How to prove God exists.

[Radrook]

A single, individual book that can be read by anyone, even the illiterate, and they all get the same message out of it is what I typically use as my "example of a miracle or sign of god that I would view as convincing". I don't even care what the contents of the book are, it could be a cook book for all I care, it would count so long as this individual book could be read by literally anyone and they would get the same message out of it. So there, maybe respond to what I have to say this time?

I could come up with more examples, if you want.

Same message and same understanding would be enough? Really? You wouldn't then probably latch on to some other thing in order to avoid such a conclusion. You know, such as that the Earth has pillars according to your understanding or that Coneys don't chew cud or that you find the prohibitions against homosexuality silly? Things like that?

 

[Pachomius]

Dear readers here, and in most particular atheists, in especially most particular, Loudmouth: I have not read the new posts since I was here last.

This is the request I made to Loudmouth at the end of my presence here yesterday, I will see whether he has replied and attended to my request; as follows is the most important focus of the request, in the following lines from me:

[Start of quote]
Dear Loudmouth, will you concur with me that DNA evidence has for its target first and foremost the existence of an entity which has for one of its components as an existing biological body, the identically same kind of DNA as is found in the scene of a – okay, crime?

In fact I will submit that DNA as an example of evidence, it has for its target 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, so also babies, stones, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the night sky, the nose in our face, etc.

Now, Loudmouth, do not go away.

Explain how you conclude to the guilt of a person from the DNA found in a – okay, scene of a crime.
[End of quote]

Okay, I will now go and read the new posts this morning, and you folks here, please follow up on my next post which will deal with the latest posts from Loudmouth.

As follows is the fuller text from me addressed to Loudmouth.

And in the ANNEX are texts which will inform readers who want to get the proper orientation to the exchange between me and Loudmouth, in particular so that the atheists here will not go on and on and on with saying there mantra that there is no proof presented by me – there is but these folks don’t know what is proof, and also what is evidence.

They only talk from rote memory, because they know that once they get linked to thinking on reason and intelligence and observation, and more expansively into truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, they will come to the certainty of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Okay, I will now go to read the new posts, and in particular witness what Loudmouth is into now, with his target of evidence from his example of evidence, to wit, DNA: that DNA is evidence to the guilt of a person – that is an example in re of this thread, not seeing the big picture, for this thread is on how to prove God exists.

Dear Loudmouth, please go further than the guilt of a person whose DNA is found in the scene – okay, of a crime.

[From Pachomius Yesterday at 8:20 AM #1152 ]
Dear Loudmouth, will you concur with me that DNA evidence has for its target first and foremost the existence of an entity which has for one of its components as an existing biological body, the identically same kind of DNA as is found in the scene of a – okay, crime?

In fact I will submit that DNA as an example of evidence, it has for its target 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, so also babies, stones, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the night sky, the nose in our face, etc.

Now, Loudmouth, do not go away.

Explain how you conclude to the guilt of a person from the DNA found in a – okay, scene of a crime.

Dear readers here, now you will be treated to the strategies of atheists with dwelling on vacuity to distract humans from the ultimate creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

By their deceit of not seeing the big picture, by not seeing the even bigger picture, and by seeing self-fraudulently the wrong picture, all in order to fool mankind.




ANNEX

[From Pachomius]

No one atheist ever in the whole history of the issue of God exists or not, on the basis of evidence, ever produced a decent treatise on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[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.

…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.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[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."

[Pachomius] 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.

[Loudmouth] The guilt of the suspect, obviously. Why do you think they do DNA fingerprinting at crime scenes?

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[From Pachomius]

In fact I will submit that DNA as an example of evidence, it has for its target 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, so also babies, stones, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the night sky, the nose in our face, etc.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[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). 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.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Start of quote from Pachomius on proof for God existin]

Sorry, but I have to continue from the preceding post because I forgot to tell you, dear readers and Oh ye atheists, that I was going to tell you all, what is my proof for God existing, in a few words.

So, here goes:

1, The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

2. Existence is of two kinds in the most broad dimensions of existence: necessary existence, transient existence.

3. Transient existence depends on necessary existence to come into existence.

4. Babies, our nose in our face, the sun in the day sky and the moon in the night sky, and the stones, and rivers, and mighty oceans, and everything that we see and we live in and move in and have our existence, they are all things which are evidence for 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.

5. Therefore God exists as per concept of God, namely, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, scil., on evidence.

[End of quote from Pachomius on proof for God existing]

[End of ANNEX]

 

[bhsmte]

Dear readers here, and in most particular atheists, in especially most particular, Loudmouth: I have not read the new posts since I was here last.

This is the request I made to Loudmouth at the end of my presence here yesterday, I will see whether he has replied and attended to my request; as follows is the most important focus of the request, in the following lines from me:

[Start of quote]
Dear Loudmouth, will you concur with me that DNA evidence has for its target first and foremost the existence of an entity which has for one of its components as an existing biological body, the identically same kind of DNA as is found in the scene of a – okay, crime?

