>>22330151>There is proof god(s) aren't realNo there is not, you dumbass.
In Logic you cannot prove a negative.
You cannot prove that gods or unicorns do not exist.
That is why we have the legal precedent, from Roman times, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution (to prove the positive of the charge), not with the defendant (to prove the negative of the charge).
>>22330231>Where is the proof that the Cause/Being/Designer in question is a deity of semites "Yahweh" (formerly Baal), described in semitic religious texts, whom Thomas Aquinas worshiped? Why couldn't it be some Hindu deity? Or some Bantu deity? Or, more likely, an entity or group of entities that has absolutely nothing to do with fiction written by humans from planet Earth?First, understand that this:
>>22330225 is St Thomas (probably the greatest scholar of Aristotle) articulating Aristotle's proofs from 350BC. Aristotle was a pagan, nothing Christian about it. The proofs are LOGIC, specifically ANALOGY. It is philosophy not Theology, not particular to any religion. The foundation of science, which is suppressed in the Modernist Era. He proved:
-- the existence of a single monotheist spirit being, outside time and space,
-- who created time and space
-- and [2][3] caused the first instance of each thing to exist (from nothing)
---- in philosophical terms, known as First Cause; Uncaused Cause; Uncreated Creator; Unmoved Mover; etc
-- the immortality of the human soul
-- its purpose
Second, God is God, there is only one. He is not God of the semites or Yaweh or whatever name some religion places on Him. The pupose of religion (all of them) is to connect us to God, and each religion has a name for Him.
Third, it is you, re-framing and demeaning the issue, that causes your confusion.
> Hindu deity? Or some Bantu deity?No, scientifically and logically there can be only one God. Any religion that has a doctrine of honouring that one God is a true religio, all others are false.
