A Challenge to Theists

[wynn]

What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your God truly exists?

If you cannot prove to me or anyone outside of yourself that God exists, then we can only assume that God does not exist and that you are either a) lying, or b) mentally disturbed.

The argument that God as spoken to you or shown himself to you is not evidence because it only pertains to you an you alone. Show me proof that God exists. Heck, even show me some kind of proof that God as contacted you in any way!

I need only ONE person to prove God's existance and I will believe. How does that feel? YOU can be personally responsible for saving my soul! I'm sure that gives you brownie points with God - sure to secure a one-way ticket to Heaven!

What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your back pain truly exists?

If you cannot prove to me or anyone outside of yourself that your back pain exists, then we can only assume that your back pain does not exist and that you are either a) lying, or b) mentally disturbed.

The argument that your back pain has spoken to you or shown itself to you is not evidence because it only pertains to you an you alone. Show me proof that your back pain exists. Heck, even show me some kind of proof that your back pain has contacted you in any way!

I need only ONE person to prove your back pain's existance and I will believe. How does that feel?

YOU can be personally responsible for saving my soul!

Duh. You're either just mocking, or you're a fire-and-brimstone theist undercover.

 

[jmpet]

What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your God truly exists?

If you cannot prove to me or anyone outside of yourself that God exists, then we can only assume that God does not exist and that you are either a) lying, or b) mentally disturbed.

The argument that God as spoken to you or shown himself to you is not evidence because it only pertains to you an you alone. Show me proof that God exists. Heck, even show me some kind of proof that God as contacted you in any way!

I need only ONE person to prove God's existance and I will believe. How does that feel? YOU can be personally responsible for saving my soul! I'm sure that gives you brownie points with God - sure to secure a one-way ticket to Heaven!

Anthropics. We mutually agree that reality exists, so therefore, there must be a God to create reality. Reality does not come from nothing- only nothing is nothing. If God does not exist, then reality would not exist.

I have firsthand experience that there is an afterlife- I had a near-death experience I don't want to get into.

God exists just as sure as you are here. God created reality for His own reasons- probably for company from other sentient life forms like Him.

I am pretty firm in my belief in God.

 

[birch]

Anthropics. We mutually agree that reality exists, so therefore, there must be a God to create reality. Reality does not come from nothing- only nothing is nothing. If God does not exist, then reality would not exist.

I have firsthand experience that there is an afterlife- I had a near-death experience I don't want to get into.

God exists just as sure as you are here. God created reality for His own reasons- probably for company from other sentient life forms like Him.

I am pretty firm in my belief in God.

if this is true, then why does prejudice and hatred exist? god must have created that too? why do you think? does he have enemies? is he an enemy to someone else? does he have competitors? and why is it a 'he'?

also, do we give a crap what insects think or the bacteria around us or in our bodies? do we give a crap at all except for how they help us or against us? do we love them? do you love the shit full of living bacteria in your bowels? are you sure god loves all life? and if it created lifeforms, then why so much ugly, nasty and hateful characteristics too? do you know that there are things out there that would kill you without any remorse or care for your suffering or your life? that is in the form of diseases (most are lifeforms), to animals to people. had a nice conversation with cancer or aids lately? they are pretty damn clever and definitely lifeforms. god must have created them too. how about nasty parasites that will ravage you from the inside out?

can't answer those, can ya? that's why it's comforting to only focus on the positive such as god made us so he could have a lovefest. well, that's only if you isolate certain characteristics to define that as god.

 

[SciWriter]

Anthropics. We mutually agree that reality exists, so therefore, there must be a God to create reality. Reality does not come from nothing- only nothing is nothing. If God does not exist, then reality would not exist.

There is literally nothing to make the fundamental basics of reality of, and so that must be the only basis.

'God', then, doubly cannot be the basis, for a Mind cannot be a fundamental First.

This cuts out even a Deity at the source.

There's now not even a need to note that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence for a Theity who is even supposed to be everywhere, doing everything, nor even that the made-up 'non-physical' could even talk the talk of the physical and affect it without itself being physical.

And now all seems to be material, for space was once thought to totally physical, but not material, and perhaps it still is, in a way, if it is inert to material, yet we do note that space anywhere that we can get to, also called the vacuum, is truly only a 'vacuum' that 'tries' to be, but can't ever be, for this so-called vacuum ever fluctuates. Strangely, perhaps, it can still be said, in a way, that it is the vacuum that is fluctuating, since here we bump up against non-existence, but you know what I mean.

 

[wynn]

'God', then, doubly cannot be the basis, for a Mind cannot be a fundamental First.

Can you state what is fundamental (if not mind or being)?

 

[SciWriter]

The ‘vacuum’/vacuum of space, or nothing, if you will, easily qualifies as the only possible prime mover, for it requires nothing before it, as this would just be more nothing, and that it is an infinite and eternal state.

Ageless stuff forever, too, might have been at least nominated as a candidate, but, alas, there is nothing to make it of, and there was no place for definition of its well defined properties, in addition to its total amount.

Still, though take your pick, as both have a forever basis, precluding creation and a Creator, who is also excluded because a Mind, of ultimate complexity, no less, doing planning and creating, of everything, no less, cannot be First.

Why is there something instead of nothing? Because nothing cannot be. The question was stated backwards. The simple states are ever more reactive, and nothing being the simplest state of all, is totally and perfectly unstable and reactive, it apparently requiring a God to hold it intact, but, again, ‘it’ cannot be, and if it could have, then a lack of anything would still be so.

 

[SciWriter]

Can you state what is fundamental (if not mind or being)?

A mind of a being, and the rest of the composite, complex operating being is dependent on its sub-systems, and on their parts, and so on, to the first, this being the elemental and the fundamental.

What is fundamental has to be the causeless basis of all on upwards, which some think are electrons/positrons and quarks/anti-quarks (if they exist), and even photons, but I still learn toward the vacuum, meaning not that it isn't there, but that it appears to be a distribution of nothing, emitting positive and negative aspects of polarity of charge and matter/anti-matter.

I would guess that it is charge that nullifies all of existence in the overview, which can never happen in actuality since nothing cannot be or stay.

Now, of course a matter to anti-matter clash produces photons, which is not nothing, yet photons are of an electron and a positron somehow living in peace, with a neutral charge, yet the balance of opposites of charge is still within, as potential nullification, such as with the separated electron(-) and positron(+).

Both electron-positrons and photons seem to be emitted from the vacuum, some going back in, and some remaining rather enduring though reactions with other material. As for quarks/anti-quarks, I don't know if we can see that small yet.

The final result is that there are only two stable matter/anti-matter particles, the electron(-)/positron(+) and the proton(+)/anti-proton(-), which is said to be made of quarks, and one stable energy particle, the photon (neutral).

 

[wynn]

The ‘vacuum’/vacuum of space, or nothing, if you will, easily qualifies as the only possible prime mover, for it requires nothing before it, as this would just be more nothing, and that it is an infinite and eternal state.

Ageless stuff forever, too, might have been at least nominated as a candidate, but, alas, there is nothing to make it of, and there was no place for definition of its well defined properties, in addition to its total amount.

Still, though take your pick, as both have a forever basis, precluding creation and a Creator, who is also excluded because a Mind, of ultimate complexity, no less, doing planning and creating, of everything, no less, cannot be First.

Why is there something instead of nothing? Because nothing cannot be. The question was stated backwards. The simple states are ever more reactive, and nothing being the simplest state of all, is totally and perfectly unstable and reactive, it apparently requiring a God to hold it intact, but, again, ‘it’ cannot be, and if it could have, then a lack of anything would still be so.

 

[wynn]

A mind of a being, and the rest of the composite, complex operating being is dependent on its sub-systems, and on their parts, and so on, to the first, this being the elemental and the fundamental.

What is fundamental has to be the causeless basis of all on upwards, which some think are electrons/positrons and quarks/anti-quarks (if they exist), and even photons, but I still learn toward the vacuum, meaning not that it isn't there, but that it appears to be a distribution of nothing, emitting positive and negative aspects of polarity of charge and matter/anti-matter.

I would guess that it is charge that nullifies all of existence in the overview, which can never happen in actuality since nothing cannot be or stay.

Now, of course a matter to anti-matter clash produces photons, which is not nothing, yet photons are of an electron and a positron somehow living in peace, with a neutral charge, yet the balance of opposites of charge is still within, as potential nullification, such as with the separated electron(-) and positron(+).

Both electron-positrons and photons seem to be emitted from the vacuum, some going back in, and some remaining rather enduring though reactions with other material. As for quarks/anti-quarks, I don't know if we can see that small yet.

The final result is that there are only two stable matter/anti-matter particles, the electron(-)/positron(+) and the proton(+)/anti-proton(-), which is said to be made of quarks, and one stable energy particle, the photon (neutral).

And the human sense of self is an illusion, a mere epiphenomenon?

 

[jmpet]

if this is true, then why does prejudice and hatred exist? god must have created that too? why do you think? does he have enemies? is he an enemy to someone else? does he have competitors? and why is it a 'he'?

also, do we give a crap what insects think or the bacteria around us or in our bodies? do we give a crap at all except for how they help us or against us? do we love them? do you love the shit full of living bacteria in your bowels? are you sure god loves all life? and if it created lifeforms, then why so much ugly, nasty and hateful characteristics too? do you know that there are things out there that would kill you without any remorse or care for your suffering or your life? that is in the form of diseases (most are lifeforms), to animals to people. had a nice conversation with cancer or aids lately? they are pretty damn clever and definitely lifeforms. god must have created them too. how about nasty parasites that will ravage you from the inside out?

can't answer those, can ya? that's why it's comforting to only focus on the positive such as god made us so he could have a lovefest. well, that's only if you isolate certain characteristics to define that as god.

Whoa whoa- I am not a hippie and I don't believe in "peace love and dope, man". God made the universe so the universe could make sentient beings. I think this pretty much answers all your questions.

 

[jmpet]

There is literally nothing to make the fundamental basics of reality of, and so that must be the only basis.

