How man can prove God exists.

I am a theist but I like to discuss with atheists how and why they became atheists, and I welcome atheists to discuss with me how and why I am a theist - all like as we are friends.

Why do I come to an atheists' forum, because sooner than later I always get banned in theists' forums.

So, perhaps I will stay indefinitely in your forum - and I like that very much!

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Pikachu

Hey, i know you're new to the format and you might be having trouble navigating replies so i'll ask this question again.

You have asked me a number of questions so i want to ask you one:

If an atheist doesn't have the explanation for phenomenon x or science can't yet explain phenomenon y...how would that justify the conclusion that a god must be responsible?

fun4us2b · M

@Pikachu I think [u]Descartes third meditation[/u] says it best...if you are down to read it...

MartinII · 70-79, M

@Pikachu It wouldn’t. Nor, if science did have an explanation, would it demonstrate that a god was not responsible.

This message was deleted by its author.

Pikachu

@swirlie

It makes me horny🤪

yrger · 80-89, M

[quote]Hi Pika, you ask:
If an atheist doesn't have the explanation for phenomenon x or science can't yet explain phenomenon y...how would that justify the conclusion that a god must be responsible?[/quote]

First, in regard to atheists and science not explaining, it's because they don't know the existence of an uncaused first cause.

Second, in regard to the exisence of god, read:
1. There is always existence. True.
2. This means that there is no such thing as non-existence or nothingness. True.
3. We humans are instances of transient existence, i.e. we exist for a time then we are gone. True.
4. Instances of transient existence ulltimately and inevitably: implicate the existence of an entity that is pure permanent and self-existing existence. True.
5. This pure permanent self-existing existence cannot commit suicide or self-extinction, even if it wants to. True.
6. Wherefore it exists, and I call it, god. True.
7. And it is the creator and operator of everything that is not itself the pure permanent self-existing existence. True.

Pikachu

@yrger

[quote] it's because they don't know the existence of an uncaused first cause.[/quote]

But how does lack of knowledge validate god as the answer?
Example: in the past we didn't know how certain diseases spread. The fact that we could not explain that phenomenon did not validate the miasma theory of disease or the humoral theory of disease.

I agree with 1-3 but 4 seems like an unsubstantiated assertion.
Can you substantiate it?

yrger · 80-89, M

@Pikachu

Hi Pika, you ask: I agree with 1-3 but 4 seems like an unsubstantiated assertion. Can you substantiate it?

4. Instances of transient existence ultimately and inevitably: implicate the existence of an entity that is pure permanent and self-existing existence. True.

The key to understanding No. 4 are the words ultimately and inevitably.

It's like this, you came from your papa and mama, they from their papa and mama and on and on and on . . . to sub sub sub atomic particles, until you get to existence in itself, that is permanent and self-existing, therefore that is the source of all existence that has a beginning and an ending, i.e, transient.

Pikachu

@yrger

No actually i think the key word is "entity". How do you substantiate the claim that transient existence implicates the existence of an ultimate [i]entity[/i]?

P.S. If you want to quote someone's response to make it more clear that you are responding to a specific idea, click the [b]"[/b] icon above the comment box and write the quote within the brackets.