Home › Forums › Philosophy › God's Existence as Demonstrable Truth (WARNING: Long Post)
This topic contains 20 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by 
redCanine3669 2 years, 9 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
I posted a response to PistolPete’s thread “The Case for God” and he requested that I make my response a separate topic. Though I do believe in evangelizing, I came to MGTOW to be in the company of fellow red pill men, NOT to preach. However, since a senior member believes this would make a good topic, I’ll trust his judgement. I swear that, work and my private life permitting, I will try to make time to answer any questions you have about my argument. I’ve copied the original post below, and underneath that, the link to the original thread.
ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AS A LOGICALLY DEMONSTRABLE TRUTH
This is going to be a long post. I fault no one for skipping it entirely. But if you’re going to respond to it, please read it FIRST. After that, if you have questions or counterarguments, I would love to hear them all. I do however ask for this courtesy: PLEASE be aware that I’ve debated this topic more times that I can count, and no matter how clever or intuitive your counterargument is, I guarantee I’ve heard it before, so don’t be that guy that writes “The Big Bang proves you wrong *drops mic*.”
Philosophers and theologians throughout the ages have formulated numerous proofs of God’s existence. All are valid, to an extent, but most (all but one, in fact) are flawed insofar as they don’t fully prove what they intend to prove. For instance, Anselm’s famous ontological proof of God’s existence runs like this:
1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (Definition).
2. Insofar as you can conceive of him, God exists in your mind. (First premise)
3. However, if God only exists in your mind, than he is not the greatest thing that can be conceived, because to exist in reality and in the mind is greater than to exist only in the mind. (Second premise)
4. Therefore, in order to fit his own definition, God must exist not only in your mind, but also in reality.It’s a peculiar proof. Bertrand Russell, while teaching this proof to his students, apparently suddenly stopped dead in his tracks and said, “Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound!” Russell was correct, to an extent. The proof is logically sound. There is no fallacy. But does it really prove what it attempts to prove? Looking at the outcome of the proof, the proof only demonstrates one thing: that the greatest thing in the universe must exist. Fair enough. But what is this “greatest thing”? For all we know, it may be Chuck Norris. Sure, I can imagine something greater than Chuck Norris (with some effort), but if it doesn’t exist outside my mind, than Chuck Norris is still greater, because he exists in reality. Therefore, the ontological argument isn’t a real proof of God’s existence.
There are many others like it, some of which draw very near to the truth without quite touching it. Augustine’s proof in “On Free Choice of the Will” is one of these. I won’t explain the entire proof here (it’s longer than Anselm’s), but it ends by concluding (correctly, with sound logic) that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and that truth itself, or something higher than truth, must be God. Now this presents a bit of an intellectual conundrum. Many atheists would accept the existence of truth, while denying the existence of God. Maybe Augustine is correct to say that truth is God (spoiler: he is right), but it still isn’t very helpful. The only way to prove God’s existence is to prove the existence of a being who has the properties that are attributed to him by believers. Is truth, for instance, omnipotent? Omnipresent? Omniscient? The goal of our inquiry must be to arrive at the necessary existence of a being who has the properties we ascribe to him.
From this I conclude that there is only ONE perfect proof of God’s existence. On to the proof.
Proving the existence of God is like proving the existence of gravity. We are not able to experience the cause directly, but we can reason to its existence through its effect. Last I checked, atheists don’t doubt the existence of gravity just because they can’t see it. The existence of the effect (the attraction of bodies) is self-evident, and therefore, the existence of a cause capable of bringing about that effect is necessary. Imagine that you’re walking on the beach and you find a watch half-buried in the sand. You know that it was made by man. But how do you know? You can only see the cause, not the effect. How do we know the cause was a man, and not random forces of matter and motion? The answer is that the effect is so complex that it requires a rational, intelligent agent. So here’s our first premise:
1. FOR EVERY EFFECT, THERE EXISTS A CAUSE WITH THE POWER TO BRING ABOUT THAT EFFECT.
Without a cause, there can be no effect. When the effect exists, the cause must also. Furthermore, the cause must be powerful enough to bring about the effect. Going back to the watch, one could argue that it resulted merely from scrap metal tossed into the sea and washed around by random forces until it happened to form a perfectly working watch that happens to have the right time. But one would be an idiot. Take an infinite number of monkeys, and give them all typewriters, and I guarantee that even after an infinite amount of time typing, not one would have written War and Peace. If War and Peace exists, a rational agent who wrote it must also exist (or at least, he did at some point, rest in peace Tolstoy).
Now, going back to the God question, to prove his existence, it is necessary to discover an effect that only God could have caused. Many overly zealous God-provers will point to various things and claim that only God could have caused them, but, with one exception, they all fall flat. Some argue that the only explanation for seemingly intelligent actions in irrational creatures (squirrels gathering nuts for the winter, for instance) is an intelligent designer, which is God. This is great evidence for God’s existence, but IT IS NOT PROOF. If the cause can be explained by any other cause besides God, then we have not proven that God exists, only made an argument. For all we know, aliens created animals with advanced technology, or else an intelligent designer created all the animals and then f~~~ing died. Whatever the case may be, to PROVE God’s existence, it is necessary to find an effect that only God himself could have caused.
2. EVERY PROPERTY OF A BEING IS DERIVED FROM ITS OWN NATURE, OR IS RECEIVED FROM SOMETHING ELSE.
All things that exist have certain properties. For instance, man has the ability to laugh. You have the ability to laugh because of your nature, i.e., the kind of thing that you are. Therefore, your own nature is the cause of all the properties it gives you. However, if someone spray-paints you green, your greenness is not derived from your nature (since there is nothing in man’s nature that demands he be green), but was received from an outside source. Therefore, if you possess a certain quality, but that quality is not the result of your own nature, you must have received that quality from an exterior source.
3. THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTINGENT BEING CANNOT BE A PROPERTY DERIVED FROM ITS OWN NATURE.
A “contingent being” is a being that may or may not exist. It is able to exist, but it is also able to not exist. All the things we encounter in our daily lives are contingent beings. The computer I’m typing on right now is a contingent being. It did not always exist, and, at some point in the future, it will no longer exist. But the existence of a contingent being is NOT a property of its nature. This can be shown in various ways: (1) If a contingent being had existence as part of its nature (just like man has the ability to laugh as part of his nature), it would NEVER STOP EXISTING. If existence is part of its nature, than it would necessarily have existed always, and would necessarily continue to exist forever. But contingent beings can lose their existence (i.e., stop existing), and therefore, they clearly DO NOT exist by nature. (2) The nature of a thing can be conceived of separately from the existence of that thing. For instance, I can conceive of a unicorn. By the mere fact that I conceive of it, a unicorn has a nature, i.e., certain properties and attributes. However, unicorns do not actually exist, which shows that “what is it?” and “does it exist?” are two separate questions.
4. EXISTENCE IS AN EFFECT THAT CAN ONLY BE CAUSED BY A BEING THAT HAS EXISTENCE AS A PROPERTY DERIVED FROM ITS NATURE.
What can cause existence? Only something that has existence. Why? Because as I explained above, the existence of an effect REQUIRES the existence of a cause that is able to bring about that effect. But a cause cannot produce an effect that has properties which the cause does NOT have (i.e., the cause must be greater than the effect). For example, a can of green spray-paint cannot paint you red. Therefore, existence is an effect that can only result from a cause that possesses the property of existence from its own nature.
Therefore, the conclusion is, THE FACT THAT CONTINGENT BEINGS EXIST PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF A NECESSARY BEING.
Because contingent beings are able to not exist, they do not have existence by nature, but must have received their existence (and in fact STILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE their existence) from a necessary being, i.e., a being that exists by its very nature, and therefore existed always, never began to exist, and can never cease to exist, in other words, SUBSISTENT EXISTENCE. This being not only necessarily caused the existence of all other things, but continues to uphold them in existence, because just like air cannot retain light from the sun if the sun stops shining, since it receives the property of light from an external agent, contingent beings cannot continue to exist unless the being that created them continues to cause their existence.
This being, since it is responsible for creating all things, must also have all the properties of its creatures, or it would not be a sufficient effect to cause them. Furthermore, it must have all those properties to the highest possible degree, since it has none of the limitations of a contingent being. Some of its creatures exist in a finite location, so this being exists everywhere (omnipresent). Some of its creatures are powerful, so this being is almighty (omnipotent). Some of its creatures are knowledgeable, so this being is omniscient (all-knowing). The name that we give this necessary being is God.
If you made it to the end, congratulations, and God bless you for taking the time and effort to read it. I am positive you will have questions and criticisms. That’s the necessary result of discussing something like this over the internet, as opposed to a real life discussion, where you can interject your questions as we go. I put a few common questions/critiques below for your reading pleasure.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:
1. What created God? ANSWER: Nothing. He exists by nature, so he did not need to be created. In that regard, he is fundamentally different from the things of our common experience. Everything else in the world is a contingent being, so it had to be created, but a being that has existence as a property of its nature does not need a creator.
2. Aren’t your PARENTS the cause of your existence? ANSWER: No. Your parents are the cause of your NATURE, i.e., the kind of thing you are. Your parents are the reason you are a human and not a platypus. But they do not cause you to exist. To do that, they would need to have existence by nature, but they do not, since your parents did not always exist, and are therefore contingent beings.
3. Could the universe itself be a necessary being, i.e., exist by nature? ANSWER: No. Even secular scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. Furthermore, the universe is composed of matter, and matter can cease to exist, so there is no reason why the universe cannot cease to exist, thereby showing that it does not exist by nature. Even if the universe has always existed (it has not, and this is also logically demonstrable), that would simply mean that God has always been upholding it in existence, since it cannot exist by its own nature.
4. Could there be more than one God? ANSWER: God is subsistent existence. There is only one existence, so there is only one God.
5. Why does God hide himself? Why not make his existence obvious? ANSWER: Those of us who are Catholics don’t think God is hiding. We believe he became man and walked among us, and we see him every Sunday at Mass. But he’s not hiding from atheists either. His existence is evident from the works he has made.
6. Why doesn’t God prove he exists through miracles? ANSWER: God has worked miracles, but they are a bad source of proof. Miracles can always be explained away by natural causes. If I were an atheist, seeing a man rise from the dead would not convince me that God is real, just that the doctors made a mistake, and the man wasn’t really dead. The rich man burning in hell asked Abraham to warn his brothers, and Abraham said they have the Scriptures to warn them. The rich man replies that his brothers do not believe in the Scriptures, but they will surely believe if they see a miracle. Abraham responds that if they do not believe the Scriptures, neither will they believe even if they see a man rise from the dead (Luke 16:27-31). Abraham, incidentally, was right.
7. How is this proof connected to religion? ANSWER: This proof does not attempt to prove that God became man or any of the other things that religion teaches. Those are matters of faith. I believe in God because of the proof above. I am a Catholic for other reasons. I’d be happy to answer that question in more detail, but this thread is really just about the existence of God.
I’ll add more FAQs as they occur to me.
Link to the original thread: /forums/topic/the-case-for-god/
Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.
I didn’t want your thread to go un-noticed. I’m drinking right now and cannot devote the effort to read it effectively. I will though. I love what you’re doing. Keep it up man.
I don’t think it is possible to percieve god . But i myself don’t see him as a man but a ball of energy , thats in my minds eye . F~~~ this is for the interlects . Im leaving this thread . Just going to be who i am like god intended . I love jesus and god . Does space go for ever ? I know what the meaning of life is .
Nice and simple this vvvvvvvvvvv
THE PLANTATION HAS NOW TURNED INTO THE KILLING FIELDS . WOMAN ARE NOW ROLLING CAMBODIAN STYLE .
Battle of the interlects . My money’s on trump . I will sit in the corner of this fancy bar . Do they serve beer hear or just wine . If its just wine im leaving . Lol .
THE PLANTATION HAS NOW TURNED INTO THE KILLING FIELDS . WOMAN ARE NOW ROLLING CAMBODIAN STYLE .
Take an infinite number of monkeys, and give them all typewriters, and I guarantee that even after an infinite amount of time typing, not one would have written War and Peace
How can you guarantee that? an infinite number of random keystrokes reproduces respectively produces every text possible. As “War and Peace” is a possible combination of keystrokes, it is impossible an infinte number of attempts will not result in the text. Infinte attempts produce all combinations possible and consequently also “War and Peace”.
"Him, who delights in solitude, is either a wild beast or a GOD!" - Aristotle (Aristot. Pol. 1.1253a) 1 Hom. Il. 9.63; the passage goes on: ἐστὶν ἐκεῖνος ι ὃς πολέμου ἔραται.
How can you guarantee that? an infinite number of random keystrokes reproduces respectively produces every text possible. As “War and Peace” is a possible combination of keystrokes, it is impossible an infinite number of attempts will not result in the text. Infinte attempts produce all combinations possible and consequently also “War and Peace”.
