Proof of the existence of a deity.

[Paul H.]

I am a theistic evolutionist, which means I don't believe in the literal "God created the world in seven days", I see it as a metaphor. However, according to the same science atheists praise, there is a God or ultimate being out there.

For anything to happen, it must have a cause. A chemical reaction doesn't happen on it's own; time, another substance, movement, etc cause it to happen. Nothing happens without the influence of something else. How was there a blob of matter that just exploded on it's own? Something needs to have triggered it. Something needs to have triggered that trigger. We can go down the line ad infinitum until we finally see that there needs to have been an ultimate power, an uncaused cause, that triggered the first thing in the universe. Call it God, call it the flying spaghetti monster, it's out there. This isn't an argument for the proof of Christianity (though if anyone wants to have a friendly debate about it I would gladly take them up) it is merely proof there is a deity out there. Be it a deity that doesn't give a damn about us, be it a deity that hates our guts, or be it a deity that cares, that's up to you. But there is proof of something out there that started it all.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JrMVRv8_TOw/TqW4zzd3rSI/AAAAAAAAAFY/s1qP10Jheyo/s1600/atheism.png
^comical image, not quite OT but slightly related to the thread.

 

[Greed]

Haha I'm going to show this to my friend who is a hardcore atheist. Do you have anything else that I should provide to him?

 

[Paul H.]

Not off the top of my head, this is one of the better arguments I have.

Tell him to that you can't prove the non-existence of God, while you can give extremely strong evidence/proof for His existence

 

[Greed]

Oh that's the only argument I use, but there is also no evidence towards a god really either tbh, even though I believe in God.

 

[Nite]

I am agnostic, but I am still turning more towards the atheism side.

 

[Greed]

But like my friend knows everything literally about christianity because he is forced to go to a hardcore Catholic school and has been going there for 10 years. Haha you should see some of his replies when he has to do essays for religion class. But theres literally no way to turn him lol. Next time we have a debate over it I'll contact you for help to some of his questions

 

[G6‌]

I do not make fun of others religions, but I am Atheist. I really do not give two shits about religions because it is just another obstacle in life I do not care to deal with.

 

[Cole]

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_wnAUWpoJA[/video]

This is usually how my arguments with Atheist usually goes.
Atheist being the kid of course.

 

[Paul H.]

but there is also no evidence towards a god really either tbh

did you not read the OP

 

[Greed]

No I mean that is logic, not really evidence haha. Idk why but when i say evidence I refer to videos/pictures of the actual thing. I mean I guess that counts.

 

[Cole]

No I mean that is logic, not really evidence haha. Idk why but when i say evidence I refer to videos/pictures of the actual thing. I mean I guess that counts.

Sort of like that report I made eh? No proof at first, but it was pretty obvious based on logic.
There may be no "real" proof for God's existence, but we can use Logic.
How does a world like this just "poof" up out of no where, without a creator?

 

[Paul H.]

Logic can be evidence

And as for physical evidence, there are hundreds of Christian miracles out there.... I actually know someone who had a severe, incurable back disease and after visiting a religious shine (Our Lady of Lourdes if you care) he was cured, and doctors were baffled and couldn't explain it at all. If you're a Catholic there are tons of miracles out there with the Eucharist, like the miracle of lanciano, where there's a living piece of flesh with blood that has been in a monstrance (a containter) of hundreds of years with no decay, and no scientific explanation. There's also the miracle of Guadalupe, where a mexican tilma that should have decayed within ten years of being woven has lasted hundreds of years, with a miraculous, unpainted, unexplainable image on it.

Proof.

 

[Greed]

Well my friend finds ways of using logic to disprove god. Like can he make an object that he can't pick up? And all kinds of other stuff.

 

[Paul H.]

Well my friend finds ways of using logic to disprove god. Like can he make an object that he can't pick up? And all kinds of other stuff.

That's not logic. That's stupidity. I'll get a full reply for that in a second.

 

[Greed]

That's not logic. That's stupidity. I'll get a full reply for that in a second.

Haha well its not stupid. Like if he can make one then he cannot do anything because he can't pick it up and if he can, well its the same thing. That one stumped me.

 

[Paul H.]

Haha well its not stupid. Like if he can make one then he cannot do anything because he can't pick it up and if he can, well its the same thing. That one stumped me.

There are some good explanations on wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

The thing is it's not a logical question. When it comes down to it, the question is "Is God capable of being incapable?", which doesn't make sense at all. In order to use logic you need to ask a logical question. Check out the wikipedia page, it gives a few more refutations as well.

