How to prove God exists.

[Loudmouth]

Dear atheists, the series of causation from babies to parents all the way to the beginning of the universe, that is the evidence of the existence of the creator first and last cause and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

What causation is that? Where do we observe God causing anything?

The causation is the very thing you are supposed to be providing evidence for.

Now, you present your evidence of no causation from babies to parents all the way to no God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You have not presented evidence that God causes anything. In the absence of any evidence for your claim, we reject the claim until such evidence is produced.

Next, tell me, atheists, do you concur with me that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence?

We do NOT concur that the default cause is "God did it". You must provide evidence that God caused events in the past. Simply pointing to occurrences in the past is not evidence that God did anything.

 

[Loudmouth]

Logical fallacy experts help me out - is this more of a straw man or a category error?

It is an argument from ignorance. Even if we didn't know how humans developed it still wouldn't be evidence for "God Did It".

 

[Loudmouth]

Please, atheists, you also seek evidence as I do, but for God not existing.

Now, present your evidence.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

 

[Loudmouth]

Calling God a God of the gaps is no evidence to the non-existence of God,

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

You have no evidence that God exists, therefore your claim is dismissed.

Your calling God a God of the gaps is evidence of man's incomplete explanation of things in the universe and in man and in everything with a beginning.

Correct. "I don't know" is not evidence for "God did it". Never has been.

You see, dear all atheist colleagues, you have swallowed vacuous slogans and cliches to attack God, but no evidence to the non-existence of God,

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

You lose, because you say you have evidence to the non-existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning: but you have not ever presented any evidence to support the non-existence of God.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

 

[Loudmouth]

You seem to be referring to theistic evolution. Yes, theistic evolutionists do think along those lines. But theistic evolution has nothing to do with atheistic evolution which is being claimed and discussed.

What's the difference between theistic evolution and atheistic evolution when it comes to what we can observe in reality? What patterns of similarity and differences should we see in genomes in theistic evolution that we would not see in atheistic evolution? What observable and testable mechanisms cause genetic change in theistic evolution?

Tinkering with chemicals every time his design goes into action? Well, as humans don't. We just design and let the machinery go on automatic. So why imagine it any different for an intelligent designer?

We do tinker with chemicals and materials every time we make a design.

Is that what we see when a human develops from a single cell? Do we see God moving proteins about, or do we see them do it all on their own?

Also, saying that the chemicals are that way simply because that's the way they are is just another redundant way of saying:

"The chemicals did it!"

At what point in human embryonic development do the chemicals not do it?

Chemicals are being endowed with faculties that indicate planning and ability to carry out specific plans in a way that indicates-thought and meticulous skill leading to the construction of brains with their temporal lobes where hearing takes place, occipital lobes where sight resides, frontal lobes where reasoning occurs, cerebellum involving balance and fine muscular movements, pituitary glands which finely orchestrate biological changes ranging from the onset of puberty to the cessation of the menstrual cycle as well as initiating emotional responses which make us human. Blind mindless Chemicals ALONE did it? Sorry but that explanation just doesn't fly.

Could you please show us a single function in the human body that requires God to intervene?

 

[Loudmouth]

Very evasive response as expected. Don't blame you since there is really nothing logical you can offer except the totally inadequately inane:

"Da chemicals did it! So there!"

Which part of human embryonic development requires the supernatural intervention of God?

 

[KCfromNC]

It is an argument from ignorance. Even if we didn't know how humans developed it still wouldn't be evidence for "God Did It".

I was thinking of the "how do you guys explain how dumb chemicals plan stuff" part of the argument, but I don't disagree with your analysis either.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear atheist colleagues here:

You see, we have got to concur on preliminary things at all, otherwise we are into nonsense interaction, because it is talking past each other’s head, and that is irrational, un-intelligent, and a waste of time.

Now, allow me to recall that I have thought that with the what I might call atheists of intellectual sobriety (but they turned out to have changed already as of at this point in time), we have concurred on the following:

1. In your intellectually sober moments you admit that you cannot prove God does not exist, you have doubts - although in words and acts your mark yourselves off as militant atheists.

