How to prove God exists.

[quatona]

Here is again my description of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

So, after roughly 500 posts you are still at square one?

 

[Radrook]

Dear readers of this thread, first I want to thank you for coming over.

Next I want to thank the founders, owners, operators of these forums, because I have never been in any way curtailed in my exposition of my thoughts here; otherwise everywhere I went I got eventually sooner than later banned, for writing on my thinking and they did not like it.

Now, the present thread is an experiment, and dear readers you will get to know the objective of this thread, as you read my thinking on my exposition on how to prove God exists.

Here goes.

First and before anything else, people who care to prove God exists, or for people who care to disprove or to deny God exists even without proving, because they just want to insist that God does not exist, or they want to maintain their right to not admit that God exists...

First and before anything else, all peoples have got to harbor in their mind or brain the information of the concept of God, otherwise they are not acting rationally and in fact they are acting un-intelligently.

So, dear posters here, and dear readers here who don't post: please, do speak out instead of being all the time passively reading, and not contributing your own thoughts on the issue God exists (or not).

At this point, I will invite posters here to give their comments, on my statement that first and foremost, peoples who want to prove or disprove or deny God exists even without proving anything at all, please give your comments in reaction to my statement about people not having at all any information on the concept of God Which God is to be proven to exist or to not exist, that they are conducting themselves irrationally and even un-intelligently.


So dear readers of this thread, let us sit back and await posters here to present their comments, on my statement that:

First and foremost you have got to have information on the concept of God, in order to be relevant to the proof or disproof of God existing, otherwise you are conducting yourselves irrationally or in particular un-intelligently.​

Again, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await posters here to present their comments or words, to the effect of reacting to my statement immediately preceding this ending paragraph of my post here.



[ A similar thread from me is started in another internet forum. ]

Well, the ID folks are dedicated to proving the existence of mind in nature and provide many compelling reasons why that perspective is indeed the most logical.

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Intelligent Design

 

[KCfromNC]

No word salad, please.

What is your description of God?

A fictional creature others believe in.

Why in the world do you need others to explain which god you believe in?

 

[KCfromNC]

Do you notice that, dear readers, the gimmick of hide and seek, seek to hide deeper and darker?

Where's the "massive unintentional irony" button?

 

[KCfromNC]

We must now work as to concur on where we are to seek for God’s presence.

What do you say?

I'm sitting in a chair in my office. Done.

Next step?

 

[Michael]

Loudmouth among others have posted this. Sorry, I did not bookmark the papers that you did not read or could not understand.

In other words, you don't have a clue if anything he provided actually supports his case. LM has yet to provide anyone with any published paper that ever even *looked* at other types of scattering other than Compton scattering so no, he didn't.

A major fail is what you believe in concepts that were shown to be wrong, such as your scattering claim,

Provide us with a published citation please. He's never demonstrated anything of the sort.

or ideas that are only supported by a very few people and have even less evidence for them than Dark Matter does.

Well, that's technically impossible. Over the past ten years we found out that their 2006 baryonic mass estimates used in their landmark "dark matter" paper were not worth the paper they were printed on. We've also spent *billions* with a B "testing" their mathematical models, and they all failed. It's impossible to have *less* evidence to support any idea.

 

[Michael]

Since it failed long before then it was not needed. And if someone on your side is so sure of it they should be able to find financing. Don't blame others for the failures on your side.

First of all, the only "side" I'm on is the side of "science". I blame the mainstream for sucking up all the public funding and wasting it on invisible snipe hunts galore. I'm not obligated to personally fund the scientific process.

Wrong again, but then you know that. Yes, scattering may change frequencies. But guess what else it does? There is a big hint in what it is called.

There's even published evidence that you've been *underestimating* the amount of scattering taking place in spacetime:

New View: Universe Suddenly Twice as Bright

Ooopsy on your part.....


FYI, since you seem oblivious to the obvious, there are mathematical models of "tired light" which fit the all the same cosmological data sets:

"In his later years Marmet was an outspoken critic of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the theory of relativity, and the Big Bang cosmological model."