I would have to agree with Muglintar here. If you have an infinite number of possibilities, then you also will have an equally infinite number of outcomes. Eventually one monkey could theoretically create War and Peace. This is nothing more than simple probability. Yes, the outcome is very unlikely, and is probably very close to 0. However, when we are dealing with boundless opportunities it is very plausible to have an outlier come to surface, i.e. War and Peace.
In many ways I think the same logic can be used to explain the placement of the earth within our solar system. The conditions and the probability were ideal enough to produce the outcome of life. Other planets simply didn’t have the ideal conditions or had too many constraints that prevented life to flourish. The celestial body that most closely resembles Earth is the moon, Titan. This satellite orbits Saturn. It has the ideal conditions that scientist have hypothesized to support life. The atmosphere of Titan is composed mostly of Nitrogen, but also has Methane and Ethane present. Methane and Ethane are both carbonic compounds, which scientist postulate is necessary constituent for all life. Another reason why scientist believe Titan is our best bet, is due to the presence of all three states of matter. Methane can be found in solid, liquid, and gas forms on the surface. If life is confirmed to be present here, then that would change the fundamental beliefs that shape God. It wouldn’t disprove his existence, but I think it would alter how we perceive him. God would be seen more as a great mathematician who shaped the cosmos. Using probability and constraints to determine where life can evolve. He then lets free will dictate the course his creations takes. Debates such as these always draw out the peculiarities of God, and I believe that it will only bring us closer to understanding him.
Fuck bitches... literally and metaphorically
Can’t Stump Trump wrote:
Take an infinite number of monkeys, and give them all typewriters, and I guarantee that even after an infinite amount of time typing, not one would have written War and Peaceyou cant even guarantee they wouldnt write that right away, but in an infinite amout of time ( given the monkeys live infinitely long ) its 100% guaranteed that every single monkey would have written “War and Peace” at some point.
@CST, thank you for this post. Never seen the argument spelled out in this way. As cliche as it sounds, I can sum all of this up in one word, faith.
I had lost my faith in my youth and spent many decades wandering.
Although I thought I had left God, He never left me.
Although I thought I had left God, He never left me.
Yeah man what you stated struck accord with me. I wander and when I get back on course, I realize that I’m that I’m the one who abandoned him.
Fuck bitches... literally and metaphorically
Thanks for the responses, all. Sorry I’m a bit late with my replies.
I don’t think it is possible to percieve god . But i myself don’t see him as a man but a ball of energy , thats in my minds eye .
A ball of energy is perhaps more accurate than the old man with a beard in the sky which is the conception of God that most people have. God is impossible for the human intellect to comprehend because, being contingent beings, we can only understand contingent beings. Catholicism teaches that you CAN perceive God in Heaven, but that’s also a matter of faith, not something that can be proven by reason (though one can make arguments from reason for its plausibility, just not a proof).
an infinite number of random keystrokes reproduces respectively produces every text possible.
I see no reason why this should be true (nor, in fact, do I even find it plausible). I would like to hear the logic behind this premise. If I toss a coin an infinite number of times, why should it ever have to come up tails? Theoretically it can come up heads every time. Why should an infinite number of times guarantee every conceivable result? Of course it isn’t probable that this would happen, but it’s possible, so your premise already has a hole in it. Moving back to the monkey, a monkey randomly hitting a typewriter will merely continue to randomly hit the typewriter no matter how much time you give him.
Even if I grant that a monkey will eventually write War and Peace (I don’t, but let’s just say), that isn’t a problem with my argument, it just means I picked a bad example of a cause which is not capable of producing a certain effect.
If life is confirmed to be present here, then that would change the fundamental beliefs that shape God.
For some people, perhaps. It presents no difficulty to anything that I believe.
but in an infinite amout of time ( given the monkeys live infinitely long ) its 100% guaranteed that every single monkey would have written “War and Peace” at some point.
I addressed this point above, but a separate response deserves a separate reply. I neither see nor believe that this is 100% guaranteed as you say. Even in an infinite amount of time, things simply continue to act as they have always acted, according to their natures. The amount of time is, in fact, irrelevant.
@CST, thank you for this post.
You’re welcome 🙂
Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.
I addressed this point above, but a separate response deserves a separate reply. I neither see nor believe that this is 100% guaranteed as you say. Even in an infinite amount of time, things simply continue to act as they have always acted, according to their natures. The amount of time is, in fact, irrelevant.
