PS- If it makes you feel better then by all means consider atheism a religion ... you know how I feel about them.

I said this

becasue you said this:

BoobzTwo #11

According to your own statement # 11, you should be happy to provide proof of what you believe---namely---- that there is no God.

..........................

Of course the existence of God has been proven. There is plenty of evidence that God exists.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is famous for his 5 proofs for the existence of God.  The basic premiss of his reasoning is this...if one pays close attention to the created world, study it, that one will inevitably be led to the conclusion that the only possible explanation for universe is the existence of a Creator, an all-knowing, all-powerful Being.

Then there is the argument of causality. There is no case in the world of sense in which a thing is the efficient cause of itself becasue it would have to be prior to itself, which is impossible.

The universe, limited, in all its details, could not be its own cause. It could no more come together with all its regulating laws that have been discussed on this thread so elequently than the San Francisco Harbor Bridge could just happen or a clock could assemble itself and keep perfect time without a bridge or clock-maker.

On the same principle, if there was no God, there would be no one to dispute His existence.

 And another indication of God's existence is universal reasoning or natural intuition of men. God and His handiwork is so clearly impressed upon creation that all intuitively know that there is a God. Given the fact that all people in all times have believed in some kind of supreme being, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a justification for that belief. Men do not have to persuade themselves that there is a God, rather they have to try to persuade themselves that there is no God.

The 4th  indication that God exists is from conscience which calls attention to the fact that all people in all times have a sense of right and wrong which transcends all cultures. The voice of conscience dictates to us a law which we did not make and which no man could have mad. This voice is often against what we wish to do, warning us beforehand, condemning us after its violation. The law dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a lawgiver who has written His law in our hearts. As God alone could do this, it is certain that He exists.

Finally, justice itself demands that there be a God. The very sense of justice amongst us resulting in law courts, supposes a Just God. We didn't give oursleves our sense of justice. It comes from Whoever made us, and no one can give what he does not possess himself. Yet, justice cannot always be done by men in this world. Here, good men suffer and the wicked prosper. And, even though human justice does not always balance the scales, they will be balanced some day by a Just God who most certainly does exist.

Then what are you living for?

There are numerous things I could tell you, things I consider quite true but improvable (to you) for a myriad of reasons. I could tell you that there is no life on the moon … but I cannot prove it. I could tell you I believe e=mc^2 … but I cannot prove it.  I could tell you the age of the universe and the age of the earth but I could not prove it and here you would not believe me anyway. What I can do is tell you that nothing is nothing and needs no explanation, but I guess I cannot even prove that to you, go figure. I will not pander to this theological nonsense any more as I have told you a thousand times I DO NOT DO THEOLOGY. I have not seen so much doubletalk as you are wanting, as usual.

1. “if one pays close attention to the created world, study it, that one will inevitably be led to the conclusion that the only possible explanation for universe is the existence of a Creator”
2. “Then there is the argument of causality.” (Ever seen a child birth?),
3.  “or a clock could assemble itself”
4. “The universe, limited, in all its details, could not be its own cause.”
5. “On the same principle, if there was no God, there would be no one to dispute His existence.”,
6. “And another indication of God's existence is universal reasoning or natural intuition of men”,
7. “Given the fact that all people in all times have believed in some kind of Supreme Being, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a justification for that belief.  
8. “The 4th indication that God exists is from conscience which calls attention to the fact that all people in all times have a sense of right and wrong which transcends all cultures.”
9. “The voice of conscience dictates to us a law which we did not make and which no man could have made.”
10. “The law dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a lawgiver who has written His law in our hearts.”
11. “As God alone could do this, it is certain that He exists.”
12. “The very sense of justice amongst us resulting in law courts, supposes a Just God.”
13. “We didn't give ourselves our sense of justice.”
14. “It comes from Whoever made us, and no one can give what he does not possess himself”
15. “Finally, justice itself demands that there be a God”
16. “And, even though human justice does not always balance the scales, they will be balanced someday by a Just God who most certainly does exist.”

Is there any wonder why we cannot communicate? I can now understand why you need someone to try and prove god exists for you because you surely do not know how. Not that anyone else can either, so you are in good company … I guess. Sorry if I have offended you but you here but I am tired of this. All I do is express my beliefs and all you do is tell me how wrong they are … not my Idea of a conversation.

5:30 in the morning! You might have more luck if you knocked on doors at banking hours!

But I am trying.

C'mon...don't turn it around. What else do I have to go on other than what you said? So let's be clear....You made the claim you believe things on proof and based on that, I asked you to prove what you claim to believe....that God does not exist.

I didn't ask you to prove that God exists, why would I? I already know that He exists and gave St. Thomas' 5 proofs. It is true though that I am in good company with St. Thomas Aquinas. 

..................

OK, I suppose in order to fully grasp Saint Thomas' 5 proof for the existence of God may require some background in theological thinking. However, his proofs given above is for a general audience for they begin with plain everyday things with which we are familiar....causality, the fact that things come to be and cease to be, the fact of conscience, etc.

Back to one of your statements in the original article....

Interesting that you describe this list as "concepts". Lying, deceit, murder and deception are human actions; and more to the point...they are sinful actions in my book.

We agree that they were in existence long before recorded time. As far back as the beginning of the human race for these are actions of our disordered nature after the Fall of Adam and Eve.  

Nothing = nothing … no proof at all is needed to prove it. Therefore, when you are asking me to prove god doesn’t exist (nothing?) … you are in effect asking me to first prove for you that god exists, in order to afford me the chance to disprove it, which of course couldn’t be done then because I would have already proved his existence. Simply put, I can support those things I believe in and I cannot those things that I don’t believe in (self-explanatory?) or that someone else believes in. I don’t know about you, but I just do not have the time or inclination to try and justify nothing when I have so much trouble just trying to justify what I do believe in??? Sorry Lula, turned nothing around here. They still teach logic in religious schools don’t they?

Lula, it is not a matter of understanding ...  it is just a matter of acknowledging and accepting the facts such as they are. You know that there is nothing I can say to you unless it comes from your archives ... because you will believe nothing else, so if there is some point here, I do not see it, sorry

BoobzTwo post #11

#26

Saying "nothing equals nothing" does not satisfy nor end the question of proving your belief that denies the existence of Almighty God. Sorry, it just doesn't.

......

Let's be clear, contemporary technology has provided no such thing. Contemporary man, such as Robert Gilman, who believe in pseudo scientific evolution theory, has however.

In another blog you explained:

Whenever I reference ‘The Human Story’, all reference point to the factual evolution of humanity....... Things like this Robert Gilman - The Human Story - Our bodies contain ancient hydrogen formed in the first moments of the universe. Our carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and all the other heavy elements in our bodies, are the gift of supernova stars. Our cells have been perfected by the patient workings of countless bacteria through billions of years, and our organs are the gift of thousands of species that evolved during the past billion years. Our bodies are, in a sense, simply a regrouping of very ancient materials …Etc.

Evolutionists have provided a genealogy evolutionary formula for making the universe: Stellar evolution which is based on the concept that nothing can explode and produce the universe.

Nothing + nothing = 2 elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

@Boobztwo: What I mean by faith is the 100% certainty that it is the truth.  Atheists have so far failed to explain questions like the big bang but have 100% certainty of faith in Atheism and that these will likely be explained in the future without the higher intelligence element behind it all.  Even if it is not explained, it won't matter because they have faith in Atheism being right.  Agnosticism on the other hand is not 100% certain, does not try to be 100% certain until proven and is the only unbiased neutral view of the three.

What I don't understand is how you claim to at one time be an Agnostic.  Then decide you can't take such a grand matter on faith but then convert to a faith based ideology called Atheism over a non-faith based one called Agnosticism.  I am confused on on the logic of your decision making.  Why would you move from a non-faith based ideology to a faith based one if you are trying to escape faith based ideologies because of the grandness of the matter and past failures to settle it one way or another?  That's hypocritical, it simply does not compute.

You see, through my own personal studies I've found all these ridiculous hypocritical flaw holes in the most outspoken people's logic that are so big it's the Grand Canyon.  Here is an example, side A believes there is a gay gene but also believes in evolutionary Darwinism.  When questioned on how the gay gene makes sense according to evolutionary Darwinism, they usually can't answer or end the argument with name calling and a few tell me it is actually superior for reproduction which makes zero sense.  Point is until Atheists openly admit Atheism is faith based they are living under an arrogant delusion which ironically is what many hypocritically accuse the theists.  The truth would shatter their egos.

@lulapilgrim: I'll have to PM you later.  You need to read more T. Aquinas if you plan on quoting him.

Lula posts:

BT posts:

No, it wasn't contention on my part. The point is that in all discussions words and their meanings matter and it was interesting  to me that you think of lying and murder as "concepts". That's all!

..........................