How to prove God exists.

[Mountainmike]

Dawkins is not an educator, or scientist, because he does not care for truth, he only cares for promoting his paradigm of existence, abusing science to do it,

If he cared for truth he would start by talking about the limits of what science can achieve in philosophical scope.
He clearly has not worked that out even yet.

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.

 

[lesliedellow]

Dawkins is not an educator, or scientist, because he does not care for truth, he only cares for promoting his paradigm of existence, abusing science to do it,

If he cared for truth he would start by talking about the limits of what science can achieve in philosophical scope.
He clearly has not worked that out even yet.

To be fair to him, I hear people, who have no time whatsoever for his inept tirades against religion, still saying that he can write well when he sticks to what he knows about - i.e. biology.

 

[HitchSlap]

Dawkins is not an educator, or scientist, because he does not care for truth, he only cares for promoting his paradigm of existence, abusing science to do it,

If he cared for truth he would start by talking about the limits of what science can achieve in philosophical scope.
He clearly has not worked that out even yet.

I've read at least half a dozen books by Dawkins, and I'm not so sure your opinion is very accurate. It seem you might be twisting the truth to fit your preconceived notion of Dawkins?

 

[Mountainmike]

I've read at least half a dozen books by Dawkins, and I'm not so sure your opinion is very accurate. It seem you might be twisting the truth to fit your preconceived notion of Dawkins?

Poor you.
How you can cope with the endless repetitive illinformed ranting is beyond me!

 

[bhsmte]

Poor you.
How you can cope with the endless repetitive illinformed ranting is beyond me!

Dawkin's personal opinion on religion, should be viewed separatly from his knowledge of science. I view francis collins the same way. I respect collins science knowledge, while disagreeing with his religious opinion.

 

[HitchSlap]

Poor you.
How you can cope with the endless repetitive illinformed ranting is beyond me!

So, you haven't read any Dawkins. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that if you read just one of his books, say, "Unweaving The Rainbow," you'd change your opinion of Dawkins.

"This is the book [Unweaving The Rainbow] Richard Dawkins was meant to write: a brilliant assessment of what science is (and isn't), a tribute to science not because it is useful but because it is uplifting."

So, it seems he does actually explain limitations of science. But of course if you had actually read Dawkins, and not just what creo sites say about him, you might learn something.

 

[MissRowy]

What Dawkins writes about science is accurate. In fact most of it you will read in most biology textbooks. "The Ancestors Tale" is a good way to get a grasp on biology if you have never done it before. Don't judge someone because they make a point that you disagree with.

 

[Kylie]

So, as KTS is now working at a job requiring her to be busy with it 24/7...

And this is the kind of attitude that you should NOT have if you want people to actually deal with you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For all practical purposes I like to make a clear line of demarcation between those who aren't sure that God exists-Agnostics and those who are certain that God doesn't exist-Atheists

As has been pointed out to you, ow so many times.... that's not an accurate description of atheism at all and you'll find very little atheists, if any, who would agree to such a description.

As for Einstein really being an atheisat, well, he just doesn't seem to fit into my personal definition

At least you recognise that it is your own "personal" defintion as opposed to the actual "public" definition that other people use.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Google: theists seek psychiatrists’ help
About 446,000 results (0.48 seconds)

Google: atheists seek psychiatrists’ help
About 1,290,000 results (0.58 seconds)

So, what does that mean?

That more pages matched one or more terms in your searchstring for the second search.

Well, the way I see it, atheists seem to be less mentally and emotionally as healthy as theists.

Well, if we are going to pretend irrationally that the amount of google search results is the statistical equivalent of actual proportional groups of people that seek psychiatric help for both demographics...

Then it seems to me that the only thing that such a statistic allows you to conclude is that an atheist is simply more likely to seek psychiatric help for whatever mental problem that they think they have.

Which kind of makes sense in a way, since it's not exactly uncommon that theists with mental problems consider themselves just "challenged by demons" or whatever and subsequently seek help from religious communities, pastors, reading the bible, etc.


In any case, your conclusion is, off course, completely without any evidential support.

The way I see it, it’s because atheists have a dissonance between their psychology and their epistemology on the one side, and reality on the other side, due to their relentless but desperate i.e. frustrating and exasperating failure to achieve harmony between their psychology and their epistemology on the one side, and reality on the other side.

That means that atheists suffer from internal conflict between their emotional and mental status on the one side, and the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence, on the other side.

So now... not only have simply assumed that "seeking help" equals an actual psychological problem... nope, you've also limited it to specific types of problems and even pretend to know the causes thereof.

It's one baseless assumption upon the other - and quite arrogant and condescending at that as well.

You're earning many combo-points in your use of multiple logical fallacies at once here...

And existence is the evidence to the reality of God existing

Not any more then existance is the evidence of the matrix.

Think about that.

Nothing to think about. Just a rather meaningless google search followed by a ton of arrogant and baseless assumptions and invalid conclusions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I am now asking atheists to tell me whether they know about the reality of causation, I looked up these two phrases:

theists and causation
atheists and causation

See in ANNEXES below on the hits found by google, in my next post.

