Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Did you pay for the video?
There you have it: great technique for making money!
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.
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.
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.
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.
God is adequate explanation for the necessary existence,
atheists don't have anything for such adequate 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.
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?
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.
I would say that this is incorrect, on both counts.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.
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.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.
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.
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 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,
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.
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.That is also what a non-existent deity would do.
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.
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.
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.
Still no explanation of how to prove God exists......<blah>...
And you decide what you'll accept as evidence, won't you?My only hostility is towards those who lie about having evidence.
Well, that just in fact is the evidence that you atheists are against the Christian faith of a merciful, just, good, etc. God.
Like NAMBLA?When people claim that a certain group shouldn't be allowed to marry ...
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?