FOUR TIMES I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO POST ON THE PROOF ON THE EXISTENSE OF gOD ,FOUR TIMES THERE WERE DELETED AFTER ABOUT 2 MINUTES,WHAT 'S REALLY GOING ON, A-K-O ARE YOU AN ATHEIST ?

A K O is now a part time moderator he's hardly ever online.

Where did you post it and how long was it?

I posted it thrice yesterday morning around 10.00am and later around 4.30pm,anyway I will repost it.

lol ;d

Philosophical Proofs on the Existence of God

"If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free"

—Gospel according to St. John 8:31-32

The truths of Christianity lead us to salvation and light. We have the Word of God to present the truth to those who walk in darkness, so that they too may be set free. But often in our materialistic, skeptic modern world it is difficult to preach the gospel to those who are blinded by pride of intellect or resistance to a change of heart. Many people honestly do not believe in a God, and will of course reject Sacred Scripture and Church Tradition. All Christians should be well versed in the teachings of Christ and his Church, but it also helps to be familiar with the theological and philosophical writings of members of the Church. Many of the treatises of theologians and Christian philosophers can shed much light on the existence of God, the problem of evil and other objections raised by modern unbelievers.

A brief philosophical introduction to intellectual arguments regarding the existence of God can help in disseminating the truth and presenting Christianity as a rational religion and way of life to others. Here, we will focus on three famous arguments regarding God’s existence: the ontological argument, cosmological argument and teleological argument. These proofs have been endlessly debated over the centuries between various philosophers and theologians. I will present these classic proofs and leave it to the reader to judge their accuracy and logical cohesion.

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument

St. Anselm, the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury and a Doctor of the Church, first formulated the Ontological Argument. This philosophical argument is perhaps the strangest and most hotly debated of the proofs. The argument has attracted the attentions of such notable philosophers as Immanuel Kant (who attacked St. Anselm’s proof) and G.W.F Hegel (who defended Anselm’s proof).

The proof is most notable because it alone claims to prove the existence of God by relying independently on human reason without the need for perception or evidence. The proof itself relies on the defined concept of God as a perfect being. St. Anselm’s proof is summarized here:

God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.
Study the above proof carefully. It is an intriguing proof because it states that God, a perfect being, must exist in all possible circumstances in order to satisfy the definition of his perfection. A God that can exist in only some circumstances, but fails to exist in others is a less than perfect being.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument

The great Catholic thinker, philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas summarized his cosmological argument in the Summa Theologia. In this theological masterpiece, St. Thomas writes five "ways" that we can know God exists. His first three ways deal with the cosmological argument:

St. Aquinas argues that there are things in the world in motion (this simply means that things are changing) and that whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion. Aquinas holds that, "whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another," and that, "this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover." Hence St. Thomas argues that in order to eliminate the infinite chain of motions, there must be a first mover and source of all motion, God.
The second way is very similar to the first. It argues that," In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." By this he means that any thing, circumstance or event cannot change itself, but can only change something else (concept of efficient cause). Since there is a string of causes in which the string cannot be infinite (see premise #1), then all causes must attribute themselves to a first cause: God.
The third way also argues using the notion of a chain of causes. St. Thomas notes that things in our world owe their existence to something else in the world. Aquinas calls this the way of "possibility and necessity," meaning that all things made possible, necessarily attribute their existence to some pre-existing thing. Only God can be the source of all things since he is a being having its own necessity and does not need a pre-existing thing to cause him to exist. All things existing can trace themselves in a chain back to God.
A second shorter version of the cosmological argument can be formulated as:

Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
Not every being can be a dependent being.
So there exists a self-existent being.
Finally, a third rendition of the cosmological argument (extracted from the book Philosophy for Dummies by Dr. Tom Morris):

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
2. The existence of the universe is thus either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation
3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality
4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.
5. There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.
6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can’t be scientific because there can’t be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained. Event the Big Bang theory fails to explain the existence of the universe because modern science cannot explain where the original Big Bang singularity came from. The universe as a sum total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be explained unless we have an Archimidean reference point outside the system.
7. The explanation for the existence of the universe can’t be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. This is because, it could have been possible for the universe not to have existed (if the Big Bang had been slightly different it is possible for large-scale structures to not have existed). Thus the universe is not something the must necessarily or essentially exists.
8. Thus a rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.
9. No personal agent but God could create the entire universe.
10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.


