How to prove God exists.

[HitchSlap]

That's a total cop out. I returned to theism and Christianity long before I ever heard of EU/PC theory, and until then, Panentheism didn't seem all that likely to me. Once I realized however that the universe is full of circuits and electrical energy, Panentheism made a lot more sense. It's no "sin" to see obvious reasons to change one's views, either about religion, or about science.

I gotta tell you, the moment I found Birkeland's work, my views about spacetime changed in short order, and that *eventually* (didn't automatically) cause me to reexamine the whole concept of Pantheism/Panentheism.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Is your concept of god = your pet cosmo theory?

 

[Michael]

Double post

 

[Michael]

Is your concept of god = your pet cosmo theory?

Not necessarily. I'd still prefer EU/PC theory over the LCDM model with or without any theistic overtones. It wouldn't surprise me either if God exceeds my wildest expectations and understanding at the present moment. I'm not really attached to the theistic aspects of EU/PC theory so much as I'm attached to the *empirical* implications of being able to explain the whole universe via empirical processes which we find here on Earth.

Whether God *is* the universe or far greater than I could ever imagine, I would still have faith in God. In fact, I did have faith in God before discovering that that big bang theory was a bunch of supernatural mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear readers here, thanks for your presence, it is most gratifying that my thread is being read and reacted to.

Now I will go into a different tack in my exposition on how to prove God exists, God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

As I said in my last post yesterday, I will now take up the concept of what it is to explain something, ultimately in re God exists or not.

I like to invite the Christian theists here or even just theists or even just deists to interact with me.

Addressing Michael, what do you think about my endeavor now to expound on what it is to explain something?

Here goes:

What is explanation?

Before anything else, it has to do with man’s need to come to grasp as to make something clear to his mind, so that every question in his mind is answered in regard to the something which he is trying to come to clarity in his mind.

So, dear Michael and fellow theists and deists of all stripes whatsoever, as long as you have an idea of what in concept is God for myself, namely:

“God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

I love to interact with you on what it is to explain something to us, human beings socalled rational animals.

At this moment let us work together to concur that explanation has to do with comprehending something on our part, human beings, you all theists and deists, or in short God knowers (God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning), comprehending something as to achieve clarity on it, namely, that all rational questions over it are answered to our satisfaction.

So, dear fellow God knowers here, let you and me interact on these questions for the present at this point in time:

1. And who is asking questions in regard to explanation of something? Human beings, rational animals, you and I, fellow God knowers.

2. What kind of questions? Rational questions.

3. Questions over what something? Something is understood as anything at all, whether in our mind i.e. the conceptual realm, or in particular in the objectival realm of existence outside and independent of our mind.

4. What is achieving clarity by way of explanation? Clarity so that all rational questions on the something or on the thing whatsoever are answered, that the rational mind of man is satisfied i.e. at peace in regard to his curiosity over the something.

Dear fellow God knowers, see if you will add to the above at this point in time to the four items above.

See you guys here reading this thread again, tomorrow.

I almost forgot, the purpose of my present tack is to avoid the self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism with atheists’ thinking and writing.

 

[HitchSlap]

Dear readers here, thanks for your presence, it is most gratifying that my thread is being read and reacted to.

Now I will go into a different tack in my exposition on how to prove God exists, God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

As I said in my last post yesterday, I will now take up the concept of what it is to explain something, ultimately in re God exists or not.

I like to invite the Christian theists here or even just theists or even just deists to interact with me.

Addressing Michael, what do you think about my endeavor now to expound on what it is to explain something?

Here goes:

What is explanation?

Before anything else, it has to do with man’s need to come to grasp as to make something clear to his mind, so that every question in his mind is answered in regard to the something which he is trying to come to clarity in his mind.

So, dear Michael and fellow theists and deists of all stripes whatsoever, as long as you have an idea of what in concept is God for myself, namely:

“God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

I love to interact with you on what it is to explain something to us, human beings socalled rational animals.

At this moment let us work together to concur that explanation has to do with comprehending something on our part, human beings, you all theists and deists, or in short God knowers (God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning), comprehending something as to achieve clarity on it, namely, that all rational questions over it are answered to our satisfaction.

So, dear fellow God knowers here, let you and me interact on these questions for the present at this point in time:

1. And who is asking questions in regard to explanation of something? Human beings, rational animals, you and I, fellow God knowers.

2. What kind of questions? Rational questions.

3. Questions over what something? Something is understood as anything at all, whether in our mind i.e. the conceptual realm, or in particular in the objectival realm of existence outside and independent of our mind.

4. What is achieving clarity by way of explanation? Clarity so that all rational questions on the something or on the thing whatsoever are answered, that the rational mind of man is satisfied i.e. at peace in regard to his curiosity over the something.

Dear fellow God knowers, see if you will add to the above at this point in time to the four items above.

See you guys here reading this thread again, tomorrow.

I almost forgot, the purpose of my present tack is to avoid the self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism with atheists’ thinking and writing.

 

[bhsmte]

Dear readers here, thanks for your presence, it is most gratifying that my thread is being read and reacted to.

Now I will go into a different tack in my exposition on how to prove God exists, God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

As I said in my last post yesterday, I will now take up the concept of what it is to explain something, ultimately in re God exists or not.

I like to invite the Christian theists here or even just theists or even just deists to interact with me.

Addressing Michael, what do you think about my endeavor now to expound on what it is to explain something?

Here goes:

What is explanation?

Before anything else, it has to do with man’s need to come to grasp as to make something clear to his mind, so that every question in his mind is answered in regard to the something which he is trying to come to clarity in his mind.

So, dear Michael and fellow theists and deists of all stripes whatsoever, as long as you have an idea of what in concept is God for myself, namely:

“God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

I love to interact with you on what it is to explain something to us, human beings socalled rational animals.

At this moment let us work together to concur that explanation has to do with comprehending something on our part, human beings, you all theists and deists, or in short God knowers (God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning), comprehending something as to achieve clarity on it, namely, that all rational questions over it are answered to our satisfaction.

So, dear fellow God knowers here, let you and me interact on these questions for the present at this point in time:

1. And who is asking questions in regard to explanation of something? Human beings, rational animals, you and I, fellow God knowers.

2. What kind of questions? Rational questions.

3. Questions over what something? Something is understood as anything at all, whether in our mind i.e. the conceptual realm, or in particular in the objectival realm of existence outside and independent of our mind.

4. What is achieving clarity by way of explanation? Clarity so that all rational questions on the something or on the thing whatsoever are answered, that the rational mind of man is satisfied i.e. at peace in regard to his curiosity over the something.

Dear fellow God knowers, see if you will add to the above at this point in time to the four items above.

See you guys here reading this thread again, tomorrow.

I almost forgot, the purpose of my present tack is to avoid the self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism with atheists’ thinking and writing.

Many, many posts and still no evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

<...>
I almost forgot, the purpose of my present tack is to avoid the self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism with atheists’ thinking and writing.

The first step is achieve it with your own writing.

 

[Pachomius]

Well, dear fellow God knowers, I guess you folks are still getting your thoughts together, to work as to concur with me on what it is to explain something.

Anyway, I will just go ahead to give all readers what it is to ask rational questions, for in sum to explain something is to ask and answer all rational questions on anything at all that is existing either in our mind, that is the conceptual realm, or more importantly in the realm outside and independent of our mind, what I call the objectival realm.

So, for example, I am going to explain God exists, that means I am going to ask all rational questions on God existing.

What are rational questions?

They are questions for example asked by news reporters who must report on the facts, period.

And how do reporters write and transmit a piece of news on the facts?

Simple, they ask questions which have to do with the facts in a news worthy event.

What are these facts oriented questions which are therefore rational questions, the opposite of which are irrational questions?

Here, they ask questions which cover the five w's and one h of good reporting on a news worthy event, as follow:

Who
What
Where
When
Why
How

So, dear fellow God knowers, to explain God existing we answer the five w’s and one h questions above, as follow below.

Who is God?
What is God?
Where is God?
When is (i.e. exists) God?
Why is (i.e. exists) God?
How does God exist?

What do you, Oh God knowers, say about asking rational questions, Oh dear fellow God knowers here?

For your further orientation, please read again my previous post on adopting a new tack in this thread of mine, on How to prove God exists, in ANNEX below.


See you all guys again tomorrow.


ANNEX
Pachomius 021717fri yesterday #1344

Dear readers here, thanks for your presence, it is most gratifying that my thread is being read and reacted to.

