i was talking about the existence of Jesus Christ, is he real? why should i believe him? where is he now?

Views: 2263

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Circulus in probando, denying the antecedent, contradictory premises.

As for your weak points (that you have been duped into thinking are "proofs")


Next time, before you open yourself to public ridicule, do your homework first. All those points have been addressed decades ago.

Thanks for the response, believe me i have looked into this and to be honest, the "proofs" of Thomas Aquinas are only the beginning.  (i didn't come up with the word proofs, it's taken from his work) To be honest prove is not even the right word, all that these "proofs" prove is that there is no scientific explanation for the origination of the universe itself. 

As for the "weak" points that you drew my attention to, simply taking the argument of the first cause:  The refute for the first cause that russell offers is on one hand supportive of the first cause and on the other hand just as ambiguous as the assertion of the existence of god. 

Firstly russell states that if god exist, the question needs to be asked again, "who created god?" to which a christian would respond, "nobody, god is eternal, without beginning without end".  That explanation is easy enough to brush aside and call complete and utter bullshit, but is russell's answer any more revealing? Russell then offers the explanation that perhaps "There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always
existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause."

Russell essentially answers that the world may have always existed, the universe may have always existed.  I think that is about as ambiguous as saying that God always existed and that he put the universe in motion.  He says that the reason we don't know what originated the universe is because we just don't know or cannot comprehend eternity which is almost an identical explanation as to why we can't comprehend the eterenity of god, "because we just cant comprehend it".  Russell in the entire article is not able to prove that god does not exist but attempts to answer aquinas' questions.  I'll admit as i did before, some of those questions can be answered by science and reason due to the fact that hundreds of years have passed and advancements have been made, but the answers to the other questions provided by russell are of very little substance and offer no satisfactory conclusions to the non existence of god or the origin of the universe.  I think many scientists would even debate his theories.

As far as i'm concerned Aquinas' "proofs" simply expose the inadequacies of science regarding the origin of the universe, they do not explicitly prove the existence of God much less the christian god.  However they don't disprove god either.

Next time, give me a little credit :) im not simply going to say that because some guy hundreds of years ago said "this", god exists.  I have struggled with the question of theism for my entire life and i think that there is more evidence suggesting that He does exist than there is proving that he doesn't.  I will reiterate that the non existence of god is not supported and that it cannot be proven and i again extend my challenge to prove that god does not exist.


The request for proof that god does not exist is dishonest.... but I always provide an answer anyway.

My proof that your god does not exist is the Great Hempilumpifus.... god eater. The Great Hemp ate your god a long time ago and since It exists outside of time and space your god was eaten before he existed (as we could know it).... sorry. You may think this is just a silly argument but the point of it is this: I challenge you to offer proof that the Great Hempilumpifus doesn't exist and that he didn't eat your god.

I got a laugh out of that one :)

But point taken.

If the GH existed and he ate my god before he existed, then according to my beliefs my god does not exist, therefore neither does the world and we are not having this conversation.

If god was eaten by the GH after the earth was created but before we could know him, then i cannot conclusively prove that the GH does not exist, but that would also mean that you cannot disprove my god either leaving us where we stand now.

If my beliefs are false and my god does not exist and the atheist explanation for the creation of the universe is true, then the GH does not exist either.  I would question why it existed if there were no gods to eat. 

The Hempilumpifus is a silly argument... but it is no sillier than the argument it refutes. 

I see no reason why a god eating entity should not exist just because there are no gods to eat. The idea that a super complex entity just exists is completely illogical in my opinion.... so an entity that eats other entities just existing seems just as likely.... without a creator how would this entity know there were no gods to eat before it existed to eat them? 

As far as your belief that the world requires a creator goes.... that's just a belief, based on an illogical argument with zero support. Nothing shows the universe needs a creator. 

And what evidence made you come to the conclusion that the god you chose is the real one, and not any of the 2000 gods that have existed? On what evidence and study do you disprove them, in favor of yours?

For example, Jesus/Yawhwe/HS said he/it/they will defeat Satan and get rid of all evil... Lots of evil still around... Odin on the other hand, said he will rid Midgar of Frost Giants. Now, when was the last time you saw a Frost Giant?

What Ben said is true. The burden of proof is on the believer, not on us. Atheists simply have no gods. Atheos (Without gods). You claim your god is real, and that we all need to believe and base our lives on his bloody book. Prove it. Every theory that we hold true today has been proven. Tried, tested and proven. Those that fail are discarded. Show us proof that will stand up to any scrutiny and we will believe.

The burden of proof is on you, my friend.

If I tell you that Sarah can fly, that there are writings, by people who never met her, that claim that she can fly, that her flight is responsible for all the good in the world, and that you should take it on faith, and base your life according to her teachings, plus give her money, you would instantly call bullshit and demand proof of her ability to fly.

You wouldn't go out of your way to prove she can't fly, you would say "Here is a tall building, show me."

No matter what bullshit excuse Sarah's followers might come up with, or whatever happy story, you wouldn't buy it.

I could tell you that on 9/11, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, wasn't the passenger revolt, but it was Sarah, who flew by, and hit the plane and made it crash in order to save the president. You would still call bullshit and want proof.

Now, what if I tell you that there is scientific proof for Sarah's amazing powers! But I can't show you any because the science community is a part of a conspiracy by her evil nemesis Sara, and they are suppressing evidence of Sarah's true glory, in order to destroy humanity.

Blah, blah, blah... The story goes on, and you would keep asking for US to prove it, because we are the ones claiming extraordinary claims.

But in reality, YOU are the one claiming extraordinary claims, so prove them. Do the research on what theistic nonsense has already been debunked, there is a lot of it, because many of us are tired of the same old circular logic and "God did it."

Please return with something new, and worth discussing.

Our explanations work without the need for god. Your reasoning, in order to work, demands that we accept god, because like you said:

If the GH existed and he ate my god before he existed, then according to my beliefs my god does not exist, therefore neither does the world and we are not having this conversation.

You say "If god doesn't exist, then neither does the world."

We say, the world exists just fine without the need for any god.

Explain to us, how god is real, without using him, or his supernatural status as proof, because we do not subscribe to that.

And please, no "belief" or "faith" either. Real, tangible, proof.

OK Sarah - you can come back down now --!

Suggested revision: "Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told sold.

Just for good measure, sharing the classics can't hurt.


"This video contains content from MPI Media, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds"


First of all, you seem to be regurgitating old Aristotelian premises. Here's an informative response to your third, that "nothing cannot create something":

i would challenge any athiest to prove that god does not exist.

The burden of proof is upon the person who makes the claim.  Being an atheist simply means that I haven't met anybody who has met that burden, and to be honest, nobody has come within artillery range of meeting it.

To Be clear, these proofs do not prove the existence of the Christian God nor do they necessarily even prove the existence of a deity

So, by your own admission, they are useless toward meeting the above stated burden of proof for the claim of a god's existence.  So, what is your point of stating them?

but attempt to answer the question of the origin of the universe beyond what science can prove.

They answer nothing.  They are corruptions of logical thought that anybody who passed an Intro to Logic class would be embarrassed by.  The reoccurring themes in theist apologetics are intellectual dishonesty and scientific ignorance, and both of those themes are represented nicely in your post.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service