Proof of God

[robvalue]

Apparently I should be more grateful to an indifferent universe for my brief and highly unenjoyable existence.

[Whateverist]

Simple. We're all here talking about 'god'. It is obviously a thing. The question is what kind of thing. Damned if I know.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[Esquilax]

The right way to say is:

Atheist: there is no God
Theist: Prove it.

If you have to lie about what your opponents say to win an argument, then you don't have much of a position.

You have my post and you are free to criticise. However, without logical reasoning, you sounds exactly "you don't know, but I'm going to claim I know the only possibility is no god, therefore no god."

I'm on record, multiple times, even in conversation with you, indicating that this is not my position. So you're either not reading my posts, or you're lying about what I think in order to gain some rhetorical advantage. Either way is a completely dishonest and shitty way to go about an argument.

Esquilax Wrote: Oh look, another proof of god that is only negative, boiling down to "you don't know, but I'm going to claim I know the only possibility is god, therefore god."

ChadWooters Wrote: Always setting up the same straw man, I see.

Perhaps you have some alternate of God.

So, here's another perfect demonstration that Harris is not reading what people are saying before he disagrees with them: Chad is another theist, agreeing with what Harris says, and yet Harris posts a response as though he's disagreeing. The man literally has no reading comprehension skills.

[downbeatplumb]

Most Harrises are unaware of the popular quarrel between theists and atheists concerning the existence of god.

Theist: There is a god.
Atheist: Prove it.

The right way to say is:

Atheist: there is no God
Theist: Prove it.

Harris I assume you don't believe in fairies.
Now prove there are no such things as fairies.

Now this is unfair isn't it, the one putting the "there are faries" argument is the one who supplies the evidence then the unbeliever gets to evaluate it.

How do we provide the evidence for no god?

Well there is no evidence FOR a god but apparently the complete lack of anything tangible is no barrier to the belief that something exists because hey c'mon you know.

Theists set out your proof and I get to look at it and see if I am convinced.

And I want actual physical things that can be verified by scientific method not namby pamby "arguments"

[The Valkyrie]

"Proof of god."

None.

That is all

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The right way to say is:

Atheist: there is no God
Theist: Prove it.

That's retarded. /thread

I feel like I should close the thread after this.

Pity.

[Exian]

The only place I've ever heard an atheist make the strong claim that there is no God is within a hypothetical argument crafted by a theist.

[robvalue]

If God is as obviously real as we keep getting told, why all the dishonest tactics all the time?

[ManMachine]

Almost everyone is aware of a popular quarrel between theist and atheist concerning existence of God.

Atheist: Prove there is God
Theist: Prove there is no God

As being a theist, I have rather different approach to the question of atheist.

I say ok I agree with Mr. Atheist. I say there is no God. Nevertheless, is that the end of the story? I do not think so. If we say God does not exist then we are left with two options:

a. Nothingness or
b. Alternate of God

Nothingness:
Nothingness can only produce non-existence, and so it cannot be the foundation of any ideology. The universe can only function because it is not nothingness. Logically, nothingness cannot be expressed in any logical form because there is no way in which nothingness can be expressed in terms of being. Nothingness cannot be a subject for investigation in science. Since pure nothingness is an impossibility, there never was a time when Being did not exist. In short, Being is eternal. Thus, Being possesses the divine attributes of necessity, eternity, omnipresence, and infinity. Consequently, Being is God Himself.

Alternate of God:
If God has not created universe then there are three possible assumptions about the existence of Universe:

a. Universe is eternal
b. Universe popped out of nothingness
c. Universe created itself

a. The astronomical phenomenon Redshift negates the idea that universe has eternal past or eternal future.

b. If I say, X creates Y I am assuming the existence of X to explain the existence of Y but if I say X creates X (the universe creates itself) I am assuming the existence of universe to explain its existence, which is utterly absurd.

c. Nothingness means “not anything.” “Not anything” cannot produce something.

Conclusion: Universe is a created finite being

Al-Ghazali proposed:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Any power that is capable to create and sustain universe is God.

Logically, Nothingness does not exist and there is no alternate of God. Alternate of God is God.

“But those in whose hearts is a disease,- it will add doubt to their doubt, and they will die in a state of Unbelief.”
At Taubah (9)
-Verse 125-

“O mankind! there hath come to you a direction from your Lord and a healing for the (diseases) in your hearts,- and for those who believe, a guidance and a Mercy.”
Yunus (10)
-Verse 57-

There is solid theory that demonstrates our Universe could have come from 'nothingness'. your assumption is incorrect, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it not true. Which is a theme that runs through most of this abject nonsense.

MM