I will just here give you the stats.

theists and causation
About 1,080,000 results (0.49 seconds)

atheists and causation
About 104,000 results (0.40 seconds)

So, as I know already, atheists are allergic to causation,

This new method of statistical inquiry is really amazing!!

Let's see what else it can teach us...
I just googled "theist sexual abuse" and "atheist sexual abuse".

Theist abuse gave me 537.000 results
Atheist abuse gave me only 501 results

I invite you to use your very own logic to follow these results to their obvious conclusion.
Or, alternatively, you could drop this ridiculous "method" of statistical inquiry.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Causality is a phenomena of physics as it applies in the space-time continuum.
It is necessarily temporal, since effects happen after causes.

Therefor, causality can not be invoked to explain the very origins of the space-time continuum itself.

No space-time = no time = no temporal conditions = no causality.

Whatever "triggered" the big bang (by lack of a better word), it was an uncaused event by definition in context of what we understand causality to be.

In order to still posit some "cause", in the sense of what we understand by causality, you'ld have to make a boatload of assumptions that simply aren't in evidence in any way.

 

[lesliedellow]

At least you recognise that it is your own "personal" defintion as opposed to the actual "public" definition that other people use.

"There are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views."

It is not entirely clear that even Einstein knew whether he was a theist or not. He seems to have been conflicted about it. What is certain is that he would have had no time for Richard Dawkins & Co.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What Dawkins writes about science is accurate. In fact most of it you will read in most biology textbooks. "The Ancestors Tale" is a good way to get a grasp on biology if you have never done it before. Don't judge someone because they make a point that you disagree with.

The ancestors tale is an absolute masterpiece, imo.
Read it front-to-back in a week on a beach in Crete.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"There are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views."

It is not entirely clear that even Einstein knew whether he was a theist or not. He seems to have been conflicted about it. What is certain is that he would have had no time for Richard Dawkins & Co.

That was about as irrelevant to my statement as it gets.
The quoted portion doesn't even include the word "atheist" - let alone what is to be understood by it.

Regardless, you'ld be VERY hard pressed to find a single atheist who would self-identify his atheism by agreeing that it includes the claim "there is no god".

So to then impose such a description on the word "atheist"/"atheism" is nothing short of simply dishonest.

 

[bhsmte]

"There are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views."

It is not entirely clear that even Einstein knew whether he was a theist or not. He seems to have been conflicted about it. What is certain is that he would have had no time for Richard Dawkins & Co.

Einstein made it very clear with statements, that he felt belief in personal gods, was childlike. He appeared to leave the door open to a non personal, deist type of god.

 

[Speedwell]

"There are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views."

It is not entirely clear that even Einstein knew whether he was a theist or not. He seems to have been conflicted about it. What is certain is that he would have had no time for Richard Dawkins & Co.

My take on Dawkins is that he really didn't know very much about religion except in-your-face creationism, which he tended to over-generalize.

 

[lesliedellow]

My take on Dawkins is that he really didn't know very much about religion except in-your-face creationism, which he tended to over-generalize.

He certainly knew of colleagues who were religious, one of whom is a personal friend of his. It has always seemed to me a minor miracle that he managed to hold on to that friend, having told him that he was deluded.

 

[bhsmte]

Look up dawkins youtube interview with creationist wendy wright. It seemed to be this type of thinking, that dawkins railed against.

 

[ananda]

Dear readers of this thread, first I want to thank you for coming over.

Next I want to thank the founders, owners, operators of these forums, because I have never been in any way curtailed in my exposition of my thoughts here; otherwise everywhere I went I got eventually sooner than later banned, for writing on my thinking and they did not like it.

Now, the present thread is an experiment, and dear readers you will get to know the objective of this thread, as you read my thinking on my exposition on how to prove God exists.

Here goes.

First and before anything else, people who care to prove God exists, or for people who care to disprove or to deny God exists even without proving, because they just want to insist that God does not exist, or they want to maintain their right to not admit that God exists...

First and before anything else, all peoples have got to harbor in their mind or brain the information of the concept of God, otherwise they are not acting rationally and in fact they are acting un-intelligently.

So, dear posters here, and dear readers here who don't post: please, do speak out instead of being all the time passively reading, and not contributing your own thoughts on the issue God exists (or not).

At this point, I will invite posters here to give their comments, on my statement that first and foremost, peoples who want to prove or disprove or deny God exists even without proving anything at all, please give your comments in reaction to my statement about people not having at all any information on the concept of God Which God is to be proven to exist or to not exist, that they are conducting themselves irrationally and even un-intelligently.


So dear readers of this thread, let us sit back and await posters here to present their comments, on my statement that:

First and foremost you have got to have information on the concept of God, in order to be relevant to the proof or disproof of God existing, otherwise you are conducting yourselves irrationally or in particular un-intelligently.​

Again, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await posters here to present their comments or words, to the effect of reacting to my statement immediately preceding this ending paragraph of my post here.



[ A similar thread from me is started in another internet forum. ]

As a Buddhist, I neither insist nor desist from the concept of "God". It is irrelevant, as I can neither prove nor disprove its existence.

What I do know, for myself, from direct experience, is dukkha/suffering, its cause, its ending, and the way to its cessation.