How to prove God exists.

[Radrook]

You're welcome to respond in full of course, but let's also make at least *some* attempt to stay on point. Falsification is *optional* in science. It's not a requirement for something to be falsifiable for it to be considered "scientific".

When an atheists tries to reject the entire concept of God based on a perception of unfalsifiability, it's simply a bogus argument, and a non-scientific argument.

Lots of hypotheses in science lack a clear falsification mechanism, and/or make no "unique predictions". That doesn't stop any "scientist" from studying such hypotheses.

Which exactly are those unfalsifiable scientific hypotheses?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which exactly are those unfalsifiable scientific hypotheses?

ID is one. If we count ID as science, at least.

 

[bhsmte]

Which exactly are those unfalsifiable scientific hypotheses?

To be scientific, it must be falsifiable. ID falls woefully short in this regard.

 

[Loudmouth]

But you aren't claiming that you don't know. You are claiming that the mindless unguided chemicals did it.

That is false. I am saying that I don't know how life started. How hard is that to understand? Will you please stop putting words in my mouth?

 

[Loudmouth]

In your intellectually sober moments you admit that you cannot prove God does not exist, you have doubts - although in words and acts your mark yourselves off as militant atheists.

I don't have doubts. What I have is the understanding that I don't know everything. Therefore, I don't claim that God does not exist, just as I also say that I don't claim that Leprechauns, Zeus, and Fairies don't exist. However, what makes me an atheist is that I don't believe that God, or any other deities, exist.

You concur with me on the information of God, as in concept first and foremost the creator cause and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

I concur that you claim God is the creator cause and operator of the universe. What I am waiting for is evidence to support that claim.

You concur with me that we both are into the search for evidence on God, from my part to be existing, from your part to be not existing.

I concur that you believe that God exists. You either believe through blind faith in the absence of evidence, or you have evidence that God exists. Which is it?

We will go forth into the objective world outside of our mind to search for evidence, again from my part on God existing, and from your part on God not existing.

Then get to it.

​

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm in agreement that the scientific method is the height of human knowledge, but you have to admit that it can't reveal anything about infinite or eternal realities that may have caused this universe and our existence.

Why can't science be used to determine the cause of our universe? I see no reason why the cause of our universe can't be determined using the scientific method.

At one time we couldn't test hypotheses of how our own planet formed. At one time we couldn't use science to determine if there were other galaxies. It seems that all you are doing is appealing to our current ignorance, and assuming that this ignorance is somehow permanent.

The problem with claims about God is that believers refuse to allow God to be testable. It is their beliefs that are impervious to falsifiability. No matter what evidence they see or don't see they will continue to believe that God exists. I see no reason why a deity, if real, would be inherently untestable.

I'm in agreement with others on this board that God cannot be proven via the scientific method because it depends upon falsifiability.

Why would God's existence inherently lack falsifiability? A dogmatic false belief held by humans would inherently lack falsifiability. Perhaps that is the problem.

However, this doesn't mean that we can't make informed assumptions about God, based on valid information apart from the scientific method.

Why would you ever assume the existence of something when there is no evidence to supports its existence?

 

[Loudmouth]

I say babies are the evidence of God existing because it is the reasonable and intelligent conclusion, from thinking on how babies come about.

Haven't your parents taught you about the birds and the bees? Babies don't come from deities.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now, please be intelligent, go further to the parents of these two persons, they were babies also once: as you are intelligent and thus curious, ask yourselves where they the parents come from?

When are we getting to the evidence that God exists?

 

[Pachomius]

Dear readers here, this morning I will again talk about evidence, because I find it namely evidence to be a valid explanation from atheists, on why they insist that God does not exist, scil. because there is no evidence for Him existing.

Let us sit back and see if atheists will join us but without any nonsense of their horror chamber of unreason and unintelligence, in our consideration of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

Now, dear readers here, track carefully and continuously how atheists will now as usual go into irrelevancies and nonsense talk, as I will and we will engage them in tackling the matter of evidence, which lack of they explain why they choose to not at least use their God-endowed reason and IQ intelligence to study the evidence which for them does not exist.

Atheists will and must study the evidence which for them does not exist?

Yes, because they claim there is no evidence for God existing, that means definitively that they do have some ideas of evidence at all, the absence of which in reality gives them the ground to explain why they choose to not at all use their God-endowed reason and their IQ intelligence to examine the issue of God existing or not.

Do you dear readers get what I am trying to tell you, namely, as atheists have only one ground why they do not accept the existence of God, namely, that there is no evidence for God existing, that requires that they do have some pieces of evidence in concepts inside their brain or mind, i.e. in their conceptual realm, which are crucially the presence of which that is, namely, presence of in the objectival realm of existence outside their brain or mind, determinative of their choice for no God existing.

Let us then ask them atheists who allege that there is no evidence for God existing:

Atheists, tell us what are some concrete pieces of evidence which are not present, by which lack of their presence, you ground yourselves on, as to choose to deny God existing.

Is that a reasonable and intelligent request on them atheists, that they state what pieces of evidence are not available, by which absence of, they atheists feel so smug that they have arrived at emotional conviction, there is no God?

There, let us sit back and await with bated breath for atheists to tell us, what pieces of evidence are not present to them, by which absence of, they atheists feel so smug in denying God to be existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


Annex

Evidence is anything at all known to man, whether existing only in the conceptual realm of the human mind, or most usually in the objectival realm of concrete things outside and independent of the human mind, which thing being known by a person of reason and intelligence, leads the person to conclude with certainty to the existence of the thing in question of its existence.

So, there are two kinds of evidence in regard to its venue:

(1) Evidence in the conceptual realm of man’s mind,
(2) Evidence in the objectival realm of existence outside and independent of man’s mind.

I will mention first an example of evidence of the second kind which is the most usual kind of evidence.

Here, this is an example: Babies are the evidence for the existence of their parents.*

Now, dear readers and atheists (but atheists hold back any impetus from your part to go into nonsense thinking from the horror chamber of your conceptual realm of unreason and unintelligence), I will now present an example of evidence from the conceptual realm of our mind.

Here, this is an example of evidence from the conceptual realm of our mind, namely:

“The infallible idea that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.”

How does that idea serve as evidence so that it hits the target that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

Here, with reasoning from our faculty of rationality and intelligence, like this:

1. There are two kinds of existence, namely, necessary existence and transient existence.
2. Transient existence depends upon necessary existence to come to existence.
3. Examples of transient existence are all things with a beginning, like for example babies, you and I, stones, and the universe itself.
4. These examples exist in the concrete objectival realm of existence.
5. Wherefore these examples lead a person of reason and intelligence to conclude to the existence, in the long terms of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
6. And these examples are what we call evidence for the existence of God as in concept above described.

In sum, evidence is not evidence if there is no inference from reason and intelligence by which a thing of evidence is linked to its target, owing for example of their relationship of cause and effect, or as a property inherent in a thing, for example, the toughness of a glass bead rendering it resistant to scratches from a sharp knife, that property of toughness is the evidence of its being a diamond substance.


There, dear atheists, what pieces of evidence are absent to you, Oh atheists here, by which you have a ground to deny the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

Oh atheists here, I fear that you only know evidence like for example. that as the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog, that is evidence that the dog is lazy.


*Dear atheists who are of some learning, please inform us what you might find wrong with the sentence, “Babies are the evidence for the existence of their parents,” and I will disabuse you of your wrong learning.

 

[bhsmte]

Dear readers here, this morning I will again talk about evidence, because I find it namely evidence to be a valid explanation from atheists, on why they insist that God does not exist, scil. because there is no evidence for Him existing.

Let us sit back and see if atheists will join us but without any nonsense of their horror chamber of unreason and unintelligence, in our consideration of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

Now, dear readers here, track carefully and continuously how atheists will now as usual go into irrelevancies and nonsense talk, as I will and we will engage them in tackling the matter of evidence, which lack of they explain why they choose to not at least use their God-endowed reason and IQ intelligence to study the evidence which for them does not exist.

Atheists will and must study the evidence which for them does not exist?

Yes, because they claim there is no evidence for God existing, that means definitively that they do have some ideas of evidence at all, the absence of which in reality gives them the ground to explain why they choose to not at all use their God-endowed reason and their IQ intelligence to examine the issue of God existing or not.

Do you dear readers get what I am trying to tell you, namely, as atheists have only one ground why they do not accept the existence of God, namely, that there is no evidence for God existing, that requires that they do have some pieces of evidence in concepts inside their brain or mind, i.e. in their conceptual realm, which are crucially the presence of which that is, namely, presence of in the objectival realm of existence outside their brain or mind, determinative of their choice for no God existing.

Let us then ask them atheists who allege that there is no evidence for God existing:

Atheists, tell us what are some concrete pieces of evidence which are not present, by which lack of their presence, you ground yourselves on, as to choose to deny God existing.

Is that a reasonable and intelligent request on them atheists, that they state what pieces of evidence are not available, by which absence of, they atheists feel so smug that they have arrived at emotional conviction, there is no God?

There, let us sit back and await with bated breath for atheists to tell us, what pieces of evidence are not present to them, by which absence of, they atheists feel so smug in denying God to be existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


Annex

Evasion. We are all sitting with baited breath, for you to produce reliable evidence a god exists. After all, it is your claim and therefore your burden of proof. You can begin producing this evidence, anytime now.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dear readers here, this morning I will again talk about evidence, because I find it namely evidence to be a valid explanation from atheists, on why they insist that God does not exist, scil. because there is no evidence for Him existing.

We don't insist that God does not exist. How many times do we need to repeat this?

Do you dear readers get what I am trying to tell you, namely, as atheists have only one ground why they do not accept the existence of God, namely, that there is no evidence for God existing, that requires that they do have some pieces of evidence in concepts inside their brain or mind, i.e. in their conceptual realm, which are crucially the presence of which that is, namely, presence of in the objectival realm of existence outside their brain or mind, determinative of their choice for no God existing.

You claim that God does exist. This means 1 of 2 things:

1. You believe God exists through blind faith in the absence of any evidence.

2. You believe God exists because you have evidence that God exists.

If #2, then we are asking you for evidence that you use to conclude that God exists. So far, we only have the claim that God is the creator and operator of the Universe. We have yet to see any evidence to support this claim.

Atheists, tell us what are some concrete pieces of evidence which are not present, by which lack of their presence, you ground yourselves on, as to choose to deny God existing.

Supernatural miracles and actual visual or sensory observations of God. All we see are the results of natural processes.

 

[Speedwell]

You're still on the wrong foot with this. First of all, you should get over talking only to your stereotypical atheist:

...why they insist that God does not exist...
...atheists feel so smug...

And so on.

Secondly, Atheists are not in denial about God, they just see no necessity for such a being. What you are going to have to do is identify a phenomenon for which no other explanation will suffice but the existence of God, thus showing His necessity. Consequently, nothing can be said about the nature of the evidence until you put forward an hypothesis.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Is that a reasonable and intelligent request on them atheists, that they state what pieces of evidence are not available, by which absence of, they atheists feel so smug that they have arrived at emotional conviction, there is no God?

There, let us sit back and await with bated breath for atheists to tell us, what pieces of evidence are not present to them, by which absence of, they atheists feel so smug in denying God to be existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Lol! The Marx Brothers would be proud - surely this has to be a POE ?

Why don't you tell us what evidence you haven't got, then we can choose what we can't have...

 

[Loudmouth]

Lol! The Marx Brothers would be proud - surely this has to be a POE ?

Why don't you tell us what evidence you haven't got, then we can choose what we can't have...

Pachimious thinks babies are evidence of God. Perhaps Pach has forgotten that babies are actually evidence for the stork.

 

[HitchSlap]

Dear readers here, this morning I will again talk about evidence, because I find it namely evidence to be a valid explanation from atheists, on why they insist that God does not exist, scil. because there is no evidence for Him existing.

Let us sit back and see if atheists will join us but without any nonsense of their horror chamber of unreason and unintelligence, in our consideration of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

Now, dear readers here, track carefully and continuously how atheists will now as usual go into irrelevancies and nonsense talk, as I will and we will engage them in tackling the matter of evidence, which lack of they explain why they choose to not at least use their God-endowed reason and IQ intelligence to study the evidence which for them does not exist.

Atheists will and must study the evidence which for them does not exist?

Yes, because they claim there is no evidence for God existing, that means definitively that they do have some ideas of evidence at all, the absence of which in reality gives them the ground to explain why they choose to not at all use their God-endowed reason and their IQ intelligence to examine the issue of God existing or not.

Do you dear readers get what I am trying to tell you, namely, as atheists have only one ground why they do not accept the existence of God, namely, that there is no evidence for God existing, that requires that they do have some pieces of evidence in concepts inside their brain or mind, i.e. in their conceptual realm, which are crucially the presence of which that is, namely, presence of in the objectival realm of existence outside their brain or mind, determinative of their choice for no God existing.

Let us then ask them atheists who allege that there is no evidence for God existing:

Atheists, tell us what are some concrete pieces of evidence which are not present, by which lack of their presence, you ground yourselves on, as to choose to deny God existing.

Is that a reasonable and intelligent request on them atheists, that they state what pieces of evidence are not available, by which absence of, they atheists feel so smug that they have arrived at emotional conviction, there is no God?

There, let us sit back and await with bated breath for atheists to tell us, what pieces of evidence are not present to them, by which absence of, they atheists feel so smug in denying God to be existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


Annex

Seriously, this is asinine.

 

[Radrook]

You're still on the wrong foot with this. First of all, you should get over talking only to your stereotypical atheist:And so on.

Secondly, Atheists are not in denial about God, they just see no necessity for such a being. What you are going to have to do is identify a phenomenon for which no other explanation will suffice but the existence of God, thus showing His necessity. Consequently, nothing can be said about the nature of the evidence until you put forward an hypothesis.

Do you have one?

 

[Radrook]

Haven't your parents taught you about the birds and the bees? Babies don't come from deities.

That's clearly not what he means. Feigning inability to understand isn't a rebuttal.

 

[bhsmte]

That's clearly not what he means. Feigning inability to understand isn't a rebuttal.

What does he mean? Explain it to us.

 

[Radrook]

Lol! The Marx Brothers would be proud - surely this has to be a POE ?

Why don't you tell us what evidence you haven't got, then we can choose what we can't have...

That sounds like a question Curly might ask Moe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That sounds like a question Curly might ask Moe.

Or Groucho might ask Chico...

Spoiler: (with apologies to Monty Python)

Chico: Ice-cream! get your tutsi-fruitsi ice-cream!
Groucho: Ah! I'll take a pistachio.
Chico: Sorry, I got no pistachio.
Groucho: How about chocolate?
Chico: No, I don't got that flavor either. Try again.
Groucho: Vanilla?
Chico: No vanilla, no.
Groucho: So what other flavors haven't you got?
Chico: Well, I don't got no raspberry, strawberry, blueberry, cherry, and banana...
Groucho: All right, I'll have one without strawberry...