2. You concur with me on the information of God, as in concept first and foremost the creator cause and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

3. You concur with me that we both are into the search for evidence on God, from my part to be existing, from your part to be not existing.

4. We will go forth into the objective world outside of our mind to search for evidence, again from my part on God existing, and from your part on God not existing.

5. And we will in our search for evidence use the information as guide or as good road map, on the concept of God, namely, in concept first and foremost God is the creator cause and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

So, dear atheist colleagues, tell me which items above you now no longer agree with me on.

 

[HitchSlap]

Dear atheist colleagues here:

Yes?

You see, we have got to concur on preliminary things at all, otherwise we are into nonsense interaction, because it is talking past each other’s head, and that is irrational, un-intelligent, and a waste of time.

I concur. Do you concur?

Now, allow me to recall that I have thought that with the what I might call atheists of intellectual sobriety (but they turned out to have changed already as of at this point in time), we have concurred on the following:

Do you concur that agnosticism/atheism is the "intellectual sobriety" position?

1. In your intellectually sober moments you admit that you cannot prove God does not exist, /snip/projection drivel/snip/

Yes, I (we) admit we cannot prove a negative.
I accept the null hypothesis regarding your claim of god/s. If you want me to believe in one, the burden of proof is yours.

2. You concur with me on the information of God, as in concept first and foremost the creator cause and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

I agree with you insofar as "god/s" only exist as concept.

3. You concur with me that we both are into the search for evidence on God, from my part to be existing, from your part to be not existing.

I concur that you have yet to provide evidence for your god/s claim. I don't have to prove a damn thing to you.

4. We will go forth into the objective world outside of our mind to search for evidence, again from my part on God existing, and from your part on God not existing.

Again, we're still waiting for evidence of god/s from you.

5. And we will in our search for evidence use the information as guide or as good road map, on the concept of God, namely, in concept first and foremost God is the creator cause and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Over 600 posts, and no evidence from you. One can only assume you're delaying the inevitable conclusion.

So, dear atheist colleagues, tell me which items above you now no longer agree with me on.

See above.

 

[Radrook]

Which part of human embryonic development requires the supernatural intervention of God?

The intelligent designer has it on automatic.

 

[Pachomius]

I recall that Loudmouth had concurred with me on all five items, but he has forgotten it.

Now, let us just see who atheists will concur with me on No. 1:

1. In your intellectually sober moments you admit that you cannot prove God does not exist, you have doubts - although in words and acts your mark yourselves off as militant atheists.

 

[HitchSlap]

I recall that Loudmouth had concurred with me on all five items, but he has forgotten it.

Now, let us just see who atheists will concur with me on No. 1:

1. In your intellectually sober moments you admit that you cannot prove God does not exist, you have doubts /snip/#hyperbolicprojection/snip/

Even when I'm not sober, I can intellectually say I cannot prove god/s don't exist.

 

[Gene2memE]

1. In your intellectually sober moments you admit that you cannot prove God does not exist, you have doubts - although in words and acts your mark yourselves off as militant atheists.

And? Your point being?

Atheism is not an attempt to prove no God or gods exist.
Atheism is non acceptance of the belief claim that a God or gods exist.

Non-acceptance of your positive position does not equate to assertion of the negative position.

I'm not trying to prove a God or gods exist, I'm just pointing out why I don't accept your attempts to prove one does.

Why is this hard for you to understand?

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Hitch, let us we two engage in a sustained exchange, so that I will not have to reply to every atheist here.

Are you atheist? Or exactly how you do you identify yourself at all?

I am a theist, but in forums I discuss God existing on reason and observation, or more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

So, I am certain that God exists on reason and observation, and I understand God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

I am not into revelation, but records of revelation whatsoever, I could take them as simply the thoughts of humans in the history of ideas with mankind.

Now, you say: "Even when I'm not sober, I can intellectually say I cannot prove god/s don't exist."

Please attend to God, instead of god/s, is that all right with you?

 

[HitchSlap]

Dear Hitch, let us we two engage in a sustained exchange, so that I will not have to reply to every atheist here.

