How to prove God exists.

[bhsmte]

Dear atheists here, you are now diving into the un-reason and un-intelligence fabrication in your horror abuse of your mind, of the absurd infinite regress gambit.

So, the contest is on, Who oh ye atheists will be the first to mention infinite regress?


Annex

Are you ever going to provide evidence and not just opinion?

 

[Kylie]

Not it isn't presented as fact, or no it isn't a subjective interpretation of evidence?

No, things like quantum gravity and whatever else are not being presented as a fact.

It's unfalsifiable because it doesn't happen anywhere humans could ever hope to reach, and *many* other empirical causes of photon redshift are *known and demonstrated* in the lab.

You really don't understand science.

Demonstrating that the universe is not electrical in nature should do the trick.

A wonderful non-answer. The best way to falsify it is to falsify it. Wow! Why don't you actually answer the question? You apparently don't understand falsification either!

So what exactly is your rejection of people's testimony of having a "relationship" with something they call God based upon again?

The fact that everyone seems to have a different version. Not what we would expect if it was an objective truth, but it's exactly what we'd expect if it was a subjective experience that came from within each person, not from an external God.

My complaint wasn't about an idea needing to occur in controlled experimentation, my complaint was that the concept isn't falsifiable anymore than string theory is falsifiable, or exotic matter claims are falsifiable as a whole. Falsification is *optional* in physics today.

No, your complaint was that it wasn't in a lab.

In this case, it's not even about cosmology theory. I'm simply keeping your feet to the fire as it relates to your emotional requirement for "falsification". That's not a requirement in "science", so it must be a subjective belief which you *personally* hold which is part of your atheistic "belief system".

Then I'll ask you again: what would falsify your idea? Because you weren't able to answer it last time.

Beats me. Exotic matter claims never really made much sense to me in the first place. I'm inclined to believe it's related to their nucleosynthesis "predictions" which fall apart if they try to use ordinary matter.

So it didn't make much sense to you. So what? The universe is not obligated to make sense to you. However, the people who study it find it DOES make sense.

They don't even have the *basics* worked out in their theory yet, let alone any "details". Every popular mathematical definition of 'dark matter' has already been tested and blown out of the water at LHC, LUX, PandaX, electron roundness "tests", etc. None of their so called "predictions" was worth the paper it was printed on.

Maybe they know something you don't? Since they have invested a lot more time in studying this than you have, I'd say that seems a safe bet.

What qualifications do I need to simply notice they've struck out repeatedly in their own "tests"? What good were all those "qualifications" when it came to those negative lab results?

What exactly are they "qualified" in?

So you have no qualifications, and then you say that their qualifications are worthless.

Sounds like you're a conspiracy theorist about this! You claim that they have qualifications, so they're part of, what, you'd call it Big Cosmology? And yet you are completely UNqualified, and yet you are in a better position to talk about the subject and find out the truth than they are! Anti-vaxxers use the same logic, you've just replaced vaccines with dark matter etc.

Well, you can really only speak for yourself. I've been fascinated by astronomy since the Apollo missions and many current "astronomers" weren't around for those missions.

Oh, well, tell them to move out of the way, since you've obviously got better credentials then them!

And yes, I can only speak for myself. Those scientists, on the other hand, are much better qualified than me, or you. (Oh wait, I forgot. your long term interest in this means you are better qualified then them, even though they have been trained in the field and you have not.)

Those "proper credentials" didn't mean squat when it comes to lab *results*. They struck out repeatedly, so I wouldn't call them "experts" in exotic matter theory. They're experts at wasting money however.

Once again, trying to discredit the qualifications of others just because they disagree with you. And again, the same kind of techniques used by antivaxxers.

I've put together quite a few computers from parts actually, and I spend most of my day doing tech support, so I don't typically need much help with computer problems.

Wow, you really missed the point, didn't you?

You're "assuming" I can't figure the problem out myself. Why? Do I need a degree in computer science to swap out a memory stick, a CPU, a hard drive, or a motherboard?

Again, point missed. And of course a person needs training to fix a computer. Or would you like to give your problem-ridden computer to the granny who can't program a VCR? (Man, I'm showing my age...)

