The Central Problems for Atheism, and Why Religion is True

[gracedwithlife]

It's illogical to ask where God came from if He always existed.

It's illogical to start with the assumption of what you want to prove.

Where am I starting with an assumption when I said...

"...And if there is an infinite past of universe(s) that equally makes no sense to me because you would have had an eternity of the past to come into being before now so you should have already happened.

"It's even self-contradictory because if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects as defined by eternity, you should never have existed because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity never reaching this present time...."

"Therefore, I come to the realization religion is true, because religion is the way to God, and God must exist because atheism is false. The universe needs a cause outside of time and space being uncreated whom we call God."

[Plu]

If atheism is true does that mean nature comes from nothing?

Disregarded for not even understanding the first and most basic thing about atheism. Have a nice life.

[gracedwithlife]

If atheism is true does that mean nature comes from nothing?

Disregarded for not even understanding the first and most basic thing about atheism. Have a nice life.

What is the first and most basic thing about atheism?

[Plu]

You actually ask. That's a first.

Here's atheism in all its glory:

We do not believe in the existance of gods.


Anything else is not a part of atheism. The only thing you can conclude from this is that nature did not come from god. Where it did come from? We have no idea. But it certainly doesn't mean nature had to come from nothing. And we're certainly not going to claim we know based on our atheism, because atheism doesn't give any answers, it just rejects one specific statement.

[gracedwithlife]

Here's atheism in all its glory: We do not believe in the existance of gods.

Anything else is not a part of atheism. The only thing you can conclude from this is that nature did not come from god. Where it did come from? We have no idea. But it certainly doesn't mean nature had to come from nothing. And we're certainly not going to claim we know based on our atheism, because atheism doesn't give any answers, it just rejects one specific statement.

I believe God is proven so that atheism is false.

It is proven sufficiently to me since nature can't always have existed, for if it had, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. So nature needs a cause outside of itself outside of time and space, being uncreated.

This timeless, spacelessness uncreated creator is what we call God.

[Plu]

What you believe is irrelevant to what we believe.

And your 'proof' would make you a deist. If you believe in any specific kind of god, he still remains unproven. And even then it relies on your outright rejection of the idea that nature cannot have always existed, which is just a baseless claim.

Also, who is to say I have not already happened countless times before? I certainly wouldn't have noticed if I did.

[gracedwithlife]

What you believe is irrelevant to what we believe.  And your 'proof' would make you a deist. If you believe in any specific kind of god, he still remains unproven. And even then it relies on your outright rejection of the idea that nature cannot have always existed, which is just a baseless claim. Also, who is to say I have not already happened countless times before? I certainly wouldn't have noticed if I did.

After proving God exists, the Christian God is then proven because group hallucinations are impossible.

I gave the reason why nature could not always have existed, because with an infinite regress of cause and effects, such an eternity to come into being would have already happened so you should have already existed before now.

The you that you are now at this moment is this moment, not a moment before.

[Plu]

After proving God exists, the Christian God is then proven because group hallucinations are impossible.

That is possibly the most simplistic (and still wrong) proof I have ever seen, which is quite impressive on a forum like this.

The you that you are now at this moment is this moment, not a moment before.

Says who? This is a proof by common sense, but common sense doesn't apply in physics. We've discarded it long ago.

[gracedwithlife]

After proving God exists, the Christian God is then proven because group hallucinations are impossible.

That is possibly the most simplistic (and still wrong) proof I have ever seen, which is quite impressive on a forum like this.

Why is it simplistic?

The you that you are now at this moment is this moment, not a moment before.

Says who? This is a proof by common sense, but common sense doesn't apply in physics. We've discarded it long ago.

All I can offer you is what we know today and today is today not yesterday. God will not fault you with evidence you have now by following it, but He would by exceeding it.

[Plu]

Why is it simplistic?

Well, for starters is requires you to assume and accept that all the accounts in the bible are factual, based on actual eyewitness accounts, not manipulated by the writers, not misremembered, etc. Considering the history we have of religious leaders abusing their followers and changing their stories, that seems a pretty big stretch already.

Then you have gloss over all the other evidence against your god and the stories in the bible, which is also quite a lot. Then you have you disregard all forms of other religions that would be true if you make these same assumptions that their holy books are correct and mass delusions don't happen.

And then you have to outright discard all the other views of the universe that are also quite reasonable.

And that's just for starters.

All I can offer you is what we know today and today is today not yesterday.

Exactly. And that is quite a simplistic view of the universe. To a person who has even the most basic understanding of it, anyway.

[gracedwithlife]

Well, for starters is requires you to assume and accept that all the accounts in the bible are factual, based on actual eyewitness accounts, not manipulated by the writers, not misremembered, etc. Considering the history we have of religious leaders abusing their followers and changing their stories, that seems a pretty big stretch already.
Then you have gloss over all the other evidence against your god and the stories in the bible, which is also quite a lot. Then you have you disregard all forms of other religions that would be true if you make these same assumptions that their holy books are correct and mass delusions don't happen.
And then you have to outright discard all the other views of the universe that are also quite reasonable.
And that's just for starters.

I think what you are proposing is called Legends theory, but the way that is addressed in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Mike Licona and Gary R. Habermas is to say 1) original disciples claimed resurrection from the beginning (church was built on their eyewitness testimony as Apostles and Elders for the church). 2) Paul claimed to have seen Jesus and spent 15 days with Peter, John and James, who imparted the same eyewitness account. 3) James claimed to have seen Jesus. 4) Critics need evidence for their assertion.

Secondary matters are not essential to the proof. No other religion provides this type of proof.

All I can offer you is what we know today and today is today not yesterday.

Exactly. And that is quite a simplistic view of the universe. To a person who has even the most basic understanding of it, anyway.

Today really is today not yesterday. I don't get into weird pseudo-science as there is nothing to support it.

[Plu]

So you have a number of people who claim to have seen a resurrection. Very impressive. Yet you have no mechanics for how a resurrection would even be possible. Which is kinda problematic.

I don't get into weird pseudo-science as there is nothing to support it.

You probably don't even get into real science. I bet you're still thinking time in linear.

[gracedwithlife]

So you have a number of people who claim to have seen a resurrection. Very impressive. Yet you have no mechanics for how a resurrection would even be possible. Which is kinda problematic.

I don't get into weird pseudo-science as there is nothing to support it.

I don't have the mechanics of how God created the universe or a great many other things, but I know He did it because infinite regress is impossible. Likewise, the only plausible explanation for seeing Jesus alive from the dead is by resurrecting Himself as only God can.

As for time being linear, there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

[Icarus]

So you have a number of people who claim to have seen a resurrection. Very impressive. Yet you have no mechanics for how a resurrection would even be possible. Which is kinda problematic.

I don't get into weird pseudo-science as there is nothing to support it.

I don't have the mechanics of how God created the universe or a great many other things, but I know He did it because infinite regress is impossible. Likewise, the only plausible explanation for seeing Jesus alive from the dead is by resurrecting Himself as only God can.

As for time being linear, there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Boom, you need to read up on your physics.

[gracedwithlife]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Boom, you need to read up on your physics.

There's nothing there that violates cause and effect.