Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I

[steelfirehawk]

it's simply easier to allow oneself to believe we evolved from monkeys to enable ourselves to be compulsive in the flesh like animals. People don't want to believe in God so they can do what they want without any regard to a higher power that judges purely, and righteously.

[Sabo-go-thud]

Okay....I want to break this down a little more. Not to prove/disprove an overall force that drives our reality, but ask...."can you prove I (@sabo-goes-thud) exist?" Or anyone else here.

Are you sure your talking to a human or a line of code or a lizard of the Illumina?

[pe7erpark3r]

@steelfirehawk said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

I can prove God exists, but it's a long story, and even still an individual can choose to not believe me, even with evidence. I'll use the signs of my life that are easy to research...

You have got to be very very careful with those playing with those numbers. Because the problem is, you can easily find connections anywhere. For example a lot of people in indiana where conceived by a woman named deanna. Since your name is Steel, and your friends might have heard the name of the beer in commercial a couple of times, it is rather likely that you would get exactly that nickname. By what rule should there be a connection with the album that is called 2112? Would there be the same connection if it was called 2211 or 2121? You know what I mean? You will see connections everywhere, if you look for this kind of connection, because there are connections like this anywhere.

And last but not least, there is a certain amount of coincidences that simply must happen in everybodies life! Just simply because their propability is in fact this high. Sorry, but IMHO the things you listed do not even qualify as evidence.

Seeing demons flee however would qualify as evidence, if you really saw them with your own eyes, which I doubt is what you mean by that. It really depends on exactly what you saw, wether it could be called evidence. However you must know that it wouldn't be proof. Seeing any kind of creature in this earth, even if it was a demon, would not prove God's existence. A real life demon apearing is strong evidence, but it is not proof.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Sabo-go-thud said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

Okay....I want to break this down a little more. Not to prove/disprove an overall force that drives our reality, but ask...."can you prove I (@sabo-goes-thud) exist?" Or anyone else here.

Are you sure your talking to a human or a line of code or a lizard of the Illumina?

There is an important difference between proving God's existence and the existence of literally anything or anyone else. Because there could be something that God must be, which you and me are not: necessary.

But we can break this down further if you want. It could be the case that we are not able to think. It could indeed be the case, that our thoughts don't really make any sense at all. It's just that they seem to make sense to us. Ergo, it could be that all our conclusions are wrong. It could be, that you are dreaming this whole world up, that nothing is real, and you could not prove anything, because you cannot really think. But there is one thing, that cannot be denied by you. That one thing is you. Because you experience. And experience requires a space in which it can happen. This space is you (your consciousness).

Now lets assume again, that our thoughts do indeed work, which is what you do, when you live your life (you do think, that you understand how your car works, or else you wouldn't dare to drive the hellish thing aye?). Now you have a problem. Because now you know that you exist, because you experience. The problem is this: Why do you exist? Why in the world would anything exist? And a reason seems to be necessary. Ergo. It could be possible to prove God (the reason), while it is impossible to prove to you, that I (or anyone else) exists, with the same clarity.

[Jeebuz]

I believe that God exists as a manifestation of our own intellectual evolution. To put it simply, God is the default placeholder for most people for everything unknown because that is simpler than not knowing. So to answer your question there is no way, yet, of knowing either way 😊

[pe7erpark3r]

@Jeebuz said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

I believe that God exists as a manifestation of our own intellectual evolution. To put it simply, God is the default placeholder for most people for everything unknown because that is simpler than not knowing. So to answer your question there is no way, yet, of knowing either way 😊

Thank God our times have been doing great at putting an end to using God as a placeholder for everything unknown! But we might have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater too :joy:.

You are absolutely right btw., in the scientific sense (e.g. test → measure → interpret results), and it will also stay that way. Because whatever God is, He is not (a he :joy:...) anything like this world. He wouldn't be God if we could measure Him. In fact that is the whole dilemma: God could be doing absolutely nothing, and He would still be real and we could never measure Him (just like the parts of the universe that drift away from us faster than the speed of light) and He could also be doing lots and lots of things and they would just appear random to any measuring device...

But I'll write about another one of the ways to God, that'll really get you thinking soon.

[Jeebuz]

@petrapark3r Thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent response. :) I am glad I found this site now!

I find the biggest issue with us trying to understand or even discover the existence of a God, is our somewhat ignorance of the fact that we may not even have the capability/means to do so. I mean that is like us expecting a programmed character in a computer game to develop awareness of their programmer's (God) world, something that doesn't even exist or have any measurable connection within their own environment/programming.

My strongest hypothesis (and secretly hoping) :) would be that we are some form of advanced symbiosis between our human lives and another form of life, similar I guess to a kind of virtual reality system. What else could it be right :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

[Zack Williamson]

@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

In history – that is in a history when still anybody believed that there was a God or were gods – people already wanted to know. The idea of proving God seemed to be especially popular at the beginning of the last millenium. The first one to come up with such a "proof" was the monk Anselm of Canterbury. This is a short summary of his argument:

I see how many times you try to prove god. But of course all of your attempts are ridiculous. Try to differ between argument and proof, there is a lots of difference between both terms. I bet this argument is not free from flaws which ill prove for you. https://wikidiff.com/argument/proof
Note- You won't repeat god of gaps or argument from ignorance, divine fallacy, straw-man arguments, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, appeal to logic, existential fallacy, argumentum ad populam, appeal to probability or any other logical fallacy as per as you did in previous topic. You should accept this guideline.

• Everybody can agree on the following definition: God is that above which you can think nothing greater

This is not a correct definition of God. It is given by a Christian Anselm. Check definition with google. https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/god

• Now think God like this, but think that he does not exist

Devil/satan is that above which you can think nothing more evil. Now think satan like this, but think that he does not exist

• Woops, you can think of something higher can't you? Because a God who does exist, is definitely greater than one who doesn't

You can something more evil cant you ? Because a satan does exist, is definitely more evil than one who doesn't

• Ergo: Our mind is not capable of thinking God without also thinking that he exists

Our mind is not capable of thinking Satan without also thinking that he exists

Now for the million ₫ question (currency: vietnamese dong) : Why does this argument not prove that god exists?

Now for the million ₫ question (currency: vietnamese dong) : Why does this argument not prove that satan exists

Haha funny. There is no theist till the date who will accept both devil and god exist simultaneously. Try to differ both terms 'conceive' and 'real'. Devil, satan, angel, god are just concepts, it does not matter they come in our mind or not rather then they must really exist in physical world.

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and the (b) ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. An existing god therefore wouldn't be a being greater than which a greater cant be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a god which did not exist
7. Ergo, god doesn't exist.

@steelfirehawk said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

it's simply easier to allow oneself to believe

Believe is a faith without evidence. I refer you to differentiate some terms. Science is based on empirical evidences and theories. It is not based on imagination or faith.

we evolved from monkeys to enable ourselves to be compulsive in the flesh like animals. People don't want to believe in God so they can do what they want without any regard to a higher power that judges purely, and righteously.

Morality does not stem from god. We were evolved and we had jealous genes yet we were altruistic. I give you an evidence of animals, they still save one-another and somehow they kill each-other too. Do animals obey any dogmatic religion ? No. I bet you became a religious man after the terror and fear of your God. Fear of transgression, fear of calling racist, fear of calling kafir, fear of punishment, fear of death, fear of gays, fear of calling fool etc. Please visit a middle-eastern country, for your own sake. I hope you will change your assertions about how atheists are being treated there.

@Sabo-go-thud said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

Are you sure your talking to a human or a line of code or a lizard of the Illumina?

I can visit you anytime, I cannot visit him anytime. You type on a keyboard, is not a miracle. Thus, analogy you to god is basically absurd

[Lazz]

@pe7erpark3r Ideas exist. God exists, at the very least as an idea. Whether God is this supreme omnipotent being is debatable, but just someone having an idea of God causes his/hers/its existence. Or is the result of. Whichever.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Vex-Man said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

In history – that is in a history when still anybody believed that there was a God or were gods – people already wanted to know. The idea of proving God seemed to be especially popular at the beginning of the last millenium. The first one to come up with such a "proof" was the monk Anselm of Canterbury. This is a short summary of his argument:

I see how many times you try to prove god. But of course all of your attempts are ridiculous. Try to differ between argument and proof, there is a lots of difference between both terms. I bet this argument is not free from flaws which ill prove for you. https://wikidiff.com/argument/proof
Note- You won't repeat god of gaps or argument from ignorance, divine fallacy, straw-man arguments, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, appeal to logic, existential fallacy, argumentum ad populam, appeal to probability or any other logical fallacy as per as you did in previous topic. You should accept this guideline.

Sorry for the late reply, I've been very busy IRL. You should read what I write more carefully. I clearly said here that this is no proof at all. Also I wrote this before our conversation :yum:

• Everybody can agree on the following definition: God is that above which you can think nothing greater

This is not a correct definition of God. It is given by a Christian Anselm. Check definition with google. https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/god

You have a better definiton of God? I think this one is perfect. I mean of course there are other ideas of other God's like roman Gods or hinduistic Gods, but this is the perfect definition of the one absolute being, that fits also the christian God, the origin of all.

• Now think God like this, but think that he does not exist

Devil/satan is that above which you can think nothing more evil. Now think satan like this, but think that he does not exist

• Woops, you can think of something higher can't you? Because a God who does exist, is definitely greater than one who doesn't

You can something more evil cant you ? Because a satan does exist, is definitely more evil than one who doesn't

• Ergo: Our mind is not capable of thinking God without also thinking that he exists

Our mind is not capable of thinking Satan without also thinking that he exists

You have missed the point. Just because one island is bigger than the other does not mean it exists. Just because someone who exists is more evil than someone who doesn't, does not mean he exists. This argument works only with the God of above definition, and with nothing and noone else. If you do not agree, that just means you have not understood the argument.

Now for the million ₫ question (currency: vietnamese dong) : Why does this argument not prove that god exists?

Now for the million ₫ question (currency: vietnamese dong) : Why does this argument not prove that satan exists

Haha funny. There is no theist till the date who will accept both devil and god exist simultaneously. Try to differ both terms 'conceive' and 'real'. Devil, satan, angel, god are just concepts, it does not matter they come in our mind or not rather then they must really exist in physical world.

The argument does not prove that God exists, because it concludes from the pure world of thought to the real world. But other than that the argument is sound, and it does not work for Satan, because Satan is not that "above which nothing greater can be thought". It only works with God.

There are lots of believers and theologicians who both accept that God exists and the devil, for the devil is not defined as that below which nothing more evil can be thought. The devil is defined as simply a created being, like you or me, who has completely decided against God. E.g. evil itself is defined as the absolute absence of God. This is like with light (this comparison is an anecdote from Albert Einstein btw.), you can measure light, because it is something, it is real. You cannot measure darkness. Darkness is simply the absence of light.

@steelfirehawk said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

it's simply easier to allow oneself to believe

Believe is a faith without evidence. I refer you to differentiate some terms. Science is based on empirical evidences and theories. It is not based on imagination or faith.

It is also based on axioms, improvable assumptions based on... well nothing but the fact, that without them science does not make sense... but I do agree that simply believing something without any evidence or reason to believe is indeed irrational...

we evolved from monkeys to enable ourselves to be compulsive in the flesh like animals. People don't want to believe in God so they can do what they want without any regard to a higher power that judges purely, and righteously.

Morality does not stem from god.

Thinking about morality does not require God, true. But immorality requires you to either think that God does not care, to make up an unjustified concept of God that allows you to be immoral, or – the easiest – to think that God does not exist. It is not surprising that people statistically assume that atheists are more readily doing evil than believers.

We were evolved and we had jealous genes yet we were altruistic. I give you an evidence of animals, they still save one-another and somehow they kill each-other too. Do animals obey any dogmatic religion ? No. I bet you became a religious man after the terror and fear of your God. Fear of transgression, fear of calling racist, fear of calling kafir, fear of punishment, fear of death, fear of gays, fear of calling fool etc. Please visit a middle-eastern country, for your own sake. I hope you will change your assertions about how atheists are being treated there.

Thank god we live in christian countries where freedom is written in capital letters. But you are right, even many christians fear God. But that is just a result of not trusting Him. Of course God is just and against sin, because without justice there would not be mercy, only tolerance. And God is all merciful, for He loves us more than you could ever imagine. He will forgive you all the evil you do, and bring you back to Him if you just let Him. Therefore it is wrong to fear Him, for He only wants happiness and peace for you for all eternity. If you really trusted Him you would see, that He's ever so gentle, lovingly intervening, when you stray. The problem is just, that many people do not wake up, if they are not shocked. So sometimes He can put things rather strongly. But that too is just to bring people back to Him, who is only Love. So, do not fear God, only adore Him (the "fear of God" in the bible does not mean being scared, it means to know that God is Holy and to lower your head in front of Him, so He can lift you.)

[bye69]

@pe7erpark3r GOD will exist if you want him/her to exist. This is the essence of faith.

[Zack Williamson]

You have a better definiton of God? I think this one is perfect I mean of course there are other ideas of other God's like roman Gods or hinduistic Gods,

There are many definitions available on the internet. They are universal definitions of God/s

but this is the perfect definition of the one absolute being,

Absolute being is one who is combination of present, past and future. Devil can be absolute one as well.

that fits also the christian God, the origin of all.

Allah says he is the origin of all things, Brahma says he is the ultimate creator. Who is true ?

You have missed the point. Just because one island is bigger than the other does not mean it exists.

The point is not which island is bigger. The point is how many trees can be found in both islands. I can think of an island which has a great number of trees, but I can think of another island which has more trees than previous one. I can count how exactly they are in numbers. Can’t I ? B an island has greater number of trees than that of island A. Island C has more trees than that of island B. And so on. Take the example of bigger island now. I can measure the exact length of island with kms, then i can conceive one more island which is bigger than previous one. There might be more more more island and none of them would really exist.

Just because someone who exists is more evil than someone who doesn't, does not mean he exists.

‘Greatness’ or 'perfectness' or 'absolute one' is just a property and property cannot be reduced to existence. There has been a lot of debate among philosophers on this subject. Kant really won this debate. ‘Evilness’ is also a property. This argument has been refuted by Hume and Kant together.

This argument works only with the God of above definition, and with nothing and noone else.

This is not true. The argument was given by Anselm and he himself said about ‘being’. Check this argument from internet. Kant compared two beings A and B. It is plausible to suppose that a sufficient condition for entity A being greater than entity B is that A has all and only the properties that B has except that A has, in addition, a property P that makes A more valued or prized than B. On this account, a judgment that A is a greater entity than B, given that A is exactly the same as B, except that A exists and B does not, assumes that existence is a property of A. However, the assumption that existence is a property of objects is a very controversial one; and insofar as the ontological argument makes this assumption, it is not a dearly sound argument. Kant's point still has force:
By whatever and by however many predicates we may think a thing-even if we completely determine it-we do not make the least addition to the thing when we further declare that this thing is. Otherwise, it would not be exactly the same thing that exists. but something more than we had thought in the concept; and we could not, therefore, say that the exact object of my concept exists.

But other than that the argument is sound, and it does not work for Satan, because Satan is not that "above which nothing greater can be thought".

Again, ‘greater’ is just a property like ‘more evil'. Satan is one “above which nothing more evil can be thought”. Existence of devil is perfect than that of non-existence.

There are lots of believers and theologians who both accept that God exists and the devil, for the devil is not defined as that below which nothing more evil can be thought.

This argument was based on old testament and it itself said, “the fool has said in his heart, that there is no God”.
You just need to use the reductio ad absurdum technique: I can define “Ultimate Underwear” as the greatest underwear that can be conceived (e.g. it washes itself, it doesn’t stink, it fits all waists, etc). By Anselm’s logic this underwear must exist. Similarly, the greatest possible potato chip, dog, cricket bat, and so on, must exist. This is false.

The devil is defined as simply a created being, like you or me, who has completely decided against God.

