God isn't real. Prove me wrong.

[lukethethird]

Not a troll. A debate. As the title says.

So! Prove me wrong. I'll reply.

Can't prove you wrong, must be a trick question.

 

[Walterbl]

Everything (reality, existence, the universe) requires a first cause, an explanation. Is logically impossible for something to come from nothing.

 

[KT Shamim]

Not a troll. A debate. As the title says.

So! Prove me wrong. I'll reply.

Sorry can't prove you wrong.

But I can present enough evidence that your claim becomes quite unreasonable. But quite unreasonable does not equal definitively wrong.

If you want definitive proof that God is real then you'll have to make effort.

In summary I can try to show you sufficient evidence that we are walking on an oil-rich land. But if you wish to find that oil for definitive proof of it's existence you'll have to invest yourself.

 

[PureX]

As an idea, "God" is certainly real. As an overall conceptual paradigm through which one perceives and understands their experience of reality, "God" is as real as real can be for a human being. "God" as it is commonly defined: the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists, certainly is a valid intellectual observational probability. And "God" as the perceived 'personality' within or behind physical existence is likewise as "real" as any other perceived reality is for we humans.

So I don't see why people keep trying to assert that "God doesn't exist", except that they are doing so through some vague and naive presumption of intellectual righteousness that they clearly do not possess.

 

[Ostronomos]

Not a troll. A debate. As the title says.

So! Prove me wrong. I'll reply.

I accept your challenge.

God is identical to reality because He possesses all of the attributes and qualities of reality by virtue of self-defining self-generative capability. His mathematical nature allows Him to map Himself onto reality in a way that is isomorphic to it. By distributing His mind over the multi-verse, He acquires omniscience. Having self-creative capacity, God does not alienate Himself from His existence by virtue of self-inclusion to the extent that reality is self-inclusive of all things, including and up to the primary Global identity of God. God's purpose is to select from an infinite number of possible paths reality may take and allow the observer to live out a fair and just opportunity for His existence in the assigned universe based on his seeing or choice of action in accordance with his soul.

 

[QuestioningMind]

If nature had a cause, the cause had to be something supernatural. This is necessarily true. The cause of nature (the natural world) had to be something that excists independently of nature

If the cause of the natural world was something natural then it couldn't be the cause of the natural world.

Just like the cause of the first computer by definition could have not been a computer otherwise it wouldn't be the first computer. The cause of the first natural "thing" could have not been something natural.

Nah... first you need to demonstrate that it's possible for anything supernatural to even exist before you can claim it as the cause of the natural world's current state of existence.

 

[Segev Moran]

Not a troll. A debate. As the title says.

So! Prove me wrong. I'll reply.

The fact you can ask this question is your proof.

Based on science (Which i accept as the only way to validate our physical reality), our brain is a collection of neurons.
These neurons are a collection of "points" connected with "bridges" that communicate using electrical pulses running from one set of points to others.
Based on science, we are bound to these connections (there is an actual video showing such a connection being formed - amazing thing to see).
Each connection made becomes part of your brain's pattern.
Each brain in nature works the same way! no matter if you are a mouse or chimp, a horse or an ant. the brain works in a similar way.
But there is a very special thing with humans.
You can on any given time, act in absolute contrast to those patterns!
You can decide in an instant to change your entire brain patterns. This is what it means being in God's image.
Not looking like it, rather having the ability to change your way of behavior regardless to how your brain is "programmed".

Being able to ask a question like "prove god is real", means you are able to discuss a concept that is outside the scope of your reality.
You literally are able to create reality in your own brain and pass the idea of that reality to other humans.
No matter how science describes the process that makes this ability be available to us the fact remains this ability is unique to humans and is real.

How curious it is that these concepts are described in details long before science discovered them

 

[leroy]

Nah... first you need to demonstrate that it's possible for anything supernatural to even exist before you can claim it as the cause of the natural world's current state of existence.

Proving that the natural world had a cause, wound automatically prove that the cause is not natural (supernatural)

The cause of mater by definition has to be inmaterial

The cause of time, by definition has to be timeless

The cause of the first computer that has ever existed by definition has to be something that is not a computer

The cause of the firs “blue thing” that has ever existed, by definition has to be “not blue”

In the same way the cause of the first natural thing that has ever existed by definition would have to be something “not natural”

My only burden is to show that the natural world had a cause,

 

[leroy]

The fact you can ask this question is your proof.

Based on science (Which i accept as the only way to validate our physical reality), our brain is a collection of neurons.
These neurons are a collection of "points" connected with "bridges" that communicate using electrical pulses running from one set of points to others.
Based on science, we are bound to these connections (there is an actual video showing such a connection being formed - amazing thing to see).
Each connection made becomes part of your brain's pattern.
Each brain in nature works the same way! no matter if you are a mouse or chimp, a horse or an ant. the brain works in a similar way.
But there is a very special thing with humans.
You can on any given time, act in absolute contrast to those patterns!
You can decide in an instant to change your entire brain patterns. This is what it means being in God's image.
Not looking like it, rather having the ability to change your way of behavior regardless to how your brain is "programmed".

Being able to ask a question like "prove god is real", means you are able to discuss a concept that is outside the scope of your reality.
You literally are able to create reality in your own brain and pass the idea of that reality to other humans.
No matter how science describes the process that makes this ability be available to us the fact remains this ability is unique to humans and is real.

How curious it is that these concepts are described in details long before science discovered them

Or in simpler terms:

Why would evolution (or some other completely natural mechanism) would create brains that would wonder about the existence of God?. ……….wondering about the existence of God, doesn’t have any selective benefit over a brain that doesn’t care. So why did we evolve a brain with the unnecessary (but complex and energy consuming) ability to wonder about the existence of God.

 

[Segev Moran]

Or in simpler terms:

Why would evolution (or some other completely natural mechanism) would create brains that would wonder about the existence of God?.

The question is false.
Evolution has no "will". evolution is a description of a process that was long ago proven to the point of a very high probability.
There is no doubt our brain evolved.
as for the question why it evolved as it did, there are several thesis.
you can't search for a "meaning reason" in science rather a "cause reason".
The meaning question will always remain a philosophy.

 

[leroy]

The question is false.
Evolution has no "will". evolution is a description of a process that was long ago proven to the point of a very high probability.
There is no doubt our brain evolved.
as for the question why it evolved as it did, there are several thesis.
you can't search for a "meaning reason" in science rather a "cause reason".
The meaning question will always remain a philosophy.

Granted evolution is true, he share a common ancestor with chimps…. I have no problem with that.

The point is that evolution (mutations + natural selection) by itself would have not crated a brain that wonders about philosophical questions, because these brains are unnecessary complex, consume too much energy and have no selective advantage. ¿why did natural selection selected brains with the ability to ask philosophical questions if this ability has no selective advantage?

As a theist evolutionist I can always say that God guided the process in such way that these types of brains would eventually evolve.

I was just conceding your point, the fact that we can even wonder about the existence of God is evidence for the existence of God.

 

[atanu]

Not a troll. A debate. As the title says.

So! Prove me wrong. I'll reply.

You are TheAll-knowing. Why is another god required?

 

[PureX]

Why would evolution (or some other completely natural mechanism) create brains that would wonder about the existence of God?. ...Wondering about the existence of God doesn’t have any selective benefit over a brain that doesn’t care. So why did we evolve a brain with the unnecessary (but complex and energy consuming) ability to wonder about the existence of God.

This is not a very persuasive argument, as it assumes that natural processes cannot produce a useless or negative result, or a result that is detrimental to its own generative process. And that's a rather big, and I think groundless, assumption. Natural processes, especially where they apply to generating life forms, tend to produce as many different results as are possible, and then allow the most effective result to overwhelm the lesser effective (survival of the fittest).

