How to prove God exists.

[Kylie]

Did you pay for the video?

There you have it: great technique for making money!

Nah, the video is just designed to make you invested so you'll pay to get the real video. After all, if you watch a half hour infomercial, then you'd be wasting your time if you didn't buy the secret for the technique for just three easy payments of $99.95.

 

[FredVB]

I believe that there is call for adequate explanation for how everything began. God is adequate explanation for the necessary existence, atheists don't have anything for such adequate explanation, this is simply neglected or dismissed, or if one honestly answers this point they would say they just don't know. God is not such a being who remains testable in experiments. There are the evidences of God interacting with creatures, as us, which atheists won't consider but would dismiss, there are miracles that show for this that many learn of, among those becoming believers, resurrection from the dead is the greatest among such.

 

[Loudmouth]

You see, I ask you for your information on the concept of God Which you deny to exist, and also pieces of evidence the absence of which is the ground by which you conclude to the non-existence of God.

First, since I am not the one who believes in God, it is up to those who believe in God to define what they believe in.

Second, it is not the non-believer who has to disprove the belief. The burden of proof lies with the believer to produce evidence in support of their belief.

And for pieces of evidence which I see all around me everyday and everywhere, I will just mention the nose in our face which is not going to fall off uncertainly, babies, the sun in the day sky, and the moon in the evening sky, etc., all which lead me to infer to the existence of God in per concept above, you get the idea.

How is this evidence?

It isn't simply enough to throw out a list of nouns. You need to describe how these objects are evidence for the existence of God.

And what pieces of evidence do you know to be missing which absence leads you to infer to the non-existence of God, as per YOUR information on the concept of God Which you deny to exist.

What is missing is an explanation of why the things you have listed are evidence for the existence of God.

 

[HitchSlap]

I believe that there is call for adequate explanation for how everything began. God is adequate explanation for the necessary existence, atheists don't have anything for such adequate explanation, this is simply neglected or dismissed, or if one honestly answers this point they would say they just don't know. God is not such a being who remains testable in experiments. There are the evidences of God interacting with creatures, as us, which atheists won't consider but would dismiss, there are miracles that show for this that many learn of, among those becoming believers, resurrection from the dead is the greatest among such.

 

[Loudmouth]

God is adequate explanation for the necessary existence,

What evidence is there to back that explanation?

What makes an explanation adequate?

atheists don't have anything for such adequate explanation,

What is wrong with that? "I don't know" does not lead to the conclusion "God did it". You are pushing a God of the Gaps fallacy.

God is not such a being who remains testable in experiments.

A non-existent deity will also not show up in experiments.

There are the evidences of God interacting with creatures, as us, which atheists won't consider but would dismiss, there are miracles that show for this that many learn of, among those becoming believers, resurrection from the dead is the greatest among such.

How can we consider the evidence if you don't present it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Dear Skreeper, are you aware that you cannot just stop at one point and insist on not going on to the next point in a progression inference?

Are you aware that you can't make a list of nouns and expect it to be accepted as evidence without any explanation?

Tht is what you are doing, saying that the nose is evidence of the nose, but you refuse to go to the next step which is the question on what caused the nose, and and on and on until you cannot ask any further: because you will be into lapsing into the fallacy of infinite regress - on that please read thoroughly about the fallacy of infinite regress.

It isn't us who is refusing to take this step. It is you who is refusing to take the step to show how the nose was created by God.

 

[Freodin]

I believe that there is call for adequate explanation for how everything began. God is adequate explanation for the necessary existence, atheists don't have anything for such adequate explanation, this is simply neglected or dismissed, or if one honestly answers this point they would say they just don't know.

I would say that this is incorrect, on both counts.

Basically (no offence intended, just a technical term) "God" is a "black box". It is the explanation that you don't need, want or can explain... it just works. Whatever you need from it, it does.

"How did it all begin? God!" That doesn't tell you anything, and you can neither verify or falsify it.

So I wouldn't call it an "adequate" explanation.

But atheists can provide concepts that do exactly the same. My personal favorite is "primal chaos", which is, basically, also just a "black box". I can use it as explanation whenever I do not have any other explanation.

God is not such a being who remains testable in experiments. There are the evidences of God interacting with creatures, as us, which atheists won't consider but would dismiss, there are miracles that show for this that many learn of, among those becoming believers, resurrection from the dead is the greatest among such.

And I am sure that resurrection from the dead would be a huge point in convincing atheists. The problem is: all you do have is claims about resurrection from the dead.

I hope you see why this is kind of a deal-breaker for people who tend to the skeptical spectrum?

 

[Pachomius]

Dear atheists here, please produce your own stock knowledge and also self-written out idea of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

I need your presentation in order to know how you think when it comes to evidence, for you atheists are keen on evidence the lack of gives you atheists the ground to deny God exists.

Please, Oh atheists, let us learn from one another, so that we both profit from our common endeavor to come to knowledge of reality, reality as in this statement oft repeated by yours truly, ?The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.?