In fact I will submit that DNA as an example of evidence, it has for its target 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, so also babies, stones, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the night sky, the nose in our face, etc.

Now, Loudmouth, do not go away.

Explain how you conclude to the guilt of a person from the DNA found in a – okay, scene of a crime.
[End of quote]

Okay, I will now go and read the new posts this morning, and you folks here, please follow up on my next post which will deal with the latest posts from Loudmouth.

As follows is the fuller text from me addressed to Loudmouth.

And in the ANNEX are texts which will inform readers who want to get the proper orientation to the exchange between me and Loudmouth, in particular so that the atheists here will not go on and on and on with saying there mantra that there is no proof presented by me – there is but these folks don’t know what is proof, and also what is evidence.

They only talk from rote memory, because they know that once they get linked to thinking on reason and intelligence and observation, and more expansively into truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, they will come to the certainty of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Okay, I will now go to read the new posts, and in particular witness what Loudmouth is into now, with his target of evidence from his example of evidence, to wit, DNA: that DNA is evidence to the guilt of a person – that is an example in re of this thread, not seeing the big picture, for this thread is on how to prove God exists.

Dear Loudmouth, please go further than the guilt of a person whose DNA is found in the scene – okay, of a crime.

[From Pachomius Yesterday at 8:20 AM #1152 ]
Dear Loudmouth, will you concur with me that DNA evidence has for its target first and foremost the existence of an entity which has for one of its components as an existing biological body, the identically same kind of DNA as is found in the scene of a – okay, crime?

In fact I will submit that DNA as an example of evidence, it has for its target 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, so also babies, stones, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the night sky, the nose in our face, etc.

Now, Loudmouth, do not go away.

Explain how you conclude to the guilt of a person from the DNA found in a – okay, scene of a crime.

Dear readers here, now you will be treated to the strategies of atheists with dwelling on vacuity to distract humans from the ultimate creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

By their deceit of not seeing the big picture, by not seeing the even bigger picture, and by seeing self-fraudulently the wrong picture, all in order to fool mankind.




ANNEX

[From Pachomius]

No one atheist ever in the whole history of the issue of God exists or not, on the basis of evidence, ever produced a decent treatise on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[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.

…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.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[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."

[Pachomius] 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.

[Loudmouth] The guilt of the suspect, obviously. Why do you think they do DNA fingerprinting at crime scenes?

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[From Pachomius]

In fact I will submit that DNA as an example of evidence, it has for its target 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, so also babies, stones, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the night sky, the nose in our face, etc.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[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). 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.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Start of quote from Pachomius on proof for God existin]

Sorry, but I have to continue from the preceding post because I forgot to tell you, dear readers and Oh ye atheists, that I was going to tell you all, what is my proof for God existing, in a few words.

So, here goes:

1, The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

2. Existence is of two kinds in the most broad dimensions of existence: necessary existence, transient existence.

3. Transient existence depends on necessary existence to come into existence.

4. Babies, our nose in our face, the sun in the day sky and the moon in the night sky, and the stones, and rivers, and mighty oceans, and everything that we see and we live in and move in and have our existence, they are all things which are evidence for 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.

5. Therefore God exists as per concept of God, namely, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, scil., on evidence.

[End of quote from Pachomius on proof for God existing]

[End of ANNEX]

Would highly recommend you actually read loudmouth's posts and stop ignoring them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dear readers here, and in most particular atheists, in especially most particular, Loudmouth: I have not read the new posts since I was here last.

This is the request I made to Loudmouth at the end of my presence here yesterday, I will see whether he has replied and attended to my request; as follows is the most important focus of the request, in the following lines from me:

[Start of quote]
Dear Loudmouth, will you concur with me that DNA evidence has for its target first and foremost the existence of an entity which has for one of its components as an existing biological body, the identically same kind of DNA as is found in the scene of a – okay, crime?

In fact I will submit that DNA as an example of evidence, it has for its target 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, so also babies, stones, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the night sky, the nose in our face, etc.

Now, Loudmouth, do not go away.

Explain how you conclude to the guilt of a person from the DNA found in a – okay, scene of a crime.
[End of quote]

Okay, I will now go and read the new posts this morning, and you folks here, please follow up on my next post which will deal with the latest posts from Loudmouth.

As follows is the fuller text from me addressed to Loudmouth.

And in the ANNEX are texts which will inform readers who want to get the proper orientation to the exchange between me and Loudmouth, in particular so that the atheists here will not go on and on and on with saying there mantra that there is no proof presented by me – there is but these folks don’t know what is proof, and also what is evidence.

They only talk from rote memory, because they know that once they get linked to thinking on reason and intelligence and observation, and more expansively into truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, they will come to the certainty of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Okay, I will now go to read the new posts, and in particular witness what Loudmouth is into now, with his target of evidence from his example of evidence, to wit, DNA: that DNA is evidence to the guilt of a person – that is an example in re of this thread, not seeing the big picture, for this thread is on how to prove God exists.

Dear Loudmouth, please go further than the guilt of a person whose DNA is found in the scene – okay, of a crime.

[From Pachomius Yesterday at 8:20 AM #1152 ]
Dear Loudmouth, will you concur with me that DNA evidence has for its target first and foremost the existence of an entity which has for one of its components as an existing biological body, the identically same kind of DNA as is found in the scene of a – okay, crime?

In fact I will submit that DNA as an example of evidence, it has for its target 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, so also babies, stones, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the night sky, the nose in our face, etc.

Now, Loudmouth, do not go away.

Explain how you conclude to the guilt of a person from the DNA found in a – okay, scene of a crime.

Dear readers here, now you will be treated to the strategies of atheists with dwelling on vacuity to distract humans from the ultimate creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

By their deceit of not seeing the big picture, by not seeing the even bigger picture, and by seeing self-fraudulently the wrong picture, all in order to fool mankind.




ANNEX

[From Pachomius]

No one atheist ever in the whole history of the issue of God exists or not, on the basis of evidence, ever produced a decent treatise on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[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.

…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.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[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."

[Pachomius] 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.

[Loudmouth] The guilt of the suspect, obviously. Why do you think they do DNA fingerprinting at crime scenes?

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[From Pachomius]

In fact I will submit that DNA as an example of evidence, it has for its target 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, so also babies, stones, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the night sky, the nose in our face, etc.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[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). 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.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Start of quote from Pachomius on proof for God existin]

Sorry, but I have to continue from the preceding post because I forgot to tell you, dear readers and Oh ye atheists, that I was going to tell you all, what is my proof for God existing, in a few words.

So, here goes:

1, The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

2. Existence is of two kinds in the most broad dimensions of existence: necessary existence, transient existence.

3. Transient existence depends on necessary existence to come into existence.

4. Babies, our nose in our face, the sun in the day sky and the moon in the night sky, and the stones, and rivers, and mighty oceans, and everything that we see and we live in and move in and have our existence, they are all things which are evidence for 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.

5. Therefore God exists as per concept of God, namely, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, scil., on evidence.

[End of quote from Pachomius on proof for God existing]

[End of ANNEX]

I am not going to sift through a gigantic post to find information. Please repost in a concise manner.

 

[Pachomius]

Okay, dear Loudmouth, you have contributed two posts after my post Yesterday at 8:20 AM #1152.

Do you notice that you are again into essentially inconsequential matters, at this point in time?

I expect you to look at the bigger picture than just that DNA as evidence has the target the guilt of a person.

As this is the topic of the thread, How to prove God exists, the bigger picture is first to not stop at the guilt of a person, but from the person to go further in the search for the cause ultimately of the person who has DNA as one component in his biological body, all the way to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

So, please see the bigger picture, and use your reason and intelligence and observation of all things that you do observe like babies and the nose in your face, and follow the trail of causation, then see if you can conclude to God or no God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Dear readers, it is now the start of the discussion on what is causation, let us see whether Loudmouth is going to take up causation, or again take to a wrong picture of the whole tenor of this thread, with something that is distracting, and of nothing to do with causation.

 

[Loudmouth]

As this is the topic of the thread, How to prove God exists, the bigger picture is first to not stop at the guilt of a person, but from the person to go further in the search for the cause ultimately of the person who has DNA as one component in his biological body, all the way to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You first need to show that God exists before we can discuss the motives of God.

For that, you need to present evidence that God exists.

So, please see the bigger picture, and use your reason and intelligence and observation of all things that you do observe like babies and the nose in your face, and follow the trail of causation, then see if you can conclude to God or no God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

At no point in the causation of natural processes do I find evidence of a deity. If you disagree, then please provide this evidence.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear readers here, all of you reading this thread, first I thank you for your presence, including All ye atheists.


Now. for my own further erudition in comparative religion, I am reading the what is called the Panadura Debate between Buddhists and Christians in Ceylon at the end of the previous century, the 1800’s – Ceylon is today’s Sri Lanka, it has three locally influential religions today and also at the time of the Panadura Debate: the great majority are into Buddhism, then there is a minority of Christians, and also of Islam’s Muslims.

In the press of those days, it was reported, so far as I read of accounts in the internet, that the Buddhists won the debate.

A number of Westerners were so impressed with the victory of the Buddhists, that they took to Ceylon and took up with Buddhism as their religion, of course with some adjustments to make it intelligible to them Westerners already in the heat of the scientific, technological, industrial empire conquering era among the Western nations, empire building in Africa and of course in the Far East, empire building which includes of course America or USA.

Foremost among the Westerners are the American Col. Olcott and one Russian lady, Madame Blavatsky, both the second the initiating founder of the Theosophical Society, and the first, he also teamed up with Madame Blavatsky in her society.

I invite you all, readers of his thread to look up Panadura Debate, for your further enrichment in knowledge of comparative religion.

Tell you what, my impression is that with the Christian theists of the Western world, there is the empirical rationalist analysis of the grounds for the existence of God, while with the Buddhists and generally founders of religions in the Far East, their grounds for a religion is basically what they call enlightenment from meditation.

Now, enlightenment from meditation is crudely parallel to Revelation in the West, except to my evaluation: the Easterners have not gone from meditation to examination of empirical evidence like DNA and the principle of causation as an essential part of empirical rationalist investigation on God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Now, I am always studying what this enlightenment is all about, as arrived at by meditation.

What are you, dear readers… or are you also keen to some extent on enlightenment from mediation?

Have you noticed that as Westerners become less and less keen on taking up a religion, the African nations are taking to monotheistic religions of Christianism and Islam by leaps and bounds.

And Buddhists from the East and Hindus from the East are not preaching their religions in Africa, except some adventurous meditation masters are in Europe and in the US getting some hearing from denizens there who have some inclination for spiritual life, and thereby getting some passim notice from the Western media when some entertainment celebrities take up with meditation to reach enlightenment.

Please do read up on the Panadura Debate.

Now I will go see what Loudmouth is into.

 

[bhsmte]

Dear readers here, all of you reading this thread, first I thank you for your presence, including All ye atheists.


Now. for my own further erudition in comparative religion, I am reading the what is called the Panadura Debate between Buddhists and Christians in Ceylon at the end of the previous century, the 1800’s – Ceylon is today’s Sri Lanka, it has three locally influential religions today and also at the time of the Panadura Debate: the great majority are into Buddhism, then there is a minority of Christians, and also of Islam’s Muslims.

In the press of those days, it was reported, so far as I read of accounts in the internet, that the Buddhists won the debate.

A number of Westerners were so impressed with the victory of the Buddhists, that they took to Ceylon and took up with Buddhism as their religion, of course with some adjustments to make it intelligible to them Westerners already in the heat of the scientific, technological, industrial empire conquering era among the Western nations, empire building in Africa and of course in the Far East, empire building which includes of course America or USA.

Foremost among the Westerners are the American Col. Olcott and one Russian lady, Madame Blavatsky, both the second the initiating founder of the Theosophical Society, and the first, he also teamed up with Madame Blavatsky in her society.

I invite you all, readers of his thread to look up Panadura Debate, for your further enrichment in knowledge of comparative religion.

Tell you what, my impression is that with the Christian theists of the Western world, there is the empirical rationalist analysis of the grounds for the existence of God, while with the Buddhists and generally founders of religions in the Far East, their grounds for a religion is basically what they call enlightenment from meditation.

Now, enlightenment from meditation is crudely parallel to Revelation in the West, except to my evaluation: the Easterners have not gone from meditation to examination of empirical evidence like DNA and the principle of causation as an essential part of empirical rationalist investigation on God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Now, I am always studying what this enlightenment is all about, as arrived at by meditation.

What are you, dear readers… or are you also keen to some extent on enlightenment from mediation?

Have you noticed that as Westerners become less and less keen on taking up a religion, the African nations are taking to monotheistic religions of Christianism and Islam by leaps and bounds.

And Buddhists from the East and Hindus from the East are not preaching their religions in Africa, except some adventurous meditation masters are in Europe and in the US getting some hearing from denizens there who have some inclination for spiritual life, and thereby getting some passim notice from the Western media when some entertainment celebrities take up with meditation to reach enlightenment.

Please do read up on the Panadura Debate.

Now I will go see what Loudmouth is into.

Please do provide evidence to prove a god exists.

 

[Pachomius]

No, no relevancy from Loudmouth, he is into dwelling in the wrong picture.

Please, Loudmouth, I want you to talk causation with me.


Tomorrow again.

 

[Kylie]

Well, I tried, but it would have taken a miracle.......

Tried to do what? Convince me that "unconditional love" can only come from God? You need to do a lot better than asking me to imagine a hypothetical book with only two words.

 

[bhsmte]

No, no relevancy from Loudmouth, he is into dwelling in the wrong picture.

Please, Loudmouth, I want you to talk causation with me.


Tomorrow again.

Still no evidence.

 

[Michael]

Tried to do what? Convince me that "unconditional love" can only come from God? You need to do a lot better than asking me to imagine a hypothetical book with only two words.

My original comment about a two word book, was a lame attempt to interject some humor, and respond to Sarah's prior comment:

A single, individual book that can be read by anyone, even the illiterate, and they all get the same message out of it is what I typically use as my "example of a miracle or sign of god that I would view as convincing". I don't even care what the contents of the book are, it could be a cook book for all I care, it would count so long as this individual book could be read by literally anyone and they would get the same message out of it. So there, maybe respond to what I have to say this time?

I couldn't conceive of any book that two people couldn't "interpret" differently if they so chose, so I tried to create a very "short" book.

The fact that you read *way* more into my book than I intended shows that I failed, and Sarah's off the hook.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear everyone, in particular atheists, and in most particular Loudmouth, I will start today with an insight to keep you busy; then I will attend to some business and later return to contribute a second post, this one on evidence in re my proof of God existing, to continue my exchange with Loudmouth on evidence, in re God exists or not, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

The following thought is not at all intended by me to in any way move ex-Christians now atheists to return to God, or atheists from birth to know God exists, but just my insight on reason and intelligence and the observation of human behavior and motivation.
_______________


Of course it is morally impossible for ex-Christians who left their Christian faith to take up with the identity of atheists, i.e. that they just now lack the belief in any God, Gods, god, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., impossible that they now see reason and be intelligent to conclude from observation which is evidence on the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universes and man and everything with a beginning…

Morally impossible from their part to assent to evidence, except that they be persons of solid intellectual integrity and honesty, like Antony Flew.

Antony Flew assented from evidence to the existence of God, but only to God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

And that is what differentiates God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, I mean God as known from observation which is evidence, and the God of the Christian faith which is founded on Revelation, insofar as the Christian faith is concerned.

And yet the Catholic Church has the dogma that it is possible and factually realized from the part of mankind to come to certainty of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Now persons like Antony Flew of solid intellectual integrity, by analyzing observation which is evidence, on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas do come 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.

But now atheists who have closed their reason and intelligence as to not see evidence from the observation of all things with a beginning, which is literally all things in the universe, including the universe itself, they ascribe the final certainty of Antony Flew’s with the existence of God, as in concept first and foremost the creator cause and the operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, these atheists ascribe Antony's certainty as due to his weakness from old age.


ANNEX
Google: antony flew, I just follow evidence

About 17,400,000 results (0.61 seconds)

Search Results

There is a God, leading atheist concludes - World news | NBC News

www.nbcnews.com/id/6688917/.../there-god-leading-atheist-concludes/

Dec 9, 2004 - Antony Flew, the British philosophy professor who has been a leading ... A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and ... by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”.

Antony Flew - Wikipedia

Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAntony_Flew

Antony Garrard Newton Flew was an English philosopher. Belonging to the analytic and .... Flew also said: "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an ... Flew states that any book to follow God and Philosophy will have to take into ...

Antony Flew - All About Philosophy

www.allaboutphilosophy.org/antony-flew.htm

Antony Flew - After chewing on the evidence, read about how Flew renounced ... by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads. ... for more than five decades, Flew concluded, "A super-intelligence is the only good ...

Antony Flew Quotes (Author of There Is a God) - Goodreads

Antony Flew Quotes (Author of There Is a God).Antony_Flew

8 quotes from Antony Flew: 'I now believe there is a God. ... “we have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and that only a deliberate refusal to ...

A Change of Mind for Antony Flew - bethinking.org

www.bethinking.org/does-god-exist/a-change-of-mind-for-antony-flew

Professor Antony Flew, 81 years old, is: “a legendary British philosopher and ... Flew's change of mind is big news, 'not only about his personal journey, but also ... by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.

101 Proofs For God: #17 Dr. Antony Flew

101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2012/08/17-dr-antony-flew.html

Aug 22, 2012 - "Antony Flew has been for most of his life a very well known ... "When Antony Flew, in the spirit of free-thinking, followed the evidence where he ... Or you could just take a short cut and check out what Antony Flew has to say.

How Anthony Flew - Evan Wiggs

www.evanwiggs.com/articles/How%20Anthony%20Flew.htm

Many just follow the evidence to a pre-decided point and no further. Anthony Flew was probably one of the most original thinkers in modern times in theological ...

Where the Evidence Leads | Center for Science and Culture

www.discovery.org/a/5611

May 29, 2008 - Antony Flew has long been my favorite atheist. ... Socratic commitment to "follow the evidence wherever it leads," Antony Flew ... Socratic Club just after WWII, is the most widely reprinted philosophical piece of the 20th century.

Review There is a God by Antony Flew - creation.com

creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew

Antony Flew's rejection of atheism is a nightmare for skeptics, because the most ... the design and cosmological arguments as valid evidence of God's existence. .... Not only does our universe follow finely tuned physical laws, but laws which ...

A review of There Is a God. By Antony Flew. - CultureWatch

A review of There Is a God. By Antony Flew. - CultureWatchantony-fle...

Nov 21, 2007 - Flew's willingness as an honest atheist to follow the evidence where it ... Even though this is a brief book of just 200 pages, the cumulative case ...

Searches related to antony flew, I just follow evidence

antony flew there is a god

antony flew richard dawkins

antony flew quotes

antony flew theology and falsification

antony flew falsification

antony flew parable of the gardener

antony flew biography

antony flew miracles

12345678910 Next

 

[Loudmouth]

Dear everyone, in particular atheists, and in most particular Loudmouth, I will start today with an insight to keep you busy; then I will attend to some business and later return to contribute a second post, this one on evidence in re my proof of God existing, to continue my exchange with Loudmouth on evidence, in re God exists or not, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

The following thought is not at all intended by me to in any way move ex-Christians now atheists to return to God, or atheists from birth to know God exists, but just my insight on reason and intelligence and the observation of human behavior and motivation.
_______________


Of course it is morally impossible for ex-Christians who left their Christian faith to take up with the identity of atheists, i.e. that they just now lack the belief in any God, Gods, god, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., impossible that they now see reason and be intelligent to conclude from observation which is evidence on the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universes and man and everything with a beginning…

Morally impossible from their part to assent to evidence, except that they be persons of solid intellectual integrity and honesty, like Antony Flew.

Antony Flew assented from evidence to the existence of God, but only to God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

And that is what differentiates God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, I mean God as known from observation which is evidence, and the God of the Christian faith which is founded on Revelation, insofar as the Christian faith is concerned.

And yet the Catholic Church has the dogma that it is possible and factually realized from the part of mankind to come to certainty of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Now persons like Antony Flew of solid intellectual integrity, by analyzing observation which is evidence, on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas do come 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.

But now atheists who have closed their reason and intelligence as to not see evidence from the observation of all things with a beginning, which is literally all things in the universe, including the universe itself, they ascribe the final certainty of Antony Flew’s with the existence of God, as in concept first and foremost the creator cause and the operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, these atheists ascribe Antony's certainty as due to his weakness from old age.


ANNEX
Google: antony flew, I just follow evidence

About 17,400,000 results (0.61 seconds)

Search Results

There is a God, leading atheist concludes - World news | NBC News

www.nbcnews.com/id/6688917/.../there-god-leading-atheist-concludes/

Dec 9, 2004 - Antony Flew, the British philosophy professor who has been a leading ... A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and ... by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”.

Antony Flew - Wikipedia

Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAntony_Flew

Antony Garrard Newton Flew was an English philosopher. Belonging to the analytic and .... Flew also said: "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an ... Flew states that any book to follow God and Philosophy will have to take into ...

Antony Flew - All About Philosophy

www.allaboutphilosophy.org/antony-flew.htm

Antony Flew - After chewing on the evidence, read about how Flew renounced ... by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads. ... for more than five decades, Flew concluded, "A super-intelligence is the only good ...

Antony Flew Quotes (Author of There Is a God) - Goodreads

Antony Flew Quotes (Author of There Is a God).Antony_Flew

8 quotes from Antony Flew: 'I now believe there is a God. ... “we have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and that only a deliberate refusal to ...

A Change of Mind for Antony Flew - bethinking.org

www.bethinking.org/does-god-exist/a-change-of-mind-for-antony-flew

Professor Antony Flew, 81 years old, is: “a legendary British philosopher and ... Flew's change of mind is big news, 'not only about his personal journey, but also ... by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.

101 Proofs For God: #17 Dr. Antony Flew

101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2012/08/17-dr-antony-flew.html

Aug 22, 2012 - "Antony Flew has been for most of his life a very well known ... "When Antony Flew, in the spirit of free-thinking, followed the evidence where he ... Or you could just take a short cut and check out what Antony Flew has to say.

How Anthony Flew - Evan Wiggs

www.evanwiggs.com/articles/How%20Anthony%20Flew.htm

Many just follow the evidence to a pre-decided point and no further. Anthony Flew was probably one of the most original thinkers in modern times in theological ...

Where the Evidence Leads | Center for Science and Culture

www.discovery.org/a/5611

May 29, 2008 - Antony Flew has long been my favorite atheist. ... Socratic commitment to "follow the evidence wherever it leads," Antony Flew ... Socratic Club just after WWII, is the most widely reprinted philosophical piece of the 20th century.

Review There is a God by Antony Flew - creation.com

creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew

Antony Flew's rejection of atheism is a nightmare for skeptics, because the most ... the design and cosmological arguments as valid evidence of God's existence. .... Not only does our universe follow finely tuned physical laws, but laws which ...

A review of There Is a God. By Antony Flew. - CultureWatch

A review of There Is a God. By Antony Flew. - CultureWatchantony-fle...

Nov 21, 2007 - Flew's willingness as an honest atheist to follow the evidence where it ... Even though this is a brief book of just 200 pages, the cumulative case ...

Searches related to antony flew, I just follow evidence

antony flew there is a god

antony flew richard dawkins

antony flew quotes

antony flew theology and falsification

antony flew falsification

antony flew parable of the gardener

antony flew biography

antony flew miracles

12345678910 Next

Please present some evidence in a concise manner. No big walls of text.

 

[bhsmte]

Dear everyone, in particular atheists, and in most particular Loudmouth, I will start today with an insight to keep you busy; then I will attend to some business and later return to contribute a second post, this one on evidence in re my proof of God existing, to continue my exchange with Loudmouth on evidence, in re God exists or not, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

The following thought is not at all intended by me to in any way move ex-Christians now atheists to return to God, or atheists from birth to know God exists, but just my insight on reason and intelligence and the observation of human behavior and motivation.
_______________


Of course it is morally impossible for ex-Christians who left their Christian faith to take up with the identity of atheists, i.e. that they just now lack the belief in any God, Gods, god, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., impossible that they now see reason and be intelligent to conclude from observation which is evidence on the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universes and man and everything with a beginning…

Morally impossible from their part to assent to evidence, except that they be persons of solid intellectual integrity and honesty, like Antony Flew.

Antony Flew assented from evidence to the existence of God, but only to God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

And that is what differentiates God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, I mean God as known from observation which is evidence, and the God of the Christian faith which is founded on Revelation, insofar as the Christian faith is concerned.

And yet the Catholic Church has the dogma that it is possible and factually realized from the part of mankind to come to certainty of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Now persons like Antony Flew of solid intellectual integrity, by analyzing observation which is evidence, on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas do come 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.

But now atheists who have closed their reason and intelligence as to not see evidence from the observation of all things with a beginning, which is literally all things in the universe, including the universe itself, they ascribe the final certainty of Antony Flew’s with the existence of God, as in concept first and foremost the creator cause and the operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, these atheists ascribe Antony's certainty as due to his weakness from old age.


ANNEX
Google: antony flew, I just follow evidence

About 17,400,000 results (0.61 seconds)

Search Results

There is a God, leading atheist concludes - World news | NBC News

www.nbcnews.com/id/6688917/.../there-god-leading-atheist-concludes/

Dec 9, 2004 - Antony Flew, the British philosophy professor who has been a leading ... A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and ... by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”.

Antony Flew - Wikipedia

Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAntony_Flew

Antony Garrard Newton Flew was an English philosopher. Belonging to the analytic and .... Flew also said: "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an ... Flew states that any book to follow God and Philosophy will have to take into ...

Antony Flew - All About Philosophy

www.allaboutphilosophy.org/antony-flew.htm

Antony Flew - After chewing on the evidence, read about how Flew renounced ... by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads. ... for more than five decades, Flew concluded, "A super-intelligence is the only good ...

Antony Flew Quotes (Author of There Is a God) - Goodreads

Antony Flew Quotes (Author of There Is a God).Antony_Flew

8 quotes from Antony Flew: 'I now believe there is a God. ... “we have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and that only a deliberate refusal to ...

A Change of Mind for Antony Flew - bethinking.org

www.bethinking.org/does-god-exist/a-change-of-mind-for-antony-flew

Professor Antony Flew, 81 years old, is: “a legendary British philosopher and ... Flew's change of mind is big news, 'not only about his personal journey, but also ... by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.

101 Proofs For God: #17 Dr. Antony Flew

101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2012/08/17-dr-antony-flew.html

Aug 22, 2012 - "Antony Flew has been for most of his life a very well known ... "When Antony Flew, in the spirit of free-thinking, followed the evidence where he ... Or you could just take a short cut and check out what Antony Flew has to say.

How Anthony Flew - Evan Wiggs

www.evanwiggs.com/articles/How%20Anthony%20Flew.htm

Many just follow the evidence to a pre-decided point and no further. Anthony Flew was probably one of the most original thinkers in modern times in theological ...

Where the Evidence Leads | Center for Science and Culture

www.discovery.org/a/5611

May 29, 2008 - Antony Flew has long been my favorite atheist. ... Socratic commitment to "follow the evidence wherever it leads," Antony Flew ... Socratic Club just after WWII, is the most widely reprinted philosophical piece of the 20th century.

Review There is a God by Antony Flew - creation.com

creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew

Antony Flew's rejection of atheism is a nightmare for skeptics, because the most ... the design and cosmological arguments as valid evidence of God's existence. .... Not only does our universe follow finely tuned physical laws, but laws which ...

A review of There Is a God. By Antony Flew. - CultureWatch

A review of There Is a God. By Antony Flew. - CultureWatchantony-fle...

Nov 21, 2007 - Flew's willingness as an honest atheist to follow the evidence where it ... Even though this is a brief book of just 200 pages, the cumulative case ...

Searches related to antony flew, I just follow evidence

antony flew there is a god

antony flew richard dawkins

antony flew quotes

antony flew theology and falsification

antony flew falsification

antony flew parable of the gardener

antony flew biography

antony flew miracles

12345678910 Next

Why dont you keep us busy with evidence to prove a god exists?

 

[Michael]

Dear Radrook,

I'd like to offer you a suggestion in terms of furthering your conversation, by recommending you first begin a conversation about the definition of 'evidence' as it relates to "unseen" (in the lab) concepts? There are *many* examples in physics where the hypothetical entities in question have not been observed in nature in our labs on Earth, but "scientists" claim to have 'evidence' to support these hypothetical constructs all time. Cosmology theory is full of such claims and ideas, most recently "gravitional waves". Particle physicists tend to be more "cautious" by nature, but even they entertain and even "hold belief" in hypothetical forms of matter.

I really think you need to start a thread on what LM and other atheists will accept as "evidence" of "God", and then you might have a starting point as to how to sway their opinions. As it stands, you're basically stuck in a holding pattern, and neither side is likely to give an inch.

I'll help you out as it relates to the use of the term "evidence" as it's used in physics and keep the atheists honest, but I think you'll need to tackle that issue before things can progress.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear everyone, I am back again.

So, for the sake of atheists still asking for my proof on evidence of God existing, I will reproduce this text from my post #1040:*

[Start of quote]
1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

2. Existence is of two kinds in the most broad dimensions of existence: necessary existence, transient existence.

3. Transient existence depends on necessary existence to come into existence.

4. Babies, our nose in our face, the sun in the day sky and the moon in the night sky, and the stones, and rivers, and mighty oceans, and everything that we see and we live in and move in and have our existence, they are all things which are evidence for 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.

5. Therefore God exists as per concept of God, namely, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, scil., on evidence.
[End of quote]

Now, dear atheists, you can regurgitate your rancid comments to your heart's content, but you know and I know that you have no exposition whatsoever as explanation on why and how you come to the idea of taking up with the atheists’ ideology of you just lack belief in any God, Gods, god, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities.

It is easy to proffer vacuity like the above but it takes serious work on reason and intelligence and on evidence from observation of things in the environment of everything with a beginning in the universe, including the universe itself, it has a beginning.

You do you see that your adoption of the atheists’ ideology is grounded on nothing but epistemological vacuity.

See next post from me, on evidence as understood by Loudmouth and me respectively, and how Loudmouth does not know evidence from Adam and Eve.

*Dear readers of this thread new and old, if you just read the whole thread, you will come to my proof of God existing passim in the whole thread from post # the OP to the present; and you will never come across any exposition on the explanation from atheists on how and why they come to their atheists' ideology, that they just lack belief in any God, Gods, god, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities.

And they do nothing except recite their mantras: No proof, no proof, no proof, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence.

The fact is that atheists do not know what is proof and what is evidence, they only know how to regurgitate vacuous slogans and cliches and feel so smug over nothing but vacuity and inanity when it comes to any serious epistemology.

And yes, call God ridiculous names like orbiting teapot in space from Bertrand Russell, and now flying spaghetti monster, from his fans who have nothing to show of any genuine thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Same message and same understanding would be enough? Really? You wouldn't then probably latch on to some other thing in order to avoid such a conclusion. You know, such as that the Earth has pillars according to your understanding or that Coneys don't chew cud or that you find the prohibitions against homosexuality silly? Things like that?

I wouldn't have given it as an example if it wouldn't be good enough for me. I hate being an atheist, so why would I actively try to latch onto something else?

Another example of a miracle that would convince me would be an otherwise ordinary rock that, when held by someone, would prevent suffocation under all conditions.

These things wouldn't give me an indication of what supernatural force was responsible inherently by themselves, so some imagery specific to a certain religion and no others would be a nice touch.

If any deity exists, why would I expect it to agree with me, or even be reasonable by my standard? If I had to serve a deity I viewed as completely horrific and evil to obtain any afterlife, let alone a good one, I would, because I am a coward.

 

[Michael]

Er, might I also suggest that when you start that thread that you discuss the term "supernatural". Not every definition of God is "supernatural".

 

[Pachomius]

[Server not found Firefox can’t find the server at

www.christianforums.com.

Good! Server’s been found.]



Dear Loudmouth, let me just present below the statements on evidence from you and from me, then we will examine what kind of confused understanding you have of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

[Start of quotes from Pachomius]
My concept of what is evidence is simple and instantly intelligible:

“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, investigators notice the presence of human sperm in the anus of a deceased human male subject, and they put in their notepad:

"Evidence of sex act with another human male, scil., sperm in anus."
[End of quotes from Pachomius]


[Start of quotes 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). 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.

(Loudmouth, in reply to Pachomius asking him: “What is the target of DNA evidence, what is DNA evidence, evidence to.)
The guilt of the suspect, obviously. Why do you think they do DNA fingerprinting at crime scenes?
[End of quotes from Loudmouth]


See next post from me.