Prove to me, logically, that the Christian God is real and the only God there is

Prove to me, logically, that the Christian God is real and the only God there is.

Attached: 12816C77-4767-475F-8FC3-D308EA180528.png (550x418, 179.6K)

Other urls found in this thread:

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles.htm
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270066/
eneuro.org/content/early/2018/05/14/ENEURO.0038-18.2018
nature.com/news/fearful-memories-haunt-mouse-descendants-1.14272
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16084184/
ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.17060616
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Attached: download (1).jpg (700x6826 3.91 MB, 590.49K)

Have a baby child and look into its eye looking back at you and you will see God.

God bless you

Read Edward Feser's The Last Superstition.

May I ask if you got the response and counter response to the five arguments image? It was a good show on how to rebuke basic atheistic counterpoints.

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles.htm
Should help

prove to me that the logic you assume and use is well grounded metaphysically, and "ought" to be followed. Why should we "be" logical and prove things logically? Where does the epistemic force come from, what's wrong with being illogical? if God doesn't exist what's wrong with being an absurdist and holding contradictory views?


natural theology is not legit, read Van Til, Plantinga and so forth. Natural theology is very weak and paved the way to atheism, even as a teen I found holes in those arguments that I later discovered were serious holes big brain philosophers also pointed out.
They might've worked a long time ago when people didn't question their basic presuppositions but now they are far less convincing. Also the idea that you can reason UP to god from viewing creatures/natural order is ridiculous if you think about it, you're privileging your senses and mental faculties above God, like you're more certain about logic and nature and animals than the existence of God…that's not how Christianity works. You should start with the Christian God first, it's a basic belief, a presupposition, and then you can build your logic,ethics and natural design explanations afterwards. Don't do it backwards, don't start with matter and try to reason up to God, that's bizarre and demeaning to God.

What holes?

they don't prove the one true God of the bible exists, the God of christianity, they suggest some nebulous little 'g' god thing exists, or could be the platonic monad or could be a bunch of unmoved movers, or Satan, or Allah, or the demiurge…that type of argumentation leads to perennialism and deism and eventually atheism.
You can't reason from finite things into the actual personal trinitarian God, at best you will get some impersonal deism "force". Your starting point should be Christological/Trinitarian, the God of Abraham.
Watch this video.

Here are two arguments and an expanded image of the Aquinas one in the first post complete with responses and counter responses.

Attached: aqinas.jpg (488x2127 421.44 KB, 451.41K)

That's because the ability to believe in God is an act of faith, of which no reason can ever reach on its own, since faith is the gift of God. Reason alone can come close, but cannot reach the true image. Your stating to start with God as the basic presupposition is not a proof to anyone else, because you assume at the outset the entire conclusion, even though the assumption is entirely correct and truthful.

Adding to this that modern "Judaism" is entirely false because their temple was destroyed, the arc lost and they cannot perform burnt offerings anymore

Attached: 1515184670946.jpg (1399x347, 181.47K)

So what happens if they complete the 3rd temple and "ask" the Ethiopians for the ark back?

Attached: download (11).jpg (318x159, 9.76K)

The way to convince them is to show how any other worldview is incoherent and collapses on itself, or that only this view accounts for all the other "categories" we are allowed to presuppose. I don't see natural theology arguments convincing anyone who is actually trying to refute them, they'll only convince people who are already open to the idea and need a little nudge, but even then they only support some general vague "theism" not the God of the bible himself.

No, motion means motion. Movement is a change in motion. You can't define motion as change because then movement is a change in change, which isn't true. That could be the "rate of change" which isn't motion either. That's a derivative, from what I recall.
No, change means something was any way and then later was any other way. Potential is a meme, a spook, etc. There is no logical evidence that physical things were once merely conceptual (which is what this asserts).

Since everything follows from those premises and those definitions are illogical I don't need to spend the fourteen hours to parse those poorly presented slides.