The amount of time isnt irrelevant. Infinite is the keyword here.
I dont know from where or from who you have the monkey example from, but did you know there is a wikipedia article about it?
Seems to me that Muglintar an I were correct, just that in mathematical terms I should say the probability is 1 or use the term almost sure… instead of 100%.Infinite monkey theorem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaGiven an infinite length of time, a chimpanzee punching at random on a typewriter would almost surely type out all of Shakespeare’s plays.
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In fact the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times. However, the probability of a universe full of monkeys typing a complete work such as Shakespeare’s Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero).In this context, “almost surely” is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the “monkey” is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces an endless random sequence of letters and symbols. One of the earliest instances of the use of the “monkey metaphor” is that of French mathematician Émile Borel in 1913,[1] but the first instance may be even earlier.
Almost surely
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Probability 1” redirects here. For Rudolf Carnap’s notion of “probability1”, see Probability interpretations.
In probability theory, one says that an event happens almost surely (sometimes abbreviated as a.s.) if it happens with probability one. In other words, the set of possible exceptions may be non-empty, but it has probability zero. The concept is precisely the same as the concept of “almost everywhere” in measure theory. In probability experiments on a finite sample space there is no difference between almost surely and surely, but the distinction becomes important when the sample space is an infinite set (because an infinite set can have non-empty subsets of probability zero). Some examples of the use of this concept include the strong and uniform versions of the law of large numbers, and the continuity of the paths of Brownian motion.The terms almost certainly (a.c.) and almost always (a.a.) are also used. Almost never describes the opposite of almost surely: an event that happens with probability zero happens almost never.[1]
“Almost sure” versus “sure”[edit]
The difference between an event being almost sure and sure is the same as the subtle difference between something that happens with probability 1 and that happens always.
If an event is sure, then it will always happen, and no outcome not in this event can possibly occur. If an event is almost sure, then outcomes not in this event are theoretically possible; however, the probability of such an outcome occurring is smaller than any fixed positive probability, and therefore must be 0. Thus, one cannot definitively say that these outcomes will never occur, but can for most purposes assume this to be true.Monkeys on typewriters is a favorite example in philosophical discussions, but no, I didn’t know there was a Wikipedia page. The theorem however is mathematical, so the “monkey” is actually not a monkey, but a RNG. Since the purpose of this analogy in the original argument was to demonstrate the necessity of sufficient cause, this does no harm to the argument. With an infinite amount of time, a RNG could produce War and Peace, but the RNG itself is necessarily a product of intelligence, so the real cause of the work of art is still there.
As a side note, the theorem itself is not verifiable. Not only is it impossible to gather empirical data (the best simulators can barely get a correctly spelled word), but the so-called “proof” behind the theorem only shows that as time passes, the probability of producing a particular sequence approaches 1. However, approaches is just approaches. Nothing necessitates reaching the limit. As I stated before, it is possible to toss a coin infinite times and never get tails. The probability of eventually getting tails as time passes approaches 1, but there is no reason it must ever happen. So the theorem is false. If “almost surely” means it has a probability of one, then the result will not happen “almost surely,” because the function never REACHES 1, but only approaches it.
Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.
Good answer Can’t Stump Trump that is why it is so hard to convince people of the proof you outlined because they get stuck on one aspect without looking at the bigger picture. According to the Infinity Theory if our earth was engulfed by the sun 2 plus billion years from now and humans are completely destroyed along with planet Earth eventually somewhere else in the universe if it had infinite time span would randomly spawn another exact duplicate of Earth as it is right now with us typing out everything exactly as we are doing right now.
Is it possible that this could happen? According to the Infinity Theory yes but will it ever approach that level is the question and the answer is without God (necessary being) directing it to happen again the likelihood of this occurring again is virtually impossible. Think of how complex the mathematical equation would have to be to take into account every atom, cell, neurons, etc. that comprises every life form on earth to be placed exactly as it is currently right now on Earth. Infinity Theory with the monkey typing will never come close to be able to explain Gods creation as just a random event in space and time.
The hubris of man to use “theory” as a means to extrapolate non existence of God is what will be their downfall because their theory will never be provable on the scale needed to disprove that God exists. If scientists had an infinite amount of time to write out the mathematical formula to recreate earth and all its inhabitants and then proceed to themselves play God and recreate everything to prove it can be done without God well good luck with that it will never happen. There has to be a necessary being to create everything in order for us to exist it is not possible otherwise.
