CHALLENGE: Provide a Single Piece of Evidence that God Exists

[Autodidact]

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.

I see. My mistake. Alright, now comes the part where (in your terminology, which I generally do not use) you "prove"
(1) The universe ever came into existence.
(2) God has always existed.
Good luck with that.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

But the fact that someone is born does NOT necessarily imply that anyone or anything made them. It may be that they grew naturally, as a result of natural processes, with no act of creation.

On the other hand, if you use the word "creation" so broadly as to include all natural processes, including those with no agency, no intelligence, no choice and no creator then sure, God exists. "God" however then means "nature," so it doesn't get you very far.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Well, first prove that nothing can come into existence without it being a creation from a creator.
Then prove the universe ever came into existence.
Then tell us who created God.
And you're all set.

Good luck.

 

[Autodidact]

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

Nothing can come into existence without being created by a creator.
God came into existence.

Therefore God was created by a creator.

 

[rusra02]

A traveler comes to a city with beautiful homes, fountains, and gardens. As he walks the streets and greets the citie's people, he says to those he meets: "No one created this city. It sprang up by accident and sustains itself by chance". The people laugh at him. What a foolish man, they say.

After reviewing evidence of design in nature, many thinking people echo the sentiments of the psalmist who wrote: “How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions.” (Psalm 104:24) The Bible writer Paul arrived at a similar conclusion. He wrote: “For [God’s] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.”—Romans 1:19, 20.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A traveler comes to a city with beautiful homes, fountains, and gardens. As he walks the streets and greets the citie's people, he says to those he meets: "No one created this city. It sprang up by accident and sustains itself by chance". The people laugh at him. What a foolish man, they say.

OTOH, they'd laugh just as hard at the man who claims he has a close, personal relationship with the person who carved the hoodoos.

 

[Autodidact]

A traveler comes to a city with beautiful homes, fountains, and gardens. As he walks the streets and greets the citie's people, he says to those he meets: "No one created this city. It sprang up by accident and sustains itself by chance". The people laugh at him. What a foolish man, they say.

Then another man comes along. Who designed this city, he asks? It works so well, the food comes in, the garbage goes out, there are just the right number of stores to feed the number of people who live here--perfect. Who designed it this way? The people look at one another curiously. "Why, no one--it just sort of grew this way." Then they walk away laughing. What a foolish man, they say.

After reviewing evidence of design in nature, many thinking people echo the sentiments of the psalmist who wrote: “How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions.” (Psalm 104:24) The Bible writer Paul arrived at a similar conclusion. He wrote: “For [God’s] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.”—Romans 1:19, 20.

Evidence of design in nature? What a curious idea. Do you have any?

 

[Kerr]

A traveler comes to a city with beautiful homes, fountains, and gardens. As he walks the streets and greets the citie's people, he says to those he meets: "No one created this city. It sprang up by accident and sustains itself by chance". The people laugh at him. What a foolish man, they say.

After reviewing evidence of design in nature, many thinking people echo the sentiments of the psalmist who wrote: “How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions.” (Psalm 104:24) The Bible writer Paul arrived at a similar conclusion. He wrote: “For [God’s] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.”—Romans 1:19, 20.

As a different to cities, life is made from self-replication molecules. As a difference to cities, stars form due to a natural process in nebulas. Some things may need to be constructed. But most things in this universe don´t, they are a result of natural processes.

 

[Skeptisch]

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
[SIZE=-1]-- Carl Sagan (attributed: source unknown)[/SIZE]

 

[Ba'al]

What's the point of arguing about the existence of God when it has already been done by brilliant philosophers for centuries? No one can prove God exists or does not exist. Serious arguments presented over the centuries...
Philosophy of Religion » Arguments for the Existence of God

 

[Fatihah]

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


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.


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.

Response: To the contrary, I am claiming something is impossible. Therefore, the only way to prove something impossible, is to show that it is not possible. How do you prove that there is no proof that man cannot breathe under water? The fact that there is no proof that man can breathe under water is the proof!

Likewise, if I am saying that it is impossible for something to come into existance without it being a creation from a creator, the proof that this is true is the fact that there is no other possible way. That is the proof. In order to prove that something is not impossible is to show that it is possible. This is common sense. If you show that it is possible, that debunks the claim that it's not impossible.

Therefore, if I say that it is impossible for something to come into existance besides it being a creation from a creator, the statement stands as truth if in fact you can not provide proof that it is possible for something to come into existance in another way. Since there is none, then the claim is in fact valid and true.

 

[Kerr]

Response: To the contrary, I am claiming something is impossible. Therefore, the only way to prove something impossible, is to show that it is not possible. How do you prove that man cannot breathe under water? The only way is to show that it's not possible! That's the only way.

Likewise, if I am saying that it is impossible for something to come into existance without it being a creation from a creator, the proof that this is true is the fact that there is no other possible way. That is the proof. In order to prove that something is not impossible is to show that it is possible. This is common sense. If you show that it is possible, that debunks the claim that it's not impossible.

Therefore, if I say that it is impossible for something to come into existance besides it being a creation from a creator, the statement stands as truth if in fact you can not provide proof that it is possible for something to come into existance in another way. Since there is none, then the claim is in fact valid and true.

And as I have pointed out, there are several examples of things being created without a creator, as in there is no being (like God) that is doing it. Fact is the vast majority of everything in the universe are examples of this.

 

[Fatihah]

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?

Response: Those who troll can't comprehend.

 

[Fatihah]

And as I have pointed out, there are several examples of things being created without a creator, as in there is no being (like God) that is doing it. Fact is the vast majority of everything in the universe are examples of this.

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

 

[Kerr]

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

Stars, earthquakes, diamonds are three examples. Other examples are vulcanos, mountains, clouds, tide... there are many, many more.

 

[Fatihah]

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.

Response: It doesn't include God. As you have quoted, I said nothing can come into existance without it being a creation from a creator. Therefore, if something is non-existing, it can only come into existance if it is created. God was never non-existing, therefore the statement does not mean that God has a creator.

 

[Fatihah]

Stars, earthquakes, diamonds are three examples. Other examples are vulcanos, mountains, clouds, tide... there are many, many more.

Response: That's another statement. Where's the proof? For example, prove that mountains were not created.

 

[Fatihah]

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

Response: There is no such chemical process.

 

[Fatihah]

I asked you to prove in fact that you were born, but not created. So you say:

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

This is your proof? So your PROOF that you were born and not created is that you were not created but born? That is supposed to be proof? LOL! A child can see just how absurd that it and also recognize that that's not proof at all.

However, I'll play the silly game with you. How do I know that God is the originator of the universe and life itself and not no one else? Simple. Because no one else originated the universe and life itself but God. Lol!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Response: To the contrary, I am claiming something is impossible. Therefore, the only way to prove something impossible, is to show that it is not possible. How do you prove that there is no proof that man cannot breathe under water? The fact that there is no proof that man can breathe under water is the proof!

Well, no. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Anyhow, man can breathe under water. I even have photos of people breathing under water as evidence:

Likewise, if I am saying that it is impossible for something to come into existance without it being a creation from a creator, the proof that this is true is the fact that there is no other possible way. That is the proof.

It would be if you actually demonstrated it. You haven't. Until either side is demonstrated, the assertion's truth is undefined. You don't just "win" by default.

In order to prove that something is not impossible is to show that it is possible. This is common sense. If you show that it is possible, that debunks the claim that it's not impossible.

Yes, but in the meantime, the mere fact that a person hasn't presented you with that evidence does not make a claim that will be debunked true. And the only way we can distinguish between a claim that will be debunked and a claim that won't be is to demonstrate that it's true on its own merits.

Therefore, if I say that it is impossible for something to come into existance besides it being a creation from a creator, the statement stands as truth if in fact you can not provide proof that it is possible for something to come into existance in another way. Since there is none, then the claim is in fact valid and true.

Until the modern age of spaceflight, it could not be proven conclusively that the moon was not made out of cheese. Does that mean that before this point in history, the claim "the moon is made out of cheese" was valid and true?

Anyhow, if you really do believe that unrefutable things must be valid and true, then I have a teapot to sell you.