How to prove God exists.

[Loudmouth]

Dear Oh atheists here, I get it, that you yourselves have by yourselves and for yourselves sought evidence for God existing or not.


That is a point of concurrence between you and me, that we both seek evidence.


Very good!


Let us now work to reach concurrence on how to seek evidence on God existing or not.


First task to undertake, you and I, is the description of God.


You have read my description of God, namely:


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


Dear readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath what atheist seekers of evidence of God existing or not, have for their description of God.

I have already agreed to that definition. Since you are the one claiming that this supposed deity exists it is both your responsibility and freedom to define this deity however you want.

Can we please get past your continual game of hide and seek? Can you please get to the evidence part?

 

[Loudmouth]

There is a lot of hide and seek with atheists on circular reasoning.

The only game of hide and seek is of your doing. You refuse to respond to my posts. You keep asking the same questions and ignoring the replies.

When you get tired, time to go outside your brain, into the world outside your brain, and you and I we will go forth into the universe and man and everything with a beginning, to seek for God or evidence of God, using the description of God: you with your description, and I with my description, for a guide to the search for God or evidence for God existing – or not.

For the thousandth time, we can use any definition of God that you choose.

Please stop with the game of hide and seek. Respond to our posts.

 

[Michael]

And your scattering claim failed far worse than any of those.

When? Where? In which published paper? References please.

Why can you see the minor failures of others and yet can't see the major fails of your beliefs?

You call multi-million and multi-billion dollar lab failures, "minor failures"? Wow. What exactly would constitute a "major" failure in your book?

When did you even spend a few *million* dollars testing out various types of inelastic scattering?

You really don't have an empirical leg to stand on. Object movement and *many* types of inelastic scattering are *demonstrated empirical causes* of photon redshift, and therefore there isn't even any need for your unjustified "space expansion" claims in the first place.

FYI, since you seem oblivious to the obvious, there are mathematical models of "tired light" which fit the all the same cosmological data sets:

A New Non-Doppler Redshift
[1312.0003] Alcock-Paczynski cosmological test

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I really don't think there is a correlation between IQ and theistic beliefs.

There needs to be a lot more research done before much in the way of general conclusions can be drawn, and it needs to be acknowledged that IQ is not really a measure of intelligence, but there does appear to be a negative correlation between IQ and religiosity in American Protestants

 

[Pachomius]

Please, no word salad of nonsense description of God.

Give your no nonsense description of God; otherwise you are into nonsense posting here, no matter that you claim to be into seeking evidence for God, you are in fact into hiding and seeking to hide deeper and darker, as already into flippancy, instead of serious no nonsense posting.

Dear readers here, go alert to keep track of atheists, see whether they will ever present a no nonsense description of God - or they are into as usual into hide and seek.

 

[Loudmouth]

There needs to be a lot more research done before much in the way of general conclusions can be drawn, and it needs to be acknowledged that IQ is not really a measure of intelligence, but there does appear to be a negative correlation between IQ and religiosity in American Protestants

I would consider any correlation to be happenstance and not a causal link. I know some atheists that are not that sharp. I know some really intelligent people who are very religious. I don't see how any link between IQ and religiosity is accurate, considerate, or productive in forums like these. I think it is best left alone.

 

[Freodin]

Please, no word salad of nonsense description of God.

Give your no nonsense description of God; otherwise you are into nonsense posting here, no matter that you claim to be into seeking evidence for God, you are in fact into hiding and seeking to hide deeper and darker, as already into flippancy, instead of serious no nonsense posting.

Dear readers here, go alert to keep track of atheists, see whether they will ever present a no nonsense description of God - or they are into as usual into hide and seek.

Woohoo! I win! I correctly predicted how the bot would react!

Well, I admit, I presented a whole slew of options. Kind of stacking the pot.

Ok, seriously now (as serious as one can get while trying to outwit a bot):

My definition, no nonsense, for the sake of this discussion. Let's see. How about:

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

Is that no nonsense enough? So how about we talk about the evidence you have for this concept, my very own concept of God as first and foremost the creator, cause and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

And I will present you with the evidence that this my concept of God is either non-existent, superfluous or meaningless.

Oh wait... I already did! Shucks... I'll do it again if you ask nicely.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please, no word salad of nonsense description of God.

Give your no nonsense description of God; otherwise you are into nonsense posting here, no matter that you claim to be into seeking evidence for God, you are in fact into hiding and seeking to hide deeper and darker, as already into flippancy, instead of serious no nonsense posting.

Dear readers here, go alert to keep track of atheists, see whether they will ever present a no nonsense description of God - or they are into as usual into hide and seek.

For the thousandth (and 1) time, we can use any definition of God that you choose.

 

[Michael]

For the thousandth (and 1) time, we can use any definition of God that you choose.

Without commenting on the quality of the definition, he did in fact offer you one to work with:

How to prove God exists.

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

 

[Freodin]

Without commenting on the quality of the definition, he did in fact offer you one to work with:

How to prove God exists.

AHHHHHHHH! Run!!!

It's contagious

 

[Pachomius]

Okay, Oh ye atheists, you and I have concurred on searching for evidence, good!

Now, with atheists who concur with me on the concept of God as follows:

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

We must now work as to concur on where we are to seek for God’s presence.

What do you say?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When? Where? In which published paper? References please.

Loudmouth among others have posted this. Sorry, I did not bookmark the papers that you did not read or could not understand.

You call multi-million and multi-billion dollar lab failures, "minor failures"? Wow. What exactly would constitute a "major" failure in your book?

A major fail is what you believe in concepts that were shown to be wrong, such as your scattering claim, or ideas that are only supported by a very few people and have even less evidence for them than Dark Matter does.

When did you even spend a few *million* dollars testing out various types of inelastic scattering?[/qoute]

Since it failed long before then it was not needed. And if someone on your side is so sure of it they should be able to find financing. Don't blame others for the failures on your side.

You really don't have an empirical leg to stand on. Object movement and *many* types of inelastic scattering are *demonstrated empirical causes* of photon redshift, and therefore there isn't even any need for your unjustified "space expansion" claims in the first place.

Wrong again, but then you know that. Yes, scattering may change frequencies. But guess what else it does? There is a big hint in what it is called.

FYI, since you seem oblivious to the obvious, there are mathematical models of "tired light" which fit the all the same cosmological data sets:

A New Non-Doppler Redshift
[1312.0003] Alcock-Paczynski cosmological test

And not much more than a loon is not a very good source to cite:

"In his later years Marmet was an outspoken critic of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the theory of relativity, and the Big Bang cosmological model."

Paul Marmet - Wikipedia

 

[Freodin]

Okay, Oh ye atheists, you and I have concurred on searching for evidence, good!

Now, with atheists who concur with me on the concept of God as follows:

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

We must now work as to concur on where we are to seek for God’s presence.

What do you say?

I say: great! Let's see how quickly we can get you to accept that we "concur" already, for some hundred posts now.

So, how about you, as the one who is claiming to have evidence for the existence of this concept that we concurred on (I would give you the friendly advice to check your copy and paste... there seems to be a "cause" too much in your macro)... how about you start to present a first suggestion on where to seek for God's presence?

 

[Pachomius]

Dear readers I am happy that there be atheists here who are honest and sincere to continue with me as to concur already on that we both sides seek evidence/

And also very crucially important, they concur with me on the description of God, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Now, let us sit back and await their reply to my bid for their concurrence that we come to agreement on where to seek evidence.

And take care not to be distracted by gimmicks of atheists who still want to go into hide and seek modes.

You will notice that devious trend when they don’t care at all to be rational and intelligent and sensible, but they dive into things like making ridiculous pictures of God, or talking about politeness or warning me that they will do what to me, God only knows.

As long as atheists don’t care to work to concur on things, just like boxers who don’t care to work to concur on the rules of boxing, you can be sure that they are into hide and seek.

Keep track on atheists who want to attack the messenger instead of his message, with distracting analogies on the messenger.

 

[Loudmouth]

And also very crucially important, they concur with me on the description of God, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

We concur.

For the thousandth (and 2) time, we concur.

Will you please stop with the game of hide and seek?

 

[Pachomius]

Now, dear atheists, you want me to mention where we can concur on to search for evidence?

Please bear with me, but are you so naive that you cannot insight into my idea that you are only too eager to refer to the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence? That is where I am hoping that you have the good mind to come up with, for the where to search for evidence.

Where else, but in the realm of existence as opposed to the realm of non-existence?

Okay, let me suggest to you, what about babies as the where we will search for evidence for God existing: babies are also like all things existing, components of the realm of reality, as opposed to the realm of non-reality, or non-existence?


Dear readers here, I have to stop now, but keep track on atheists, and see that they don’t return to their hide and seek gimmick.

You will know that when they for example at present, they refuse to accept that babies are a very good where to search for evidence of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

 

[Freodin]

Where else, but in the realm of existence as opposed to the realm of non-existence?

Okay, let me suggest to you, what about babies as the where we will search for evidence for God existing: babies are also like all things existing, components of the realm of reality, as opposed to the realm of non-reality, or non-existence?

Here, I think, we need to go one step further back, to bring this starting point for your search into line with your claimed God concept.

Previously, your God concept specifically declares God as creator and operator of "...everything with a beginning."
Now you are looking into "all things existing".

So we have to ask: is "all things existing" equal to "everything with a beginning". Or, in other words: are there things that exist that do not have a beginning.

Looking for evidence for God existing in "the realm of reality - all things existing" can only lead to positive results if these two concepts - "all things existing" and "everything with a beginning" - are the same group.

Do you concur?

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay, let me suggest to you, what about babies as the where we will search for evidence for God existing: babies are also like all things existing, components of the realm of reality, as opposed to the realm of non-reality, or non-existence?

Use whatever you think is evidence. Anything other than your game of hide and seek would be a relief.

You will know that when they for example at present, they refuse to accept that babies are a very good where to search for evidence of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

I will wait until you present evidence to judge it. Just present it already. No more hide and seek.

 

[Gene2memE]

Have you yourself ever taken the task to search by yourself for evidence in re God exists or not?

Yes.

Have you yourself ever by yourself searched for evidence at all, in particular where and how and what kind of evidence, in re God exists or not

I've examined the religious books of the three major Abrahimic monotheistic religions, studied and taught comparative religion and examined theological and apologetics arguments, including active engagement in forums like this, for the better part of a decade.

and what is the description of God on which you if ever yourself have searched by yourself for evidence

You're still not getting this.

Atheism is a reaction to a claim. Therefore, it can only react to descriptions of God/gods, not formulate them.

How this work is this: You tell me what your God concept is, and provide your supporting evidence for such a deity, and I'll discuss it with you.

as it is irrational and un-intelligent from your part to search for God without a no nonsense description of God

Dear readers here, I like to hint to you to examine atheists on how they think if at all: Do they think with precision, or always in aid of hide and seek, seek to hide ever deeper and darker from the issue itself of God exists or not.

Final warning.

I told you that a requirement of my continued engagement with you maintain a civil attitude in our conversation. If you continue with backhanded insults and jabs such as the sentences above, I've no qualms about ending my conversation.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I would consider any correlation to be happenstance and not a causal link.

I would say that there's not enough evidence to draw any conclusions as to correlation or causation.

I know some atheists that are not that sharp. I know some really intelligent people who are very religious.

Which would be irrelevant to any scientific study as the sample is not controlled, and outliers are to be expected in any statistical analyses. That is, in fact, exactly why statistical analyses are required.

I don't see how any link between IQ and religiosity is accurate, considerate, or productive in forums like these. I think it is best left alone.

I would agree with most of that and, as I said, it's important to remember that IQ and intelligence are not the same thing. But wasn't me who brought it up. I was just correcting the statement that you made.