Atheists: you cannot disprove the existence of GOd

[BlaineTog]

To be honest, among the arguments that are most prominent to me is the definitional one. That is, there doesn’t seem to be a consistent, coherent, non-contradictory definition of God that holds up to rational criticism. I think that if God were defined clearly, it would be much easier to prove or disprove (and believe or disbelieve); but the whole concept of God is much too slippery to make enough rational sense to justify belief.

What about the definition of God do you find troubling?

 

[St_Aloysius]

MerryAtheist:

Again, the basic assumption rises again: “If God exists, he must be uncaused, eternal, and infinite.” Based on what evidence?

Being is an abstract concept, and entails no definite limitations or boundaries. It may be asserted that as a nonmaterial reality, it is logically uncaused, and presumably eternal. (Being did not suddenly come into being, now did it? That is a simple, laughable absurdity.)

MerryAtheist:

The beginning of the universe is the biggest gap in our knowledge, and may always be so. It’s certainly acceptable to not propose any answer until such time as more and better evidence is collected. Perhaps, the universe wasn’t caused; perhaps the universe was inevitable?

And yet the simple fact that the universe had a beginning (which is now recognized as simple fact) is telling. Definite beginnings imply causation.

MerryAtheist:

That’s a completely untestable hypothesis.

So is the multiverse theory, but who’s keeping track?

Do you disagree with the logic behind the assertion? That the cause of the totality of caused things must exist outside of that totality—and thus outside of the material universe? Where my reasoning’s flaw is, pray tell.

MerryAtheist:

You yourself state that it is “beyond human intellectual comprehension”, though I can’t help notice that you nevertheless jumped right on in with an explanation.

I stated that God, as Infinite Being, is beyond our comprehension, which is true. An explanation? No. I simply gave an argument, however shaky, which may or may not help one to begin to see the need for a nonmaterial, transcendent, uncaused First Cause.

MerryAtheist:

Well then, get thee to a smoothie, young man.

I did. It was okay, not at all like my friend’s mom’s. Mmm-mm! We were missing some ingredients so I improvised. It turned out about as good as one could expect, considering the shortage. I can PM the recipe. Just give me the word.

Shalom

 

[SFTor]

I’m sorry but that’s just a dumb analogy. You’re going to have to do a lot better then that.

Why should anyone disprove God’s existence? The burden of proof is on you. To argue that people must disprove your case is fallacious. It is not up to me to prove that God does not exist, its up for you to prove He does.

All that is required for atheism to win is for Christianity to be silent.

The floor is yours. Prove God exists; I dare you.

That statement means about as much to an atheist as my morning **** did.

Come on people! One of the things that drives me nuts about Catholics is their inability to argue, if you believe it then learn to defend it!

I love you Miles. You have covered all my basic objections. May your work be fruitful and your pupils be apt.

 

[SFTor]

Atheists don’t care about disproving God. They think they already have the proof that God dose not exist. Plus, even when believers give arguments for the existence of God, they draw conclusions that support their own disbelief - as if the arguments are against the existence of God. Such is the fallacy and silliness of atheism.

The first thing I would do when confronting atheists is make sure my spelling is absolutely correct. There is nothing that makes you seem less intelligent than misspellings—seriously.

 

[SFTor]

Based on the idea of unmoved mover. This is logic and science. The law of conservation of mass, energy, and entropy tells us that these cannot be created or destroyed, only change form. Well, from where did the mass, energy, and entropy in the universe come? Clearly, there must be something, or someone, that is the origin of all of the universe. Either the universe was created, or it always, for all eternity, has existed. Those are the only two options.

We have never seen creation, only change—mass to energy, energy to mass

 

[SFTor]

Hello there,

I’m an atheist. I have read the posts in this thread. There is a question that comes up for me when I enter into a discussion of this nature:

we are discussing the possible existence of God. What makes you even think that your version of God is the right one?

I’m sure you have no problem understanding why I ask this. We know of a multitude of gods that people have submitted themselves to through history. Perhaps there is one. But what makes you think that the understanding you have of a god is the true one?

Catholics believe that their god is the one and only, and that this one and only god is entitled to make pronouncements on how we should live our lives. In other words: our faith is your submission.

That is the rub.

We have nothing to go on for the existence of Yahweh Shebaoth except the Bible, a book that atheists would contend was written by fallible humans with no more experience of the divine than they have, with the possible caveat that the authors lived at a time and place (classic Palestine) when and where everyone believed and “saw” gods, demons, spirits, and apparitions all over the place.

We can now explain many phenomena that our ancestors took for revelations of the divine, and hence our claims of divine presence and intervention have dwindled.

I think what I’m trying to get to is that there seems to be a pervasive search for the one true god. If all the other ones are false, why is Yahweh the one true god? And if all the other gods are false, why should should we believe in any god?

Quetzalcoatl, Wakan Tanka, Frigg, and Mithras be praised.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

That is, there doesn’t seem to be a consistent, coherent, non-contradictory definition of God that holds up to rational criticism. I think that if God were defined clearly, it would be much easier to prove or disprove (and believe or disbelieve); but the whole concept of God is much too slippery to make enough rational sense to justify belief.

OK then. Here’s THE definitive definition of God:

God is THE singular omnipotent being.

That’s the “simplest yet most full version”, of course. The implications of this definition should be obvious, but:

1. God is omniscient.
2. God is omnipresent.
3. God is all-good. (Implies God is all-love, or more simply, love itself.)

What problems do you have with this definition?

 

[SFTor]

OK then. Here’s THE definitive definition of God:

God is THE singular omnipotent being.

That’s the “simplest yet most full version”, of course. The implications of this definition should be obvious, but:

1. God is omniscient.
2. God is omnipresent.
3. God is all-good. (Implies God is all-love, or more simply, love itself.)

What problems do you have with this definition?

I don’t even know where to begin. This sounds like the Deist concept of Providence.

Does this god you have outlined object to people working on Saturdays, or Sundays for that matter?

I don’t know why he or she would, considering the all-goodness.

The Bible however prescribes the punishment of death for this transgression.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I think what I’m trying to get to is that there seems to be a pervasive search for the one true god. If all the other ones are false, why is Yahweh the one true god? And if all the other gods are false, why should should we believe in any god?

Quetzalcoatl, Wakan Tanka, Frigg, and Mithras be praised.

Why is it that man seems in an endless search for this “one true God”?

The answer to that question is also the answer to the personal search for meaning, and what “meaning” means, to the person answering the question.

God qua God is not a god. He is a singular being. He has no “peers”. He is omnipotent, capable of “doing all”.

God qua a god is a personification of some “aspect” of reality.

The gods are in no way comparable to God.

“Yahweh” is simply a name for (the) God.

One does not find evidence for God THEN believe in Him. That is precisely backwards.

One either believes in revealed truth from God, which is then used to find confirming evidence of God by faithful belief in that revelation, or one will never find God due to improper use of the means by which humans find Him.

The only question is whether one wants to find God, or whether one wants to avoid God.

God is easily avoidable, but the anxiety produced by the avoidance of God builds over time until it becomes a consuming “hell” at death, or when one’s mortality is finally truly understood as a reality.

So, why is it, to you, that man seems in an endless search for this “one true God”?

 

[SFTor]

Why is it that man seems in an endless search for this “one true God”?

The answer to that question is also the answer to the personal search for meaning, and what “meaning” means, to the person answering the question.

God qua God is not a god. He is a singular being. He has no “peers”. He is omnipotent, capable of “doing all”.

God qua a god is a personification of some “aspect” of reality.

The gods are in no way comparable to God.

“Yahweh” is simply a name for (the) God.

One does not find evidence for God THEN believe in Him. That is precisely backwards.

One either believes in revealed truth from God, which is then used to find confirming evidence of God by faithful belief in that revelation, or one will never find God due to improper use of the means by which humans find Him.

The only question is whether one wants to find God, or whether one wants to avoid God.

God is easily avoidable, but the anxiety produced by the avoidance of God builds over time until it becomes a consuming “hell” at death, or when one’s mortality is finally truly understood as a reality.

So, why is it, to you, that man seems in an endless search for this “one true God”?

First of all, why is it a “he?” It seems to me that the assignation of gender would delimit the god.

Second, it may be that people everywhere have had a problem with randomness.

it also sounds to me that you invoke the human fear of death as a useful instrument to find the path to god. Do you believe it is?

It sounds to me like you do not believe in the god of the Bible, but have a broader, more comprehensive concept in mind.

Is this the case?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I don’t even know where to begin. This sounds like the Deist concept of Providence.

Does this god you have outlined object to people working on Saturdays, or Sundays for that matter?

The omnipotent God has used His omnipotence to tell specific people that there are specific things that must be done. The omnipotent God makes allowance for people who haven’t been informed properly that they needn’t do those things which they haven’t been informed about.

I don’t know why he or she would, considering the all-goodness.

The Bible however prescribes the punishment of death for this transgression.

What gets one the “death sentence” is disobeying the proper order of creation, one part of which is to follow to the best of one’s ability the direct orders given to us as we best understand those orders.

If God qua God gives you an order, and you disobey it, you have chosen to die to wanting to be with Him, and you have chosen to be “elsewhere”. That “elsewhere” is called hell.

 

[SFTor]

The omnipotent God has used His omnipotence to tell specific people that there are specific things that must be done. The omnipotent God makes allowance for people who haven’t been informed properly that they needn’t do those things which they haven’t been informed about.

What gets one the “death sentence” is disobeying the proper order of creation, one part of which is to follow to the best of one’s ability the direct orders given to us as we best understand those orders.

If God qua God gives you an order, and you disobey it, you have chosen to die to wanting to be with Him, and you have chosen to be “elsewhere”. That “elsewhere” is called hell.

CatsandDogs,

hello by the way.

