-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How to prove God exists.
- Thread starter Pachomius
- Start date
Dear Hitch, you have no idea of any information of concepts of God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities at all?
What then are you doing here in this thread where I find you to be professing that you are both an agnostic and an atheist?
This thread is about How to prove God exists.
So, you are conducting yourself in an irrational and un-intelligent manner.
What do you say?
What then are you doing here in this thread where I find you to be professing that you are both an agnostic and an atheist?
This thread is about How to prove God exists.
So, you are conducting yourself in an irrational and un-intelligent manner.
What do you say?
Upvote
0
Freodin
Devout believer in a theologically different God
I cannot speak for HitchSlap, only for myself.
This is a thread by someone who presents a concept of "God" and that he can "prove" its existence. As an atheist, I am always interested in seeing concepts of "God" presented, and if someone claims to be able to prove it, this is even more interesting.
Among others, one of the things that confirm me in my position as an atheist is the complete failure and inability of those who assert to have "proof of God" to follow through with this claim.
I already presented you with a rational and, I hope, intelligently formulated explanation why your "proof by babies" doesn't work.
You can accept that, or argue against that. Simply ignoring it doesn't make you appear rational, intelligent... or even consistent, with all your claims of "hide and seek atheists".
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Dear Hitch, the trouble is before we can do anything of rational and intelligent exchange we have got to concur on preliminary things, like that for example, The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
Now, you say you have no idea at all on God, god, goddesses, deities, divinities, so you are conducting yourself in an irrational and un-intelligent manner.
I guess you just write here to waste the time of posters here, like myself, for from my part I am keen to examine how you think at all, in case there is something rational and intelligent from your heart and mind.
But I am now almost sure that you are completely into contrived irrationality and un-intelligence, just to feel yourself to be so smart with your kind of self-embraced absurd behavior.
Anyway, prescinding from God, etc., let us go into this statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," what do you say about the statement, namely: first, do you understand it or not?
Now, you say you have no idea at all on God, god, goddesses, deities, divinities, so you are conducting yourself in an irrational and un-intelligent manner.
I guess you just write here to waste the time of posters here, like myself, for from my part I am keen to examine how you think at all, in case there is something rational and intelligent from your heart and mind.
But I am now almost sure that you are completely into contrived irrationality and un-intelligence, just to feel yourself to be so smart with your kind of self-embraced absurd behavior.
Anyway, prescinding from God, etc., let us go into this statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," what do you say about the statement, namely: first, do you understand it or not?
Upvote
0
Okay, Hitch, that is very good, you and I we concur that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
That concurrence has within its cognitive substance the proof 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.
What do you say? Please give your comments.
And addressing all atheists who do accept that the default status of things in the totality of existence, please also give your comments.
If you do not concur, please bear with me, I will not interact with you, because I see you to be bereft of reason.
For those who do concur, please bring forth your comments, but remember that as you concur, so you must have seen it to be rational that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
Wherefore continue to act rational and intelligent, do not relapse again into inconsistency and incoherency with your heart and mind, as to expose yourselves in the core, to be irrational nad un-intelligent.
That concurrence has within its cognitive substance the proof 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.
What do you say? Please give your comments.
And addressing all atheists who do accept that the default status of things in the totality of existence, please also give your comments.
If you do not concur, please bear with me, I will not interact with you, because I see you to be bereft of reason.
For those who do concur, please bring forth your comments, but remember that as you concur, so you must have seen it to be rational that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
Wherefore continue to act rational and intelligent, do not relapse again into inconsistency and incoherency with your heart and mind, as to expose yourselves in the core, to be irrational nad un-intelligent.
Upvote
0
Freodin
Devout believer in a theologically different God
If that is just Pachomius-word-salad-talk for "'existent' and 'real' can be used as synonyms"... yes, I would concur. I do have some objections to your phrasing, but as you have already explained that criticism of your position will be considered "bereft of reason", I won't insist on these.
So, go on, explain how that now proves God.
Upvote
0
Well, at this point in time I am still waiting for Hitch to react to my post, see below in Annex.
And dear atheists here, please also give your comments, okay?
Annex
And dear atheists here, please also give your comments, okay?
Annex
Upvote
0
Dear Hitch and atheists who accept that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence, that is No. 1 step of the proof for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
Now, I like to ask you, can you and I at all get connected as to engage in a rational and intelligent exchange of thoughts, unless you and I base our thinking on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the best of the history of ideas from the most genuine thinkers among mankind?
No. 2 step is that you avoid and abstain from inconsistency and incoherency in your thinking at all.
Why do I say that?
Because I see you atheists here as a rule, to be into all kinds and manners of irrationality and un-intelligence.
That is my impression, from how you atheists conduct yourselves, like for example, stating that you are agnostic, meaning not capable of coming to certainty on God existing - in your intellectual sobriety, but also professing yourselves to be emotionally self-convinced that God does not exist, see that?
Contradiction between your mind and your heart.
So, dear atheists here, please: no more of inconsistency and incoherency in your heart and mind.
You have to keep to reason and observation and logic, and also of course think on the best ideas from the most genuine teachers of mankind in history.
Otherwise you cannot follow my proof 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.
Summing up, dear atheists, are you ready for No. 2 step of my proof for God’s existence? namely:
No. 2 step is that you avoid and abstain from inconsistency and incoherency in your thinking at all.
We will launch into No. 3 step, when we have concurred on No. 1 and now No. 2.
Now, I like to ask you, can you and I at all get connected as to engage in a rational and intelligent exchange of thoughts, unless you and I base our thinking on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the best of the history of ideas from the most genuine thinkers among mankind?
No. 2 step is that you avoid and abstain from inconsistency and incoherency in your thinking at all.
Why do I say that?
Because I see you atheists here as a rule, to be into all kinds and manners of irrationality and un-intelligence.
That is my impression, from how you atheists conduct yourselves, like for example, stating that you are agnostic, meaning not capable of coming to certainty on God existing - in your intellectual sobriety, but also professing yourselves to be emotionally self-convinced that God does not exist, see that?
Contradiction between your mind and your heart.
So, dear atheists here, please: no more of inconsistency and incoherency in your heart and mind.
You have to keep to reason and observation and logic, and also of course think on the best ideas from the most genuine teachers of mankind in history.
Otherwise you cannot follow my proof 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.
Summing up, dear atheists, are you ready for No. 2 step of my proof for God’s existence? namely:
No. 2 step is that you avoid and abstain from inconsistency and incoherency in your thinking at all.
We will launch into No. 3 step, when we have concurred on No. 1 and now No. 2.
Upvote
0
Freodin, you say:
“I already presented you with a rational and, I hope, intelligently formulated explanation why your "proof by babies" doesn't work.”
You went to bed, and next day I got into a sustained exchange with Hitch.
Suppose you now give a summary of my proof from babies and your explaining how it does not work.
“I already presented you with a rational and, I hope, intelligently formulated explanation why your "proof by babies" doesn't work.”
You went to bed, and next day I got into a sustained exchange with Hitch.
Suppose you now give a summary of my proof from babies and your explaining how it does not work.
Upvote
0
Dear Loudmouth and Gene2 and other atheists here, tell me what items below you don't concur on with me:
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
