CHALLENGE: Provide a Single Piece of Evidence that God Exists

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

In that case, your argument is invalid until you demonstrate that all things but God, including the universe itself, came into existence.

There are other problems with it as well, but that's the biggest one, IMO.

 

[Fatihah]

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.

Response: There's the statement. Where' the proof?

 

[Kerr]

Response: There's the statement. Where' the proof?

If everything is the result of a natural process, which means no deity is involved, then everything may be "created", but it is not "created".

Would also like to point out that the same can be said about your statement.

 

[McBell]

Response: Still trolling?

Do you even read my posts?
Perhaps if you did, you would know that I already answered your two default replies.


I mean, you do understand that you replying with a question that has flat out been answered in the post you are replying to just makes you look even worse?

 

[Freelancer7]

Myself

 

[Fatihah]

In that case, your argument is invalid until you demonstrate that all things but God, including the universe itself, came into existence.

There are other problems with it as well, but that's the biggest one, IMO.

Response: To the contrary, the fact that nothing can come into existance without it being a creation from a creator is the proof that the argument is valid. To make it invalid, you would have to prove in fact that things something can come into existance a different way. My argument was only to prove that God exists, not that there is a God who created the universe.

 

[challupa]

Response: To the contrary, the fact that nothing can come into existance without it being a creation from a creator is the proof that the argument is valid. To make it invalid, you would have to prove in fact that things something can come into existance a different way. My argument was only to prove that God exists, not that there is a God who created the universe.

Therefore, God cannot exist unless he was created.

 

[Fatihah]

If everything is the result of a natural process, which means no deity is involved, then everything may be "created", but it is not "created".

Would also like to point out that the same can be said about your statement.

Response: I understand your statement. I am merely asking for the proof.

 

[Fatihah]

Do you even read my posts?
Perhaps if you did, you would know that I already answered your two default replies.


I mean, you do understand that you replying with a question that has flat out been answered in the post you are replying to just makes you look even worse?

Response: Still trolling?

 

[Fatihah]

Therefore, God cannot exist unless he was created.

Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Response: To the contrary, the fact that nothing can come into existance without it being a creation from a creator is the proof that the argument is valid.

Until you actually provide some support for this statement, it's an assertion, not a fact.

To make it invalid, you would have to prove in fact that things something can come into existance a different way.

No, this is the argument from ignorance fallacy that I mentioned before. Your assertion is contingent on the idea that it's impossible for something to come into existence some other way; therefore, it's up to you to demonstrate that this is true. If it's neither proven nor disproven, then the truth of the statement is undefined, and therefore the truth of your main assertion is also undefined.

My argument was only to prove that God exists, not that there is a God who created the universe.

Well, there's the other problem. So far, you haven't given any reason to suppose that the creator you assert would have any of the attributes of a god.

 

[Kerr]

Response: I understand your statement. I am merely asking for the proof.

It´s called logic. If a deity is not required for something, you cannot say that something is proof of a deity. Simple. However, I would like to ask you the same thing. Where is the proof of your statement?

 

[McBell]

Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof?

Right here:

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"!
​

You yourself state that there is no other way something can come into existence besides it being a creation from a creator.

Thus God had to have a creator if he exists?
So, who or what created Allah?

 

[challupa]

Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof?

You said this: "the fact that nothing can come into existance without it being a creation from a creator"

That would then include god, which means god must have had a creator in order to exist. Your words not mine. I don't think there needs to be a creator for things to exist, that's your belief. I'm not trying to prove anything, least of all something that cannot be proved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You said this: "the fact that nothing can come into existance without it being a creation from a creator"

That would then include god, which means god must have had a creator in order to exist. Your words not mine. I don't think there needs to be a creator for things to exist, that's your belief. I'm not trying to prove anything, least of all something that cannot be proved.

It looks like Fatihah is making a version of the Kalam argument, in which not all "things that exist" are necessarily "things that came into existence"; things that are eternal would not have come into existence - they would have always existed.

It still fails in the same way that other First Cause arguments fail, though: there's no particular reason to assume that God must be eternal, and there's no particular reason to assume that the universe can't be.

 

[challupa]

It looks like Fatihah is making a version of the Kalam argument, in which not all "things that exist" are necessarily "things that came into existence"; things that are eternal would not have come into existence - they would have always existed.

It still fails in the same way that other First Cause arguments fail, though: there's no particular reason to assume that God must be eternal, and there's no particular reason to assume that the universe can't be.

Okay... I am beginning to think god is just a guy playing a video game and he is trying to see how each religious group stands up against another one and the whole point of the game is to cause chaos!

 

[sonofskeptish]

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.

Thank you for noticing that I was refering to a personal, biblical Abrahamic god, which sees to have been missed by others.

 

[sonofskeptish]

Do you even read my posts?

I think your in discussion with an auto-responder incapable of reading your posts.

 

[Autodidact]

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

Oh, so by "create" you include purely chemical processes that involve no intelligence or choice?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

No, I was not created, I was born. Duh. I grew in my mothers' womb. No one made me.

Are you at all familiar with the concept of burden of proof? Cuz it's on you.