How to prove God exists.

[Freodin]

I never claimed that it is a good parody.
It does illustrate an attitude of being surrounded by the obvious and yet claiming not to see it.

BTW
I don't consider that cartoon a joke.

One thing that I have noticed about a certain type of people claiming "the obvious" is that they are never able to explain it or answer the objections.

As examplified by this cartoon, and your response to my objection.

 

[quatona]

The accurate analogy would be: "What evidence do we have that the dog we are sitting on has been intelligently designed?".

 

[quatona]

So, what do you claim at all if any claim you do have at all, on the issue God exists or not?

That´s pretty irrelevant. You announced a proof for God, and that got me intrigued.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

I already did that, by using your provided "criteria of design" and pointing out the function/purpose of white fur in polar bears.

Your response was an ad hoc and unsupported statement that read "ow, it was already programmed into the dna!!!!"

Later on, in another thread if memory serves me right, I asked you to confirm that "natural design" doesn't require any "planning or foresight", which you listed as properties of "design with intent", ie: unnatural design. You denied and started rambling about how that is also "intelligent design" - effectively implying that you'll just call everything "designed", no matter what it is.

As I said in those threads as well, your argument amounts to nothing more or less then "heads I win, tails you lose!"


For the record: the very real, very testable, very observable and very demonstrable processes of biological evolution explain exactly that: how complex interconnected systems can come about through the blind forces of nature. It accounts for all the facts and it is very testable.

 

[TBDude65]

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.

I am still wondering if I will get a response to my questions:

How do you know that the universe requires a creator? How do you know that the universe has an initial "first" cause? How do you get from "first cause" to the conclusion that this is a god and not an unintelligent and natural process?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Blatant shift of the burden of proof.
It's you, as the theist, who's making the assertion that a god exists.
Upto you to provide supportive evidence for that claim.

, so I have to dismiss you all as of no relevancy in the debate on God existing or not.

There actually is no debate. There's just you making claims and we asking you to support them, after which you just try to shift the burden of proof.

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.

Maybe you should search for a more interesting hobby.
Like, providing evidence for your own claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Does the phrase 'God of the gaps' ring any bells with you?

Hey now.... no need to strawman the guy...

It's "intelligent designer of the gaps" !!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, what do you claim at all if any claim you do have at all, on the issue God exists or not?

An atheist's atheism is defined by one thing only.

And that is not answering "yes" to the question "do you believe a god exists".

And that's it. Atheism not a claim. It is a response to a claim.

Get over it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That Ostrich illustration better represents the atheist modus operandi each time that they encounter the obvious conclusion of an ID but which they cannot stomach.

Why do you insist on dishonestly continuing with accusations that have been shown to you to be utterly false?

Francis Collins, well-respected biologist and devout christian, rejects ID.
Ken Miller, well-respected biologist and devout christian, testified and demonstrated under oath at the Dover trial that ID is not science, but just another species of creationism.
The judge of that trial, another devout christian, agreed with him and ruled that ID is just creationism disguised in a lab coat.

There are many more examples, but I only need one to show how your assanine claim that rejection of ID is somehow related to atheism is utterly false.

And I already gave you these examples on various occasions these past few days.

Yet, here you are again, today, repeating the same false accusations.

 

[Radrook]

Why do you insist on dishonestly continuing with accusations that have been shown to you to be utterly false?

Francis Collins, well-respected biologist and devout christian, rejects ID.
Ken Miller, well-respected biologist and devout christian, testified and demonstrated under oath at the Dover trial that ID is not science, but just another species of creationism.
The judge of that trial, another devout christian, agreed with him and ruled that ID is just creationism disguised in a lab coat.

There are many more examples, but I only need one to show how your assanine claim that rejection of ID is somehow related to atheism is utterly false.

And I already gave you these examples on various occasions these past few days.

Yet, here you are again, today, repeating the same false accusations.

I don't see how providing those examples of people agreeing to be irrational changes the irrational nature of the atheist argument.

 

[TBDude65]

I don't see how providing those examples of people agreeing to be irrational changes the irrational nature of the atheist argument.

What is irrational about not holding a god belief because of the paucity of evidence for a god?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't see how providing those examples of people agreeing to be irrational changes the irrational nature of the atheist argument.

Theists rejecting ID, for the exact same reasons that atheists are rejecting it, falsifies the claim that ID is rejected due to atheism.

It really is that simple. Deal with it.

 

[Radrook]

What is irrational about not holding a god belief because of the paucity of evidence for a god?

What I clearly said is that I see no logical reason why you should expect me or anyone else to abandon our belief in an ID simply because you mention some individuals who happen to support an irrational idea. Is that an appeal to bandwagon of some kind?

 

[TBDude65]

What I clearly said is that I see no logical reason why you should expect me or anyone else to abandon our belief in an ID simply because you mention some individuals who happen to support an irrational idea. Is that an appeal to bandwagon of some kind?

You claimed it is the "atheist position" when the only atheist position is a lack of belief in a god. So how is your interpretation of someone's irrational personal argument equivalent with it being the "atheist position?"

 

[Radrook]

You claimed it is the "atheist position" when the only atheist position is a lack of belief in a god. So how is your interpretation of someone's irrational personal argument equivalent with it being the "atheist position?"

First, I disagree with not making a clear distinction between atheist and agnostic. The only thing that accomplishes is confusion. If indeed you don't know one way or the other whether God exists then you are an agnostic in my book. If you claim that God doesn't exist, then you are an atheist. Very simple so why complicate it?

Anyway, you are misunderstanding what I said as usual and it all has to do with the above unnecessary embellishments.

 

[TBDude65]

First, I disagree with not making a clear distinction between atheist and agnostic. The only thing that accomplishes is confusion. If indeed you don't know one way or the other whether God exists then you are an agnostic in my book. If you claim that God doesn't exist, then you are an atheist. Very simple so why complicate it?

Anyway, you are misunderstanding what I said as usual and it all has to do with the above unnecessary embellishments.

I am not misunderstanding your position, you made a claim about the "atheist position" which effectively means you are saying you know what my position is because I am an atheist. You are over-generalizing.

Also, I didn't say I don't know my own opinion on god's existence. So you don't get to define me as agnostic or atheist.

Atheist = lack of a belief in a god
Agnostic = uncertain about whether they believe a god exists or not

One can be an agnostic atheist if one so chooses because they can say that they lack a belief in a god, but they are uncertain if one does or doesn't exist.

I am an atheist in that I lack a belief in a god because of the paucity of evidence. Because I lack a belief in a god, I don't believe that god(s) exist. That does not define what I do believe nor does it assign the aforementioned "atheist position" to me.

 

[Radrook]

I am not misunderstanding your position, you made a claim about the "atheist position" which effectively means you are saying you know what my position is because I am an atheist. You are over-generalizing.

Also, I didn't say I don't know my own opinion on god's existence. So you don't get to define me as agnostic or atheist.

Atheist = lack of a belief in a god
Agnostic = uncertain about whether they believe a god exists or not

One can be an agnostic atheist if one so chooses because they can say that they lack a belief in a god, but they are uncertain if one does or doesn't exist.

I am an atheist in that I lack a belief in a god because of the paucity of evidence. Because I lack a belief in a god, I don't believe that god(s) exist. That does not define what I do believe nor does it assign the aforementioned "atheist position" to me.

Then the term atheist isn't applicable. The term which is more applicable is agnostic. That is my opinion. In that case you need not take umbrage about anything that is said in reference to atheism, or theism since you aren't sure one way or the other. For example, if I were neutral in reference to the argument between Democrats and Republicans, then why should I take sides?

 

[TBDude65]

Then the term atheist isn't applicable. The term which is more applicable is agnostic. That is my opinion. In that case you need not take umbrage about anything that is said in reference to atheism, or theism since you aren't sure one way or the other.

Agnostic is more applicable to what? Your gross over-generalization or me?

 

[TBDude65]

A- absent; theism - belief in a god(s)

atheism = absent a belief in a god(s)

Why do theists insist on making this more complex and altering definitions of words?

 

[Radrook]

A- absent; theism - belief in a god(s)

atheism = absent a belief in a god(s)

Why do theists insist on making this more complex and altering definitions of words?

The one who is complicating it isn't me. The ones complicating it are those who say it means much more than what it basically says.