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

[Ford]

From OP:

I realized God was proven because that which does not exist can't cause anything

This is nonsense. In order to "prove" that God is the cause of anything, you have to first prove God exists.

You haven't done that.

 

[Barbarian]

Yet, all the other problems remain, untouched by your regard.
That would be 'avoiding,' right?

No problems to speak of.

Read my #48 again. How does "so you should have already happened" follow from the assumption of an infinite regress? Answer: it doesn't.

 

[revivin]

In order to "prove" that God is the cause of anything, you have to first prove God exists.

This was already done in the opening post. Why shut your mind down to it?

 

[dystopian]

You don't explain how your die applies to this situation.

Yes, I did. I explained to you that it does NOT follow from infinite regress that "you should have already happened" because "you'd have an eternity to come into being."; that is what the die explains. If infinite regress exists, then you will also have *infinite possibilities*. This means, that in essence, the two infinities cancel each other out in regards to your argument. If you have a die with infinite sides to it, then no matter how many times you throw it (infinite time), you will never exhaust all of the possible sides it can land on. For the purpose of your argument, this means that it is NOT at all certain that 'you should have already happened', since because the die has infinite sides, there will ALWAYS be sides that it hasn't landed on, no matter how far along the infinite axis of time you are. The sides of the die; as I explained before; represent 'events', such as me being born for example. Which means that the rest of your argument falls apart.

Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated by the uncreated Creator.

And here we have the OTHER claim that I already demolished in the post I re-pointed you to. I will AGAIN, explain it to you.

Even IF it were true that infinite regress means "you must have come into existence before now"; which as I just demonstrated is NOT in fact true, so strictly speaking I don't even have to address this part of your argument; it does NOT follow that therefore nature needs a cause outside of itself. This is because, as I have explained many times by now, there is no problem whatsoever with simply saying that I exist multiple times along the axis of time. Explain to us, exactly why I can't have existed before AND exist now as well? Why do you think this breaks infinite regress?

 

[Ford]

In order to "prove" that God is the cause of anything, you have to first prove God exists.

This was already done in the opening post. Why shut your mind down to it?

No, you asserted that God exists, and went on to share your personal "salvation" story based upon that assertion. Simply stating that God exists, throwing out a bit of special pleading, then saying how great it makes you feel to be "saved" doesn't prove anything other than the fact that you're apparently rather gullible.

 

[revivin]

No, you asserted that God exists.

No. The proof for God was given in the opening post. Why avoid it?

 

[dystopian]

No, you asserted that God exists.

No. The proof for God was given in the opening post. Why avoid it?

Because, as Ford said, you merely *asserted* that god exists, then came up with flimsy arguments that have now repeatedly been refuted. "Proof" isn't proof when it is so easily refuted.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In order to "prove" that God is the cause of anything, you have to first prove God exists.

This was already done in the opening post. Why shut your mind down to it?

All you said was that there's an account in a book and you cannot think of any way that it could be anything other than a perfect eyewitness account.
That's not evidence that it IS a perfect eyewitness account, nor is it evidence that the eyewitness was correct, and not imagining things, or the subject of a ruse or an elaborate hoax.

You swallowed the account hook, line and sinker, and offer absolutely no objective evidence for your god other than to deny all other suggestions.

It's about as compelling as a Spongebob Squarepants episode. But without the humor of Mr. Crabs.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet, all the other problems remain, untouched by your regard.
That would be 'avoiding,' right?

No problems to speak of.

Sure.
Just the lack of actual evidence, the poor understanding of the burden of proof, the complete arrogance of argument by assertion, then claiming later that your assertions were 'proofs.'
Other than that, no problems you want to speak of.

Self-Mutation, is that you?

- - - Updated - - -

Yet, all the other problems remain, untouched by your regard.
That would be 'avoiding,' right?

No problems to speak of.

Sure.
Just the lack of actual evidence, the poor understanding of the burden of proof, the complete arrogance of argument by assertion, then claiming later that your assertions were 'proofs.'
Other than that, no problems you want to speak of.

Self-Mutation, is that you?

 

[abaddon]

... Since you propose an infinite regress of cause and effects...

Who proposed that?

... nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is what we refer to when we say God. God first and foremost is the uncreated Creator. This are His prime characteristics when we speak of God.

The medieval scholastic philosophers failed to prove anything because they relied on word games like this.

The only other option an atheist has is to say…

Another option is to be honest and simply admit "I don’t know".

But god is just a fill-gap. You’re a believer so probably you won’t know just how extremely lame that sounds to propose a human-like entity to explain a universe. It might be “intuitive” because humans tend to think “it got made, so somebody made it!” This is why reasoning alone doesn’t work. It relies on assumptions that seem intuitively true. And the assumptions rely on words. And words inevitably have a tenuous connection to reality. You can't prove god with words. You can't prove what did or didn't happen at or before "the creation" (if there was such a thing) with just words.

 

[revivin]

Who proposed that?

We all intuitively know it because we have all been given a spirit of God-consciousness. It's also in Romans 1.20 that says by observing nature we know God exists.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Who proposed that?

We all intuitively know it because we have all been given a spirit of God-consciousness. It's also in Romans 1.20 that says by observing nature we know God exists.

You have a reading-comprehension problem. Abaddon was asking who proposed the infinite regress. That's not something all atheists propose.
So, you didn't read the post correctly. Or several other posts.

You clearly don't understand what 'atheism' means (since you attribute things haphazardly to all atheists that are not strictly atheism).
You don't know what 'proven' means, or evidence or the burden of proof.
So since you are below average on the above, why should we think your logical understanding of 'infinite regress' is any more special or accurate?
Why is your assertion that Paul's record of other people's statements about Jesus' resurrection to be treated with any more respect than your mis-application of abaddon's post?

 

[abaddon]

We all intuitively know it because we have all been given a spirit of God-consciousness. It's also in Romans 1.20 that says by observing nature we know God exists.

You have a reading-comprehension problem. Abaddon was asking who proposed the infinite regress. That's not something all atheists propose.
So, you didn't read the post correctly. Or several other posts.

Yes. Thank you, it’s nice to understood sometimes.

... by observing nature we know God exists.

Then make nature your God then. I really don't know or "intuit" that nature needed something from outside of space and time for it to be. Not all cultures have believed that, not even all religions, so it's not a universal intuition.

 

[Ford]

We all intuitively know it because we have all been given a spirit of God-consciousness.

Ah, the classic "every man in his heart knows god" argument.

"Good afternoon everyone and welcome to Proselytizing To The Oldies!

You just heard a super hit from way back called the Baseless Assertion, and before that was a golden oldie from the Logical Fallacies!

Coming up, your requests, and a special flashback from Aquinas and the First Cause Experience. But first, a word from our sponsors..."

 

[revivin]

who proposed the infinite regress. That's not something all atheists propose.

Some atheists have proposed this so I answer them and explain why it is impossible. Before there was a single atheist though God showed why it was not possible in every person's God-conscious spirit. He uses this as a proof in Rom. 1.20 why it is impossible.

Would you mind giving me 32 rep points of power for this conscientious clarification on my part? I could really use it in a sea of atheists gang banging me. Your action would show a certain friendlessness and no hard feelings.

 

[untermensche]

There is absolutely nothing special about this fictional character called Jesus. The things he allegedly did were also allegedly done by others, from virgin birth to rising from the dead. These kinds of claims were made by many primitive peoples.

There is nothing special about the words of this fictional character Jesus. The things he allegedly said were said much better by many others.

And the idea that the universe needed a creator is not so certain. Some physicists believe that it is possible for universes to just pop into existence from empty space with only the known properties of this universe.

To cling to these fables about Jesus is simply to say; "I don't want to know the truth, this makes me feel good so I'm sticking with it".

 

[jonJ]

You could disprove God if you could disprove the uncreated Creator by showing how infinite regress is possible or how something can come from nothing.

I can show how infinite regress is possible in one word: integers. You identify the first integer for me, and I'll believe in your first-cause God.

And we know which God claim is the correct one because nobody can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings.

Oooh, oooh! I can! Pick me! Here's my naturalistic explanation: somebody made it up. That's why the events it describes don't make it into real history books.

 

[revivin]

this fictional character called Jesus

Your head is not on straight because Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity with more sources for Him than any ten figures in antiquity combined within 150 years of His death. Historians simply don't go your route so you're on your own. We can talk if you get your head back on straight above evidence.

 

[jonJ]

Self-Mutation, is that you?

No, because then we would have an infinite regress of Self-Mutations, and that's not possible...

[DRAMATIC MUSIC]

... or is it?

 

[revivin]

I can show how infinite regress is possible in one word: integers.

Integers are abstract numbers not producing cause and effect relationships like when a drop a ball of a ball impacts the ground, that sort of cause and effect.

 

[jonJ]

Your head is not on straight because Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity with more sources for Him than any ten figures in antiquity combined within 150 years of His death. Historians simply don't go your route so you're on your own. We can talk if you get your head back on straight above evidence.

If you can find ten times as much independent documentation for Jesus as for Julius Caesar, then let's hear it. Independent, mind; someone repeating their own version of what someone else said doesn't count.