How to prove God exists.

[HitchSlap]

Now, dear Loudmouth and all atheists, you will insist that you don't have to prove anything, not even present evidence, on no God existing, because you are not the ones making an allegation - theists like me are the ones making the allegation of God existing, wherefore they and me are the ones with the burden to prove their contention of God existing.

That is interesting, I mean your idea of burden of proof, but I will let you go on with your overly naive idea of burden of proof, for the present.

Next, you will insist that it is impossible to prove a negative proposition.

That is also interesting, I mean your idea of impossibility to prove a negative proposition, but I will let you go on with your overly naive idea of impossibility to prove a negative proposition, for the present.

Wherefore, on your insistence on naive ideas of burden of proof and impossibility to prove a negative proposition, you are woefully in the dismal position of dismissing God's existence on pure subjective arbitrariety from your part, perhaps on at least the exercise of freedom to embrace ignorance or un-reason or un-intelligence on your part as free cognitive or more correctly non-cognitive agents, i.e., free to be ignorant, etc.


May I just hint to you that at least, don't you think you owe it to your sense of an open mind which is your continuous claim as proprietary with your profession of no God existing, to consider babies as evidence ultimately for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

When you deny that babies are not any evidence at all, for God existing, what about that babies are evidence of parents existing and causing the existence of babies, what about that?

You also will claim the right to ignorance and un-reason and un-intelligence, with denying that babies are the evidence of parents' existence?


Dear readers here, at this point let us await with bated breath for how atheists deal with the reality of causation, in re babies and parents, namely, babies are the evidence on causation by parents for their babies' coming to existence.

Lol.

At the end of the day, I guess neither of us have any evidence for god/s.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now, where are you atheists going or coming, with denying that God exists, . . .

Stop right there.

Atheists are saying that we don't believe deities exist. That's not the same as saying that we deny that deities exist. "I don't believe so" is not the same as "They definitely don't exist".

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?

If you are trying to claim that God created the universe, then you are going to have to supply some evidence to back that claim.

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.

I think Occam just rolled in his grave.

 

[Loudmouth]

Um..what? This reads like a google translate. As has been asked many times, you are claiming that a god exists. All people are asking for is evidence of that claim, not a play on words and meanings.

It's Google translator for Fundamentalism to Rational.

 

[Loudmouth]

From me evidence like babies, from my part to support my certain conclusion that God exists.

At what time from conception to embryonic development to post natal development to adulthood do we observe a deity involved in the process?

And from you for concluding to the non-existence of God, what evidence do you present?

I don't conclude that deities definitely don't exist. Perhaps this quote from Bertrand Russell will help you understand:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."--Bertrand Russell

 

[Loudmouth]

Step 2: Oh atheist Loudmouth and Oh ye all atheists, tell me where your parents when they were babies come from?

O theist, please provide evidence that a deity was involved at any point in history with human ancestry.

 

[AV1611VET]

O theist, please provide evidence that a deity was involved at any point in history with human ancestry.

Now let's see someone use their science to come back with a nice anti-Semitic response.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now let's see someone use their science to come back with a nice anti-Semitic response.

Why do you think that is evidence?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you think that is evidence?

Because the Jews exist?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because the Jews exist?

How is that evidence?

 

[Gene2memE]

You can falsify it by demonstrating that information that leads to the construction of such things as computers codes itself and that things that are organized with a specific goal in mind are not evidence of a mind. Saying glibly that chemicals did it just doesn't cut it.

Does the phrase 'God of the gaps' ring any bells with you?

 

[Gene2memE]

I'm really enjoying this thread, but I'm thinking it should be renamed. How about 'How to demonstrate the use of fallacies'? Or 'Fallacypalooza', if we're looking for something shorter.

Maybe we can get out the old apologetics and "cdesign proponentists" bingo cards and find a winner.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm really enjoying this thread, but I'm thinking it should be renamed. How about 'How to demonstrate the use of fallacies'? Or 'Fallacypalooza', if we're looking for something shorter.

Maybe we can get out the old apologetics and "cdesign proponentists" bingo cards and find a winner.

I want to play!!!!

 

[Radrook]

Does the phrase 'God of the gaps' ring any bells with you?

No.

 

[Loudmouth]

No.

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.
God of the gaps - Wikipedia

Perhaps you should read up.

 

[HitchSlap]

Because the Jews exist?

Ok. Guess what existed before Jews.

 

[Radrook]

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.
God of the gaps - Wikipedia

Perhaps you should read up.

In order for me to read something there has to be a motivation. The way you describe it doesn't provide any.

 

[Gene2memE]

Maybe it should.

BioLogos does a pretty good job:

Defining God-of-the-Gaps: God-of-the-gaps arguments use gaps in scientific explanation as indicators, or even proof, of God’s action and therefore of God’s existence. Such arguments propose divine acts in place of natural, scientific causes for phenomena that science cannot yet explain.

...snip...

With the continuing advancement of science, God-of-the-gaps explanations often get replaced by natural mechanisms. Therefore, when such arguments are used as apologetic tools, scientific research can unnecessarily be placed at odds with belief in God. The recent Intelligent Design (ID) movement highlights this problem. Certain ID arguments, like the irreducible complexity of the human eye or the bacterial flagellum, are rapidly being undercut by new scientific discoveries.
​

In short, its a falacious argument. Unexplained by science does not mean unexplainable, and it does not indicate supernatural existence/involvement/causation.

Note too that this is a concept that was developed by Christian apologists themselves, in response to certain other Christian teleological claims. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a not terrible entry on the topic under its Teleological Arguments for God's Existence entry.

 

[bhsmte]

Because the Jews exist?

You are funny av.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok. Guess what existed before Jews.

Semites?

 

[AV1611VET]

You are funny av.

I'm trying to get educatee(s) to admit that there was no Hebrew DNA prior to the existence of Abram.

The Hebrew DNA then, "came out of nowhere."

Meaning God modified Shemite DNA to give us the Jews.

Joshua 24:3 And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac.