I can prove God exists. Or is that really an issue among atheists? I am sincerely trying to help anyone who is seeking the Truth.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
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.
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.
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Wow, the first person ever to prove God exists is "Nobody".
Let me just inform the world media then let us have it.
I have heard that nobody can get through to an atheist. Let's see if they are right
Is your proof testable, repeatable, falsifiable?
Yes
Have at it.
Identify Anything in the Universe Capable of creating itself. If you can't a Force that exists outside the Universe, and existed before the Universe was created exists. That Supernatural Force is God.
so he lived before the universe was created?..then who created him? if he deny his creator then your god is the first atheist.
do you know whats on his mind when he created the earth?...well i guess he's just bored..
we don't know how the universe existed. that's what scientists are are doing...filling up the puzzle.
theist do this all the time...."we don't know how life begun..maybe there's a creator who did all this"
that's how theist laziness works bruh..
Nobody is happy you now acknowledge the existence of God.
Nobody, you wrote, “Identify Anything in the Universe Capable of creating itself. If you can't a Force that exists outside the Universe, and existed before the Universe was created exists. That Supernatural Force is God.”
1. I am not familiar with everything in the universe. Neither are you. To say there is nothing in it that can create itself is, then, an assertion.
2. Because I cannot name something that has created itself does not, in fact, mean that a supernatural force exists. It only means I cannot name a thing created by itself.
3. The final sentence, that your god is what created everything, does not follow.
1. The assertion is that something in the Universe is capable of creating itself since nothing in the identified Universe has that capacity.
2. Unless of course, you believe in Science, which endeavors to name everything in the Universe, and has never named anything within the Universe capable of creating itself. I believe in Science, you don't have to.
3 It follows if rationality guides your search for answers..
@Nobody: Unless of course, you believe in Science, which endeavors to name everything in the Universe, and has never named anything within the Universe capable of creating itself.
Since when is it part of the scientific method to conclude that anything that has not yet been named does not exist? I don't know what you believe in, but it's not science.
"2. Unless of course, you believe in Science, which endeavors to name everything in the Universe, and has never named anything within the Universe capable of creating itself. I believe in Science, you don't have to."
As with the Kalam cosmological argument you seem unaware that the law of cause and effect applies to the temporal condition of the physical material universe, it is pure assumption by religious apologists like lane Craig that this can be applied prior to the big bang.
"3 It follows if rationality guides your search for answers.."
No it doesn't, it's pure assumption and argumentum ad ignorantiam. plucking a deity out of, or inserting it in to, gaps in our knowledge is fallacious reasoning, which by definition is irrational. Looking for answers is one thing, making assumptions without evidence is quite another.
"1. The assertion is that something in the Universe is capable of creating itself"
Then demonstrate objective evidence for that assertion?
@Nobody
"3 It follows if rationality guides your search for answers.."
In the scientific community, they follow the evidence. Even it is contrary to their goals, the evidence leads to the truth.
This is where your position has no validity. You have a goal, and set out to prove it. You ignore whatever is contrary to your position and cherry pick what supports your agenda. An honest person follows the evidence, being very aware that the result may not match their intended goal.
"Identify Anything in the Universe Capable of creating itself. If you can't a Force that exists outside the Universe, and existed before the Universe was created exists."
That's a subjective argument based the common logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam. Do you know what logical fallacies are? You should also look up "begging the question" and special pleading. Have you heard of the Kalam cosmological argument? It's a first cause argument, quite an old one, and you seem to be using a version of it. It is of course not an argument for a deity, as this is just a string of assumptions and begging the question fallacies tacked onto the end of it. Though you don't even trouble yourself with defining your deity in such a way as to claim it'e existence is necessary in order to create a universe, this is poor stuff all around.
------------------------------------
Perhaps you Should familiarize yourself with the term "gobbledygook". It sums up your post well. Evidently the fact that the existence of God is clearly the problem with you, not the reality of such. That is a choice
You should familiarise yourself with the phrases empty rhetoric, vapid nonsense, and trolling, as these exactly describe your bs. I think you know what you can do with your fictitious sky fairy as well, though good manners preclude me from being too graphic.
That one is called an ad hominem fallacy, you're piling them, but then most religious apologists do. What technical terms in my post do you claim made it unintelligible to you? I'll happily dumb it down for you piece by piece if you like. Though to be honest I used no technical jargon at all, so I suspect you're either incapable of basic comprehension or wish to ignore the logical fallacies you have used and I pointed out, for obvious reasons of course.
"Evidently the fact that the existence of God is clearly the problem with you, not the reality of such. That is a choice"
How is the existence of god proven or known to be true? The world is filled with thousands of conflicting religions worshipping different deities, so that's axiomatically false. What is a choice, and what are you claiming you inferred from it?
You have the theists penchant for cryptic rhetoric fair play.
@Nobody
You are very vague, but I will work on the assumption you are discussing the creation of this universe, and that it came out of nothing.
You need to prove that the universe was created. There is the possibility that it has always existed in some form or another.
And even if you prove that this universe came out of nothing, you need to prove that a god, a powerful supernatural entity created this universe. It may not have been a god, but was the product of another process.
What is "nothing" but an abstract mental concept. Can you identify what it is, can it be studied? In other words, no one can identify "nothing".
So everything requires a creator? But not your god? That is known as special pleading.
Your argument has huge gaping holes in it, you need to clarify and fill in the gaps.
You are the one making the assertion that you can prove a god exists, and you have failed to meet the burden of proof.
In other words you can't identify anything in the Universe capable of creating itself. Thus you abandon Scientific Methodology and turn to its opposite - Magic. I prefer Science to establish my understanding, for instance the Universe came into existence at an approximate date, based on the mechanics of the Universe, not that it always existed.
"In other words you can't identify anything in the Universe capable of creating itself. "
Neither can you champ, the difference is no one else has claimed this, and it rather buggers your god delusion.
"the Universe came into existence at an approximate date,"
The universe exists only in a temporal state, there was no time or therefore dates prior to it's existence. So your statement shows a woeful ignorance of the current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe. At least it is consistent with your generally woeful ignorance.
Science does not claim that "the Universe came into existence".
Nothing in current scientific thinking infers anything must be able to create itself, you're simply making this up.
If you are referring to the law of cause and effect, then so what? This cannot rationally be asserted as valid outside of the temporal condition of the physical universe.
If you prefer science to magic why do you claim a deity you can demonstrate no objective evidence for used magic to create everything? That is the very antithesis of the scientific method.
" for instance the Universe came into existence at an approximate date,"
Nope you're wrong again, no time and therefore no dates could have existed prior to the origin of the physical universe we now observe.
"based on the mechanics of the Universe, not that it always existed."
this only means the universe has not always existed in its current form, you knew that right? Also this does not mean nothing existed, energy for instance. The only people I have heard claim the universe was created ex nihilo using unexplained magic are theists.
Also how do you claim to know that nothing can come from nothing? Did you have a sample of nothing in a lab and test it? Precisely define nothing for us please, explain how "nothing" can exist, isn't that a contradiction in terms? If you can claim your deity is eternal without any evidence, then why can't we reason the universe is eternal since we can evidence it's existence at least? Just because the universe we now see has a point of origin doesn't mean it couldn't have existed in some unknown other state prior to that event.
Bronze age superstition is a bad basis for forming beliefs, and nothing about them is scientific.
That supernatural force was universe creating bunnies. I have it on good authority and my faith in the members on this forum confirm it. Furthermore, they are not god as they are "Only powerful enough to create the universe and nothing more." You just got owned and you will not be able to figure it out.
I was created by God, you were created by magical bunnies. Which of us is the slave of the incoherent argument?
What objective evidence can you demonstrate that his claim is any less valid than yours? They sound the same to me.
Please provide the evidence of a deity existing outside of the universe. If there even is an "outside". If anything exists outside of the universe, how do we know it's even a deity? Even if this deity exists, how should we know that he has any influence over the properties of the physical world? How should we know it even created this universe at all? If a deity exists, it needs to come forward and make itself empirically known.
The existence of the Universe is the Empirical Evidence. In other words you are the proof which undermines your argument. There is a word for that.
"The existence of the Universe is the Empirical Evidence. In other words you are the proof which undermines your argument. There is a word for that."
The universe's existence can be emphatically evidenced, as can the existence of natural phenomena, but no one has ever demonstrated comparable evidence for any deity or anything supernatural. So your rejection of the possibility that an as yet unknown natural phenomenon caused the physical universe is nothing more than assumption, based on your obvious bias in favour of your superstitious beliefs. Until you can evidence those beliefs your claims are no more compelling than the average flat earthers, but the pretence of scientific validation is quite funny, could you cite the published papers that support your claim that your sky fairy produced everything using inexplicable magic?
...there's definitely a word for that champ.
Your entire argument is as fallacious as it is wrong,
Even if one was to concede that the universe had a point zero (which no one does), that does not infer god.
Allow me to postulate two scenarios and you tell me which of them is more logical and accurate:
a) the universe had an initial point that required a creating force, that force is "god".
b) the universe had an initial point that came about by natural phenomena in such a manner as everything else in the known universe does.
Nobody,
What is true of individual elements is not necessarily true of the whole set. Comes right out of set theory. Now apply it to our situation. What is true of anything in the universe is not necessarily true of the universe, being that the universe is the whole set. Moreover, the vast majority of things "created" in the universe were "created" by natural processes. Therefore, if a creation for the universe is desired we should look toward natural processes acting before the universe arrived.
Pages