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.
Still no evidence to support the OP.
Dear everyone reading this thread on How to prove God exists, you know what? today, anyone who thinks and publishes his thoughts, these thoughts get to be available in the internet.
So I tried this experiment with the phrase, atheists, God, and causation, to see what thinkers say about atheists, God, and causation.
Here, look up the links of hits in the first page from google on the phrase, atheists, God, and causation.
I looked up the links in the first page, and I see that atheists are afraid, scared stiff of causation.
Because causation is the evidence to God existing in concept as first and foremost: the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
Read the links from page 1 of google hits on atheists, God, and causation, in the meantime I am going to see whether any atheists at all have answered my question to them, Do you know that causation is one component in the reality of existence?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Google: atheists, God, and causation
About 440,000 results (0.82 seconds)
Search Results
Causation and the Logical Impossibility of a Divine Cause - Secular Web
Quentin Smithcausation.html
I think that virtually all contemporary theists, agnostics and atheists believe this is ... Further, it is logically possible that God exists in time and that a pre-universe ...
Atheist killers; correlation not causation. - Patheos
www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2015/10/.../atheist-killers-correlation-not-causation/
Oct 25, 2015 - But at the same time, people invariably do not commit atrocities on account of their lack of belief in a god, or their belief that there is no god.
Apologetics Press - God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality
www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?article=3716
THE LAW OF CAUSALITY—A PROBLEM FOR ATHEISTS. Creationists have absolutely no problem with the truth articulated by this God-ordained law from ...
BBC - Religions - Atheism: Reasons people choose atheism
www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/beliefs/reasons_1.shtml
Jump to Arguments for God aren't convincing - Weakness of the proofs that God exists ... that God exists; however, none of them convinces atheists.
A Mormon and Atheist Debate: Is God Necessary to Explain a First ...
https://www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2015/11/20/a-mormon...atheist...is-god.../38073
Nov 20, 2015 - The fifth installment in a debate series between a young atheist and ... Causation began as a philosophical concept in the good ol' days of ...
Entropy and causality used as a proof for God's existence | CARM ...
https://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence
Entropy and causality used as a proof for God's existence. by Matt Slick ... that God is uncaused. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe. ... The Failure of Atheism to Account for Rationality · Is atheism viable?
Hume on Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Hume on Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Oct 4, 2005 - The Cosmological Argument and God's Necessary-Existence; 4. ... Religious Philosophers and Speculative Atheists ..... In the Treatise Hume develops an account of causation that directly contradicts these causal principles.
The Efficient Causality Argument for God : Strange Notions
strangenotions.com/the-efficient-causality-argument-for-god/
Sure, the inclusion of God adds a variable to the brute fact, but this is no more satisfying to the atheist than the exclusion is to the theist because the reason to ...
The Cosmological Argument - Arguments for the Existence of God ...
www.argumentsforatheism.com/arguments_god_cosmological.html
... Atheism - Arguments for the Existence of God - The Cosmological Argument. ... and this chain of causation can be traced back to a first cause, which was not ...
Atheism & the Law of Causality - "Cause and Effect" (by Intelligent ...
▶ 3:21
Apr 19, 2013 - Uploaded by IntelligentFaith315
Atheism & the Law of Causality - "Cause and Effect" (by Intelligent .... of the principle of causality, the ...
Searches related to atheists, God, and causation
divine causation definition
divine causality in the iliad
divine definition
12345678910 Next
[End of page 1 of google’s hits on atheists, God, and causation]
No, no atheists here have the courage to answer my question to them (see ANNEX below), Do you know that causation exists in the total reality of things - which reality is the default status namely of existence?
And it is because you atheists know that causation is the evidence leading mankind to the certainty of 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.
What about you, dear lady atheist, KTS, mistress of falsifiability, what about you bringing up correlation is no causation; and also whatever you read from David Hume, will you care to tell me what you think about the causation phenomenon being a reality in the default status of things which is existence?
What happened to your exchange with Michael, he also has left this thread when I started to invite him to do some thinking on evidence from babies and the nose in our face, instead of talking about things which are verbose, serving at most only both your vanity with both your self-gratifying sense of erudition, but all empty verbosity.
Now, I will go forth and look up atheists who host threads on God not existing, and give them a piece of my mind, to think about babies which are evidence of causation, which then leads man 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.
Tell you what, Oh lady atheist, KTS, you are so erudite with ideas from socalled philosophers of science like Popper who is popped up with falsifiability, by which falsifiability he can be seen clearly to have falsified his pet idea about how science is science because it is falsifiable.
Go to David Hume and master his thinking on what, causation is not correlation or correlation is not causation, or what else? constant conjunction is not causation, etc. etc. etc., all verbose emptiness or vacuity.
The man never produced a baby with a woman, he was a lifelong bachelor celibate with his sexual morality intact,* unlike Bertrand Russell who was a prodigious womanizer, a preacher of free love.**
__________________
*See Wikipedia on David Hume:
“David Hume was a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist, ... who never married… argument that morals cannot have a rational basis alone "would have been enough to earn him a place in the history of ethics".
David Hume - Wikipedia
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjvkpe9p7HSAhWJwrwKHfL0BJQQFggbMAA&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume&usg=AFQjCNGzvI3ALR0EQoxx-0bIExJbAasXFA&sig2=8J6X-ZCoIouA2Bita_zeYg
**[Obituary] February 3, 1970
Bertrand Russell Is Dead; British Philosopher, 97
[…]
Governed by 3 Passions
"Three passions, simple but strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind."
[...]
In those words [he] ... described the motive forces of his extraordinarily long, provocative and complex life. only one yearning, that for love, was fully satisfied... and only when he was 80 and married his fourth wife, Edith Finch, then a 52-year-old American.
[...]
Of his search for knowledge, he reflected, "a little of this, but not much, I have achieved."
[…]
Bertrand Russell Is Dead; British Philosopher, 97
ANNEX
Yesterday at 8:16 AM #1447 Pachomius wrote:
Well, dear readers here, since forever I have been requesting atheists here to tell me, Do you know of the reality in existence of the phenomenon of causation; and yesterday again I asked them to not neglect to tell me
Yesterday at 7:23 AM #1440 Pachomius wrote:
See all you guys again tomorrow, AND PLEASE DEAR ATHEISTS DO NOT NEGLECT TO TELL ME WHETHER YOU KNOW THAT CAUSATION IS A COMPONENT OF THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE.
Still they are so quiet.
Tell you what, so that we will not be bored from your part wasting the time of everyone here, just copy and paste this sentence in your next post here, like this
I know [or do not know] the reality of causation in existence.
Just choose, know or do not know when you paste the sentence from as above presented.
So, as you want to write so much, then at the start or at the end of your too much writing to comment on my text after text, just at the very top of your post, copy and paste the above statement, but of course choose one or the other, namely, know or do not know.
And also at the end of your post.
See you all readers again tomorrow.
[End of invitation to atheists to answer question on the reality of causation]
No evidence.
So the problem is not evidence but your blind faith in atheism it seems, that lowers the bar to things you "like", and raises it against things you " don't like". There's no shame in that. Dawkins made a career and swindled a fortune from his readers, by Regurgitating just such abuse of "science" into books ( his kind of " science" not the real kind)"
The evidence Pachomius has provided so far came down to: There´s a nose in your face therefore God.You mean you don't like so you ignore the evidence
Dear readers, this morning I like to share with you an article from a Roman Catholic priest on
“Twelve Reasons Why I Never Argue With Internet Atheists.” See ANNEX 2 below.
The article is very good for atheists here and everywhere to know about themselves, and realize as I always see them to be, namely, they are always into nothing but self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism when the issue is 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.
(Please continue reading, I will go now and see whether our good lady atheist here, one KTS, has answered to my request to tell me whether she knows about the reality in existence of the phenomenon of causation.)
Take these Nos. 6 and 7 reasons from Fr. Longenecker, about atheists continuous drumming on no evidence for God existing:
[From Fr. Longenecker, see ANNEX 1 below for bio of the good padre.]
6. Evidence? What Evidence? Very often atheists will ask for “evidence” for the existence of God, but I have never been able to ascertain from any of them what they mean by evidence. Do they want scientific evidence of the sort you produce in a laboratory? Archeological evidence? Documentary evidence? Historical evidence? Eyewitness evidence? Contemporary sociological evidence? Psychological evidence? Forensic evidence? I can provide all those kinds of evidence for the existence of God, but whenever one produces such evidence the atheist disputes the evidence. Interested in evidence? You tell me what kind of evidence you want and I’ll try to provide it. None have. Meh. Fuhgeddaboudit.
7. I’m called to produce first hand evidence - The most astounding evidence for the existence of God is the work he does in the lives of real people. He turns them into super humans we call saints. I’m trying to get to that place in my own life and thus produce irrefutable evidence of God’s existence–proof that will convince the people who meet me and who are touched by God through my life. That’s hard work and I’m still climbing that mountain. If I ever get to that point, then my life, I hope, will be my greatest argument for the existence of God for those who have eyes to see.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standin...-atheists.html
[End of except from Fr. Longenecker]
_______________________
ANNEX 1
About Fr. Longenecker | Fr. Dwight Longenecker
About Fr. Longenecker
Fr. Dwight Longenecker is an American who has spent most of his life living and working in England.
Fr Longenecker was brought up in an Evangelical home in Pennsylvania. After graduating from the fundamentalist Bob Jones University with a degree in Speech and English, he went to study theology at Oxford University. He was eventually ordained as an Anglican priest and served as a curate, a school chaplain in Cambridge and a country parson on the Isle of Wight.
Realizing that he and the Anglican Church were on divergent paths, in 1995 Fr. Dwight and his family were received into the Catholic Church. To read Fr Longenecker’s conversion story or to listen to the audio version connect to the archived articles section of his blog.
Fr Dwight spent the next ten years working as a freelance Catholic writer, contributing to over twenty-five magazines, papers and journals in Britain, Ireland and the USA.
His first book is the best-selling book of English conversion stories called The Path to Rome– Modern Journeys to the Catholic Faith. He has written Listen My Son—a daily Benedictine devotional book which applies the Rule of St Benedict to the task of modern parenting. …
[…]
_____________________
ANNEX 2
Religion and Politics·
Twelve Reasons Why I Never Argue With Internet Atheists
___________________
Some atheists trying to pick a fight with padre, but I never argue with atheists
Here’s why:
(Part One: Twelve Reasons Why I Never Argue With Internet Atheists)
1. Most of the internet atheists I’ve come across are ignorant - I don’t mean they’re stupid necessarily, or that they are bad people. I don’t even mean they are uneducated in their particular field, but most of them are ignorant when it comes to religion. By this I mean they just don’t know stuff. I don’t blame them for that, I’m ignorant about rocket science, how to do break job on a car, the rules of cricket and micro biology. Religion is one of the areas I do know something about so it’s difficult arguing with people who think they know it all about religion, but don’t.
2. Most of the internet atheists are “religion blind” the way a person might be color blind - Arguing religion with this kind of atheist is like expecting a color blind person to be an art critic. Furthermore, many of them are “religion blind” but think they’re not. Tough one.
3. Arguing religion doesn’t work - This is also why I don’t argue with Protestants, Buddhists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Moonies or members of the Church of the Four Square Gospel of the Fourth Revision. For a person to understand and connect with religion they have to go on an honest search themselves and really seek the answers. “Seek and you shall find” and all that. Arguments don’t really fit with that model. However, if a person–any person is an honest enquirer and wants to learn more about religion I’ll spend all the time in the world trying to point the way.
4. There are better debaters out there - Sometimes argument works for some people if they are really searching for an answer and want to have an honest discussion. I think there are a many good natured atheists out there who do want to argue in an open minded and intelligent fashion. They should connect with website like Strange Notions run by my friend Brandon Vogt. He’s set up an excellent site where people can conduct good tempered, rational conversations about God and religion.
5. I’m not that convinced about the usefulness of the “arguments” for God - Sure, I know the arguments and can explain them if I need to, but the whole religious-God thing is so much larger than intellectual arguments. For me it’s a bigger adventure and a grander love affair. The arguments for the existence of God boil the whole thing down to an intellectual game and I find that unsatisfying. It’s kind of like arguing about the existence of music. I’d rather listen to the symphony and invite another person to join me.
