How to prove God exists.

[Radrook]

When we ask if God exists, I think we are really asking if there is a pre-Creation God. Now that, we cannot prove on our own.

.

So you disagree with the Apostle Paul when he said that God is manifested in creation and that there is no excuse for denying this?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.​

Ok. Where can we find this information or concept and how do we know if that information or concept is an accurate description?

 

[Pachomius]

Tetra asks: "Are you purposing some sort of ontological argument here?"

No need to bring in a techical term here.

Just get the concept of God correct, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

Then let us invite ourselves to look for God's presence in the universe, in man, and in everything with a beginning.

There, the universe and man and everything with a beginning they all exist, so presto God exists, corresponding to the concept of God, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You will say, that is circular reasoning, another technical term.

Of course if you want to move in a circle continuously inside your brain, I will not stop you.

Don't be silly with your useless circular thinking all in your brain, just you and I we go into the universe and man and everything with a beginning, they all exist as having a beginning.

Wherefore they are the evidence of the presence of God creating and operating as to keep them in existence.

There, that is the proof of the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Are you purposing some sort of ontological argument here?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This video offers many compelling reasons why it is totally logical to conclude that an ID exists.

Didn't you just make post after post after post in your "id" threads, that you aren't talking about gods then?

So much for your honesty on that point, I guess.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that God exists 1%. Is he transcends by what I believe, by at least 99%.

 

[Radrook]

Funny how accurate descriptions become irrelevant

I think that God exists 1%. Is he transcends by what I believe, by at least 99%.

That 99% doesn't nullify his existence nor make the belief in his existence any less justifiable or less logical.

 

[Quasiblogo]

So you disagree with the Apostle Paul when he said that God is manifested in creation and that there is no excuse for denying this?

I don't, but I do see your point. And in that sense, that brings the discussion back to the post-Creation side. In which case, I side with Paul.

 

[quatona]

There, that is the proof of the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Wait, do I get this right?
All that´s required for a proof is:
- telling everybody else they are wrong
- misrepresenting competing views
- throwing in some insults for good measure,
and you are done?
Amazing.

 

[smithed64]

Nope, the author of Luke/Acts seems to have been a follower of Paul not Peter.

He followed both. More with Paul than Peter though.

Never said that or implied that. In fact I said the opposite. It was written for a literate Greek reading group. That was not your typical Israelite.

Sorry, but the author of Acts was definitely not preaching to the locals. First you must remember that Acts was writtne in Greek for a illiterate Greek speaking audience. He was a follower of Paul, another nonwitness that ended up in Rome. He was not writing for the typical Jews in Israel.

That is what you said. Now if you meant the latter.
Still false, Many of those who were literate at that time were multilingual. They spoke Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

Possibly written by Luke. The authorship is not certain. And still no reason given to believe the "3,000 witnesses" claim.

Also no reason to doubt it didn't happen.



Possibly.

No, it is not just my opinion. It is no more valid than if you saw the same claim in the Koran. A point that you did not seem to understand. And the number of Christians that follow a false belief is not evidence either.

Still your opinion.

Correct, the amount doubting a dubious story does not make it false.

More opinion.

So you are admitting that is is probably not true? At least that is what it seems that you are saying. And calling the Bible "God's Word" is highly blasphemous. I would not do that.

No, it's true.
And it is God's Word. He inspired it.

 

[bhsmte]

This video offers many compelling reasons why it is totally logical to conclude that an ID exists.

You sure like videos.

 

[durangodawood]

....You will say, that is circular reasoning, another technical term......

Hey YOU are the one who began with technical terms. Namely: "proof".

 

[Belk]

Tetra asks: "Are you purposing some sort of ontological argument here?"

No need to bring in a techical term here.

Just get the concept of God correct, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

Then let us invite ourselves to look for God's presence in the universe, in man, and in everything with a beginning.

There, the universe and man and everything with a beginning they all exist, so presto God exists, corresponding to the concept of God, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You will say, that is circular reasoning, another technical term.

Of course if you want to move in a circle continuously inside your brain, I will not stop you.

Don't be silly with your useless circular thinking all in your brain, just you and I we go into the universe and man and everything with a beginning, they all exist as having a beginning.

Wherefore they are the evidence of the presence of God creating and operating as to keep them in existence.

There, that is the proof of the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Thomas Aquinas is rolling in his grave.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just get the concept of God correct, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

Then let us invite ourselves to look for God's presence in the universe, in man, and in everything with a beginning.

What empirical tests can we use to find this presence?

There, the universe and man and everything with a beginning they all exist, so presto God exists, corresponding to the concept of God, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You will say, that is circular reasoning, another technical term.

Of course if you want to move in a circle continuously inside your brain, I will not stop you.

Don't be silly with your useless circular thinking all in your brain, just you and I we go into the universe and man and everything with a beginning, they all exist as having a beginning.

Wherefore they are the evidence of the presence of God creating and operating as to keep them in existence.

There, that is the proof of the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Leprechauns create rainbows.

Since we can see that rainbows exist, rainbows are now evidence for the existence of Leprechauns.

Are you now convinced that Leprechauns exist, or are you still a non-believer in Leprechauns?

 

[Cearbhall]

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.

You're going to find it very difficult to embark on an intellectually honest journey towards truth if you have a predetermined conclusion. Trying to prove a particular concept for which there is not already proof should never be the objective.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Just get the concept of God correct, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

Then let us invite ourselves to look for God's presence in the universe, in man, and in everything with a beginning.

There, the universe and man and everything with a beginning they all exist, so presto God exists, corresponding to the concept of God, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You will say, that is circular reasoning, another technical term.

Of course if you want to move in a circle continuously inside your brain, I will not stop you.

Don't be silly with your useless circular thinking all in your brain, just you and I we go into the universe and man and everything with a beginning, they all exist as having a beginning.

Wherefore they are the evidence of the presence of God creating and operating as to keep them in existence.

There, that is the proof of the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

This has to be a Poe.

But assuming it's serious, I'd like to ask (again) precisely how you define 'a beginning'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He followed both. More with Paul than Peter though.

Where do you get the idea that Luke followed Peter from?

That is what you said. Now if you meant the latter.
Still false, Many of those who were literate at that time were multilingual. They spoke Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

Yes, and it was a bit of a typo, I made an error. I typed that on a tablet, I don't know if I wrote "illiterate" or if I made a spelling error and auto-correct "fixed" it for me. I am not a huge fan of auto-correct since its corrections are worse than the errors quite often. It was meant to say "literate", you should have gotten that from the posts that I wrote later. The typical Jew was far from literate at that time. There were literate Jews, but they were mostly in the priesthood and as you know they were not too friendly to Jesus.

Also no reason to doubt it didn't happen.

I think that you meant to say "no reason to doubt it did happen". I am the one saying that it probably did not happen. You can make errors too. The fact that no other early Christian sites this huge, and this would be one of the hugest of Jesus's miracles, tells us that this very very probably did not happen. This is far more important than walking on water or raising a person from the dead. And yet Luke is the only one that mentions it.

Still your opinion.

Wrong again, it was an example that you could not deal with honestly. By not answering the question honestly you convicted yourself.

More opinion.

Please, if you keep up this dishonest tack I will simply treat that as an acknowledgment that I was correct.

No, it's true.
And it is God's Word. He inspired it.

No, calling the Bible "God's Word" is blasphemy. You are implying that your version of God was an evil, incompetent, vain being. The countless errors in the Bible would mean that God is incompetent. The bad morals of the Bible would tell us that God is evil. That he wants people to unjustly worship him tells us that he is vain. Are you sure that you want to claim that the Bible is "His Word"?

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Quatona, you are now going into confusion mode in order to escape from thinking that is grounded on reason and observation.

You see, the issue God exists cannot be resolved between atheists and theists because atheists, if you be one, always play hide and seek.

Again, do you have information of the concept of God that is correct?

So, please, stay on the issue, tell me what is your information on the concept of God.

As a theist grounding myself on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, my information on the concept of God is as follows:

“In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”

Eventually, we have to come to what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside our mind, i.e., outside of our mind; and beware, do not play hide and seek game in your mind, all the time.

When you do have an idea of something in your mind, and it explains the existence of something outside your mind in objective reality, then use that concept to go forth into objective reality to locate the presence of that object corresponding to the concept in your mind.

Don’t anymore just remaining in your mind, uselessly trying to prove that there is no such thing corresponding to the concept, but not daring to look for it outside your mind, in the objectival realm (as opposed to the conceptual realm in your mind) of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Dear Quatona, please, no playing hide and seek with words which when you examine yourself, you are just exploiting dishonestly in order to distract readers from the instant issue, of God existing in the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

Regards, and I like us to continue with our exchange, okay?

Dear readers, let us sit back and witness how Quatona will react to my message this time around.

Wait, do I get this right?
All that´s required for a proof is:
- telling everybody else they are wrong
- misrepresenting competing views
- throwing in some insults for good measure,
and you are done?
Amazing.

Wait, do I get this right?
All that´s required for a proof is:
- telling everybody else they are wrong
- misrepresenting competing views
- throwing in some insults for good measure,
and you are done?
Amazing.

 

[bhsmte]

Dear Quatona, you are now going into confusion mode in order to escape from thinking that is grounded on reason and observation.

You see, the issue God exists cannot be resolved between atheists and theists because atheists, if you be one, always play hide and seek.

Again, do you have information of the concept of God that is correct?

So, please, stay on the issue, tell me what is your information on the concept of God.

As a theist grounding myself on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, my information on the concept of God is as follows:

“In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”

Eventually, we have to come to what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside our mind, i.e., outside of our mind; and beware, do not play hide and seek game in your mind, all the time.

When you do have an idea of something in your mind, and it explains the existence of something outside your mind in objective reality, then use that concept to go forth into objective reality to locate the presence of that object corresponding to the concept in your mind.

Don’t anymore just remaining in your mind, uselessly trying to prove that there is no such thing corresponding to the concept, but not daring to look for it outside your mind, in the objectival realm (as opposed to the conceptual realm in your mind) of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Dear Quatona, please, no playing hide and seek with words which when you examine yourself, you are just exploiting dishonestly in order to distract readers from the instant issue, of God existing in the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

Regards, and I like us to continue with our exchange, okay?

Dear readers, let us sit back and witness how Quatona will react to my message this time around.

Hilarious.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, do you have information of the concept of God that is correct?

We are not the ones who claim that God exists. That would be the theists. It is up to you to define what God is, and then supply the evidence that God exists. It isn't up to us to define your beliefs for you.

As a theist grounding myself on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, my information on the concept of God is as follows:

“In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”

That is a belief. It is not a fact or observation.

Where are the facts and observations?

When you do have an idea of something in your mind, and it explains the existence of something outside your mind in objective reality, then use that concept to go forth into objective reality to locate the presence of that object corresponding to the concept in your mind.

When has magic ever been a proper explanation for anything? Can you name a single instance where "God did it" has been a verified answer for any observation?

On the flip side, we have a whole mountain of natural processes that are valid and verifiable explanations for millions of observations.

Dear Quatona, please, no playing hide and seek with words which when you examine yourself, you are just exploiting dishonestly in order to distract readers from the instant issue, of God existing in the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

God is never the default answer for anything. All you appear to have is a God of the Gaps fallacy.

 

[Cearbhall]

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.

Dear Quatona, you are now going into confusion mode in order to escape from thinking that is grounded on reason and observation.

You are perhaps the loftiest OP I've ever seen.