How to prove God exists.

[dickyh995]

Dear Loudmouth, when you come over, I hope to read your thinking on Have you searched where you come from? in re babies coming from their parents.


When you have come to certainty that you come from your papa and mama, I am happy that we can now proceed to think further on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas from the best thinkers among mankind, from the dawn of consciousness and reason and intelligence to the present, today with us two to think further, now that we have ascertained that we come from our respective papa and mama.


Dear atheists here, please also join us, to search where you come from, in re babies come from their parents.


Where am I going with the fact that babies come from parents?


I am into proving that there is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


Now, where are you atheists going or coming, with denying that God exists, and that nothing is the ultimate cause of you when babies, and forever as a piece of cosmic information having come from your parents all the way back to when nothing was the default status of things in the totality of reality?


Well, in which case you have changed the name of God from God to nothing; that is all right with me: because what’s in a name? as long as the entity plays its role of ultimate origin of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?


There is this emulating version of Occam’s Razor: When the function of a thing is saved, even though folks want to use an exactly opposite name to call it, yet they assign the exact same function to it, let them be happy, because what’s in a name, a rose by any other name is just as fragrant.

Um..what? This reads like a google translate. As has been asked many times, you are claiming that a god exists. All people are asking for is evidence of that claim, not a play on words and meanings.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Loudmouth and all atheists here:

You keep on and on and on forever demanding evidence, but when are you ever going to face the evidence when it is presented to your face?

Babies are evidence all the way to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

If that is not evidence, then you give me a piece of evidence to the conclusion on your part that there is no God.

Okay?

You see, dear Loudmouth and all atheists, the issue of God existing or not existing can only be settled when we both, I a theist and you all atheists first concur on evidence present by me and/or by you:

From me evidence like babies, from my part to support my certain conclusion that God exists.

And from you for concluding to the non-existence of God, what evidence do you present?

 

[Pachomius]

Now, dear Loudmouth and all atheists, you will insist that you don't have to prove anything, not even present evidence, on no God existing, because you are not the ones making an allegation - theists like me are the ones making the allegation of God existing, wherefore they and me are the ones with the burden to prove their contention of God existing.

That is interesting, I mean your idea of burden of proof, but I will let you go on with your overly naive idea of burden of proof, for the present.

Next, you will insist that it is impossible to prove a negative proposition.

That is also interesting, I mean your idea of impossibility to prove a negative proposition, but I will let you go on with your overly naive idea of impossibility to prove a negative proposition, for the present.

Wherefore, on your insistence on naive ideas of burden of proof and impossibility to prove a negative proposition, you are woefully in the dismal position of dismissing God's existence on pure subjective arbitrariety from your part, perhaps on at least the exercise of freedom to embrace ignorance or un-reason or un-intelligence on your part as free cognitive or more correctly non-cognitive agents, i.e., free to be ignorant, etc.


May I just hint to you that at least, don't you think you owe it to your sense of an open mind which is your continuous claim as proprietary with your profession of no God existing, to consider babies as evidence ultimately for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

When you deny that babies are not any evidence at all, for God existing, what about that babies are evidence of parents existing and causing the existence of babies, what about that?

You also will claim the right to ignorance and un-reason and un-intelligence, with denying that babies are the evidence of parents' existence?


Dear readers here, at this point let us await with bated breath for how atheists deal with the reality of causation, in re babies and parents, namely, babies are the evidence on causation by parents for their babies' coming to existence.

 

[dickyh995]

Dear Loudmouth and all atheists here:

You keep on and on and on forever demanding evidence, but when are you ever going to face the evidence when it is presented to your face?

Babies are evidence all the way to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

If that is not evidence, then you give me a piece of evidence to the conclusion on your part that there is no God.

Okay?

You see, dear Loudmouth and all atheists, the issue of God existing or not existing can only be settled when we both, I a theist and you all atheists first concur on evidence present by me and/or by you:

From me evidence like babies, from my part to support my certain conclusion that God exists.

And from you for concluding to the non-existence of God, what evidence do you present?

You haven't presented any I'm afraid. Babies? That's evidence of reproduction, how you extrapolate to god is beyond me? Please explain. Let's remember, the burden of proof is on you. You have made the claim that some god exists. I say, I don't accept your claim without evidence. The burden is then on you to provide. I, nor any other Atheist that I can see on this thread have made the positive claim that there is no god. We just don't accept your claim.
May I ask what you think scientific evidence is?

 

[bhsmte]

Now, dear Loudmouth and all atheists, you will insist that you don't have to prove anything, not even present evidence, on no God existing, because you are not the ones making an allegation - theists like me are the ones making the allegation of God existing, wherefore they and me are the ones with the burden to prove their contention of God existing.

That is interesting, I mean your idea of burden of proof, but I will let you go on with your overly naive idea of burden of proof, for the present.

Next, you will insist that it is impossible to prove a negative proposition.

That is also interesting, I mean your idea of impossibility to prove a negative proposition, but I will let you go on with your overly naive idea of impossibility to prove a negative proposition, for the present.

Wherefore, on your insistence on naive ideas of burden of proof and impossibility to prove a negative proposition, you are woefully in the dismal position of dismissing God's existence on pure subjective arbitrariety from your part, perhaps on at least the exercise of freedom to embrace ignorance or un-reason or un-intelligence on your part as free cognitive or more correctly non-cognitive agents, i.e., free to be ignorant, etc.


