Proving God Existence

[Muslim Scholar]

Relations between events also had a start
so a first event (only one) is a must
An initiator for that event must exist

There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that first cause(s) is/are a must. Physics does not demands it, only religions do.

Logic Does, not religion.

For the 100th time: infinite causality chain is perfectly plausable

In finite causality chain land, multiple first events are possible too, try to wrap your brain around that one, lol

Same like fairy tales and Dragons!

[Dragonetti]

And yes, it is true. Allah falls in the same category as Dragons and Unicorns. Just one long fairy tale.

[Mister Agenda]

1) Time has the advantage over god in this.
2) God is a concept which relates the idea of a person to the idea of megalomania.
3) God too is not a thing to exist, however events and everything we know can be thought of as having been ordained by an all powerful god.

1) God existence is proved to you

If God's existence is proved to him, Whateverist is no longer an atheist. Whateverist, is this true?

2) Non-existence of God is just a refuted Concept

Asserting it doesn't make it so.

3) God will put you in hell for not worshiping him

That sounds like a very human and petty motivation for a unique being.

I think my words is too professional for common people to understand; my professors told me before that I take what I understand as a fact without explaining it enough.

An alternative explanation is that we understand you perfectly, but you're wrong.

Let me rephrase it again.
Events had a start
Relations between events also had a start
so a first event (only one) is a must
An initiator for that event must exist

The only part of your argument that isn't a premise is the second line. Even your conclusion is just another premise, since it doesn't follow from the line above it (you haven't proven that a first event must have an initiator). And while your first two lines aren't entirely without merit, they are unproven. The stipulation for only one first event rules out multiple simultaneous first events for no reason I can see except multiple first events are inconvenient to the point you want to make.

[Simsim]

I should read all this topic to participate in it

Can't anyone give a brief summary of what is written in the past 43 pages?

OK .. God exists but I am not convinced of this reality and I am not convinced by believers' arguments. So what?

[Baalzebutt]

Let me rephrase it again.
Events had a start
Relations between events also had a start
so a first event (only one) is a must
An initiator for that event must exist

What was god doing before he "initiated"? Wouldn't his actions (whatever they are) also be "events"?

Wouldn't the initiator himself also be an "event"? And wouldn't that "event" need an initiator?

You are back to infinite regress...

Either that or you have an infinite existence which is also a plausible explanation for the the uni/multiverse.

[downbeatplumb]

I should read all this topic to participate in it

Can't anyone give a brief summary of what is written in the past 43 pages?

OK .. God exists but I am not convinced of this reality and I am not convinced by believers' arguments. So what?

MS proves to no one but his own satisfaction that he has proved god.
When he is told that he has failed he says "look at my proof".
And repeat.
for FORTY THREE PAGES.

[Ryantology]

I should read all this topic to participate in it

Can't anyone give a brief summary of what is written in the past 43 pages?

OK .. God exists but I am not convinced of this reality and I am not convinced by believers' arguments. So what?

On the first page, Muslim Scholar constructs a 'logical' argument he claims proves the existence of his chosen God. The next 42 mostly consist of him pretending that a dozen or more people haven't thoroughly eviscerated it.

[Simsim]

LOL ... Thanks guys

See you in another long thread

[bennyboy]

Logic Does, not religion.

If you say, "Nothing we can observe in this universe can ultimately explain why it exists," I will totally agree with you. But then you start wrapping your mythology around it, as though one point of philosophical agreement is solid ground for your entire mythology. Nothing you said about time proves that any Prime Cause that might exist must be sentient, or must be singular.

You are working from the world's worst kind of confirmation bias-- working back from your "hypothesis" to show that all the data arrives at it. This is not the foundation on which good logic should be built.

[KichigaiNeko]

So no god proof?




I am disappoint.