The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument, or argument from design, is also summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Here is the extract from the Summa:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things that lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

Perhaps this is the most common form of reasoning behind the existence of God. The average theist will argue for the existence of God with the teleological argument.

Conclusion

Of course, these three proofs have their share of proponents and opponents. The proofs do not definitively prove the existence of God because they can be argued. Even the greatest truth can be masked behind a veil of innocent ignorance or blindness of pride. It is faith that provides the bedrock for belief in God and the cornerstone for ultimate happiness. Nevertheless, these three proofs can help show that Christianity is a rational religion, as well as an endlessly controversial one.

chukwudi44:

FOUR TIMES I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO POST ON THE PROOF ON THE EXISTENSE OF gOD ,FOUR TIMES THERE WERE DELETED AFTER ABOUT 2 MINUTES,WHAT 'S REALLY GOING ON, A-K-O ARE YOU AN ATHEIST ?

Dont blame the moderator, he is not responsable. On Nairaland there is a new powerfull software, it is a Christians spam filter, this explain why you cant see what you posted.

I think it has taken over most of Nairalanders.

it's a spam filter that is messing with your post or threads.

Someone is up to some mischief and no damm virus is responsible for it ,the proof I reposted on this thread has been deleted while the other ones have been left .

Are the atheists afraid that their game is up?

Why don't you leave the post for some hot debate ?

chukwudi44:

FOUR TIMES I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO POST ON THE PROOF ON THE EXISTENSE OF gOD ,FOUR TIMES THERE WERE DELETED AFTER ABOUT 2 MINUTES,WHAT 'S REALLY GOING ON, A-K-O ARE YOU AN ATHEIST ?

\

You have "proof" for the existence of god and you are still here on nairaland?  You should own a Mega church by now if only you truly have that "proof". 

what kicked off the whole evolution process,mean that before the evolution process started something must have existed,so what kicked off the whole process

If you like continue deleting ,I will continue posting this till thy kingdom come

Philosophical Proofs on the Existence of God

"If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free"

—Gospel according to St. John 8:31-32

The truths of Christianity lead us to salvation and light. We have the Word of God to present the truth to those who walk in darkness, so that they too may be set free. But often in our materialistic, skeptic modern world it is difficult to preach the gospel to those who are blinded by pride of intellect or resistance to a change of heart. Many people honestly do not believe in a God, and will of course reject Sacred Scripture and Church Tradition. All Christians should be well versed in the teachings of Christ and his Church, but it also helps to be familiar with the theological and philosophical writings of members of the Church. Many of the treatises of theologians and Christian philosophers can shed much light on the existence of God, the problem of evil and other objections raised by modern unbelievers.

A brief philosophical introduction to intellectual arguments regarding the existence of God can help in disseminating the truth and presenting Christianity as a rational religion and way of life to others. Here, we will focus on three famous arguments regarding God’s existence: the ontological argument, cosmological argument and teleological argument. These proofs have been endlessly debated over the centuries between various philosophers and theologians. I will present these classic proofs and leave it to the reader to judge their accuracy and logical cohesion.

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument

St. Anselm, the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury and a Doctor of the Church, first formulated the Ontological Argument. This philosophical argument is perhaps the strangest and most hotly debated of the proofs. The argument has attracted the attentions of such notable philosophers as Immanuel Kant (who attacked St. Anselm’s proof) and G.W.F Hegel (who defended Anselm’s proof).

The proof is most notable because it alone claims to prove the existence of God by relying independently on human reason without the need for perception or evidence. The proof itself relies on the defined concept of God as a perfect being. St. Anselm’s proof is summarized here:

God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.
Study the above proof carefully. It is an intriguing proof because it states that God, a perfect being, must exist in all possible circumstances in order to satisfy the definition of his perfection. A God that can exist in only some circumstances, but fails to exist in others is a less than perfect being.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument

The great Catholic thinker, philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas summarized his cosmological argument in the Summa Theologia. In this theological masterpiece, St. Thomas writes five "ways" that we can know God exists. His first three ways deal with the cosmological argument:

St. Aquinas argues that there are things in the world in motion (this simply means that things are changing) and that whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion. Aquinas holds that, "whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another," and that, "this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover." Hence St. Thomas argues that in order to eliminate the infinite chain of motions, there must be a first mover and source of all motion, God.
The second way is very similar to the first. It argues that," In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." By this he means that any thing, circumstance or event cannot change itself, but can only change something else (concept of efficient cause). Since there is a string of causes in which the string cannot be infinite (see premise #1), then all causes must attribute themselves to a first cause: God.
The third way also argues using the notion of a chain of causes. St. Thomas notes that things in our world owe their existence to something else in the world. Aquinas calls this the way of "possibility and necessity," meaning that all things made possible, necessarily attribute their existence to some pre-existing thing. Only God can be the source of all things since he is a being having its own necessity and does not need a pre-existing thing to cause him to exist. All things existing can trace themselves in a chain back to God.
A second shorter version of the cosmological argument can be formulated as:

Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
Not every being can be a dependent being.
So there exists a self-existent being.
Finally, a third rendition of the cosmological argument (extracted from the book Philosophy for Dummies by Dr. Tom Morris):

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
2. The existence of the universe is thus either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation
3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality
4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.
5. There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.
6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can’t be scientific because there can’t be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained. Event the Big Bang theory fails to explain the existence of the universe because modern science cannot explain where the original Big Bang singularity came from. The universe as a sum total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be explained unless we have an Archimidean reference point outside the system.
7. The explanation for the existence of the universe can’t be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. This is because, it could have been possible for the universe not to have existed (if the Big Bang had been slightly different it is possible for large-scale structures to not have existed). Thus the universe is not something the must necessarily or essentially exists.
8. Thus a rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.
9. No personal agent but God could create the entire universe.
10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.


The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument, or argument from design, is also summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Here is the extract from the Summa:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things that lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

Perhaps this is the most common form of reasoning behind the existence of God. The average theist will argue for the existence of God with the teleological argument.

Conclusion

Of course, these three proofs have their share of proponents and opponents. The proofs do not definitively prove the existence of God because they can be argued. Even the greatest truth can be masked behind a veil of innocent ignorance or blindness of pride. It is faith that provides the bedrock for belief in God and the cornerstone for ultimate happiness. Nevertheless, these three proofs can help show that Christianity is a rational religion, as well as an endlessly controversial one

After crying blue murder and all your noise about having "proof" for the existence of god, you just come to shoot yourself in the foot.
Next time you copy and paste an article, try and read through and make sure you understand it quite well.

chukwudi44:

Conclusion

Of course, these three proofs have their share of proponents and opponents. The proofs do not definitively prove the existence of God because they can be argued. [/b]Even the greatest truth can be masked behind a veil of innocent ignorance or blindness of pride. [b]It is faith that provides the bedrock for belief in God and the cornerstone for ultimate happiness. Nevertheless, these three proofs can help show that Christianity is a rational religion, as well as an endlessly controversial one

If god really did exist why is it so hard for you christians to definitevly prove his/her existence beyond doubt?

If you're going to believe by faith by all means do, but don't come here mouthing of that you've got concrete "proof" that god is real.
Next please!

Tudór:

After crying blue murder and all your noise about having "proof" for the existence of god, you just come to shoot yourself in the foot.
Next time you copy and paste an article, try and read through and make sure you understand it quite well.If god really did exist why is it so hard for you christians to definitevly prove his/her existence beyond doubt?

If you're going to believe by faith by all means do, but don't come here mouthing of that you've got concrete "proof" that god is real.
Next please!

It is not possible to definitively prove that God exists; it is also not possible to definitively prove that God does not exist. The words DEFINITIVE PROOF suggests a certain kind of mathematical certitude which we cannot employ here.

The arguments that are presented for or against the existence of God are constructed to argue for what point of view best explains some of the grandest and toughest questions about existence, life and the universe at large. These sort of arguments are not to be construed as knockdown categorical and unimpeachable PROOFS rather they are designed to ask what worldview or perspective (theism vs atheism) is the more plausible or rational in light of the vast body of human knowledge (which by the way cannot be limited to naturalism).

