How to prove God exists.

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is a thing called theology.

Theology is not an empirical science which is concerned with observation and learning.
It is only concerned with reverse matching religious scripture to reality.

There's Islamic, christian and hindu theology.
But there is no Islamic physics, hindu geology and christian chemistry.
There just is physics, geology and chemistry. And it is the same physics, geology and chemistry for everybody - regardless of their geographic location, cultural background or religious beliefs they happened to be born into.

 

[just a believing guy]

Are you really going to deny that early Americans didn't slaughter native americans and subsequently stole their land?

Maybe you should stop getting your history lessons from hollywood.

There is archaeology you know, not just Hollywood.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is there any other civilization model in sight?

You already live in one.
It's called secular democracy.

Last I checked, we don't live in a christian theocracy.
Instead, we live in a secular democracy where the church/religion is irrelevant in political policy.

 

[just a believing guy]

dp

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is unnecessary nitpicking which needlessly obfuscates what is involved..

Err, no....
You said: "From our standpoint your position is a mere assertion of belief and not a fact and is contingent on accepting your irrational unjustifiable atheist assumptions so they can't be used to support your belief."

This entire statement literally falls and stands on 3 assertions:
- atheism is a belief
- atheism consists of irrational, unjustifiable assumptions
- there are atheistic beliefs to be supported

ALL THREE are strawmen.
- atheism is a DISbelief of theism; not a belief in itself
- atheism as such makes NO assumptions; in fact, it could be said that atheism is precisely the position of NOT making religious assumptions
- as such, there are no atheistic beliefs that require any supporting; theistic beliefs are what require support... atheism is what you fall back on when you don't accept the theistic beliefs.

So, no, it is NOT "nitpicking" to point out the utter absurdity of that entire statement. It uses no less then 3 strawmen in a single sentence.

No point is being "obfuscated" here. Instread, by pointing out the fallacies, it is shown that there is no point, because the point that is supposed to be made is invalid due to the fallacious premises.

 

[Radrook]

Err, no....
You said: "From our standpoint your position is a mere assertion of belief and not a fact and is contingent on accepting your irrational unjustifiable atheist assumptions so they can't be used to support your belief."

This entire statement literally falls and stands on 3 assertions:
- atheism is a belief
- atheism consists of irrational, unjustifiable assumptions
- there are atheistic beliefs to be supported

ALL THREE are strawmen.
- atheism is a DISbelief of theism; not a belief in itself
- atheism as such makes NO assumptions; in fact, it could be said that atheism is precisely the position of NOT making religious assumptions
- as such, there are no atheistic beliefs that require any supporting; theistic beliefs are what require support... atheism is what you fall back on when you don't accept the theistic beliefs.

So, no, it is NOT "nitpicking" to point out the utter absurdity of that entire statement. It uses no less then 3 strawmen in a single sentence.

No point is being "obfuscated" here. Instread, by pointing out the fallacies, it is shown that there is no point, because the point that is supposed to be made is invalid due to the fallacious premises.

Atheism
I am referring to gnostic, militaristic atheists who do vehemently assert that there positively is no God. I was not referring to the agnostic atheism that you are describing and which is mentioned below.

Agnostic atheism

is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism.

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.
Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia

The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one.
Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia

I made the mistake of assuming that you are aware that atheism has gradations.

Please note that such a position is controversial because it appears to some that atheism and agnosticism are incompatible. That is the way it seems to me as well.

Christian apologist William Lane Craig define atheism as the denial of the existence of a god, and claim that agnosticism and atheism are incompatible.
Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia

About atheism consisting of absolutely no beliefs whatsoever.

Please note that isf that were literally true then atheism would be undefinable. Obviously that isn't the case and the beliefs of those who claim to be atheists are always used to provide a definition.
Disbelief in something or a declaration that one doesn't know one ay or the other constitutes a belief or an opinion if you prefer. So you are logically contradicting yourself.

Here are some synonyms for the word ""belief""

• assumption = Your assumptions of of the agnostic kind.
• conclusion = Your conclusion is an agnostic one
• conviction = your convictions are of an agnostic sort.

• feeling = Your feelings are of an agnostic type
• idea = Your idea falls into the agnostic category
• opinion= your opinion is an agnostic on
• position = your position is an agnostic one
• others can be found here: I found great synonyms for "belief" on the new Thesaurus.com!

​

Denial than any of these synonyms are indeed synonyms for the concept of "belief" would only serve to prove that the irrational one in this discussion isn't me-it's you. In short, your entire idea is nonsensical.

 

[FredVB]

How would I give proof? How do any give proof that anything can come from absolute nothing? This being illogical is why I am certain of the necessary existence that is explanatory of further existence being made.

 

[bhsmte]

How would I give proof? How do any give proof that anything can come from absolute nothing? This being illogical is why I am certain of the necessary existence that is explanatory of further existence being made.

Can you demonstrate that absolutely nothing has ever existed?

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, a darwinian one.

But darwinian evolution is stated to have no reason or end goal for what it's doing - it's just mindlessly happening. If that's true then there actually can't be a reason for why/how we're self-aware, which means there's no truth to be discovered about it, which means any effort to discover the truth is futile, which means all science is futile.

It's not difficult to see why people reject the notion that we're merely a result of mindless happenstance.

 

[Radrook]

How would I give proof? How do any give proof that anything can come from absolute nothing? This being illogical is why I am certain of the necessary existence that is explanatory of further existence being made.

Easy! By giving the idea of "nothing" a brand new meaning as atheist scientists do.

 

[quatona]

I am referring to gnostic, militaristic atheists who do vehemently assert that there positively is no God.

Then you better not say "you" when you talk about that subgroup of atheists.

 

[Radrook]

Then you better not say "you" when you talk about that subgroup of atheists.

OK! Is you happy nows?

 

[quatona]

OK! Is you happy nows?

Happy? No.
But I would certainly be a tad less annoyed when you stop doing it. Thanks.

 

[Radrook]

Happy? No.
But I would certainly be a tad less annoyed when you stop doing it. Thanks.

Yow! Wow! Almost got the tip of my fingertips nipped that time!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Can you demonstrate that absolutely nothing has ever existed?

One can't help feeling that the existence of absolutely nothing is oxymoronic

 

[quatona]

One can't help feeling that the existence of absolutely nothing is oxymoronic

To be fair - it seems to me that this is a problem of language rather than a conceptual problem.
(And no, I am not saying that it makes much sense to assume that there was ever such a state.)

 

[quatona]

Yow! Wow! Almost got the tip of my fingertips nipped that time!

Clumsy when typing?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But darwinian evolution is stated to have no reason or end goal for what it's doing - it's just mindlessly happening. If that's true then there actually can't be a reason for why/how we're self-aware, which means there's no truth to be discovered about it, which means any effort to discover the truth is futile, which means all science is futile.

There are certainly reasons for self-awareness, just as there are reasons for all evolved traits. They just aren't teleological reasons. Whether it's possible to ever know the 'truth' of specific non-analytic historical propositions is a tricky philosophical question, but we can can have levels of confidence up to 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Humans give their own meaning and purpose to what they do - science is only futile for you if you think it is futile, i.e. if you think it doesn't, and can't, do anything useful. Your use of advanced technology suggests that's not the case.

It's not difficult to see why people reject the notion that we're merely a result of mindless happenstance.

Yes; it's not difficult to see why people also rejected heliocentrism, germ theory, relativity, the expanding universe, etc., etc. People tend to resist ideas that contradict what they've always believed, and that means they often have difficulty understanding those ideas. It's human nature - it happens within the sciences too, as Thomas Kuhn described in 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To be fair - it seems to me that this is a problem of language rather than a conceptual problem.

Perhaps; when people talk of 'absolutely nothing' (not Krauss's 'empty spacetime'), I think of the paradox of a box containing 'absolutely nothing'; it would be squashed flat so there is absolutely nothing between the walls, i.e. they are touching.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, the other Great Apes can light a cigarette as well imitating humans, but lack the knowledge of just how damaging cigarettes are.

Another random comment that completely misses the point being made.
Or is it a random comment to distract from the point being made? Not sure.

Nobody is talking about apes "imitating" humans.
Great apes are self-aware, regardless of humans. It's just the way it is.