So? Einstein dissed QM too. Shall we ignore all his work too?'

I handed you a *perfectly* good explanation for photon redshift that is based *strictly* upon known processes (scattering), and you simply handwave it away. You folks don't really care about the mathematical models. Your own "tests" were a dismal failure, and you simply ignore the math that you don't wish to look at. Denial isn't part of the scientific method.

 

[HitchSlap]

In other words, you don't have a clue if anything he provided actually supports his case. LM has yet to provide anyone with any published paper that ever even *looked* at other types of scattering other than Compton scattering so no, he didn't.



Provide us with a published citation please. He's never demonstrated anything of the sort.



Well, that's technically impossible. Over the past ten years we found out that their 2006 baryonic mass estimates used in their landmark "dark matter" paper were not worth the paper they were printed on. We've also spent *billions* with a B "testing" their mathematical models, and they all failed. It's impossible to have *less* evidence to support any idea.

Holy Thor's hammer Michael, you seriously need to GTFO with this bull ship, you derail every single thread you're in with this crap. It should be obvious to you by now that no one cares &/or agrees with your personal pet projects.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, the ID folks are dedicated to proving the existence of mind in nature and provide many compelling reasons why that perspective is indeed the most logical.

That dedication has yet to provide any evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words, you don't have a clue if anything he provided actually supports his case. LM has yet to provide anyone with any published paper that ever even *looked* at other types of scattering other than Compton scattering so no, he didn't.

Wrong again. I did not bookmark the article, that does not mean that I did not read it. We don't need to keep chasing after your rainbows. You need to provide viable evidence and you can't.

Provide us with a published citation please. He's never demonstrated anything of the sort.



Well, that's technically impossible. Over the past ten years we found out that their 2006 baryonic mass estimates used in their landmark "dark matter" paper were not worth the paper they were printed on. We've also spent *billions* with a B "testing" their mathematical models, and they all failed. It's impossible to have *less* evidence to support any idea.

Yada, yada, yada. Enough nattering. You simply can't make your case. The people that understand this no that you have no clue.

 

[Michael]

Wrong again. I did not bookmark the article, that does not mean that I did not read it.

Apparently you read into it whatever you felt like, because nothing LM has provided has ruled out anything other than perhaps Compton scattering as the sole "cause". Psst. I happen to know that there aren't any other published cosmology studies that ruled out other types of scattering, and Zwicky was selling his *own* tired light model when he showed "some" evidence that Compton scattering probably wasn't the sole cause of the redshift.

We don't need to keep chasing after your rainbows.

You mean empirical physical solutions? Those "rainbows"? They have a long and proven track record of replacing supernatural constructs at the end of that rainbow.

You need to provide viable evidence and you can't.

Yes I did, but apparently you couldn't be bothered to even read it. It turns out that "tired light" models pass the same very complicated 'observational tests' that LCDM passes, which other cosmology models tend to fail.

ALCOCK-PACZYŃSKI COSMOLOGICAL TEST - IOPscience

Try reading the paper this time. Holushko's "tired light" model also passed that test. Your denial process won't change that fact, or change that "evidence" which supports a tired light interpretation of the photon redshift phenomenon.

Yada, yada, yada. Enough nattering. You simply can't make your case. The people that understand this no that you have no clue.

Nobody has a clue about "dark" stuff, hence the use of placeholder terms for human ignorance, and the mainstream's billion dollar string of lab failures over the past decade.

Had you read the *published* paper I cited, you'd already know that there is *published* evidence that tired light models can and do explain the same very complicated types of observations that are typically attributed to "space expansion". Since you apparently cannot be bothered to read or comprehend what I've provided for you, you seem to think that means that the published evidence doesn't exist. It doesn't work like that. Your denial process has nothing to do with the actual evidence which supports *other* alternatives to your dark sky mythology.

The amazing part of this debate is that it demonstrates the hypocritical nature of atheism in general, and the double standard atheists typically use to deny any "evidence" related to the topic of God.

