Rationally irrefutable proof of God's existence

All children are innocent, it would be sadistic and amoral to think otherwise. Like the deity depicted in the bible for example, which tortured a newborn baby for 7 days until it died.

I don’t believe it is possible, and I also find the concept nauseatingly immoral, and the idea that it is ever moral under any circumstances for a deity with limitless power and knowledge, and therefore choice, to cause or even allow, a child to be tortured with something like cancer, is sadistic and irrational nonsense. Since such a deity could not rationally be asserted as omnibenevolent. It is a rational contradiction to claim a deity with limitless power, knowledge, and benevolence exists in a world with ubiquitous suffering, even if you create sadistic fantasies that try to justify torturing children, and their loved ones.

More importantly you’ve not addressed the innate contradiction of an omnibenevolent deity causing or allowing suffering at all. You’ve just waved it away with a new unevidenced fantasy, that still contains that contradiction anyway. A contradiction which you clearly have failed to understand.

Except that’s a sick fantasy you created, and while it’s clear you think it’s sound reasoning to wave away rational objections to your fantasies, by doubling down with new fantasies, it demonstrably isn’t, to anyone who has even a tenuous grasp of informal logic.

I don’t believe you, and endlessly repeating that bare claim is not a sound reason to change that position. Your asinine triangle analogy is condescending garbage, we know what a fucking contradiction is. You apparently do not, judging from nauseating assertion that implies torturing children would be ok, if they existed before and behaved wickedly as adults in that life.

Since you have ignored multiple posters, pointing out your use of known logical fallacies in the past, that’s pretty fucking hilarious. Rational means adhering to principles of logic, one the most basic principles of logic, is that nothing can be asserted as rational if it uses or contains a known logical fallacy. You have on numerous occasions simply ignored or denied your use of these in the past.

This ludicrously vague deepity doesn’t lend any credence to your superstitious beliefs. It just shows you understand less about objective methods like the scientific method, than you do about logic. However decrying those methods doesn’t remotely evidence anything.

You have violated a basic principle of logic by using known common logical fallacies, many times on here.

That’s a false equivalence fallacy. Rational simply means in adherence with the principles of logic. Your arbitrary and subjective objections are redundant nonsense, they don’t have any specific meaning or tell us anything about what is being argued.

Your posts are clearly more about ego and emotion than reason, and indicate that you don’t have even the most basic grasp of logic or its principles. Your posts are barely comprehensible half the time, they’re overly verbose, painfully condescending, arrogantly assumption, and often just plain wrong.

1 Like

Don’t you mean a false dichotomy (false dilemma) fallacy?

1 Like

The Holocaust is also a damaging argument against the good god. 6M jews killed just because of who their ancestors were, with total disregard for the morality and “goodness” of the individual victim. This “good” god allowed >6M people to suffer and be murdered in a cruel and industrialized killing machine. And then this god let the nation responsible for the genocide get away with it and develop into an economic powerhouse. Are the descendants of the perpetrators in the Holocaust being punished for the sin of their ancestors? Doesn’t seem like they are.

I am not discussing the bible here, just matters of pure reason

I am not claiming that they did have a past life, just that you don’t know if they are innocent or not because you lack omniscience. I am claiming that if you are aware of the semantic of triangle, then you cannot deny that a triangle has three sides and that this is irrefutable. This is 100%.

Similarly, if you are aware of the semantic of God, existence/existing/being, perfection, good, then the OP highlights the irrefutability of God’s existence via semantics, just as you are aware of the irrefutability of triangles having three sides via semantics.

That triangles have three sides, is just the way existence is. It’s just a brute/glorious fact (whichever way you want to look at it). That God’s existence or a triangle’s three-sidedness are not meaningfully/semantically susceptible to doubt, is just the way existence is. Again, it’s just a brute/glorious fact (depending on whether you are good or evil. Brute if you are evil, because it’s perfection for everyone to get what they truly deserve, and that which is evil enough deserves Hell (which is brutal). And glorious if you are good, because it’s perfection for everyone to get what they truly deserve, and that which is good enough deserves Heaven.

There is already a taste of mystery and happiness in this life. Some have unsatisfying, unfulfilled meaningless lives, whilst others have satisfying, fulfilling and meaningful lives. Some are happy, some are unhappy. Some suffer anxiety, despair, melancholia, other enjoy meaningful hope, joy, excitement, pleasure and so on.