Another point to note is that theists and atheists make faith claims all the time. The reason for this is quite simple. There are many rational and logical beliefs, statements and presuppositions we operate on which cannot be empirically observed, tested, analyzed or quantified. That is to say that one cannot operate in this world if one is to say that the only explanations he/she recognizes are naturalistic explanations. Another good reason why certain axioms or presuppositions are generally accepted is because they may have happened in the historical past and as such cannot be directly observed or even recreated. Lastly, since human beings themselves are limited to sense data, only the attribute of omniscience (an attribute which humans do not and possibly cannot possess) is sufficient ground upon which to discard faith claims.

So when theists say that their belief in God is anchored on reason but ultimately on faith, intelligent and discriminating theists and atheists are supposed to understand that to mean what it simply means--which is that on the God question, human knowledge and comprehension is so vanishingly small and insufficient to pronounce with any degree of certainty what God really is. A keen awareness that God exists might be present but the concept of God (especially his boundless and infinite attributes) are just simply not circumscribed by 'rudimentary' human mentation.

The philosophical arguments for the existence of God that Chukwudi posted are worthy of deeper reflection by anyone who wants to honestly approach the issue. No one is being forced to accept or reject God, but if any atheist wants to present him/herself as someone to be taken seriously, that person has to tear apart these philosophical arguments and then erect an alternative. This means that one has to, in stepwise fashion, refute the premises upon which the conclusion lies. Why? If the premises are sound then the conclusion, on pain of rationality, inescapably follows.

Now, I am not convinced that the ontological argument is a good argument to use with people who are self-confessed atheists. Secondly, these arguments are better marshaled if they are presented in very simple stepwise syllogisms. Cut the prose out and present the arguments as syllogisms and then let theists and atheists alike deal with the bare bones of the argument--for that is when you can begin to see where Logic/Rationality begins to separate from desperate illogic or at best, a plea to ignorance.

it won't exactly be considered a proof if it is argued against.

aren't proofs supposed to be axiomatic?

we are here to stay by the way.

Prizm:

It is not possible to definitively prove that God exists; it is also not possible to definitively prove that God does not exist. The words DEFINITIVE PROOF suggests a certain kind of mathematical certitude which we cannot employ here.

The arguments that are presented for or against the existence of God are  constructed to argue for what point of view best explains some of the grandest and toughest questions about existence, life and the universe at large. These sort of arguments are not to be construed as knockdown categorical and unimpeachable PROOFS rather they are designed to ask what worldview or perspective (theism vs atheism) is the more plausible or rational in light of the vast body of human knowledge (which by the way cannot be limited to naturalism).

Another point to note is that theists and atheists make faith claims all the time. The reason for this is quite simple. There are many rational and  logical beliefs, statements and presuppositions we operate on which cannot be empirically observed, tested, analyzed or quantified. That is to say that one cannot operate in this world if one is to say that the only explanations he/she recognizes are naturalistic explanations. Another good reason why certain axioms or presuppositions are generally accepted is because they may have happened in the historical past and as such cannot be directly observed or even recreated. Lastly, since human beings themselves are limited to sense data, only the attribute of omniscience (an attribute which humans do not and possibly cannot possess) is sufficient ground upon which to discard faith claims.

So when theists say that their belief in God is anchored on reason but ultimately on faith, intelligent and discriminating theists and atheists are supposed to understand that to mean what it simply means--which is that on the God question, human knowledge and comprehension is so vanishingly small and insufficient to pronounce with any degree of certainty what God really is. A keen awareness that God exists might be present but the concept of God (especially his boundless and infinite attributes) are just simply not circumscribed by 'rudimentary' human mentation.

The philosophical arguments for the existence of God that Chukwudi posted are worthy of deeper reflection by anyone who wants to honestly approach the issue. No one is being forced to accept or reject God, but if any atheist wants to present him/herself as someone to be taken seriously, that person has to tear apart these philosophical arguments and then erect an alternative. This means that one has to, in stepwise fashion, refute the premises upon which the conclusion lies. Why? If the premises are sound then the conclusion, on pain of rationality,  inescapably follows.

Now, I am not convinced that the ontological argument is a good argument to use with people who are self-confessed atheists. Secondly, these arguments are better marshaled if they are presented in very simple stepwise syllogisms. Cut the prose out and present the arguments as syllogisms and then let theists and atheists alike deal with the bare bones of the argument--for that is when you can begin to see where Logic/Rationality begins to separate from desperate illogic or at best, a plea to ignorance.

