How to prove God exists.

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[Freodin]

The constant repitition of phrases speaks for "bot", though he shows at least a semblance of unterstanding of the topic he is supposed to respond to. His consistency - I definitly remember his phrasing from several years ago - speaks against parody. Also his bombastic style doesn't remind me of anything that he might parody.

So that leaves troll. Not the kind of troll that tries his best to get a rise out of people, but the kind the seeks to aggravate his audience and then wallows in the self-righteous feeling of being insulted.

 

[bhsmte]

The constant repitition of phrases speaks for "bot", though he shows at least a semblance of unterstanding of the topic he is supposed to respond to. His consistency - I definitly remember his phrasing from several years ago - speaks against parody. Also his bombastic style doesn't remind me of anything that he might parody.

So that leaves troll. Not the kind of troll that tries his best to get a rise out of people, but the kind the seeks to aggravate his audience and then wallows in the self-righteous feeling of being insulted.

Agree. Also sounds very similar to a former poster, who also may have been a troll.

 

[Gene2memE]

1. What exactly is your position in regard to God exists or not?

I see no evidence convincing enough to believe that a God or gods exist, but I can't say that I know for certain. I'm willing to say "there's no such thing" for most specific god claims, but I'm not able to say that for more generalised god claims, partially due to issues with falsifiability.

2. Please teach me the most importantly crucial lesson by which I will emulate you as to become like you, Oh atheists here.

Sure.

Approach all religious claims on the basis of skepticism, and require all claims to be substantiated before accepting them.

Don't allow one belief set a free pass on standards of evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

Dear atheists here, as of this point in time, Loudmouth has not yet replied to my post (correct me if I am wrong), see Annex below.

Now, dear atheists here, you are disturbed that I routinely tell readers and you and Loudmouth, that you are into hide and seek mindset in regard to the issue God exists or not.

And you on the other hand tell me that I am into hide and seek.

Tell you what, Oh dear atheists here, let you and me work together to come to concurrence on what exactly is your position on God exists or not, that is No. 1 item.

No. 2 item is what can you and will you teach me as the most important thing you want me to imitate you on or even emulated in you, Oh atheists here, as to also myself come to become like one of you, as you will describe yourselves to be, in your response to No. 1 item.

So, for your convenience here are the two items that I like to see you, Oh atheists here, take your reason, intelligence, honesty, and sincerity to, in order that I will know what is exactly your position on the issue God exists or not, that’s No. 1.

And please don’t tell me that you all do not have the same position, etc., in which case you are into hide and seek.

1. What exactly is your position in regard to God exists or not?

2. Please teach me the most importantly crucial lesson by which I will emulate you as to become like you, Oh atheists here.

There, Oh ye atheists, you can now present to me, but first consult among yourselves, Oh atheists, what is your concerted together position on the issue God exists or not, then tell me.

Otherwise you will continue to play hide and seek with bringing up many things in broad fuzzy orientation, in order to hide and seek deeper and darker, from coming up with your No. 1 item.

Or you want instead to go to No. 2 item, without touching on No. 1 first, then be my guest, but first Oh atheists here, get together as to consult mutually to come to a concerted common first lesson you, Oh atheists here, want to together teach me, so that I will emulate you to become like unto yourselves.


Dear readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath the reactions of atheists here to this post from yours truly.

Namely:

1. What exactly is your position in regard to God exists or not?

2. Please teach me the most importantly crucial lesson by which I will emulate you as to become like you, Oh atheists here.


But I tell you, dear readers here, they will again go into hide and seek mode.

And that is their strategy on the issue God exists or not, hide and seek, like saying as with Loudmouth in reaction to No. 1, that he has in effect doubts on God existing or not.


Now, Oh atheists here, if you have doubts on God existing, then do the logical thing, clear up your doubts, by thinking on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas from the best thinkers of mankind.


Dear atheists here, I am, and also dear readers here, I am all with bated breath waiting to read your reactions to the present post from yours truly.


Olay, no word salad, Oh ye atheists, another hide and seek gimmick with bringing in word salad by one atheist here, as also with another atheist here telling readers that I or he suspects that I am a bot.

Well that is already routine with atheists hide and see, so also they call God with Bertrand Russell, an orbiting teapot in space, and with today's atheists, a flying spaghetti monster - all in aid of hide and seek.

No, no word salad, but if you are lost owing to your hide and seek gimmick, just read again these two items, and choose one to react to.

1. What exactly is your position in regard to God exists or not?

2. Please teach me the most importantly crucial lesson by which I will emulate you as to become like you, Oh atheists here.



Annex

 

[zippy2006]

If you prove God exists you remove any reason for faith. Do that and the entire religion falls apart.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.​

CCC 36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason." Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".
​

My main point in this thread, which I didn't get to put into my first post is that you need to have the faith that God exists before you can start accepting evidence for God's existence.

