- Joined
- Feb 26, 2019
- Messages
- 37,009
- Reaction score
- 15,635
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Questioning God’s existence is denial.
Authority always should prove themselves. Man came up with god so man can question the concept.
Questioning God’s existence is denial.
Authority always should prove themselves. Man came up with god so man can question the concept.
God would probably prefer that we question some clown saying that there is a god.
Then could there have been a natural start process other than the big bang ?
There is no logic he just wants to meake every thread about his love for Trump
He is a she...:roll:
....
Yep. If a god exists, and he gave us a brain and created logic and reason, why would he punish us for using them? The inanity of religion, or the cruelty of the god.
Incorrect. There's logic there as well.
FYI, as explained at the bottom of the OP, ""must exist" is my plain English rendition of the modal concept "necessarily exists."
FYI also, there is a categorical difference between X "necessarily exists" (or X "must exist") and "X exists."
Seriously, no god would ever want his "flock" to buy into this crap.
Yep. If a god exists, and he gave us a brain and created logic and reason, why would he punish us for using them? The inanity of religion, or the cruelty of the god.
You and the others who've "pointed [this] out" have been corrected as many times as you persist in this ignorant refrain. God, if such a being exists, is a necessary being, whereas Santa Clause, Bigfoot, unicorns and the rest of the New Skeptic's menagerie, following the New Atheists in this particular bit of silliness, are contingent beings. The proof is not designed for contingent beings.It's actually quite hilarious. I, and I'm sure others, have pointed out that you can replace "God" with "Santa Claus" or anything else, and according to Angel, that entity exists.
Also, using her logic, I showed how she has proven that the Christian God is a complete loser, and an asshole to boot. Suddenly she decided her logic was meaningless.
Like Socrates, yes?...I appreciate your kind words. I am, unfortunately, personally more wired to tear things down than build them up. I cannot help you improve your proof, other than subject your next iteration to the same analysis that I did for this one.
What does your God have against clowns?God would probably prefer that we question some clown saying that there is a god.
No harm, no foul. Others have done likewise. Curious in that angels are traditionally androgynous, and that in Spanish-speaking cultures it is commonly a male name, pronounced "On hell."I called you a "she" in a couple of posts. It was completely unintended, and meant to carry no negative connotations. For whatever reason I've always imagined good angels as females, and when I saw your name....
My sincere apologies, and I will be most careful not to do that again. Thanks to Elvira for pointing it out.
Proof of God
1. Whatever exists, can exist. (axiom: actuality implies possibility)
2. Whatever must exist, exists. (axiom: necessity implies actuality)
3. Whatever must exist, can exist. (axiom: necessity implies possibility)
4. If God exists, God must exist. (definition)
5. Either God must exist or God must not exist. (law of thought)
6. It is not the case that God must not exist. (negation of impossibility)
7. Therefore, God must exist. (from 5 and 6)
8. If God must exist, then God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
9. If God can exist, then God exists. (from converse of definition and 1)
10. God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
11. Therefore God exists. (from 9 and 10)
This is a modal argument in simple direct English answering the skeptical challenge to provide a proof of God's existence.
The author of the proof welcomes comment and good-faith engagement.
No harm, no foul. Others have done likewise. Curious in that angels are traditionally androgynous, and that in Spanish-speaking cultures it is commonly a male name, pronounced "On hell."
Why not? I wasn't there so I can neither affirm or deny.
Or maybe I was and don't remember?
Seriously, no god would ever want his "flock" to buy into this crap.
Seriously, have you ever attended a revivalist tent meeting? A brimstone and fire vision of hell? Or a gospel love celebration? How about a healing through faith?
As an extreme skeptic, I've attended more than a few. Preconceptions aside, it has rarely been what I expected. Certainly some were hokey, sheer entertainment. Others, were great crowd source emotional fervor, fulfilling intense depths of spiritual need, whatever that may be for the searchers. Some amazingly boring, but more often overwhelmingly frightening, more nightmarish than any horror movie, or intensely joyous and uplifting, reaching and achieving emotional heights that are orgasmic.
What a god might want, who the hell knows? What people want and find at these events, not for you to judge, accept or reject. Whether it is a night out with cheap entertainment or some ecstatic moments, who are you to deny the searchers what they find? Are you that arrogant?
Yup you were there. It was one crazy party but Im not surprised you dont remember you were really downing the hard stuff
Charlatans conning people in "his" name---I kinda doubt "he" would approve.
Seriously, no god would ever want his "flock" to buy into this crap.