#8 Atheists what would be your LOGICAL rebuttal to this evidence of God's existence?
Thomas Aquinas' argument of contingency and necessity, All life that exists depends on something else for their existence. They are “contingent beings”. This therefore requires a “necessary being” from which the contingent being came. But this necessary being might also be a contingent being requiring a previous necessary being. Again, no matter how far back you go and no matter how many evolutionary changes have been made you arrive at a FIRST necessary being, or God. Our very existence demands that God must exist. This is similar to two other of my arguments but this one speaks of life rather than the universe,
Anonymous2018-12-03T04:09:49Z
The world's entire population of atheists who have studied logic and philosophy would fit in an elevator.
Argument... you said it yourself. It's an argument. It's not evidence. It cannot be used as a factual foundation for your argument.
<<<Again, no matter how far back you go and no matter how many evolutionary changes have been made you arrive at a FIRST necessary being, or God. >>>
That is a claim, based on an assumption. There is no actual evidence.
I could say, "No matter how far back you go, animals had mothers and fathers, therefore it is necessary that there be a God and Goddess who started it all."
You see how that works? Making a claim that you believe something works a certain way is not the same as evidence that this is actually how it works.
<<Our very existence demands that God must exist.>>
Yet another claim with absolutely no evidence behind it; and no logic, since you based your reasoning on unverified claims rather than actual facts.
Atheists believe in the Primordial Soup - where we all came from. A soup on top of rocks. Somewhere in the ocean. A hot soup. A soup with different ingredients. Whala! There's absolutely no proof of this life springing soup. One has never been found. yet they have faith in the soup.