Evolved being only if we consider ourselves*. Hinduism and Islam are agree with ‘absence of god is devil and absence of devil is God. And perhaps, OT of bible was also agree with it (the source where the argument was derived).

This is like with light (this comparison is an anecdote from Albert Einstein btw.), you can measure light, because it is something, it is real. You cannot measure darkness. Darkness is simply the absence of light.

Subjective vs objective, science is objective and is not subjective like people thoughts about devil-god. For atheist philosophers, human is the god/(s).

It is also based on axioms, improvable assumptions based on... well nothing but the fact,

Non-empirical assumptions are based on empirical knowledge. Anselm's argument was flawed with circular logic. However, you've chosen less flawed version.

I think above things do not matter because I just noticed someone else has answered better than mine on this same thread.

But immorality requires you to either think that God does not care, to make up an unjustified concept of God that allows you to be immoral, or – the easiest – to think that God does not exist.

You forgot about the most peaceful religion of this whole effing universe is atheist - Jainism. They do not even kill insects, nor they kill crops-worms. The Jains preach a doctrine of utter nonviolence. While the Jains believe many improbable things about the universe, they do not believe the sorts of things that lit the fires of the Inquisition. You probably think the Inquisition was a perversion of the "true" spirit of Christianity. Perhaps it was. The problem, however, is that the teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries.

It is not surprising that people statistically assume that atheists are more readily doing evil than believers.

I see, you bring communism vs Nazism in every conversation. Why don’t you check pornhub and try to insert a word a ‘priest’ or ‘church’ in search ? My friend told to me a day before yesterday that he was enjoying some gangbang porns of christian priests. As you know I am an atheist, I do not believe in anything very quickly. After-all, I do not watch porns (watching porns may decrease brain's grey matter) so I tried to look for internet data instead. https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/stories/hidden-wounds-christians-say-rape-is-common-persecution-method-against-women/
History is the victim of the statistics- 30 percent fights for the name of religion
Rest 70 percent- not for the name of atheism but they were fought for resources, land acquisition and border disputes.

Communism did not fight for the name of atheism, Nazism did fight for the name of religion. Communism fight for their doctrine and atheism does not have a doctrine. Communism has a dogma so as christianism has. Communism has heroes marx, stalin, mao, lenin and they were founders of marxism, maosim, leninism etc. Athe is not a guy like christ, mao or marx. Christian communism is also a branch of marxist communism. Communism is said to be a political religion. They should read Jainism books and follow it first rather than believing in any thing else. It’s true that the tyrannical communist regimes of Mao and Stalin were opposed to religion, with religious belief discouraged and punished under their rule. This had less to do with atheism and more to do with the threat of religion as competition with their own tyrannical plans. Totalitarian regimes are built on dogma and fear, not freedom of speech and inquiry. In this way, they greatly resemble religion. In effect, these leaders essentially created religions and inserted themselves at the top as new deities. The problem with communism, however, is not that it is too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions.” This cult of personality are not derived from atheism, and it is hard to see how one could argue that its activities were representative of atheists as a whole.Indeed, many free, irreligious nations, such as Denmark and Sweden, are among the most peaceful and prosperous countries in the world. The point, however, is not to say that atheism necessarily causes people to be happier or more prosperous. What is clear, however, is that atheism does not lead to violence, tyranny or genocide any more than religiosity guarantees a peaceful and prosperous nation. The world’s religions have rules and holy books that tell their followers what’s wrong or right and how to behave. Thus, it is reasonable to hold a religion accountable for the message that it preaches. There are no holy atheist scriptures, no atheist pope and no atheist rituals, tenets, creeds, code or authority. Atheism cannot be held accountable for the activities of atheists in the same way that religion can be judged by its doctrine because atheism has no doctrines.

But you are right, even many christians fear God. But that is just a result of not trusting Him. Of course God is just and against sin, because without justice there would not be mercy, only tolerance. And God is all merciful, for He loves us more than you could ever imagine. He will forgive you all the evil you do, and bring you back to Him if you just let Him. Therefore it is wrong to fear Him, for He only wants happiness and peace for you for all eternity. If you really trusted Him you would see, that He's ever so gentle, lovingly intervening, when you stray. The problem is just, that many people do not wake up, if they are not shocked. So sometimes He can put things rather strongly. But that too is just to bring people back to Him, who is only Love

Worse still is the concept of hell, where non-believers suffer in eternal torment simply for disbelieving in God. Indeed, this torture is supposedly granted even to theists who believe in the wrong gods. If the Christian religion is the “right” one, every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Jew would burn in hell for eternity (John 3:18-36, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 and Revelation 21:8), and this rule is the same for other religions that believe in the concept of hell, such as Islam:
Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. (Quran 4:56)

So, do not fear God, only adore Him (the "fear of God" in the bible does not mean being scared, it means to know that God is Holy and to lower your head in front of Him, so He can lift you.)

An all-loving god would surely not damn his children to an eternity of torture simply for being born into a culture that believes in the wrong deity, follows the wrong holy book or attends the wrong type of church services.

@Sha-WARM-a said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

@pe7erpark3r GOD will exist if you want him/her to exist. This is the essence of faith.

I couldn't understand what you were trying to say but here is a quote. Did you mean it is your will for wanting him to exist ?

[bye69]

@Vex-Man What I wanted to say is that the existence of God depends on the person.
Believing that he exists without proof is called faith.

No Science can prove its existence. If there is then, this question has long been answered!

Obviously, we cannot determine his existence if you are asking for a real being? We cannot compare whats real and whats imaginary in the first place. Can you add an imaginary number to a real number? Of course not! At least you need a physical representation of the imaginary number to add them!.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Vex-Man said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

You have missed the point. Just because one island is bigger than the other does not mean it exists.

The point is not which island is bigger. The point is how many trees can be found in both islands. I can think of an island which has a great number of trees, but I can think of another island which has more trees than previous one. I can count how exactly they are in numbers. Can’t I ? B an island has greater number of trees than that of island A. Island C has more trees than that of island B. And so on. Take the example of bigger island now. I can measure the exact length of island with kms, then i can conceive one more island which is bigger than previous one. There might be more more more island and none of them would really exist.

As I said, you have missed the point: You cannot conclude from the greatness or greaterness or more-number-ness of anything (other than God) to its existence. The only reason why this works with that-which-is-greater-than-anything-you-can-think-of, because the fact that you cannot think of anything greater is what defines it. The island with its number of trees is not defined by the fact that you cannot think of anything greater. God however is defined as that-which-is-greater-than-anything-you-can-think-of and thus His existence necessarily follows from that definition.

Just because someone who exists is more evil than someone who doesn't, does not mean he exists.

‘Greatness’ or 'perfectness' or 'absolute one' is just a property and property cannot be reduced to existence. There has been a lot of debate among philosophers on this subject. Kant really won this debate. ‘Evilness’ is also a property. This argument has been refuted by Hume and Kant together.

This argument works only with the God of above definition, and with nothing and noone else.

This is not true. The argument was given by Anselm and he himself said about ‘being’.

Philosophers and words ... wether its a God or a being is not relevant. What is relevant is only the definition greater than anything that can be thought of not about wether its a being or God.

Check this argument from internet. Kant compared two beings A and B. It is plausible to suppose that a sufficient condition for entity A being greater than entity B is that A has all and only the properties that B has except that A has, in addition, a property P that makes A more valued or prized than B. On this account, a judgment that A is a greater entity than B, given that A is exactly the same as B, except that A exists and B does not, assumes that existence is a property of A. However, the assumption that existence is a property of objects is a very controversial one; and insofar as the ontological argument makes this assumption, it is not a dearly sound argument. Kant's point still has force:
By whatever and by however many predicates we may think a thing-even if we completely determine it-we do not make the least addition to the thing when we further declare that this thing is. Otherwise, it would not be exactly the same thing that exists. but something more than we had thought in the concept; and we could not, therefore, say that the exact object of my concept exists.

