How to prove God exists.

[Radrook]

You know... something overwhelming should be, well, overwhelming. Not be said to be overwhelming.

I know that most religions - and Christianity especially - are authoritarian systems. But for some things that are deliberately spelled out to not be based on authority, but on personal impact... relying on authority instead of impact rather negates the concept, wouldn't you agree?

It isn't merely SAID to be-it IS overwhelming and not merely based on authority.

Please note that selective blindness, or refusal to acknowledge or to see doesn't prove absence of evidence-it only demonstrates the need to deploy selective blindness whenever deemed convenient.

Mike over there in keeps constantly pointing out exactly how it is that such selective blindness, which involves inconsistency of policy, is methodically practiced in science today whenever anything considered threatening to the status quo is suggested. Yet he is always told that it isn't compelling evidence despite the very poignant fact that it clearly is.

Unfortunately absolutely no significant headway can ever be made against such an obstinate modus operanmdi and that's why it is called invincible ignorance.
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

 

[Radrook]

Indeed - if it was overwhelming, one would expect to be overwhelmed...

That isn't what the Bible teaches. The Bible tells us that those who aren't overwhelmed aren't overwhelmed due to very sinister reasons.

2 Corinthians 4:4 ►
New International Version
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see....

 

[Freodin]

It isn't merely SAID to be-it IS overwhelming and not merely based on authority.

If it IS overwhelming... shouldn't it overwhelm? And if it would... why not present it and let it do its job, instead of resorting to the authoritarian claim of "Well, the Bible says it, and Jesus and the Apostels say it... that means it is, and we don't have to show anything more."

Please note that selective blindness, or refusal to acknowledge or to see doesn't prove absence of evidence-it only demonstrates the need to deploy selective blindness whenever deemed convenient.

Mike over there in keeps constantly pointing out exactly how it is that such selective blindness, which involves inconsistency of policy, is methodically practiced in science today whenever anything considered threatening to the status quo is suggested. Yet he is always told that it isn't compelling evidence despite the very poignant fact that it clearly is.

Unfortunately absolutely no significant headway can ever be made against such an obstinate modus operanmdi and that's why it is called invincible ignorance.
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

I would not disagree with something along these lines might be the case... but still, if it doesn't overwhelm - or "compell" - then, for whatever reason, it is neither overwhelming nor compelling.

And this especially the case if there isn't even the attempt to compell, but just the excuse of "it is compelling... you are blind not to be compelled".

 

[Freodin]

That isn't what the Bible teaches. The Bible tells us that those who aren't overwhelmed aren't overwhelmed due to very sinister reasons.

I find it very amusing that you really think this kind of reasoning has any kind of value.

You only have to consider that a line of thinking that deep into obscurism can be used to support every kind of claim... and thus is useless to support any kind of claim.

"Religion is self-destructive addiction bahaviour, and Christianity is the worst form of mind-drugs of all of them. Science tells us so. And anyone who disagrees with that is obviously a mindless drone who has for his own nefarious reasons submitted to this drug and given up his humanity. Science tells us that also, and because science also says that it is true, it is true."

 

[Radrook]

If it IS overwhelming... shouldn't it overwhelm? And if it would... why not present it and let it do its job, instead of resorting to the authoritarian claim of "Well, the Bible says it, and Jesus and the Apostels say it... that means it is, and we don't have to show anything more."


I would not disagree with something along these lines might be the case... but still, if it doesn't overwhelm - or "compell" - then, for whatever reason, it is neither overwhelming nor compelling.

And this especially the case if there isn't even the attempt to compell, but just the excuse of "it is compelling... you are blind not to be compelled".

As I just pointed out, the Bible clearly tells us that some would not be overwhelmed or would fake not being overwhelmed and explained reasons why. Twisting things around so that what I wrote seems mean what you think I meant regardless of my explanations is timewasting and silly.

 

[Speedwell]

As I just pointed out, the Bible clearly tells us that some would not be overwhelmed or would fake not being overwhelmed and explained reasons why. Twisting things around so that what I wrote seems mean what you think I meant regardless of my explanations is timewasting and silly.

Yet a person can be overwhelmed by the glory of God as manifest in His creation, even witness to it successfully, without being able to "prove" that God exists to the satisfaction of a non believer.

In my experience, a person trying to prove the existence of God, rather than evangelize, generally has a political motive rather than a religious one--often an unsavory one.

 

[Freodin]

As I just pointed out, the Bible clearly tells us that some would not be overwhelmed or would fake not being overwhelmed and explained reasons why. Twisting things around so that what I wrote seems mean what you think I meant regardless of my explanations is timewasting and silly.

Exactly. As you just pointed out "the Bible clearly tells us". Resorting to authority, not to reason.

 

[Radrook]

I find it very amusing that you really think this kind of reasoning has any kind of value.

You only have to consider that a line of thinking that deep into obscurism can be used to support every kind of claim... and thus is useless to support any kind of claim.

