An atheist tried to "open" my eyes yesterday during an arguement by challenging me to provide evidence that God exists.
The only proof i had was a miracle i had witnessed in the past. But he wouldn't believe that because i didn't have the evidence with me there.
So how can i prove in such cases that God exists? Taking into account that nearly all atheists are very logical in reasoning and tend to be "intelligent".

SOURCE: http:///PZRNt
You can also ask your own anonymous questions there.

you were born, unless it's a mistake of nature...

Aint none....

Atheism sets u freee

LOGICAL WAYS point to your God's non-existence.
But logical fallacies I can humbly give you.
Do you want them?

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

~coined

Sadly, there is none...

Moderrator: An atheist tried to "open" my eyes yesterday during an arguement by challenging me to provide evidence that God exists.
The only proof i had was a miracle i had witnessed in the past. But he wouldn't believe that because i didn't have the evidence with me there.
So how can i prove in such cases that God exists? Taking into account that nearly all atheists are very logical in reasoning and tend to be "intelligent".

SOURCE: http:///PZRNt
You can also ask your own anonymous questions there.

Doesnt that tell you something?

Back in secondary school, when all the smart guys are trying to solve a difficult question, what do you do?

The reality and Existence of God is a subjective experience and not an objective one. That is why you can never provide any proof on the existence of God to any atheist.

I am not even bothered about proving God's existence to anyone. What matters is how your knowledge of God is making you a better person that is of service to all life. If your knowledge of God does not make you a better person then it is an exercise in futility

benodic:
The reality and Existence of God is a subjective experience and not an objective one.

While I agree that the experience of God is an inward one, I would disagree that it cannot be rationally inferred that there is a pre-existent cause of this reality.

That is why you can never provide any proof on the existence of God to any atheist.

No, the real reason you can never provide proof to the atheist is two fold: the first is their usual goat-like foolishness on the subject, and the second is their gross abuse of science in reaching persistently unscientific conclusions.

I am not even bothered about proving God's existence to anyone. What matters is how your knowledge of God is making you a better person that is of service to all life. If your knowledge of God does not make you a better person then it is an exercise in futility

I agree 100 per cent with this.

Moderrator: An atheist tried to "open" my eyes yesterday during an arguement by challenging me to provide evidence that God exists.
The only proof i had was a miracle i had witnessed in the past. But he wouldn't believe that because i didn't have the evidence with me there.
So how can i prove in such cases that God exists? Taking into account that nearly all atheists are very logical in reasoning and tend to be "intelligent".

SOURCE: http:///PZRNt
You can also ask your own anonymous questions there.

I don't think that there is any logical way to prove that some God exists.

Moderrator: An atheist tried to "open" my eyes yesterday during an arguement by challenging me to provide evidence that God exists.
The only proof i had was a miracle i had witnessed in the past. But he wouldn't believe that because i didn't have the evidence with me there.
So how can i prove in such cases that God exists? Taking into account that nearly all atheists are very logical in reasoning and tend to be "intelligent".

If “god” is proven then that somehow defeats the purpose of a “god-man” relationship as traditionally it’s based on faith.
And if god is proven I have this notion that it will somehow diminish this entity’s elusive demeanour/power thus making this entity appear smaller or less great - man would have conquered god. I actually think it’s in god’s interest not to be objectively proven.

I also wonder why some believers feel the necessity in “proving” their god to another...it's like making their god redundant or making efforts to constantly convince themselves.

@ Benodic and DeepSight.


Two of you have problems. You can not prove God. Both of you are not concerned whether God is real or not. You prefer to remain in ignorance.

Logical arguments against God;

1) Evolution; Evolution debunks the story that man was created. The God of Christianity/Judaism/Islam debunked. Furthermore, women are not made from man's rib. That would make Adam to be the parent of Eve (clone of Adam). Incest!

2) Human suffering; If God wills everything, was it God's will for our Nigerian forefathers to be slaves to christian Europeans? Can God claim ignorance to the suffering of men? People getting whipped, mutilated and raped? Can God claim that he gave freewill to man when he destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for immorality? Transatlantic slave masters were never punished, rather, some of the slave masters recieved compensation while most enjoyed the profit of cheap labour.

3) Why is your own God real? People believed that Zeus is God. People believe that Allah is God. People believe that Sat Nam (Sikh God) is the real God. Are you not an atheist towards the other Gods? You have just as much proof for your God as the rest of them.

There are more but lets stop here for now.

This argument ultimately is unsatisfactory as it confuses the idea with the reality, act with potency.
St. Thomas Aquinas next set forth the five proofs of the existence of God. These proofs are fairly well known:
Motion
Causation
Contingency
Degrees of Perfection
Design

Christian metaphysics, however, esteems vertical causality as the best natural proof of God's existence. Unlike the horizontal series presented in the five ways that stretch back historically until time and space become redundant, vertical causality is proved in the
present moment. That is, the fact of existence, of now, is proof of "God". This is declared since no object is the source of its own present existence, nor is any object responsible for its maintenance in time and space. Metaphysically, every moment is different, no object is the same as it was an instant before. This is because existence in time is particular to every specific moment. The way you were .01 seconds ago is not the way you exist now, for to exist now is a different thing then any other point of your existence. Since existence is not proper to any object, it must be a participation. Existence itself, that thing whose purpose is to exist, allows other things to partake of Existence here and now, in any given moment. The five proofs help define the nature of this Existence (intelligence, etc.) however, the fact that anything exists now is only because of a participation in Existence itself.

when it comes to this kind of an arguement, i count it as waste of saliva. An arguement with someond who wont succumb, ever?
Each persons belief should stick inside of him, no need of trying to convince someone to believe your belief. When the time comes the God that exist will be revealed.

Jamesmelbin: when it comes to this kind of an arguement, i count it as waste of saliva. An arguement with someond who wont succumb, ever?
Each persons belief should stick inside of him, no need of trying to convince someone to believe your belief. When the time comes the God that exist will be revealed.

not actually trying to convince the adamant ones but guiding against confusing the confused ones.

V_Official®:
This argument ultimately is unsatisfactory as it confuses the idea with the reality, act with potency.
St. Thomas Aquinas next set forth the five proofs of the existence of God. These proofs are fairly well known:
Motion
Causation
Contingency
Degrees of Perfection
Design

Christian metaphysics, however, esteems vertical causality as the best natural proof of God's existence. Unlike the horizontal series presented in the five ways that stretch back historically until time and space become redundant, vertical causality is proved in the
present moment. That is, the fact of existence, of now, is proof of "God". This is declared since no object is the source of its own present existence, nor is any object responsible for its maintenance in time and space. Metaphysically, every moment is different, no object is the same as it was an instant before. This is because existence in time is particular to every specific moment. The way you were .01 seconds ago is not the way you exist now, for to exist now is a different thing then any other point of your existence. Since existence is not proper to any object, it must be a participation. Existence itself, that thing whose purpose is to exist, allows other things to partake of Existence here and now, in any given moment. The five proofs help define the nature of this Existence (intelligence, etc.) however, the fact that anything exists now is only because of a participation in Existence itself.

Huh? Thomas Aquinas argument has been debunked long time ago.

Why is there such ignorance among some christians? Only ignorant people use Thomas Aquinas arguments

V_Official®:

not actually trying to convince the adamant ones but guiding against confusing the confused ones.

oh? Do I believe there are confused ones anywhere?. One will definately fall to these categories
*you believe God exist and have your own proof
*you believe God dont exist and have your own proof
*you believe God exist, just naturally without a reasonable proof
*you believe God dont exist, and you have no proof
The first two groups are not confused because they could prove what they believe. And, the last two groups are not confused too because they believed and never worried to find any proof.
But if someone believe God exist and still wants to get someone to prove to him that God exists, he might still be filed under the third group. And vice versa.

