How to prove God exists.

[Radrook]

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?

Those mythical creatures cannot be inferred from observation. An intelligent designer can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those mythical creatures cannot be inferred from observation. An intelligent designer can.

Nope, your failure to show one bit of evidence belies that claim.

 

[Radrook]

Nope, your failure to show one bit of evidence belies that claim.

The only evidence you accept is chemicals did it evidence.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Hitch, you identify yourself as agnostic atheist.

I find that description to be intrinsically inconsistent and incoherent, because an agnostic is not certain about God existing, but an atheist is at least emotionally certain God does not exist.

Are you aware that it is irrational and un-intelligent to have inconsistent and incoherent thoughts in your heart and mind?

So, I would propose that you choose one or the other.

You see, it is like this with you, it is like that you are not sure whether the movement of the bush is indicative of a man behind or not, but you go ahead and shoot, that is irrational and un-intelligent: and it is impossible thereby to have a productive exchange with you.

Please choose one or the other, agnostic or atheist.


Annex

[...]

Pachomius said: ↑

Or exactly how you do you identify yourself at all?

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

[...]

 

[quatona]

I´m sure you cannot prove God exists.

 

[Gene2memE]

Dear Hitch, you identify yourself as agnostic atheist.

So do I.

I find that description to be intrinsically inconsistent and incoherent,

That's your issue.

because an agnostic is not certain about God existing

Broadly correct

but an atheist is at least emotionally certain God does not exist.

Please choose one or the other, agnostic or atheist.

Nope.

For certain God concepts, I'm willing to positively state that no such thing exists
For other God concepts, I'm willing to state I don't know one way or the other about its existence.

Theism is about belief - a theist has a belief in the existence of deities. An atheist does not have this. Atheism means without belief, not certainty about existence.

Gnosticism is about knowledge - you can be certain, or uncertain, of the existence of deities, but still have a belief in their existence. When I was a Christian, I had no knowlege about the existence of God, and thus claimed no certainty, but I still believed.

They're not mutually exclusive. You can be a theist or an atheist and still hold a agnostic position. They're different continuums.

You see, it is like this with you, it is like that you are not sure whether the movement of the bush is indicative of a man behind or not, but you go ahead and shoot,

That's not an accurate analogy.

A more accurate one is this:

Two men are observing a bush moving. One says makes the claim that it is man moving the bush. The other says "I don't believe you, prove it".

Actually, a slightly more accurate analogy would be this. Two men are standing in a field and one man says to the other: "See that bush moving there, that bush is moving because the invisible, intangible, all loving, all knowing, all powerful creator of everything is making it move". The second man responds "I don't see the bush moving".

Now which one is the atheist and which one is the theist?

 

[HitchSlap]

Dear Hitch, you identify yourself as agnostic atheist.

Yep.

I find that description to be intrinsically inconsistent and incoherent, because an agnostic is not certain about God existing, but an atheist is at least emotionally certain God does not exist.

If you need clarification, just ask.
Agnosticism is a position with respect to knowledge; as in, I don't know that god/s exist.

Atheism is a statement of belief; as in, I don't believe god/s exist.

Savvy?

Are you aware that it is irrational and un-intelligent to have inconsistent and incoherent thoughts in your heart and mind?

Of course. "Mind" is that fuzzy word we use to describe what the brain does. The heart is just a four chambered muscle that pumps blood.

So, I would propose that you choose one or the other.

I propose you actually attempt to understand what it is I actually say, and quit with this straw man tack.

You see, it is like this with you, it is like that you are not sure whether the movement of the bush is indicative of a man behind or not, but you go ahead and shoot, that is irrational and un-intelligent: and it is impossible thereby to have a productive exchange with you.

Well, if you continue to talk right past me, and don't have the courtesy to ask clarifying questions when you're ignorant of something, I suppose our exchanges will be less than productive. Your choice.

Please choose one or the other, agnostic or atheist.

See above.

Will you be getting to the evidence any time soon?

 

[Radrook]

So do I.



That's your issue.



Broadly correct



Nope.

For certain God concepts, I'm willing to positively state that no such thing exists
For other God concepts, I'm willing to state I don't know one way or the other about its existence.

