-
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
HitchSlap
PROUDLY PRIMATE
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Nice word salad, and you couldn't be more wrong. I hate being an atheist, especially being one that doesn't believe in an afterlife. I would be thrilled to encounter compelling evidence for the existence of a deity that would provide an afterlife. I'd be thrilled beyond thrilled, because the despair of my slowly approaching end would finally be over. The despair that nearly drove me to kill myself would be gone for good. I would rather have hell than the obliteration of my existence that I believe comes with my death, but I don't believe in hell or heaven.
Do you think I am so proud that I wouldn't prostrate myself at the feet of the Christian God to experience a good afterlife? I would lick those feet clean for the rest of eternity rather than lose the experiences I have had in my life and lose any chance of future ones, good or bad. Never suppose that I am forcing myself to feel this mental anguish that I have been trying to escape for nearly 9 years. Yes, since I was 13. You know what I have found? Nothing but disappointment again and again. I want to be wrong, desperately, but have yet to encounter the evidence I would need to convert.
I would rather serve a tyrant that eats babies and causes cancer than die and cease to exist. The Christian God is debate-ably better than that. Heck, I'd probably murder my entire network of family and friends if I thought it would reveal a deity to me (I don't think it would accomplish that, so don't worry). And you would suggest that it would be pride that prevents me from seeing evidence for deities? Don't make me laugh, I am too cowardly about death to have my "pride" about "being right" supersede it.
What begat the deity? If the deity can be infinite, so could a natural process which produces universes, so a deity without evidence of its existence effectively explains nothing the natural world without one can't.
I cry myself to sleep almost every night, praying for a sign that there is something after death, that there is anything out there. I never get anything but silence. Furthermore, I have always been an atheist, I was brought up in a non-religious household. I was never directed by my family to not be religious, I had no direction at all from them on matters of theology. Not every atheist was once a theist.
Except not every atheist deconverted. I was never a theist to begin with.
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
Makes perfect sense.http://...dupo7D3mIYEkgddeddXVSPIGUXbrQNa6urqSXJyP/2Q== http://...dupo7D3mIYEkgddeddXVSPIGUXbrQNa6urqSXJyP/2Q== http://...dupo7D3mIYEkgddeddXVSPIGUXbrQNa6urqSXJyP/2Q== http://...dupo7D3mIYEkgddeddXVSPIGUXbrQNa6urqSXJyP/2Q==
Upvote
0
Here we go again with the vacuous and irrelevant posts containing none of the evidence you claimed you were going to present.
Look who is playing hide and seek now?
Since you can't produce any evidence, you try to discredit those who ask for evidence. Just another hide and seek method.
If you were serious you could describe the supposedly problematic epistemology we use, but you don't. You claim it is problematic, but can't even point to a single problem with it.
Upvote
0
How are these things evidence for God? How do you infer God from these observations?
Still waiting for you to show us how one infers God from those observations.
I am just fine with evidence being observations that one can use to infer a conclusion. Still waiting for you to show how your list of observations can be used to infer your conclusion.
Upvote
0
TagliatelliMonster
Well-Known Member
What is meant by "transient existence". Give an example of such a thing perhaps.
Because of 2, I don't know what this means either.
How are they evidence for this god?
Huh? How did you get to "therefor"?
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
-_- given that there is far more variety in what definitively doesn't exist over what does, I disagree.
This asserts a purpose to existence that you aren't providing evidence for; are you sure you didn't intend to put this in the philosophy section? It sounds more like a thought experiment than anything else to me. Also, this needs more detail, as these are your own terms rather than standard ones. You should have defined transient existence (which literally means temporary existence otherwise) and necessary existence (which literally means existence which has to occur or objects that must exist otherwise).
Provide evidence, and definitions for those terms.
Babies aren't even inherently evidence for the mothers which birthed them if said mothers were never observed. The consequence evidences a cause, but implies very little about the cause. We know the naturalistic cause of stars like the sun and moons, we know how babies are made, as well as rivers and oceans, and all seem to flow without some intelligent power influencing it. Thus, none of these are evidence for any deity.
Even if you had evidence for a deity directly, this would still be presupposing its role in the universe. Deities do demonstrably exist as concepts, however, so do the horrors of my imagination. Thankfully, conceptualizing something doesn't make it physically real beyond the confines of thought.
Upvote
0
Dear Loudmouth, thanks for coming over, late but not never more. Very good!
Now will you just please fill in the blanks, so that we will have a good and always present list of our respective statements, as we resume our mutual endeavor to resolve the impasse between us, namely, from your part no evidence for God existing, and from my part there is evidence for God existing.
Fill up all the blank statements from you that should correspond to my statements with the asterisk mark of * prefixed at the beginning of my statements.
And dear Loudmouth, don’t give me that you have already made your statements, that is all right but we want to have a good constant repeated list for every post I write and you write, so that everyone all people reading this thread will have with every post from me and also I suggest correspondingly from you, of the statements we have already set forth in public - you get the idea.
Fill in the blanks from your part, as to correspond to my statements prefixed with the * sign.
See below.
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.]
From Pachomius, examples of evidence: babies, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the evening sky, stones, the nose in our face, everything in our environment that we live in and move in and have our existence in, in most particular everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, his example of evidence,
DNA.
*From Pachomius, the target of evidence in my cited examples is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, no presentation of what is the target of his example of evidence, to wit: what is the target of DNA evidence, what is DNA evidence, evidence to.
It is at that point when I asked Loudmouth, what is DNA evidence to, that he leaves off for up to two days already from putting up an appearance in this thread.
So, dear Loudmouth, you have only two statements to make, to have your corresponding statements to my two statements as follows, which you will fill up, in order that all people will see all the time with every post from me and from you, at the top of each post, the statements which we have presented, for their guidance on the development of the resolution of our impasse, namely, no evidence of God from your part, but yes evidence for God from my part.
From Pachomius:
*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.”
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.]
*From Pachomius, the target of evidence in my cited examples is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, no presentation of what is the target of his example of evidence, to wit: what is the target of DNA evidence, what is DNA evidence, evidence to.
So, you just have to fill up your two blank statements, so that we will have now complete to date sets of corresponding statements.
Dear readers here, if you have ever read the records of the debate in Congress or even just the transcripts of a court’s case, you will notice that there is no end to repetition of statements from all parties, again and again and again, because mankind has learned that if there is no repetition in writing, parties up to sow confusion and vacuity of exchange to their own perverse advantage will always allege that this or that was never mentioned, etc., etc., etc.
In court’s cases, parties in conflict have to also submit their offer of evidence to each other by and on their own trouble, time, and expense – and get a written acknowledgment receipt from the other party.
Learn from the Roman law experts on evidence:
"Quod non est in actis, non est in mundo."
Now will you just please fill in the blanks, so that we will have a good and always present list of our respective statements, as we resume our mutual endeavor to resolve the impasse between us, namely, from your part no evidence for God existing, and from my part there is evidence for God existing.
Fill up all the blank statements from you that should correspond to my statements with the asterisk mark of * prefixed at the beginning of my statements.
And dear Loudmouth, don’t give me that you have already made your statements, that is all right but we want to have a good constant repeated list for every post I write and you write, so that everyone all people reading this thread will have with every post from me and also I suggest correspondingly from you, of the statements we have already set forth in public - you get the idea.
Fill in the blanks from your part, as to correspond to my statements prefixed with the * sign.
See below.
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.]
From Pachomius, examples of evidence: babies, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the evening sky, stones, the nose in our face, everything in our environment that we live in and move in and have our existence in, in most particular everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, his example of evidence,
DNA.
*From Pachomius, the target of evidence in my cited examples is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, no presentation of what is the target of his example of evidence, to wit: what is the target of DNA evidence, what is DNA evidence, evidence to.
It is at that point when I asked Loudmouth, what is DNA evidence to, that he leaves off for up to two days already from putting up an appearance in this thread.
So, dear Loudmouth, you have only two statements to make, to have your corresponding statements to my two statements as follows, which you will fill up, in order that all people will see all the time with every post from me and from you, at the top of each post, the statements which we have presented, for their guidance on the development of the resolution of our impasse, namely, no evidence of God from your part, but yes evidence for God from my part.
From Pachomius:
*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.”
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.]
*From Pachomius, the target of evidence in my cited examples is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, no presentation of what is the target of his example of evidence, to wit: what is the target of DNA evidence, what is DNA evidence, evidence to.
So, you just have to fill up your two blank statements, so that we will have now complete to date sets of corresponding statements.
Dear readers here, if you have ever read the records of the debate in Congress or even just the transcripts of a court’s case, you will notice that there is no end to repetition of statements from all parties, again and again and again, because mankind has learned that if there is no repetition in writing, parties up to sow confusion and vacuity of exchange to their own perverse advantage will always allege that this or that was never mentioned, etc., etc., etc.
In court’s cases, parties in conflict have to also submit their offer of evidence to each other by and on their own trouble, time, and expense – and get a written acknowledgment receipt from the other party.
Learn from the Roman law experts on evidence:
"Quod non est in actis, non est in mundo."
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
-_- Loudmouth labelled himself as "agnostic", so it should be obvious that he doesn't believe in deities.
Upvote
0
Post #1031:
My conviction is that theists don't have evidence for the existence of God. I have never seen evidence for the existence of God. Therefore, I don't believe in God. If such evidence is presented, then I will believe in the existence of God.
I am getting tired of answering the same questions over and over and over.
Your own definition of evidence said that it had to be part of an inference. Where is the inference?
The guilt of the suspect, obviously. Why do you think they do DNA fingerprinting at crime scenes?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