It doesn't matter to you that there are *empirical* alternatives to your supernatural claims and constructs. You don't mind holding "belief" in supernatural explanations when it suits you either. The only time you *refuse* to consider a non empirically demonstrated "cause" is when it applies to the topic of God.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear colleagues here, I don't know if you anyone interacting with me and telling me that you are giving me warning, are you a mod or admin?

 

[Pachomius]

Okay, dear atheists, we have concurred that we both you and I seek evidence.

And also you have the information of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

May I propose that we you and I already bring up an instance of evidence outside our mind, because I seem to notice that there are folks among you atheists, who still want to avoid bringing in evidence, you want to nitpick uselessly.

Here is my first instance of evidence by which ultimately I have come to certainty of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

BABIES.

Now, do you have any instance of evidence leading you to certainty that no God exists?

 

[Michael]

Holy Thor's hammer Michael, you seriously need to GTFO with this bull ship, you derail every single thread you're in with this crap. It should be obvious to you by now that no one cares &/or agrees with your personal pet projects.

Bah. I'm simply pointing out the hypocritical nature of atheist's acceptance of "evidence" at it relates to the topic of God.

Nowhere in "science" is "evidence" limited to empirically demonstrated cause/effect mechanisms, yet anytime an atheist is presented with evidence of God which is not empirically demonstrated in controlled experimentation, they subjectively and hypocritically dismiss it out of hand.

They turn right around and point and the sky and claim that their invisible, impotent on Earth stuff did it. Sheesh.

 

[Pachomius]

I got into so much trouble just now, when I could not get access here; good that finally I succeeded to log in.

 

[Freodin]

Okay, dear atheists, we have concurred that we both you and I seek evidence.

And also you have the information of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

May I propose that we you and I already bring up an instance of evidence outside our mind, because I seem to notice that there are folks among you atheists, who still want to avoid bringing in evidence, you want to nitpick uselessly.

That is an interesting approach to the whole topic of searching, finding and presenting evidence. Interesting in the sense of "very unusual, and potentially very annoying".
My friendly advice: change your style, drastically. You might find that the people you are addressing get a lot more responsive when you keep your presentations short, precise and informative... and cut short on these more or less veiled insults and attacks on your conversational partners.

Here is my first instance of evidence by which ultimately I have come to certainty of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

BABIES.

Now, do you have any instance of evidence leading you to certainty that no God exists?

Case in point. Just as a demonstration of how your style of presentation is not very conductive for a serious conversation, let my present you with an instance of evidence leading me to the certainty that no God exists!

BABIES!

 

[Pachomius]

So, as we have concurred, dear atheists, that we both you and I seek evidence.

I have presented babies as evidence of God.

Please present your first evidence of no God.

And we have concurred on the information of the concept of God, as in concept first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

 

[Freodin]

So, as we have concurred, dear atheists, that we both you and I seek evidence.

I have presented babies as evidence of God.

Please present your first evidence of no God.

And we have concurred on the information of the concept of God, as in concept first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of "evidence". Usually, for something to be evidence for something else, there must be some kind of connection between the two items. A connection that you need to establish, present and demonstrate as how your presented item is "evidence".

So, you have presented - that is: named - Babies as evidence of God. You didn't establish any reason why Babies should be considered evidence of God.

But if that is how you think it should be done... fine. I will repeat my "evidence" in the same way.

You presented as evidence of God: Babies.
I present as evidence of no God: Babies.

What now?

 

[Pachomius]

Okay, so babies are for you evidence of no God, and for me, for yes God.

Are babies for you evidence of their parents' existence?

 

[Freodin]

Okay, so babies are for you evidence of no God, and for me, for yes God.

Are babies for you evidence of their parents' existence?

If you think this is relevant, it would be up to you to explain why before I see any reason to answer this question.

As you seemed fit to call my previous question regarding the concept of beginning "nitpicking", I am just extending the politeness you offered me back to you.