Now I will go into a different tack in my exposition on how to prove God exists, God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

As I said in my last post yesterday, I will now take up the concept of what it is to explain something, ultimately in re God exists or not.

I like to invite the Christian theists here or even just theists or even just deists to interact with me.

Addressing Michael, what do you think about my endeavor now to expound on what it is to explain something?

Here goes:

What is explanation?

Before anything else, it has to do with man’s need to come to grasp as to make something clear to his mind, so that every question in his mind is answered in regard to the something which he is trying to come to clarity in his mind.

So, dear Michael and fellow theists and deists of all stripes whatsoever, as long as you have an idea of what in concept is God for myself, namely:

“God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

I love to interact with you on what it is to explain something to us, human beings socalled rational animals.

At this moment let us work together to concur that explanation has to do with comprehending something on our part, human beings, you all theists and deists, or in short God knowers (God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning), comprehending something as to achieve clarity on it, namely, that all rational questions over it are answered to our satisfaction.

So, dear fellow God knowers here, let you and me interact on these questions for the present at this point in time:

1. And who is asking questions in regard to explanation of something? Human beings, rational animals, you and I, fellow God knowers.

2. What kind of questions? Rational questions.

3. Questions over what something? Something is understood as anything at all, whether in our mind i.e. the conceptual realm, or in particular in the objectival realm of existence outside and independent of our mind.

4. What is achieving clarity by way of explanation? Clarity so that all rational questions on the something or on the thing whatsoever are answered, that the rational mind of man is satisfied i.e. at peace in regard to his curiosity over the something.

Dear fellow God knowers, see if you will add to the above at this point in time to the four items above.

See you guys here reading this thread again, tomorrow.

I almost forgot, the purpose of my present tack is to avoid the self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism with atheists’ thinking and writing.
[End of ANNEX]

 

[Kylie]

LOL! You claim to want "evidence" to support the concept of "God". I can support a purely empirical definition of God as "all", better than you can provide evidence to support the current cosmological definition of 'all'. You can't handle it, so you don't like it.

I've seen your arguments, and they are lacking. You are apparently saying that the majority of cosmologists have it wrong. They know a lot more about it than you do, so I'm siding with them. Now, you have a bunch of threads already for your pet ideas, take it there.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, dear fellow God knowers, I guess you folks are still getting your thoughts together, to work as to concur with me on what it is to explain something.

Anyway, I will just go ahead to give all readers what it is to ask rational questions, for in sum to explain something is to ask and answer all rational questions on anything at all that is existing either in our mind, that is the conceptual realm, or more importantly in the realm outside and independent of our mind, what I call the objectival realm.

So, for example, I am going to explain God exists, that means I am going to ask all rational questions on God existing.

What are rational questions?

They are questions for example asked by news reporters who must report on the facts, period.

And how do reporters write and transmit a piece of news on the facts?

Simple, they ask questions which have to do with the facts in a news worthy event.

What are these facts oriented questions which are therefore rational questions, the opposite of which are irrational questions?

Here, they ask questions which cover the five w's and one h of good reporting on a news worthy event, as follow:

Who
What
Where
When
Why
How

So, dear fellow God knowers, to explain God existing we answer the five w’s and one h questions above, as follow below.

Who is God?
What is God?
Where is God?
When is (i.e. exists) God?
Why is (i.e. exists) God?
How does God exist?

What do you, Oh God knowers, say about asking rational questions, Oh dear fellow God knowers here?

For your further orientation, please read again my previous post on adopting a new tack in this thread of mine, on How to prove God exists, in ANNEX below.


See you all guys again tomorrow.


ANNEX
Pachomius 021717fri yesterday #1344

Dear readers here, thanks for your presence, it is most gratifying that my thread is being read and reacted to.

Now I will go into a different tack in my exposition on how to prove God exists, God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

As I said in my last post yesterday, I will now take up the concept of what it is to explain something, ultimately in re God exists or not.

I like to invite the Christian theists here or even just theists or even just deists to interact with me.

Addressing Michael, what do you think about my endeavor now to expound on what it is to explain something?

Here goes:

What is explanation?

Before anything else, it has to do with man’s need to come to grasp as to make something clear to his mind, so that every question in his mind is answered in regard to the something which he is trying to come to clarity in his mind.