When you, Oh atheists here, write your next post on this thread, ?How to prove God exists,? please put at the top of your message, your submission on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

Annex
* Yesterday at 4:40 AM #863

From Pachomius:

Here is what I know about evidence after several years of dealing with evidence - in plain language:
"Evidence is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing."
For example, I just read something about a man who died in suspicious circumstances, and investigators found traces of sperm in his anus, from which they have evidence that there was sex action of this subject with another human subject.

Now, dear atheists, please present your stock knowledge of evidence and one example.
ÿ

 

[Pachomius]

Now for atheists who present the absence of evidence as in that God does not heal by restoring an amputated leg, please be informed that the absence of the healing by restoration of an amputated leg, that is not any 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.

Besides, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, unless you atheists have searched the whole universe from the Big Bang to today - capisce?

And not to neglect your postulated parallel universes.

At most in fact that is the evidence that God has His own discretion on if and when and where and how and to whom He is going to restore an amputated leg.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dear atheists here, please produce your own stock knowledge and also self-written out idea of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.

DNA fingerprinting is a good example. DNA found at a crime scene is tested for variations at genomic locations called short tandem repeats (STR). One person may have 4 repeats of AAGGAT while another person may have 5 repeats at that same position. If you look at one STR, half of the population may have 4 repeats while the other half of the population may have 5 repeats. If you look at 10 or so STRs you can get a DNA fingerprint for that person, a combination of STRs that only one in a few billion people should have, kind of like a social security number.

The process of sequencing each STR is completely independent of the conclusion. Also, there is a strong chance that the STR pattern won't match the suspect. There is nothing inherent in the method that biases towards the suspect.

Here is what I know about evidence after several years of dealing with evidence - in plain language:
"Evidence is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing."

The problem is that you don't show how one can use babies to infer that God is the creator. You need to show the inference as well.

For example, I just read something about a man who died in suspicious circumstances, and investigators found traces of sperm in his anus, from which they have evidence that there was sex action of this subject with another human subject.

Why aren't you claiming that this is evidence for God?

 

[Loudmouth]

Now for atheists who present the absence of evidence as in that God does not heal by restoring an amputated leg, please be informed that the absence of the healing by restoration of an amputated leg, that is not any ground to deny the existence of God,

We don't claim that God does not exist. How many times have we gone over this?

At most in fact that is the evidence that God has His own discretion on if and when and where and how and to whom He is going to restore an amputated leg.

That is also what a non-existent deity would do.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear atheists here, for such questions as regards the mercy of God and His goodness and His justice and His perfections, etc. which you learned about from the Bible, and whatever else you demand of God for having been at one time Christians, for satisfying your needs in regard to what you call evils afflicting mankind and the world not being perfect, not good enough for you on your own, Oh atheists, on your own valuation of a perfect world, please go to the theologians of the Christian faith.

This thread is on how to prove God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Some atheists have challenged God openly in public to strike them down dead right away, and declare that as they are not suffering any throes of death, then God does not exist.

Well, that just in fact is the evidence that you atheists are against the Christian faith of a merciful, just, good, etc. God.

Let you get into the gist of this thread, it is about How to prove God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

And the proof is based on evidence understood on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, and the best ideas from mankind down the history of man's search for knowledge of reality in the totality of existence.

There, Oh atheists, see that you get to know the difference between your hostility to religions and 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, and all that by way of reason and observation, and more expansively on the history of ideas.

Capisce? So stop already barking up the wrong tree.

Best to go to the boards on the religion of the Christian faith - capisce?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That is also what a non-existent deity would do.

Yes, if a god chooses to act (or not to act) in such a way that it is completely indistinguishable from the complete absence of a god, it should not be surprised if people question its utility or existence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some atheists have challenged God openly in public to strike them down dead right away, and declare that as they are not suffering any throes of death, then God does not exist.

We are not those atheists.

Let you get into the gist of this thread, it is about How to prove God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You first. We have gone through hundreds of posts and you still won't present this evidence.

There, Oh atheists, see that you get to know the difference between your hostility to religions and 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, and all that by way of reason and observation, and more expansively on the history of ideas.

My only hostility is towards those who lie about having evidence.

Do you have evidence?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...<blah>...

Still no explanation of how to prove God exists...

Timewaster? You be the judge.

 

[AV1611VET]

My only hostility is towards those who lie about having evidence.

And you decide what you'll accept as evidence, won't you?

Therefore you will determine whether someone warrants your hostility or not ... correct?

 

[Skreeper]

Well, that just in fact is the evidence that you atheists are against the Christian faith of a merciful, just, good, etc. God.

I am against people who push their unjustified beliefs onto others. When people claim that a certain group shouldn't be allowed to marry or want to take away the reproductive rights of women or ignore the separation of church and state.
You can believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights.

And if you think your god is merciful, just and good then you really should read the bible again.

 

[AV1611VET]

When people claim that a certain group shouldn't be allowed to marry ...

Like NAMBLA?

 

[Pachomius]

Dear everyone here, in particular atheists.

Yesterday I asked everyone to search for and think on why if at all the ancient thinkers held that the cosmos i.e. universe is eternal, and report here today.

Now, this is very good as a pre-requisite for this thread, How to prove God exists, on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

Now, I will report to you what I have found in regard to the ancient thinkers on the cosmos i.e. universe being eternal and why.

What about you, dear everyone, in most particular, Oh ye atheists here?

You see, Oh ye atheists, you are missing the history of ideas, with your repetitious cliches and slogans against God, but without any real genuine productive thinking at all, on the the issue itself, God exists or not.

But it is all evasions with you, like for example from your self-description, it is already an evasion, for you say, that you just don't believe in the existence of God, Gods, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., when only one is enough, namely, the most ambitious God, Who in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Okay, I will report to you what I have found from my searching and thinking, on why the ancient thinkers came to the conclusion that the cosmos i.e. universe is eternal, and why.


They come to the conclusion that the cosmos is eternal because they understand the cosmos as the what I have been telling you, Oh ye atheists, namely, that The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.



That implicates in the core that existence is eternal, still they observe that they and everything they see in their immediate environment are changing and going into existence and out of existence; so they further conclude that there is also transient existence.



And next they conclude that the transient existence depends upon what I call the necessary existence which they call the eternal existence.



There, Oh ye atheists, do you now have the background appropriate to you for a pre-requisite on how to think on the issue God exists or not, on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.



Just the same, I am most keen to read your report, on what you have come to with searching and thinking on what the ancient held about the eternal cosmos if that be their finding, and why.


Annex

• 

Yesterday at 8:08 AM #876

Pachomius

Dear atheists and theists here, and also all readers please chip in with your opinions.


We will all do searching and thinking, and come to the common idea of the ancient world, that the universe i.e. the cosmos is eternal.


We will report back tomorrow, what we have for a finding and a possible explanation why the ancient world held the idea they did hold.


Now from repeated experience from my part with some atheists here, they will retort that they don't have to do any searching and thinking, etc.
That is the attitude that you guys are not into reason and observation, and it means that you will talk like Skreeper, "The nose is evidence of the nose."


Anyway, I will do my searching and thinking, as to come to the finding whether the ancient world held that the cosmos is eternal, and why.


See you guys all tomorrow, and thanks to you all, for keeping this thread of mine very busy.

 

[Skreeper]

Dear everyone here, in particular atheists.

Yesterday I asked everyone to search for and think on why if at all the ancient thinkers held that the cosmos i.e. universe is eternal, and report here today.

Now, this is very good as a pre-requisite for this thread, How to prove God exists, on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

Now, I will report to you what I have found in regard to the ancient thinkers on the cosmos i.e. universe being eternal and why.

What about you, dear everyone, in most particular, Oh ye atheists here?

You see, Oh ye atheists, you are missing the history of ideas, with your repetitious cliches and slogans against God, but without any real genuine productive thinking at all, on the the issue itself, God exists or not.

But it is all evasions with you, like for example from your self-description, it is already an evasion, for you say, that you just don't believe in the existence of God, Gods, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., when only one is enough, namely, the most ambitious God, Who in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Okay, I will report to you what I have found from my searching and thinking, on why the ancient thinkers came to the conclusion that the cosmos i.e. universe is eternal, and why.


They come to the conclusion that the cosmos is eternal because they understand the cosmos as the what I have been telling you, Oh ye atheists, namely, that The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.



That implicates in the core that existence is eternal, still they observe that they and everything they see in their immediate environment are changing and going into existence and out of existence; so they further conclude that there is also transient existence.



And next they conclude that the transient existence depends upon what I call the necessary existence which they call the eternal existence.



There, Oh ye atheists, do you now have the background appropriate to you for a pre-requisite on how to think on the issue God exists or not, on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.



Just the same, I am most keen to read your report, on what you have come to with searching and thinking on what the ancient held about the eternal cosmos if that be their finding, and why.


Annex

• 

Yesterday at 8:08 AM #876

Pachomius

Dear atheists and theists here, and also all readers please chip in with your opinions.


We will all do searching and thinking, and come to the common idea of the ancient world, that the universe i.e. the cosmos is eternal.


We will report back tomorrow, what we have for a finding and a possible explanation why the ancient world held the idea they did hold.


Now from repeated experience from my part with some atheists here, they will retort that they don't have to do any searching and thinking, etc.
That is the attitude that you guys are not into reason and observation, and it means that you will talk like Skreeper, "The nose is evidence of the nose."


Anyway, I will do my searching and thinking, as to come to the finding whether the ancient world held that the cosmos is eternal, and why.


See you guys all tomorrow, and thanks to you all, for keeping this thread of mine very busy.

Can you maybe cut your nonsense a little bit shorter, present your evidence and stop your holier-than-thou attitude?