Nothing in this image proves anything about divinity, very weak. Not very strong proof of authenticity anyhow, but assuming it's 100% real there's nothing showing it's godblood and even if it did show that (which I remind you, it doesn't) that would still not invalidate other kinds of divinity. So that's extremely unconvincing.


Hey man, look at the world and you will see the absence of God. Neither statement is convincing.


What part of "prove to me" do you not understand? He didn't say "what monastery should I join to understand" he said "convince me". "Read a book" is not an argument and if you can't summarize it to AT LEAST the size of these horrifically bloated info-graphs that other posters have, maybe it's not so convincing. Maybe it's a convoluted mess that serves to obfuscate things and muddy the waters more than clarify things and make it clear you're right. Not that I wouldn't levy that charge against these other things.
That would just imply you are incapable of proving anything logically. Which was for what was asked.


No. If you don't think people deserve a logical answer, fine, but that's what he wants.


Essence is not quantifiable. It is Illogical and Platonic.
Change is a spook, it's a concept, it isn't a real feature of anything.

Spooky illogical premises do not a convincing logical argument make.

The Ethiopians don’t have it. I don’t know why Lebbittors are so obsessed with the idea.

The point is to provide a logical basis for those who do not believe to make the leap of faith. Reason alone cannot prove the resurrection, but it can provide a sound basis for someone otherwise hesitant to say "maybe there really is something there to consider".


It literally includes St. Aquinas' five ways, one of which was made into that infograph you are discussing. In it he lays out the way, the objections, objections to the objections and so on in great depth. If you want the proof go ahead and read it.
Not in Aristotle's metaphysics.
If you mix Aristotles metaphysics with the physical sciences, which is obviously a mistake, the same as taking technical terminology in any field and replacing it in part with the terminology of another, different field. Of course you will get an absurd result, because you did an absurd thing.
Strictly speaking that is exactly what all physical things were. They were merely things that could exist, but did not yet exist. From this they were moved to being what they are, and will be moved again to become what they will be and so on. Even a primitive notion of this should suffice, since the words you and I are typing were merely potentially existing until we actually thought and typed them.
I don't believe you have thought this statement through. Firstly, to say something is not quantifiable is not a proof it is illogical, only that your method was not up to the task. It would be like asking to look at a distant star with a microscope, seeing the microscope can't, and then concluding the distant star must not exist. Secondly, to say a thing has no essence is to say that a thing is not even a thing. A pencil is not a pencil, a person is not a person, you are not you. These things, pencil, person, you, do not even exist. Even the modern scientists who reject by and large any useful philosophy do not go this far, they only argue essence lies in other areas that they believe they can measure. For example, consciousness is thought by many today to be the essence of a person instead of the soul being the essence of a person.

That is not a failure of natural theology.

You should refrain from attempting to form arguments.

The better point he should realize and be convinced of is that logic needs to be grounded in the transcendent reality of the personal God.

It's like how atheists want to argue morality without having a grounding for their ethics, why would I give them such a free-gift and let them simply "assume" some sort of morality that is disjointed and divorced of the transcendent personal God? I find it much more convincing to show how their presuppositions require the basic belief in God to even get off the ground and ask for "proofs" and ask for "morals".

You are giving them these things for free and arguing within their worldview that just presupposes logic and ethics and other categories can be disconnected from God, and then they'll find holes in your natural theology and will ultimately get them nowhere.

It is clear by now that by "logi" you mean "materialistic".

Your poor attempts to reduce reality to what you, a petty creature, can quantify, are laughable.

t. never had a child

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270066/

>eneuro.org/content/early/2018/05/14/ENEURO.0038-18.2018

Who made RNA? Why did they make it so it passed on memory?

>nature.com/news/fearful-memories-haunt-mouse-descendants-1.14272

Why did God make children inherit the memories of parents, then demand that they be fruitful and multiply?

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16084184/

Why does male microchimerism exist in women without sons, unless sexual intercourse infects a woman with Y chromosomes? How is that not an obvious physical mark advertising a woman's one true husband from whom she cannot be divorced?

>ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.17060616

Why do women on birth control want to kill themselves? Wasn't birth control supposed to make women happy?

God is sending you so many messages. He does have extra-Biblical evidence, and he will debate you if you let him into your heart. He doesn't ask that you turn your mind off, and asks that you look at the wind blowing in the trees to see his retort.

How can all this be true, while a God is also true, without the God of the Bible being the true God? Who else would make things this way?

Attached: IMG_9122.JPG (300x418, 40.6K)

I don't even know why threads like this are allowed on this board when they're just shitposts and the OP doesn't even want to be convinced.

prove to me logically that logic is valid

I think it's out of charity. I get it, but it defeats the point. If people wish to learn, they need to put in a bit of effort themselves. Every day there are really stupid threads that, if the OP just searched via Google, would not need to exist. The same goes for "What does this passage mean?" threads when there are hundreds of sites from every denomination specialising in exegesis.

Were I a mod such threads would be contained in a single recycling thread, or not allowed outright.

Sage for off-topic.

if i were mod, i would ban you for being an aitsistuc

I could make you a gigantic text on the subject, but as I know that tomorrow you are going to create this same thread again, I am going to summarize everything.

First, a universe without God is such an improbable and unpredictable universe that you have to have more blind faith in science than in a divine being to believe that life could come out of it.

Second, anthropologically, the human being has always felt an innate need for a personal superior force that only the Christian God can satisfy.

Isn't God immanent in the World?

remember we're fallen creatures, if proof for God can be derived from these things then one becomes equally certain:

There is only one God


yes trinitarianism is part of revelation, natural theology doesn't claim to prove trinitarianism apart from revelation.

mkay

Why do christians always disgustingly share their relationship with Plato, Aristotle and the greeks?

They might believe in the logic that a Creator god is necessity for intelligent evolution, this doesn't mean that said Creator god is the desert demon you worship.

All evidence points to the contrary

are you that vietnamese pagan again?

Where?

Yep.

Only Catholics and some Protestants do that. Orthodox long ago pointed out an argument of God via philosophy or principles won't be the same God as that of revelation. It's a generic God, and anyone could identify with it. That's not what Christianity teaches.

Also, this same silly people blame the Orthodox for being "Platonic", when it's the actual Orthodox who literally call Anthemas in their church on Plato and his adherents. Some may be Greek, but they abandoned that thousands of years ago.

This makes sense since Orthodox is the oldest demonination.

Glad to see they winnie the pooh know it.

Through out scripture

Scriptures aren't winnie the pooh evidences of shit.

Have fun with your

Scriptures are literally opinions, dumbass.

Right.

Documentation recorded by individuals of the same side are opinions.

Prove to me 3rd party account of Genesis for example.

Oh wait, you can't.

You realize if there used to be any "3rd party accounts" back then, they would of been added to the canon of the Bible?

No, they wouldn't.

Did they add winnie the pooh Zeus, Odin and Thor into the Bible?

How about Meditation by Marcus Aurelius, or other greek plays?

Are those depictions of Genesis?

Those where considered mythologies even by the people of their day.
You don't know what you're talking about.

No, and that's the point.

Aristotle didn't trust the events of mythology to be reality even in his time.

So where the 3rd party depictions of Genesis?

Can’t. Salvation is by faith.

You're right, Aristotle believed in a rudimentary concept of the One creator God.

He reasoned it by PURE logic.

Yet there's no evidence to suggest that said one Creator god is the desert demon mentioned in the scriptures.

Yes, and his pure logic points at a creator just like YHWH.

Like pearls before swine

Nope, a Creator god.

Not like YHWH.

YHWH myth is specific, Aristotle just deduced intelligent evolution/development needs an intelligent force, thus the necessity of a Creator god.

Not that the Creator God is "like YHWH".

Pure fallacy.

There is only 1 God, of course its divorced from revelation but its still the same God.

YHWH is depicted as the creator God through out the Old and New Testament.