That really doesn't make sense.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Gene2, thanks a lot for your reply to my post, see Annex below; please keep in mind that the topic of this thread of mine is on “How to prove God exists;" so from your part your endeavor here is “How to prove God does not exist.”

Now, I commend you most sincerely because you alone among the atheists here have not gone into hide and seek gimmick, they have all disappeared except the one or two aside from you, who they however are still into hide and seek, and they seek to hide even worse if not worst, having put themselves inside a dungeon of their own making, in order to hide and seek the foolproof security from having to come up with their own admission of what exactly is their take on the issue God exists or not, that is the No. 1 request from me to atheists.

And also they are now into the hide and seek sanctuary of a dungeon, from having to tell me how they taught themselves to bear the identity of atheists, which they proudly hold up, but only in the internet, owing to the safety of internet anonymity.

Okay, no more word salad, if you will.

You tell me that you have doubts on God existing, as also Loudmouth, who has gone into complete disappearance mode.

That is your answer to my No. 1 request, to tell me exactly what is your take on God exists or not.

And in regard to the No. 2 request from me, on telling me how you taught yourself as to now bear the identity of an atheist, you state that you have no evidence of God existing.

Do I get you correctly? See Annex below, for I base my understanding of your answers to my two requests on your post, reproduced below in Annex.

Now, I must tell you that you are into word salad, for at its core your mind is into doubts on God existing (that’s your take on my No. 1 request), and you maintain you have not found evidence of God existing (that’s your take on my No. 2 request).

Your answer to No. 1 depends on your answer to No. 2, so let you and me work together to expatiate on a concurred understanding of what is evidence, if you will.

What do you say, will you and I work together to concur on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits target?

Would you care to be the one to initiate your idea of what is evidence, because the lack of evidence or that you have found no evidence, that is the ground for your profession of the identity of an atheist though - formally you have doubts.


Dear readers here, now let you and me sit back to witness what ‘word salad’ Gene2 will go into, in regard to my invitation to him, that we both work together to concur on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.


Annex

Pachomius said: ↑

1. What exactly is your position in regard to God exists or not?

I see no evidence convincing enough to believe that a God or gods exist, but I can't say that I know for certain. I'm willing to say "there's no such thing" for most specific god claims, but I'm not able to say that for more generalised god claims, partially due to issues with falsifiability.

Pachomius said: ↑

2. Please teach me the most importantly crucial lesson by which I will emulate you as to become like you, Oh atheists here.

Sure.

Approach all religious claims on the basis of skepticism, and require all claims to be substantiated before accepting them.

Don't allow one belief set a free pass on standards of evidence.
_____________________
Gene2memE, Yesterday at 9:33 AM

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dear Gene2, thanks a lot for your reply to my post, see Annex below; please keep in mind that the topic of this thread of mine is on “How to prove God exists;" so from your part your endeavor here is “How to prove God does not exist.”

Now, I commend you most sincerely because you alone among the atheists here have not gone into hide and seek gimmick, they have all disappeared except the one or two aside from you, who they however are still into hide and seek, and they seek to hide even worse if not worst, having put themselves inside a dungeon of their own making, in order to hide and seek the foolproof security from having to come up with their own admission of what exactly is their take on the issue God exists or not, that is the No. 1 request from me to atheists.

And also they are now into the hide and seek sanctuary of a dungeon, from having to tell me how they taught themselves to bear the identity of atheists, which they proudly hold up, but only in the internet, owing to the safety of internet anonymity.

Okay, no more word salad, if you will.

You tell me that you have doubts on God existing, as also Loudmouth, who has gone into complete disappearance mode.

That is your answer to my No. 1 request, to tell me exactly what is your take on God exists or not.

And in regard to the No. 2 request from me, on telling me how you taught yourself as to now bear the identity of an atheist, you state that you have no evidence of God existing.

Do I get you correctly? See Annex below, for I base my understanding of your answers to my two requests on your post, reproduced below in Annex.

Now, I must tell you that you are into word salad, for at its core your mind is into doubts on God existing (that’s your take on my No. 1 request), and you maintain you have not found evidence of God existing (that’s your take on my No. 2 request).

Your answer to No. 1 depends on your answer to No. 2, so let you and me work together to expatiate on a concurred understanding of what is evidence, if you will.

What do you say, will you and I work together to concur on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits target?

Would you care to be the one to initiate your idea of what is evidence, because the lack of evidence or that you have found no evidence, that is the ground for your profession of the identity of an atheist though - formally you have doubts.


Dear readers here, now let you and me sit back to witness what ‘word salad’ Gene2 will go into, in regard to my invitation to him, that we both work together to concur on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.


Annex

An amazing amount of word salad for one that claimed he was going to avoid it.