I won't hold my breath, but ok.

Are you atheist?

Yep.

Or exactly how you do you identify yourself at all?

For the purpose of these exchanges, I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

I am a theist,

I gather.

but in forums I discuss God existing on reason and observation, or more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

IMO, you haven't offered any good reasons, facts or logic to support that your god/s exist/s.

So, I am certain that God exists

Many people are.

on reason and observation, and I understand God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Or it could be Bob, or Zeus, or purple Tuesday farting pixies. Without any evidence, really tough to say.

I am not into revelation, but records of revelation whatsoever, I could take them as simply the thoughts of humans in the history of ideas with mankind.

Me too.

Now, you say: "Even when I'm not sober, I can intellectually say I cannot prove god/s don't exist."

Please attend to God, instead of god/s, is that all right with you?

Feel free to refer to proposed deities in any way you see fit, as will I.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dear atheist colleagues here:

You see, we have got to concur on preliminary things at all, otherwise we are into nonsense interaction, because it is talking past each other’s head, and that is irrational, un-intelligent, and a waste of time.

Now, allow me to recall that I have thought that with the what I might call atheists of intellectual sobriety (but they turned out to have changed already as of at this point in time), we have concurred on the following:

1. In your intellectually sober moments you admit that you cannot prove God does not exist, you have doubts - although in words and acts your mark yourselves off as militant atheists.

We don't have to prove that God does not exist in order to be atheists. The lack of evidence for the existence of God is all that is required to be an atheist.

2. You concur with me on the information of God, as in concept first and foremost the creator cause and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

We agree that you define God as being the creator cause. A definition is not evidence.

3. You concur with me that we both are into the search for evidence on God, from my part to be existing, from your part to be not existing.

Yes, we are in search of evidence that God is the creator cause. Simply pointing to stuff that has a beginning is not evidence that God caused that beginning.

So, dear atheist colleagues, tell me which items above you now no longer agree with me on.

Let's rephrase this a bit in order to show the problem with your reasoning.

I define Leprechauns as the creator cause of Rainbows.

We observe Rainbows.

Rainbows are evidence for the existence of Leprechauns.

Do you agree that I have evidenced the existence of Leprechauns?

 

[Loudmouth]

I recall that Loudmouth had concurred with me on all five items, but he has forgotten it.

Now, let us just see who atheists will concur with me on No. 1:

1. In your intellectually sober moments you admit that you cannot prove God does not exist, you have doubts - although in words and acts your mark yourselves off as militant atheists.

You can not prove that Leprechauns do not exist. Do you believe in Leprechauns?

You can not prove that Bigfoot does not exist. Do you believe in Bigfoot?

You can not prove that Santa Claus does not exist. Do you believe in Santa Claus?

I could name millions of mythical creatures that you can't prove don't exist, and you don't believe in any of them. You are an atheist with respect to all of those other mythical deities and beings. Why can't I take the same position with respect to the existence of God?

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Hitch, will you concur with me that it is not feasible to bring in god/s when you can just focus on the most ambitious one, which is the one on my information, that in concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

If I may, what is your point with bringing so many god/s, again and again, to what purpose?

I have to repeat my information on my concept of God, so that atheists will concentrate on it.

Now, is it your purpose that you and I will concentrate on countless gods even when mankind - the informed men and women today, do not concern themselves anymore on them.

For all these gods were in the past current in ancient times and climes, we are now in year 2017, although even in particular today only with primitive peoples.

In this regard Occam might have an instruction for protagonists on no God existing, namely, don't multiply gods when one the most ambitious one is more than enough, for a serious productive debate.

And please, no need to say again and again that I have not proven God to exist on evidence, we will not come to concurrenc on that, unless you and I review all the posts I have contributed and dispute on them endlessly, and that is not feasible.

Let us just start as from a clean slate, okay?

 

[quatona]

In your intellectually sober moments you admit that you cannot prove God does not exist

Way more important: Were you intellectually sober when you claimed you could prove God exists?

 

[Radrook]

Way more important: Were you intellectually sober when you claimed you could prove God exists?

Sobriety is essential for that claim to be made.