I was explaining it from his point of view. From my point of view, if the child is suffering, then he is not innocent precisely because pure reason dictates that existence is perfect. Pure reason is 100% and empirical observations are to be interpreted in line with it.

So, if the child is suffering (of which I cannot be sure because I am not him), then he is 100% not wholly innocent of evil (because existence is perfect, which means everyone gets what they truly deserve, which means if x suffers, then x is not wholly innocent of evil).

I’ve provided better than empirical evidence. I’ve provided something that is 100% (like triangles having three sides is 100%).

You want empirical proof? Then look at robots. Given how advanced they are in function and purpose, you’d empirically assume that they had a designer. Humans are much more advanced in design and function than robots. Consistency in empirical standards would have you assume that humans have a designer too.

x does not adapt to his environment without having the ability to learn and recognise things (plus willpower). This ability to learn and recognise things does not magically come from nothing. You try and get a robot to learn to adapt to its environment, so much design and detail needs to go into its software (and hardware) before it can even begin to learn to adapt to its environment. A robot doesn’t just magically get created without a designer.

In any case, I’m not here to discuss empirical proofs for the existence of God. I’ve brought something superior. If you meaningfully/semantically understand triangle, then you know that it is absurd of you to reject its three-sidedness. If you meaningfully/semantically understand God, then you know that it is absurd of you to reject His existence (as highlighted in the OP). Pay attention to the semantics you are aware of, or don’t pay attention to the semantics you are aware of. Be unbiased and sincere to truth, or don’t be. It’s not my concern, it’s yours (because you will suffer or enjoy the consequences of your decisions).

Per the dictates of pure reason, if x suffers in any way, then x is not wholly innocent of evil. There are an endless number of ways in which x can suffer (the hypothetical possibilities are endless). Examples include:

Getting cancer as a child.
Seeing your child get cancer.

Facts do not care about your opinion.

It does not. Your “god proof” is riddled with informal logical fallacies, and thus it is invalid.

This does not follow because your “god proof” is riddled with informal logical fallacies, and is thus invalid. Other than that, you’re presenting utter bullshit and total lack of empathy.

You have not. You have presented a “god proof” that is riddled with informal logical fallacies, and therefore it is invalid.

Fallacy. Argument from personal incredulity: “I cannot imagine how life could start and evolve; therefore life must have been created.” ← Strike that. It’s the watchmaker’s analogy. Although there can be components of an argument from personal incredulity involved.

Edit: This is a variant of the Watchmaker’s analogy. It fails, because it fails to consider that like life, a complicated piece of mechanics or electronics did not suddenly appear, fully developed. For watches, it took the cumulative effort of generations of watchmakers to perfect their skills and watchmaking. For robots, it has taken decades of intense research and the building of incrementally advanced robots, learning more for each “generation” of robots. Both watchmakers and robotmakers toss the bad ideas in the bin, keeping the good ideas and practices. In other words totally analogous to evolution. The difference is of course that watches and robots are not self-replicating. But if we manage to build self-replicating robots that can incrementally improve themselves, we have a variant of evolution. Don’t conflate this with how life first formed, as that is a different discipline (abiogenesis), not evolution.

No, you brought a collection of fallacies in informal logic and undefined terms.

If you think you can prove a god, it should be easy-peasy to bring forth empirical evidence for your god. So where is it?

1 Like

No, he cited an equivalence based on flawed or false reasoning.

What has emotion or immaturity to do with being rational? He’s comparing apples to oranges. Reasoning is rational if, and only if, it adheres to the principles of logic. Emotion and immaturity have no direct relevance.

Well, he also gave only two options, failing to consider any other options or a spectrum of possibilities:

  • those who are emotional and immature in their reasoning
  • those who are rational

That’s a false dichotomy. However, I will grant you your point. It can actually be both fallacies. Two for the price of one. What a deal.

That is a real nice fantasy there but does not seem even remotely true to me.

All my experiences in life and the life experiences other have shared with me leads me to easily conclude that this is rarely the case.

No you haven’t. You have not proven anything has existed. You want to prove that you’re right. Go find Jesus in the flesh and make him perform miracles and summon the All Mighty in front of everyone.

But you can’t do that. So you’ll keep dishing out more back and forth shit to try and validate your irrelevant opinion.

Why is that?

Because you have no evidence. You brought no evidence to a debate. You can’t prove anything of what you’re saying.