Try to keep it short. If you drop the insults your posts will be half as long and have twice as much punch. Of course I should give you a friendly warning:

Two times zero is still zero.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.​

Most religions have rather worthless defensive verses such as this one. It is belied by the fact that no one on your side can show these tings that are "clearly seen". All of the observable evidence out there looks like it would be the same in a universe without a god.

​

CCC 36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason." Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".​

And yet they fail terribly too. If they could actually do this almost everyone would agree with them. The fact that they can't shows that this claim is clearly wrong.

​

That really doesn't make sense.

Actually it made perfect sense. To believe what you believe takes circular reasoning. Again, if it was not circular you could convince the unbelievers.

 

[HitchSlap]

Dear Gene2, thanks a lot for your reply to my post, see Annex below; please keep in mind that the topic of this thread of mine is on “How to prove God exists;" so from your part your endeavor here is “How to prove God does not exist.”

Now, I commend you most sincerely because you alone among the atheists here have not gone into hide and seek gimmick, they have all disappeared except the one or two aside from you, who they however are still into hide and seek, and they seek to hide even worse if not worst, having put themselves inside a dungeon of their own making, in order to hide and seek the foolproof security from having to come up with their own admission of what exactly is their take on the issue God exists or not, that is the No. 1 request from me to atheists.

And also they are now into the hide and seek sanctuary of a dungeon, from having to tell me how they taught themselves to bear the identity of atheists, which they proudly hold up, but only in the internet, owing to the safety of internet anonymity.

Okay, no more word salad, if you will.

You tell me that you have doubts on God existing, as also Loudmouth, who has gone into complete disappearance mode.

That is your answer to my No. 1 request, to tell me exactly what is your take on God exists or not.

And in regard to the No. 2 request from me, on telling me how you taught yourself as to now bear the identity of an atheist, you state that you have no evidence of God existing.

Do I get you correctly? See Annex below, for I base my understanding of your answers to my two requests on your post, reproduced below in Annex.

Now, I must tell you that you are into word salad, for at its core your mind is into doubts on God existing (that’s your take on my No. 1 request), and you maintain you have not found evidence of God existing (that’s your take on my No. 2 request).

Your answer to No. 1 depends on your answer to No. 2, so let you and me work together to expatiate on a concurred understanding of what is evidence, if you will.

What do you say, will you and I work together to concur on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits target?

Would you care to be the one to initiate your idea of what is evidence, because the lack of evidence or that you have found no evidence, that is the ground for your profession of the identity of an atheist though - formally you have doubts.


Dear readers here, now let you and me sit back to witness what ‘word salad’ Gene2 will go into, in regard to my invitation to him, that we both work together to concur on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.


Annex

 

[Radrook]

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.​

CCC 36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason." Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".
​

That really doesn't make sense.

Of course it doesn't. Unfortunately, when absolute necessity demands it then irrationality tends to be considered a virtue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it doesn't. Unfortunately, when absolute necessity demands it then irrationality tends to be considered a virtue.

And there goes another irony meter.

Radrook, understanding the concept of evidence is key for rationality. Your fear of discussing it tells us volumes about you.

 

[zippy2006]

Most religions have rather worthless defensive verses such as this one. It is belied by the fact that no one on your side can show these tings that are "clearly seen". All of the observable evidence out there looks like it would be the same in a universe without a god.




And yet they fail terribly too. If they could actually do this almost everyone would agree with them. The fact that they can't shows that this claim is clearly wrong.​

​

Silly polemics aside, my point was that GoldenBoy's beliefs about the status of faith in God's existence are clearly mistaken. Speak to the actual point or continue your tirade as you wish.

​

Actually it made perfect sense. To believe what you believe takes circular reasoning. Again, if it was not circular you could convince the unbelievers.

No, it patently does not make sense. To say, "You need to have faith that X exists before you can start accepting evidence for X's existence" makes no sense, no matter what X we choose. Evidence for some conclusion is useful precisely to the extent that it is able to persuade an unbiased observer. Your own bias apparently prevents you from seeing even such elementary truths of reason, let alone those higher truths you claim to aspire to.

 

[Radrook]

​

Silly polemics aside, my point was that GoldenBoy's beliefs about the status of faith in God's existence are clearly mistaken. Speak to the actual point or continue your tirade as you wish.

​

No, it patently does not make sense. To say, "You need to have faith that X exists before you can start accepting evidence for X's existence" makes no sense, no matter what X we choose. Evidence for some conclusion is useful precisely to the extent that it is able to persuade an unbiased observer. Your own bias apparently prevents you from seeing even such elementary truths of reason.

How is my previous statement silly? It is intended as an agreement with what you are saying.

 

[zippy2006]

How is my previous statement silly? It is intended as an agreement with what you are saying my friend.