"Religion is self-destructive addiction bahaviour, and Christianity is the worst form of mind-drugs of all of them. Science tells us so. And anyone who disagrees with that is obviously a mindless drone who has for his own nefarious reasons submitted to this drug and given up his humanity. Science tells us that also, and because science also says that it is true, it is true."

The Bible tells us that there are those who see light as darkness. or who are unable to see the light at all. Your tagging of everything biblical as obsurism demonstrates that you fall under that category.

Luke 11:34 Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your vision is clear, your whole body also is full of light. But when it is poor, your body is full of darkness. 35Be careful, then, that the light within you is not darkness.

As for giving up of humanity, humanity was created with the sole purpose of serving its maker, so atheists are the ones casting aside this duty and in the process casting aside what it truly means to be human.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 ►
New International Version
Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind.

 

[Radrook]

Exactly. As you just pointed out "the Bible clearly tells us". Resorting to authority, not to reason.

The reason is provided as the evidence found in nature as I pointed out several times already but which you claim not to see nor understand as usual. Such droning responses are similar to mantras which are mindlessly repeated and are inimical to discussions.

 

[Freodin]

Yet a person can be overwhelmed by the glory of God as manifest in His creation, even witness to it successfully, without being able to "prove" that God exists to the satisfaction of a non believer.

In my experience, a person trying to prove the existence of God generally has a political motive rather than a religious one.

But a person can also be NOT overwhelmed by what others think is "the glory of God"... or doesn't see any reason to connect that to "God".

But as the Bible clearly tells us, they do so for nefarious reasons, and so can be ignored, cast out, talked down to... its after all not the Christian's job to explain why anything is "overwhelming evidence". The Bible says it, that settles it.

I would still say that this is one of my major reasons not to believe in Christianity or theistic religion at all: any deity worth that name should be able to do a better job.

 

[Freodin]

The reason is provided as the evidence found in nature as I pointed out several times already but you claim not to see nor understand as usual.

And that is not overwhelming reason, as has been explained to you a number of times now.
You chose not to see that. What are your nefarious reasons for that blinded behaviour?

 

[Freodin]

The Bible tells us that there are those who see light as darkness. or who are unable to see the light at all. Your tagging of everything biblical as obsurism demonstrates that you fall under that category.



As for giving up of humanity, humanity was created with the sole purpose of serving its maker, so atheists are the ones casting aside this duty and in the process casting aside what it truly means to be human.

Referring back to authority. It is obvious and overwhelming that you do not have anything else to back up your claims.

 

[Radrook]

And that is not overwhelming reason, as has been explained to you a number of times now.
You chose not to see that. What are your nefarious reasons for that blinded behaviour?

That this juncture it is best to agree to disagree and leave it there in order to avoid wastage of valuable time in an exercise in futility.

 

[Radrook]

Referring back to authority. It is obvious and overwhelming that you do not have anything else to back up your claims.

They aren't my personal claims. They are a statement of solid fact which atheistic wishful thinking can't nullify via totally irrational propositions.

 

[Freodin]

That this juncture it is best to agree to disagree and leave it there in order to avoid wastage of valuable time in an exercise in futility.

"Agreeing to disagree" in such a regard is just an easy excuse of "I don't have any way to reasonable deal with your arguments. I don't want to deal with them. You cannot make me! Shut up, I am not listening to anything you say anymore."

 

[Freodin]

They aren't my personal claims. They are a statement of solid fact which atheistic wishful thinking can't nullify via totally irrational propositions.

And they are established as "solid facts", because the Bible, Jesus and the Apostels all agree on them, right?

That's not how it works, pal!

 

[Chriliman]

That physical reality is all there is. Metaphysics does not exist. The philosopher Axel Hägerström is a big thinker in this.

Do you acknowledge the difference between your material body and your non-material mind and that both exist in reality?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What you have done in this post of yours is setting monopoly of science on knowledge, learning, observing and reasoning.

No, not at all. There are many ways to gain knowledge and learn by observation and reasoning. People were doing that long before science was a discipline. The problem was that various procedural and cognitive errors and biases tended to make the knowledge unreliable. Science developed as various people discovered ways to minimize those errors and biases, making it the most effective framework for gaining knowledge about how the world behaves.

But it's just a tool; it's not perfect, and there are trade-offs; using the full rigour of the scientific method is difficult, expensive, tedious, and time-consuming, and may not be possible in some circumstances. Conflicting interests try to manipulate it in various ways, and it can be faked. That's just human nature - tools can be abused.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That physical reality is all there is. Metaphysics does not exist. The philosopher Axel Hägerström is a big thinker in this.

That sounds more like physicalism or naturalism. To me, metaphysics is a subject - the philosophy of the nature of reality - ontology, causality, counterfactuals, identity, philosophical cosmology, materialism - and stuff like free-will, determinism, etc.

I suspect we're using different meanings for metaphysics...

 

[Radrook]

And they are established as "solid facts", because the Bible, Jesus and the Apostels all agree on them, right?

That's not how it works, pal!

They are established as solid facts because cogent reasoning compels us to view them that way. The fact that Jesus, the Bible and the Apostles agree are added benefits.