May I just hint to you that at least, don't you think you owe it to your sense of an open mind which is your continuous claim as proprietary with your profession of no God existing, to consider babies as evidence ultimately for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

When you deny that babies are not any evidence at all, for God existing, what about that babies are evidence of parents existing and causing the existence of babies, what about that?

You also will claim the right to ignorance and un-reason and un-intelligence, with denying that babies are the evidence of parents' existence?


Dear readers here, at this point let us await with bated breath for how atheists deal with the reality of causation, in re babies and parents, namely, babies are the evidence on causation by parents for their babies' coming to existence.

Thanks for the; LOL

 

[AV1611VET]

You have made the claim that some god exists. I say, I don't accept your claim without evidence. The burden is then on you to provide.

Is gravity invisible?

How do you know it exists? by seeing its effects?

Is God invisible?

How do you know He exists? by seeing His effects?

 

[dickyh995]

Is gravity invisible?

How do you know it exists? by seeing its effects?

Is God invisible?

How do you know He exists? by seeing His effects?

False equivalence I think. Science produces models or Theories that best fit the observations and facts of reality. The best theory of gravity is General relativity which has stood the test of time and experiment to date. Predictions are made and repeatable experiments test those predictions. The more predictions verified, the stronger the Theory. Good ideas are always falsifiable which is exactly what scientists try to do.

Please explain what predictions about god can be verified by experiment? How can your idea of god be falsified?

 

[Radrook]

False equivalence I think. Science produces models or Theories that best fit the observations and facts of reality. The best theory of gravity is General relativity which has stood the test of time and experiment to date. Predictions are made and repeatable experiments test those predictions. The more predictions verified, the stronger the Theory. Good ideas are always falsifiable which is exactly what scientists try to do.

Please explain what predictions about god can be verified by experiment? How can your idea of god be falsified?

You can falsify it by demonstrating that information that leads to the construction of such things as computers codes itself and that things that are organized with a specific goal in mind are not evidence of a mind. Saying glibly that chemicals did it just doesn't cut it.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Loudmouth and Oh ye all atheists:



How do babies lead all the way to God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?



From the principle of causality, namely, anything with a beginning needs a cause to bring it to existence.



Do you accept that principle of causality?



Now, may I also ask you how you without doing any thinking at all come to the conclusion that there is no God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and the operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?





Let us sit back, dear readers here, and await wit bated breath from Loudmouth and Oh ye atheists to tell us whether they accept the principle of causality, and also how they without any thinking at all come to the judgment that there is no God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

 

[bhsmte]

KATERINA?

 

[Pachomius]

Dear readers, remember that it was Hitchens himself, one of the masters of atheists' no thinking, who tells them that what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So, dear Loudmouth and Oh ye atheists, you have never produced any no nonsense argument for God not existing, so I have to dismiss you all as of no relevancy in the debate on God existing or not.

Anyway, it is my most addictive hobby to witness how atheists do no thinking, but talk all the time as to in effect play hide and seek.

So, dear readers here, we will continue to entertain them.

 

[Pachomius]

Anyway, let you and me, Oh ye atheists starting with Loudmouth, follow babies to parents and on and on and on, step by step up to God existing in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.



Step 1: You and I were babies and we came from our respective papa and mama.



Step 2: Oh atheist Loudmouth and Oh ye all atheists, tell me where your parents when they were babies come from?



I will take over with Step 3, and then you with Step 4, and on and on and on… okay?

 

[bhsmte]

Dear readers, remember that it was Hitchens himself, one of the masters of atheists' no thinking, who tells them that what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So, dear Loudmouth and Oh ye atheists, you have never produced any no nonsense argument for God not existing, so I have to dismiss you all as of no relevancy in the debate on God existing or not.

Anyway, it is my most addictive hobby to witness how atheists do no thinking, but talk all the time as to in effect play hide and seek.

So, dear readers here, we will continue to entertain them.

Needing to shift the burden of proof is beyond lame. I have yet to see you produce evidence that i was not abducted by aliens last night and told, they created the universe and there is no god. See how that works?

 

[AV1611VET]

Please explain what predictions about god can be verified by experiment?

God is not a theory.

 

[bhsmte]

God is not a theory.

God is not a theory.

Correct. Real theories have evidence to support them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Real theories have evidence to support them.

Like Phlogiston theory? or some seven different theories as to how we got our moon?

 

[bhsmte]

Like Phlogiston theory? or some seven different theories as to how we got our moon?

The scientific theories you rely on everyday of your life.

 

[bhsmte]

Dear readers, remember that it was Hitchens himself, one of the masters of atheists' no thinking, who tells them that what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So, dear Loudmouth and Oh ye atheists, you have never produced any no nonsense argument for God not existing, so I have to dismiss you all as of no relevancy in the debate on God existing or not.

Anyway, it is my most addictive hobby to witness how atheists do no thinking, but talk all the time as to in effect play hide and seek.

So, dear readers here, we will continue to entertain them.

Ok all of you psych students out there, we call this; projection.

 

[AV1611VET]

The scientific theories you rely on everyday of your life.

And who decides what scientific theories I rely on everyday [sic] of my life?

Congress? the Club of Rome? a shrewdness of scientists? the Pope?

 

[bhsmte]

And who decides what scientific theories I rely on everyday [sic] of my life?

Congress? the Club of Rome? a shrewdness of scientists? the Pope?

depends. Do you drive a car? Take medications? Ever seek medical care? Keep food in a refrigerator? Heat or cool your home? Listen to the radio? Watch television? Use a microwave? Use a telephone? I could go on....