This is all mumbo jumbo christian apologists hide behind to excuse their inability to definatively prove their god.
It's so pathetic that you now have to resort to weak conjectures to prove a personality that is supposed to exist.
If god himself were to come down and address us publicly like he supposedly did the isrealites in the desert, is that not definite proof?

Like i said, believe by faith if you wanna but don't come blattering senseless and baseless logic all in the name of "proof".

bawomolo:

it won't exactly be considered a proof if it is argued against.

aren't proofs supposed to be axiomatic?

we are here to stay by the way.

The short answer is that proofs are not always axiomatic, self-evident or aphoristic. Sometimes proofs are deductive or inductive. So to answer the question, the sort of mathematical proof that you may appeal to is not the sense in which the word is used or generally understood. A simple search on the very meaning of the word proof will reveal that it is not always to be understood in a mathematically precise and restrictive sense.

For example, your statement "it won't exactly be considered a proof if it is argued against" sounds reasonable on paper but that statement on its own cannot be PROVED (or disproved) in the sort of rigid way someone might be tempted to argue for. Think about this for a moment.

Tudór:

This is all mumbo jumbo christian apologists hide behind to excuse their inability to definatively prove their god.
It's so pathetic that you now have to resort to weak conjectures to prove a personality that is supposed to exist.
If god himself were to come down and address us publicly like he supposedly did the isrealites in the desert, is that not definite proof?

Like i said, believe by faith if you wanna but don't come blattering senseless and baseless logic all in the name of "proof".

Sometimes people who call themselves atheists like to pretend that they are backed by superior arguments or reason when many times it is just emotionalism, or some really shallow and infantile reasoning at best. If you want to be taken seriously, start addressing some of the arguments. In the end, any sincere atheist may not believe in God, but honest enquiry will cause him/her to reflect deeply; it may even cause strong and staunch atheists to become agnostics of some sort. The problem I notice with this response is the failure to contemplate what the nature of proof can be.

For example, to anyone given to a naturalistic explanation, there is no guarantee that disbelief in God will disappear if they truly encounter supernatural occurrences. A naturalist has to start out with the basic framework or worldview that all explanations are naturalistic or at best, not fully yet understood. Be that as it may, you are free to believe whatever you want as I am not indebted to 'prove" anything to you. Why? It allows you to sit your happy behind back in some comfortable chair and squabble with any propositions. Perhaps it is better to ask you to start showing the logical basis for your very own disbelief or unbelief.

Prizm:

Sometimes people who call themselves atheists like to pretend that they are backed by superior arguments or reason when  many times it is just emotionalism, or some really shallow and infantile reasoning at best. If you want to be taken seriously, start addressing some of the arguments. In the end, any sincere atheist may not believe in God, but honest enquiry will cause him/her to reflect deeply; it may even cause strong and staunch atheists to become agnostics of some sort.

Ofcourse atheists have superior arguments and are much more capable of rational thinking than you religionists who trotter around hugging the writings and ideas of deluded primitive men who call themselves men of god.

The problem I notice with this response is the failure to contemplate what the nature of proof can be.

By nature i assume is your usual "deductive" or" inductive" proof.

I say it again, this is just a lazy excuse for your lack of concrete evidence for your god.
Proof whether "deductive" or "inductive" should be definitive and leave no room for doubt for it to be called proof.

For example, to anyone given to a naturalistic explanation, there is no guarantee that disbelief in God will disappear if they truly encounter supernatural occurrences. A naturalist has to start out with the basic framework or worldview that all explanations are naturalistic or at best, not fully yet understood.

And rightly so!
If you indeed claim something is supernatural it wouldn't be totally out of place for the naturalist to ask for evidence now, would it?

Be that as it may, you are free to believe whatever you want as I am not indebted to 'prove" anything to you. Why? It allows you to sit your happy behind back in some comfortable chair and squabble with any propositions. Perhaps it is better to ask you to start showing the logical basis for your very own disbelief or unbelief.

Why should i bother myself to show logical basis for an unproven hypothesis not presented by me?
The solid fact that the proponents of this myth can't definatively prove their theory is "logic basis" enough for me.

