The Black Vault

No creator is simpler than creator plus creation.

at1with0 wrote:Well all proofs are word games, so that point is kind of redundant.

Here's my proof:
1. God is the totality of all that exists
2. Ergo, God exists.

Is the totality of all that exists intelligent?

Is intelligence greater than non-intelligence?

Read the message board for that answer!

humphreys wrote:I'm not attempting to prove it's just a concept, I'm just refuting the logical proof of God's existence cited in this thread. Nothing you just said addresses my refutation.

I guess you have to answer an honest question. Cite what logical proof would convince you God exists.

greeney2 wrote:

humphreys wrote:I'm not attempting to prove it's just a concept, I'm just refuting the logical proof of God's existence cited in this thread. Nothing you just said addresses my refutation.

I guess you have to answer an honest question. Cite what logical proof would convince you God exists.

The burden of proof is with the person making the claim not the refuter of the proof.

Exactly Khanster, greeney has been told this so many times but I guess he doesn't buy it?

There is no valid logical proof of God's existence greeney, if I could cite one obviously I would be a believer.

Frrosted, I was simply refuting an argument made in this very thread and elsewhere for centuries! I'm glad you agree the logical proofs are silly distractions at best.

If an infinitely powerful, infinitely complex supreme being as the creator of everything is our simplest solution, then I guess we're in a pretty sorry position. As an explanation, for me, there is nothing more complicated. I think there is nothing we could conjure up that could be more complicated than explaining the existence of an all-powerful being, except perhaps having to explain the existence of two?

As for infinite Universes being hogwash, in modern science it is generally accepted that alternate Universes exist now, based on converging scientific evidence that doesn't even have anything to do with the big bang, so rather than being far-fetched it is considered very likely at this stage, among cosmologists.

Scientific evidence aside, in more simple common sense terms, if you accept a big bang without a creator, which atheists do, parallel Universes with different laws are a logical consequence of that anyway. A singular natural big bang event makes no sense, really. Once you accept it occurred, you're compelled to accept the likelihood of parallel Universes too, just as anyone accepting life coming into existence from non-life must accept that life is going to be widespread throughout the Universe. It's not an idea that atheists have just tacked onto the end of big bang theory to explain the fine tuning of the Universe, it really is a logical consequence of it.

Either you accept a big bang without a creator or you don't, but for those who do, it only really makes sense for there to be a great number of them. I can't think of anything that occurs naturally that just happens a single time only and that's it.

khanster wrote:

at1with0 wrote:Well all proofs are word games, so that point is kind of redundant.

Here's my proof:
1. God is the totality of all that exists
2. Ergo, God exists.

Is the totality of all that exists intelligent?

Is intelligence greater than non-intelligence?

maybe

khanster wrote:

greeney2 wrote:

humphreys wrote:I'm not attempting to prove it's just a concept, I'm just refuting the logical proof of God's existence cited in this thread. Nothing you just said addresses my refutation.

I guess you have to answer an honest question. Cite what logical proof would convince you God exists.

The burden of proof is with the person making the claim not the refuter of the proof.

Atheists claim God does not exist, where is the proof?
I'm just refuting that claim, that the burden has not been proven !

humphreys wrote:There is no valid logical proof of God's existence greeney, if I could cite one obviously I would be a believer.

Its only logical that someone who does not want to believe, will state there is no valid proof whatssoever. Again, you have to exlain what you call valid, and why that applies to everyone elses logic and reasoning.

You can not state there is no valid proof unless you define what valid proof would be.

greeney2 wrote:Atheists claim God does not exist, where is the proof?
I'm just refuting that claim, that the burden has not been proven !

Generally, atheists merely don't believe in God. Unless they're strong atheists.