Why do you believe God exists?

[Moloch]

There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

These are absolutely not proofs... proofs are applicable to mathematics... these are all debunked logical fallacies

This first one is debunked by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_creator_of_God

If you can't have something that moves without a creator, then who created God?  God moves, right?  Then who created the creator of the creator of God, ad infinitum?

[BADecker]

There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.

4. Proof of the degrees of being - people talk about the various degrees of perfection of an object only through comparisons with the most perfect. This means that there is the most beautiful, the most noble, the best - that is God.

5. Proof through target cause. In the world of rational and unreasonable creatures, the expediency of activity is observed, which means that there is a rational being who sets a goal for everything that exists in the world - this being we call God

Since God told him to do it, it is absolutely sane... because obeying god is the most sane thing that can be done.

[tentros]

There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.

4. Proof of the degrees of being - people talk about the various degrees of perfection of an object only through comparisons with the most perfect. This means that there is the most beautiful, the most noble, the best - that is God.

5. Proof through target cause. In the world of rational and unreasonable creatures, the expediency of activity is observed, which means that there is a rational being who sets a goal for everything that exists in the world - this being we call God

There are some perfect proofs http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm, they are so god damn good, that i cant even stop laughing.

[BADecker]

There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.

4. Proof of the degrees of being - people talk about the various degrees of perfection of an object only through comparisons with the most perfect. This means that there is the most beautiful, the most noble, the best - that is God.

5. Proof through target cause. In the world of rational and unreasonable creatures, the expediency of activity is observed, which means that there is a rational being who sets a goal for everything that exists in the world - this being we call God

There are some perfect proofs http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm, they are so god damn good, that i cant even stop laughing.

Good point. If you can't falsify the proofs, make a joke out of them.

[coins4commies]

All of that is wrong because when applied to God, prove the existence of an even higher being, the creator of God, which would be proof that not even god is God. 

[Moloch]

All of that is wrong because when applied to God, prove the existence of an even higher being, the creator of God, which would be proof that not even god is God.  

Also known as The Problem of the Creator of God

The problem of the creator of God is the controversy regarding the hypothetical cause responsible for the existence of God, presuming God exists. A common challenge to theistic propositions of a creator deity as a necessary first-cause explanation for the universe is the question: "Who created God?". It contests the proposition that the universe cannot exist without a creator by asserting that the creator of the universe must have the same restrictions. This, in turn, may lead to a problem of infinite regress wherein each newly presumed creator of a creator is itself presumed to have its own creator.

[guybrushthreepwood]

There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.

Those are all "proofs" that god can't exist. I'll never understand why religious people don't ask the same questions about god. If all these things need an originator then so does god. He can't exist -- or be the original creator if we go by this logic. God would be, by definition, far more complex than us or the universe and therefor he also needs a creator. He can't just exist due to your own proofs. The truth is it's these flawed proofs that allow the religious to shut off their brain and just accept the easiest or simplest option to them -- which is, don't worry about it because god made everything. I'm sure there will always be unanswered questions about the origin of the universe but god or religions will never be able to answer them.

[BADecker]

There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.

Those are all "proofs" that god can't exist. I'll never understand why religious people don't ask the same questions about god. If all these things need an originator then so does god. He can't exist -- or be the original creator if we go by this logic. God would be, by definition, far more complex than us or the universe and therefor he also needs a creator. He can't just exist due to your own proofs. The truth is it's these flawed proofs that allow the religious to shut off their brain and just accept the easiest or simplest option to them -- which is, don't worry about it because god made everything. I'm sure there will always be unanswered questions about the origin of the universe but god or religions will never be able to answer them.

The point that somebody thinks that God needs a maker, is proof that God exists. Why? Here's why.

Everything we see in the universe was made by other things. Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.

The one thing we don't see at all is a thing that made the universe. We don't see this thing because it can't be in the universe. If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.

This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.

The point is, God can't have a maker. If He did, He would be just like anything else in the universe. But the Maker of the universe can't be in the universe, because nothing that is part of something makes itself.