'God', then, doubly cannot be the basis, for a Mind cannot be a fundamental First.

This cuts out even a Deity at the source.

There's now not even a need to note that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence for a Theity who is even supposed to be everywhere, doing everything, nor even that the made-up 'non-physical' could even talk the talk of the physical and affect it without itself being physical.

And now all seems to be material, for space was once thought to totally physical, but not material, and perhaps it still is, in a way, if it is inert to material, yet we do note that space anywhere that we can get to, also called the vacuum, is truly only a 'vacuum' that 'tries' to be, but can't ever be, for this so-called vacuum ever fluctuates. Strangely, perhaps, it can still be said, in a way, that it is the vacuum that is fluctuating, since here we bump up against non-existence, but you know what I mean.

I made no claims to "God's powers"- you did. And something does not come from nothing- it's nonsense to believe it does. Puppy dogs don't spontaneously appear out of thin air.

 

[Rav]

Puppy dogs don't spontaneously appear out of thin air.

I beg to differ. It happens around here all the time. Cheeky little bastards.

 

[Emil]

What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your back pain truly exists?

If you cannot prove to me or anyone outside of yourself that your back pain exists, then we can only assume that your back pain does not exist and that you are either a) lying, or b) mentally disturbed.

The argument that your back pain has spoken to you or shown itself to you is not evidence because it only pertains to you an you alone. Show me proof that your back pain exists. Heck, even show me some kind of proof that your back pain has contacted you in any way!

I need only ONE person to prove your back pain's existance and I will believe. How does that feel?

It is a good argument.I appreciate it.

 

[S.A.M.]

What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your God truly exists?

If you cannot prove to me or anyone outside of yourself that God exists, then we can only assume that God does not exist and that you are either a) lying, or b) mentally disturbed.

So you aim to debate your lack of faith with liars and mentally disturbed individuals because?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your God truly exists?

If you cannot prove to me or anyone outside of yourself that God exists, then we can only assume that God does not exist and that you are either a) lying, or b) mentally disturbed.

The argument that God as spoken to you or shown himself to you is not evidence because it only pertains to you an you alone. Show me proof that God exists. Heck, even show me some kind of proof that God as contacted you in any way!

I need only ONE person to prove God's existance and I will believe. How does that feel? YOU can be personally responsible for saving my soul! I'm sure that gives you brownie points with God - sure to secure a one-way ticket to Heaven!

Alright, let's turn tables....

Athiests: Prove that God dosen't exist

No emotional answers are allowed. Nine examples of emotional answers:

God dosen't exist because there is evil/suffering/death.
God dosen't exist because believers are hypocrites.
God dosen't exist because believers can't prove God exists.
God dosen't exist because I have never seen or felt God.
God dosen't exist because my prayers aren't answered.
God dosen't exist because Christians killed people in the Inquisition/Crusade/ancient time.
God dosen't exist because the Bible is man-made/corrupted.
God dosen't exist because God killed people in the Bible.
God dosen't exist because Jesus is not God.

Besides emotional answers, you are free to answer any way you wish.

 

[wynn]

So you aim to debate your lack of faith with liars and mentally disturbed individuals because?

Ha! :xctd:


I wonder what happened to him, though. Not so long ago he was all lovey-dovey "I believe in God and love and peace" - and now it's as if he has become someone else.

 

[birch]

Whoa whoa- I am not a hippie and I don't believe in "peace love and dope, man". God made the universe so the universe could make sentient beings. I think this pretty much answers all your questions.

for what? what is your reasoning for making sentient beings?

 

[Emil]

Alright, let's turn tables....

Athiests: Prove that God dosen't exist

No emotional answers are allowed. Nine examples of emotional answers:

God dosen't exist because there is evil/suffering/death.
God dosen't exist because believers are hypocrites.
God dosen't exist because believers can't prove God exists.
God dosen't exist because I have never seen or felt God.
God dosen't exist because my prayers aren't answered.
God dosen't exist because Christians killed people in the Inquisition/Crusade/ancient time.
God dosen't exist because the Bible is man-made/corrupted.
God dosen't exist because God killed people in the Bible.
God dosen't exist because Jesus is not God.

Besides emotional answers, you are free to answer any way you wish.

Not necessarily the problem is the existence of God or not.
For the sake of the discussion we can make the assumption that there exists a god.
But from this assumption until different religions, is a long way.
By what reasoning these people have reached to different religions from an assumption?

 

[wynn]

Not necessarily the problem is the existence of God or not.
For the sake of the discussion we can make the assumption that there exists a god.
But from this assumption until different religions, is a long way.
By what reasoning these people have reached to different religions from an assumption?

This is something I am very much interested in too.

An individual's transition from natural theology to a specific religious tradition seems quite mysterious.

 

[Emil]

This is something I am very much interested in too.

An individual's transition from natural theology to a specific religious tradition seems quite mysterious.

Maybe one day some of us will be interested to analyze the possibility of the existence of a god.
But that is another topic that does not belong to the religion forum.
Maybe in the philosophy forum, glaucon will allow us such a discussion.