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Let me show you that you are wrong again. I am an Israeli Jew who consults the originals in Hebrew to help me with the English. Do you wnant to discurse in Hebrew? I think you expect that the writers of the Tanach had to warn the reader when it was supposed to be literal and when metaphorical. That's is up to us to have some special education othewise to trust those who do.
There are, of course, many sins one can commit in the eyes of religion. Among the greatest is the sin of having an original thought. Religion disapproves of original thought the way Dracula disapproves of sunlight.
Meeting for the first time in March 1985, the Jesus Seminar has periodically brought together dozens of university scholars and gospel specialists representing every shade of Christian thought, plus a few Jews and atheists.

In their initial study, the scholars collected more than 1500 versions of approximately 500 Jesus parables, aphorisms, dialogues, and stories written during the first 300 years of Christianity.
After 6 years of debate and reflection the consensus was that 82% of the words attributed to Jesus were fake.

In phase two, between 1991 and 1996, the Jesus Seminar considered 387 versions of 176 'Jesus events'. Their conclusion: 84% of the activities attributed to Jesus were bogus.

In contrast, Caesar's words and deeds are fully documented by multiple witnesses.

Caesar was an eyewitness to many of the events he describes in his commentaries. He wrote not for posterity but to have an immediate impact on the power players in Rome as he schemed to advance his own career.

The elapsed time between the wars and Caesar's own writing was a matter of months or at most a few years.

In contrast, the elapsed time between the gospel reports and the supposed events that they describe is at least 40 years for 'Mark' and 60-70 years for the other three Gospels.

And just who was witness to that fabulous nativity, 30-odd years before the grande finale?

At the most generous understanding,'Luke' and 'Matthew' were recording hearsay testimony a century after angels, shepherds and wise men went calling.

The unembellished truth is that the gospel accounts were written by eyewitnesses to nothing but their own skills of fabrication.

For good reason, based on spatial and temporal proximity alone, historians give more credence to Caesar's commentaries than to the gospels, no matter how prolifically they were copied

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#249
Apr 6, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Okay, as the last one from me to you, if you want to demonstrate to me how something can cause itself into existence I'll give it a try to borrow some time to see what you have. If you can't. Please
don't bother answering this post. Thank you for everything.
I never said anything caused itself. Why are you claiming that I did? In fact, I specifically agreed that nothing can cause itself.
In the case of the universe, that means there are two possibilities: either it is caused by something outside of the universe or it is uncaused. Neither possibility requires a Creator, or even an uncaused cause.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#250
Apr 6, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>But I will respect Polymath's opinion more.
Keep the faith! LOL

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#251
Apr 6, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
And since you too have failed to prove yours we can rest our case as each is concerned.
I haven't claimed to have a proof of my viewpoint. You did.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#252
Apr 6, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
First you must refute what I said.
No, you again are the one that claims that some law of logic says something. In fact, it is not a law in any modern logic book. I challenge you to find *one* modern logic book that makes that claim.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253
Apr 6, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
And I have presented you with logical evidence, but preconceived notions won't allow you to agree with anything that does not come
from another atheist.
No, you have presented arguments containing assumption that are easily shown to be wrong.

As an example, you claimed that the universe having a beginning shows there cannot be an infinite sequence of causes going into the past. I showed how it was possible. You have yet to show how my example is impossible.

You have also claimed that every physical event has a cause. I have pointed out that most quantum events are, in fact, uncaused.

You have claimed that the fact that the universe cannot be self-caused implies there is a Primal Cause. I pointed out that the logical deduction is that there was either a different cause (which was not shown to be a Primal One) or that it is simply uncaused. I also showed why the possibility that it is uncaused is the more reasonable one of the two.

You made a claim that any two causes must have an overlap. I pointed out that this is, in fact, a rather rare thing. Since that was required for you to show there is a *unique* uncaused cause, your argument again failed. But I went even further and showed that there are many uncaused causes that are physical (in the quantum realm).

Each and every step is your argument was refuted (except saying the universe could not be self-caused). Your proposition is not proved. Also, you yourself admitted that it was not proved.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254
Apr 6, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Okay, as the last one from me to you, if you want to demonstrate to me how something can cause itself into existence I'll give it a try to borrow some time to see what you have. If you can't. Please
don't bother answering this post. Thank you for everything.
You may want to look into quantum mechanics. Virtual particles do, in fact, come into existence without causes.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
As in spontaneous self generating life?
Nobody claimed that life is self-caused or that it came into being without a cause. In fact, the cause of life is chemistry and the natural attraction of chemical elements for each other.
Or nothing exploding and creating everything?
I can't help you there. I don't buy into that bull.
You might want to learn what the science actually says before ridiculing it.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to agree with the first post on this thread.
Because our universe has a start time and we can calculate an end time this means that there really has to be a God that did in deed start it all. Nothing in nature (the universe as we know it) can come into existence from nothingness with out a God. That is fact and therefore proof.
Why? Where is your argument proving that a god is required?

Nobody but YOU IDIOTS claim "something from nothing" with regards to the present universe.

So that "argument" is entirely false.

Furthermore? You have failed to prove this "god" of yours is real--let alone that it's required at all.

Fail.

You did not even try very hard, either.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Blinders are on nice and tight.
Good job tinkling.
That's a good little atheist.
The above is simply ad hom attack, devoid of argument.

Where is the proof/argument that your god is required?

Where is the proof/argument that ANY god (not just yours) is required?

Where is the proof/argument showing YOUR god is not fiction?

Your failure is complete.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#258
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The starter course was intended to be fully enjoyed. And this can be done while preparing for dessert.
Many Doctors have stated that dying patients have awoke screaming that the doctor can't let them die because they are in hell.
1) "many doctors"? Really? You have a link to ... actual doctors, and not to some Fundie-Preachers LYING about fictional "doctors"?