God, being outside the universe, not only doesn't need something to make Him, but can't have something whereby He was made. If He did, He would be part of the universe, and we know that nothing makes itself out of nothing. Something else always makes it.

Proof that God doesn't need and can't have a maker.

[Astargath]

There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.

Those are all "proofs" that god can't exist. I'll never understand why religious people don't ask the same questions about god. If all these things need an originator then so does god. He can't exist -- or be the original creator if we go by this logic. God would be, by definition, far more complex than us or the universe and therefor he also needs a creator. He can't just exist due to your own proofs. The truth is it's these flawed proofs that allow the religious to shut off their brain and just accept the easiest or simplest option to them -- which is, don't worry about it because god made everything. I'm sure there will always be unanswered questions about the origin of the universe but god or religions will never be able to answer them.

The point that somebody thinks that God needs a maker, is proof that God exists. Why? Here's why.

Everything we see in the universe was made by other things. Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.

The one thing we don't see at all is a thing that made the universe. We don't see this thing because it can't be in the universe. If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.

This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.

The point is, God can't have a maker. If He did, He would be just like anything else in the universe. But the Maker of the universe can't be in the universe, because nothing that is part of something makes itself.

God, being outside the universe, not only doesn't need something to make Him, but can't have something whereby He was made. If He did, He would be part of the universe, and we know that nothing makes itself out of nothing. Something else always makes it.

Proof that God doesn't need and can't have a maker.

'' Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.'' Who says so?

''If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.'' How are we going to have an example of this?

''This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.'' There is no real definition of ''outside the universe'' since it isn't know if such thing is possible

[BADecker]

There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.

Those are all "proofs" that god can't exist. I'll never understand why religious people don't ask the same questions about god. If all these things need an originator then so does god. He can't exist -- or be the original creator if we go by this logic. God would be, by definition, far more complex than us or the universe and therefor he also needs a creator. He can't just exist due to your own proofs. The truth is it's these flawed proofs that allow the religious to shut off their brain and just accept the easiest or simplest option to them -- which is, don't worry about it because god made everything. I'm sure there will always be unanswered questions about the origin of the universe but god or religions will never be able to answer them.

The point that somebody thinks that God needs a maker, is proof that God exists. Why? Here's why.

Everything we see in the universe was made by other things. Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.

The one thing we don't see at all is a thing that made the universe. We don't see this thing because it can't be in the universe. If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.

This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.

The point is, God can't have a maker. If He did, He would be just like anything else in the universe. But the Maker of the universe can't be in the universe, because nothing that is part of something makes itself.

God, being outside the universe, not only doesn't need something to make Him, but can't have something whereby He was made. If He did, He would be part of the universe, and we know that nothing makes itself out of nothing. Something else always makes it.

Proof that God doesn't need and can't have a maker.

'' Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.'' Who says so?

Show us an example of something making itself from nothing.

''If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.'' How are we going to have an example of this?

Why do you ask for an example of something you know never happens?

''This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.'' There is no real definition of ''outside the universe'' since it isn't know if such thing is possible

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it.

[Astargath]

There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.

Those are all "proofs" that god can't exist. I'll never understand why religious people don't ask the same questions about god. If all these things need an originator then so does god. He can't exist -- or be the original creator if we go by this logic. God would be, by definition, far more complex than us or the universe and therefor he also needs a creator. He can't just exist due to your own proofs. The truth is it's these flawed proofs that allow the religious to shut off their brain and just accept the easiest or simplest option to them -- which is, don't worry about it because god made everything. I'm sure there will always be unanswered questions about the origin of the universe but god or religions will never be able to answer them.

The point that somebody thinks that God needs a maker, is proof that God exists. Why? Here's why.

Everything we see in the universe was made by other things. Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.

The one thing we don't see at all is a thing that made the universe. We don't see this thing because it can't be in the universe. If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.

This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.

The point is, God can't have a maker. If He did, He would be just like anything else in the universe. But the Maker of the universe can't be in the universe, because nothing that is part of something makes itself.

God, being outside the universe, not only doesn't need something to make Him, but can't have something whereby He was made. If He did, He would be part of the universe, and we know that nothing makes itself out of nothing. Something else always makes it.

Proof that God doesn't need and can't have a maker.

'' Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.'' Who says so?

Show us an example of something making itself from nothing.

''If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.'' How are we going to have an example of this?

Why do you ask for an example of something you know never happens?

''This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.'' There is no real definition of ''outside the universe'' since it isn't know if such thing is possible

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it.

Show us an example of something that has existed forever

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it. No there isn't. As far as science knows and observes, this is the only universe but there are a lot of hypothesis about multi verses. The term ''universe'' by definition means everything, saying ''outside the universe'' makes little to no sense.

[OgNasty]

I'd like to know.... What is it that compels you to believe in God? How can you argue for his existence?

I would say I was compelled to believe in God because I was raised in a house that held religion in high esteem.  Since then I have seen a lot of good done in my local community by various churches, leading me to believe that whether or not God "exists" in a physical sense, God's impact is definitely felt and used to do a lot of good, at least in the communities where I have lived.

[BADecker]

Show us an example of something that has existed forever

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it. No there isn't. As far as science knows and observes, this is the only universe but there are a lot of hypothesis about multi verses. The term ''universe'' by definition means everything, saying ''outside the universe'' makes little to no sense.

I actually am a little surprised at you. Science attempts to extrapolate backwards millions of years, and then talk about it like it is reality. Science attempts to suggest that big bang is something that existed, but is unlike anything that we have today, even though it had the "seeds" of what the universe would become within it. But you don't even want to wrap your mind around the idea of outside-the-universe? How totally unscientific of you. Sounds like you are moving back to the limited scientific thinking from the 1800s.  

[Astargath]

Show us an example of something that has existed forever

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it. No there isn't. As far as science knows and observes, this is the only universe but there are a lot of hypothesis about multi verses. The term ''universe'' by definition means everything, saying ''outside the universe'' makes little to no sense.

I actually am a little surprised at you. Science attempts to extrapolate backwards millions of years, and then talk about it like it is reality. Science attempts to suggest that big bang is something that existed, but is unlike anything that we have today, even though it had the "seeds" of what the universe would become within it. But you don't even want to wrap your mind around the idea of outside-the-universe? How totally unscientific of you. Sounds like you are moving back to the limited scientific thinking from the 1800s.  

Define ''the idea of outside-the-universe'' then.

Universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

That's the only thing we can observe or prove.

[BADecker]

Show us an example of something that has existed forever

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it. No there isn't. As far as science knows and observes, this is the only universe but there are a lot of hypothesis about multi verses. The term ''universe'' by definition means everything, saying ''outside the universe'' makes little to no sense.

I actually am a little surprised at you. Science attempts to extrapolate backwards millions of years, and then talk about it like it is reality. Science attempts to suggest that big bang is something that existed, but is unlike anything that we have today, even though it had the "seeds" of what the universe would become within it. But you don't even want to wrap your mind around the idea of outside-the-universe? How totally unscientific of you. Sounds like you are moving back to the limited scientific thinking from the 1800s.  

Define ''the idea of outside-the-universe'' then.

Universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

That's the only thing we can observe or prove.

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

[Astargath]

Show us an example of something that has existed forever

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it. No there isn't. As far as science knows and observes, this is the only universe but there are a lot of hypothesis about multi verses. The term ''universe'' by definition means everything, saying ''outside the universe'' makes little to no sense.

I actually am a little surprised at you. Science attempts to extrapolate backwards millions of years, and then talk about it like it is reality. Science attempts to suggest that big bang is something that existed, but is unlike anything that we have today, even though it had the "seeds" of what the universe would become within it. But you don't even want to wrap your mind around the idea of outside-the-universe? How totally unscientific of you. Sounds like you are moving back to the limited scientific thinking from the 1800s.  

Define ''the idea of outside-the-universe'' then.

Universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

That's the only thing we can observe or prove.

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

None of that proves ''outside the universe'' is possible, we don't know of anything that's not in the universe, there is no point in assuming it's possible, it's scientifically not proven and even if you think it's logical that something must be outside the universe, you still have no idea what it is, so it could be anything anyways, pointless discussion.

[BADecker]

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

None of that proves ''outside the universe'' is possible, we don't know of anything that's not in the universe, there is no point in assuming it's possible, it's scientifically not proven and even if you think it's logical that something must be outside the universe, you still have no idea what it is, so it could be anything anyways, pointless discussion.

Just because none of that proves "outside the universe," doesn't mean there is no proof. I mean, there are lots of things that talk about lots of things, and yet are no proof for their existence. What of it?

The fact of everything that exists in the universe is the proof for outside-the-universe. How is it proof? We understand countless things in the universe being made by other things. We have no example of even one thing in the universe that was not made by something else, or example of even one thing that made itself. Before the universe existed, it didn't exist. After the universe started existing, it existed. Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it. That's all we see, and we see it in such quantities that it is scientifically acceptable to say that something outside the universe made the universe. Even your beloved big bang theory essentially states it.

[Astargath]

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

None of that proves ''outside the universe'' is possible, we don't know of anything that's not in the universe, there is no point in assuming it's possible, it's scientifically not proven and even if you think it's logical that something must be outside the universe, you still have no idea what it is, so it could be anything anyways, pointless discussion.

Just because none of that proves "outside the universe," doesn't mean there is no proof. I mean, there are lots of things that talk about lots of things, and yet are no proof for their existence. What of it?

The fact of everything that exists in the universe is the proof for outside-the-universe. How is it proof? We understand countless things in the universe being made by other things. We have no example of even one thing in the universe that was not made by something else, or example of even one thing that made itself. Before the universe existed, it didn't exist. After the universe started existing, it existed. Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it. That's all we see, and we see it in such quantities that it is scientifically acceptable to say that something outside the universe made the universe. Even your beloved big bang theory essentially states it.

''Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it'' No.

[BADecker]

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

None of that proves ''outside the universe'' is possible, we don't know of anything that's not in the universe, there is no point in assuming it's possible, it's scientifically not proven and even if you think it's logical that something must be outside the universe, you still have no idea what it is, so it could be anything anyways, pointless discussion.

Just because none of that proves "outside the universe," doesn't mean there is no proof. I mean, there are lots of things that talk about lots of things, and yet are no proof for their existence. What of it?

The fact of everything that exists in the universe is the proof for outside-the-universe. How is it proof? We understand countless things in the universe being made by other things. We have no example of even one thing in the universe that was not made by something else, or example of even one thing that made itself. Before the universe existed, it didn't exist. After the universe started existing, it existed. Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it. That's all we see, and we see it in such quantities that it is scientifically acceptable to say that something outside the universe made the universe. Even your beloved big bang theory essentially states it.

''Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it'' No.

As I said in another post, you aren't required to accept proof, or to state that you do if you do.

[Astargath]

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

None of that proves ''outside the universe'' is possible, we don't know of anything that's not in the universe, there is no point in assuming it's possible, it's scientifically not proven and even if you think it's logical that something must be outside the universe, you still have no idea what it is, so it could be anything anyways, pointless discussion.

Just because none of that proves "outside the universe," doesn't mean there is no proof. I mean, there are lots of things that talk about lots of things, and yet are no proof for their existence. What of it?

The fact of everything that exists in the universe is the proof for outside-the-universe. How is it proof? We understand countless things in the universe being made by other things. We have no example of even one thing in the universe that was not made by something else, or example of even one thing that made itself. Before the universe existed, it didn't exist. After the universe started existing, it existed. Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it. That's all we see, and we see it in such quantities that it is scientifically acceptable to say that something outside the universe made the universe. Even your beloved big bang theory essentially states it.

''Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it'' No.

As I said in another post, you aren't required to accept proof, or to state that you do if you do.

As I said many times, you can make as many assumptions as you want, it doesn't mean they are real. Saying ''therefore something outside the universe made it'' doesn't mean it's true since you have no evidence of it.