God Exists and I Can Prove It

If you believe in the existence of God, can you support your position?  If you’re an atheist, can you refute the most compelling arguments?  If you answered “No” to either of these questions, you might enjoy and benefit from this video.

And please, whatever you do, please get engaged and go crazy in the comments.  Pro or con doesn’t matter.

Because not only do I believe in God, I believe that God wants you to be engaged with Him.  And I believe that if you engage with Him, in time, you will belong to Him.

20 responses to “God Exists and I Can Prove It

  1. 1. The big bang theory does not support the existence of the Christian god or your version of that god or any creator god (that you don’t believe in). The BBT says that there was an expansion of a singularity. All you have is the special pleading that there has to be a beginning of the universe and your god has to be the cause. You need to claim by special pleading that your god doesn’t need a creator or a beginning. The laws of physics may not need a beginning or a creator either, and are just as eternal as you want your god to be. We don’t know what was before the BB, but in any case, we don’t need your god or any other creator god.

    You try to claim that this god is somehow outside of time and space, but from the bible, we see that it can’t be since it is limited by time and space repeatedly. As for LeMaitre being a priest, yep, he was and many Christians are sure that he was wrong and don’t even believe in the BBT and believe that Catholics are polytheists.

    2. Intelligent design aka creationism. Most if not all religions make this exact same claim, and none of you have any evidence that your particular god/s did anything at all. Again, the laws of physics suffice, no god needed. You, and WLC and other creationists, presuppose your god exists and then you try to find a job for it. The teleological argument depends on the ontological argument and that argument can’t be shown to be true either since there is no evidence of a perfect being at all, no evidence that being able to describe such a being requires it to be real nor evidence that one is necessary.

    We fit the universe, the universe doesn’t fit us. Brian Greene does not agree with creationists and he has evidence for his multiverse theories.

    3. The moral argument is usually what theists run to when they have nothing else. They want to claim that their version of their god is the objective font of morality. The problem with this is that theists don’t agree on what morals their gods want, and Christians disagree with each other on what morals this god wants. What most Christians claim is that their god has absolute right to do whatever it wants and by definition this is considered “good” since this god is doing the action. However, they also say that some actions aren’t good if a human does them. So, we have a theist morality that makes the actor determining the good or evil of an action: subjective morality. If genocide is always wrong, then even if this god did it it would be wrong. But if this god can commit and order genocide, and Christians are good with it, then all we have is a morality based on might equals right.

    Most civilizations have similar morals since they make civilization work, morals about property, morals about the integrity of the self, etc. You are also very ignorant about what morals were in the Mongol empires. Every empire, including christian ones, were expanded with murder, pillaging, rape, etc. The laws after the expansions got rid of those since they don’t work in a civilization. The Mongol Empires, for example, had laws about criminal acts, religious tolerance, etc.

    5. There is no evidence for the resurrection or of the existence of a man/god at all. We have claims about in the bible, and those claims have no evidence to support them. We do have claims that people saw the risen Christ but again no evidence that this happened. The author of John makes the silly claim that JC did so many acts that the whole world couldn’t hold the books enumerating them.

    People often die for things that aren’t true, Heaven’s Gate is a great example and so is the People’s Temple. There is nothing “embarassing” in the bible to people who believed that their savior needed to be sacrificed/die for them to be saved.

    There is no eyewitness testimony in the bible. We have stories written down, with direct contradictions, and instances where there was no one to see the event being described.

    No one wrote about a resurrected Christ except as a report on what christians believed. There was no reports of the dead walking around in Roman-occupied Jerusalem on Passover. There were no reports about a guy wandering around with a roman legion’s worth of men (plus women and children) following him. There were no reports of a major earthquake and the sun darkening on the same day. There was no census where people had to go back to their birthplaces, and there was no massacre of the innocents.

    Since magic has never been the answer to any question, it is not plausible to assume that magic occurred then.

    5. Most if not all religions claim that they experience their god/s. I doubt your and their claims for the same reason you do: no evidence. IF you want to claim that this is “evidence” for your god, then every other god is as real as yours is.

    That 80% of Americans believe in a god or gods (not just the Christian one) to some degree or other is true( https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/belief-in-god/); this doesn’t make any god real. That is an appeal to popularity fallacy.

    There is no evidence of an empty tomb or a full one for that matter. Christians can’t even agree on where it is.

    • Outstanding rebuttals — I bet we could have a really fun conversation! Let’s set up a time and have a zoom conversation. I’ll record it and — provided we both agree that it went well of course — I’ll put it on my YouTube channel and blog about it here. Send me a gmail at 12thkey and let’s line it up!

      • that sounds like it could be fun. I would require that any recording is published no matter what. Do you agree? if so I’ll shoot you an email so we can set things up.

      • Robert Mitchell

        Provided the conversation is amicable, sensible and polite. I won’t be give a platform to swearing, abuse, hate mongering, etc. On an almost daily basis I have to delete comments by trolls, supremacists, conspiracy theorists, and radicals of all stripes. Agreed?

      • Can you explain to me what you mean by “sensible”?

        is showing that your claims aren’t true considered unacceptable? Unfortunately, I’ve had many Christians try to claim that anything that shows them wrong to be “disrepectful”, etc. That is why I look at your requirements of being “polite” to be suspect.

        You can expect me to be as I am in my first post.

      • Robert Mitchell

        If your goal is have me say my claims aren’t true you will fail because,.like the innocent prisoner, no amount of supposed evidence or argument will convince me of my guilt. I *know* God exists. Therefore, since both our positions are intractable, I suggest we just have fun talking. I want to enter into this with the idea that we might become friends, and conduct ourselves such that we do not extinguish that possibility. Does this make sense at all?

      • So, there is little reason to discuss things with someone who says nothing will change his mind, yes? Unlike you, if you have evidence I will consider it and change my mind if warranted. For example, a healed amputee would be a great start since the bible claims that baptized believers in Christ as savior can heal sickness and injury.

        Please don’t assign me your dogmatic attitude in an attempt to excuse your unwillingness to consider points other than your own.

        It’s rather hard to become friends with someone won’t consider my points at all and has stated so. What you might want to do is a video addressing my rebuttal of your claims of “proof” your god exists. If, as you said, my rebuttals are “outstanding”, it should be an interesting challenge to address them.

        I am sorry but just talking with your intent to not consider anything I say valid seems to be nothing but you wanting to preach at me. that’s not very friendly at all.

        What would we talk about if you aren’t willing to consider anything I say? I do hope you’ll answer this question since I’m very curious on what you want to talk about.

      • Robert Mitchell

        Where’d you go? Was kind of hoping we could chat…

      • I responded to this post of yours which was last I saw: “If your goal is have me say my claims aren’t true you will fail because,.like the innocent prisoner, no amount of supposed evidence or argument will convince me of my guilt. I *know* God exists. Therefore, since both our positions are intractable, I suggest we just have fun talking. I want to enter into this with the idea that we might become friends, and conduct ourselves such that we do not extinguish that possibility. Does this make sense at all?”

        your last post didn’t show up on my feed. I’ll respond to it shortly.

      • I would like answers to my questions before I take time to chat with you.

        Can you explain to me what you mean by “sensible”?

        is showing that your claims aren’t true considered unacceptable?

        I would require that any recording is published no matter what. Do you agree?

        IMO, there is little point to speak to someone who says they won’t listen to anything I say. You said this: “If your goal is have me say my claims aren’t true you will fail because,.like the innocent prisoner, no amount of supposed evidence or argument will convince me of my guilt. I *know* God exists. “ that’s exactly saying you won’t accept anything evidence I have and any argument I have.

        I don’t believe you were an atheist, at least not an informed one. I’ve met quite a few people who were raised Christian, then claim they were somehow atheists and unsurprisingly, they go right back to Christianity, mostly because they were getting older and wanted a foot in the “pearly gates”.

        The four ways of knowing can work up to a point, but they all have problems. Perspectival, or awareness and perception, is fraught with problems since human brains aren’t perfect. And participatory or “becoming”, is also a problem in that people can deceive themselves into thinking they are becoming something. These don’t seem to be used much by scientists looking at consciousness and cognitive theory, but theists and those who think magic exists do like these ideas. Gnosticism, noetics, all are dependent on these things being valid. What comes out is generally a theist philosopher trying to find a gap for his god, either trying the “we can’t know anything” nonsense or “that we know things by some magic sense”, both of which can’t be shown to be true.

        There is no evidence for a “soul” that exists separate from the brain. If it interacts with the physical, e.g. the brain, then we should be able to sense it with various types of meters. Physical injury and chemical imbalance affect the brain and the person so there is no magical thing that isn’t touched by these injuries and sicknesses. Theists usually try this with their claims of objective morality, which they also cannot show exists. True and false do exist and they can be shown by experiment and observation.

        IMO, there is no such thing as “fundamentalism PTSD” since Christians are all fundamentalist in some form or another depending on what they want to be literally true. What I may have is a tiredness of Christians making things up to fit their personal religion and insisting each other aren’t “really” Christians. The attempts of some Christians to attack other Christians is a symptom of their not wanting to deal with their religion as it was invented. This is the sophisticated theology many Christians claim to have and claim that their literalist brethren don’t have. It also is offered as an excuse why to ignore atheist points, in that the theist has to claim that the atheist isn’t an expert on some philosophical concept.

        I don’t know if I have a favorite book. I read constantly and have since I was about 3. I have favorites for different reasons. I think over all, Emergence, a book about an intelligent young woman navigating a post apocalyptic setting is my favorite. I’ve taken enough Lit classes to not be impressed with what others find “significant”. My favorite movie is probably Leon: The Professional with Jean Reno and Natalie Portman. I’m a big science fiction and fantasy fan.

        If you can answer the questions above, and we can come to some terms about what would allow a recording to be made, then I’m game for a chat.

      • Robert Mitchell

        You said, “IMO, there is little point to speak to someone who says they won’t listen to anything I say. You said this: “If your goal is have me say my claims aren’t true you will fail because,.like the innocent prisoner, no amount of supposed evidence or argument will convince me of my guilt. I *know* God exists. “ that’s exactly saying you won’t accept anything evidence I have and any argument I have.”

        I didn’t say I wouldn’t listen to your words, I just said you can’t convince me because I have first-hand evidence that’s incontrovertible. But you are dismissive of my evidence — despite the fact that eyewitness testimony is a valid form of evidence in every court room on the planet — because I can’t measure The Uncaused Cause of Being Itself with a thermometer, Geiger counter, or some gadget.

        Now for your questions:

        Can you explain to me what you mean by “sensible”?

        I shouldn’t have said “sensible.” I can see how that was confusing. I should have said “level headed,” “civil” or perhaps “moderate.” I believe in manners.

        Is showing that your claims aren’t true considered unacceptable?

        Sure, go for it!

        I would require that any recording is published no matter what. Do you agree?

        You are very focused on the idea of the recording and on the “terms.” This gives me the impression — I could be wrong, please correct me if I am — that chatting with me holds interest for you primarily as an opportunity to publicly shame me in some way or at least win (whatever that means). Either way, sure, that’s fine. Let’s go ahead and talk and we’ll both blog it. I like people and I generally find a way to have fun talking to them.

        Incidentally, we do have at a few things in common — Leon: The Professional is one of my favorite films and I used to be huge sci-fi fan (I basically stopped reading it in the mid ’80s). My favorites were always Arthur C. Clarke (Childhood’s End), Isaac Asimov (everything!), Philip K. Dick (Dr. Bloodmoney and basically everything!) and Kurt Vonnegut (Breakfast of Champions, Slaughterhouse Five, etc.) Ursula K. Le Guin (Left Hand of Darkness), and Anne McAffrey (why the Pern books haven’t spawned a series of movies is a mystery to all mankind). I still love sci-fi and sci-fantasy movies. As a theist, I’m sure you won’t me shocked at all to hear that my favorites are The Fifth Element and The Matrix.

      • The reason I dismiss your claims of eyewitness evidence is that there is none. We have no evidence that the claims in the bible were from an eyewitness. That is a baseless claim made by Christians. The evidence we have that they aren’t from eyewitnesses is:

        There are scenes where no one could know what happened since there were no other people present.

        They claim things that cannot be shown to have ever happened e.g. the census, the massacre of the innocents, etc.

        Between John and the other gospels, we have a vastly different character in Jesus Christ.

        Christians disagree on how to judge the gospels; we have various claims of types of eyewitness reports without evidence. Bible scholars, both Christian and not, have evidence that the gospels aren’t from eyewitnesses. That an entire industry has been created to try to harmonize the gospels shows that Christians are aware of the problems and have tried their best to retcon the story, even when it requires adding and assuming things wholesale.

        You have said that you won’t listen to what I have to say when you claim that “no amount of supposed evidence or argument” will convince you that you are wrong. In this case, listen means more than reading words or being in physical range of the sounds of my voice. Consideration of what I say is what I expect, not “No matter what, I won’t consider”. It would be like talking to a white supremacist who refused to acknowledge the evidence that he is wrong.

        Eyewitness testimony is not accepted blindly as evidence in every courtroom on the planet. It must have something else to support it. In this case, the claims of the bible have nothing else to support them. No contemporary reports of the events, including the dead walking around Jerusalem on the Jewish Passover. Do you think no one would have noticed that?

        Another example of this is that there are some claims by supposed eyewitnesses that there was a solar eclipse that is the reason for the darkening of the sky. A solar eclipse can’t happen during Passover.

        We have no evidence for an “uncaused cause of being” itself. We should be able to find evidence for this being and the events that supposedly were caused by it. We can’t. If this god can interact with the physical, then it should be able to be detected by the physical. To argue otherwise ends up with you just advocating magic as a cause. In that case, we may as well go with the “last Tuesday” argument where this god can magic anything to happen, including creating the world last Tuesday and we only think we remember decades of living.

        Thanks for clarifying your use of the word “sensible”. It is no problem in being civil, but again, I’ve had very many Christians run to the excuse that I am not being “civil” when I point out that their beliefs are wrong. It comes down to a common plaint “why do you attack us when we aren’t doing any harm”. I think you meant that showing that your claims aren’t true is acceptable.

        Yep, I am focused on recording and the terms since in my experience, Christians aren’t to be trusted at all. They have lied, quote mined, etc to spread their religion and spread the false claim that atheists are somehow evil. You are the one who brought up recording, so I’m not sure where you get the accusation that I want to somehow shame you or “win”. Why did *you* want to record our conversation?

        I love Kurt Vonnegut and in a similar vein, Hunter S. Thompson. You might like Warren Ellis, who has written at least one book, and does a lot of comic books, including one series about the son of Satan and how that works out theologically/philosophically in the Marvel universe. I’m not too much into the classics of science fiction though I have read them, but I do like Larry Niven, Richard Morgan, etc. I’m going to be trying some of Le Guin’s stuff since somehow I’ve managed to miss reading that. As for fantasy, I like some of Tolkein, really hate Game of Thrones, and like most sword and sorcery/pulp like Conan, and most Edgar Rice Burroughs stuff. I also used to read Marvel comics a lot.

        And YES! Really why hasn’t Pern become a movie/tv series. 😊 🙂 I do love Fifth Element but Matrix has too many plot holes for me to like. I’m a big Star Trek fan (original series anyway).

        So, when to have a chat? I’d suggest next Friday morning (I’m on the east coast of the US) but can work with other times. I work M-Th 8-5 or so.

      • Robert Mitchell

        Awesome — we have lots to talk about! What time zone are you in? I work 8 – 6 M-F U.S. Eastern Time and teach martial arts, so I don’t have many slots open. My best times would be Sat or Sun noon till 10 PM and Tues or Thurs evenings 6 to 9 PM. Looking forward to it!

      • I live in Pennsylvania, so EST until the silliness of daylight savings time 🙂

        how about next Thursday, around 7?

      • Robert Mitchell

        Thursday at 7 is perfect. Send me an gmail at 12thkey and I’ll reply with my zoom conference details!

      • an age ago I took judo. My teacher, a little hungarian guy, was quite the teacher. I didn’t keep it up but it did teach me how to fall.

  2. I’m satisfied that you aren’t a troll, so Instead of talking about talking, let’s just have a chat. You asked, “What would we talk about if you aren’t willing to consider anything I say?” First, I didn’t say I wouldn’t listen to you or let you speak — I just said your chance of converting me back to atheism (where I came from ) is nil. Speaking of which, since I used to be an atheist, I’d like to see if we agree on anything at all. I’d also like to hear about you as a person — your perspectives, history, and arc. We could have fun talking about the four ways of knowing as proposed by cognitive science — propositional, perspectival, procedural, and participatory — and their relationship to the so-called “iron box of materialIsm.” In other words, I’d like to see if you have any feelings about consciousness and the need (or lack thereof) to study it Also I think one can learn a lot about people by their favorite stories, so I’d like to know what your favorite books and movies are (mine favorite book is “Moby Dick” and my favorite film is “Pulp Fiction” by the way). I recognize that you probably have “Fundamentalism PTSD” just like I have “Troll PTSD.” I promise not to preach at you if you promise not to call me a witch doctor.

  3. Pingback: Conversation Ministry: My Talk with Velkyn, an Atheist | Robert Mitchell Jr.

  4. Pingback: What the Boss Likes – Vel video chats with a theist – Club Schadenfreude

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.