Indeed, and since the definition is not about a 'being' and wether it has the property 'existence' but simply that-which-is-greater-than-anything-that-can-be-thought-of. These are my words, this is the definition as I wrote it. So please do in the future stop refuting other people's (e.g. Anselms) concrete words. Try to refute mine instead.

I (me, not Anselm) am not saying, that the God I think of as non-existing is the same as the God that has existence. I perfectly do agree, that the existing God is something completely different from the non-existing god I'm thinking.

And I do disagree with the notion, that something that does exist is not greater than something that doesn't. In fact I don't even have to disagree with: here is my defition of greater "being better or more or of more subsance in any way than something else".

But other than that the argument is sound, and it does not work for Satan, because Satan is not that "above which nothing greater can be thought".

Again, ‘greater’ is just a property like ‘more evil'. Satan is one “above which nothing more evil can be thought”. Existence of devil is perfect than that of non-existence.

True, an existing devil is more evil than a non-existing devil. But he's not in an absolute sense greater. His greatness does not define him. From my definition of God you can see, that He's defined by His greatness alone. You can think of a lot of things that are greater than the devil, even the most evil, and the greatest existing devil: God for example, or you, since you are less evil than the devil you are in fact greater than the devil... Are you starting to get what makes this definition of God special?

There are lots of believers and theologians who both accept that God exists and the devil, for the devil is not defined as that below which nothing more evil can be thought.

This argument was based on old testament and it itself said, “the fool has said in his heart, that there is no God”.
You just need to use the reductio ad absurdum technique: I can define “Ultimate Underwear” as the greatest underwear that can be conceived (e.g. it washes itself, it doesn’t stink, it fits all waists, etc). By Anselm’s logic this underwear must exist. Similarly, the greatest possible potato chip, dog, cricket bat, and so on, must exist. This is false.

Yeah, as explained before, this argument does not work for the greatest XYZ. It only works for The Greatest.

The devil is defined as simply a created being, like you or me, who has completely decided against God.

Evolved being only if we consider ourselves*.

No, I did mean created, not evolved... I believe in God and I believe we are being created, just like the devil and anything else that is not God. This is the definition I was referring to. No need to introduce another concept here. It is irrelevant if there was an evolution or not, to the question wether we are created or not. And the devil as he is defined in the christian world view is not evolved or developed. He just made an eternal decision against God.

Hinduism and Islam are agree with ‘absence of god is devil and absence of devil is God. And perhaps, OT of bible was also agree with it (the source where the argument was derived).

An educated Hindu explained to me that in Hinduism there is no such thing as an absolute good (God) or an absolute evil (devil). Everything seems to be involving including the gods. So I'm pretty sure Hinduism would not agree with this definition, it just makes no sense in the context of hinduism.

Islam would neither agree with it. Islam agrees with the absolute God, just calls him Allah. And in front of an absolute god, there cannot be an equally absolute opposite...

I assure you that the christian world view does not agree with God being the absence of the devil. I can assure you that in the christian world view (at least the only authoritatively defined, the catholic world view), God is the defintion of good, and the devil is mainly a creature that decided against good. In the christian world view evil does not exist. It is purely the absence of good. Good on the other hand exists, and it is not purely the absence of evil, for it is God himself. This is the christian (catholic) world view.

This is like with light (this comparison is an anecdote from Albert Einstein btw.), you can measure light, because it is something, it is real. You cannot measure darkness. Darkness is simply the absence of light.

Subjective vs objective, science is objective and is not subjective like people thoughts about devil-god. For atheist philosophers, human is the god/(s).

This was an analogy to explain the idea that goodness (light) exists and evil (darkness) does not, not a reference to science as the basis of an argument.

You forgot about the most peaceful religion of this whole effing universe is atheist - Jainism. They do not even kill insects, nor they kill crops-worms. The Jains preach a doctrine of utter nonviolence. While the Jains believe many improbable things about the universe, they do not believe the sorts of things that lit the fires of the Inquisition. You probably think the Inquisition was a perversion of the "true" spirit of Christianity. Perhaps it was. The problem, however, is that the teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries.

People. Let me remind you that we are talking about people. People can interpret anything into anything, like the Nazi's interpreted that it was okay to kill millions of Jews into Nietsche's philosophical texts.

The new testament is pretty clear about killing: They brought an adulterous woman before Jesus, and asked him to comply with the law and thus stone her. He says: Who has no sin, should throw the first stone. Jesus does not speak muddled about such things! He clearly does not condemn even the greatest sinner (adultery was seen as one of the greatest sins) and he asks his disciples to give those who beat them on their left cheek their right to beat too.. So, there really is no interpretational room for killing heretics or witches or anything of the like...

Also I – as a german – have a funny (forgive my dark humor) annecdote about the inquisition. You know that they also burned witches right? The witchhunt in spain had a total of 8 victims. This is because the laws worked like this: you get blamed to be a witch. you go to prison. you renounce. they let you go. you get blamed again. you go to prison again. you renounce again. they let you go again. Those 8 people prolly did not renounce, who knows... What do you think the germans did? If you do something, do it right, right? So the germans, including the very zealous witchhunter Martin Luther, killed thousands and thousands of suspected witches... As I said: people...

It is not surprising that people statistically assume that atheists are more readily doing evil than believers.

I see, you bring communism vs Nazism in every conversation. Why don’t you check pornhub and try to insert a word a ‘priest’ or ‘church’ in search ? My friend told to me a day before yesterday that he was enjoying some gangbang porns of christian priests. As you know I am an atheist, I do not believe in anything very quickly. After-all, I do not watch porns (watching porns may decrease brain's grey matter) so I tried to look for internet data instead. https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/stories/hidden-wounds-christians-say-rape-is-common-persecution-method-against-women/
History is the victim of the statistics- 30 percent fights for the name of religion
Rest 70 percent- not for the name of atheism but they were fought for resources, land acquisition and border disputes.

Very true. And even those 30 percent of wars in the name of religion are not actually because of religion. They too are because the believers (people again) want more power, influence, fame, money or resources.

Communism did not fight for the name of atheism, Nazism did fight for the name of religion.

Nazism did not fight for religion either, they fought for their ideology.

Communism fight for their doctrine and atheism does not have a doctrine. Communism has a dogma so as christianism has. Communism has heroes marx, stalin, mao, lenin and they were founders of marxism, maosim, leninism etc. Athe is not a guy like christ, mao or marx.

Communism is an atheistic ideology. Atheism and materialism are its core principles. And equality. Marx was a philosopher, like many atheists.

Mao and Lenin were politicians and serial killers...

Christian communism is also a branch of marxist communism.

Is the fact that someone thought some contradictory combination of two things goes together an argument?

Communism is said to be a political religion. They should read Jainism books and follow it first rather than believing in any thing else. It’s true that the tyrannical communist regimes of Mao and Stalin were opposed to religion, with religious belief discouraged and punished under their rule. This had less to do with atheism and more to do with the threat of religion as competition with their own tyrannical plans. Totalitarian regimes are built on dogma and fear, not freedom of speech and inquiry. In this way, they greatly resemble religion.

Some religions. It is not a coincidence that the idea of freedom of speech developed in christian countries (yes back then they were still all christians). And that the scientific process developed in catholic and anglican universities is neither a coincidence.

The catholic church made one big mistake: It did fight certain things that seemed to contradict the doctrine. For example Galileo's world view. The mistake is clear today: Wether the earth is flat has absolutely nothing to do with theology. That the earth is flat is not even in the bible! But back then people did think this was an attack on faith. Of course it was not, and this is clear today. But many people did not understand. In fact Galileo might have been the only one who really understood what he was talking about... And he was a christian so he clearly understood too, that there was no contradiction.

The catholic church made a few mistakes that is true. But the dark ages are not as dark as people always make them look. It really is no miracle that the scientific process was developed there, for the catholic church never fought any kind of progress that had nothing to do with the teaching. Lets take engineering for example. The church officials of the church did never fight an engineer and his inventions. I mean of course there was some power struggle here and there, but we are still talking about people.

Point is, religion does not have to hinder scientific progress, and 95% of scientific progress was not hindered by christian churches. And the rest was only hindered because people mistook the progress for an onlsaught against faith, which it simply wasn't. People make mistakes. And the church apologized for it a few 100 years later (the church needs a few 100 years for everything it does btw....)

In effect, these leaders essentially created religions and inserted themselves at the top as new deities. The problem with communism, however, is not that it is too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions.”

Which is always the danger of any kind of doctrine. This includes of course atheism and genderism and any religion...

This cult of personality are not derived from atheism, and it is hard to see how one could argue that its activities were representative of atheists as a whole.Indeed, many free, irreligious nations, such as Denmark and Sweden, are among the most peaceful and prosperous countries in the world. The point, however, is not to say that atheism necessarily causes people to be happier or more prosperous. What is clear, however, is that atheism does not lead to violence, tyranny or genocide any more than religiosity guarantees a peaceful and prosperous nation.

Of course you can say that atheism isn't communism, and you are right (even though 99% of communism is clearly atheistic). I'm just saying that statistically atheistic ideologies have done a lot more harm than religious ones. This is just numbers and facts, so I'd be very careful to say that there is no danger in atheism. In fact I'm pretty sure that the presence of atheism and atheistic movements did further the strength of the communistic ideology. Communism cannot take root so easily in a country that is deeply religious.

The world’s religions have rules and holy books that tell their followers what’s wrong or right and how to behave. Thus, it is reasonable to hold a religion accountable for the message that it preaches. There are no holy atheist scriptures, no atheist pope and no atheist rituals, tenets, creeds, code or authority. Atheism cannot be held accountable for the activities of atheists in the same way that religion can be judged by its doctrine because atheism has no doctrines.

As noted above I'm not judging atheism by its doctrine here, but by the effects that atheistic doctrines had in total numbers. And I'm just saying it is safe to assume, that there might be some danger in it, even if there are atheistic communities that are completely peaceful.

Worse still is the concept of hell, where non-believers suffer in eternal torment simply for disbelieving in God. Indeed, this torture is supposedly granted even to theists who believe in the wrong gods. If the Christian religion is the “right” one, every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Jew would burn in hell for eternity (John 3:18-36, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 and Revelation 21:8)

I'm too tired to find you the quote after writing you such a long response, sorry :sweat_smile:... the catholic teaching is quite clear about the fact that non-believers can be saved. What it says however is that they will all be saved through Jesus Christ. There is no way around Him. You will meet Him when you die. And you can then (at the latest) accept Him and be saved, or say: "you have no right to judge me" and thus condemn yourself.

and this rule is the same for other religions that believe in the concept of hell, such as Islam:
Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. (Quran 4:56)

So, do not fear God, only adore Him (the "fear of God" in the bible does not mean being scared, it means to know that God is Holy and to lower your head in front of Him, so He can lift you.)

An all-loving god would surely not damn his children to an eternity of torture simply for being born into a culture that believes in the wrong deity, follows the wrong holy book or attends the wrong type of church services.

As said above the all-loving God does not condemn his children to an eternity of torture for that at all. But He requires them to accept Himself at least when they meet Him (Jesus Christ) from face to face.

[Zack Williamson]

@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

@Vex-Man said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

As I said, you have missed the point: You cannot conclude from the greatness or greaterness or more-number-ness of anything (other than God) to its existence. The only reason why this works with that-which-is-greater-than-anything-you-can-think-of, because the fact that you cannot think of anything greater is what defines it. The island with its number of trees is not defined by the fact that you cannot think of anything greater. God however is defined as that-which-is-greater-than-anything-you-can-think-of and thus His existence necessarily follows from that definition.

The fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true, according to Google. Fact is not equal to a definition which is based on presumption that he is the greatest. You can presume god as I can presume abc. An island is perfect because it has 72 degee f temperature for all days, 360 days sunny and have a great amount of trees. Another island B which has more trees than A does not exist either. C which has so many trees than A and B together, is not beautiful anymore because its beauty is ruined with availability of many trees. None of them will really exist. Its greatness is defined by its perfectness sense. If you think abcxyz cannot be put instead of god, you are special pleading to me.

Philosophers and words ... wether its a God or a being is not relevant. What is relevant is only the definition greater than anything that can be thought of not about wether its a being or God.

Indeed, and since the definition is not about a 'being' and wether it has the property 'existence' but simply that-which-is-greater-than-anything-that-can-be-thought-of. These are my words, this is the definition as I wrote it. So please do in the future stop refuting other people's (e.g. Anselms) concrete words. Try to refute mine instead.

God exists- Exists is the predicate and God is the subject
God is the greatest- the greatest is the predicate and God is the subject
Again, existence is not equal to property. Properties are just part of his existence. I.e. If I say matter is most eternal, I will prove with first law of energy that matter cannot created or destroyed (in isolated and close systems), it does not prove matter exists. It just proves "matter is eternal". I would prove existence of matter with matter is the air you are breathing or with Electron Microscopy, stem depth experiments. Then I can conclude matter exists. Second example, vex man has 2 legs, 2 hands, one tongue, one nose etc. Whatever I have, they are my properties. I would prove my existence with video chat on insta/discord. Then you can say/conclude vex man exists. Vex man has 2 legs is different from vex man exists.

I (me, not Anselm) am not saying, that the God I think of as non-existing is the same as the God that has existence. I perfectly do agree, that the existing God is something completely different from the non-existing god I'm thinking.

And I do disagree with the notion, that something that does exist is not greater than something that doesn't. In fact I don't even have to disagree with: here is my defition of greater "being better or more or of more subsance in any way than something else".

Again, ‘greater’ is just a property like ‘more evil'. Satan is one “above which nothing more evil can be thought”. Existence of devil is perfect than that of non-existence.

True, an existing devil is more evil than a non-existing devil. But he's not in an absolute sense greater. His greatness does not define him. From my definition of God you can see, that He's defined by His greatness alone. You can think of a lot of things that are greater than the devil, even the most evil, and the greatest existing devil: God for example, or you, since you are less evil than the devil you are in fact greater than the devil... Are you starting to get what makes this definition of God special?

Forget people beliefs, one absolute being is all-powerful, all-knowing, completely evil and second absolute being which is completely good, all-knowing, all-powerful. Two absolute beings cannot reside at the same time. Both beings are not same because A is completely evil and B is completely good. According to general english which is objective, completely evil is opposite to completely good.

Yeah, as explained before, this argument does not work for the greatest XYZ. It only works for The Greatest.

The devil is defined as simply a created being, like you or me, who has completely decided against God.

Evolved being only if we consider ourselves*.

No, I did mean created, not evolved... I believe in God and I believe we are being created, just like the devil and anything else that is not God. This is the definition I was referring to. No need to introduce another concept here. It is irrelevant if there was an evolution or not, to the question wether we are created or not. And the devil as he is defined in the christian world view is not evolved or developed. He just made an eternal decision against God.

No, I am not changing or dragging the topic like a politician does.
Let's forget what a Hindu or Muslim says. Come to the logic, which is the main point. I am using the term universal god instead of christian god or any other religion God. The word 'HE' is used for 'UNIVERSAL GOD'. I got you now, what you were tying to say.
Your premise is- we cannot think anything greater than that of him
it is based on a presumption- he is the absolute one because he is the total of all things. In other words, he is the creator of all things or he is the originator of all things(including everyone of us). His greatness is defined by his absoluteness sense.
If a conclusion is true, if its all premises must be true. The above premise for a particular conclusion is given.
Is your premise true ? No, it is not. If you think your premise is true, you have to give me another argument to prove that he created us.

You forgot about the most peaceful religion of this whole effing universe is atheist - Jainism. They do not even kill insects, nor they kill crops-worms. The Jains preach a doctrine of utter nonviolence. While the Jains believe many improbable things about the universe, they do not believe the sorts of things that lit the fires of the Inquisition. You probably think the Inquisition was a perversion of the "true" spirit of Christianity. Perhaps it was. The problem, however, is that the teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries.

People. Let me remind you that we are talking about people. People can interpret anything into anything, like the Nazi's interpreted that it was okay to kill millions of Jews into Nietzsche's philosophical texts.

