-
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.
How to prove God exists.
- Thread starter Pachomius
- Start date
The only thing you have done thus far is exude words to no purpose, into vacuity. Hundreds of posts in and you still haven't presented evidence for the existence of God.
I already presented it in a previous post. Why do I have to keep presenting the same things over and over and over?
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.
You need to show what that inference is in order for it to be evidence. Do you agree?
Why isn't evidence for God in the same way that babies and noses are?
Please avoid going into vacuity, like that you still haven't read the multiple posts where I describe what evidence is.
Also, please present evidence to support your claims. Please stop with the vacuous attempts to avoid giving evidence.
Upvote
0
Freodin
Devout believer in a theologically different God
This is the casus knactus, as we call it in Küchenlatein, the "Knackpunkt". The point where it all comes together, and where you can crack it.
Basically, everything that Pachi has presented until now could be "evidence"... but it is the identification of the inference that makes it evidence.
Funny that someone who is so obsessed with convoluted definitions has missed this.
Upvote
0
Now, in regard to your concept of evidence:
From Loudmouth #922:
"Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
Noted, from me.
Now, dear Loudmouth, Do you have any at all firm conviction on the existence of God or non-existence of God?
Because if you don't have any at all of firm conviction, what is your purpose in writing in this thread of mine, which is on How to prove God exists?
Here is my firm conviction in this thread of mine where you are also exuding your fruits of thinking:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”
So, dear Loud mouth, please when you react to this post, please present your firm conviction in regard to God existing or not.
Dear readers here and all who write in this thread, let you know that Loudmouth has presented his concept of evidence, namely:
From Loudmouth #922:
"Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
And here is my concept of evidence, as follows:
#863 from Pachomius:
"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."
And here is my statement on my conviction in regard to the issue God exists or not:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”
Let you, Loudmouth, present your firm conviction in the writing of posts in this thread of mine when you react to this post.
Dear readers here, I am now telling Loudmouth to concur with me on the necessary premises for our exchange of thoughts on the issue of God existing or not, on the basis of evidence.
When Loudmouth has replied to this post, then you will have already two premises concurred on by us both:
1. What is his concept of evidence.
2. What is his firm conviction on God existing or not.
From Loudmouth #922:
"Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
Noted, from me.
Now, dear Loudmouth, Do you have any at all firm conviction on the existence of God or non-existence of God?
Because if you don't have any at all of firm conviction, what is your purpose in writing in this thread of mine, which is on How to prove God exists?
Here is my firm conviction in this thread of mine where you are also exuding your fruits of thinking:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”
So, dear Loud mouth, please when you react to this post, please present your firm conviction in regard to God existing or not.
Dear readers here and all who write in this thread, let you know that Loudmouth has presented his concept of evidence, namely:
From Loudmouth #922:
"Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
And here is my concept of evidence, as follows:
#863 from Pachomius:
"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."
And here is my statement on my conviction in regard to the issue God exists or not:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”
Let you, Loudmouth, present your firm conviction in the writing of posts in this thread of mine when you react to this post.
Dear readers here, I am now telling Loudmouth to concur with me on the necessary premises for our exchange of thoughts on the issue of God existing or not, on the basis of evidence.
When Loudmouth has replied to this post, then you will have already two premises concurred on by us both:
1. What is his concept of evidence.
2. What is his firm conviction on God existing or not.
Upvote
0
Well, I am still waiting for Loudmouth to reply to my last post prior to this present one.
Dear Loudmouth, when you come over, please add to your reply to my immediately preceding post to this one I am writing now, your reply to this request as follows below:
Dear readers, now we will get Loudmouth to expatiate on his concept of evidence:
#922 from Loudmouth:
"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). [...]"
Pray, tell me and readers, What is the target of evidence in your example of evidence with DNA as evidence: evidence to what, pray?
I will be back in one hour's time.
Dear Loudmouth, when you come over, please add to your reply to my immediately preceding post to this one I am writing now, your reply to this request as follows below:
Dear readers, now we will get Loudmouth to expatiate on his concept of evidence:
#922 from Loudmouth:
"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). [...]"
Pray, tell me and readers, What is the target of evidence in your example of evidence with DNA as evidence: evidence to what, pray?
I will be back in one hour's time.
Upvote
0
Well, Loudmouth has not yet come over.