 

[PureX]

Evolution has no "will".

We don't actually know that this is so, since we do not understand the forces that have generated this specific existential universe, as opposed to any other. And even more than that, we don't know what determined these forces and set them forth, or why (if there is a 'why').

There is no doubt our brain evolved.
as for the question why it evolved as it did, there are several thesis.
you can't search for a "meaning reason" in science rather a "cause reason".
The meaning question will always remain a philosophy.

Yes, this is so because science cannot explore such a metaphysical question. That's why we humans engage in art, and religion, and philosophy, and so on.

 

[1213]

… for your gods son Christ who is supposed to be repeating the words of Supreme Lord Krishna…

Why you think so?

…for he is saying Thou shall not kill. but you are killing and maintaing organized slaughter houses. so you are pissing on him and his teaching but still fun is you are christian ?

Actually, Bible tells, don’t murder, which is unlawful killing.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Proving that the natural world had a cause, wound automatically prove that the cause is not natural (supernatural)

The cause of mater by definition has to be inmaterial

The cause of time, by definition has to be timeless

The cause of the first computer that has ever existed by definition has to be something that is not a computer

The cause of the firs “blue thing” that has ever existed, by definition has to be “not blue”

In the same way the cause of the first natural thing that has ever existed by definition would have to be something “not natural”

My only burden is to show that the natural world had a cause,

Nope... you need to provide verifiable evidence that anything supernatural can exist before you claim that it has or can cause anything. The cause of the current physical laws of nature could very easily have been natural and there's absolutely no reason to believe that it wasn't.

 

[PureX]

Nope... you need to provide verifiable evidence that anything supernatural can exist before you claim that it has or can cause anything. The cause of the current physical laws of nature could very easily have been natural and there's absolutely no reason to believe that it wasn't.

What you demand as verification precludes the possibility of it occurring. This is both illogical and intellectually disingenuous.

 

[leroy]

Nope... you need to provide verifiable evidence that anything supernatural can exist before you claim that it has or can cause anything. The cause of the current physical laws of nature could very easily have been natural and there's absolutely no reason to believe that it wasn't.

Please make an effort and try to understand what I am saying, because I am not making any controversial claim at this point.

The cause of the first "natural thing" that has ever existed, by definition has to be "something not natural" (or supersnatural) this is necessarily true.

If you claim that the first natural thing came from something natural the it would be the first natural thing

There are only 2 options
Ether nature had a supernatural cause or nature is causeless

 

[leroy]

This is not a very persuasive argument, as it assumes that natural processes cannot produce a useless or negative result, or a result that is detrimental to its own generative process. And that's a rather big, and I think groundless, assumption. Natural processes, especially where they apply to generating life forms, tend to produce as many different results as are possible, and then allow the most effective result to overwhelm the lesser effective (survival of the fittest).

Evolution (random mutations and natural selection) can't create complex specified systems unless there is a path with beneficial steps. Otherwise you would be climbing "mount improbable "

Evolution wouldn't create complex brains capable of wondering about philosophical questions because this ability would not add any selective advantage.

 

[PureX]

Evolution (random mutations and natural selection) can't create complex specified systems unless there is a path with beneficial steps. Otherwise you would be climbing "mount improbable "

But it's you who is labeling them "beneficial"; implying some sort of intention. When in fact it's the action of change. Whatever is possible for the system to create, it creates. And whatever is able to survive, survives. There is no reason that such a system could not create a form that is self-destructive, other-destructive, or even systemically destructive. There is no reason that evolution, as it has manifested on the Earth, could not create a life form that would willingly destroy all life on Earth, including even itself. And in fact, it may well have done so. And if so, then evolution is clearly lacking any logical intent.

Evolution wouldn't create complex brains capable of wondering about philosophical questions because this ability would not add any selective advantage.

I see no evidence or reasoning to believe this to be so.