No?

Interesting.

2) what HAS been show is this: True Believers™ who live in deluded states, do often have waking dreams or hallucinations, always dream about the same ugly sh7t they believe in.

But NON-BELIEVERS dream of secular, ordinary things

And OTHER believers dream of THEIR religious dogma.

What does that prove?

When near-death, people dream of things in their own lives...

... nothing magical about that at ALL.

So you are LYING yet again...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#259
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
Some survivor have written books of their experience try reading them.
All the ones YOU read, are deluded True Believers™ just like yourself.

I DARE you to read stories written by NON-BELIEVERS.

You'd be ... surprised.

But you are just another coward...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#260
Apr 6, 2013
 
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of dragons Sir Robert
Bertrand Russell
"Religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of war; religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific cooperation in place of the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment. It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion."
Robert Ingersoll
"The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith'."
"If a man would follow today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly, the teachings of the new, he would be insane."
And something new from Andy. We have to laugh laugh you know;)
SHANGHAI (The Borowitz Report)—In a rare announcement from a notoriously publicity-shy group, Chinese hackers revealed today that they were dropping the United States government from their official list of high-value targets.
“We have to allocate our time and energy to hacking powerful organizations,” a spokesman for the hackers said.“Right now, calling the United States government an ‘organization’ would be a reach.”
He added that the hackers’ ultimate goal had been to hurl the U.S. government into a state of abject paralysis,“and they seem to have already taken care of that on their own.”
The spokesman acknowledged that despite years of compromising U.S. government computers, the hackers had obtained little of value, especially on the hard drives of congressional offices.
“Those computers did not appear to be used for anything work-related,” the spokesman said.“Basically all we found were restaurant reservations and porn.”
U.S. stock markets plummeted on the news of the hackers’ downgrade, which was widely denounced by American politicians as a hostile act designed to cripple the economy.“This is an insult to the American people,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia).“We demand that the Chinese resume hacking us at once.”
But according to the hackers’ spokesman, any chance that they might put the U.S. government back on their list of targets was remote at best.
“We need to focus on higher-functioning governments,” he said.“We’re taking a close look at Venezuela.”
LOL!

Republican paralysis is real, even as the amusing story of the Chinese hackers is not.

Sadly.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#261
Apr 6, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
And since you too have failed to prove yours we can rest our case as each is concerned.
Pigeon Chess at it's finest:

Shibolet is like a pigeon who has landed on a chessboard. He wanders about the board, sh7tting all over the place, and occasionally knocking over a random piece.

After a final, massive sh7t, he flies off declaring himself a "winner"....

... rather amusing to watch, really.

But kinda insulting to pigeons...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#262
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
As in spontaneous self generating life?
Or nothing exploding and creating everything?
I can't help you there. I don't buy into that bull.
Your near-total ignorance is showing:

The Big Bang theory does not state "from nothing".

Sad.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#263
Apr 6, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody claimed that life is self-caused or that it came into being without a cause. In fact, the cause of life is chemistry and the natural attraction of chemical elements for each other.

[QUOTE]Or nothing exploding and creating everything?
I can't help you there. I don't buy into that bull. "

You might want to learn what the science actually says before ridiculing it.
"Nobody claimed that life is self-caused or that it came into being without a cause. In fact, the cause of life is chemistry and the natural attraction of chemical elements for each other."

BS. Have you heard of the this?

""Primordial soup" is a term introduced by the Soviet biologist Alexander Oparin. In 1924, he proposed the theory of the origin of life on Earth through the transformation, during the gradual chemical evolution of molecules that contain carbon in the primordial soup.

Biochemist Robert Shapiro has summarized the "primordial soup" theory of Oparin and Haldane in its "mature form" as follows:[1]

The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere.
This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers").
These compounds accumulated in a "soup", which may have been concentrated at various locations (shorelines, oceanic vents etc.).
By further transformation, more complex organic polymers – and ultimately life – developed in the soup."

ultimately life – developed in the soup.
Spontaneous self generating life.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#264
Apr 6, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Why? Where is your argument proving that a god is required?

Nobody but YOU IDIOTS claim "something from nothing" with regards to the present universe.

So that "argument" is entirely false.

Furthermore? You have failed to prove this "god" of yours is real--let alone that it's required at all.

Fail.

You did not even try very hard, either.
"Where is your argument proving that a god is required? "

You're telling me you did not understand that? bobby I can't break it down any simpler.

The Universe cannot self start from nothing. There for there had to be a creator. Nothing can evolve or spring into existence from nothingness.
That's a law of nature and law of science my boy. Can't happen, it had to be created by a creator. Science claim the universe is 13.7 billion years old. A starting point. Before that nothingness.
If there was not nothingness then science has the date of the beginning of the universe wrong. Science getting dates wrong is nothing new. Up to date science does claim at a point there was nothingness. Therefore a starting point.
A time that everything sprang into existence from nothingness. MAGIC.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#265
Apr 6, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>1) "many doctors"? Really? You have a link to ... actual doctors, and not to some Fundie-Preachers LYING about fictional "doctors"?

No?

Interesting.

2) what HAS been show is this: True Believers™ who live in deluded states, do often have waking dreams or hallucinations, always dream about the same ugly sh7t they believe in.

But NON-BELIEVERS dream of secular, ordinary things

And OTHER believers dream of THEIR religious dogma.

What does that prove?

When near-death, people dream of things in their own lives...

... nothing magical about that at ALL.

So you are LYING yet again...
You'll find out one day. I wish I would be there to see the terror on your face as you slipped in to death and get pulled from the flames for a few seconds only to drop back into hell. That would be real neat don't ya think. Just long enough for me to say "See I told you so!"

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 241 - 260 of1,922
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••