There is no need for any closet or self declared atheist or agnostic fellow to delete this prolix writing. By the very nature of the interminable prose, it would self destruct.
If you need to read something this long, I suggest you get St. Augustine's Confessions

Atheism: "Everything suddenly came out of nothing" .

By far the most retarded shit I have ever read.

C2H5OH:

Atheism: "Everything suddenly came out of nothing" .

By far the most retarded shit I have ever read.

What? You disregard that "scientific" theory in favour of believing that the earth came out of something?

Prizm:

Sometimes people who call themselves atheists like to pretend that they are backed by superior arguments or reason when many times it is just emotionalism, or some really shallow and infantile reasoning at best. If you want to be taken seriously, start addressing some of the arguments. In the end, any sincere atheist may not believe in God, but honest enquiry will cause him/her to reflect deeply; it may even cause strong and staunch atheists to become agnostics of some sort. The problem I notice with this response is the failure to contemplate what the nature of proof can be.

For example, to anyone given to a naturalistic explanation, there is no guarantee that disbelief in God will disappear if they truly encounter supernatural occurrences. A naturalist has to start out with the basic framework or worldview that all explanations are naturalistic or at best, not fully yet understood. Be that as it may, you are free to believe whatever you want as I am not indebted to 'prove" anything to you. Why? It allows you to sit your happy behind back in some comfortable chair and squabble with any propositions. Perhaps it is better to ask you to start showing the logical basis for your very own disbelief or unbelief.

To prove that something does exist, don't you thing we first need to know what it is we are seeking to prove, ie, the thing's ontology. Have you got a positive, objective and non-contradictory first-order ontology for GOD? Give us God's ontology - then we shall decide whether such amounts to the ontology of an existent entity.

davidylan:

What? You disregard that "scientific" theory in favour of believing that the earth came out of something?

Haha more like the scientific "gaffe"

C2H5OH:

Atheism: "Everything suddenly came out of nothing" .

By far the most retarded shit I have ever read.

Just as you believe that god suddenly came out of nothing to create everything isn't that a retarded shit? By the way who told you that atheism = everything suddenly came out of nothing? Most atheist simply say they don't know.

toneyb:

Just as you believe that god suddenly came out of nothing to create everything isn't that a retarded shit? By the way who told you that atheism = everything suddenly came out of nothing? Most atheist simply say they don't know.

is that because most of em are dumb?

toneyb:

Just as you believe that god suddenly came out of nothing to create everything isn't that a retarded shit? By the way who told you that atheism = everything suddenly came out of nothing? Most atheist simply say they don't know.

so on what basis do they claim to "know" that the bible is a myth and God doesnt exist? 

Atheists dont seem to know anything.

Tudór:

Ofcourse atheists have superior arguments and are much more capable of rational thinking than you religionists who trotter around hugging the writings and ideas of deluded primitive men who call themselves men of god.

First of all, you have to disabuse yourself of the idea that thinking rationally is possible only by being wedded to a worldview anchored on a strict naturalistic framework. Secondly, that entire statement you just made is False. The philosophical arguments on the existence of God do not rely on scriptures or what you have chosen to deride as "the writings and ideas of deluded primitive men who call themselves men of god". Two of such arguments are the Cosmological Argument and the Argument from Design. If you are not conversant with these arguments, then go read up on them. If you are familiar with them and you have a sound logical refutation, then let us hear it. If you come back with other empty assertions of self-worth then I am not obliged to respond to you. Let your much-vaunted superior arguments speak for you. We are all here to learn from each other, right?

Tudór:
By nature i assume is your usual "deductive" or" inductive" proof.

I say it again, this is just a lazy excuse for your lack of concrete evidence for your god.
Proof whether "deductive" or "inductive" should be definitive and leave no room for doubt for it to be called proof.

This is just another empty assertion. On what basis or proof do you assert that "proof whether 'deductive' or 'inductive' should be definitive and leave no room for doubt for it to be called proof"? How do you know that this statement you just made is true? Does that assertion have any concrete materialistic/naturalistic explanation or evidence? The answer is NO.

At any rate, you are mistaken if you assume I am going to be locked into some unfruitful, unsophisticated back-and-forths on the topic. This issue calls for serious mentation--it is not an opportunity for jejune point scoring. For example, what do you mean when you ask for a "concrete" evidence of God? Are you asking to be shown something that has matter and could be called God? What sort of "concrete" evidence are you looking for? Let us hope you are not asking to be shown a logical contradiction i.e a material/empirical evidence for a God concept which by definition is spaceless or boundless; infinitely pre-existent or eternal in the past and future; immaterial or incorporeal; and ultimately omnipotent. It will be like asking for me to show you a square circle or a married bachelor. So, once again, tackle the philosophical arguments for the existence of God and tender your logical/rational refutations if you have any. This is not time for cheap rhetoric. You can do the honorable thing however and declare beforehand that you are not prepared to contemplate non-naturalistic alternatives and spare us a lot of time.

Tudór:
And rightly so!
If you indeed claim something is supernatural it wouldn't be totally out of place for the naturalist to ask for evidence now, would it?

Yeah, but what sort of evidence is a naturalist going to accept or believe anyway? If you start ab initio [/i]and decree by fiat that you'll only be persuaded or convinced by naturalistic explanations then there is no need for us to waste our time here. It is astounding that anyone has to spell out to you that there cannot be any naturalistic explanations for non-naturalistic phenomena. Besides, any statement to the effect that [i]"naturalistic/empirical explanations are all that we have to accept when examining truth claims" collapses if one were to ask how such a statement/truth claim can be shown to be true. Such a statement cannot be empirically proven or explained by naturalistic means. This is going to sound like mumbo jumbo until you actually start thinking a little deeper on the subject. This discussion is not a popularity contest where trite and specious replies are tendered for the purpose of some cyber one-upmanship. I want to believe there are serious and honest theists, agnostics and atheists alike who really want to exchange ideas in a meaningful way.

Tudór:
Why should i bother myself to show logical basis for an unproven hypothesis not presented by me?
The solid fact that the proponents of this myth can't definatively prove their theory is "logic basis" enough for me.

Nice try. I am not going to accept that you have no burden of proof if you want to describe yourself as an atheist. Theists who believe in the existence of a God AND Atheists who believe in the non-existence of a God have to present their positive evidence for that stance. This means that it is logically fallacious to claim without good evidence for your own position, that the inability of the opposition to adequately explain their own truth claims counts as a logically necessary proof of your own claim. It means that both sides could be wrong.

For example: Side A claims that a certain watch found at an excavation site was designed by some intelligence and Side B claims that the watch was not designed but can be explained as the product of blind chance. Side A and B have a burden on them to present positive arguments for their case. Side B cannot just sit back and declare victory because Side A may not be able to explain how watches are designed, nor indeed who the designer of that watch is.

If you want to be taken seriously, start addressing those philosophical arguments for the existence of God. What you have to do is tear down those arguments and erect positive atheistic or naturalistic alternatives of your own. This calls for you to engage your brain. No one here is duty-bound to furnish you with any proof or evidence that you can cavalierly denounce to your heart's content. Funny that you seem to think that anyone is trying to secure your approval for what constitutes proof. If you don't see that in any discussion for the existence or non-existence of God that Atheists and Theists have to present their own case, then there is no need for any sort of discussion. Theists can happily believe in God; atheists can happily disbelieve in God--and no side is committed to showing the other why their stance is the more plausible or rational.

Cheers!

Dude your reply is too long. You do not need to spam to prove your god. Any attempt to quote and reply you would be deleted by the spam bot. So let me go straight to the point.

First of all let me say that the cosmological and design argument try to prove that there might be an intelligent force behind the universe whether that intelligent force is what you refer as god or not is a whole new argument for all we know the universe might be a simulation in some alien supercomputer and these same cosmological and intelligent design argument can be used to argue this too. Also this same arguments can be used to "prove" the existence of the millions of gods on this planet so tell me, what rational and logical basis have you got to prove that this so called intelligent force is yahweh( assuming you're a christian).

I remind you i define atheism as disbelief in god as potrayed by revealed religion"- so when someone comes mouthing off that he's got proof, i expect to see solid empirical proof that jehovah as revealed by the bible (writings of deluded men) does indeed exist .
Your belief in yahweh or jehovah is purely based on blind faith so you guys should spard us the expired mantra that christianity is rational.
Cheers.

Back to my previous argument,nothing is uncaused i.e everything that exists has a cause.For the world to have evolved ,something must have started the whole evolution process .

So mr tudor what existed before evolution started and what actually caused it ?