There are No Conscientious Explanations to Disprove the Proof for God and Jesus Being God

[Kharakov]

Cult mentality is a very real thing. People who are brought into groups, isolated, and subjected to peer pressure and brain washing will say and do almost anything. It is absolutely terrifying to see how easily people can be molded. Of course, you don't want to see it, and you certainly don't want to think that may be what happened to you. Your religion is the right one, isn't? But that's what they all say, isn't it?

I'm assuming you know the humor of someone saying this on a predominately atheist forum, in the secular web.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do we have any historical accounts

Yes.

Yeah, that's quite the answer.
Good support, unlike your bare-assed assertions made previously.

It's funny how Keith has a hard on for me everyday giving me additional negative reputation. That's funny. So cute.

Oh, not for you. I'm just curious how neg-rep looks on this forum.

 

[revivin]

Seems people want to talk about anything but the proof of God and the resurrection proof of Jesus:

1. Something can't come from nothing.
2. Infinite regress is impossible.
3. Nobody can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings.

Cha-Ching

 

[Angry Floof]

Something comes from nothing all the time, everywhere.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Seems people want to talk about anything but the proof of God and the resurrection proof of Jesus:

1. Something can't come from nothing.

Some evidence for this would be nice, rather than you just asserting shit.

2. Infinite regress is impossible.

Some evidence for this would be nice.

3. Nobody can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings.

Nay nay, moosebreath, plenty have been found and your defense is merely to quote the Books back at us some more, then pat yourself on the back.

Cha-Ching

Yeah, like that.

 

[Underseer]

Seems people want to talk about anything but the proof of God and the resurrection proof of Jesus:

1. Something can't come from nothing.
2. Infinite regress is impossible.
3. Nobody can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings.

Cha-Ching

1. This one is false, but if #1 is true, then the Christian account of god "speaking" something from nothing must be false, therefore Christianity is false.
   
2. This one is not related to anything, except to undermine certain arguments for the existence of god.
   
3. And you cannot find an explanation for the many miracles claimed by the 3,000 other religions out there, therefore the other religions are as true as yours is. Either the logic of your argument is wrong, and the argument fails to support your religion and all the other religions who make miracle claims, or the logic of your argument is true and all the religions are true simultaneously, which means your holy book must be wrong when it claims to be the only true religion. Of course, you will attempt to resolve this with a special pleading fallacy in which you claim the logic is valid when applied to one conclusion, but the logic becomes invalid when applied to other conclusions.

 

[revivin]

Some evidence

You realize I am just repeating the evidence you keep avoiding from the OP. The evidence why something can't come from nothing is because that which does not exist can't cause anything, e.g. square circles don't cause anything because they don't exist. As well we have an overwhelming preponderance of evidence of trillions of cause and effects and no hard evidence of something form nothing, beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the evidence by observing nature just like it says in Romans 1.20 to do.

As was already said as well in the OP, infinite regress is impossible because if there was this alleged infinite regress of cause and effects in nature, by that definition, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And you would never have come into being, because a past eternity would go on for eternity never reaching this point. So the whole idea of infinite regress is wrong on both accounts and self-contradictory.

Nobody has been able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles. Scholars are quite stumped who want to disprove it. You're stumped too. That's why you produce no plausible scenario. This is the best proof God could supply. Try to imagine a better proof. You can't.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Some evidence

You realize I am just repeating the evidence you keep avoiding from the OP.

No, i realize you're just repeating the assertions you made in the OP, because 'evidence' is not a word you understand.

The evidence why something can't come from nothing is because

See, you're launching an explanation for why something can't come from nothing.
You're not offering evidence. Your explanation doesn't actually explain anything, nor is it supported by anything. Not anything that would be compelling science, anyway.

As was already said as well in the OP, infinite regress is impossible because if there was this alleged infinite regress of cause and effects in nature, by that definition, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now,

You haven't shown that this has anything at all to do with any common definition of infinite, or regress, and you haven't shown (or even attempted to answer) questions about why, even if we accept this as a truth, that it's a problem for infinite regression.
You avoid any questions asking you to explain this in any sort of useful way, you just keep repeating it as if repetition increased credibility.

so you should have already happened. And you would never have come into being, because a past eternity would go on for eternity never reaching this point. So the whole idea of infinite regress is wrong on both accounts and self-contradictory.

You haven't shown a contradiction. Just denial.

Nobody has been able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.

STILL haven't shown that it actually is eyewitness testimony. In fact, by your own posts, it's second hand testimony, not eyewitness.
Fail, fail, fail, fail.

Scholars are quite stumped who want to disprove it.

No, actual scholars are not.
Once more, you appeal to 'scholarship' but cannot provide any actual scholarship to support your side.

You're stumped too. That's why you produce no plausible scenario.

Not stumped at all, Troy.
You make shit up.
So it's easy to see that other people can make shit up, too.
You can't prove your made-up-shit is real.
You can't prove the made-up-shit you flog on us is real. And you turn burden of proof around and claim a win.

This is the best proof God could supply. Try to imagine a better proof. You can't.

Troy, you say that the Bible is proof because the gospel accounts all match, so they must be eyewitness testimony.
When they don't match, donkey and colt, for example, you say that individual eyewitness accounts never fully match, thus proving it's eyewitness testimony.
You're claiming that the two opposite facts lead you to the exact same conclusion.

Obviously, you are more attached to the conclusion than you are to the evidence you say you used to reach it.

So, yeah, i can imagine a better proof. One that's not contradictory, that witnesses for God can show without having to make shit up.

 

[Mageth]

Some evidence

You realize I am just repeating the evidence you keep avoiding from the OP. The evidence why something can't come from nothing is because that which does not exist can't cause anything, e.g. square circles don't cause anything because they don't exist.

You're simply and naively asserting that something can't come from nothing because something can't come from nothing. Contrary to your assertion, that is not evidence.

As well we have an overwhelming preponderance of evidence of trillions of cause and effects and no hard evidence of something form nothing, beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the evidence by observing nature just like it says in Romans 1.20 to do.

This muddled abuse of logic is, again, not evidence. That we observe cause and effect within this universe is not evidence that something can't come from nothing.

As was already said as well in the OP, infinite regress is impossible because if there was this alleged infinite regress of cause and effects in nature, by that definition, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And you would never have come into being, because a past eternity would go on for eternity never reaching this point. So the whole idea of infinite regress is wrong on both accounts and self-contradictory.

The above is a naive and just plain wrong attempt at an argument against infinite regress or an infinite past. You use "now". Even if the past were infinite, there would be a now, or present moment, or "this point" on the timeline whic extends infinitely into the parlst, which of course would be where we currently find ourselves.

Nobody has been able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles. Scholars are quite stumped who want to disprove it. You're stumped too. That's why you produce no plausible scenario. This is the best proof God could supply. Try to imagine a better proof. You can't.

They made the shit up. Don't need a "better proof". QED.

Three strikes, you're out!

 

[revivin]

To repeat for the zombies in the house. The reason why something can't come from nothing is because a square circle can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. Non-existence has no thermodynamics, particles, etc. to cause something.

The other reason something can't come from nothing is because of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt from seeing trillions of cause and effects in nature, but not a shred of evidence of something from nothing. So if you were a betting man with odds against you more than a trillion to 1, you would surely lose. I'll take the other side of the bet.

A grade 5'er understands this, so the only reason you don't accept it is because atheism is not just a rejection of God but a state of delusion.

 

[Ford]

The reason why something can't come from nothing is because a square circle can't cause anything because it doesn't exist.

Except, of course, your god. Then something can come from nothing. Just pops into existence at some point and begins creating universes. From nothing.

 

[Mageth]

To repeat for the zombies in the house. The reason why something can't come from nothing is because a square circle can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. Non-existence has no thermodynamics, particles, etc. to cause something.

The other reason something can't come from nothing is because of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt from seeing trillions of cause and effects in nature, but not a shred of evidence of something from nothing. So if you were a betting man with odds against you more than a trillion to 1, you would surely lose. I'll take the other side of the bet.

A grade 5'er understands this, so the only reason you don't accept it is because atheism is not just a rejection of God but a state of delusion.

Yes, that's about a 5th grade level of logic you're using, all right. It might indeed be convicing to someone with an Elementary School level of education. Naive, as I said.

 

[Mageth]

The reason why something can't come from nothing is because a square circle can't cause anything because it doesn't exist.

Except, of course, your god. Then something can come from nothing. Just pops into existence at some point and begins creating universes. From nothing.

No, no, it always existed. 'Cept that's not possible due to infinite regress being impossible. So now we'll need a little special pleading...and on and on we go.

 

[Keith&Co.]

To repeat for the zombies in the house. The reason why something can't come from nothing is because a square circle can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. Non-existence has no thermodynamics, particles, etc. to cause something.

So why does Hawkings think nothing MUST produce something?
Have you encountered his theories?

The other reason something can't come from nothing is because of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt from seeing trillions of cause and effects in nature, but not a shred of evidence of something from nothing.

I think i asked a long time ago in this thread if you have any evidence of 'nothing' and if so, what were your observations of it?
Did you determine that 'nothingness' has the same qualities of cause and effect as 'anything?'
If not, why are you flapping your yap about something you know zip about?

So if you were a betting man with odds against you more than a trillion to 1, you would surely lose. I'll take the other side of the bet.

But no matter the bet or who makes the wager, money can't change hands until someone actually shows that their side won.
Did you do that?

Uhhhhh...no.

A grade 5'er understands this, so the only reason you don't accept it is because atheism is not just a rejection of God but a state of delusion.

Hehehe. Troy Brooks thinks he can point to other people and identify delusions!
HA!

 

[revivin]

what were your observations of it

How can you observe that which does not exist? That's like asking what caused the uncaused or how did the square circle come into being? There really is such a thing as a stupid question.

 

[Keith&Co.]

what were your observations of it

How can you observe that which does not exist?

If you can't make observations of it, how can you tell us how it behaves?

That's like asking what caused the uncaused or how did the square circle come into being?

If you're willing to allow anything to come into being without a cause, then the burden is on you to show why gods can but universes cannot.
Bare assertion is not sufficient.

 

[revivin]

How can you observe that which does not exist?

If you can't make observations of it, how can you tell us how it behaves?

How can something behave if it doesn't exist?

That's like asking what caused the uncaused or how did the square circle come into being?

If you're willing to allow anything to come into being without a cause, then the burden is on you to show why gods can but universes cannot.
Bare assertion is not sufficient.

I am not willing for anything to come into being without a cause, for anything that comes into being requires a cause. The uncreated Creator doesn't come into being. He always was, that's why He is uncreated.

We must be on the slow train tonight.

 

[dockeen]

If you're willing to allow anything to come into being without a cause, then the burden is on you to show why gods can but universes cannot.

That is the important point.

 

[dockeen]

He always was, that's why He is uncreated.

Evasion noted.

Why could one not fill in "the universe" for he in that sentence?

 

[Mageth]

If you can't make observations of it, how can you tell us how it behaves?

How can something behave if it doesn't exist?

That's like asking what caused the uncaused or how did the square circle come into being?

If you're willing to allow anything to come into being without a cause, then the burden is on you to show why gods can but universes cannot.
Bare assertion is not sufficient.

I am not willing for anything to come into being without a cause, for anything that comes into being requires a cause. The uncreated Creator doesn't come into being. He always was, that's why He is uncreated.

But according to your argument against infinite regress, it's not possible that god always was.