So, dear Michael and fellow theists and deists of all stripes whatsoever, as long as you have an idea of what in concept is God for myself, namely:

“God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

I love to interact with you on what it is to explain something to us, human beings socalled rational animals.

At this moment let us work together to concur that explanation has to do with comprehending something on our part, human beings, you all theists and deists, or in short God knowers (God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning), comprehending something as to achieve clarity on it, namely, that all rational questions over it are answered to our satisfaction.

So, dear fellow God knowers here, let you and me interact on these questions for the present at this point in time:

1. And who is asking questions in regard to explanation of something? Human beings, rational animals, you and I, fellow God knowers.

2. What kind of questions? Rational questions.

3. Questions over what something? Something is understood as anything at all, whether in our mind i.e. the conceptual realm, or in particular in the objectival realm of existence outside and independent of our mind.

4. What is achieving clarity by way of explanation? Clarity so that all rational questions on the something or on the thing whatsoever are answered, that the rational mind of man is satisfied i.e. at peace in regard to his curiosity over the something.

Dear fellow God knowers, see if you will add to the above at this point in time to the four items above.

See you guys here reading this thread again, tomorrow.

I almost forgot, the purpose of my present tack is to avoid the self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism with atheists’ thinking and writing.
[End of ANNEX]

Again, no evidence in regards to the OP.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well, dear fellow God knowers, I guess you folks are still getting your thoughts together, to work as to concur with me on what it is to explain something.

Anyway, I will just go ahead to give all readers what it is to ask rational questions, for in sum to explain something is to ask and answer all rational questions on anything at all that is existing either in our mind, that is the conceptual realm, or more importantly in the realm outside and independent of our mind, what I call the objectival realm.

So, for example, I am going to explain God exists, that means I am going to ask all rational questions on God existing.

What are rational questions?

They are questions for example asked by news reporters who must report on the facts, period.

And how do reporters write and transmit a piece of news on the facts?

Simple, they ask questions which have to do with the facts in a news worthy event.

What are these facts oriented questions which are therefore rational questions, the opposite of which are irrational questions?

Here, they ask questions which cover the five w's and one h of good reporting on a news worthy event, as follow:

Who
What
Where
When
Why
How

So, dear fellow God knowers, to explain God existing we answer the five w’s and one h questions above, as follow below.

Who is God?
What is God?
Where is God?
When is (i.e. exists) God?
Why is (i.e. exists) God?
How does God exist?

What do you, Oh God knowers, say about asking rational questions, Oh dear fellow God knowers here?

For your further orientation, please read again my previous post on adopting a new tack in this thread of mine, on How to prove God exists, in ANNEX below.


See you all guys again tomorrow.


ANNEX
Pachomius 021717fri yesterday #1344

Dear readers here, thanks for your presence, it is most gratifying that my thread is being read and reacted to.

Now I will go into a different tack in my exposition on how to prove God exists, God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

As I said in my last post yesterday, I will now take up the concept of what it is to explain something, ultimately in re God exists or not.

I like to invite the Christian theists here or even just theists or even just deists to interact with me.

Addressing Michael, what do you think about my endeavor now to expound on what it is to explain something?

Here goes:

What is explanation?

Before anything else, it has to do with man’s need to come to grasp as to make something clear to his mind, so that every question in his mind is answered in regard to the something which he is trying to come to clarity in his mind.

So, dear Michael and fellow theists and deists of all stripes whatsoever, as long as you have an idea of what in concept is God for myself, namely:

“God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

I love to interact with you on what it is to explain something to us, human beings socalled rational animals.

At this moment let us work together to concur that explanation has to do with comprehending something on our part, human beings, you all theists and deists, or in short God knowers (God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning), comprehending something as to achieve clarity on it, namely, that all rational questions over it are answered to our satisfaction.

So, dear fellow God knowers here, let you and me interact on these questions for the present at this point in time:

1. And who is asking questions in regard to explanation of something? Human beings, rational animals, you and I, fellow God knowers.

2. What kind of questions? Rational questions.

3. Questions over what something? Something is understood as anything at all, whether in our mind i.e. the conceptual realm, or in particular in the objectival realm of existence outside and independent of our mind.

4. What is achieving clarity by way of explanation? Clarity so that all rational questions on the something or on the thing whatsoever are answered, that the rational mind of man is satisfied i.e. at peace in regard to his curiosity over the something.

Dear fellow God knowers, see if you will add to the above at this point in time to the four items above.

See you guys here reading this thread again, tomorrow.

I almost forgot, the purpose of my present tack is to avoid the self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism with atheists’ thinking and writing.
[End of ANNEX]

 

[Michael]

I've seen your arguments, and they are lacking. You are apparently saying that the majority of cosmologists have it wrong. They know a lot more about it than you do, so I'm siding with them. Now, you have a bunch of threads already for your pet ideas, take it there.

"I've seen atheists arguments and they are lacking. You are apparently saying that the majority of all human beings have it wrong. They know a lot more about God than you do, so I'm siding with them. "

FYI, LCDM proponents could not possibly know too much more about the physical universe than I do, because they currently use placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe 95 percent of their model! What do they actually "know" in your opinion? LCDM isn't even a form of "knowledge", it's a *model/hypothesis* related to cosmology theory.

Alfven called the other 5 percent of their math related to plasma physics, a form of "pseudoscience". I'm not sure how anyone could actually "know" any less about the universe frankly.

 

[Michael]

Well, since you addressed your post to me, I suppose I'll start by answering your questions from my perspective.

Who is God?

The very loving being that we call God.

What is God?

Everything.

Where is God?

Everywhere.

When is (i.e. exists) God?

Eternity.

Why is (i.e. exists) God?

Physics and will.

How does God exist?

Physics and intelligence.

Addressing Michael, what do you think about my endeavor now to expound on what it is to explain something?

Here goes:

What is explanation?

Well, technically the atheists want an empirical cause/effect explanation, preferably one they can test in the lab. They want there to be no *possible* other explanation for the data of course. Then again, they typically don't use 'scientific' standards of evidence with respect to the topic of God. They typically use a purely empirical standard with respect to the topic of God. They also get to play 'judge, jury and executioner' with respect to "evidence" or the weighing (preponderance) of the evidence.

It is possible to explain "God" in purely empirical cause/effect ways, and do so more effectively than any current 'scientific' theory of the universe (everything), but they can't handle that fact, so they tend to avoid that particular conversation like the plague.

So, dear Michael and fellow theists and deists of all stripes whatsoever, as long as you have an idea of what in concept is God for myself, namely:

“God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

Thus far you have a "premise", without any 'evidence' (purely empirical standard of course) to support your 'premise' from the perspective of any atheist. You might think of your statement as a "hypothesis", and now you must provide evidence to support that hypothesis.

I love to interact with you on what it is to explain something to us, human beings socalled rational animals.

At this moment let us work together to concur that explanation has to do with comprehending something on our part, human beings, you all theists and deists, or in short God knowers (God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning), comprehending something as to achieve clarity on it, namely, that all rational questions over it are answered to our satisfaction.

If you're into big bang theory, and you believe that the universe had a 'beginning', you could just rename the various terms to 'Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter", and claim that God makes up 95 percent of the universe in terms of mass/energy, and actually all of it.

If you're more of a static universe kinda guy, Panentheism seems pretty scientifically defensible.

I guess it depends on what we individually mean by an 'explanation' and what kind of preconceived biases we hold.

You seem to be expecting your 'premise' or your "hypothesis" to seem self evidently 'true' to the atheist, whereas they're still expecting some cause/effect demonstration and "evidence" to support your hypothesis. I hope you realize that's how they see it at least.

The core weakness of big bang theory is that it doesn't speak to "cause". They use terms like "inflation" which amount to "miracles', yet atheists seem to think it's "natural" somehow, even though it doesn't show up in the lab. Ditto for dark stuff associated with big bang theory. Ninety five percent of the so called "scientific" definition of the universe utterly fails to show up in the lab. Atheists still seem to "put faith" in such ideas. When it comes to the topic of God however, they require a lab demonstration of every single claim.

It's pretty much a blatant double standard of 'evidence'.

 

[Kylie]

"I've seen atheists arguments and they are lacking. You are apparently saying that the majority of all human beings have it wrong. They know a lot more about God than you do, so I'm siding with them. "

FYI, LCDM proponents could not possibly know too much more about the physical universe than I do, because they currently use placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe 95 percent of their model! What do they actually "know" in your opinion? LCDM isn't even a form of "knowledge", it's a *model/hypothesis* related to cosmology theory.

Alfven called the other 5 percent of their math related to plasma physics, a form of "pseudoscience". I'm not sure how anyone could actually "know" any less about the universe frankly.

Wow, you really can't stand to be in a conversation where you aren't choosing the topic being discussed.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Michael, thanks a lot for your interaction.

Now, let us explain we two to each other what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how does evidence hit its target.

As I said before to atheists here and to all stripes of theists, evidence is:

[Start of quote 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.

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.

DNA is also one of my samples of evidence and it fits my definition of evidence.

[End of post from Pachomius]


I will be back tomorrow.

 

[Kylie]

Dear Michael, thanks a lot for your interaction.

Now, let us explain we two to each other what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how does evidence hit its target.

As I said before to atheists here and to all stripes of theists, evidence is:

[Start of quote 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.

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.

DNA is also one of my samples of evidence and it fits my definition of evidence.

[End of post from Pachomius]


I will be back tomorrow.

Dude, PLEASE learn how to use quote tags. They are not that hard.

 

[quatona]

For example, investigators notice the presence of human sperm in the anus of a deceased human male subject,

You seem to like that scenery very much.

and they put in their notepad:

Evidence of sex act with another human male, scil., sperm in anus.

....but they don´t put in their notepad "evidence of God".

 

[bhsmte]

Dear Michael, thanks a lot for your interaction.

Now, let us explain we two to each other what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how does evidence hit its target.

As I said before to atheists here and to all stripes of theists, evidence is:

[Start of quote 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.

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.

DNA is also one of my samples of evidence and it fits my definition of evidence.

[End of post from Pachomius]


I will be back tomorrow.

LOL.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear readers here, I have coined a new word for the Urban Dictionary, namely:

igknower

and the definition is as follows, though in the meantime it is still being vetted by the peers* in Urban Dictionary.

igknower, noun
Igknower is the opposite of knower, so we have what I call the knower of God, and the opposite of the knower of God is the igknower of God.

The knower of God claims to be certain God exists, the igknower claims to not be ever certain that God exists.

Theists and deists are knowers of God existing, igknowers are deniers of God existing.

I form the word from the ig in ignore and the word know.

The igknower of God is denying God exist owing to his lack of reason and intelligence or from his stubborn irrational and un-intelligent refusal to see reason and intelligence as to conclude to the existence of God, i.e. from bad faith - bad faith is here understood as the opposite of good faith.

Now, the knower of God is either certain God exist, from faith or belief, or certain from reason and intelligence.

In this respect atheists are igknowers of God existing, while theists like Christians and Muslims and orthodox Jews, and deists are knowers of God.


*Submitted!
Your definition will go up for review by your peers soon. Once a decision is made, we'll send you an email to let yo know!

______________________

Okay, I will go now to see what Michael has for me in my request to him to tell me his comments on my idea of what is evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

Dear readers here, I have coined a new word for the Urban Dictionary, namely:

igknower

and the definition is as follows, though in the meantime it is still being vetted by the peers* in Urban Dictionary.

igknower, noun
Igknower is the opposite of knower, so we have what I call the knower of God, and the opposite of the knower of God is the igknower of God.

The knower of God claims to be certain God exists, the igknower claims to not be ever certain that God exists.

Theists and deists are knowers of God existing, igknowers are deniers of God existing.

I form the word from the ig in ignore and the word know.

The igknower of God is denying God exist owing to his lack of reason and intelligence or from his stubborn irrational and un-intelligent refusal to see reason and intelligence as to conclude to the existence of God, i.e. from bad faith - bad faith is here understood as the opposite of good faith.

Now, the knower of God is either certain God exist, from faith or belief, or certain from reason and intelligence.

In this respect atheists are igknowers of God existing, while theists like Christians and Muslims and orthodox Jews, and deists are knowers of God.


*Submitted!
Your definition will go up for review by your peers soon. Once a decision is made, we'll send you an email to let yo know!

______________________

Okay, I will go now to see what Michael has for me in my request to him to tell me his comments on my idea of what is evidence.

I was so looking forward to you coming back today and presenting evidence to support the OP.

I guess not though. Maybe tomorrow?