You can clone humans eventually but you would need to use the DNA that was created by God in order to do it. What I am talking about is recreating everything from scratch, the atoms, the DNA, the cells, without a already made blueprint. For example take machines as a basis of humans creating a new life form. Once we are able to program artificial intelligence would machines call humans God? We didn’t create the tools necessary to achieve this. As Can’t Stump Trump eluded to EVERY PROPERTY OF A BEING IS DERIVED FROM ITS OWN NATURE, OR IS RECEIVED FROM SOMETHING ELSE.
We had to use the materials on Earth to achieve this goal. We had to mine the metals from the earth and harness the energy necessary to power the machines. Humans did not create the energy nor did they create the metal found in the earth all we did was dig it up and reshape and harness these forces to be able to create machines.
There has to be a contingent being to create everything in order for us to exist it is not possible otherwise.
Thanks for your response, Rhino! One note, however: God is a necessary being. A contingent being is one that may or may not exist, whereas a necessary being (in fact, the necessary being, since there is only one and can only be one) exists by nature.
The hubris of man to use “theory” as a means to extrapolate non existence of God is what will be their downfall
Atheists generally say you can’t prove God exists, and you can’t prove he doesn’t, so since there’s no evidence, there’s no reason to believe in him. When you ask what was the cause of the universe, the response typically is: I don’t know, but it wasn’t God. A sort of non-argument, if you will. Sure, if you’re going to claim that God made the universe, you better have a good argument to back it up, otherwise it might as well have been the flying spaghetti monster. But the atheist line of reasoning, that it “just happened” just seems to be another flying spaghetti monster to me.
Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.
Thanks for the correction I meant to say necessary being it was changed surprised I could still edit it. Yes I was going to say the same thing that scientist have yet to prove that god does not exist but we would just be going around in circles at this point although I alluded to it in the above post.
I read the KJV bible a lot. so sometimes I write “man” instead of “person,” or “he” instead of “he or she.”
some people call me sexist for that.
I read the KJV bible a lot. so sometimes I write “man” instead of “person,” or “he” instead of “he or she.”
some people call me sexist for that.
Don’t worry about what other people think or call you everyone wants to be politically correct in our modern world but you don’t have to be. You are your own person and can write whoever you want.
Lee Strobel was a investigative journalist for the Chicago Tribune who set out to disprove the existence of God because he was in his own words a atheist. In the documentary Lee gives us more in depth insight and reasons as to why he didn’t believe in God. Usually I hear there is no evidence, there is no proof, we are brought up in an age of science there is no room for god as reasons to not believe in him.
Lee goes into better detail for his reasons as to why he didn’t want to believe and I suspect there are many more atheists out there like him. I transcribed parts of the video that made me realize and understand from this specific atheists perspective his thought process for not wanting to believe in God it was very interesting.
“I just thought the idea of an all powerful, all loving creature of the universe was just an absurd idea on the surface of it. It wasn’t worth my time to check out. As far as Jesus was concerned I thought that if he existed, and I wasn’t sure if he ever or not did; he was probably a nice guy, probably an excellent teacher, but he certainly wasn’t the Messiah, and certainly wasn’t the Son of God.”
“Now my wife is in more spiritual neutral, she was more of an agnostic where I was more antagonistic towards Christians.”
I don’t want to ruin the entire documentary for those who want to watch it but here is another part that stood out for me.
“This whole case was like one of those jigsaw puzzles where you don’t know what the ultimate pictures going to be. You just put together the pieces and then as I am putting together all of the evidence it started to take shape, and I sort of stepped back and I could see that it was a portrait of Jesus Christ.”
“This was not just a intellectual journey; there was a very real emotional component to this because I would find things along the way that would challenge me and my world view on a very deep level and I would recoil from it and I wouldn’t want to believe it. I mean there was so many reasons why I didn’t want there to be a God because I did not want to be held accountable for my life.” (42 min into video for reference).
That last quote really made me understand where he was coming from as to why he just did not want there to be a God. His journey through this process was very informative and I encourage anyone that wants to watch the video to do so you may or may not get something out of it but I don’t think it would be a waste of your time.
Don’t worry about what other people think
thanks man. yeah, the dude who said that is homosexual and gets p~~~ed whenever I tell people I would prefer to have a partner who I can impregnate. and he hates kids. so I’m not too worried about him.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
