Proving the foundation for God's existence

146 posts / 0 new
Last post
chimp3's picture
Aristotle lived in time when
RedleT's picture
This is in response to
xenoview's picture
Dumb Ox

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.

RedleT's picture
I believe in faith and reason

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.

xenoview's picture
You haven't proven anything

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.

xenoview's picture
Is faith a path to truth? Can

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?

RedleT's picture
That's a separate topic that
mykcob4's picture
Dumb Ox you should change "Ox

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.

RedleT's picture
I will repost one of my
CyberLN's picture
Demonstrate #2, please.
RedleT's picture
Sure, but it is kinda self
CyberLN's picture
I asked you to demonstrate it
RedleT's picture
If you prove it with SCIENCE!
CyberLN's picture
You made assertions. I've
RedleT's picture
I made logical arguments, not

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.

CyberLN's picture
I do not know if it is
LogicFTW's picture
@Dumb Ox I see this a fair
RedleT's picture
@ Logic
LogicFTW's picture
I, and I believe, many other
RedleT's picture
@ CyberLN
CyberLN's picture
Thanks. I'll have Caesar
LogicFTW's picture
So if someone says: "I have
RedleT's picture
I have to dig deeper into

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.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dumb Ox - 5. Therefore if the
RedleT's picture
Efficient is not a weasel

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.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dumb Ox - 5. Therefore if the

Dumb Ox - 5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

VS

Dumb Ox - A graph is not a casual series btw.

Notice how you made a false statement about series, then tried to correct it by adding yet another weasel word.

RedleT's picture
Words have meaning from

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.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dumb Ox - This is all
RedleT's picture
And yet no one can actually
CyberLN's picture
You said, "And yet no one can

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.