That is another claim. A CLAIM that you just made. You haven’t provided evidence. Just your words and words mean shit now a days without evidence. You don’t have a shred of evidence. You don’t even know what evidence is.

Haven’t you ever watched a trial take place?

A prosecuting attorney has to prove that the defendant is guilty with what?

Evidence. He has to provide evidence before a jury to get a guilty verdict that they committed the crime. You have not presented the following in this thread at all!

  • Real evidence
  • Demonstrative evidence
  • Documentary evidence
  • Testimonial and Direct evidence.

You cannot argue a deity or a designer into existence without strong PHYSICAL evidence. No amount of belief makes something a fact! You have failed in every way imaginable on here to prove that. You have no EVIDENCE. All you keep presenting is your beliefs and your opinions. Nothing that holds any weight on this forum. PERIOD. NO ONE is buying what you’re selling.

Your claims are bullshit. Admit that you have failed.

1 Like

I think that’s a bit confused.

The problem of evil has never been explained by theists of any kind as far as I’m aware…

For Christians, the devil is the ultimate evil and enemy of god. How could such a being exist in the same reality as a perfect god of absolute attributes? Surely such a god would destroy it within a nano second. (or less) ?

When looking at the problem of evil the pithiest answer I’ve ever found is from Epicurus. (apologies for citing him yet again) :

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?


Addendum; I have not forgotten that the existence of god has not yet been established with empirical evidence. Imo arguing god into existence is sophistry. Of course the Catholics have become very skilled over 2000 years, and can baffle even a thinking man if allowed, and not challenged to demonstrate the truth of their most basic claim; the existence of god.

LOL - My experience, the Christans simply poo-poo the entire argument away with… “God is testing us, our reward is in heaven.” (Reference Job)

I am revising my opinion. You should take up an occupation without access to anything that may harm yourself or others.

You should definitely not be allowed to be near unaccompanied minors or the vulnerable.

To blithely “reason” that a child in excruciating agony from some disease “deserves it” isn’t just bad reasoning, it is the mark of a very dangerous renegade human.

Run, do not walk, to the nearest psychiatric unit and repeat your “reasoning” as below:

You are a very sick puppy.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … but you haven’t said anything “reasonable” yet? How is that not obvious to you? Did the doctors not give you your wake up pills before leaving the funny farm?

1 Like

Evolution clearly implies that some learning capability is/was within that which adapted to its environment. What has resulted in it having this learning capability? You cannot say evolution because evolution does not = the ability to learn. It is the ability/will to learn that has resulted in surviving/evolving. If you have BOTH the ability, and the will to learn, then you learn. If you don’t have the ability to learn, then you cannot will to learn, because you don’t have the ability for it to will it. See how evolution does not explain the ability to learn?

So what’s our best empirical evidence with regards to a thing being able to recognise things (which is a pre-requisite for learning). Artificial intelligence. We see that even basic A.I clearly requires a designer. We do not believe that something can just magically learn to recognise things on its own to then be able to respond to the environment that we put it in. We cannot take ‘designer’ out of A.I. So how can we take ‘designer’ out of intelligence (which is way more complex and advanced in function, design, and purpose than our best A.I)

Meaning and design do not come from nothing/non-existence. They come from Existence/God (that which is ultimately responsible for the universe’s beginning). Existence designed us to be able to adapt to our environment. Existence designed us to be able to tell what’s good/right/true and what’s bad/wrong/false. Some willingly respond to good, others to evil. Some hardly do anything. Fight or flight, good or evil, these are all matters of one’s will. Not a matter of one’s ability.

I’ve spent quite enough time with your inane assertions already, so I’ll go for the core of your naïve argument right away, and not bother with the rest:

Again a variant of the Watchmaker’s analogy. It’s the same thing here as with watches or robots, it fails.
[Edit: removed explanation of AI, as it is irrelevant and too much verbiage.]

If you say that life is designed because it is so complicated, with what are you making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (provided they exist), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.1

[Edited to add: To explain it more compactly, the Watchmaker’s analogy fails because of the argument from analogy fallacy: “X has property P. Y resembles X. Therefore Y also has property P.”]

In any case, what your are bringing to the table here is a combination of argument from personal incredulity (which is an informal logical fallacy) and the argument of irreducible complexity (which has been refuted time and again by several authors), and you end up with an argument from analogy fallacy (see above).