Please, Loudmouth, when you come over, just present what your DNA evidence is evidence to, scil., like my babies evidence is evidence to 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 don't neglect to give me what firm conviction do you have in regard to God existing or not.
I will be back tomorrow.
Annex
Please, Loudmouth, when you come over, just present what your DNA evidence is evidence to, scil., like my babies evidence is evidence to 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 don't neglect to give me what firm conviction do you have in regard to God existing or not.
I will be back tomorrow.
Annex
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
I know I'm not Loudmouth, but I feel the need to say that babies aren't evidence for god. Babies aren't even direct evidence for the existence of their mothers. The only reason we know babies come from mothers is because we observed the process, and we observe mothers directly. No such direct observation of deities, thus we can't attribute anything else we observe to them. If babies spontaneously appeared, and it was some unobservable mother giving birth to them or poofing them into existence, the babies still wouldn't be evidence for that mother because we can't observe the baby maker, and alternative explanations could be viable to explain the cause of babies.
I have no firm conviction. No evidence for deities seen by me, so I don't believe in them. Sufficient evidence would make me believe in them.
Upvote
0
TagliatelliMonster
Well-Known Member
Oranges, apples, rivers and mountains. Therefor, Thor.
Those are evidence for Ra and Apophis, as the ancient Egyptians have tought us.
Upvote
0
Freodin
Devout believer in a theologically different God
Funny, but in this case a faulty line of reasoning.
Pachi specifically defined "God" as "creator (and by now we know the rest) of everything".
If you don't want to define Thor as logically connected with oranges and apples (and I would be careful to do that - Thor is not know for his sense of humor), there would be a lack of that "inference" that Loudmouth and I previously mentioned.
For Pachi's "God" and - well, everything that might be "created" - there could be made such an inference.
There are only two question of importance still waiting to be answered: will this inference be logically valid... and will Pachi ever get around to make it.
Upvote
0
Well, dear readers, Loudmouth has not yet come over.
I have checked carefully, and at this point in time in my location, I do not see Loudmouth having replied to my last posts here, prior to the present one.
Now, dear readers, I am in the process of getting words from Loudmouth, as to be ascertained that he has said things: for first I want to get his statements, to put them together, and also my statements.
This first phase of concurrence has to do with us both presenting forth our statements: because that is the best way to avoid, "you say this and I say that," and endless arguing over what each one says, or that you did not get what I said in toto, and on and on and on.
So, dear Loudmouth, when you return, please take notice of the following statements from you, and also from me, at this point in time.
Of course you can change your statements anytime and anyway you want, and we will take notice of our latest changes, and thus also add your or my latest changes to the list of statements from us both already set forth earlier.
This is the way to also give readers the notice that you and I keep on changing our statements, or who is steady with his words and who not.
You get the idea.
Okay, dear Loudmouth, let me just now present your statements and my statements, so far sent forth in public venue in posts from us.
From Pachomius:
My concept of evidence:
"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."
My firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”
From Loudmouth:
On Loudmouth’s concept of evidence:
"Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.
On Loudmouth’s firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
[No statement so far, for definitive inclusion in list of self-declared statements.]*
Dear Loudmouth, please do not insist that you already said this or that and I do not recall it.
You see, I always repeat what I said earlier verbatim, so you do likewise - it is so simple, just you go to your published posts and copy/paste it when I ask for it.
This means that you need not give warning that you are no longer going to talk to me because I do not read your posts, which is silly.
Okay, dear Loudmouth, when you come over, just give your statement on your firm conviction that God exists or God does not exist.
Now, if you say that you have the firm conviction that you are not certain about God existing or not existing, in which case I will have to tell you, to make up your mind and then return to our exchange of thoughts: because it is useless when you are not of any firm conviction at all on God existing or not existing, so don’t waste my time and trouble as also the time and trouble of readers here.*
Okay, dear Loudmouth, when you come over, please present your statement on your firm conviction on the God existing or not, like this, as follows
My [your] firm conviction is that God does not exist, or
My [your] firm conviction is that God exists.
And don’t to jump the gun by repeating endlessly that you have not seen evidence, and on and on, because we are still in the preliminary process; the presentation itself of evidence and inference from it will come later when all essential preliminaries are concurred on, preliminaries like concepts of evidence and examples of evidence.