V_Official®:
This argument ultimately is unsatisfactory as it confuses the idea with the reality, act with potency.
St. Thomas Aquinas next set forth the five proofs of the existence of God. These proofs are fairly well known:
Motion
Causation
Contingency
Degrees of Perfection
Design

Christian metaphysics, however, esteems vertical causality as the best natural proof of God's existence. Unlike the horizontal series presented in the five ways that stretch back historically until time and space become redundant, vertical causality is proved in the
present moment. That is, the fact of existence, of now, is proof of "God". This is declared since no object is the source of its own present existence, nor is any object responsible for its maintenance in time and space. Metaphysically, every moment is different, no object is the same as it was an instant before. This is because existence in time is particular to every specific moment. The way you were .01 seconds ago is not the way you exist now, for to exist now is a different thing then any other point of your existence. Since existence is not proper to any object, it must be a participation. Existence itself, that thing whose purpose is to exist, allows other things to partake of Existence here and now, in any given moment. The five proofs help define the nature of this Existence (intelligence, etc.) however, the fact that anything exists now is only because of a participation in Existence itself.

you didn't exempt your god, as you used general terms to cover all existence

Jamesmelbin:
oh? Do I believe there are confused ones anywhere?. One will definately fall to these categories
*you believe God exist and have your own proof
*you believe God dont exist and have your own proof
*you believe God exist, just naturally without a reasonable proof
*you believe God dont exist, and you have no proof
The first two groups are not confused because they could prove what they believe. And, the last two groups are not confused too because they believed and never worried to find any proof.
But if someone believe God exist and still wants to get someone to prove to him that God exists, he might still be filed under the third group. And vice versa.

Rubbish. Only the second group can support their point with logical arguments. Simple; there exists no physical proof of God. Not one.

logicboy:


Huh? Thomas Aquinas argument has been debunked long time ago.

Why is there such ignorance among some christians? Only ignorant people use Thomas Aquinas arguments

debunked do u ever disproof reality?
can 2 + 2 be updated this shows how 'credible' ur judgement cant be...

Jamesmelbin:
oh? Do I believe there are confused ones anywhere?. One will definately fall to these categories
*you believe God exist and have your own proof
*you believe God dont exist and have your own proof
*you believe God exist, just naturally without a reasonable proof
*you believe God dont exist, and you have no proof
The first two groups are not confused because they could prove what they believe. And, the last two groups are not confused too because they believed and never worried to find any proof.
But if someone believe God exist and still wants to get someone to prove to him that God exists, he might still be filed under the third group. And vice versa.

well then!!! readers should juxtapose ma comment to whichever group they 'think' they fit into...

Kay 17: you didn't exempt your god, as you used general terms to cover all existence

expansiate, as i'm being scientific you may wish to read my next piece...


I'M NOT TRYING TO IMPOSE MY BELIEF ON EVERY READER HERE BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT NOT ALL 30 KIDS IN A CLASS OF 30 CAN ALL BE SMART. SOME WILL STILL FAIL EXAMS IF ANSWERS ARE CLEARLY WRITTEN IN FRONT OF THEM...

logicboy:


Rubbish. Only the second group can support their point with logical arguments. Simple; there exists no physical proof of God. Not one.

What's d size of d equator??

What's d exact number of galaxies and stars in d universe??......

Where is d proof that u came from an ape...

Logic boy just show me a vidoe of how u metamorphosed from an ape into you.....

If u can't then dnt tell nobody about evolution.....

I need proof my nigga.....

Since we need physical proof all d time for everytin......

has anyone ever come across BC and AD in calendars?? DO YOU THINK IT'S A COINCIDENCE OR AN ATHEIST OR CULT OR GROUP THING? YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK ME OUT...

