10 Questions Theists Can't Answer

  1. What empirical evidence do you have for the existence of your God?

  2. What empirical evidence do you have for the existence of your God?

  3. What empirical evidence do you have for the existence of your God?

  4. What empirical evidence do you have for the existence of your God?

  5. What empirical evidence do you have for the existence of your God?

  6. What empirical evidence do you have for the existence of your God?

  7. What empirical evidence do you have for the existence of your God?

  8. What empirical evidence do you have for the existence of your God?

  9. What empirical evidence do you have for the existence of your God?


  1. What empirical evidence do you have for the existence of your God?

infinite regress

What do want to experiment to have your empirical evidence ? don’t you think at least the evidence cannot be empirical because god can’t be measured ?


Did someone hear a baby crying? I was focused on trying to read the gibberish just posted and I thought I heard an infantile whine? Anyone else catch that?

I don’t speak Spanish. Can someone interpret this for me. It looks like it might be a question as there is a question mark floating near the end of something that looks like a sentence.

I’m pretty sure I was just told there is no empirical evidence for God as there is no way to measure it. Well then… how do you know it is fucking there? Nogba do you have magical senses capable of seeing things that are not there. Things the rest of us can’t see? Ewwwwew you must be really special. I have seen other people like you in the psych ward. Do you know any of them? Peter, Jesus, Napoleon, or Joan of Ark?

The way you’re mocking me proves that you are the one in the psych ward not me.
can you prove If you can’t see something it means that it doesn’t exist ?

Can you give some examples of evidence that isn’t empirical?

Nogba, can you explain for us just how infinite regress proves your god exists?
There are many prominent Christians who argue that there is no such thing as ‘infinite regress’. They claim everything comes back to a ‘prime mover’, ‘first cause’ or specifically the Christian god.
As an atheist I make no claim to know if there is an infinite regress or not. However I can follow the logic progressions of experiment and physical measurements in the theories of modern cosmology and quantum physics that show all known accepted actions of physics break down and cease operating at an infinitesimally short period of time before the big bang. What happens earlier is simply not known and at best speculative. There could be infinite regress and there might not.
How do you arrive at the idea that there is? And please keep in mind that the article you linked to only deals with only several philosophical questions related to ‘infinite regress’ and all three references to Aristotle, Philopsophy of mind and Libertarian free will, have nothing at all to do with the physical sciences of observational astronomy and particle physics.


What about infinite regress ?

I didn’t say that there is an Infinite regress, i was just trying to give an idea.
Actualy i’m not a Christian but i agree with them on that one, it’s abvious that we can’t exist if there is an infinite regress, why is this not abvious to you if i may ask ?


Poor little Nogba, that is not the way logic works. You are the delusional story teller making the God claim. You are the one hallucinating evidence for things that can not be seen and then suggesting the un-sensed can be sensed. Shifting the burden of proof is not allowed in the real world where rational adults live. Take your meds and go watch TV with the rest of the inmates.

Or… you could actually respond to the OP. Hey, there is a novel idea! Why not present some empirical evidence for the existence of your delusion. We would all love to hear it.

Using your logic… Jesus belongs in a psych ward. The way Jesus mocked the pharisees proves he is the one in the psych ward. (Do you know anything at all about “rational” discourse?

Matthew 23: *Jesus agrees with me. The delusional need to be mocked.

  • They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. (verse 4)
  • They do all their deeds to be noticed by men. (verse 5)
  • They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places (verse 6–7)
  • [They] shut off the kingdom of heaven from people (verse 13)
  • [They] devour widows’ houses (verse 14)
  • [They] travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, [they] make him twice as much a son of hell as [them]selves. (verse 15)

Are you superior to your lord? You really feel offended when Jesus fully embraces mockery to the ignorant? Ha ha ha ha ha ha… Poor little deist!

1 Like

Well maybe you could start explaining this thing you claim is obvious.

Generally it is best if you make a claim, then you defend that claim.

Instead it seems you’ve made the claim, then demanded others to defend the antithesis of your claim.

Short answer: NO

That god can’t be measured is an unfounded claim based on attributes ascribed to the Abrahamic god,who is one of many thousands of possible deities currently worshiped by human beings .

My position is that no god may be argued into or out of existence. I have only contempt for apologists and their intellectually dishonest tools of theology, biblical hermeneutics and exegesis.

I am an agnostic atheist.That means I do not believe in god(s), due to an absence of proof. I do not claim to know. No matter how unlikely it seems to me, it’s possible that there is at least one god. If he turns out to be the monster of the Old Testament, I’m screwed. However,if he’s the loving and forgiving Jesus in whom my late mother believed, I’ll be fine. That because I do my best to be a good man of conscience.–Pope Francis has said that the moral atheist will go to heaven.

