How to prove God exists.

bhsmte · Mar 1, 2017

Pachomius said:
The atheists here are as usual keeping very silent with coming forth as to answer to my request to tell me, Do you or do you not know the reality of causation?

That is the 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 will not invest time and trouble with them.

Now, I will talk with our dear lady atheist, KTS.

She is also full of erudition, and I hope that we will have a productive exchange on How to prove God exists, from her part it should be how to prove God does not exist.

Of course she will remind me that she has no burden to prove anything at all because she is not making any claim, as though a claim has to be all the time affirmative, it can be also negative, and whether negative or positive, anyone making a claim is obligated to explain how he comes to his claim whether affirmative or negative, otherwise he should just seal his lips and not contribute more of self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, in aid of idle vain talk, vain as in vanity.

Okay, dear lady KTS, you want to have proof of God existing because to date you do not see any proof from me, and but also you conveniently neglect to tell me whether you know the reality of causation.

First, tell me, dear KTS: Shall we first work as to come to what it is to prove that something exists?

There, dear KTS, start thinking on what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside of our mind.

No, I am not at this point in time, requiring you to prove anything, but just to do some serious thinking, on what it is to prove that something exists.

Tell me, suppose you prove to yourself and to your family members and closest of friends; yes, tell me how you prove to them that there is a nose in man’s face, man here embraces also woman.

That is simple enough, how to prove to yourself and your family members and your best friends, that there is in a human face, a nose.

Let us see whether, dear KTS, we keep on with our exchange; unlike with Loudmouth, he was into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, what with defining evidence as a set of facts confirming a falsifiable claim, something like that which is really some piece of self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, which is the kind of talk that is already the menu with atheists in the internet.

Okay, dear lady atheist, KTS, proffer your best thinking on what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality; for a starter, take the nose in the human face, it exists: but how do you prove it as to convince fellow humans that there is a nose in the human face?

See you guys again tomorrow, and I am glad that Michael is back, but what we or I don’t need are atheists who only know the mantra: no proof, no proof, no proof, like a talkbot badly programmed by its master, or no evidence, no evidence, no evidence.

Such talkbots would not be able to understand either that they have a nose in their face, and how to prove it to genuine humans who do have consciousness, reason, and intelligence.

You seem quite silent on providing evidence to support the OP.

Mountainmike · Mar 1, 2017

I already have several degrees. And Dawkins knowledge of quantum chemistry, so the likelihood of things happening is appalling. I can say that as an ( ex) quantum physicist , now more or less retired.

The fact that Dawkins has quoted sagans folly, that " extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" shows he is neither objective nor a scientist.

Now compare the evidence I listed, with absolutely NONE at all for abiogenesis, life as a chemical accident, and see whose claims have no evidence!

The simplest cell is a massive adaptive selfreplicating chemical factory, and the idea that it came as an accident does not even qualify as a hypothesis. It cannot be replicated, has never been observed to pop into existence and no testable process for how it came to be has ever been conjectured.

So it does not meet the minimum standard for a hypothesis, and that IS a scientific fact.

Yet Dawkins confuses " pure conjecture" needed to support his atheist faith,with what he then calls " fact" . He clearly doesn't know what facts, or hypotheses are.

Man is a charlatan,
That has clearly taken too many people in, including you seemingly.

There is a fascinating experiment in psychology you will find in the book " science of persuasion" cialdini - which showed that people think that anyone given title professor is estimated as much taller than a doctor or mere Mr.
The point is People are far too ready to assume authority based on just titles, and if ever there were proof of that it is the bunk served up by Dawkins, readily consumed by his gullible audience!

Nowlook at it through the lens of a true scientist and see what I mean.

MissRowy said:
And where is your evidence to prove that Dawkins swindled his readers? Do you have a Phd in Biology?? Have you read his books which by the way are accurate. I am doing a Science degree myself and I can tell you that everything you have said is incorrect.
In fact if you read the Journal of Theoretical Biology you will find out that abiogenesis DOES exist.

bhsmte · Mar 1, 2017

Mountainmike said:
I already have several degrees. And Dawkins knowledge of quantum chemistry, so the likelihood of things happening is appalling. I can say that as an ( ex) quantum physicist , now more or less retired.

The fact that Dawkins has quoted sagans folly, that " extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" shows he is neither objective nor a scientist.

Now compare the evidence I listed, with absolutely NONE at all for abiogenesis, life as a chemical accident, and see whose claims have no evidence!

The simplest cell is a massive adaptive selfreplicating chemical factory, and the idea that it came as an accident does not even qualify as a hypothesis. It cannot be replicated, has never been observed to pop into existence and no testable process for how it came to be has ever been conjectured.

So it does not meet the minimum standard for a hypothesis, and that IS a scientific fact.

Yet Dawkins confuses " pure conjecture" needed to support his atheist faith,with what he then calls " fact" . He clearly doesn't know what facts, or hypotheses are.

Man is a charlatan,
That has clearly taken too many people in, including you seemingly.

