How to prove God exists.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then he got saved ... right?

I have no idea; I was just clarifying that he wasn't Christian and didn't believe in an Abrahamic god, in case that's a requirement of being saved. But it makes no difference to me whether believers think he was saved or not.

 

[HitchSlap]

I concur.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thanks for your reply, Quatona.

I am in this thread into an experiment to see whether folks who are atheists or in league with atheists, are really into hide and seek (which they are in fact), in their discussion on the existence of God.

The information of the concept of God is already most crucial in coming to the existence of God, that is why when you read writings by enemies of God's existence, search for any mention from their part of their information on the concept of God, and you will notice that they are playing hide and see, by blasphemously applying ridiculous descriptions to God, calling Him like as with Bertrand Russel, an orbiting teapot in space - I think he is the first to resort to this hide and seek trick to avoid altogether from giving his information, because he knows that from the correct information of God in concept, it is inevitable that he will come to the existence of God, conforming to the concept of God, namely:

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

Russell calls God an orbiting teapot in space, nowadays atheists call God a flying spaghetti monster, etc., all of which exposes them to be into bad faith playing themselves to be irrational and un-intelligent, by which they could avail of the defense from ignorance for not accepting God's existence.

But it is not ignorance but insanity, i.e., they seek to show themselves insane, wherefore they are 'faultless'.

So, how to prove the existence of God?

Like this:

1. Get to know the correct information on the concept of God.

And then?

What about in step No. 2. accepting this statement:

2. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence?

What do you say, Quatona?

Dear Quatona, I like very much to have a sustained exchange with you, on the present trend I am developing, namely, how to prove God exists, step by step.


[ Note to operators of the forum: Please just merge this 'new thread' into the most appropriate current thread(s) from me, or see if you can put them three threads under just one thread. I should have just made what I call a new topic as the title of a new post from myself. Sorry for the trouble. ]

You appear to think you are engaging in mind reading. Do you really believe that you have the ability to examine the motivations of people who you don't know at all? When they tell you their motivations, why do you disagree? Do you think atheists are lying to you regarding the reasons why they lack belief?

Just as you would like to start the conversation with a point of agreement regarding the "concept of god"......you'll also need to agree that you cannot read minds and any discussion where you pretend that you can read minds will ultimately be fruitless.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You appear to think you are engaging in mind reading. Do you really believe that you have the ability to examine the motivations of people who you don't know at all? When they tell you their motivations, why do you disagree? Do you think atheists are lying to you regarding the reasons why they lack belief?

Just as you would like to start the conversation with a point of agreement regarding the "concept of god"......you'll also need to agree that you cannot read minds and any discussion where you pretend that you can read minds will ultimately be fruitless.

I suspect that with Pachomius, you'll be living up to your sig. If my experience so far is anything to go by, a response seems unlikely...

 

[TBDude65]

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

How do you know that the universe requires a creator? How do you know that the universe has an initial "first" cause? How do you get from "first cause" to the conclusion that this is a god and not an unintelligent and natural process?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

How do you know that the universe requires a creator? How do you know that the universe has an initial "first" cause? How do you get from "first cause" to the conclusion that this is a god and not an unintelligent and natural process?

That's easy .... because his tautology says so.

 

[TBDude65]

That's easy .... because his tautology says so.

I'm right because I literally just I was right. How can I be wrong when I'm right?

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Loudmouth, when you come over, I hope to read your thinking on Have you searched where you come from? in re babies coming from their parents.


When you have come to certainty that you come from your papa and mama, I am happy that we can now proceed to think further on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas from the best thinkers among mankind, from the dawn of consciousness and reason and intelligence to the present, today with us two to think further, now that we have ascertained that we come from our respective papa and mama.


Dear atheists here, please also join us, to search where you come from, in re babies come from their parents.


Where am I going with the fact that babies come from parents?


I am into proving that there is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


Now, where are you atheists going or coming, with denying that God exists, and that nothing is the ultimate cause of you when babies, and forever as a piece of cosmic information having come from your parents all the way back to when nothing was the default status of things in the totality of reality?


Well, in which case you have changed the name of God from God to nothing; that is all right with me: because what’s in a name? as long as the entity plays its role of ultimate origin of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?


There is this emulating version of Occam’s Razor: When the function of a thing is saved, even though folks want to use an exactly opposite name to call it, yet they assign the exact same function to it, let them be happy, because what’s in a name, a rose by any other name is just as fragrant.

 

[HitchSlap]

Dear Loudmouth, when you come over, I hope to read your thinking on Have you searched where you come from? in re babies coming from their parents.


When you have come to certainty that you come from your papa and mama, I am happy that we can now proceed to think further on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas from the best thinkers among mankind, from the dawn of consciousness and reason and intelligence to the present, today with us two to think further, now that we have ascertained that we come from our respective papa and mama.


Dear atheists here, please also join us, to search where you come from, in re babies come from their parents.


Where am I going with the fact that babies come from parents?


I am into proving that there is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


Now, where are you atheists going or coming, with denying that God exists, and that nothing is the ultimate cause of you when babies, and forever as a piece of cosmic information having come from your parents all the way back to when nothing was the default status of things in the totality of reality?


Well, in which case you have changed the name of God from God to nothing; that is all right with me: because what’s in a name? as long as the entity plays its role of ultimate origin of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?


There is this emulating version of Occam’s Razor: When the function of a thing is saved, even though folks want to use an exactly opposite name to call it, yet they assign the exact same function to it, let them be happy, because what’s in a name, a rose by any other name is just as fragrant.

Yes, we all have parents, and the concept of god/s exists.

Go on.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

Reason and observation? What observations are you talking about?

Your concept of god appears to be pulled out of thin air...with nothing to base it upon. Your concept includes the idea that god creates universes from nothing...and I'm rather certain you've never observed the creation of something from nothing.

Don't confuse reason with mere claims. You've made a couple of baseless claims...and then numbered them and placed them in order. Creating a list of baseless claims doesn't change the fact that they have no logic or reason behind them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I suspect that with Pachomius, you'll be living up to your sig. If my experience so far is anything to go by, a response seems unlikely...

In that he has a commonality with others like anonymous person, elionai, jeremy, etc.

It's almost always the same thing with the mind readers I've found. There seems to be a persistent desire to misrepresent others, to argue against points that no one holds, to convince themselves more than anyone else.

It's that last bit that gives them away. A struggle with doubt that manifests itself in the petty attacks on any atheists or non-believers...as if hoping to one day come across an argument that will satisfy the doubt and allow one to ignore the places it leads.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As dear atheists you may find this post too long to read, please just produce one objection to God’s existence that is not an instance of playing hide and seek with yourselves.

1. A lack of evidence for god.

Good thing I had that objection ready...otherwise I might have needed to read his entire post.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's what you tag any evidence which goes contrary to your pet preconceptions.

In your mind Rad...what is the difference between "evidence" and "belief"?

From the arguments I see most commonly made, the notion that there is "order" to the universe gets presented as "evidence" for a god. It isn't. The "appearance of order" is something highly subjective and easily argued. One could just as easily say there is far more disorder in the universe than there is order and make an argument for that point...it's entirely subjective.

Evidence, by it's very nature, isn't subjective...it's objective. Beliefs on the other hand are subjective. I think that's perhaps the reason why you continually see certain claims being labeled as "beliefs".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just as gravity can be evidenced by its effects, so can God.

An apple falls from a tree = evidence of gravity.

AD = evidence of God.

Didn't Jesus tell the disciples of John the Baptist to go back and tell John, who was in prison, that the things they were going to witness about Him was proof that He was Jesus?

I've never seen a calendar made by god AV...those are created by men. As most things created by men...men decide how they are created, so AD (anno domini?) is an effect of mankind...nothing else.

The comparison to gravity is ludicrous.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've never seen a calendar made by god AV...

That's okay, Ana.

I've never seen an apple made by gravity.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I actually have a clue, that you don't have a clue

Do you know what's that? Thats' your hair follicle. It's called Flagellum Motor. And it's an engine. AN ENGINE. A rotary type mechanism which has a specific purpose.

So you are telling me that cosmic dust MADE THAT, BY MISTAKE?

You need to read more about biology I guess.

Is your idea of evidence simply things that look like other things? Nebula-eye...hair follicle-motor....

Evolution pretty well explains the "hows" of biology. I'm guessing that you don't believe in evolution though?

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's okay, Ana.

I've never seen an apple made by gravity.

Me neither?

To be honest AV, I didn't see any of your examples that weren't made by men. Is it safe to say you never had any?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No test is needed to conclude that there is something which they have tagged dark matter, is gravitationally affecting the stars-correct?. If I demanded a test to justify that necessary, initial, logical conclusion based on observation and repetitive pattern, I would be tagged irrational-right? Why? Because the conclusion based on observation is justifiable. In short, its justifiability is a given. In a similar manner, we conclude that nature displays mind due to complex organization of towards a goal or purpose. That to us is a given.

What's the "goal or purpose" that you're referring to here?

 

[Gene2memE]

There is this emulating version of Occam’s Razor: When the function of a thing is saved, even though folks want to use an exactly opposite name to call it, yet they assign the exact same function to it, let them be happy, because what’s in a name, a rose by any other name is just as fragrant.

It is no such thing.

Nothing is not a creator god. It is not an active agent, it is not a timeless/spaceless entity that causes universes to come into existence. It is not a synonym for God, it is the absence of anything. It is no thing.

Atheists in general aren't tied to any claims in particular about the origin of the universe. There are some atheists that do make claims concerning the origin of the universe, and how particular concepts within physics and cosmology may render some/all theistic first cause notions invalid. Steven Hawking and Lawrence Krauss come to mind immediately.

Athiests in general respond to the question "what caused the universe to come into existence" with the response "I don't know". Which is a valid answer, as we genuinely don't.

Athiests in general also respond to theistic claims about the cause of existence by either being skeptical "I don't believe you" or pointing out flaws with specific claims.

You can keep making claims that there is a creator God, and I will keep disbelieving your claim until you can provide sufficient evidence to overcome my skepticism of such a claim.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Dear atheists here, please also join us, to search where you come from, in re babies come from their parents.
...
Now, where are you atheists going or coming, with denying that God exists, and that nothing is the ultimate cause of you when babies, and forever as a piece of cosmic information having come from your parents all the way back to when nothing was the default status of things in the totality of reality?

Well, in which case you have changed the name of God from God to nothing; that is all right with me: because what’s in a name? as long as the entity plays its role of ultimate origin of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

There is this emulating version of Occam’s Razor: When the function of a thing is saved, even though folks want to use an exactly opposite name to call it, yet they assign the exact same function to it, let them be happy, because what’s in a name, a rose by any other name is just as fragrant.

Speaking for myself, it's not a question of replacing God with nothing as an ultimate cause, but with simply admitting that I don't know the origins of the universe. I don't know whether an ultimate cause is necessary, and if one is, I don't know how it could be satisfactorily explained. Introducing a supernatural entity just adds an unjustified level of complication - it isn't an explanation if it raises more questions than it answers, particularly if those questions are unanswerable. If something can exist without a cause, and without a beginning, it would be more parsimonious and raise fewer unanswerable questions if that something was the universe itself (applying Occam's Razor).

As for your suggestion that nothing (a well-defined term) is just another name for God (an ill-defined term), the logical corollary is that God is just another name for nothing - which means that nothing is the ultimate origin of the universe and man and everything with a beginning. This makes the label 'God' redundant. I don't have a problem with that - Occam's Razor is satisfied.

I think most atheists would be satisfied with the idea that God is just another name for nothing, but I suspect you'll find some opposition from theists!