The AD/BC method of identifying historical dates can be traced back to Catholic historians working in the early Middle Ages. Identifying historical dates until that point was often a complicated proposition, since different historians worked under different calendars. A Roman historian would have used the Roman AUD notation, in which Year Zero was the largely symbolic founding of Rome. Converting historical dates to the standard Gregorian calendar would not have been easy. Using the birth of Jesus Christ as a central point made more sense to the religious historians. The term BC is short for "Before Christ." Historical dates before the birth of Christ become smaller as they approach the
theoretical but non-existent Year Zero. Historical dates after the birth of Christ are classified as AD, short for the Latin phrase Anno Domini, or "in the year of our Lord." Contrary to popular belief, AD does not stand for "AfterDeath." The BC/AD system for identifying historical dates has beenin continuous use ever since the earliest part of the Middle Ages, at least. Several centuries after the AD/BC identification of historical dates became popular, a new movement developed among scientists, historians and some religious leaders. The time following the birth of Christ was now referred to as the "Vulgar Era" in some circles. The meaning of the word vulgar actually meant 'common' at that time, not distasteful or obscene. Eventually many areas of the Western world adopted the less Christ-centered term "Common Era." Historical dates occurring before the year 1 CE would be considered BCE, short for "Before Common Era." The relatively new BCE/CE reference for historical dates has had its share of supporters and critics. Critics view the new system as an attempt to remove the religious significance inherent in the BC/AD system. The BCE/CE method of assigning historical dates also fails to fix the BC/AD system's lack of a practical Year Zero. Modern scholars believe the actual birth of Christ would fall around 7 to 4 BC, which renders the actual year of 1 AD relatively meaningless historically. Supporters of the BCE/CE method of identifying historical dates say the removal of Christian references works as a bridge between different religions and cultures. The BC/AD system appears to endorse Jesus Chrjist as the superior world religious figure, which could be viewed as disrespectful of other religions and belief structures. Although the birth of Christ is still used as a reference in the BCE/CE system, the Christian influence is not as apparent.

That's how funny things can get when you try to meddle reality with science.
What we do seems good to us and cant imagine ourselves having any superior power who can call us to question at any time, so by trying "to be our boss" we are deleting the existence of the superior being by rounding up our mind that he doesnt exist...
So help us God!!!

If God exists, then proving it should be extremely easy. All you'd have to do is show that prayer works. For instance, you could do a double blind study of seriously ill patients in hospital. You divide them into 2 matching groups and organize prayers for half of them. After a year or so you can count how many in each group are still alive, how many have gotten better, and how many have gotten worse. If God exists and answers prayers, then there should be a clear difference between the two.

Sadly, all the properly done medical studies on prayer have shown that it doesn't improve patient survival in any significant way. Prayer only appears to work in studies that have been rigged or have serious flaws that make the results useless.

Are we talking about the God that has a son or the one that has none? The term 'God' is too general and may mean a billion other things like the flying spaghetti monster or an entity with fifteen and the half heads. Which one are we to prove exists?

phxc: Are we talking about the God that has a son or the one that has none? The term 'God' is too general and may mean a billion other things like the flying spaghetti monster or an entity with fifteen and the half heads. Which one are we to prove exists?

phxc: Are we talking about the God that has a son or the one that has none? The term 'God' is too general and may mean a billion other things like the flying spaghetti monster or an entity with fifteen and the half heads. Which one are we to prove exists?

The flying speghetti monster is the only god whose existence can be proved.
All others are non existent. No proof possible.

V_Official®:

debunked do u ever disproof reality?
can 2 + 2 be updated this shows how 'credible' ur judgement cant be...

What are you talking about? Thomas Aquinas arguments have been debunked.

ijawkid:

What's d size of d equator??

What's d exact number of galaxies and stars in d universe??......

Where is d proof that u came from an ape...

Logic boy just show me a vidoe of how u metamorphosed from an ape into you.....

If u can't then dnt tell nobody about evolution.....

I need proof my nigga.....

Since we need physical proof all d time for everytin......

Abeg, Ijawkid, go and sleep. I have taught you about evolution enough times and you keep failing. Please, revisit my thread for the proof of evolution;

https://www.nairaland.com/922920/destruction-creationists-olaadegbu-brainpulse-bigd4050

ijawkid:

What's d size of d equator??

What's d exact number of galaxies and stars in d universe??......

Where is d proof that u came from an ape...

Logic boy just show me a vidoe of how u metamorphosed from an ape into you.....

If u can't then dnt tell nobody about evolution.....

I need proof my nigga.....

Since we need physical proof all d time for everytin......

lol! really?? have you ever read anything about evolution?? anything at all??

I guess not. no ape evolved into a human else we wont have apes today.
the argument is, we SHARE a common ancestor with apes. and this is just not over hundreds of years, we are talking thousands.

another popular argument u might wana bring up is "how come evolution is not happening anymore?"

Well if you think that way you are WRONG!!! because we dont spend enough time here to see it happen. However, when you look at microscopic level, you can see evolution happening. Look at H1N1, look at HIV, look at E.Coli


We dont even need a tape to measure the size of the equator.. see equation below ( a brilliant equation that needs little explanation)

[img]http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg546/scaled.php?server=546&filename=0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5.png&res=landing[/img]

if we can figure this out, finding the radius is now childs play. People have spent their lifetime working on things like this so that you and I dont have to. the least you can do is read it.

10^26 (thats ten to the power 26) If i'm not mistaken is an approx number of stars in our universe.

You need to read my friend. Proof for all the questions you pose are out there and have been published and scrutinized in every way possible.

But you choose to believe in a bible that "wont" be scrutinized or even criticized.

Zodiac61:
The flying speghetti monster is the only god whose existence can be proved.
All others are non existent. No proof possible.

Yeah well, the flying spaghetti monster actually spoke to me last week, but then, on second thought, I think I was just schizophrenic at that moment.

Area_boy:

lol! really?? have you ever read anything about evolution?? anything at all??

I guess not. no ape evolved into a human else we wont have apes today.
the argument is, we SHARE a common ancestor with apes. and this is just not over hundreds of years, we are talking thousands.

another popular argument u might wana bring up is "how come evolution is not happening anymore?"

Well if you think that way you are WRONG!!! because we dont spend enough time here to see it happen. However, when you look at microscopic level, you can see evolution happening. Look at H1N1, look at HIV, look at E.Coli


We dont even need a tape to measure the size of the equator.. see equation below ( a brilliant equation that needs little explanation)

[img]http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg546/scaled.php?server=546&filename=0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5.png&res=landing[/img]

if we can figure this out, finding the radius is now childs play. People have spent their lifetime working on things like this so that you and I dont have to. the least you can do is read it.

10^26 (thats ten to the power 26) If i'm not mistaken is an approx number of stars in our universe.

You need to read my friend. Proof for all the questions you pose are out there and have been published and scrutinized in every way possible.

But you choose to believe in a bible that "wont" be scrutinized or even criticized.

So u do trust implicitly on d findings of ur fellow men even when u urself never carried out d experiments urself.....

if a scientist gives u an estimate of d amount of galaxies in d universe u just believe with out even a hint of doubt...

My problem here is trust..........

Even when we dnt caRry out experiments ourselves we still have to depend on some other persons for info,wether right or wrong.........

No be so??

I'll soon cme up with a research work that debunks d flaws of evolution....

On both micro and macro evolution...

Because soon u guys will tell me that humans will evolve in d next 1 million years...

Ok now let me land....

For u and logic boy to tell me and believe that we came from apes only shows how much u berate d human race...

So a white man tells u we came from apes and u believe him....

Ok let me give u some reasons why evolution is such a myth.....

Let me spell out @ least 3 myths on which d evolution theory rests...

We'll analyze each one....

And please its a research work..

I know u guys have done little or no experiments so as to prove evolution...

We are both on d same page...

We are all under the category ""I hear say""....

But let's see what even ur fellow evolutionists have to say about there theory...

And pleasse let no atheist here tell me that not all atheists are evolutionist...

Its either u believe in creation or d opposite(evolution)

ijawkid: Ok now let me land....

For u and logic boy to tell me and believe that we came from apes only shows how much u berate d human race...

So a white man tells u we came from apes and u believe him....

Ok let me give u some reasons why evolution is such a myth.....

Let me spell out @ least 3 myths on which d evolution theory rests...

We'll analyze each one....

And please its a research work..

I know u guys have done little or no experiments so as to prove evolution...

We are both on d same page...

We are all under the category ""I hear say""....

But let's see what even ur fellow evolutionists have to say about there theory...

And pleasse let no atheist here tell me that not all atheists are evolutionist...

Its either u believe in creation or d opposite(evolution)

Stop and think. You accept all other scientific theories but you stop at evolution because it debunks the bible. Is this not proof that christianity makes you throw away common sense?

Do you reject germ theory? How do you know about germs? It was not until the 19th century that the common man knew what germs were.