A full Proof for God's existence
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
SSSSsssssssshhhhhhh,,,its a secret....here's a 135.000 rubles. Now keep quiet. * stands to attention as CyberLN stomps by n full braid and ribbons*
Here Lydia, here is some fine "Strange Brew" he he
Yes, they are religious people, and as in this example, display their character. In all of their lives, they have bowed to authority from the pulpit, accepting blindingly what is stated as authority, without exercising any critical thinking. So they waltz in here, and make deep pronouncements about having the ultimate proof, and believe that just that statement alone is a winning hand.
And when we get down to brass tacks, it usually results in them being exposed for just regurgitating what they have heard (or read) from another source, appeals, or postulating an argument full of holes. They quickly run out of any semblance of arguments, then resort to pure bullshit and/or insults.
On the commute in folks, so cannot see all comments... I'm sure you've all dismantled this garbage but I'll offer my ten pence as it were...
I'll go back to the OP, I really don't understand people offering up these 'arguements' as proofs,
As they are not proofs, but merely arguments.
Anyhow, let's move on!
This is the same argument ploughed fourth even today, that is constantly refuted with ease in debates with top scientists and eminent thinkers.
A debate shared by another member springs to mind, Sean Carroll vs William Lane Craig.
Furthermore, all you can prove with this argument was the big bang, or whatever preceded it as known by current physics, must have had a cause.
Ok, I think we could all grant that.
But whatever caused that, in an infinite regression, must play by the same rules.
It must be scientifically testable, as everything regarding the cosmos is, it must be material/physical property and must comport to reality.
By definition, your god(s) do not.
If you said that your god was a force or type of energy, I think it would have some sway.
But for now I think we can safely file that under B, for bollocks.
One unsubstantiated assertion after another. Why in the hell would you find anything in the argument convincing.
"Avicenna believes a single necessary existent is the cause of all contingent existences." PROVE IT
All he is doing is forming a "God of the Gaps" argument with false assumptions. There is no place to go from here.
Avicenna plays with the word "possible." There is a difference between hypothetically possible and actual possibility. This is where an "equivocation" fallacy occurs. We all agree that God either exists or does not exist. God exists is a hypothetical possibility with no evidence supporting it what so ever. God does not exist is an actual possibility with all of the lack of evidence supporting it. Without evidence all we know is God may or may not exist. Actual possibility is not an option. The absence of evidence 'IS' evidence of absence. It's just not proof.
Premise one : If a contingent being exists then a necessary being exists.
Asserting a magical being called god is contingent or necessary is just "God of the Gaps." Anything could be contingent or necessary. Nothing may be contingent or necessary. Premise one is rejected. You can not imbue God with the characteristics of the natural world without evidence of that God. You do not get to assign characteristics to a being that you have not proved exists in the first place.
A contingent (actually many) being exists .
This is a fact. What we know of the reality we live in is that one thing is caused by another. The universe may have been caused by something. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS You do not get to invent a magical cause without evidence. A magical being is not an actual possibility. We have no evidence of magical beings existing.
Conclusion : A necessary being exists .
No. A cause may or may not exist and that cause is necessarily "a theoretical possibility" and not an "actual possibility" as we have no evidence for anything beyond Plank Time. FACT: We do not know.
There is nothing but vague assertions in this argument. It is not even close to a good argument for the existence of a God.
Notice that Cognostic thinks that is premise one; however I disagree; but who is right? We'll never know as long as we only don't have the actual proof, and instead we are left guessing based on the the Wikipedia commentary about the proof.
wow..... I just......wow, I have not had a headache from reading something before. god exists because a book says that god exists. The proof is that there is no proof which is the proof of the lack of proof..... my god (pun intended)
You know when you hear a recording of yourself and thing "fu#$ me, is that what i sound like"....... do Theists ever listen to themselves, or read there own work..... damn.
Hello there, Carolusclen! Welcome to our little corner of serendipity. I must say, you picked a helluva thread to jump into the middle of to make your debut. lol Yep, right on off into the deep end of the pool. I like that! Come on in! The water's fine!
Haha thank you thank you.... well like my grandmother always said.... go big or go home lol.
*swims like a fish on land*
There is a serious issue with this argument and that is the leap to inserting a god and/or gods into the conversation.
It's fine to assert that it is probably that every effect in the cosmos must have a cause, but how do you make the jump to,
Effect > cause > effect > cause > effect > cause > effect > cause > god/gods.
It could be a flying teacup, a pink cosmic unicorn, a bonsai tree in the shape of John F Kennedy.
Each as preposterous as each other.
Another ignorant believer with another ignorant assertion for a magical omnipotent non-existent being. Mind you,,,, Not Even the God of the Bible. Just some sort of creator being. Amorphous and living without time or space. (An impossibility in and of itself. Living beyond the cosmos, all that is, and yet effecting humanity in ways that are observable by believers and completely un-observable and unverifiable to anyone with an eye towards skepticism.)
I guess we won't be getting the "full Proof" as advertised.
What? A vague retort with a wild assertion is not proof enough? I don't understand? Obviously you have not grasped the significance of the vague assertions strewn together in this God of the Gaps presentation. Oh hell! I'll just say it. "You can not prove there isn't a god." There must be a magical creator because everything has to come from something. That something must be greater than everything it creates. Just like a seed is greater than a tree, a hammer and saw are greater than a building or a sperm and an egg are greater than a human being. Therefore; that creator being must be a God and not any of the other billion possibilities available to a skeptical or open mind.
@Nyar Re: "I guess we won't be getting the "full Proof" as advertised."
What you obviously fail to realize, dear Nyar, is that you already have the "full proof". Matter of fact, it has been with you your whole life. Can you not see? The proof you seek is already within you. And nobody else can ever "show it to you". It is YOU who must seek that proof within your own heart and recognize it in all its true glory for the wondrous miracle that it is. Others can only help point you in the right direction, but they cannot make you see it. You must be willing to see it, otherwise it will remain forever hidden within yourself. The answers and proof you seek are not out in "the world." The answers and proof you so desperately crave are within you. Open your eyes. Look inside yourself.
(Ogglin at Tin-Man)
I think I'm in love.
Damn, I feel used, again.
I'm not sure how many more of these anticlimaxes I can take.
I hope this helps
Do you ever see Bad Lip Reading on Youtube?
Your kindness is alleviating my boredom will benefit you when I die.
@David Re: Vid clip
Hey, you hoser! That was, like, a good one, eh?
Edit to add link.
you are so funny, sometimes. hahahhaaaa
keep it up, Sheldon. we tank you
@Sheldon Re: "Damn, I feel used, again."
Have you tried douching? Works for me sometimes.
When I was a kid and had to take a bath with my brother, to save water, and bathe in his boy cooties, we didn't use a stopper. He was so chubby, we just sat him over the drain. Seriously. lolololol
May not be anybody here with proof of god, but I have definitely found proof of UNICORNS! Hah! Take THAT all you doubters.