Theism is about belief - a theist has a belief in the existence of deities. An atheist does not have this. Atheism means without belief, not certainty about existence.

Gnosticism is about knowledge - you can be certain, or uncertain, of the existence of deities, but still have a belief in their existence. When I was a Christian, I had no knowlege about the existence of God, and thus claimed no certainty, but I still believed.

They're not mutually exclusive. You can be a theist or an atheist and still hold a agnostic position. They're different continuums.



That's not an accurate analogy.

A more accurate one is this:

Two men are observing a bush moving. One says makes the claim that it is man moving the bush. The other says "I don't believe you, prove it".

Actually, a slightly more accurate analogy would be this. Two men are standing in a field and one man says to the other: "See that bush moving there, that bush is moving because the invisible, intangible, all loving, all knowing, all powerful creator of everything is making it move". The second man responds "I don't see the bush moving".

Now which one is the atheist and which one is the theist?

Two men are out hunting. One says

""The wind is moving that bush!"

The other says

"I don't feel no wind! The chemicals did it!"

 

[Freodin]

Two men are out hunting. One says

""The wind is moving that bush!"

The other says

"I don't feel no wind! The chemicals did it!"

The wind? It is clearly the spirit of God who moves the bush!
How would "wind" - which isn't even an object! - know to plan and execute such a movement?
This is inane! Wind cannot do that.
There is no proof for this atheistic theory of "mechanics". Rather heed the scientific theory of "ID"... "Intelligent Deformation" identifies and explains when an "Intelligent Mover" is responsible for the spatial change in objects.

 

[Radrook]

The wind? It is clearly the spirit of God who moves the bush!
How would "wind" - which isn't even an object! - know to plan and execute such a movement?
This is inane! Wind cannot do that.
There is no proof for this atheistic theory of "mechanics". Rather heed the scientific theory of "ID"... "Intelligent Deformation" identifies and explains when an "Intelligent Mover" is responsible for the spatial change in objects.

The problem with that analogy is that the wind has been observed to move things spatially whereas abiogenesis has never been observed in nature or even in a lab. That fatal differential flaw makes the analogy false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with that analogy is that the wind has been observed to move things spatially whereas abiogenesis has never been observed in nature or even in a lab. That fatal differential flaw makes the analogy false.

Abiogenesis is much more complex than the wind. And many of the necessary steps for abiogenesis have been observed in the lab. You should study up on a subject before you comment. I gave you links to the website of one of the major researchers in this topic. Why didn't you avail yourself of that knowledge?

Your objections are petty. The analogy still holds.

 

[Freodin]

The problem with that analogy is that the wind has been observed to move things spatially whereas abiogenesis has never been observed in nature or even in a lab. That fatal differential flaw makes the analogy false.

Who's talking about "abiogenesis"? We are talking about "chemicals did it".
We observe chemicals interact, and form compounds and complex molecules all the time. We observe chemicals form life all the time.

But here you deny the unguided process. So, ok, let's adapt my analogy to your version: It was the wind moving the bush. But it could not have done so on its own. Unguided wind-movement is inane and ridiculous. The wind must have been designed and guided by an Intelligent Mover to be able to move the bush.
This is only reasonable. How would "wind" - which isn't even an object - know how to move bushes? "Wind" is only air that is moving. It cannot have moved itself. It must have been moved by the Intelligent Mover!

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Hitch, I find your thoughts on God existing or not, in re that you are both agnostic and atheist, to be most inviting from us both to examine each one's way of thinking.

In most particular, what I call the motivational direction of your thinking, namely, you think for a definite purpose which is very interesting for us both to examine, and concur whether you and I are correct on our reciprocal finding on our respective motivational way of thinking.

For example, I find your way to thinking to be motivationally directed to making your position what I might at this point in time call, fuzzy.

And then we can examine why you and I each respectively and reciprocally adopt each one's way of thinking: what is the purpose ultimately of our each one's adoption of our each one's peculiar motivational thinking way.

Now, of course you can tell me also what kind of motivational way you see me to be into: everything I examine in you and how, you too do it on me, okay?