6. Evidence? What Evidence? Very often atheists will ask for “evidence” for the existence of God, but I have never been able to ascertain from any of them what they mean by evidence. Do they want scientific evidence of the sort you produce in a laboratory? Archeological evidence? Documentary evidence? Historical evidence? Eyewitness evidence? Contemporary sociological evidence? Psychological evidence? Forensic evidence? I can provide all those kinds of evidence for the existence of God, but whenever one produces such evidence the atheist disputes the evidence. Interested in evidence? You tell me what kind of evidence you want and I’ll try to provide it. None have. Meh. Fuhgeddaboudit.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standin...-atheists.html
(Part Two: Twelve Reasons Why I Never Argue With Internet Atheists)
7. I’m called to produce first hand evidence - The most astounding evidence for the existence of God is the work he does in the lives of real people. He turns them into super humans we call saints. I’m trying to get to that place in my own life and thus produce irrefutable evidence of God’s existence–proof that will convince the people who meet me and who are touched by God through my life. That’s hard work and I’m still climbing that mountain. If I ever get to that point, then my life, I hope, will be my greatest argument for the existence of God for those who have eyes to see.
8. Many atheists aren’t atheists at all - One of the reasons I don’t argue with atheists is because many of them aren’t even atheists. They’re just people who hate religion or maybe they are rebelling against the dumb religion they were brought up in, or for good reasons have rejected religion because of bad, mad or stupid religious people. I don’t blame them for doing so. They’re often more honest, up front and articulate in their rejection of religion than many of the people who accept religion without thinking. It’s just that they’re not atheists. They call themselves atheists, but they’re really anti-religionists.
9. I usually don’t believe in the God they don’t believe in - When I sometimes do get down to talking to atheists and ask what they think God is, I find that I don’t believe in that God either. So they reject a God who is the big grandaddy in the sky who gives his children stuff when they’re good and smacks them when they’re bad. Or maybe they think God is like Zeus or Thor or some such and they don’t believe in that God. Neither do I.
10. There’s often a lot of rage, vulgarity and dumb stuff you have to wade through - Why do atheists think it’s so smart to say stuff like, “Oh, you believe in talking snakes do you?” That sort of statement only shows their own ignorance of ancient cultures, religious language, literature in general, symbolism, types of literary genre, human psychology etc. I certainly wouldn’t mind if they picked up on some of the absurdities, hypocrisies and idiotic things in religion, but why can’t they do a better job of it? When these “arguments” are combined with aggression, arrogance, rude behavior, vulgarity and an amazing lack of any sense of humor it makes any discussion a rather unpleasant experience.
11. My religion is precious to me I actually believe what I believe and try to live my whole life around it. It’s something that is, as I grow older, precious, fragile and dear to me. It’s like an old Chinese vase that I have inherited from my ancestors. It is easily broken, soiled and marred. I would prefer not to bring it out for people who think it’s nothing more than a Walmart trinket to take pot shots at.
12, Atheism is dull - Atheists themselves may be exciting, charming, entertaining and vivacious people. It is not the atheists I object to as much as atheism. I say it is dull because it is, at its essence, a negation and a denial. There can be nothing festive about it. There can be nothing intriguing or mysterious about it. It is not fecund. It is a reduction not an addition. It is a negative not a positive. It is something empty, not full. It is therefore as empty as a yawn… and as interesting.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standin...ernet-atheists
[End of ANNEXES]
Are you a bot? This has to be a bot.
Come on folks repeat after me: What do we want - Evidence. When do we want it? NOW.
Examples?So God walks up to them, taps them on the shoulder, and says, "Hello I'm God, and here is a miracle to prove it." They say, "Oh dear, I'm hallucinating."
So God walks up to them, taps them on the shoulder, and says, "Hello I'm God, and here is a miracle to prove it." They say, "Oh dear, I'm hallucinating."
And I wonder how you managed to draw a causal chain between A: An unexplained event and B: The cause was a supernatural entity
The evidence Pachomius has provided so far came down to: There´s a nose in your face therefore God.
As would you if the god were any god other than the one you grew up with.So God walks up to them, taps them on the shoulder, and says, "Hello I'm God, and here is a miracle to prove it." They say, "Oh dear, I'm hallucinating."
Why don't they just come clean, and say nothing would convince them?
Exactly. Nothing could convince an atheist, because for them it is axiomatic that, come what may, there must always be a naturalistic explanation.
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?