The idol of atheism, or hardest proof ever?

[questfortruth]

WHAT DOES THE NEO-ATHEISM REJECT?

Q: Atheism is not a doctrine. Theism is the doctrine. Atheism is the rejection of that doctrine. It's not a doctrine by itself. It means that when a theist claims "God exists!", that the atheist then replies "I don't believe you". Or when the theist asks "do you believe in god?" the atheist answers "no". That's about it. God is not being rejected. The claim that a god exists is being rejected. To "reject god", one would have to believe a god exists first, that there is something there TO reject. This is not the case in atheism. Atheism is the rejection of the claim that a god exists. Subtle, yet important, difference.

A: Atheism is more complicated when General Relativity. Why not the old simplest creed of disbelief: "No God"? But it was the creed of original atheism. They have the most complicated neo-atheism now.

TRUST MY HIGH EQ AND IQ, that:

1. Atheists do not reject the Real God.
2. Atheists deny their fictitious god, their idol ("old man in the cloud", "one who makes magic tricks"). They have a false god who tells them that he is non-existent. It is the idol-deceiver, an unclean trinity (3=1): satan, death, antichrist.

You might think: "not a false one, the same one as we have; only atheists do not need Him, they do not see Him and do not want to see."

No, we have different gods: "your father is the devil" (Jesus Christ). There is nothing in common between good and evil, there is not even a common God. Here is the pagan character Loki - an attempt to create a common god between good and evil. But semi-good is evil. "Idol Loki is a trickster" (YouTube). Loki expresses the state of a savvy person who lives according to the principle: serve all masters: feel fun on Earth today and go into Paradise after death.

It is not God who does not want to be proven, but it is people who do not want to be convinced by the proofs.

MY LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD:

A being who would know everything also knows that God exists. Because God is Omniscient. Therefore, among all knowledge, there is also this: "God exists."

Criticism: "if only the being knew, you have used word WOULD."

IF, WOULD - often used in science, in PROOFS. Why is the most severe unfair criticism and nagging applied to God's proofs? "Jesus said to him: you will not believe if you do not see signs and wonders." Jn. 4:48, "Then Abraham said to him: if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then if someone is raised from the dead, they will not believe." (Luke 16: 19-31).

1. Suppose there is a Being who knows everything.

2. Then He knows that God exists.

3. Hence, in all knowledge there is one that God exists.

4. Therefore, our assumption turned out to be correct, and God exists.

SOLUTION TO OMNIPOTENCE PARADOX

Somebody could ask: "And the one who knows everything, knows how to learn something new?"

This is not a question, but a statement, which says in short: "There is no God."

The expression "Who created God?" is not a question, but the statement: "There is no God", expressed differently, but also popular.

Also, the question "Can God create a stone that He cannot lift" is not a question, but a statement: "There is no God."

iT IS BECAUSE THE Reason tells us that there is no proof of the "Absence" of God, and cannot be even in principle.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I still believe differently than you and I can act differently than you. That is in practice the falsification of that your claim is universal, objective, true and what not.

 

[ChristineM]

One more time

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


IT IS ALSO BECAUSE THE Reason tells us that there is no proof of God.

But if you can prove that wrong please feel free to provide your proof.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

WHAT DOES THE NEO-ATHEISM REJECT?

Q: Atheism is not a doctrine. Theism is the doctrine. Atheism is the rejection of that doctrine. It's not a doctrine by itself. It means that when a theist claims "God exists!", that the atheist then replies "I don't believe you". Or when the theist asks "do you believe in god?" the atheist answers "no". That's about it. God is not being rejected. The claim that a god exists is being rejected. To "reject god", one would have to believe a god exists first, that there is something there TO reject. This is not the case in atheism. Atheism is the rejection of the claim that a god exists. Subtle, yet important, difference.

A: Atheism is more complicated when General Relativity. Why not the old simplest creed of disbelief: "No God"? But it was the creed of original atheism. They have the most complicated neo-atheism now.

TRUST MY HIGH EQ AND IQ, that:

1. Atheists do not reject the Real God.
2. Atheists deny their fictitious god, their idol ("old man in the cloud", "one who makes magic tricks"). They have a false god who tells them that he is non-existent. It is the idol-deceiver, an unclean trinity (3=1): satan, death, antichrist.

You might think: "not a false one, the same one as we have; only atheists do not need Him, they do not see Him and do not want to see."

No, we have different gods: "your father is the devil" (Jesus Christ). There is nothing in common between good and evil, there is not even a common God. Here is the pagan character Loki - an attempt to create a common god between good and evil. But semi-good is evil. "Idol Loki is a trickster" (YouTube). Loki expresses the state of a savvy person who lives according to the principle: serve all masters: feel fun on Earth today and go into Paradise after death.

It is not God who does not want to be proven, but it is people who do not want to be convinced by the proofs.

MY LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD:

A being who would know everything also knows that God exists. Because God is Omniscient. Therefore, among all knowledge, there is also this: "God exists."

Criticism: "if only the being knew, you have used word WOULD."

IF, WOULD - often used in science, in PROOFS. Why is the most severe unfair criticism and nagging applied to God's proofs? "Jesus said to him: you will not believe if you do not see signs and wonders." Jn. 4:48, "Then Abraham said to him: if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then if someone is raised from the dead, they will not believe." (Luke 16: 19-31).

1. Suppose there is a Being who knows everything.

2. Then He knows that God exists.

3. Hence, in all knowledge there is one that God exists.

4. Therefore, our assumption turned out to be correct, and God exists.

SOLUTION TO OMNIPOTENCE PARADOX

Somebody could ask: "And the one who knows everything, knows how to learn something new?"

This is not a question, but a statement, which says in short: "There is no God."

The expression "Who created God?" is not a question, but the statement: "There is no God", expressed differently, but also popular.

Also, the question "Can God create a stone that He cannot lift" is not a question, but a statement: "There is no God."

iT IS BECAUSE THE Reason tells us that there is no proof of the "Absence" of God, and cannot be even in principle.

How did you come to this conclusion from the statement "I don't believe god exist"?

 

[questfortruth]

One more time

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


IT IS ALSO BECAUSE THE Reason tells us that there is no proof of God.

But if you can prove that wrong please feel free to provide your proof.

MY LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD:

A being who would know everything also knows that God exists. Because God is Omniscient. Therefore, among all knowledge, there is also this: "God exists."

Criticism: "if only the being knew, you have used word WOULD."

IF, WOULD - often used in science, in PROOFS. Why is the most severe unfair criticism and nagging applied to God's proofs? "Jesus said to him: you will not believe if you do not see signs and wonders." Jn. 4:48, "Then Abraham said to him: if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then if someone is raised from the dead, they will not believe." (Luke 16: 19-31).

1. Suppose there is a Being who knows everything.

2. Then He knows that God exists.

3. Hence, in all knowledge there is one that God exists.

4. Therefore, our assumption turned out to be correct, and God exists.

 

[questfortruth]

How did you come to this conclusion from the statement "I don't believe god exist"?

It is a long text, but neo-atheism is a long thing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is a long text, but neo-atheism is a long thing.

Yes... though how did you draw the comparison?

 

[ChristineM]

MY LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD:

A being who would know everything also knows that God exists. Because God is Omniscient. Therefore, among all knowledge, there is also this: "God exists."

Criticism: "if only the being knew, you have used word WOULD."

IF, WOULD - often used in science, in PROOFS. Why is the most severe unfair criticism and nagging applied to God's proofs? "Jesus said to him: you will not believe if you do not see signs and wonders." Jn. 4:48, "Then Abraham said to him: if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then if someone is raised from the dead, they will not believe." (Luke 16: 19-31).

1. Suppose there is a Being who knows everything.

2. Then He knows that God exists.

3. Hence, in all knowledge there is one that God exists.

4. Therefore, our assumption turned out to be correct, and God exists.

Supposition and guesswork is not proof, it is not even evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

MY LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD:

A being who would know everything also knows that God exists. Because God is Omniscient. Therefore, among all knowledge, there is also this: "God exists."

Criticism: "if only the being knew, you have used word WOULD."

IF, WOULD - often used in science, in PROOFS. Why is the most severe unfair criticism and nagging applied to God's proofs? "Jesus said to him: you will not believe if you do not see signs and wonders." Jn. 4:48, "Then Abraham said to him: if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then if someone is raised from the dead, they will not believe." (Luke 16: 19-31).

1. Suppose there is a Being who knows everything.

2. Then He knows that God exists.

3. Hence, in all knowledge there is one that God exists.

4. Therefore, our assumption turned out to be correct, and God exists.

Well, I am illogical, so logic doesn't work on everything, therefore God is illogical and doesn't exist, because only the logical exists. I like logic.

 

[questfortruth]

God is illogical and doesn't exist

It does not follow. Google the wave-particle duality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It does not follow. Google the wave-particle duality.

And the illogical is God or everything is not from God. If everything is from God, then the illogical is from God and God is illogical. I like logic.

 

[questfortruth]

everything is not from God

Blaspheme!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Blaspheme!

Then the illogic is from God and thus God is illogical in part. You are from God and so am I as an atheist. God makes it so that I can deny God. It is all God. Including "Blaspheme!"

 

[questfortruth]

Then the illogic is from God and thus God is illogical in part. You are from God and so am I as an atheist. God makes it so that I can deny God. It is all God. Including "Blaspheme!"

Why don't atheists like being accused of blasphemy? After all, they begin to argue, they say: "since there is no God, we cannot blaspheme Him, we only blaspheme the faith, not God." Maybe the faith of their ancestors still flickers in them?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

MY LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD:

A being who would know everything also knows that God exists. Because God is Omniscient. Therefore, among all knowledge, there is also this: "God exists."