Self-contradiction vs interpretation. I am talking about self-contradictions, not about interpretations.

Although Friedrich is regularly and incorrectly accused of being a proto-Nazi, the allegation can be made far more correctly about his younger sister Elisabeth. She married Bernhard Forster, an anti-semite and German nationalist, and they moved to Paraguay where they created an Aryan colony called Nueva Germania. Nietzsche mocked her, calling her a "llama gone among the anti-semites". Nueva Germania soon failed, because their German agricultural methods were totally useless in the Andes. Förster committed suicide in San Bernardino, Paraguay, and most of the colonists left the compound and became regular Paraguayan farmers.

After this demonstration of Teutonic superiority, Elisabeth moved back to Germany in 1893, where Friedrich had meanwhile gone mad. She edited his unpublished texts to fit her own antisemitic ideas, and after his death continued to popularise him while twisting him to fit her beliefs. She befriended senior Nazis to whom she promoted Nietzsche as an intellectual forefather, sent Mussolini birthday greetings, and tried to get Albert Speer to build her a Friedrich Nietzsche Memorial Hall. She probably did more than anybody else to ruin her brother's reputation.
Nietzsche's philosophy had been made ambiguous and incoherent, allowing loose interpretation. This ambiguity prompted Nazi interpreters to choose a context that supported Nazi literature and prophesy.
Martin luther was a virulent anti-semite. At the diet of worms he said, "all jews should be deriven from germany". And he wrote a whole book , on the jews and their lies, which prolly influenced Hitler. Luther described the jews as a 'brood of vipers', and the same phrase was used by hitler in a remarkable speech of 1922. It is hard to know whether hitler picked up the phrase brood of vipers from luther or whether he got it directly from Matthew 3: 7, as luther presumably did.
The old testament was full of approx 300 self-contradictions and new testament has approx 200 self-contradictions itself. This is what your new testament says about enemies-
Jesus approved of destroying enemies. Lk.19:27.
Jesus said to love your enemies. Mt.5:44.

Now compare two things- 1. Ambiguity in an atheist philosopher’s texts
2. Self-contradictions not ambiguity in two testaments together. Suppose I grant you self-contradictions are somehow same as interpretation, both testaments are words of your god. Who is more authoritative for you ? A god or a human/an atheist ? An atheist philosopher has just a degree -Ph.D.

Priests of churches have given God position of say Superhero, and made his fans' believe strictly in its infallibility and truthfulness. And presented him as an ideal. And it's absurd.

The new testament is pretty clear about killing: They brought an adulterous woman before Jesus, and asked him to comply with the law and thus stone her. He says: Who has no sin, should throw the first stone. Jesus does not speak muddled about such things! He clearly does not condemn even the greatest sinner (adultery was seen as one of the greatest sins)

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. Mk.3:29.
All sins are forgivable. Acts 13:39; Col.2:13; 1 Jn.1:9.

All who have sinned without the law will perish without the law. Rom.2:12.
Where there is no law there is no sin or transgression. Rom.4:15.

The law was the result of sin. Gal.3:19.
Sin is the result of breaking the law. 1 Jn.3:4.
Those of “God” cannot sin. 1 Jn.3:9.
Those of “God” can sin. 1 Jn.1:7 8.
• Paul says that he was the chief of all sinners. 1 Tim.1:15.
He who commits sin is of the devil. Children of God cannot sin. 1 Jn.3:8-10

and he asks his disciples to give those who beat them on their left cheek their right to beat too.. So, there really is no interpretational room for killing heretics or witches or anything of the like…

New testament is clear about witches but old is not. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exod 22:18)

It is not surprising that people statistically assume that atheists are more readily doing evil than believers.

I see, you bring communism vs Nazism in every conversation. Why don’t you check pornhub and try to insert a word a ‘priest’ or ‘church’ in search ? My friend told to me a day before yesterday that he was enjoying some gangbang porns of christian priests. As you know I am an atheist, I do not believe in anything very quickly. After-all, I do not watch porns (watching porns may decrease brain's grey matter) so I tried to look for internet data instead. https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/stories/hidden-wounds-christians-say-rape-is-common-persecution-method-against-women/
History is the victim of the statistics- 30 percent fights for the name of religion
Rest 70 percent- not for the name of atheism but they were fought for resources, land acquisition and border disputes.

Very true. And even those 30 percent of wars in the name of religion are not actually because of religion. They too are because the believers (people again) want more power, influence, fame, money or resources.

St, Augustine’s concept of just war was responsible for those wars because expressions of concern for the salvation of those who killed enemies in battle, regardless of the cause for which they fought was common.
I will write down those 30 percent wars- Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Syrian civil war and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Religious elements are present in those wars. Some other wars are the first and second crusades, french wars of the religion, thirty years wars, battle of las navas de tolosa, fitna (7th to 11th centuries), Mughal and ottoman wars. Wars have been integral part of Islamic faith since the time of Muhammad because spreading their territory means spreading their faith (jihad). They call kafir (truth concealers) to every non-muslims.
The Bible’s Old Testament is full of exhortations to be cruel to heathens. Deuteronomy 20:10–18, for example, explains the obligation of the Israelites to practice genocide: when your army approaches a distant city, you should enslave all its inhabitants if it surrenders, and kill all its men and enslave its women and children and steal their cattle and everything else if it doesn’t surrender. But if it’s a city of the Canaanites or Hittites or any of those other abominable believers in false gods, then the true God commands you to kill everything that breathes in the city.

It is clearly written in quran to kill those who believe in false god/(s)

Communism did not fight for the name of atheism, Nazism did fight for the name of religion.

Nazism did not fight for religion either, they fought for their ideology.

Nazism did fight for their own political religion. Communism was a doctrine made against capitalism.

Communism fight for their doctrine and atheism does not have a doctrine. Communism has a dogma so as christian-ism has. Communism has heroes marx, stalin, mao, lenin and they were founders of marxism, maosim, leninism etc. Athe is not a guy like christ, mao or marx.

Communism is an atheistic ideology. Atheism and materialism are its core principles. And equality. Marx was a philosopher, like many atheists.

Marx was ethinically jew, materialist philosopher, and an economist but he was not a founder of materialism, nor he was a God. He may be a god for communists just like christ may be a god for christians. The founders of materialism were Greek philosophers Thales, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Democritus. The first indian materialist brahaspati or charvaka was born in India. As per as I know, brahaspati was so much ethical guy that his preaching can be found in Jainism and Buddhism (two most peaceful religions). Now come to the first materialist philosopher Thales, he has said nothing about equality or non-equality. I am giving you a wikipedia article- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus
Which materialist (except of communist philosophers) has said "thou shalt have no matter before me" or "all people are economical-socially equal". ? Equality has nothing to do with materialism.

Atheism is not an ideology nor it is a philosophy. Atheism is just 'lack of belief in God' or 'there is no god'. Take the first first definition now, it is the lack of belief because theists do not give them evidences for their god, they just can claim.

Mao and Lenin were politicians and serial killers...

No doubt many murderers have been atheists (Stalin, Mao, etc.) but their main reason for killing was something other than their lack of belief in a god. Lenin killed those people because they were not obeying lenin, not for the name of atheism.

Christian communism is also a branch of Marxist communism.

Is the fact that someone thought some contradictory combination of two things goes together an argument?

Actually 20 to 30 million (out of 100 million) people are killed by alone Christian marxists so it is unfair to count them as atheists. If Christianity ain't responsible for their actions, atheism can not be responsible as well.

Communism is said to be a political religion. They should read Jainism books and follow it first rather than believing in any thing else. It’s true that the tyrannical communist regimes of Mao and Stalin were opposed to religion, with religious belief discouraged and punished under their rule. This had less to do with atheism and more to do with the threat of religion as competition with their own tyrannical plans. Totalitarian regimes are built on dogma and fear, not freedom of speech and inquiry. In this way, they greatly resemble religion.

Some religions. It is not a coincidence that the idea of freedom of speech developed in christian countries (yes back then they were still all christians).

Most of them including-UK, France, Germany, Spain had ruled over other countries (including Hindus and Islamic countries, African-asian countries). So you can think of freedom of speech for ruling vs ruled countries. Progessive vs regressive countries !
Indeed, US is that Christian country in which people like John Scopes1925 was brought to court for teaching evolution.

The catholic church made ----------- no contradiction.

It did fight for darwin’s evolution as well. The earth is flat in bible though
He has fixed the earth firm, immovable (1 Chronicles 16:30)
Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm (Psalm 93:1)
He has fixed the earth firm, immovable (psalm 96:10)

People make mistakes. And the church apologized for it a few 100 years later (the church
needs a few 100 years for everything it does btw....)

Yes, churches apologized to Darwin after 150 years

In effect, these leaders essentially created religions and inserted themselves at the top as new deities. The problem with communism, however, is not that it is too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions.”

Which is always the danger of any kind of doctrine. This includes of course atheism and genderism and any religion...

Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.
The doctrine is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. Now tell me what type of political, economical or theory/policy was made by thales ? Again, ideology is marxism or lenisninsm not atheism. What are the ideals of atheism ? The first founder of atheism and materialism together was Epicurus. Lemme give you a link for a wikipedia article about him en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
Now press ctrl plus F and type the term ‘equal’ (related to politics and economics) , if you can find anything about it, lemme know.
Atheism is not a doctrine or a belief system again. Atheism does not have a particular holy book which you have to read five times per day (for Muslims) and one time per week compulsory (for Christians). Even though, we atheists read their books, we just take like it is written or said by a human. We do not think they are the words of some authority. Opposed to it, when someone does not want to read testament books, your priests say, "vex man you are possessed by a devil". I have heard this statement from my ex-christian American friend.
Atheism is just lack of belief, the doctrine is marxism. The lack of belief is there because lack of claims are given for god which cannot constitute an evidence.

This cult of personality are not derived from atheism, and it is hard to see how one could argue that its activities were representative of atheists as a whole.Indeed, many free, irreligious nations, such as Denmark and Sweden, are among the most peaceful and prosperous countries in the world. The point, however, is not to say that atheism necessarily causes people to be happier or more prosperous. What is clear, however, is that atheism does not lead to violence, tyranny or genocide any more than religiosity guarantees a peaceful and prosperous nation.

Of course you can say that atheism isn't communism, and you are right (even though 99% of communism is clearly atheistic).

yes because first term atheism has nothing to do with politics, economics and term communism is an ideology.
People are joining communism because they want to join politics. Why they want to join politics in a deeply religious country ? Because communist party is just a little party and two big ruling political parties are not giving them even a fuck.
I have met those communists and they cannot even argue for god’s non-existence. Nor they want to convince someone about his non-existence. You too can meet German communists and ask a question why did they became a communist.

I'm just saying that statistically atheistic ideologies have done a lot more harm than religious ones.

Your comparison is absurd- atheistic ideology vs religious ideology. You left a big part of atheism who does not obey any hero or does not have any ideal. Atheism is opposite to theism and irreligious is opposite to religious.

Are you sure religious ones ? Communism and capitalism both are actually political religions. Both did not give freedom of speech to anyone. They both are equal to islam. In this way, religious people have done harm million and trillion times than that of irreligious ones.
All religions have their heroes and doctrines, atheism (non-religious) does not follow any ritual or pop or a hero.
Christ- the hero of Christianity, drowned the entire population in gen 6 (ot). His character (in ot) is jealous, petty, unjustified, vindicative, bloodthirsty, unforgiver, homophobic, ethnic cleaner, racist, bully, capricious malevolent, sadomasochistic, fillicidal, pestilential.
Rama (one of the hindu god) killed 14,000 demons in a single hour. I am 99.99% sure they were his enemies, not demons.

This is just numbers and facts, so I'd be very careful to say that there is no danger in atheism. In fact I'm pretty sure that the presence of atheism and atheistic movements did further the strength of the communistic ideology.

German Christians supported the Nazis in the belief that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God. Hitler himself often referenced God and Christianity. But that doesn't mean he killed people for the name of Christian religion.This is why i was saying nazism too is a political religion itself.
Stalin, like all of the Bolsheviks, was raised within the Russian Orthodox Church, he even once was training to be a priest.

Communism cannot take root so easily in a country that is deeply religious.

Communism cannot stabilize its root even in a tiny atheist religious country like Bhutan. Marxist party is banned there, even though most of bhutanies are religious atheists (Buddhists). It depends upon that country's relationships with capitalists countries and its location i.e. it is impossible to release a nuclear bomb in long mountains-surrounded country.

The world’s religions have rules and holy books that tell their followers what’s wrong or right and how to behave. Thus, it is reasonable to hold a religion accountable for the message that it preaches. There are no holy atheist scriptures, no atheist pope and no atheist rituals, tenets, creeds, code or authority. Atheism cannot be held accountable for the activities of atheists in the same way that religion can be judged by its doctrine because atheism has no doctrines.

As noted above I'm not judging atheism by its doctrine here, but by the effects that atheistic doctrines had in total numbers. And I'm just saying it is safe to assume, that there might be some danger in it, even if there are atheistic communities that are completely peaceful.

After becoming General Secretary it is recorded that Stalin did attend church - he even went to confession. Three times. Once during the Red Terror in 1937, once in 1941 when the Germans were racing over Russia, and once in 1950 only a few years before he died. The priest to whom he confessed stated that he did attend, but refused to say what he had said. He took the truth to his grave.

I am not judging theism either. Capitalism has killed 1.2 more times people than communism has. Count the people from here. 120 million vs 100 million
https://eand.co/if-communism-killed-millions-how-many-did-capitalism-kill-2b24ab1c0df7
Alone Islam has killed 270 million (80 million Hindus, 10 million Buddhists, 60 million Christians, 120 million Africans and a few Jews) people yet for the name of Jihad.
Alone Christianity has killed 106.734 million people for various reasons in which 28.73 million people were killed for the name of its faith.

Irreligious atheism has not a doctrine nor it is a doctrine, it has none ideal of life. Jainism has its doctrines but it is a religious atheism not irreligious atheism.

What makes Communism a religion is a central element, inherited from Christianity, called teleology.
Teleology is about building an evidence of inherent design in our society that points to one single irrefutable outcome. In Communism, it’s the classless society without private property, with unlimited access to wealth. What.ever we do, we cannot prevent this from happening (except for self-obliteration, of course). It manifests itself through our actions. We can stray, we can resist, we can procrastinate, but sooner or later, Communism is going to happen, because it is the only way we can attain equality and justice as principles hardwired in our nature.
The rest of Communism, such as Historical Materialism, Dialectical Materialism, Political Economy, and Scientific Atheism are pinned on this single premise.
This premise is unquestionable. You cannot refute it, or you stop being Communist. If you employ all your scientific Communist methods, and then come to a conclusion that points away from Communism, your science is worthless. You must retrace your steps and find the point where you have deviated from the only correct path.
This is exactly how theology works, and science doesn’t.
Your faith in Communism must be all-encompassing. If not, you’re tapped for your revolutionary force, you lose that passion that drives you to achieve the extraordinary thing your lowly bourgeois incarnation would never be able to do.
“The teaching of Marx is all-powerful, because it’s truthful” (V.I. Lenin).
From here, the entire paraphernalia of the Communist religion emerges.

• Scripture: the corpus magnum of Marxist books that defines the foundation of Communism and is used to define what is true Communism and what is Communist apostasy
• Prophets and saints: Marx and Engels (with addition of Lenin, Mao, Marcuse, Kim, Che Guevara, Chávez, or other immortal authoritative figures, according to your preferences and party affiliation)
• Objects of pilgrimage and adulation (statues, museums, and mummies of Lenin, Mao, and Kim)
• Factional and national conflicts camouflaged as battles against Communist apostates: USSR vs China, China vs Vietnam, Vietnam vs Kampuchea, Soviet vs Yugoslavia, Albania vs everyone else, as well as all the exclusions and purges within the parties
• Tradition of passing the torch of true faith to the descendants of prophets (Korea), or disciples anointed by them (Venezuela), or to godly men vetted by an assembly of elders (mostly Politburo)
• Legitimacy of power derived not from majority vote or a line of royal provenance, but from the authority of true faith and devotion(Consider ISIS as a vanguard party of Muslims, armed with the only truthful understanding of Quran, which gives it the moral and political authority to enforce on the rest of the community any laws and moral guidelines they find expedient, and you have the exact mirror of Bolsheviks).

Worse still is the concept of hell, where non-believers suffer in eternal torment simply for disbelieving in God. Indeed, this torture is supposedly granted even to theists who believe in the wrong gods. If the Christian religion is the “right” one, every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Jew would burn in hell for eternity (John 3:18-36, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 and Revelation 21:8)

I'm too tired to find you the quote after writing you such a long response, sorry :sweat_smile:... the catholic teaching is quite clear about the fact that non-believers can be saved. What it says however is that they will all be saved through Jesus Christ. There is no way around Him. You will meet Him when you die. And you can then (at the latest) accept Him and be saved, or say: "you have no right to judge me" and thus condemn yourself.

If non-believers can be saved, what are your views on below genesis (new testament)
Non-believers obtain mercy. Rom.11:32.
Only believers obtain mercy. Jn.3:36; Rom.14:23.
Only baptized believers obtain mercy. Mk.16:16.
Mercy cannot be predetermined. Rom.9:18.

and this rule is the same for other religions that believe in the concept of hell, such as Islam:
Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. (Quran 4:56)

So, do not fear God, only adore Him (the "fear of God" in the bible does not mean being scared, it means to know that God is Holy and to lower your head in front of Him, so He can lift you.)

An all-loving god would surely not damn his children to an eternity of torture simply for being born into a culture that believes in the wrong deity, follows the wrong holy book or attends the wrong type of church services.

As said above the all-loving God does not condemn his children to an eternity of torture for that at all. But He requires them to accept Himself at least when they meet Him (Jesus Christ) from face to face.

What if someone does not accept him while meeting with him ? That someone completely rejects him. Think about it.

All who call on the "Lord" will be saved. Rom.10:13; Acts 2:21.
Only those predestined will be saved. Acts 13:48; Eph.1:4,5; 2 Thes.2:13; Acts 2:47.
Jesus said he would not cast aside any that come to him. Jn.6:37.
Jesus said that many that come to him will be cast aside. Mt.7:21-23.
Salvation comes by faith and not works. Eph.2:8,9; Rom.11:6; Gal.2:16; Rom.3:28.
Salvation comes by faith and works. Jms.2:14,17,20.
The righteous have eternal life. Mt.25:46.
The righteous are barely saved. 1 Pet.4:18.
There are no righteous. Rom.3:10.
Believe and be baptized to be saved. Mk.16:16.
Be baptized by water and the spirit to be saved. Jn.3:5.
Endure to the end to be saved. Mt.24:13.
Call on the name of the "Lord" to be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
Believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:31.
Believe, then all your household will be saved. Acts 16:31.
Hope and you will be saved. Rom.8:24.
Believe in the resurrection to be saved. Rom.10:9.
By grace you are saved. Eph.2:5
By grace and faith you are saved. Eph.2:8.
Have the love of truth to be saved. 2 Thes.2:10.
Mercy saves. Titus 3:5.
Backsliders are condemned. 2 Pet.2:20.
Backsliders are saved regardless. Jn.10:27-29.
Forgive seventy times seven. Mt.18:22.
Forgiveness is not possible for renewed sin. Heb.6:4-6.

[Tag]

To prove God is exist just like trying to prove the Superman exist which is impossible. However, people have their own theory and point of perspective on God based on their reasons but sometimes, some religious people take it the extreme to prove their God's existence is real which actually isn't necessary to do considering God's omnipotence based on their reason.

[Sugarpockets]

I just know He's there regardless of any thoughts or opinions.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Tag said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

To prove God is exist just like trying to prove the Superman exist which is impossible. However, people have their own theory and point of perspective on God based on their reasons but sometimes, some religious people take it the extreme to prove their God's existence is real which actually isn't necessary to do considering God's omnipotence based on their reason.

Yeah, it's more of a philosophical endeavour, and also impossible, because since everything God does must – per definition – be supernatural, you cannot possibly prove His existence.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Sugarpockets said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

I just know He's there regardless of any thoughts or opinions.

Yeah sometimes one just knows things...

[pe7erpark3r]

@Exorcised-Girl said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

Wow, sorry, this is getting too lengthy... I think we have said anything we could say about God and His Greatness, I could not add anything meaningful at this point...

Jesus approved of destroying enemies. Lk.19:27.
Jesus said to love your enemies. Mt.5:44.

You need to at least read things in context. The first one is taken from a parable in which a king, who's subordinates hate him, kills them later. Jesus often talks in his parables about how humans act. Nowhere does he approve of the king's actions. He just states them...

The second one is a direct demand of Jesus to love your enemies. Thus this is no contradiction at all.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. Mk.3:29.
All sins are forgivable. Acts 13:39; Col.2:13; 1 Jn.1:9.

The bible is not a direct dictation of God (clearly). So it requires an interepretation. Also it requires people to read properly.

For example Acts 13:39 "Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses." does not actually say that every sin is forgiven, only that every sin (that is forgiven) is forgiven through him (Jesus).

In Col 2:13 St. Paul says that all the sins of the believers are forgiven. Who says that any of them ever blasphemed against the Holy Spirit?

1 Jn 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."... This also does not state that all sins can be forgiven, only that if your sins are forgiven, you will be purified from all unrighteousness.

There is no contradiction here... Man...

And here I thought you had found actual contradictions. Please next time put the real contradictions first...

New testament is clear about witches but old is not. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exod 22:18)

I agree that the OT is rather crude. But remember that Jesus states that Moses gave the jewish people the law about letting go of your wife. Which in turn means, that the law of Mose, is not exactly the law of God...

Salvation comes by faith and not works. Eph.2:8,9; Rom.11:6; Gal.2:16; Rom.3:28.
Salvation comes by faith and works. Jms.2:14,17,20.

Lets take one more example. The first one is read truly. The second reads Jms 2:14: "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?"

It simply states that a faith without deeds is no faith. This is also no contradiction...

The righteous have eternal life. Mt.25:46.
The righteous are barely saved. 1 Pet.4:18.
There are no righteous. Rom.3:10.

Romans also states that God makes us righteous. Context... you need to read things in context...

Believe and be baptized to be saved. Mk.16:16.
Be baptized by water and the spirit to be saved. Jn.3:5.
Endure to the end to be saved. Mt.24:13.
Call on the name of the "Lord" to be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
Believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:31.
Believe, then all your household will be saved. Acts 16:31.
Hope and you will be saved. Rom.8:24.
Believe in the resurrection to be saved. Rom.10:9.
By grace you are saved. Eph.2:5
By grace and faith you are saved. Eph.2:8.
Have the love of truth to be saved. 2 Thes.2:10.
Mercy saves. Titus 3:5.

Do you always state a whole encyclopedia when you say something? I mean come on... Yes Faith saves. Who has faith lets himself be baptized. Believe in Jesus is faith... Those are no real contradictions man. This is quibbling.

Backsliders are condemned. 2 Pet.2:20.

2 Pet.2:20 "For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first."

They are not condemned. Its just worse than before...

You didn't write this list did you? Whoever wrote this list has not properly read the bible...

Backsliders are saved regardless. Jn.10:27-29.

True.

Forgive seventy times seven. Mt.18:22.

This is symbolical, I hope you know that much. Also it is an instruction to the believer and says nothing about God's forgiveness...

Forgiveness is not possible for renewed sin. Heb.6:4-6.

Nope, Heb. 6 does not even talk about the forgiveness of sins. It says that people who fall back into non-believing if they have once believed cannot be converted again. This is just common sense he states there: if you were a believer once and then became an atheist, there is propably no way you'll become a believer again... Here St. Paul says nothing about God...

Come on. Read the bible. In your own language, so you actually understand it. Then you can try to argue about its contents...