Nope, it isn't, prove that it's the Same God.

Why doesn't mean crap because the Old and New Testament aren't evidences.

I say Kaos or Kosmos is the Creator God following Greek mythology.

If you believe in the Greek mythology then you disagree with Aristotle.

YHWH is the only God.

Aristotle deduced that a creator god exist, a creator god exists in Greek mythology, and Aristotle didn't know what the winnie the pooh YHWH is.
Proof, desert demon worshiper?

Again this is your opinion.

The Bible is perfect evidence of Faith In a creator God.

Nope, it's not. It's fact. Old & New Testament are literal mythology books.
And Greek mythology proves Kosmos is the Creator god.

Repent, demon worshipper.

I can not continue our conversation any longer, forgive me.

Find some evidences and get back to me.

Otherwise, it's all the same.

A million completely different people could say they believe in one God.. but the only one who matters is God himself. He gets to say who he is. Not our naval gazing or probing him with the blunt, feeble instruments of our minds (science, philosophy, etc). Only God gets to say who he is.

And when he first had a chance to state his case and get into specifics, what did he say? "I am the God of the your fathers. The God Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." The important thing to gather from this is God is focused on relationships and covenants/agreements. Not abstract ways of knowing him.. but PERSONAL ones. On noting who and where he has "gone under contract" with among humanity. And he never extended that contract, except through his Son.

Revelation and covenants. This is the God of Christianity. You can argue to the four corners of the Earth with clever scientific or Anselmian/Platonic/Aristolelian arguments, but we'll never bring people closer to God without the contract in hand! And if outsiders have a desore to know him, Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except through me." That's it. End of story. If people don't want to believe it, that's sadly their own problem.

They tried that once and fire came from the earth they were building upon. The 3rd temple was Christ and if God saw it fitting to prevent their blasphemy in the early years proceeding Christ's Ascension I would hope He would do it again in equally spectacular fashion today.

Attached: giphy (6).gif (460x600, 595.28K)

Evidence is before your eyes. I cannot help you any further on the direction you wish to head, be it away from God or closer to him in either heading you will travel this path alone. I implore you to not give up on your pursuit of God.

I will pray for you my lost friend.

Just to add to this, when Paul came to the Greeks and saw their idols sprawled out everywhere, he only marveled at one. "To the Unknown God".

And he only preached the Gospel through that one unknown God. He didn't say say, "Hey, you have these aspects of Apollo, Zeus, Aphropodite.. you've all got a "little bit of the truth". Now let me explain."

No, he said the only good thing about them was acknowledging the Unknown God.. and that they didn't know anything.

No evidences? And you call me "unfounded" arrogance?

So where are the evidences?
You better be, bitch.

And who's to say Paul is right?

He's a winnie the pooh yid with interest to promote his yew God.

He didn't pay respect to other's nations, he's there to say that there's no god but the jew god.

The greeks shoud have speared him and left him in a ditch.

Of course I do. You seek the one true God, even if you're being a hostile person your heart is set on the truth that God exists. Even if the veil of stone is covering your heart, you attempt to break free. Revelations be upon you one day my friend, and you'll feel an earthquake in your soul that'll break you free.

I do not seek the true god.

I said that the Aristotle deduced by logic that by necessity there's a Creator God.

He didn't mean that the Creator God is the desert demon, or that there's only one god.

You are literally playing mental gymnastics and assuming shit Aristotle never said.

A million completely different people could say they believe in one God.. but the only one who matters is God himself. He gets to say who he is.
agreed

Revelation and covenants. This is the God of Christianity. You can argue to the four corners of the Earth with clever scientific or Anselmian/Platonic/Aristolelian arguments, but we'll never bring people closer to God without the contract in hand! And if outsiders have a desore to know him, Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except through me." That's it. End of story. If people don't want to believe it, that's sadly their own problem.
It will bring them closer but they will still have to take a leap of faith to accept revelation, no one has said otherwise.

We say it. Because Christ says it.

