Why are there 'atheist' ? Well I being a very earthly realist will make this short sweet and snappy. Let us pretend that this world we live in is a giant corporatation with a well publicized chief operating officer. Over a long period of time this huge corporation started to collapse, and there was very little they could do about it. So it was decided to have a board meeting, but they could not find the 'big boss' Fact is no one has ever seen him, he has never been to a board meeting, and for the most part has been an invisible vision.Or to put it bluntly 'non existent', and like most failures such as GM's Rodger Smith, and our current leader "Obozo" he must be fired and replaced. He goes by the name of "GOD" Ah but which god ? , as there are so many of them. Now all this sounds crazy. Yes, but what could be crazier than putting your faith in a non existent CEO, or in this case a non existent 'deity'.

You are the one that needs to get a grip on reality. You are exactly the kind of person he was asking about. He ask a simple, serious question about why people like you have to get in everyone's face about religion and you have to get nasty about it. Why can't you be civil? I don't recall him calling you names for not believing, so why do you find it necessary to call him names? Did he do something to you personally that I missed?

I have found things pretty much as he describes and here you are proving him right again. What really gets me is all that name calling you find it necessary to do. Why is that? Can't you carry on a decent discussion without all that hate and name calling? He ask you a very simple question and didn't once say anything about forcing his beliefs on you, yet you act like he put a gun to your head and is trying to force his beliefs on you. Are you really that simply minded, or do you just not understand the English language very well? What gets me is, after all that ranting and raving, you still have not answered his question.

The universe is not empty; we can at least be sure that the things we perceive with our senses exist. We can explain the existence of these things in one of three ways: (1) All things are eternal and exist necessarily, (2) Nothing is eternal and exists necessarily, (3) Some things are eternal and exist necessarily, some things not. According to Maimonides, the first explanation is obviously wrong: we see things come into existence at one moment, perish at another. The second case is also wrong. If nothing were permanent, it is conceivable that everything might perish and nothing take its place. Maimonides objects that the idea of an empty universe is absurd. So a necessary Being is needed to ensure that the universe does not become depleted.

This Being cannot derive its existence from an external source, because if it did, its existence would no longer be necessary; it would owe its existence to something else. Therefore, the necessary Being must be independent of everything else. Maimonides thinks that it is impossible for two things each to exist independently, because they would have to share a common nature or essence: independent existence. To the degree they shared it, they would be part of a larger whole and no longer independent. Maimonides therefore concludes that only one Being derives its existence from itself, and this Being is God.

Since God is self-caused, everything that derives its existence from an external source must ultimately derive its existence from God. We may think of this in the following way. Suppose one is stopped at a train crossing watching a long series of boxcars roll by. Each boxcar is pulled along by the car in front of it. In this situation, it would be reasonable to conclude that the train cannot consist entirely of boxcars. Since each boxcar is moved by something else, one car--the engine--must be able to move itself. Without the engine, the rest of the train would come to a stop. By the same token, if every being in the universe derives its existence from an external source, one Being must be the source of its own existence. Without such a Being, the universe would contain nothing.

The above is an argument produced by Kenneth Seeskin a professor of philosophy at Northwestern University.

To me, and my teachings; it is not necessary to prove that God exists. It is a waste of time. Historically, proofs of the existence of God have not played as important a role in Jewish philosophy as they have in Christian. From a Jewish perspective, it is as if a person who requires a proof to believe in God has missed the point of the religion.

The universe is not empty; we can at least be sure that the things we perceive with our senses exist. We can explain the existence of these things in one of three ways: (1) All things are eternal and exist necessarily, (2) Nothing is eternal and exists necessarily, (3) Some things are eternal and exist necessarily, some things not. According to Maimonides, the first explanation is obviously wrong: we see things come into existence at one moment, perish at another. The second case is also wrong. If nothing were permanent, it is conceivable that everything might perish and nothing take its place. Maimonides objects that the idea of an empty universe is absurd. So a necessary Being is needed to ensure that the universe does not become depleted.

This Being cannot derive its existence from an external source, because if it did, its existence would no longer be necessary; it would owe its existence to something else. Therefore, the necessary Being must be independent of everything else. Maimonides thinks that it is impossible for two things each to exist independently, because they would have to share a common nature or essence: independent existence. To the degree they shared it, they would be part of a larger whole and no longer independent. Maimonides therefore concludes that only one Being derives its existence from itself, and this Being is God.

Since God is self-caused, everything that derives its existence from an external source must ultimately derive its existence from God. We may think of this in the following way. Suppose one is stopped at a train crossing watching a long series of boxcars roll by. Each boxcar is pulled along by the car in front of it. In this situation, it would be reasonable to conclude that the train cannot consist entirely of boxcars. Since each boxcar is moved by something else, one car--the engine--must be able to move itself. Without the engine, the rest of the train would come to a stop. By the same token, if every being in the universe derives its existence from an external source, one Being must be the source of its own existence. Without such a Being, the universe would contain nothing.

The above is an argument produced by Kenneth Seeskin a professor of philosophy at Northwestern University.

To me, and my teachings; it is not necessary to prove that God exists. It is a waste of time. Historically, proofs of the existence of God have not played as important a role in Jewish philosophy as they have in Christian. From a Jewish perspective, it is as if a person who requires a proof to believe in God has missed the point of the religion.