Prove to me that God exists

Isn't my fault you're blind
*Triple dabs

Why don't you prove him to yourself like every other honest seeker?

But broken down computers have creators so Hawkins is pretty dumb In they analogy.

God doesn't merely not exist, he can't exist. The nonexistence of God is self-evident. No being can completely occupy an infinite universe. Accordingly, because the universe is infinite, God can neither be all-knowing nor all-powerful. He would be a completely blind, stupid, powerless entity lost in infinity and would die instantly.

Because The Bible states that killing your self is a horrible act. Study judus.

Impossible to prove because it doesn't

The platypus.

God exists outside of the universe
*Quad dabs

actually, God is so great no universe can contain Him

You're anthropomorphising God. That's a basic mistake. I this universe is like a divine lovecraftian corspes. The apple tree sprouting life from nothing. Eyes in the he sky. People's multiple faces. It's imbedded. God doesn't even need to he aware of it's existence. We don't need to understand it either

Nothing technically exists outside the universe
(see Definition of the Universe)

imagine believing stephen hawking - literally a crippled retard that the deep state spoke for because the real stephen hawking died in 1985 and thought it was extra funny for a literal crippled retard that has a computer speak for him is the "smartest man in the world"

Isn't that a quote from red dwarf?

Here comes the average 98 IQ Yas Forums Users arguing about God. Should be a low IQ convo based in feels

Stop being scared faggot

>Prove to me that God exists

No.

You're only looking for confrontation, not knowledge.

Thats an issue solely with language
*Quint dabs

The proof is double. One is through the nature of a cause and is called propter quid: this is through the nature of preceding events sirnply. The other is through the nature of the effect, and is called quia, and is through the nature of preceding things as respects us. Since the effect is better known to us than the cause, we proceed from the effect to the knowledge of the cause. From any effect whatsoever it can be proved that a corresponding cause exists, if only the effects of it are sufficiently known to us, for since effects depend on causes, the effect being given, it is necessary that a preceding cause exists. Whence, that God exists, although this is not itself known to us, is provable through effects that are known to us.

What you mean

Did you graduate from Middle School? Cuz I'm not getting that vibe.

I'm still alive.

It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

I mean what I said stop being scared. Don't bullshit me either I know what I'm talking about I'm a high class szchophrenic. Why should I go into more detail you don't know you self enough to know what I'm talking about. None of us do fully

I think he must have snapped his cock off one night, having a furious wank to himself, So after that he decided astrophysics was his thang.

First, an idea must be distinguished from its "formal reality" from its "objective reality". The formal reality of an idea is its actual reality, that is, what actually exists. Objective reality is the power of the idea itself to represent a reality. Then, it must be admitted as a second principle that there cannot be more reality in the "objective" effect than in the "formal" cause. This first proof therefore follows the examination of the ideas which are in me: in all these ideas, I find that of an absolutely infinite being, possessing all the perfections: it is the idea of God. Now, as a finite being, both "physically" and from the point of view of understanding, I cannot be the author of this idea myself, because it has more objective reality than my understanding cannot understand it. There must therefore exist a supreme being having placed this idea in my finite understanding: it is God. The argument is therefore that I, who am a finite being, cannot be at the origin of the idea of infinity as I understand it (that is to say very positively, and not as a simple limitation of the finish).

We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

Pray to Him and ask for proofs.

Attached: jesusfollowers.png (500x817, 257.6K)

That proves that you are wrong.

We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

Not the first post, but definitely the best.

Hands down, speaks volumes.

Rationalising God. LMAO

You should not go into detail because it would just be your feels. The debate if God is silly, debating religious text is different tho, like The Bible