You believe in a god? How nice for you. You think it would be splendid if we ignorant atheists shared your beliefs? After all, isn’t that why you’re on an atheist forum?.
No problem. I am100% ready and willing to believe in your god. I will do so immediately after you prove he exists.

You’re giving excuses to your mocking ?
if you read the comments before you, you would have seen that i said i’m not christian.
so i don’t know how did you assume that he is my lord ? or what does this got to do with me ? and you’re laughing and everything ?

This was not for you it was for the guy who asked me, he should be the one to say if it is obvious or not, because i was talking to him.
I was saying that if humains needs infinite causes to exist then he won’t exist since it is infinite, therefore a first cause must exist. is this what you mean i should explain ?

Yes, please. :cherries:

let me ask you this question before if i may, do you think that something can pop out to existance without a cause of existance ? if yes, tell me what that is then prove it doesn’t need a cause of existance.

Ok so you agree with the Christians that there is a god and there is no infinite regress, therefore you beleive everything, including the universe, had a ‘beginning’, and therefore, there is a ‘prime mover’ or ‘first cause’.
I have to assume that that ‘beginning’ is, for you, the ‘Creation’ and the “obvious” reason we exist. If I am correct so far, would you agree that you that your belief is strictly a matter of faith, that is, your belief does not rely and cannot be supported by physical evidence and can only find expression as a philosophical or theist proposition?

As I posted I make no claim about infinite regresses. I follow the logical sequence of information and accretion of substantive scientific knowledge from ‘1+1=2’ to that point known as ‘Planck Time’ ( 1x10*-36 seconds after the big bang/expansion) before which the rules of physics and chemistry are unknown. I have no knowledge or understanding of anything before that point in time. I cannot accept anyone does. The scientific method makes no claims beyond informed specualtion and acknowledges that limitation, but that limitation does not prove or disprove the reality of infinite regress, a point of creation for the universe or the existence of gods.

So I rephrase the question I asked earlier, how do you arrive at the idea that there is no infinite regress, that there was a creation of the universe and that any of this proves the existence of your god or any other?

Please bear in mind I am an atheist for reasons that have nothing to do with my morality or humanity. I maintain both. I do not deny you your right to have faith in whatever you want to beleive nor do I question your intelligence or integrity. I don’t recognise faith as a reliable path to truth or as a dependable source of explanation. Relying purely on faith I could reasonably end up believing anything. I do not deny your faith in any attempt to insult, it is merely the way I see the world.

Pretty much, yeah (you and I might disagree on what are causes and what aren’t, which might change my answer, but I think I know what you are after, and “yes” seems to be the best fitting answer).

No thanks, maybe some other time.

{ @ nogba: “do you think that something can pop out to existance without a cause of existance ?” }

My answer to your question is that I don’t know if such a thing is possible §. Certainly matter pops into and out of existence, but we have an explanation for it. Here’s a link to just one article on that :-

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

Article on matter

From that article :-

Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.

For more such information, try using Google. Do it like this :-

Google search: matter+popping+in+and+out+of+existence

(Follow the link above, and do some research).

So the answer is a lot more complicated than I can understand, but other people are studying the matter.

One reason one might think that everything must have a cause, is that everything which we observe as lay people seems to come about due to a cause. But to be more nuanced, we ought to say that everything which we observe as lay people seems to come about due to a physical cause. Therefore, if the universe did have a cause, we are only warranted on the evidence, to say that it had a physical cause.

And on the idea of a universe popping into existence from literally nothing, a literal nothing is incoherent to me. I mean, exactly what was that “nothing” where was it ? How was it bounded, in what was it contained? A literal nothing makes no sense.

An on infinite regress, and the idea of a god acting as an infinite regress stopper. That is just special pleading, saying that there is an uncaused cause and its the god. It’s an ad-hoc ‘god of the gaps’ idea. Why can’t the universe be derived from an uncaused natural cause? That would require no more or less special pleading than that a god is/was the uncaused cause.

Can you show that the universe has not existed into the past, without beginning? Common sense is not good enough of an answer, because much of the more obscure, yet well observed physics, does not follow from common sense, only from appropriate empirical observation. (For example, check out that article above, once more). Further, if time began with the big bang, and the universe as we know it began with the big bang, then the universe has existed since time began ! ! !

§ If I don’t know something, I cannot say if it is true or false. I might choose to believe it, or to disbelieve it, but that would be epistemologically unsound. In the circumstances, “I don’t know” ought to be sufficient.


Mutorc S’yriah

1 Like

I did.

Apologies if I misunderstood.That certainly reads as if you’re a believer. Plus,the space next top your name is blank. That is where it shows if a person is claiming to be atheist. If it’s blank that usually means the person is a believer of some kind. Yes,I was being sarcastic.

Trying to shift the burden of proof won’t work here. You’re the one making claims about god.The burden of proof is yours.Not up to us to disprove your claims.

PS: anyone here is free to reply to any post.