Proving the foundation 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.
Dumb Ox
You claim what you say is logical and correct, so it must be true? Do you believe in faith? Still waiting for you to prove your god is real. Have you give any evidence of your uncaused cause? Uncaused cause sounds like another oxymoron statement.
I believe in faith and reason. I used logical proofs to prove an uncaused cause. It is not an oxymoron. It is not caused but causes others. If you think my proofs are flawed then point them out. No one has really done that. Most here have just asserted that I haven't proven anything and then ask that I do so. I wrote a pretty long op, so it's not too much to ask that someone actually engages my argument. The best counter argument so far is "what caused the uncaused cause" which is very stupid.
You haven't proven anything yet. How is it stupid to say the uncaused cause has a cause, or needed a cause? You did write a long OP, I skimmed it like I do all long OP's. You talked in circles and failed to prove anything about what you wrote.
Is faith a path to truth? Can faith prove your god or any god? Can it then prove all gods of humanity are true and real?
Dumb Ox you should change "Ox" to "ass." If you make a claim, prove it! If you say there must be something that starts the ball rolling, then there HAS to be something that started the one that rolled the ball. It's endless and infinite. Your own OP actually proves what I am saying here. There can be no god because that god has to have a god to create him. Just because things are in motion doesn't prove something or a god started them. You have to first prove that there is a "prime mover" and then prove a direct connection. Your prove logic isn't even circumstantial is supposition. It isn't deductive reasoning, it's wishful thinking.
I made logical arguments, not assertions. So do you think this statement is wrong:
Nothing exists prior to itself.
Or in other words do you think it is possible for something to exist prior to itself? Do you accept the principle of non contradiction or not? Please answer these questions. If I know where you are coming from then I can explain things better.
I have to dig deeper into what they think and find out if they deny or doubt the principle of non contradiction, because that is what you must do to be consistent when you say that a thing can exist prior to itself.
Efficient is not a weasel word. It helps qualify what kind of causes I am talking about.
How does the graph disprove 5? A graph is not a casual series btw.
VS
Notice how you made a false statement about series, then tried to correct it by adding yet another weasel word.
Words have meaning from context. When I used series it was in the context of causation. So you think I was not spesific enough...funny since when I said efficient cause you said I was using a weasel word....
This is all semantics and bs, to be quite frank. If you don't understand what I am saying then ask, but please don't try these gotcha word games.
Pages