*ANNEX
Dear readers here, why do I not care to talk with people who are only firmly convinced that they are not certain on whether God exists or not, because it is useless, as they these kinds of posters will just write as to always be sitting on the fence and never ever saying anything at all by which I can definitively address my attention on, as to get linked to them with sure cross-hairline focus.
You see, dear readers here, when you have experienced a lot of exchange of thoughts with posters in web forums, you will inevitably come across such characters, always sitting on the fence and with their language thus intentionally designed by themselves, so that they will always say that their statements earlier issued were only provisional, all statements from them are FALSIFIABLE, etc., etc., etc.
And that is their recipe of wasting people’s time and trouble to get them to explain themselves clearly and definitiveely on the issue, like in the present context, God exists or not.
I have checked carefully, and at this point in time in my location, I do not see Loudmouth having replied to my last posts here, prior to the present one.
Now, dear readers, I am in the process of getting words from Loudmouth, as to be ascertained that he has said things: for first I want to get his statements, to put them together, and also my statements.
This first phase of concurrence has to do with us both presenting forth our statements: because that is the best way to avoid, "you say this and I say that," and endless arguing over what each one says, or that you did not get what I said in toto, and on and on and on.
So, dear Loudmouth, when you return, please take notice of the following statements from you, and also from me, at this point in time.
Of course you can change your statements anytime and anyway you want, and we will take notice of our latest changes, and thus also add your or my latest changes to the list of statements from us both already set forth earlier.
This is the way to also give readers the notice that you and I keep on changing our statements, or who is steady with his words and who not.
You get the idea.
Okay, dear Loudmouth, let me just now present your statements and my statements, so far sent forth in public venue in posts from us.
From Pachomius:
My concept of evidence:
"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."
My firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”
From Loudmouth:
On Loudmouth’s concept of evidence:
"Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.
On Loudmouth’s firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
[No statement so far, for definitive inclusion in list of self-declared statements.]*
Dear Loudmouth, please do not insist that you already said this or that and I do not recall it.
You see, I always repeat what I said earlier verbatim, so you do likewise - it is so simple, just you go to your published posts and copy/paste it when I ask for it.
This means that you need not give warning that you are no longer going to talk to me because I do not read your posts, which is silly.
Okay, dear Loudmouth, when you come over, just give your statement on your firm conviction that God exists or God does not exist.
Now, if you say that you have the firm conviction that you are not certain about God existing or not existing, in which case I will have to tell you, to make up your mind and then return to our exchange of thoughts: because it is useless when you are not of any firm conviction at all on God existing or not existing, so don’t waste my time and trouble as also the time and trouble of readers here.*
Okay, dear Loudmouth, when you come over, please present your statement on your firm conviction on the God existing or not, like this, as follows
My [your] firm conviction is that God does not exist, or
My [your] firm conviction is that God exists.
And don’t to jump the gun by repeating endlessly that you have not seen evidence, and on and on, because we are still in the preliminary process; the presentation itself of evidence and inference from it will come later when all essential preliminaries are concurred on, preliminaries like concepts of evidence and examples of evidence.
*ANNEX
Dear readers here, why do I not care to talk with people who are only firmly convinced that they are not certain on whether God exists or not, because it is useless, as they these kinds of posters will just write as to always be sitting on the fence and never ever saying anything at all by which I can definitively address my attention on, as to get linked to them with sure cross-hairline focus.
You see, dear readers here, when you have experienced a lot of exchange of thoughts with posters in web forums, you will inevitably come across such characters, always sitting on the fence and with their language thus intentionally designed by themselves, so that they will always say that their statements earlier issued were only provisional, all statements from them are FALSIFIABLE, etc., etc., etc.
And that is their recipe of wasting people’s time and trouble to get them to explain themselves clearly and definitiveely on the issue, like in the present context, God exists or not.
Upvote
0
Skreeper
Well-Known Member
- Jan 30, 2017
- 2,471
- 2,683
- 32
- Country
- Germany
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
If you want a 1on1 with Loudmouth maybe doing a formal debate would be more productive.
I am just gonna ask: What do you mean by "firm conviction"? As an atheist my standpoint is that the theists have not met their burden of proof and therefore I reject the claim that a god exists.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