This is nothing more than Anselm, just recast a little. And the same objections apply.

 

[questfortruth]

This is nothing more than Anselm, just recast a little. And the same objections apply.

Please clarify.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I would think it would be much better suited to produce an actual god rather than endure mental gymnastics that produce nothing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why don't atheists like being accused of blasphemy? After all, they begin to argue, they say: "since there is no God, we cannot blaspheme Him, we only blaspheme the faith, not God." Maybe the faith of their ancestors still flickers in them?

Atheists cannot blaspheme. Blasphemy is defined as "speaking sacreligiously about God," and since we have no religion, and there is no God, blasphemy for us is impossible.

Faith, in itself, is not a sacred thing -- it is an attitude. And therefore it cannot be blasphemed against. But as an attitude, it can certainly be looked on with some distrust.

 

[Nakosis]

WHAT DOES THE NEO-ATHEISM REJECT?

Q: Atheism is not a doctrine. Theism is the doctrine. Atheism is the rejection of that doctrine. It's not a doctrine by itself. It means that when a theist claims "God exists!", that the atheist then replies "I don't believe you". Or when the theist asks "do you believe in god?" the atheist answers "no". That's about it. God is not being rejected. The claim that a god exists is being rejected. To "reject god", one would have to believe a god exists first, that there is something there TO reject. This is not the case in atheism. Atheism is the rejection of the claim that a god exists. Subtle, yet important, difference.

A: Atheism is more complicated when General Relativity. Why not the old simplest creed of disbelief: "No God"? But it was the creed of original atheism. They have the most complicated neo-atheism now.

TRUST MY HIGH EQ AND IQ, that:

1. Atheists do not reject the Real God.
2. Atheists deny their fictitious god, their idol ("old man in the cloud", "one who makes magic tricks"). They have a false god who tells them that he is non-existent. It is the idol-deceiver, an unclean trinity (3=1): satan, death, antichrist.

You might think: "not a false one, the same one as we have; only atheists do not need Him, they do not see Him and do not want to see."

No, we have different gods: "your father is the devil" (Jesus Christ). There is nothing in common between good and evil, there is not even a common God. Here is the pagan character Loki - an attempt to create a common god between good and evil. But semi-good is evil. "Idol Loki is a trickster" (YouTube). Loki expresses the state of a savvy person who lives according to the principle: serve all masters: feel fun on Earth today and go into Paradise after death.

It is not God who does not want to be proven, but it is people who do not want to be convinced by the proofs.

MY LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD:

A being who would know everything also knows that God exists. Because God is Omniscient. Therefore, among all knowledge, there is also this: "God exists."

Criticism: "if only the being knew, you have used word WOULD."

IF, WOULD - often used in science, in PROOFS. Why is the most severe unfair criticism and nagging applied to God's proofs? "Jesus said to him: you will not believe if you do not see signs and wonders." Jn. 4:48, "Then Abraham said to him: if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then if someone is raised from the dead, they will not believe." (Luke 16: 19-31).

1. Suppose there is a Being who knows everything.

2. Then He knows that God exists.

3. Hence, in all knowledge there is one that God exists.

4. Therefore, our assumption turned out to be correct, and God exists.

SOLUTION TO OMNIPOTENCE PARADOX

Somebody could ask: "And the one who knows everything, knows how to learn something new?"

This is not a question, but a statement, which says in short: "There is no God."

The expression "Who created God?" is not a question, but the statement: "There is no God", expressed differently, but also popular.

Also, the question "Can God create a stone that He cannot lift" is not a question, but a statement: "There is no God."

iT IS BECAUSE THE Reason tells us that there is no proof of the "Absence" of God, and cannot be even in principle.

The Neoatheist questions all superstition, every supernatural claim.

You should be happy that they take the idea of God seriously enough to question it.
Shouldn't be a problem for any believer who can answer the criticism. The truth should by its own nature counter all criticism.

 

[Altfish]

MY LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD:

A being who would know everything also knows that God exists. Because God is Omniscient. Therefore, among all knowledge, there is also this: "God exists."

Criticism: "if only the being knew, you have used word WOULD."

IF, WOULD - often used in science, in PROOFS. Why is the most severe unfair criticism and nagging applied to God's proofs? "Jesus said to him: you will not believe if you do not see signs and wonders." Jn. 4:48, "Then Abraham said to him: if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then if someone is raised from the dead, they will not believe." (Luke 16: 19-31).

1. Suppose there is a Being who knows everything.

2. Then He knows that God exists.

3. Hence, in all knowledge there is one that God exists.

4. Therefore, our assumption turned out to be correct, and God exists.

If you change the word 'GOD' to "LEPRECHAUN" you have also proved the small Irish people also exist