In other words, we will examine each other's way of thinking, in regard to motivation, and why we adopt the motivational goal of our each one's respective motivational thinking way.

And all that in regard to the issue God exists or not.

What do you say?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

We know very little about what causes lightning, but what we do know is that there is not enough electrical charge in clouds to cause them according to currently understood physics.

The question is - is this evidence for Thor? If not, why is the fact that we don't yet understand abiogenesis evidence for God?

 

[Radrook]

Who's talking about "abiogenesis"? We are talking about "chemicals did it".
We observe chemicals interact, and form compounds and complex molecules all the time. We observe chemicals form life all the time.

But here you deny the unguided process. So, ok, let's adapt my analogy to your version: It was the wind moving the bush. But it could not have done so on its own. Unguided wind-movement is inane and ridiculous. The wind must have been designed and guided by an Intelligent Mover to be able to move the bush.
This is only reasonable. How would "wind" - which isn't even an object - know how to move bushes? "Wind" is only air that is moving. It cannot have moved itself. It must have been moved by the Intelligent Mover!

See all them doing such things all the time? True, we do observe such mindless chemicals displaying the characteristics of a planning mind all the time. That's why we conclude that they were programmed to do so by a planning mind. The observation of mindless chemicals constructing miniature machines and multicellular structures such as the brain should lead any unbiased rational observer to the conclusion that they were programmed by a mind to do it and NOT that the chemicals are mindlessly doing it on their own. That would be the obviously rational and honest conclusion to reach based on that observation. But then again rationality and honesty would lead to an intelligent designer so they are sacrificed at the alter of atheism for avoidance's sake. That is NOT science-not by a long shot!

 

[IAMANOBODY2015]

My life is proof enough for me to know God exists.

That's good.

A lot of Christians in third world don't have access to history books or science books, but they simply believe because God spoke to their hearts. I know that is not excepted for some people. That's not even accepted by some Christians who are into science and history.

I am not saying because they are persecuted that proves the existence of the Christapian God. Heck, Muslims die for their faith. I get why that would not mean anything to atheists.

But my comments are to Christians who try to use science and even history to try prove God.

A lot of third world Christians don't have access to science books history books. They simply believed because God put the knowledge in their hearts. They see the sun, the moon, and the star. And that is enough for them.

People who are convince that God is not real is not going to accept the scientific discovery. The will always have counter argument.

 

[singpraise]

That's good.

A lot of Christians in third world don't have access to history books or science books, but they simply believe because God spoke to their hearts. I know that is not excepted for some people. That's not even accepted by some Christians who are into science and history.

I am not saying because they are persecuted that proves the existence of the Christapian God. Heck, Muslims die for their faith. I get why that would not mean anything to atheists.

But my comments are to Christians who try to use science and even history to try prove God.

A lot of third world Christians don't have access to science books history books. They simply believed because God put the knowledge in their hearts. They see the sun, the moon, and the star. And that is enough for them.

People who are convince that God is not real is not going to accept the scientific discovery. The will always have counter argument.

Yes, that is very true. Many people have told of being visited directly by the Holy Spirit and learned the truth about Christ from a vision, dream or whatever non-traditional way. God is in control. He will save who He saves. It is not for mere mortals to question His wisdom and grace. He can do anything He chooses. He will not lose any one of His sheep! He knows where each and every one of them (us) are, no matter how well hidden.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

No, wrong on most counts. Thanks for asking, though.

 

[Radrook]

We know very little about what causes lightning, but what we do know is that there is not enough electrical charge in clouds to cause them according to currently understood physics.

The question is - is this evidence for Thor? If not, why is the fact that we don't yet understand abiogenesis evidence for God?

We aren't claiming that ignorance of a proven phenomenon's cause is a basis for disbelief. The problem is that the phenomenon of abiogenesis is not in the same category as lightning. We plainly can observe lightning occurring. We cannot and have never seen abiogenesis occurring nor can it even be forced to occur in a lab. So the analogy is flawed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Those mythical creatures cannot be inferred from observation. An intelligent designer can.

Yet another claim devoid of evidence.