How to prove God exists.

[Freodin]

Start with observations, for you say:
"In fact, there are observations of babies without parents."

I already explained, that was a typing error. That sentence should read: "There are NO observations of babies without parents".

Which would be evidence for the claim that parents, and not God, are the creators of babies.

 

[Pachomius]

So, you are clear now, there are no observations of babies without parents.

What about parents, do you have observations of parents without parents?

 

[Pachomius]

Please, no more typos: think carefully and write carefully, Do you have observations of parents who do not have parents from whom they were born by?

Think carefully before you write, and check your writing before transmitting it.

 

[Freodin]

So, you are clear now, there are no observations of babies without parents.

What about parents, do you have observations of parents without parents?

As experience tells us that all parents had been babies once: no.

That still would point to parents as the "creators" of babies, not God.

 

[Pachomius]

Please, don't jump to God yet, we want to go there step by step.

You think and then write, and then you read what you have written, and see whether you have evidence of what you have written.

Okay, are there parents without parents giving them their births?


Please clarify in plain simple direct language, what you mean by this sentence from you:

"As experience tells us that all parents had been babies once: no."

Rewrite that sentence in simple sentences that are consistent and coherent among themselves.

I will be back in 40 minutes.

 

[Freodin]

Please, don't jump to God yet, we want to go there step by step.

Well, it was you who started with "babies are evidence for God"... I am only following your footsteps.

You think and then write, and then you read what you have written, and see whether you have evidence of what you have written.

Okay, are there parents without parents giving them their births?


Please clarify in plain simple direct language, what you mean by this sentence from you:

"As experience tells us that all parents had been babies once: no."

Rewrite that sentence in simple sentences that are consistent and coherent among themselves.

A "please" wouldn't hurt when you make unnecessary demands like that... my previous statement should be clear enough.

But because I am such a nice person...

"There is no observation of parents without parents."

Simple enough?

I will be back in 40 minutes.

I won't. It's already late here and, as much as I would like to, I cannot spend the whole night talking to you. See you in the morning.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This is going to be about abiogenesis, isn't it?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

How are babies evidence of 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.

You need to present evidence that God did create those things that have beginnings. Simply pointing to things with beginnings is not evidence for God.

 

[Loudmouth]

Parents are not God, but evidence of ultimately the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You need to present evidence that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. Simply pointing to things with a beginning is not evidence for God.

 

[Loudmouth]

Give a concrete example of babies without parents.

Give evidence for God.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, you are clear now, there are no observations of babies without parents.

What about parents, do you have observations of parents without parents?

Do you have observations of God creating anything?

 

[Gene2memE]

This is going to be about abiogenesis, isn't it?

Awww, nuts! You beat me to it.

However, can I get bonus points if the phrases 'LUCA' and 'God of the Gaps' aren't understood by a certain poster?

 

[Radrook]

Do you have observations of God creating anything?

Inference isn't dependent on direct observation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Inference isn't dependent on direct observation.

It is dependent on repeatable observations and a falsifiable hypothesis, which you don't have.

 

[Pachomius]

Okay, my previous respondent and I concur on we both seek evidence.

And I bring in babies as evidence of God, he tells me that he will have babies also for evidence of no God.

What do you atheists here say, babies not evidence of God?

 

[Michael]

It is dependent on repeatable observations and a falsifiable hypothesis, which you don't have.

Your belief in exotic forms of matter and energy are not falsifiable either, and you can't repeat "space expansion" in a lab in the first place. Pure double standard and pure hypocrisy on a stick.

 

[Radrook]

It is dependent on repeatable observations and a falsifiable hypothesis, which you don't have.

We base our inference on the repetition of patterns which indicate that life comes only from previous life. Falsifiable you say? You tested that for us by trying to force abiogenesis to happen in your labs and miserably failing thus proving us right.

 

[Loudmouth]

We base our inference on the repetition of patterns which indicate that life comes only from previous life.
Falsifiable you say?
You falsified that for us by trying to force abiogenesis to happen in your labs and miserably failing this proving us right.

That would be an argument from ignorance. Are you sure that you took those logic classes? You seem to be repeating the same logical fallacies over and over.

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay, my previous respondent and I concur on we both seek evidence.

And I bring in babies as evidence of God, he tells me that he will have babies also for evidence of no God.

What do you atheists here say, babies not evidence of God?

I am still waiting for you to explain how babies are evidence of God.

 

[Radrook]

That would be an argument from ignorance. Are you sure that you took those logic classes? You seem to be repeating the same logical fallacies over and over.

As I said, you folks proved us right by miserably failing to produce life via chemical means in a lab. Ignorance? Ignorance is to ignore the pattern that justifies the inductive leap and insisting on believing in something never observed to happen in nature and unrepeatable in a lab. That is ignorance par excellence.