ATHIESTS: Have you really considered all the Evidence about the existence of God? Or was it your ...?

Question

upbringing or an experience that brought you to your lack of belief in a Creator?

St. Thomas Aquinas said: The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule...if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as a dogma what scientific scrutiny show to be false.

AQUINAS CAME UP WITH 5 PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD:

Read St. Thomas Aquinas' 5 proofs of Gods' existence in the Great Books of the Western World that can be found in the reference section of any descent library. In short God was not created. Here is an abbreviated version of what Aquinas wrote:

1. Whatever is moved (subsequent mover) is moved by another. (One of Newton's laws of motion) But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover... Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover which is moved by no other.

2. CAUSE AND EFFECT OR EFFICIENT CAUSE: There is no case known (nor indeed, is it possible) in which

a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself, because in that case it would be prior to itself, which is impossible... Now, to take away the cause is to take away the effect.... Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everone gives the name of God.

3. POSSIBILITY & NECESSITY OR TO BE OR NOT TO BE: ...if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence -- which is clearly false. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.... Therefore we must admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiveing it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God!

4. GRADATION TO BE FOUND IN THINGS: see reference

5. GOVERNANCE OF THINGS: We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an

for an end... Hence it is plain that they achieve their end NOT BY CHANCE BUT BY DESIGN. Now whetever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence, as the arrow is directed by the archer. [NOTE: This means that inanimate objects (earth, wind, fire etc.) in nature are directed by angels] Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are ordered to their end; and this being we call God.

God's existence is a SCIENTIFIC FACT! Aquinas said a demonstration can be made in one of two ways: by cause or effect. We are the effect and God is the cause. I don't assume anything including your idea that, "God does not exist" is true.


SEE THE GREAT BOOKS OF THE WESTERN WORLD vol. 2 "GOD" and vol. 19

Poisoneva shows signs of hate and personal problems since she asked the question for cures for a hangover. God help you!

Answer 1

Good job of presenting viable facts, it won't stop them from saying we're all brainwashed, gullible, weak, delusional etc...
But the proof is their if one takes an honest look.
I love this
In the beginning of the 20th century amid an atmosphere of scientific revolution and discoveries, Albert Einstein fashioned his theory of general relativity. The basic tenet being that matter converts into energy and energy into matter (E=mc2). Relativity also proposed that gravity alters space and time; that the universe is decelerating; and that it is expanding. Deceleration and expansion implied an initial explosion of the universe, and indeed, a beginning. Einstein's Relativity completely uprooted Kant's science and philosophical notions. The universe is FINITE. Subsequent observations have continued to solidify the theory of relativity down to this very day. Roger Penrose, a leading astrophysicist of our day, declared in 1994 that Einstein's theory of general relativity was "the most accurately tested theory known to science." (This after confirming the theory to a precision of 99,999,999,999,999 parts in a hundred trillion.) Yet, Einstein's own theory bothered him as it bothered most scientists (and still does). The physics itself was not the problem but rather the philosophical implication of Einstein's findings. For, to have a beginning necessarily implies one who began it. To have a point in time which can be called "the first moment" in time and space and matter and energy means that before then there was nothing. The question then is: where did this come from? And how? and by who? The implication then is there must be a Supreme intelligence transcendental to space, matter, and time. The Big Bang implies God.
Einstein and his fellow scientists, being mostly atheistic or agnostic, were very uncomfortable with this idea. As Arthur Eddington stated, "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me... I should like to find a genuine loophole." Even Stephen Hawking in his recent book A Brief History of Time tries to work contortionist theories to try to deny the Singularity and the beginning of time. He later admits though that his new proposal cannot be deduced from any principle. Einstein also upset by the implications of his findings tried to "fix" his theory to allow for an eternal universe. He tried to establish a cosmological constant to cancel out the effects of gravity on the universe. Later, however, experts in thermodynamics and astronomy confirmed through the Laws of Red Shift in 1929, in fact, that the universe is indeed running down. Einstein recanted his cosmological constant amendment and called it, "the biggest mistake of my life." Einstein grudgingly gave acceptance in his words, to "the necessity for a beginning", and eventually, "the presence of a superior reasoning power".
FURTHER CONFIRMATIONS
In 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite provided stunning confirmation of the hot big bang creation event. The news made the front-page headlines of newspapers around the world for days on end. Cambridge University professor, Stephen Hawking said: "It is the discovery of the century, if not of all time." And Michael Turner, an Astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab stated: "They have found the Holy Grail of cosmology." Project leader of the COBE satellite mission, George Smoot, an astronomer from the University of California at Berkeley, said: "What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe. It's like looking at God." What they confirmed was the Big Bang model which basically states that the entire physical universe, that is, all the matter and energy and the four dimensions of space and time - exploded from a state of near infinite density, temperature, and pressure. From the point about the size of a pencil tip the universe expanded to its current size and continues to expand. Later missions and observations from the Hubble telescope, Keck, and ROSAT have only further added to the conclusiveness of the Big Bang model when matched against the observational data. Without a doubt, modern cosmology is telling us there was indeed a beginning to the universe, and thus, a Creator exists.

Answer 2

All your arguments are philosophical, not scientific. You can just apply a scientific theory to any old situation and recieve a reasonable outcome Doesn't work that way!

Consider this: You are standing 5 feet away from the door. That five feet is a straight line. In that straight line, there are an infinite amound of points on that line between you and the door. You cannot cross an infinite amount of points. Therefore, you can never reach the door.

Doesn't make much sense, does it? Of course you can walk 5 feet!

Also, if St. Thomas Aquinas was such a genius, why is God not definitely proved? Why don't creationists and all theists use his work to prove god exists?

P.S. I noticed that you didn't put in number four. Was it because it was bullshit or did you not understand it?

Answer 3

Thomas Aquina's proofs were disproven long ago by Emmanuel Kant and others. You can read responses to Aquinas at the link below. But as an example, the "first cause" argument is "special pleading." If God does not require a cause, then it is simply a matter of your preference and mere assertion to claim the universe requires a cause. When you assert the universe may not be causeless but then assert a magical being, without any proof, which requires no cause. It's simply making an exception for a viewpoint you've already embraced while denying the same exception without justiifcation to other possibilities. It's a fallacious argument.

Answer 4

Aquinas' proofs were shown to be seriously flawed by later philosophers. I have considered all the evidence I have found/been presented with, and it's all crap.

But have YOU considered the evidence against god? For example, if you say god created the universe then we can actually disprove such a god. Time is part of the universe as demonstrated by relativity. 'creation' implies nonexistence followed by existence. For the universe to have been created, there must have been a time when it did not already exist. But if time is part of the universe, that implies a time when time did not exist. So the universe can not have been created,which means there can not be a creator.

Answer 5

Who created god then? Where is your answer? Why are you picking and chosing certain scientific facts to support your belief yet failing to apply the other laws of science and logic to God? Who the hell is Aquinas? I don't remember him being cited for the most intelligent, knowledgable, wises man in history. We don't have a complete nor definate answer for the universe, and we may never. Accept it and don't assume or make up bogus explanations such as God. The concept of 'God' is contradictory, which is unacceptable to a dogma that claims to be absolute truth. Not to mention from a God that is all knowing, powerful, and good. Science is based on hypothesis, testing, and solutions. However, one flaw can completely disqualify any theory. Yes, I admit that because I am not a dogmatic believer in anything. I don't claim to have the truth but theist do. That is the flaw.

My non-belief in God came from research into history, human nature, biology, science, etc. The main source though; logica and common sense. I lost my fear and accepted reality and it is better than any religion that causes so much pain and misery as the Christian faith or any other dogmatic belief.

Answer 6

I wasn't raised as an atheist, I have had no bad experiences in my life which led me here. You can show me anything you consider evidence of a God, I have seen it all before, you will not be able to change my belief. If I show evidence that I think proves there is no God would it change your opinion, no probably not. Cause and Effect is Not a valid argument for there being a God, if you use this then I would like to know what caused God. I don't need all the answers to life, I don't need to know where we came from, someday science will probably figure it all out and prove with beyond a doubt. Since science is actually fairly young I am sure I won't be here for it, the only thing I believe is that God won't be a part of that explanation. I love my life, I love myself and others, I have no need to reexamine all the evidence and try to fool myself into believing something that I will never be able to.

Answer 7

I'm a buddhist, I was raised as a christian. I switched because the evidence for god is strongly outweighed by the evidence against him.

Question: Where are the dinosaurs in the bible? We have fossils that prove that they existed. I would have thought an all-knowing god would have known about them. Ohhhh wait, maybe it's because some guy made up the bible when they didn't even know dinosaurs existed. That explains it.

As for your philosopher friends little facts, a bit outdated. We have theoretical physics to explain those points. String Theory and M-theory, to name a few.

Answer 8

You use the phrase 'scientific fact' in a very liberal way... Let me ask you back, are these points you bring up the reason you chose to believe? Did they convice you to believe when you might not have?

Basically, he's saying there has to be a beginning and that is God. Well, what came before him? You see, I want to know more about the Creator and how he came into existence. If He is the beginning of time, why can't Big Bang be the beginning of time (actually, we consider it to be the beginning of space-time)?

Answer 9

Yes I have considered all the evidence and come to the conclusion that there is no evidence to support his existence. And to Mr Aquinas I say we can either say we know the universe exists and say that when it started it started by it's self or we can go on for infinity with deity's with no evidence to support any of them. So we can either say we know this exists so it caused it's self or we can make up things for eternity that caused them selves. Isn't it better to say something we know exists caused it's self then make up a being with no evidence to support the hypothesis that it exists caused it's self? Because if god can just exist why can't the universe? Say no to jesus

Answer 10

That guy most likely did that "research" already determined that there is a God.

Yeah, I've considered the evidence, but it's flawed because it already assumes there is a God. And they always argue to prove his existence by using slippery slope arguments (A human made a clock, therefore, we have a creator). I stopped believing altogether just because. No bad experience has caused me to do so; I've lived a happy life. I just decided to start living a rational life.

Answer 11

i was agnostic for a long time. and then i took a world religion course that looked at all of the major religions. then i came to the conclusion that god didnt exist (for me at least). and yes i have read aquinas wrote, and it didnt do anything for me