-
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
Server not found
Firefox can’t find the server at www.christianforums.com.
Good! Server is again working.
_________________________
Dear Loudmouth, you are again into wasteful profusion of words to no purpose except to engage in self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism.
[ From Pachomius Yesterday at 4:17 AM #1181 ]
And please also present four or more other examples of what is evidence that you see to fit your definition of evidence, scil., “Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
It is this kind of thinking that I find you to be a very confused mind in thinking on things as to put them in writing that should be clear, precise, simple, and definitive, but they are not, which is a tribute to the habitual mindset of atheists, which is to sow confusion.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
Okay, dear readers, let us await with bated breath to witness four examples of evidence or more aside from DNA, coming from Loudmouth, the absence of which is the ground why for Loudmouth there is no God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
ANNEX
Yesterday at 4:17 AM #1181
Pachomius
Now, dear Loudmouth, you state:
“Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
Will you just explain how DNA as example of evidence fits your definition of evidence?
And please also present four or more other examples of what is evidence that you see to fit your definition of evidence, scil., “Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
It is this kind of thinking that I find you to be a very confused mind in thinking on things as to put them in writing that should be clear, precise, simple, and definitive, but they are not, which is a tribute to the habitual mindset of atheists, which is to sow confusion.
[ End of ANNEX ]
Tell readers, what is the falsifiable claim that DNA is evidence to?
Firefox can’t find the server at www.christianforums.com.
Good! Server is again working.
_________________________
Dear Loudmouth, you are again into wasteful profusion of words to no purpose except to engage in self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism.
[ From Pachomius Yesterday at 4:17 AM #1181 ]
And please also present four or more other examples of what is evidence that you see to fit your definition of evidence, scil., “Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
It is this kind of thinking that I find you to be a very confused mind in thinking on things as to put them in writing that should be clear, precise, simple, and definitive, but they are not, which is a tribute to the habitual mindset of atheists, which is to sow confusion.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
Okay, dear readers, let us await with bated breath to witness four examples of evidence or more aside from DNA, coming from Loudmouth, the absence of which is the ground why for Loudmouth there is no God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
ANNEX
Yesterday at 4:17 AM #1181
Pachomius
Now, dear Loudmouth, you state:
“Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
Will you just explain how DNA as example of evidence fits your definition of evidence?
And please also present four or more other examples of what is evidence that you see to fit your definition of evidence, scil., “Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
It is this kind of thinking that I find you to be a very confused mind in thinking on things as to put them in writing that should be clear, precise, simple, and definitive, but they are not, which is a tribute to the habitual mindset of atheists, which is to sow confusion.
[ End of ANNEX ]
Tell readers, what is the falsifiable claim that DNA is evidence to?
Upvote
0
When I am through with the obfuscation and obscurantism of Loudmouth, I will invite dear Lady KTS atheist, to exchange thoughts with me on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target, in re God exists or not - God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
Tomorrow again, see you guys here.
Tomorrow again, see you guys here.
Upvote
0
Cearbhall
Well-Known Member
- May 10, 2013
- 15,118
- 5,744
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Single
This is insanely pretentious. I didn't think this thread could get any more pompous, but you've surpassed my expectations.
I don't want to stoop to your level and attack you personally, but I'm genuinely curious, so I have to ask. Do you talk to people this way face-to-face?
Upvote
0
You're simply *assuming* that it works *at all* without "God". Why? Like I said, I have no problem supporting a "natural" definition of God, and providing you with *evidence* (as the term is used in science) of God that simply *precludes* you from even making that claim.
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
Don't you love it when the burden of proof is shifted? Instead of providing evidence that a God is necessary, they need to say; show me a God is definitely not involved. You know they have nothing when this occurs.
These are the folks, that can't simply say they believe on faith alone and have to convince themselves, they have objective evidence to support their faith.
Upvote
0
[The present message from yours truly is delivered in two posts.]
First, dear everyone reading this thread, yesterday I asked Loudmouth for four or more examples of evidence; so I will see what he comes up with today.
For background of what went before between us two - and of course atheists and every poster here, you are all most welcome to contribute your takes on evidence - I will present again statements made by me and Loudmouth, so far in re what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
The topic of this thread from myself is How to prove God exists.
I find atheists to be correct in their demand for evidence by which they will be convinced that God exists.
But atheists insist that they have not found evidence for God, that is an overly overwhelming statement but which I see to be overly overwhelmingly silly.
Please read the texts as follow below in the next post from me, while I will now see what four or more examples Loudmouth should have presented since I was here yesterday.
You see, dear everyone reading this thread, the presentation of examples of evidence will make us both concur on the understanding of evidence; so that from the part of atheists and of course in most particular, Loudmouth, they will succeed in their insistence that there is no evidence for God existing.
If indeed they establish the lack altogether of evidence.
And from my part, I will have established that everything in our environment at all is unfalsifiable 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.
_______________
So, I am now in the task of getting Loudmouth to work with me as to concur on the understanding of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
See next post from me.
First, dear everyone reading this thread, yesterday I asked Loudmouth for four or more examples of evidence; so I will see what he comes up with today.
For background of what went before between us two - and of course atheists and every poster here, you are all most welcome to contribute your takes on evidence - I will present again statements made by me and Loudmouth, so far in re what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
The topic of this thread from myself is How to prove God exists.
I find atheists to be correct in their demand for evidence by which they will be convinced that God exists.
But atheists insist that they have not found evidence for God, that is an overly overwhelming statement but which I see to be overly overwhelmingly silly.
Please read the texts as follow below in the next post from me, while I will now see what four or more examples Loudmouth should have presented since I was here yesterday.
You see, dear everyone reading this thread, the presentation of examples of evidence will make us both concur on the understanding of evidence; so that from the part of atheists and of course in most particular, Loudmouth, they will succeed in their insistence that there is no evidence for God existing.
If indeed they establish the lack altogether of evidence.
And from my part, I will have established that everything in our environment at all is unfalsifiable 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.
_______________
So, I am now in the task of getting Loudmouth to work with me as to concur on the understanding of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
See next post from me.
Upvote
0
Here is our each one’ definition of evidence, and from me an almost infinite number of things at all for examples.
And for Loudmouth he has so far one example only, namely, DNA.
[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.”
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.”
DNA is also one of my samples of evidence and it fits my definition of evidence.
[From Loudmouth]
Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
Example: DNA.
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.
[On target of evidence with DNA] The guilt of the suspect, obviously. Why do you think they do DNA fingerprinting at crime scenes?
___________________
Okay, I will now see what four or more other examples of evidence Loudmouths brings up for today - and report back.
And for Loudmouth he has so far one example only, namely, DNA.
[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.”
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.”
DNA is also one of my samples of evidence and it fits my definition of evidence.
[From Loudmouth]
Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
Example: DNA.
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.
[On target of evidence with DNA] The guilt of the suspect, obviously. Why do you think they do DNA fingerprinting at crime scenes?
___________________
Okay, I will now see what four or more other examples of evidence Loudmouths brings up for today - and report back.
Upvote
0
No, I am sorry to report that since my last posts yesterday, Loudmouth has not posted any message, and wherefore no four or more examples of evidence as per his definition of evidence.
I will be back tomorrow and see whether Loudmouth has thought up four or more examples of evidence, aside from DNA, which also I present to be an example of 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.
See all you guys here again tomorrow.
ANNEX Yesterday at 4:17 AM #1202
Pachomius Newbie
Dear Loudmouth, you are again into wasteful profusion of words to no purpose except to engage in self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism.
[ From Pachomius Yesterday at 4:17 AM #1181 ]
And please also present four or more other examples of what is evidence that you see to fit your definition of evidence, scil., “Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
It is this kind of thinking that I find you to be a very confused mind in thinking on things as to put them in writing that should be clear, precise, simple, and definitive, but they are not, which is a tribute to the habitual mindset of atheists, which is to sow confusion.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
Okay, dear readers, let us await with bated breath to witness four examples of evidence or more aside from DNA, coming from Loudmouth, the absence of which is the ground why for Loudmouth there is no God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
ANNEX
Yesterday at 4:17 AM #1181
Pachomius
Now, dear Loudmouth, you state:
“Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
Will you just explain how DNA as example of evidence fits your definition of evidence?
And please also present four or more other examples of what is evidence that you see to fit your definition of evidence, scil., “Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
It is this kind of thinking that I find you to be a very confused mind in thinking on things as to put them in writing that should be clear, precise, simple, and definitive, but they are not, which is a tribute to the habitual mindset of atheists, which is to sow confusion.
[ End of ANNEX ]
Tell readers, what is the falsifiable claim that DNA is evidence to?
________________
Yesterday at 4:39 AM #1203
Pachomius Newbie
When I am through with the obfuscation and obscurantism of Loudmouth, I will invite dear Lady KTS atheist, to exchange thoughts with me on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target, in re God exists or not - God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
Tomorrow again, see you guys here.
[ End of ANNEX ]
I will be back tomorrow and see whether Loudmouth has thought up four or more examples of evidence, aside from DNA, which also I present to be an example of 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.
See all you guys here again tomorrow.
ANNEX Yesterday at 4:17 AM #1202
Pachomius Newbie
Dear Loudmouth, you are again into wasteful profusion of words to no purpose except to engage in self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism.
[ From Pachomius Yesterday at 4:17 AM #1181 ]
And please also present four or more other examples of what is evidence that you see to fit your definition of evidence, scil., “Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
It is this kind of thinking that I find you to be a very confused mind in thinking on things as to put them in writing that should be clear, precise, simple, and definitive, but they are not, which is a tribute to the habitual mindset of atheists, which is to sow confusion.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
Okay, dear readers, let us await with bated breath to witness four examples of evidence or more aside from DNA, coming from Loudmouth, the absence of which is the ground why for Loudmouth there is no God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
ANNEX
Yesterday at 4:17 AM #1181
Pachomius
Now, dear Loudmouth, you state:
“Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
Will you just explain how DNA as example of evidence fits your definition of evidence?
And please also present four or more other examples of what is evidence that you see to fit your definition of evidence, scil., “Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
It is this kind of thinking that I find you to be a very confused mind in thinking on things as to put them in writing that should be clear, precise, simple, and definitive, but they are not, which is a tribute to the habitual mindset of atheists, which is to sow confusion.
[ End of ANNEX ]
Tell readers, what is the falsifiable claim that DNA is evidence to?
________________
Yesterday at 4:39 AM #1203
Pachomius Newbie
When I am through with the obfuscation and obscurantism of Loudmouth, I will invite dear Lady KTS atheist, to exchange thoughts with me on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target, in re God exists or not - God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
Tomorrow again, see you guys here.
[ End of ANNEX ]
Upvote
0
I'm simply pointing out to you that you wouldn't even exist to write any math formulas were it not for God/The Universe, and there is more empirical physical evidence to support a living universe than there is to support *mainstream* cosmology theory.
I'll be happy to demonstrate that claim to you if you like:
An Empirical Theory Of God
An Empirical Theory Of God (2)
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
- Nov 23, 2013
- 15,069
- 5,309
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Oh, here we go again, trying to twist it into your pet idea. Go back to the numerous threads you already have about it, Michael. You've posted links to such threads, so why don't you keep it there?
Upvote
0
I've been away for two weeks, and I came back to check this most entertaining thread.
Looking back at the nearly 20 pages that have been added since I was last here, these are my observations:
I see no evidence, or proof being presented by the thread starter
I see lots of equivocation, quibbling about terms and attempts to shift the burden of proof, by the aformentioned thread starter;
The OP insists on repeating his/herself in the most annoying fashion, constantly engaging in circular reasoning (and language) that alternatively tightens and widens;
The OP continues to show a lack of respect for any of the posters that actively engage with him/her, resorting to mild/petty insults, disingenuous language and passive aggressive posturing
My conclusions are:
Engaging with the OP is a waste of time
The OP possesses neither evidence, nor proof
Even if he/she did, their skills of rhetoric are such that I'm not sure they possess the ability to deliver it in a fashion that would convince anyone skeptical of their position
In short, it's pointless.
Looking back at the nearly 20 pages that have been added since I was last here, these are my observations:
I see no evidence, or proof being presented by the thread starter
I see lots of equivocation, quibbling about terms and attempts to shift the burden of proof, by the aformentioned thread starter;
The OP insists on repeating his/herself in the most annoying fashion, constantly engaging in circular reasoning (and language) that alternatively tightens and widens;
The OP continues to show a lack of respect for any of the posters that actively engage with him/her, resorting to mild/petty insults, disingenuous language and passive aggressive posturing
My conclusions are:
Engaging with the OP is a waste of time
The OP possesses neither evidence, nor proof
Even if he/she did, their skills of rhetoric are such that I'm not sure they possess the ability to deliver it in a fashion that would convince anyone skeptical of their position
In short, it's pointless.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