Oh, I was speaking to Subduction Zone, not to you my friend. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

​

Silly polemics aside, my point was that GoldenBoy's beliefs about the status of faith in God's existence are clearly mistaken. Speak to the actual point or continue your tirade as you wish.

Please, a little honesty on your part would be appreciated. I made no polemics. If you did not understand something a properly asked question is the right route to take. And how was Golden boy mistaken? He was pointing out the circular reasoning that your faith is dependent upon.

​

No, it patently does not make sense. To say, "You need to have faith that X exists before you can start accepting evidence for X's existence" makes no sense, no matter what X we choose. Evidence for some conclusion is useful precisely to the extent that it is able to persuade an unbiased observer. Your own bias apparently prevents you from seeing even such elementary truths of reason, let alone those higher truths you claim to aspire to.

And that is the point. What you do to support your faith makes no sense. You rely on circular reasoning. If you had real evidence you could convince the skeptics.

Lastly what bias? I became an atheist when I dropped my bias. You seem to have a light grasp of the concept of evidence. Can you supply any of this supposed evidence for your God?

 

[zippy2006]

Please, a little honesty on your part would be appreciated. I made no polemics.

Your reply began with, "Most religions have rather worthless defensive verses such as this one..." Granted, you probably don't understand what is meant by polemics, for "I made no polemics" is not even grammatically correct.

He was pointing out the circular reasoning that your faith is dependent upon.

Did you even read what I was responding to in his post? He claimed that knowledge of God's existence precludes religious faith. His point about circularity, made in a later post, was self-admittedly not made in the first post ("My main point in this thread, which I didn't get to put into my first post...").

Let's sort out your ambiguous rhetoric for once:

And that is the point.

What is the point?

What you do to support your faith makes no sense.

What do I do to support my faith?

You rely on circular reasoning.

What circular reasoning? Provide the syllogism.

If you had real evidence you could convince the skeptics.

Skeptics are not unbiased by definition. Good evidence convinces the unbiased, not the skeptics.

Lastly what bias? I became an atheist when I dropped my bias.

Lol

 

[Gene2memE]

You tell me that you have doubts on God existing [snipped irrelevant snide insult to another poster]

That is your answer to my No. 1 request, to tell me exactly what is your take on God exists or not.

And in regard to the No. 2 request from me, on telling me how you taught yourself as to now bear the identity of an atheist, you state that you have no evidence of God existing.

Do I get you correctly?

To reiterate:

I'm an atheist as I have not accepted the claims of others concerning their belief in existence of deities.

I hold this position as I have not been presented with any evidence that convinces me there is any validity to these claims.

Would you care to be the one to initiate your idea of what is evidence, because the lack of evidence or that you have found no evidence, that is the ground for your profession of the identity of an atheist though - formally you have doubts.

Sure, evidence is factual information that can be used to support a claim or conclusion. This factual information needs to be accepted/undisputed/unchallenged by both sides, otherwise their arguments and counter arguments fall apart as there's no agreement on terms.



If I decide to continue, be warned that my engaging with you is provisional. I will withdraw for the conversation if:
You continue to insult and snipe at other posters on the forum in particular and non-believers in general
You continue to use circuitous language - be concise, make your argument and responses and only those.
You continue to address the board in general, rather the posters individually.

Also, I will not accept deductive logical syllogisms as evidence.

Those are my terms.

 

[zippy2006]

Just a friendly reminder, folks: this is the forum for Physical and Life Sciences.
While I personally am not opposed to threads like this one at all, the Powers That Be are not looking kindly on out-of-topic discussions, and definitly seem to be set against General Apologetic topics outside of the very narrow allowed spaces here.

We don't want the P&S forum to go the same way as the Philosophy forum, do we?

Someone should start a request to re-open the philosophy forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your reply began with, "Most religions have rather worthless defensive verses such as this one..." Granted, you probably don't understand what is meant by polemics, for "I made no polemics" is not even grammatically correct.

Or I was in a rush. It does not change the fact that my claim was correct.

Did you even read what I was responding to in his post? He claimed that knowledge of God's existence precludes religious faith. His point about circularity, made in a later post, was self-admittedly not made in the first post ("My main point in this thread, which I didn't get to put into my first post...").

Faith is not knowledge. And I did not do a ton of back-reading here. The fact is that the theists have been using circular reasoning here.

Let's sort out your ambiguous rhetoric for once:

Now didn't I tell you that if you did not understand something that you need to asks questions properly? Rudely phrased questions are not properly asked questions. Try again.

Skeptics are not unbiased by definition. Good evidence convinces the unbiased, not the skeptics.

Most skeptics are far less biased than you obviously are.

Now try again and ask questions properly. Excessive breaking up of a post is indicative that you can't answer it as a whole.