I care nothing to debate this though. Our gospel merely said to kick the dust off of our feet if people reject it. Not sit around and plead with you.

You're looking for the Creator God, as you try to wound my heart and my faith, you do nothing but scar your own. I promise you God is ever forgiving, but we our selves continue to feel regret for our actions.

thats not what logic is u fukcwit

Biased accounts thus not evidences.

No, I don't.

Kosmos is the Creator God, yet it is not worthy of worship.
Athena is.

So you think the Creator God isn't a loving God?

Nope, per Greek mythology, Kosmos creates Order out of Chaos, not that it creates Good or Evil.

Ah. So how was Love created?

Per greek mythology, love was created by the Olympian gods, and the domination of Aphrodite.

So you believe in an entire pantheon of Greek Gods? Aren't you from Vietnam?

Vietnam used to be a french colony, and I read a lot about greek mythology when I was little.

You believe in Greek mythology, because as a kid you read books about Hercules and Zeus?
That's kinda odd man.


Do you believe in the idea of sin?

Why not? Certainly makes more sense than Christianity.

In fact, Daoism is similar, first there is Chaos, then there is Order, and from Order, other gods/men come forth.
As in bad things we shan't do? Yes.

Are why do you think we shouldn't do bad things? Do you believe is a punishment for sinning?

We shouldn't do bad things because it might yield bad results later on.

And we shouldn't do bad things just for the sake of these things being bad.

How so? Even if we never get caught for said crime? How would we feel the affects?

I'm part Thai myself. God is bigger than any of our cultures (my other side is Danish.. I don't see it any better). And God is not preferring Jews either. It has nothing to do with that. It's about covenants. If they were so important, they'd still be under agreement.. but they literally called curses on themslves when Christ was crucified. "His blood be on us and on our children". Until they repent, they'll be in the company of the real demons (not the silly ones being mentioned in this thread).

God calls us out of the world and says "Amen, amen I say to you, you must be born from above."

"Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’ " John 3:3, 5-7

And don't listen to larping Zig Forums tards here either who think race still matters if you're a Christian. The King of the universe isn't subject to your petty crap. We're called to something bigger than we can imagine.

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." -1 Peter 2:9

As said:
Our conscience will feel bad about it.

I'm sad that you got tricked by jews, but my whole point is that logic dictates a Creator God, it does not mean the Creator God is the god of the jews, nor there's only one god.

So do you have a bad conscious on how you've treat me? Calling me profanities? Being hateful?

I don't, because those acts are not bad.

Frankness is goodness.

I've seen the heavens opened up. I assure you, I'll be just fine. I'm the least of Christians, because I never truly found this by faith as some do. "Blessed is he who hasn't seen, but believes."

I know you won't believe that.. and I've never found a reason to bother with anyone to convince them. The minute I told even people I love, I was put in a mental hospital. hah. But over 20 years later, I'm just as determined. You can go on believing your god of "logical dictates", but when you're ready to actually meet God, just know that someone pointed you to a roadsign.

I don't think calling another user profanities is a thing of honesty, certainly not goodness.


Do you believe your religion is the only correct religion?

Assuming that jewish god exists, if he's wrong, I will tell him he's wrong.

Well, winnie the pooh you then.
I respect the ancestral religions of other nations.

You have been showing us the contrary this entire thread.

How?

Unless you are winnie the pooh jews, Christianity is not your ancestral religion.

Christianity was proclaimed for all people, and that was the one of the biggest points of the Gospels.

Also, you're a Vietnamese that worships greek Gods.

Irrelevant, it is not your ancestral religion.
My actual religion is worshipping Guan Yu of the Romance of the 3 kingdoms, but I DO like the greek gods, certainly Athena.

But it is tho, Christianity has been in Germany since 300 a.d

So you don't actually believe in the Greek mythology? And you also don't believe in Kaos then?

But it is not, since your ancestors have religion before 300 .a.d.
Hard to answer question.
I like them, but if they exist, they need proofs of their existence.