Atheists Want Proof Of God?

[Taz]

No backup to what you say = fartsmoke.

I’ve backed up everything. Dozens of times.

You should learn how to do it properly.You come off like a simpleton who spouts shit left and right and doesn't know how to properly back it up. But like I said, you probably know that there are no links to what you spout so play the fool.

I couldn’t be happier for you to underestimate me. It works to my advantage.

You’re an idiot. It’s to your advantage not to back anything up?

You’re upset. Eat a snickers.

You’re an imbecile. Eat shit.

 

[ding]

I’ve backed up everything. Dozens of times.

You should learn how to do it properly.You come off like a simpleton who spouts shit left and right and doesn't know how to properly back it up. But like I said, you probably know that there are no links to what you spout so play the fool.

I couldn’t be happier for you to underestimate me. It works to my advantage.

You’re an idiot. It’s to your advantage not to back anything up?

You’re upset. Eat a snickers.

You’re an imbecile. Eat shit.

Having a bad day?

 

[Taz]

You should learn how to do it properly.You come off like a simpleton who spouts shit left and right and doesn't know how to properly back it up. But like I said, you probably know that there are no links to what you spout so play the fool.

I couldn’t be happier for you to underestimate me. It works to my advantage.

You’re an idiot. It’s to your advantage not to back anything up?

You’re upset. Eat a snickers.

You’re an imbecile. Eat shit.

Having a bad day?

You bore me with your nonsense.

 

[ding]

I couldn’t be happier for you to underestimate me. It works to my advantage.

You’re an idiot. It’s to your advantage not to back anything up?

You’re upset. Eat a snickers.

You’re an imbecile. Eat shit.

Having a bad day?

You bore me with your nonsense.

Like science?

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a fact

God is a theory

 

[Ringtone]

You haven't quite got that right, Viktor. True belief in God is not an act of faith. Faith implies an acceptance of a thing based on pure trust alone. "Faith" is also used to describe what "persuasion" a person is (Catholic, Baptist, etc.). I suppose there are a lot of people out there that accept many things purely on trust but God should not be one of them! Anyone with a deep conviction about God will tell you that it is based on some inner, personal experience. They have seen and felt something communicated to them that is undeniable, unshakable, profound. They may tell you it was the most "real" experience of their life leaving a lasting impression decades later.

Atheists are totally closed, simply deny the possibility of God outright. Not only for themselves but all others. They will tell you he is neither "necessary" nor scientifically valid. Many people also wrongly assume that "faith" in god is contrary to science. That is wrong too. Believing in God has absolutely nothing to do with one's education or ability to pursue science! Albert Einstein was a deep believer in God. But denial of the possibility of god because you simply haven't seen it for yourself is utter foolishness since you cannot prove a negative. Do you disbelieve in black holes, quarks or gamma rays because you haven't seen those either? They refuse to admit that their "faith" is simply a human-centric rather than a god-centric one. An impersonal philosophy vs. a personal one. They prefer to think that consciousness, self-awareness and intelligence came from dust rather than from a greater consciousness and awareness. They say they see no evidence for God. I can at least understand that as that is where I stood when young until something changed and I had the experience of a lifetime.

Agnostics remain open looking for proof. Again, pure foolhardiness to expect someone else to hand it to you. It is like they expect a miracle to appear before them or some concrete evidence handed them! Why would anyone expect concrete evidence for something which by its very nature is NOT concrete, not material, ie, spiritual? No one may prove to another God's existence or not. That is simply not something we may show or "prove" to another person. Each person must go by whatever belief they hold until the time comes for them to advance to something better at whatever rate and time best suits them.

I disagree. The empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is readily apparent, but atheists are just flatout irrational for all their guff to the contrary. Either the universe in some form or another has always existed (the absurdity of an infinite regress of contingent causality), it came into existence from nonexistence (an absurdity of ontological order) or the eternal ground of existence is immaterial, and only an immaterial entity of personhood could possibly freely elect to cause the existence of the material entity of time. The effect of a mechanical cause would axiomatically be given from eternity, would necessarily be material, which leads right back to the first absurdity. Hence, God must be. The first two options are sheer madness. Atheism is madness. Faith in God's existence is firmly based on reason, and the deeper, spiritual faith of conviction or trust in the true God follows. Obviously, the latter kind of faith entails direct revelation from God, but I assure you as one who has thought it all through, there exists ample logical reasons that lead directly to the God of the Bible as opposed to the others of classical theism. For example, what were the other divinities doing all by their lonesome from eternity? From whence comes the Subject-Object relation? God is a relation of three, co-eternal persons in one. In any event, make no mistake about it, God's existence is manifestly rational and necessary.

 

[Taz]

You’re an idiot. It’s to your advantage not to back anything up?

You’re upset. Eat a snickers.

You’re an imbecile. Eat shit.

Having a bad day?

You bore me with your nonsense.

Like science?

No, the way you mangle it up to suit your nonsense.

 

[Hollie]

You haven't quite got that right, Viktor. True belief in God is not an act of faith. Faith implies an acceptance of a thing based on pure trust alone. "Faith" is also used to describe what "persuasion" a person is (Catholic, Baptist, etc.). I suppose there are a lot of people out there that accept many things purely on trust but God should not be one of them! Anyone with a deep conviction about God will tell you that it is based on some inner, personal experience. They have seen and felt something communicated to them that is undeniable, unshakable, profound. They may tell you it was the most "real" experience of their life leaving a lasting impression decades later.

Atheists are totally closed, simply deny the possibility of God outright. Not only for themselves but all others. They will tell you he is neither "necessary" nor scientifically valid. Many people also wrongly assume that "faith" in god is contrary to science. That is wrong too. Believing in God has absolutely nothing to do with one's education or ability to pursue science! Albert Einstein was a deep believer in God. But denial of the possibility of god because you simply haven't seen it for yourself is utter foolishness since you cannot prove a negative. Do you disbelieve in black holes, quarks or gamma rays because you haven't seen those either? They refuse to admit that their "faith" is simply a human-centric rather than a god-centric one. An impersonal philosophy vs. a personal one. They prefer to think that consciousness, self-awareness and intelligence came from dust rather than from a greater consciousness and awareness. They say they see no evidence for God. I can at least understand that as that is where I stood when young until something changed and I had the experience of a lifetime.

Agnostics remain open looking for proof. Again, pure foolhardiness to expect someone else to hand it to you. It is like they expect a miracle to appear before them or some concrete evidence handed them! Why would anyone expect concrete evidence for something which by its very nature is NOT concrete, not material, ie, spiritual? No one may prove to another God's existence or not. That is simply not something we may show or "prove" to another person. Each person must go by whatever belief they hold until the time comes for them to advance to something better at whatever rate and time best suits them.

I disagree. The empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is readily apparent, but atheists are just flatout irrational for all their guff to the contrary. Either the universe in some form or another has always existed (the absurdity of an infinite regress of contingent causality), it came into existence from nonexistence (an absurdity of ontological order) or the eternal ground of existence is immaterial, and only an immaterial entity of personhood could possibly freely elect to cause the existence of the material entity of time. The effect of a mechanical cause would axiomatically be given from eternity, would necessarily be material, which leads right back to the first absurdity. Hence, God must be. The first two options are sheer madness. Atheism is madness. Faith in God's existence is firmly based on reason, and the deeper, spiritual faith of conviction or trust in the true God follows. Obviously, the latter kind of faith entails direct revelation from God, but I assure you as one who has thought it all through, there exists ample logical reasons that lead directly to the God of the Bible as opposed to the others of classical theism. For example, what were the other divinities doing all by their lonesome from eternity? From whence comes the Subject-Object relation? God is a relation of three, co-eternal persons in one. In any event, make no mistake about it, God's existence is manifestly rational and necessary.

Why do you presume that your nonsensical ".... because I say so", rants are taken as anything but rants from a religious extremist?

 

[ding]

You’re upset. Eat a snickers.

You’re an imbecile. Eat shit.

Having a bad day?

You bore me with your nonsense.

Like science?

No, the way you mangle it up to suit your nonsense.

You mean like 14 billion years ago the universe popped into existence?

Do you still think the earth is flat too?

 

[Taz]

You’re an imbecile. Eat shit.

Having a bad day?

You bore me with your nonsense.

Like science?

No, the way you mangle it up to suit your nonsense.

You mean like 14 billion years ago the universe popped into existence?

Do you still think the earth is flat too?

See? you just throw out any old sentence and think it's relevant.

 

[ding]

Having a bad day?

You bore me with your nonsense.

Like science?

No, the way you mangle it up to suit your nonsense.

You mean like 14 billion years ago the universe popped into existence?

Do you still think the earth is flat too?

See? you just throw out any old sentence and think it's relevant.

Well it is a key part of my argument so it is kind of is relevant.

The universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago. Go ahead and argue against it.

 

[Votto]

Doesn't bother me.

Why would it?

I don't take anything on faith. You want me to believe? Show me.

I don't believe it.

 

[alang1216]

The universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago. Go ahead and argue against it.

You don't know that, we only know something happened back then. If you suddenly found a puddle of water on the floor would you assume it 'popped into existence'. It may have come from melting ice or condensing steam. There is no way to know seeing only its current state.

 

[ding]

The universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago. Go ahead and argue against it.

You don't know that, we only know something happened back then. If you suddenly found a puddle of water on the floor would you assume it 'popped into existence'. It may have come from melting ice or condensing steam. There is no way to know seeing only its current state.

I do know that.

The second law of thermodynamics demands a beginning.

 

[ding]

The universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago. Go ahead and argue against it.

You don't know that, we only know something happened back then. If you suddenly found a puddle of water on the floor would you assume it 'popped into existence'. It may have come from melting ice or condensing steam. There is no way to know seeing only its current state.

Do you know what red shift is? Or cosmic background radiation is?

And what the means in conjunction with Einstein’s field equations?

 

[ding]

It appears that the universe having a beginning makes some people very uncomfortable.

 

[Taz]

You bore me with your nonsense.

Like science?

No, the way you mangle it up to suit your nonsense.

You mean like 14 billion years ago the universe popped into existence?

Do you still think the earth is flat too?

See? you just throw out any old sentence and think it's relevant.

Well it is a key part of my argument so it is kind of is relevant.

The universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago. Go ahead and argue against it.

That's an opinion, nothing to argue against. You can think what you want. I know, now you're going to say that I'm arguing against science, as though "popping" into existence is neither scientific or rational.

 

[alang1216]

The universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago. Go ahead and argue against it.

You don't know that, we only know something happened back then. If you suddenly found a puddle of water on the floor would you assume it 'popped into existence'. It may have come from melting ice or condensing steam. There is no way to know seeing only its current state.

Do you know what red shift is? Or cosmic background radiation is?

And what the means in conjunction with Einstein’s field equations?

Both red shift and cosmic background radiation point to an event that happened. Neither reveals what was there before, something or nothing, either is possible and neither has any evidence to support it.

Did you just throw in Einstein’s field equations to obfuscate or is there really some point to mentioning them?

 

[alang1216]

It appears that the universe having a beginning makes some people very uncomfortable.

It is your assumption sans evidence that makes me uncomfortable.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

and only an immaterial entity of personhood could possibly freely elect to cause the existence of the material entity of time.

Haha...just kind of snuck that in there, didn't ya?

So, god is real, because...god is real.