There is a fascinating experiment in psychology you will find in the book " science of persuasion" cialdini - which showed that people think that anyone given title professor is estimated as much taller than a doctor or mere Mr.
The point is People are far too ready to assume authority based on just titles, and if ever there were proof of that it is the bunk served up by Dawkins, readily consumed by his gullible audience!

Nowlook at it through the lens of a true scientist and see what I mean.

What is a true scientist?

Mountainmike · Mar 1, 2017

bhsmte said:
What is a true scientist?

One who follows the evidence, not as in Dawkins case, follows confirmation bias for his own a priori faith in atheism.

MissRowy · Mar 2, 2017

Mountainmike said:
I already have several degrees. And Dawkins knowledge of quantum chemistry, so the likelihood of things happening is appalling. I can say that as an ( ex) quantum physicist , now more or less retired.

The fact that Dawkins has quoted sagans folly, that " extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" shows he is neither objective nor a scientist.

Now compare the evidence I listed, with absolutely NONE at all for abiogenesis, life as a chemical accident, and see whose claims have no evidence!

The simplest cell is a massive adaptive selfreplicating chemical factory, and the idea that it came as an accident does not even qualify as a hypothesis. It cannot be replicated, has never been observed to pop into existence and no testable process for how it came to be has ever been conjectured.

So it does not meet the minimum standard for a hypothesis, and that IS a scientific fact.

Yet Dawkins confuses " pure conjecture" needed to support his atheist faith,with what he then calls " fact" . He clearly doesn't know what facts, or hypotheses are.

Man is a charlatan,
That has clearly taken too many people in, including you seemingly.

There is a fascinating experiment in psychology you will find in the book " science of persuasion" cialdini - which showed that people think that anyone given title professor is estimated as much taller than a doctor or mere Mr.
The point is People are far too ready to assume authority based on just titles, and if ever there were proof of that it is the bunk served up by Dawkins, readily consumed by his gullible audience!

Nowlook at it through the lens of a true scientist and see what I mean.

Okay I can see that you are definitely qualified. And that you raise a valid point.

Skreeper · Mar 2, 2017

Mountainmike said:
I already have several degrees. And Dawkins knowledge of quantum chemistry, so the likelihood of things happening is appalling. I can say that as an ( ex) quantum physicist , now more or less retired.

The fact that Dawkins has quoted sagans folly, that " extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" shows he is neither objective nor a scientist.

Now compare the evidence I listed, with absolutely NONE at all for abiogenesis, life as a chemical accident, and see whose claims have no evidence!

The simplest cell is a massive adaptive selfreplicating chemical factory, and the idea that it came as an accident does not even qualify as a hypothesis. It cannot be replicated, has never been observed to pop into existence and no testable process for how it came to be has ever been conjectured.

So it does not meet the minimum standard for a hypothesis, and that IS a scientific fact.

Yet Dawkins confuses " pure conjecture" needed to support his atheist faith,with what he then calls " fact" . He clearly doesn't know what facts, or hypotheses are.

Man is a charlatan,
That has clearly taken too many people in, including you seemingly.

There is a fascinating experiment in psychology you will find in the book " science of persuasion" cialdini - which showed that people think that anyone given title professor is estimated as much taller than a doctor or mere Mr.
The point is People are far too ready to assume authority based on just titles, and if ever there were proof of that it is the bunk served up by Dawkins, readily consumed by his gullible audience!

Nowlook at it through the lens of a true scientist and see what I mean.

Let's say abiogenesis did not happen like scientists currently think it happened. What do you think should scientists do about it? Stop looking for an answer?

Also, when it comes to evolution Dawkins is an excellent educator. I agree that he probably should stop debating religion though.

bhsmte · Mar 2, 2017

Mountainmike said:
I already have several degrees. And Dawkins knowledge of quantum chemistry, so the likelihood of things happening is appalling. I can say that as an ( ex) quantum physicist , now more or less retired.

The fact that Dawkins has quoted sagans folly, that " extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" shows he is neither objective nor a scientist.

Now compare the evidence I listed, with absolutely NONE at all for abiogenesis, life as a chemical accident, and see whose claims have no evidence!

The simplest cell is a massive adaptive selfreplicating chemical factory, and the idea that it came as an accident does not even qualify as a hypothesis. It cannot be replicated, has never been observed to pop into existence and no testable process for how it came to be has ever been conjectured.

So it does not meet the minimum standard for a hypothesis, and that IS a scientific fact.

Yet Dawkins confuses " pure conjecture" needed to support his atheist faith,with what he then calls " fact" . He clearly doesn't know what facts, or hypotheses are.

Man is a charlatan,
That has clearly taken too many people in, including you seemingly.

There is a fascinating experiment in psychology you will find in the book " science of persuasion" cialdini - which showed that people think that anyone given title professor is estimated as much taller than a doctor or mere Mr.
The point is People are far too ready to assume authority based on just titles, and if ever there were proof of that it is the bunk served up by Dawkins, readily consumed by his gullible audience!

Nowlook at it through the lens of a true scientist and see what I mean.

I have no idea whether abiogenesis occured or not and certainly there is no scientific concensus that abiogenesis happened. Maybe one day evidence will produce this consencus or maybe it wont. My question for you is; what do you think would happen to your current religious beliefs, if science did reach a concensus, that abiogenesis, did likely happen, based on the evidence?

lesliedellow · Mar 2, 2017

bhsmte said:
I have no idea whether abiogenesis occured or not and certainly there is no scientific concensus that abiogenesis happened. Maybe one day evidence will produce this consencus or maybe it wont. My question for you is; what do you think would happen to your current religious beliefs, if science did reach a concensus, that abiogenesis, did likely happen, based on the evidence?

If the origin of life was miraculous, that would obviously be additional confirmation for religious believers. If it turned out to have a physical explanation, then it could be concluded that God was following his usual procedure, in using physical, political, or some other means, to further his ends.

Pachomius · Mar 2, 2017

Dear readers, this morning I came across this webpage of the Radical Atheist, and I noticed that the word certain in all its permutations like certainty, ascertain, etc., just that there is the root word, certain, they all do not have any place in this webpage of the Radical Atheist, which webpage is an account of what atheists all commonly believe in.

And yes it is all about believing in beliefs, nothing about certainty at all; there are so many infinitely many instances of the use of the words believe and beliefs.

And the reason why they have so many beliefs but nothing which they might describe as certain?

It is because they believe in Occam’s razor, here is the almost final conclusion in a way of the whole webpage:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
OCCAM’S RAZOR
Occam’s razor holds that, when selecting among competing hypotheses we should usually select the one which offers the simplest explanation, the foregoing beliefs are the simplest explanation for human condition. It logically follows that there is no god and we reject the possibility that god exists.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Take notice when you read the webpage, how they the atheists who authored this webpage, they never bother to explain what is a simple explanation as opposed to a non-simple explanation, much less the “simplest explanation.”

Actually(?) Occam’s words are:

"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem." Things should not be multiplied without necessity.
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate." Plurality must not be posited without necessity.

Almost in fact the idea was common among the medieval thinkers, it goes all the way back to Aquinas and from him all the way to Aristotle.

And here is in a most correct sense the preamble of this whole webpage, at the very beginning of the webpage:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Modern atheists hold many beliefs that are common to all or nearly all atheistic believers. To be sure, there are variations based on ongoing advancements in science and mathematics. But such differences are not pivotal to the modern atheist’s beliefs. We, being all modern day atheists, do verily believe and endorse the following tenets of Atheism and acknowledge them to be true and proven, by reasonable standards of logic, reason, science, mathematics, and/or observation:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hahahaha, see what they hold to be sacred:
“We, being all modern day atheists, do verily believe and endorse the following tenets of Atheism and acknowledge them to be true and proven, by reasonable standards of logic, reason, science, mathematics, and/or observation.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So, I must email them to tell them that they and me, we both have the same criteria of what is “true and proven." In my case I put it this way: "according to reason, intelligence, and observation, or more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas."

Read the ANNEX below for the whole webpage of concern, I am going now to find out whether and how dear lady atheist, KTS, has responded to my invite to her to tell me how she understands what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality, like for example that there is a nose in the human face.

ANNEX
What do atheists believe? | Radical Atheist

Radical Atheist

What do atheists believe?

Things to know about atheists

Modern atheists hold many beliefs that are common to all or nearly all atheistic believers. To be sure, there are variations based on ongoing advancements in science and mathematics. But such differences are not pivotal to the modern atheist’s beliefs. We, being all modern day atheists, do verily believe and endorse the following tenets of Atheism and acknowledge them to be true and proven, by reasonable standards of logic, reason, science, mathematics, and/or observation:

THE BEGINNING

Based upon the conclusions of those we reasonably believe to be the most intelligent, learned, rational, and knowledgeable in relevant intellectual pursuits, we believe that the theory known as The Big Bang correctly describes the beginning of our universe. We believe this is the only acceptable logic behind the creation of this universe.

LIFE

Based upon the conclusions made by learned men we believe:

1) That life came into being without purpose and without intelligent design or intervention.

2) That humans have not yet been able to create a living organism from inanimate materials, but one day we will be able to do so.

3) That some characteristics of things that are “alive” are that they: undergo metabolism, have a capacity to grow in size, maintain homeostasis, respond to stimuli, adapt to their environment and reproduce.

4) That concurrently with the advent of Life, The Speck revealed an additional law of nature – evolution. According to the law of evolution, living organisms evolve and adapt to the circumstances of their existence.

5) That the advent of living creatures also brought with it the concept of “purpose” to the universe. Living creatures imposed their own purposes on the universe. Two primary purposes which life imposed for itself are survival and reproduction.

6) That there is no identifiable reason why living things began to impose purposes into their existence, and we will never understand why this happened because life was created without purpose.

7) That more complex living organisms are more active in imposing their purposes, often affecting the purposes of other living organisms. The effects on competing organisms tend to be negative for one or all organisms competing for survival and reproduction. Cooperative organisms tend to enhance one another’s purposes through a relationship we refer to as symbiosis.

8) That from their meager origins as single cell organisms approximately 3.8 billion years ago, living organisms on earth, through applying their inexplicable purposes, evolved into the more than 8.7 billion separate species existing on earth today.

HUMANS

Regarding human beings, we believe:

1) That humans (homo sapiens) evolved according to the inexplicable purposes of their ancestor species, ultimately becoming the most evolved and intelligent life form on Earth.

2) The human brain controls all thoughts, emotions, speech, and actions of humans.

3) That the human brain is made up of two kinds of cells: neurons and glial cells. The entirety of brain activity is controlled by the interaction of its cells with electrical impulses (usually generated elsewhere in the human nervous system), and chemicals called neurotransmitters which exist in spaces between the brain cells (collectively, human electrochemical brain activity).

4) That human electrochemical brain activity gives humans free will and the ability to make choices regarding the individual human’s actions and inactions.

5) That such choices in turn affect human electrochemical brain activity to cause the human electrochemical brain activity to make additional choices.

6) That the human’s never-ending chain of choices, as determined by human electrochemical brain activity, become the human’s character or personality.

7) That the individual human’s personality or character, and his interactions with other living and inanimate objects determine: a) how the individual human will act or fail to act; b) what the individual will believe or not believe to be true; c) whether the human will choose purposes for his existence and which purposes he will choose.

8) That outside the realm of human electrochemical brain activity, there is no good or evil, right or wrong, fact or fallacy, love or hate, intelligence or idiocy, reason or insanity.

OCCAM’S RAZOR

Occam’s razor holds that, when selecting among competing hypotheses we should usually select the one which offers the simplest explanation, the foregoing beliefs are the simplest explanation for human condition. It logically follows that there is no god and we reject the possibility that god exists.

Some questions on atheist beliefs answered

How does one become an atheist? Some people are born that way and never buy into religion to begin with. Others grow up with religion and begin to question it later on. It usually happens in college, or during a midlife crisis, or after a traumatic experience that doesn’t quite fit in with the idea of an all-loving God.

Although it’s theoretically possible for a believer to become an atheist just by analyzing his beliefs in a logical and detached manner, such cases are rather rare. After all, religion is a very sensitive topic for most believers – it’s one of the first things they’ve ever learned, part of the foundation of their entire identity. Try challenging somebody’s beliefs and you’ll often get the same angry reaction you’d get if you insulted that person’s mother.

If you don’t believe in God, what’s the meaning of life? The meaning of life is to find a meaning. It’s what you make of it. For some people, it could be the pursuit of money, for others it’s serving their country or being a good parent. We atheists come from all walks of life, and we’re all different, except for our lack of belief in gods. Since we are not an organized movement or a religion, there is no official atheistic position on the meaning of life, just as there is no atheistic consensus on the best kind of ice cream.

Atheist beliefs just make a person selfish!

Some of us are selfish, and some of us are not. Sure, we get to sleep in on Sunday mornings, but just because we don’t want to spend our time praying to an invisible man in the sky, doesn’t mean there’s something inherently wrong with us. And moreover, what is more selfish: following a moral code and taking responsibility of all your actions, or justifying your wrong deeds just to score enough brownie points in the eyes of God?

Post navigation

← The Various Advantages of Being a Friendly Atheist The Atheist Experience part1 →

2 thoughts on “What do atheists believe?”

Abdinasir Sadik

January 17, 2017 at 5:36 pm

The most non logic think I ever see is life came without purpose, ok where live will go after die and who controls the time to die on the other who coordinates when life dies from legs,abdominal to head.

Reply

Rev. Patricia Campbell

January 26, 2017 at 11:23 pm

I found this to be a well thought out explanation of your belief system. As a Chaplain I explore all belief systems in order to support people as they journey toward death. This was helpful.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Top of Form

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

[End of ANNEX]

Pachomius · Mar 3, 2017

Dear readers, I have said for nth times already that God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Then also I have said for nth times already that atheists are into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, when the issue is God or no God.

Thirdly, I have also said nth times already that God exists as certain as man thinks on God existing or not, on reason and intelligence and observation, or more expansively with grounding himself on truths facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

Now, this morning I came to the idea to look up “methodology of theism” and “methodology of atheism”, and you know what I found from the stats of hits brought up by google?

Here:

“methodology of theism” About 531,000 results (0.34 seconds)
“methodology of atheism” About 36,100 results (0.17 seconds)

So?
So, atheists do not have any decent methodology in dealing with the issue God exists or not, but they are all the time and everywhere into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism in aid of nonsense, inanity, and vacuity.

No wonder with my attempts to talk sense with them, I have always come to the conclusion that it is hopeless, because they are always into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism: and that is no methodology at all.

Now, I will hazard to state that if they pursue a methodology at all, they will certainty come to the irrefutable conclusion that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

I will now go and see whether the dear lady atheist, KTS, has contributed anything really serious and productive to my inquiry from her, on what she has to tell me in regard to what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality outside and independent of our mind.

In the meantime please read the ANNEXES, while I read the new posts of today and report here again on my finding, in regard to KTS, the dear lady atheist here I have invited to exchange thoughts with me, on what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside and independent of our mind.

ANNEX 1
Google: "methodology of theism"
About 531,000 results (0.34 seconds)
No results found for "methodology of theism".
Results for methodology of theism (without quotes):

Search Results
Methodological naturalism - RationalWiki

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

Jump to Methodological naturalism and theism - The majority of scientists do not believe it is possible to combine methodological naturalism with ...

‎Methodological naturalism and ... · ‎Arguments against ... · ‎See Also · ‎References

THEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY, CLASSICAL THEISM, AND “LIVED ...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2009.01043.x/abstract

by JM Byrne - ‎2009 - ‎Cited by 4 - ‎Related articles

Nov 19, 2009 - with James M. Byrne, “Theological Methodology, Classical Theism, and 'Lived Time' in Antje Jackelén's Time and Eternity”; Varadaraja V.

Methodology - Metaphysics Theism - Wilmington For Christ

www.wilmingtonfavs.com › Metaphysics Theism

Methodology. Wed, 22 Feb 2012 | Metaphysics Theism. Aquinas is methodologically conscientious about his project in the first three books of SCG, as anyone ...

Theistic science - Wikipedia

Theistic science - Wikipedia

Theistic science, also referred to as theistic realism, is the pseudoscientific proposal that methodological naturalism should be replaced by a philosophy of ...

Scientific method and religion - Wikipedia

Scientific method and religion - Wikipedia

Some controversies exist over the relationship of scientific method to religion. For example, some dispute to what degree scientific method had its origins in Christian theism, or to what degree the scientific method as understood in ...

Method of Christian Theistic Epistemology | Presuppositionalism 101

Method of Christian Theistic Epistemology...

The Method Of Christian Theistic Epistemology The following is the unedited unabridged Chapter Fifteen of "A Survey of Christian Epistemology" by Cornelius ...

The Routledge Companion to Theism - Page 256 - Google Books Result

isbn:1136338233 - Google Search

Charles Taliaferro, ‎Victoria S. Harrison, ‎Stewart Goetz - 2012 - ‎Philosophy

METHODOLOGY. Charles. Taliaferro. Theism has flourished in Western philosophy, thanks in part to the work of Plato (428– 348 bce) and Aristotle (384–322 ...

[PDF]THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN CHRISTIAN THEISM, METAPHYSICAL ...

https://www.iclnet.org/pub/facdialogue/Issue26/METHMAT3.pdf

by JM van der Meer - ‎Related articles

Methodological materialism destroys theism, it needs theism to prevent it from functioning as metaphysical materialism, and it is inadequate to deal with reality.

THEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY, CLASSICAL THEISM, AND â ...

ResearchGate - Share and discover research...

THEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY, CLASSICAL THEISM, AND â€œLIVED TIMEâ€ IN ANTJE JACKELÃ‰N'S TIME AND ETERNITY on ResearchGate, the ...

[PDF]Why methodological naturalism? - Philsci-Archive

philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11003/1/metnat3.pdf

by H Halvorson - ‎2014 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles

Sep 2, 2014 - I discuss motivations for methodological naturalism in science. ..... tion between theism and methodological naturalism is more than just a.

Searches related to methodology of theism

methodological naturalism definition

methodological naturalism vs metaphysical naturalism

philosophical naturalism

methodological naturalism plantinga

ontological naturalism vs methodological naturalism

define philosophical naturalism

methodological naturalism example

scientific inquiry allows us to do what four things

12345678910 Next

_________________________________

ANNEX 2
Google: "methodology of atheism"
About 36,100 results (0.17 seconds)

Search Results
'New strategy needed' for rehabilitating IS child soldiers - BBC News

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35743577

Mar 7, 2016 - Boys adhere to a rigid curriculum, where drawing, history, philosophy and social studies - considered by IS to be "the methodology of atheism" ...

the methodology of atheism – WBNews - Tag

the methodology of atheism – WBNews - Tag

Boys adhere to a rigid curriculum, where drawing, history, philosophy and social studies - considered by IS to be "the methodology of atheism" - are removed.

How Islamic State is training child killers in doctrine of hate | World ...

News, sport and opinion from the Guardian's global edition | The Guardian › World › Islamic State

Mar 5, 2016 - Boys learn a rigid Islamic State curriculum, from which drawing, philosophy and social studies – described as the “methodology of atheism” ...

Atheism as a Positive Social Force - Page 3 - Google Books Result

isbn:087586211X - Google Search

Raymond W. Converse - 2003 - ‎Philosophy

The methodology of atheism is important in our consideration of the position, and the reader is invited as we go through the following chapters to return ...

Why Atheism? by George H. Smith, 2000 | Online Research Library ...

https://www.questia.com/library/99211680/why-atheism

Read the full-text online edition of Why Atheism? (2000).

[PDF]Atheism as a Positive Social Force - Thedivineconspiracy.org

www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5283T.pdf

by RW Converse - ‎Cited by 11 - ‎Related articles

who are interested to the point at which such a decision can be made in earnest. The methodology of atheism is important in our consideration of the position ...

Kazakhstan Moves To Ban 'Illegal' IS Video Showing Training Of ...

www.rferl.org/a/kazakhstan-islamic-state-recruitment-children.../26709628.html

Nov 25, 2014 - Their Kazakh teacher explains in Kazakh that in Kazakhstan, children were "raised on the methodology of atheism...the kuffar [infidels] ...

Why Atheists Cannot Avert the Burden of Proof - Shandon L. Guthrie

www.sguthrie.net/atheism_and_arg.htm

A further probe into the pedagogical methodology of atheism that we shall consider is this idea of the burden of proof. Some atheists superficially feel ...

[PDF]The Children of Islamic State - Hypotheses.org

https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/.../the-children-of-islamic-state.pdf

by N Benotman - ‎2016 - ‎Cited by 6 - ‎Related articles

studies, the 'methodology of atheism', have been removed. Instead, children churn out memorised verses of the Qur'an and attend 'Jihadi Training', which ...

ISIL training children to be soldiers, bombers and executioners on ...

www.thenational.ae/.../isil-training-children-to-be-soldiers-bombers-and-executioners-...

Mar 8, 2016 - "Boys learn a rigid Islamic State curriculum, where drawing, philosophy and social studies, the 'methodology of atheism', have been removed," ...

Searches related to "methodology of atheism"

isis using child soldiers

isis training child soldiers video

isis training recruitment

how does isis train

children of islamic state

isis training youtube

islamic state child soldiers

child soldier training

12345678910 Next

[End of ANNEXES]

HitchSlap · Mar 3, 2017

Mountainmike said:
One who follows the evidence, not as in Dawkins case, follows confirmation bias for his own a priori faith in atheism.

He wasn't atheist.

You don't Darwin much, do you?

HitchSlap · Mar 3, 2017

Pachomius said:
Dear readers, I have said for nth times already that God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

I concur. You've said this "nth" times.

How about that evidence you keep talking about.

Skreeper · Mar 3, 2017

Pachomius said:
Dear readers, I have said for nth times already that God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Then also I have said for nth times already that atheists are into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, when the issue is God or no God.

Thirdly, I have also said nth times already that God exists as certain as man thinks on God existing or not, on reason and intelligence and observation, or more expansively with grounding himself on truths facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

Now, this morning I came to the idea to look up “methodology of theism” and “methodology of atheism”, and you know what I found from the stats of hits brought up by google?

Here:

“methodology of theism” About 531,000 results (0.34 seconds)
“methodology of atheism” About 36,100 results (0.17 seconds)

So?
So, atheists do not have any decent methodology in dealing with the issue God exists or not, but they are all the time and everywhere into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism in aid of nonsense, inanity, and vacuity.

No wonder with my attempts to talk sense with them, I have always come to the conclusion that it is hopeless, because they are always into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism: and that is no methodology at all.

Now, I will hazard to state that if they pursue a methodology at all, they will certainty come to the irrefutable conclusion that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

I will now go and see whether the dear lady atheist, KTS, has contributed anything really serious and productive to my inquiry from her, on what she has to tell me in regard to what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality outside and independent of our mind.

In the meantime please read the ANNEXES, while I read the new posts of today and report here again on my finding, in regard to KTS, the dear lady atheist here I have invited to exchange thoughts with me, on what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside and independent of our mind.

ANNEX 1
Google: "methodology of theism"
About 531,000 results (0.34 seconds)
No results found for "methodology of theism".
Results for methodology of theism (without quotes):

Search Results
Methodological naturalism - RationalWiki

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

Jump to Methodological naturalism and theism - The majority of scientists do not believe it is possible to combine methodological naturalism with ...

‎Methodological naturalism and ... · ‎Arguments against ... · ‎See Also · ‎References

THEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY, CLASSICAL THEISM, AND “LIVED ...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2009.01043.x/abstract

by JM Byrne - ‎2009 - ‎Cited by 4 - ‎Related articles

Nov 19, 2009 - with James M. Byrne, “Theological Methodology, Classical Theism, and 'Lived Time' in Antje Jackelén's Time and Eternity”; Varadaraja V.

Methodology - Metaphysics Theism - Wilmington For Christ

www.wilmingtonfavs.com › Metaphysics Theism

Methodology. Wed, 22 Feb 2012 | Metaphysics Theism. Aquinas is methodologically conscientious about his project in the first three books of SCG, as anyone ...

Theistic science - Wikipedia

Theistic science - Wikipedia

Theistic science, also referred to as theistic realism, is the pseudoscientific proposal that methodological naturalism should be replaced by a philosophy of ...

Scientific method and religion - Wikipedia

Scientific method and religion - Wikipedia

Some controversies exist over the relationship of scientific method to religion. For example, some dispute to what degree scientific method had its origins in Christian theism, or to what degree the scientific method as understood in ...

Method of Christian Theistic Epistemology | Presuppositionalism 101

Method of Christian Theistic Epistemology...

The Method Of Christian Theistic Epistemology The following is the unedited unabridged Chapter Fifteen of "A Survey of Christian Epistemology" by Cornelius ...

The Routledge Companion to Theism - Page 256 - Google Books Result

isbn:1136338233 - Google Search

Charles Taliaferro, ‎Victoria S. Harrison, ‎Stewart Goetz - 2012 - ‎Philosophy

METHODOLOGY. Charles. Taliaferro. Theism has flourished in Western philosophy, thanks in part to the work of Plato (428– 348 bce) and Aristotle (384–322 ...

[PDF]THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN CHRISTIAN THEISM, METAPHYSICAL ...

https://www.iclnet.org/pub/facdialogue/Issue26/METHMAT3.pdf

by JM van der Meer - ‎Related articles

Methodological materialism destroys theism, it needs theism to prevent it from functioning as metaphysical materialism, and it is inadequate to deal with reality.

THEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY, CLASSICAL THEISM, AND â ...

ResearchGate - Share and discover research...

THEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY, CLASSICAL THEISM, AND â€œLIVED TIMEâ€ IN ANTJE JACKELÃ‰N'S TIME AND ETERNITY on ResearchGate, the ...

[PDF]Why methodological naturalism? - Philsci-Archive

philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11003/1/metnat3.pdf

by H Halvorson - ‎2014 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles

Sep 2, 2014 - I discuss motivations for methodological naturalism in science. ..... tion between theism and methodological naturalism is more than just a.

Searches related to methodology of theism

methodological naturalism definition

methodological naturalism vs metaphysical naturalism

philosophical naturalism

methodological naturalism plantinga

ontological naturalism vs methodological naturalism

define philosophical naturalism

methodological naturalism example

scientific inquiry allows us to do what four things

12345678910 Next

_________________________________

ANNEX 2
Google: "methodology of atheism"
About 36,100 results (0.17 seconds)

Search Results
'New strategy needed' for rehabilitating IS child soldiers - BBC News

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35743577

Mar 7, 2016 - Boys adhere to a rigid curriculum, where drawing, history, philosophy and social studies - considered by IS to be "the methodology of atheism" ...

the methodology of atheism – WBNews - Tag

the methodology of atheism – WBNews - Tag

Boys adhere to a rigid curriculum, where drawing, history, philosophy and social studies - considered by IS to be "the methodology of atheism" - are removed.

How Islamic State is training child killers in doctrine of hate | World ...

News, sport and opinion from the Guardian's global edition | The Guardian › World › Islamic State

Mar 5, 2016 - Boys learn a rigid Islamic State curriculum, from which drawing, philosophy and social studies – described as the “methodology of atheism” ...

Atheism as a Positive Social Force - Page 3 - Google Books Result

isbn:087586211X - Google Search

Raymond W. Converse - 2003 - ‎Philosophy

The methodology of atheism is important in our consideration of the position, and the reader is invited as we go through the following chapters to return ...

Why Atheism? by George H. Smith, 2000 | Online Research Library ...

https://www.questia.com/library/99211680/why-atheism

Read the full-text online edition of Why Atheism? (2000).

[PDF]Atheism as a Positive Social Force - Thedivineconspiracy.org

www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5283T.pdf

by RW Converse - ‎Cited by 11 - ‎Related articles

who are interested to the point at which such a decision can be made in earnest. The methodology of atheism is important in our consideration of the position ...

Kazakhstan Moves To Ban 'Illegal' IS Video Showing Training Of ...

www.rferl.org/a/kazakhstan-islamic-state-recruitment-children.../26709628.html

Nov 25, 2014 - Their Kazakh teacher explains in Kazakh that in Kazakhstan, children were "raised on the methodology of atheism...the kuffar [infidels] ...

Why Atheists Cannot Avert the Burden of Proof - Shandon L. Guthrie

www.sguthrie.net/atheism_and_arg.htm

A further probe into the pedagogical methodology of atheism that we shall consider is this idea of the burden of proof. Some atheists superficially feel ...

[PDF]The Children of Islamic State - Hypotheses.org

https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/.../the-children-of-islamic-state.pdf

by N Benotman - ‎2016 - ‎Cited by 6 - ‎Related articles

studies, the 'methodology of atheism', have been removed. Instead, children churn out memorised verses of the Qur'an and attend 'Jihadi Training', which ...

ISIL training children to be soldiers, bombers and executioners on ...

www.thenational.ae/.../isil-training-children-to-be-soldiers-bombers-and-executioners-...

Mar 8, 2016 - "Boys learn a rigid Islamic State curriculum, where drawing, philosophy and social studies, the 'methodology of atheism', have been removed," ...

Searches related to "methodology of atheism"

isis using child soldiers

isis training child soldiers video

isis training recruitment

how does isis train

children of islamic state

isis training youtube

islamic state child soldiers

child soldier training

12345678910 Next

[End of ANNEXES]

I see that you again post irrelevant google search results for the "nth time". Maybe you can start posting evidence for the first time instead?

Pachomius · Mar 3, 2017

Well, the dear atheist lady here, KTS, she is still no show, of course she has a job; but that did not stop her earlier from talking falsifiability endless with Michael.

So, I will now invite any atheist here to tell me what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside our mind and independent of our mind.

That is the way to prove among mankind that something exists at all, by first working to concur on what it is to prove something exists at all: wherefore we will all atheists and theists have a common criterion to bind ourselves to, in re the conclusion of God existing [or not existing].

It is no different in a way from what it is to prove that between two boxers in a boxing bout, which one is the winner, namely, by first working to concur on what is the sport of boxing and the rules to be observed by both boxers, and also accepted by all enthusiasts fans of boxing.

And that is why atheists dare not accept the need for them and me to first work as to concur on what it is to prove that something exists in reality, because by our eventually worked out concurrence on what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality, it cannot be otherwise than that they atheists will come to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
___________________

So, as KTS is now working at a job requiring her to be busy with it 24/7, please any atheist, please invite yourself to exchange thoughts with me on what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside of our mind and independent of our mind.

See you guys again tomorrow.

HitchSlap · Mar 3, 2017

Seek professional help.

Pachomius said:
Well, the dear atheist lady here, KTS, she is still no show, of course she has a job; but that did not stop her earlier from talking falsifiability endless with Michael.

So, I will now invite any atheist here to tell me what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside our mind and independent of our mind.

That is the way to prove among mankind that something exists at all, by first working to concur on what it is to prove something exists at all: wherefore we will all atheists and theists have a common criterion to bind ourselves to, in re the conclusion of God existing [or not existing].

It is no different in a way from what it is to prove that between two boxers in a boxing bout, which one is the winner, namely, by first working to concur on what is the sport of boxing and the rules to be observed by both boxers, and also accepted by all enthusiasts fans of boxing.

And that is why atheists dare not accept the need for them and me to first work as to concur on what it is to prove that something exists in reality, because by our eventually worked out concurrence on what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality, it cannot be otherwise than that they atheists will come to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
___________________

So, as KTS is now working at a job requiring her to be busy with it 24/7, please any atheist, please invite yourself to exchange thoughts with me on what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside of our mind and independent of our mind.

See you guys again tomorrow.

FreeinChrist · Mar 3, 2017

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for staff review.

Paidiske · Mar 5, 2017

MOD HAT ON

Some posts have been removed.

Please note and abide by CF's rules on vulgarity.

MOD HAT OFF

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 5, 2017

Mountainmike said:
... The simplest cell is a massive adaptive selfreplicating chemical factory, and the idea that it came as an accident does not even qualify as a hypothesis. It cannot be replicated, has never been observed to pop into existence and no testable process for how it came to be has ever been conjectured.

Straw man fallacy. No model for abiogenesis proposes that the simplest contemporary cell 'popped into existence' accidentally. The simplest cells known today are the products of at least 3.5 billion years of evolution. The earliest replicators may not have been cells at all.

EverettInterpretation · Mar 5, 2017

THE BEGINNING

"Based upon the conclusions of those we reasonably believe to be the most intelligent, learned, rational, and knowledgeable in relevant intellectual pursuits, we believe that the theory known as The Big Bang correctly describes the beginning of our universe. We believe this is the only acceptable logic behind the creation of this universe."

The Big Bang is the accepted working description of the beginning of the Inflationary process.
The Copernican principle prevents us from concluding that the beginning of this process and the beginning of our (observable) universe are the same event. To say that the beginning of one is also the beginning of the other is to violate the Copernican principle.

EverettInterpretation · Mar 6, 2017

Even though it seems that Pachomius won't be participating in this thread any more, I'd still like the following to be recorded.

#1.
The Radical Atheist... Things To Know About Atheists | Radical Atheist ...doesn't speak for me when it comes to cosmology.

#2.
I do not accept his description of THE BEGINNING.

#3.
From his description, it's not possible to know if he is referring to a pre-Inflationary model of the Big Bang or an Inflationary one. The former is no longer the currently accepted cosmological theory of the origin of the universe.

#4.
He doesn't describe any difference between the beginning of the Inflationary process and the beginning of our (observable) universe and appears to conflate these two separate events. Doing that violates the Copernican principle.

Thanks,

E.I.

How to prove God exists.

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Ms Snarky

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Member

Newbie

Newbie

PROUDLY PRIMATE

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

Newbie

PROUDLY PRIMATE

CF Advisory team

Clara bonam audax

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency