Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

It's easy to prove the existence of God


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 10 Mar 2014 15:09:52 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Mar 2014 15:11:50 GMT
Tom M says:
Good old Anthony, perhaps taking a break from searching ancient archives for the arrest records of Plato and Aristotle after they turned themselves in..

took time to laugh at the idea that proving the existence of God is , as a renowned Aristotelian philosopher said a few years ago, an easy thing to do. I was in the class when he said it in response to a student's question.

Of course , virtually everyone on earth believes is some kind of God for really, the same basic and common facts of experience. Aristotle, the "father of science" in the west articulated and discovered the principles that underly these intuitions.

So.. here we are , a pretty simple proof for the existence of God.

It's easy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-O40N4nNGUc

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 15:16:57 GMT
Withnail says:
I'm going to bet that the end of 45 mins you don't prove god exists. If it is that simple why don't you show us rather than directing us to someone else

Posted on 10 Mar 2014 16:05:58 GMT
Anita says:
It is impossible to prove God's existence.

To claim otherwise for starters is a lie, but then, if Tom M thinks he can, he simply is not a religious person. :)

"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
John 20:29

Jokes aside, no it is not possible to prove the existence of God, be you religious or atheist

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 16:13:46 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 10 Mar 2014 16:17:27 GMT
What has Tom been smoking? Centuries of debate as to the existence and/or the loyalties of the said Sky fairy, and the conundrum is solved. The big fella pops up on You-Tube. No doubt spewing Catholic bile (I can't even be bothered to watch it this time). Talk about losing the plot.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 16:30:56 GMT
Anita says:
Spin - I really do not imagine how you could prove non-existence of anything. You can (or can't) prove *existence*. If you can't prove existence of something, you infer that that something probably doesn't exist. That is what atheists do. Well... I think.

You can't prove God's existence though. You may have something what is a personal proof for you, but it would never work for anyone else. You can't have a "general" proof so to say.

Anyway - that is how I see it

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 16:50:51 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Mar 2014 16:51:26 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 16:52:38 GMT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 16:55:24 GMT
Tom M says:
No Anita.. no jokes aside. I think you went to the Shaw school of cosmological "thinkin' 'bout stuff" . Most western religious figures have and do think it can be shown by reason. You just don't know much about religion , the bible or common sense.

And thanks for the "lie" comment. You've got a lot of class.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 17:00:28 GMT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 17:00:54 GMT
Withnail says:
And have failed completely to prove anything. If it is just more of the same I will give it a miss.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 17:06:08 GMT
Tom M says:
Deleted by Amazon, nicely articulates just about every irrelevant falsehood while manifesting near total ignorance of even context. Feser covers DbA's approach to argument quite nicely in the video. If ignorance is bliss, then it's probably good that he doesn't hear this simple proof. But of course.. ignorance isn't bliss. It's just ignorance.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 17:09:20 GMT
Anita says:
Tom M - sometimes I think I know of religion more than you do, sorry.

And just for the record, I'm not an atheist.

To believe in God does not necessarily mean banging around the forum about your righteousness. Does not necessarily mean to be angry and slash anyone who is different, and hate, and humiliate other people - and that is what you are doing all the time. You don't strike me as someone godsent, Tom, at all. It's my bloody personal opinion, but if, let's say, God gave me life, I do see better ways to use it than you do.

And no, you can't prove the existence of God. And if you say you do, you lie. I stand by it

Posted on 10 Mar 2014 17:09:36 GMT
Tom M says:
Another powerful philosophical rebuttal from Withnail, manifesting wonderfully his profound acumen and openness to reason. He uses the lottery winner approach to learning.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 17:11:47 GMT
Withnail says:
Thank you, much appreciated, sorry I can't same the same for you.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 17:12:55 GMT
Withnail says:
Btw, what has this got to do with the Lottery fallacy?

Posted on 10 Mar 2014 17:14:01 GMT
Tom M says:
So... we have 4 out of 6 who think the post and video do not add to the discussion.

No one has offered even a hint that they have even the feeblest intellectual objection to any aspect of it, and indeed.. at this point.. they haven't even watched this phd philosopher deliver his easy proof for the existence of God.

Quelle surprise!! Feser covers this kind of would-be atheist nicely in the presentation. Pretty funny... but how could it not be?

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 17:14:19 GMT
Spin says:
Tom: Indeed. It is not in the remit of science to answer theological questions, despite what atheists on these threads think. Science, in itself, is a purely objective discipline with no concern for how others interpret the findings of a purely human interaction with the environment. Conversely, it is not in the remit of religion to answer scientific questions. Religion is a purely subjective discipline with no concern for how others interpret the findings of a purely human interaction with deity. Matters of the mind and matters of the body are not to mixed up at any level, else confusion reigns.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 17:21:47 GMT
Tom M says:
Anita.. thanks for the additional character assasination and the reaffirmation of your simply false notions. At least you didn't misquote Saint John on this one. Progress. As Saint Paul said, God can be seen in his works.

I'd ask you to articulate why the ultimate cause of your ability to utter nonsense is undemonstrable, but I don't think you've spent much time studying the issue.

You should of course be able to show where Aristotle, Aquinas and Feser all got it wrong though, right?

Go ahead kid, knock 'em over.

(And keep Anthony away from your parrot)

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 17:22:58 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Mar 2014 17:23:39 GMT
Tom M says:
Well, Withnail, ...since you ask.. you couldn't even identify that one either.

Maybe just a conincidence.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 17:23:53 GMT
Anita says:
To quote Spin, I'm sure you are right :)

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 17:30:41 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 17:38:40 GMT
Anita says:
Dear Spin - I referred to the author :)

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 17:46:33 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2014 17:47:30 GMT
Withnail says:
Maybe, but unlikely.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 61 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  32
Total posts:  1519
Initial post:  10 Mar 2014
Latest post:  8 Apr 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions