Thought experiment. What if it was one day proven 200% there’s no God?


ahhh now I see


See how non sensical that is? What kind of God would set that up?

So you are basically saying your going to follow God so he will save you from what he is going to do to you if you don’t follow him. That’s mafia tactics 101. Your basically paying protection to God. It’s basically “nice soul you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it”


Existing for infinite time? Yes, but doing so without ontological dependence on an uncaused cause? No. The universe clearly cannot be its own cause as it is contingent (that is, it’s not logically necessary for it (1) to exist and (2) exist in its current arrangment as opposed to another arrangement (even if that other arrangement is only different by one subatomic particle)) and it is not metaphysically simple.


Maybe I’m not capable of understand the proof? Guess I wouldn’t be the first one.


Maybe I’m not capable of understand the proof? Guess I wouldn’t be the first one.


No. I’m going to follow God so he will save me from my sins and that way I get to live in my creators love and never have to be without him (that’s hell). God desires all to be saved. If you want to have life after death go to the one who gave you life, don’t reject him (death)


Doesn’t make it untrue.

Still, I grant that the metaphysical lango can sound foreign at first. That’s how it was for me when I jumped right in without knowing much about classical philosophy or Aquinas.

But once you know what is meant by terms like “contingency” and “actuality” and “potency” and “necessary being” and concepts like essence vs existence, everything clicks pretty nicely.

I do recommend you look into these more. Try Robert Spitzer, SJ and Ed Feser.


As Jesus said

Get behind me , satan.


I don’t think any of it would change much of my core thoughts. I think that if God exists, there isn’t a thing I can do about it anyway. I will live my life the best I think I should, not what some ancient book or religion who claims to have the inside track on the “truth” is saying. I see the odds of those not being man-made creations at close to zero.


Without stating as a technical argument with premises and so on, the basic thrust is this:

The world around us is plainly contingent: The realities we experience (yourself, your dog, today’s thunder storm, that water molecule, etc.) do not exist in themselves. Instead, they depend on other realities–whether they be internal combinations and parts or outside factors. My cat doesn’t have to exist, nor do I.

But can every reality in existence be like this? Can every reality be merely contingent and dependent on something outside itself?

NO! If that were the case, if all realities in existence were contingent, then ultimately nothing could be explained. Every reality would be awaiting its existence. In order for you to exist right now, you can not only be dependent on things receiving existence.

Rather, there must be at least one reality who has existence of its very nature. If not, then nothing could receive existence or being.

What is the nature of reality that is NOT contingent?

It can not have physical restrictions: localized here, or acting in this particular manner (like a proton rather than an electron). If that were the case, then its own existence would be dependent on some principle outside itself – some reality that accounts for the manner of this alleged non-contingent reality’s manner of existence. That would make it contingent and NOT the ultimate reality.

So, ultimately, the ultimate reality that is NOT contingent can not be restricted by something outside of itself.

That there is enough to suggest that ultimate reality (1) can not be more than one and (2) can not be physical – not matter, not localized, not conditioned by time and space.


Christianity is not book-centered but person-centered.

Jesus Christ makes the difference. Before you are critical about, say, Noah’s Ark or Old Testament violence or outdated moral precepts, consider Jesus, first.

Jesus is the context, the interpretive key, the center, the goal.


“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.”

CS Lewis

Lewis should have stopped right here and I would have agreed with him.


True. And a lunatic or madman could not have Risen from the dead.



It has always been a source of amazement to me, this evangelical zeal of an atheist over something he says he does not believe in. Arguing with such a zealot, like throwing your pearls before swine, I guess is as good a waste of time as engaging in illogical conjecture of an illogical proposition.


Rising from the dead doesn’t automatically logically make his teachings moral.


But it vindicates who he said he was.

And what moral teaching troubles you?


If you are talking about me, and I can only assume, then I don’t care what you call me or say against me, as long as it has truth. One thing I am not, is evangelical about my beliefs. I want people to know them. I want people to understand why I have them. I want them to provide reasons why they think I am wrong. But I could care less about changing anyone’s mind on anything. My only goal is to try to get you to think and arrive at your own conclusion, not someone else’s as I did for many years of my life. The thing I have respect for about many posters on this forum, is that they have thought about their position a lot. The ones that haven’t, really can usually be squeezed out.


The first one that comes to mind is “love your enemies.” That is the opposite of morality.


What would you prefer to do with our enemies?

Also, what standard of morality are you using to judge this precept?


The same evolution where 90% of all DNA came into existence around the same time. HAHA good luck with that. Don’t forget to explain to all of us uneducated religious zealots how matter comes from nuttin’.

If you could prove that there was no God I would say there is no God. Since that is an impossibility I have no worries that you (of all the atheists) could even give me one reasonable proof that there is no God!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit