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.
At square 1, the concept of "God" doesn't even exist. I don't have to assume anything.You're simply *assuming* that it works *at all* without "God". Why?
Keep in mind it is AD 2017.The OP possesses neither evidence, nor proof
Keep in mind it is AD 2017.
So?And tomorrow is Tuesday, the day of Tyr, the Germanic/Norse god of war and combat.
So?Gene2memE said:Next month is March named in honour of the Roman god Mars (also a war god).
So?Gene2memE said:In Iran and Afghanistan right now, it's 1438 AH.
So?Gene2memE said:In Japan, it's Heisei 29.
So?Gene2memE said:In India,
So they just made that up, did they?Gene2memE said:You do realise that the Gregorian calendar is in use because the part of the world (Europe) that used it as their dating system went out and conquered/colonised most of the rest of the world, not because it has any particular claim to relevance or truth?
Believe me ... it is the tip of the iceberg in evidence for God.Gene2memE said:Using the Gregorian naming convention does not hold the significance you seem to ascribe to it. It's a holdover from a time when the Church was the dominant entity in European cultural and political life. We use it because it is more convenient to continue to use it than to switch to as different dating convention.
So?So?So?So?So?So they just made that up, did they?Believe me ... it is the tip of the iceberg in evidence for God.
I could go on and on and on and on about buildings, slogans, iconography, books, shows, holidays, martyrs, and so forth.
No.Do you comprehend the difference?
Not when gravity is evidenced by observing something fall.
Yes.How many times are you going to pull out this tired old argument?
Absolutely not.Then I take it you accept the existence of all gods for which there is belief.
Absolutely not.
I'm monotheistic.
"God" is a relative term.Does belief in a god means that god exists?
Does the fact that someone sings about a god mean that god exists?
Does the fact that temples in which to worship a god mean that god exists?
Does the fact that someone has printed bumper stickers about a god mean that god exists?
At square 1, the concept of "God" doesn't even exist. I don't have to assume anything.
Working from square 1, why would I immediately think that it doesn't work on its own? It certainly appears to do so.
"God" is a relative term.
First ... and foremost ... there is God ... the Creator of the universe.
Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Then there are "gods" ... false idols.
2 Kings 19:18 And have cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone: therefore they have destroyed them.
Then there are "gods" ... [fallen] angels.
2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Those are really weird reasons to believe that God or gods exist. It is tantamount to saying that we believe that something exists because we believe that something exists. Where did you derive that concept from?Does belief in a god means that god exists?
Does the fact that someone sings about a god mean that god exists?
Does the fact that temples in which to worship a god mean that god exists?
Does the fact that someone has printed bumper stickers about a god mean that god exists?
From AV´s "AD"-argument.Those are really weird reasons to believe that God or gods exist. It is tantamount to saying that we believe that something exists because we believe that something exists. Where did you derive that concept from?
I believe that's basic doctrine I'm espousing.I honestly don't understand you, AV. Since it is obvious that you are just going to believe whatever you want to believe anyway, why do you try to find justification for it?
Square one in the philosophical sense. All I know is my mind. From that extends my senses, from which I can see/hear/smell/feel/taste that things exist, or at least that my mind perceives that things exist.Um, at "square one" (pure ignorance), nothing exists.
Excluding dark energy, my sensory experiences.Working from square one, why would you immediately assume anything? Gravity? Dark energy? Suns? Air?
[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.
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.
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 ]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?