Challenge To Theists

When we come together to discuss the subject at hand we are left with arguing our own interpretations and common sense logic. You'll never be able to make any step beyond that fact, you can try but it's nonsensical since all our ideas about creation or the universe are personal observations. 

You can't disprove God, because as I ssid, it would undermine your argument.

You can't appeal to truth to disprove The Truth. You would undermine your own argument.

To deny The One True God is to profess nihilism.

You make the offer to prove a negative (which you have elsewhere said can't be done)

What else do you need to disprove God? We are waiting.

Debunk the following

1.Ontological argument

2.Cosmological argument

3.Moral Argument

4.Telelogical argument

So if God is everlasting, where did he come from?
The question is contradictory. God does not change, he does not move, and he didn’t come from somewhere (Hebrews 13:8). He always was, is, and is to come.

isn't it rather peculiar that we are up to 42 posts and not one piece of proof has been submitted for me to disprove?

Anyone with half a brain can see that I blatantly and sarcastically asked the rhetorical (yes, it was rhetorical)question for anyone to supply some proof.

To me, the question was rhetorical. But to anyone who does believe in God, surely the (subject of) the question is viable and verifiable.

In which case, isn't it rather peculiar that we are up to 42 posts and not one piece of proof has been submitted for me to disprove?

And, you and I know why it is a rhetorical question, now don't we?

Because we both know that there is absolutely no proof to submit, don't we?

You make the offer to prove a negative (which you have elsewhere said can't be done) Do you now believe it can be done?

You again dodged the question above.

You said your statement was rhetorical, if it was, why are you still waiting for people to offer "proof"? Were you mistaken on the nature of your statement?

1) The ontological argument, which first came about in the eleventh (century) takes into account that the mind can create its own reality. Therefore, if the mind can conceive God, the reality proves the existence of God. The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it is mostly unconditional and unchecked and gives rise to anyone to state the existence of anything that the mind can conjure up. Nowadays, this sort of reasoning has crossed from the realm of philosophy into psychiatry and the condition is most commonly known as delusion.

1.That is not true, the key here is the Maximally Great Being factor, God is a maximally great being so he must exist in every world, this is why the 1970's version of the Ontological argument is better. 

For example, if you can imagine a great pen, does it have to exist?

Well the greatest pen is an all-powerful pen like God.

2) The cosmological argument is the converse of the ontological argument in that it is contingent upon conditional factors such as "cause" or "prime mover". 

The entire argument is let down by the erroneous ultimate assumption that the conclusion to such conditions is "God".

If the universe in all its complexity had to be created by an all-powerful and vastly more complex entity called God then we have to accept that God could not have come from nowhere. Therefore an even greater power would have to have created God, and so we go further down the line to an absurd infinity of causation. 

Nevertheless, the entire cosmological argument takes one down the lazy man's explanation: what we don't know, let's call God.

2.Yet God is not bound to universal laws such as the universe, it is supernatural, that is why God could come from anywhere or always be there, it is sorta like math,it always exists and it enforces the laws in physics.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/where-did-god-come-from.html

So if God is everlasting, where did he come from?

The question is contradictory. God does not change, he does not move, and he didn’t come from somewhere (Hebrews 13:8). He always was, is, and is to come.

3) The Moral Argument: This is another argument that relies on a huge number of inter-related philosophical principals in order to give it some sort of kudos. The crux of the argument that theologians are very keen to promote is that morals come from God and without God we will have no morals. This is another horse before the cart reasoning and nowadays, through reason and practicality, we put the kibosh on such an arrogant assumption. Morals come from society and cultural views. Many of the morals we have today are completely at odds with those claimed to have come from the Biblical or Quran Gods for example.

3.Yet How can we determine whether we disagree on something, how do we feel emotions, how do we recognize them and feel that they are bad, good or not, these morals and emotions are designed in our conscience which is clearly defined in the Bible, societies moral standards have always generally been the same meaning that they really arent subjective

Without a basic compass to look at things and analyze things, our world would be so much different

4) The Telelogical Argument is attempting to marry the moral argument with solid physiology and comes horribly undone before reaching first base. Creationists love to bring out the good ole guilt trip anecdotes of Boeing 747s miraculously flying together in a dust storm or a watch being found in the sand. We have more than enough real-time evidence and reason to know that complexity is a result of randomness combined with (an awful lot of) time. In fact, created objects (such as a watch) are the result of deliberately utilizing the bare minimum of functions in order to perform a task. The human body is extremely complex, convoluted and has not the slightest bit of evidence that there was any design that went into it.

Rephrasing what I said in 2): If life is complex and had to be designed, the creator would have to be just as if not more complex. Therefore that creator would have to have been designed.

It is no more than organisms adapting haphazardly to their environment. Which brings us to order. The shape, size, and positioning of bodies in the universe are no more than the result of the law of nature. If we had cube-shaped or pyramid-shaped planets that defy the laws of nature, I would be the first person to drop to my knees and start worshiping.

4.Yet how could these things just be cosmic coincidences, I will give you some evidence and you try to write it off as a coincedence

For example, animals inherit three methods of symmetry in nature. Mathematics explains three ways of symmetry too. It lines up. The Fibonacci Sequence, a mathematical concept, is seen in nature all over the place. The sequence can be translated into a spiral and reflects the spiral of sunflowers and even hurricanes. Then, the mathematical concept of fractals where the only way an infinite number can have a perimeter is seen all around nature. From tree and plant branches and leaves, our neuron systems in our brains, and even our coastlines, fractals are everywhere in nature like it’s a mathematical constant design of Earth. Last, Animals in nature are remarkably made to make mathematical shapes and symmetrical figures like spider cobwebs and animal hexagon bee hives.{LINK}

Next, one of the obvious complex designs we see in the universe is the fine-tuning of our solar system. The universe is designed in a way for us to live to make it hard to be a coincidence. For example, the ratio of electron to proton mass is 1:1836. If the number was any larger or smaller, molecules could not form and the universe would not exist. It is incredibly lucky that the mass of protons and electrons could form molecules in the universe. Or simply, God exists. In fact, almost everything we see in the universe points to the existence of God:

1. Carbon and oxygen nuclei have finely tuned energy levels.

2. Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned, so the right kind of star can be stable.

3. Our sun is the right color. If it was redder or bluer, the photosynthetic response would be weaker.

4. Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis.

5. The earth’s distance from the sun is crucial for a stable water cycle. Too far away, and most water would freeze; too close and most water would boil.

6. The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and ozone levels are just right.

Last, remarkably the sun is 400 times larger than the moon and 400 times farther away from the moon. So the moon and the sun appear almost the exact same in the sky of Earth. This is why solar and lunar eclipses exist. To conclude, the very precise measurements of what makes life compatible and what makes the universe exists are remarkably close, precise and consistent. Is this really a coincidence? No, there is no fundamental way to explain this, except that a supernatural being fine-tuned the universe.{LINK}

But yeah,  Just  a coincedence

Yes, good questions.

oh my spam

There is no reason to continue with salixes

I heard that Lindt are making chocolate nails for Easter this year.

That gave me a chuckle.

What I am saying is that I am going to talk to you if you spam

I am prepared, right here and now to place my reputation on the line and disprove the existence of God.

My pledge is genuine and unequivocal: I am prepared to disprove the existence of God.

Tick, tock, tick, tock.....