Again, you do not present any empirical evidence in favour of the existence of a god. All you do is present failed analogy after failed analogy, interspersed with informal logical fallacies.

So once again, where is your empirical evidence in favour of the existence of a god?

Perfect is a subjective term, you don’t seem to understand logic or language. The real irony is that your errant verbiage is so clearly driven by emotion, when you decry it in reasoning. Again it should be clear that logic is designed to validate claims as objectively as possible, and again you have failed to understand this, instead you wrongly think objectivity is some sort of unattainable absolute, just as you misunderstand that the scientific method is designed to continually check for, and remove subjective bias. Objective conclusions are not absolutes in either method. Until you understand that, you’re doomed to keep repeating this woefully errant nonsense, that you wrongly think is rational.

100% what? Science cannot violate the principles of logic, that’s a given. Though why you tell us this, as if we don’t know that logic was an important precursor to science, only you can know. Though I suspect when you say “pure reason” you’re not really talking about logic at all. I smell the stink of bad philosophy in your assertion.

A fairly obvious circular reasoning fallacy, so much for your grandiloquent claims to value pure reason. It’s also of course demonstrably absurd, since perfection is a very subjective idea, and of course it’s hard to miss the point here, that you just claimed perfection includes torturing children.

You might want to mull over any belief, that requires such desperate and immoral rationalisations. Though of course you won’t, as you’re clearly so emotionally invested in your theistic belief, that objective reasoning is totally beyond you.

Again a demonstrably false statement, that you can only prop up with woo woo assumptions about people surviving their own physical death. Objective counter examples are pointless of course, as your bias will simply wave them away, as you did here. However your claim that a deity exists with limitless power knowledge and benevolence, is a rational contradiction in a world with ubiquitous suffering. No amount of your desperately subjective rationlslisations can change that. Ironically because you’re indulging a semantic contradiction. I don’t need to indulge in arrogant condescending waffle, about the number of sides a triangle has, for this to be obvious.

100% what? Logic is a method of reasoning for removing subjectivity, in order to more effectively validate conclusions. No human method can ever be 100% accurate, that’s axiomatic. The fact you don’t appear to know this speaks volumes. Your reasoning even repeatedly violates the most basic principles of logic, by using known common logical fallacies.

Paley’s watchmaker fallacy. You really are woefully ill-informed. Complexity does not evidence design. We can show design, the same as we validate all claims, with sufficient objective evidence. Like humans creating designs for robots, factories where robots are constructed using those designs, and of course, as is always the case, we know they are man made robots, because do not occur in nature.

Hahahaha, for all your grandiloquent claims to be using pure reason, you still don’t understand a common logical fallacy, like the begging the question fallacy you have used here, by assuming design in your argument for it.

Another major flaw in Paley’s watchmaker fallacy, that you have plagiarized here, is that it asserts everything is designed, even comparing a designed objection to things that occur in nature. So just why is complexity being argued as evidence for design if even the simplest things are designed? If you were able to think objectively for yourself, instead of parotting the superstition you’ve been indoctrinated into, you’d see such obvious flaws in your rationale.

NB Even very effective methods of objective validation, like logic and science, are useless if you start with and cling doggedly to one biased belief, like theism.

Laughably wrong, since all the empirical evidence gathered in over 160 years of global scientific research, contradicts your claim.

Straw man fallacy, and a cliche of creationist rhetoric.

Nor do they occur naturally, ever. Robots did not evolve, humans did. And of course it’s theistic creation myths that involve magic, not objective scientific facts like evolution.

No theist ever is, rather tellingly.

Yet you make the logical and sematical contradiction that a being with limitless power knowledge and benevolence exists in a world with ubiquitous suffering.

Physician heal thyself…

Physician heal thyself…

How fitting that your superstitious verbiage ends with a coarse threat. Albeit an empty one…


Not only is that not a “dictate of pure reaon,” it’s a circular reasoning fallacy. Epic fail…



  1. the quality of being well meaning; kindness.

So limitless kindness involves torturing children. Then the hilarity of this is manifest:

Hahahahaha, your semantics are not just trying to justify torturing children, but that a deity with literally limitless power and knowledge, and limitless benevolence, does this.

You are funny…


I missed this somehow. :fire: :smiling_imp: :fire:

Of course!!! The stick. Hahahahaha. Better believe me or else!

Your fucking imaginary god sucks shit!