EDIT: another explanation, by an atheist actually:

Isaac Asimov, a confirmed atheist, answered a variation of this question: what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? He points out that Albert Einstein demonstrated the equivalence of mass-energy. That is, according to relativity theory, mass is simply frozen energy, energy is simply liquid mass. In order to be either "immovable" or "irresistible", the entity must possess the majority of energy in the system. No system can have two majorities. A universe in which there exists such a thing as an irresistible force is, by definition, a universe which cannot also contain an immovable object. And a universe which contains an immovable object cannot, by definition, also contain an irresistible force. So the question is essentially meaningless: either the force is irresistible or the object is immovable, but not both. Asimov points out that this question is the logical fallacy of the pseudo-question. Just because we can string words together to form what looks like a coherent sentence does not mean the sentence really makes any sense.

EDIT2: another explanation by a friend of mine: We seek God by believing in Him. "if He made perfect sense, He wouldn't be a mystery - he wouldn't be as amazing, something to yearn and pursue, how lame would the God of the Universe be if we were to completely understand all about Him? theres always something more to learn, thats what I love about being catholic "

EDIT3: Another explanation by C.S. Lewis:

C. S. Lewis argues that when talking about omnipotence, referencing "a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it" is nonsense just as much as referencing "a square circle"; that it is not logically coherent in terms of power to think that omnipotence includes the power to do the logically impossible. So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock: the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both. This is justified by observing that in order for the omnipotent agent to create such a stone, the omnipotent agent must already be more powerful than itself: such a stone is too heavy for the omnipotent agent to lift, but the omnipotent agent already can create such a stone; If an omnipotent agent already is more powerful than itself, then it already is just that powerful. Which means that its power to create a stone that’s too heavy for it to lift is identical to its power to lift that very stone. While this doesn’t quite make complete sense, Lewis wished to stress its implicit point: that even within the attempt to prove that the concept of omnipotence is immediately incoherent, one admits that it is immediately coherent, and that the only difference is that this attempt if forced to admit this despite that the attempt is constituted by a perfectly irrational route to its own unwilling end, with a perfectly irrational set of 'things' included in that end. In other words, that the 'limit' on what omnipotence 'can' do is not a limit on its actual agency, but an epistemological boundary without which omnipotence could not be identified (paradoxically or otherwise) in the first place. In fact, this process is merely a fancier form of the classic Liar ParadoxA: If I say, "I am a liar", then how can it be true if I am telling the truth therewith, and, if I am telling the truth therewith, then how can I be a liar? So, to think that omnipotence is an epistemological paradox is like failing to recognize that, when taking the statement, 'I am a liar' self-referentially, the statement is reduced to an actual failure to lie. In other words, if one maintains the supposedly 'initial' position that the necessary conception of omnipotence includes the 'power' to compromise both itself and all other identity, and if one concludes from this position that omnipotence is epistemologically incoherent, then one implicitly is asserting that one's own 'initial' position is incoherent. Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it.[12] Lewis additionally said that "unless something is self-evident, nothing can be proved", which implies for the debate on omnipotence that, as in matter, so in the human understanding of truth: it takes no true insight to destroy a perfectly integrated structure, and the effort to destroy has greater effect than an equal effort to build; so, a man is thought a fool who assumes its integrity, and thought an abomination who argues for it. It is easier to teach a fish to swim in outer space than to convince a room full of ignorant fools why it cannot be done.

I'm not going to make more edits, jsut read the damn wikipedia page

 

[Violence]

Im sorry I have to do disprove your theory so simply, but this was my first thought.

You say according to atheistic theory, every reaction must have a force behind it to initiate it.

Obviously those arent your exact words, but thats what you said, simplified.

Anyhow, you then go on to say that the initial "action" that turned into this chain of re-actions that some people think to be responsible for the world we live in today, must have started from something "higher up" than a chemical reaction just popping out of no where. And you implied that the higher power be some sort of Deity.

If everything I stated up until this point is accurate, then I can use your very own theory used to disprove the atheistic views on creation, to disprove your views on creation.

If a chemical reaction cant just appear out of random, how could a deity/god/higher power do so? You must have an answer, because it is the same concept, in really the same context.

And here comes the famous quote, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Now before you come stabbing at me demanding to know what my answer to all this is, you should know that I dont have an answer, and I never claimed to have one. No sensible/logical person could ALLOW themselves too.

Im just in the never ending process of disproving people. It is my personal game I made up, and it not only re-enforces my beliefs as I continue to prove myself right, but as I prove others wrong, I eliminate the possibilities for myself. I will never have a definite answer, but my best guess will make a lot more sense then most peoples, I can promise you that. Think of it as the process of elimination..

 

[Paul H.]

A God/higher power, by definition, is not in our world and doesn't have the physical rules we have. In the Christian concept of God, God is in fact outside of our dimension - He isn't affected by time.

 

[Violence]

That didnt really regard to anything I just said.

 

[Paul H.]

Yes, it does... a God doesn't' need to start with a chemical reaction because by definition He is outside of time, and has no start or end. It's complicated philosophy