The Bible does tells people that they should kill anyone, even a non-believer, or someone who believes differently, who works on the Sabbath. Are you saying that this only goes for Israelites at the time it was written? Am I not subject to this edict? Can I safely assume that I will not be stoned?

 

[BlaineTog]

Does this god you have outlined object to people working on Saturdays, or Sundays for that matter?

I don’t know why he or she would, considering the all-goodness.

The Bible however prescribes the punishment of death for this transgression.

Jesus specifically refutes any such penalties (though I don’t recall the specific verse in which death is called for; do you remember it?).

However, the sabbath prohibition against work is so that man will slow the heck down and just chill out every so often instead of working all the time. It’s for us.

First of all, why is it a “he?” It seems to me that the assignation of gender would delimit the god.

God isn’t a male, but he is masculine, insofar as “masculine” means “active” and “pursuing.” Using the masculine pronoun helps us remember this.

*It sounds to me like you do not believe in the god of the Bible, but have a broader, more comprehensive concept in mind.

Is this the case?*

Yes and no. God as Catholicism understands him is the God of the Bible, but the Bible doesn’t contain everything about him. It couldn’t; no book could. Further, the Bible is simply one part of the Catholic tradition, which contains an extra two thousand years of time spent trying to understand God more and more.

 

[SFTor]

Jesus specifically refutes any such penalties.

However, the sabbath prohibition against work is so that man will slow the heck down and just chill out every so often instead of working all the time. It’s for us.

God isn’t a male, but he is masculine, insofar as “masculine” means “active” and “pursuing.” Using the masculine pronoun helps us remember this.

Yes and no. God as Catholicism understands him is the God of the Bible, but the Bible doesn’t contain everything about him. It couldn’t; no book could. Further, the Bible is simply one part of the Catholic tradition, which contains an extra two thousand years of time spent trying to understand God more and more.

Now I’m really confused. I thought the Bible was the inerrant word of God, where he or whatever revealed him or herself to the faithful. Is this not the case?

And lastly, where do we find the rest of the story?

 

[SFTor]

“Yahweh” is simply a name for (the) God.

Does this mean that I can call god anything I want?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

First of all, why is it a “he?” It seems to me that the assignation of gender would delimit the god.

God is a HE because He is three persons. Persons are conventionally called by other than “it”.

God the Father we refer to as He because He has told us that He is “Fatherly”. Therefore, out of historical convention, we call Him He.

God the Son was incarnated as a male human. Therefore, He is conventionally refered to as He.

God the Holy Spirit is simply just conventionally called a He out of historical convention.

Second, it may be that people everywhere have had a problem with randomness.

What do you mean “had a problem with randomness”?

it also sounds to me that you invoke the human fear of death as a useful instrument to find the path to god. Do you believe it is?

Death is a fact that when fully realized causes the human mind to consider what “meaning” means. The question of the meaning of meaning, instead of the USE of meaning, ONLY arises when mortality is fully and truly accepted as unavoidable.

Those who wish to avoid the full consequences of death have no need to consider anything but the USE of meaning, the “how to get what I want” from the “machine” aspects of the world.

To not search for God is to be “content” to “get what I want” from the “machine”.

Once we (humans) find God, there is no fear of death. If we haven’t found God, we do everything possible to avoid the ever expanding fear of death.

It sounds to me like you do not believe in the god of the Bible, but have a broader, more comprehensive concept in mind.

Is this the case?

I’m Catholic. Does that answer your question?

There is no “god” of the bible. There is only God shown us with the bible, and demonic “gods” which He created as angels who chose to be demons shown us in the bible.

There is no more comprehensive concept of God than God as shown us by revelation from God in the Church.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

CatsandDogs,

hello by the way.

The Bible does tells people that they should kill anyone, even a none-believer, or someone who believes differently, who works on the Sabbath. Are you saying that this only goes for Israelites at the time it was written? Am I not subject to this edict? Can I safely assume that I will not be stoned?

Have you been stoned? (YOU know what I mean!! )

Show us where, or how, you think that you might be subject to being killed for working on the sabbath? Then we can explain to you why you’re not.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Now I’m really confused. I thought the Bible was the inerrant word of God, where he or whatever revealed him or herself to the faithful. Is this not the case?

And lastly, where do we find the rest of the story?

“The rest of the story” is found in the Church (Catholic).

What “rest of” would you like to know?

 

[SFTor]

Have you been stoned? (YOU know what I mean!! )

Show us where, or how, you think that you might be subject to being killed for working on the sabbath? Then we can explain to you why you’re not.

All I’m going on is the fact that the Bible says I should be. I know I shouldn’t work on the Sabbath, so I’m not excused.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs

“Yahweh” is simply a name for (the) God.

Does this mean that I can call god anything I want?

You may call God whatever you wish if it’s truly reverently used while you are considering God, and not some god.

Can you do that? Do you know enough of God to be truly reverent in refering to Him with the name you choose to use?