CHALLENGE: Provide a Single Piece of Evidence that God Exists

[Fatihah]

By being born. Duh. There is at least one. Proof destroyed.

Response: Being born is being created. Rebuttle debunked.

 

[Fatihah]

Nothing exists without being created.
The Supreme Being exists.
The Supreme Being is uncreated.

Your argument contradicts itself.
And there's the proof, literally.

Response: I never said that nothing exists without it bring created. Thus your whole point is irrelevant.

 

[Fatihah]

So you're saying that the universe created the universe? See any problem with that?

Response:I never said that either. Are you having difficulty understsnding english?

 

[Kerr]

Response: The proof that there is a God can be understood with common logic. Ask yourself the question, " name another way something can come into existance besides it being a creation from a creator"? This question alone proves that there is a God. For the simple answer is "there is none"! .

There are plenty, actually. You are an example. I am as well. We are not created, we are a result of a natural process. Other examples are diamonds, lightning, Earthquakes, trees, clouds, rain, stars, and so on.

 

[Autodidact]

Response: Being born is being created. Rebuttle debunked.

No, it's not. Or rather, you are assuming that it is. Assuming your conclusion (one of the most popular theist arguments) is a fallacy.

 

[Autodidact]

Response: I never said that nothing exists without it bring created. Thus your whole point is irrelevant.

Ask yourself the question, " name another way something can come into existance besides it being a creation from a creator"? This question alone proves that there is a God. For the simple answer is "there is none"!

Apparently Fatihah either has a very short memory, or deliberately lies. Thing is, Fatihah, we can go back and read your posts, so it doesn't work. I think we can now disregard any argument he attempts.

 

[Autodidact]

Response:I never said that either. Are you having difficulty understsnding english?

You said that if one asserts that the universe has always been here, then God is the universe. You also said that God created the universe. Ergo, if one asserts that the universe has always been here, which I do, then the universe created the universe. Would you like me to quote your posts and reconstruct your argument for you?

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

How can one give evidence to something by which he is an intrinsic part of? Though this has little to do with an Abrahamic god, which the thread author seems very careful to differentiate.

 

[Fatihah]

There are plenty, actually. You are an example. I am as well. We are not created, we are a result of a natural process. Other examples are diamonds, lightning, Earthquakes, trees, clouds, rain, stars, and so on.

Response: Natural process includes creating as well. Thus your examples are in fact creations.

 

[Kerr]

Response: Natural process includes creating as well. Thus your examples are in fact creations.

Depends on your definition of creation is. When I said that, I meant something specific, like an external force has to come in and make it happen. That is not what happens in my examples, they are natural processes, which means they happen without the involvement of an external force.

 

[Fatihah]

No, it's not. Or rather, you are assuming that it is. Assuming your conclusion (one of the most popular theist arguments) is a fallacy.

Response: So when you were born, you were not created? I see we have another absurd reasoning ready to take place. Well, where's the proof? Prove in fact that you were born, but not created.

 

[Kerr]

Response: So when you were born, you were not created? I see we have another absurd reasoning ready to take place. Well, where's the proof? Prove in fact that you were born, but not created.

Again, it depend on your definition of creation. We are the result of our parents having unprotected sex, which starts a chain of events leading to, to mention two examples, you and me. You may call that creation, others won´t. In either way, a deity is not needed in the what you would call creation process.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Response: So when you were born, you were not created? I see we have another absurd reasoning ready to take place. Well, where's the proof? Prove in fact that you were born, but not created.

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

 

[Fatihah]

Apparently Fatihah either has a very short memory, or deliberately lies. Thing is, Fatihah, we can go back and read your posts, so it doesn't work. I think we can now disregard any argument he attempts.

Response: Yes. We can in fact go back and read my posts as well as yours. And by doing, we discover once again your inability to comprehend simple english. I said that I have never said that "nothing can exist without it being created". So what do you do? You quote me saying the following to demonstrate a lie in post 66:

[quote Fatihah] Ask yourself the question, " name another way something can come into existance besides it being a creation from a creator"? This question alone proves that there is a God. For the simple answer is "there is none"!

quote]

And as demonstrated, they are two different statements! My words are saying that nothing can "come into existance". You said that I said "nothing can exist". Clearly, you either cannot read, or perhaps this is another one of your desperate attempts to make yourself credible. Are the words "come into" in the first quote? No. Is there any synonyms for the words? No. So how can the statements mean the same if neither the words or it's synonym match? Exactly. They don't. They are two different statements with two different meanings.

So I suggest that you either run to your nearest dictionary or elementary school to brush up on your basic english. For I can't have a dialogue in english if the person is not very literate.

 

[Fatihah]

Again, it depend on your definition of creation. We are the result of our parents having unprotected sex, which starts a chain of events leading to, to mention two examples, you and me. You may call that creation, others won´t. In either way, a deity is not needed in the what you would call creation process.

Response: It's not my definition, it's "the" definition. To create means to bring into existance, to make, to cause something to be, etc. This is from the dictionary itself. So by definition, a person born is in fact created. For it was the unprotected sex and those chain of events that causes birth, thus you were created.

 

[McBell]

it's just that I'm not ready to take it as evidence of the existance of a personal, Abrahamic God, especially when the same evidence can be used to support a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And I agree with you 110%.
My point is that you left the question open to the subjectivity of the word evidence.

In post #29:

One of the definitions of evidence is: grounds for belief.
​

Seems to me that the vast majority of the 'evidence' you will get for the existence of god is going to be based largely, if not solely, on that definition.
Especially given that you have not put any conditional modifiers on the term evidence.

 

[McBell]

Response: Yes. We can in fact go back and read my posts as well as yours. And by doing, we discover once again your inability to comprehend simple english. I said that I have never said that "nothing can exist without it being created". So what do you do? You quote me saying the following to demonstrate a lie in post 66:

[quote Fatihah] Ask yourself the question, " name another way something can come into existance besides it being a creation from a creator"? This question alone proves that there is a God. For the simple answer is "there is none"!

quote]

And as demonstrated, they are two different statements! My words are saying that nothing can "come into existance". You said that I said "nothing can exist". Clearly, you either cannot read, or perhaps this is another one of your desperate attempts to make yourself credible. Are the words "come into" in the first quote? No. Is there any synonyms for the words? No. So how can the statements mean the same if neither the words or it's synonym match? Exactly. They don't. They are two different statements with two different meanings.

So I suggest that you either run to your nearest dictionary or elementary school to brush up on your basic english. For I can't have a dialogue in english if the person is not very literate.

And here ladies and gentlemen we see that it matters not what is said, how it is worded, what it actually means, it will mean exactly what Fatihah wants it to mean and ONLY what Fatihah wants it to mean.

"There's the Statement. Where's the proof?"
The proof is right there in the above quoted post for those who actually understand English.

"Still Trolling?"
Nope, merely pointing out the facts.

It would be nice if you could find some other default replies when you are shown to be flat out wrong.

 

[McBell]

Response: It's not my definition, it's "the" definition. To create means to bring into existance, to make, to cause something to be, etc. This is from the dictionary itself. So by definition, a person born is in fact created. For it was the unprotected sex and those chain of events that causes birth, thus you were created.

So my parents created me then?
I created my children?

So does that mean that I have the same dictatorship rights over my children that you claim Allah has over everyone?

 

[Kerr]

Response: It's not my definition, it's "the" definition. To create means to bring into existance, to make, to cause something to be, etc. This is from the dictionary itself. So by definition, a person born is in fact created. For it was the unprotected sex and those chain of events that causes birth, thus you were created.

If that is how you want to look at it. Only thing is, context matters for what something means. In any case, this is only a debate over definition and is quite meaningless. My point is valid. If the universe work through natural processes the argument that everything is created and therefore there must be a god is flawed.

 

[Fatihah]

And here ladies and gentlemen we see that it matters not what is said, how it is worded, what it actually means, it will mean exactly what Fatihah wants it to mean and ONLY what Fatihah wants it to mean.

"There's the Statement. Where's the proof?"
The proof is right there in the above quoted post for those who actually understand English.

"Still Trolling?"
Nope, merely pointing out the facts.

It would be nice if you could find some other default replies when you are shown to be flat out wrong.

Response: Still trolling?