How do you know God isn't dead?

[Faith No More]

Assuming that by assuming god exists the OP was assuming your god exists.

[Cyberman]

I formed the argument on the basis that "stuff exists". Is this being contested?

You know very well that it's not, since I already agreed that "stuff exists". What you can't do is extrapolate from that, by itself, to "God exists", given that you are defining "God" to be the creator of all this "stuff" - anymore than we can extrapolate from a broken watch to watch-breaking gremlins without something to bridge the gap.

Basically, you need to go from A to B to C; at the moment you're going A to [insert magic here] to Great Pumpkin.

[Ryantology]

Why don't you argue against me any more? You did in the "soul" thread, and now you've stopped. I don't understand? It was fun arguing with you. Now you just make comments that barely apply to the situation because you feel better when you insult me.

It's rather difficult to argue against a person who can make up anything he wants to support his argument.

Now, is it an insult to suggest that your point is meaningless? That is all I did just now.

[Statler Waldorf]

Assuming that by assuming god exists the OP was assuming your god exists.

Why would He mention Jesus as God’s son if He was not referring to the Christian God?

[Faith No More]

I missed that little gem, Stat. My apologies, once again.

[FallentoReason]

God causes things to exist... so since they're still existing... I'm going to assuming he's still working.

I have 3 objections:

1. Have you ever witnessed something "being caused to exist"? If no, then it is a baseless assumption to say such a thing can happen.

2. God causing "some-thing" to exist implies it already existed some-where. Therefore, God didn't cause it to exist. He merely took x and performed y in order to get z i.e. he altered substance that was already there.

3. Your statement is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that because "[things are] still existing...[God] is still working". A counter example would be the belief, of which the name I've forgotten, that states that God died in the process of creating the universe.

[smax]

pid='438465' dateline='1367281099']

Why don't you argue against me any more? You did in the "soul" thread, and now you've stopped. I don't understand? It was fun arguing with you. Now you just make comments that barely apply to the situation because you feel better when you insult me.

I think you already know the answer to that question Tex…

Your approach to this thread is very strong, since the OP assumes that God did exist (in order for something to be dead it must have been living by definition), you simply took one of God’s attributes (upholding His creation through His grace) and worked backwards from that to demonstrate God must therefore still be living because His creation is still being upheld. Other approaches could have also been, since belief in God requires application of God’s grace by God, we know God still lives because there are still those who believe in Him. Additionally, since the OP assumes God exists and since being eternal is by definition one of God’s attributes we know He is not dead because by definition He cannot die. The original question is rather absurd because it is inconsistent with its starting premises.

Unless it's a humorous jab at how ridiculous the whole thing is in the first place.

[FallentoReason]

Other approaches could have also been, since belief in God requires application of God’s grace by God,

Can't get enough of circles?

we know God still lives because there are still those who believe in Him.

Indeed. Praise Allah.

Additionally, since the OP assumes God exists and since being eternal is by definition one of God’s attributes we know He is not dead because by definition He cannot die.

Unless, he hasn't existed for all eternity, like every other god you say doesn't exist.

[smax]

Bingo!

I love how religious people are always looking for affirmation. I wonder if you all realize how much it undermines the validity of your "beliefs"?

It's like you are always looking for something to confirm what you hope is true.

If you really, truly, believed this crap, you'd be a lot more secure in that knowledge. In other words, confirmation would be meaningless.

As it is, confirmation seems to be everything to you people.

---

By the way, my head is still on strait, so it's been proven that god does not exist.

[Statler Waldorf]

Unless it's a humorous jab at how ridiculous the whole thing is in the first place.

Forgive me for assuming you sincerely wanted to know the answers to your questions. According to what law of rationality is the existence of an immaterial, eternal, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent, transcendent God necessarily ridiculous? I think asking whether an eternal being is dead is what is rather ridiculous.

Can't get enough of circles?

There’s nothing circular about that statement, the OP granted us the Christian God’s existence, if you have an issue with His existence being used to prove He is not dead you should take that out with smax. I am just being consistent with the OP.

Indeed. Praise Allah.

Allah doesn’t exist because we’ve already been granted the existence of Yahweh in the OP (thanks smax), the two are mutually exclusive.

Unless, he hasn't existed for all eternity, like every other god you say doesn't exist.

One of the Christian God’s attributes is eternal existence.

It's like you are always looking for something to confirm what you hope is true.

It seems that is precisely the reason you started this thread. You have already admitted that you were not sincerely seeking the answers to those questions. That seems to indicate that the reason you started this thread was to obtain reassurance from your atheist friends that what you hope is true (God doesn’t exist) is indeed true.

---

I missed that little gem, Stat. My apologies, once again.

No worries bud.