Qualified in what way? *If* they'd found WIMPS at LHC, LUX, PandaX, or any other experiment they ran at the energy states they claimed they would find them, I might buy your "qualification" argument. As it stands however, I have ample evidence that they botched their original baryonic mass estimates of galaxies in 2006, and they don't seem to be "experts" in the lab when it comes to producing "useful predictions". What "qualifies" them as "experts" on invisible snipes again?

Qualified in that they actually have degrees, recognized education, years of experience sorting through the data, access to things that provide raw data...

Do you have any of those things? No? Then stop saying you are able to to their job better than they can! You don't have the qualifications to back up your statements.

Well, like I said, the "track record" of your so called "experts" has been pretty ridiculous over the past decade. Not a single prediction worked right in a real 'experiment' and they produced no tangible fruits from any of the efforts. I don't see much evidence of them being "experts" on anything. Their NULL results speak for themselves.

So lucky we have you here then. Surely you will win the Nobel prize...

I'm not even deviating from empirical physics when looking for alternative explanations to the same observations, and the ideas I put my faith in actually work in the lab:

Better send this to the scientists then, and surely they will see the error of their ways!

Actually, yes. Most astronomers today specialize in one specific part of LCDM theory, or in solar theory, or in some small subset of astronomy. They don't necessarily even know all the gory details about all the facets of their own theories, let alone *alternative* ideas. I've spend most of my life studying astronomy from a general perspective, motivated by pure curiosity, not financial incentive. I've actually read Alfven's papers for myself, Birkeland's work for myself, Einstein's papers, Hubble's papers, and a lot of other ideas that most mainstream astronomers seem to know little or nothing about. The so called "professionals" who've commented on EU/PC theory on their blogs have kludged even the most *basic* elements of solar theories related to EU/PC theory and they know almost nothing about the cosmological implications of it.

And you have the education to allow you to properly understand what you read? Once again, you have no relevant qualifications, you are not in a relevant field. You are not in a position to say that they are wrong.

I've probably studied a wider variety of materials that most astronomers, if only due to my age.

Wow. That's like a mum saying that she knows vaccines are dangerous because she's read Andrew Wakefield...

Your entire argument amounts to an appeal to authority argument, while your so called authorities have nothing but egg on their face with respect to any "test" results.

Let me clarify that - an appeal to a RELEVANT authority! You can't even do that!

What exactly makes them "experts' when they came up empty and wasted billions in the process?

The fact that they have actually got relevant credentials in the relevant fields? Why, what have you got?

 

[Gene2memE]

Dear atheists here, you are now diving into the un-reason and un-intelligence fabrication in your horror abuse of your mind, of the absurd infinite regress gambit.

So, the contest is on, Who oh ye atheists will be the first to mention infinite regress?

 

[Strathos]

So have we established the correct way to prove that God exists yet?

 

[HitchSlap]

So, the contest is on, Who oh ye atheists will be the first to mention infinite regress?

So, unless it's turtles all the way down, I assume you think belief in your convictions qualifies as justification for your assertions?

 

[HitchSlap]

So have we established the correct way to prove that God exists yet?

Yep... babies.

 

[Michael]

No, things like quantum gravity and whatever else are not being presented as a fact.

You're evidently a tad naive:

Hubble Finds Universe Expanding Faster Than Expected

Where in that article would I find any hint that "space expansion", isn't "fact"? They've claimed to have nailed down the speed of "space expansion" to within a few percent, and they plan to get the number to less than 1 percent. Where in that article is it mentioned that Edwin Hubble discussed *two* potential causes of photon redshift including "tired light" alternatives to expansion models?

You really don't understand science.

On the contrary, I know how science works and functions in real life better than you think. With respect to astronomy, I also happen to know where all the supernatural and unfalsifiable skeletons are buried.

A wonderful non-answer. The best way to falsify it is to falsify it. Wow! Why don't you actually answer the question? You apparently don't understand falsification either!

Say what? I gave you a perfectly good way to falsify the model of the universe I happen to 'hold belief" in. I'm beginning to think that you don't wish to discuss the *issues* so you're focusing on bashing the messenger.

The fact that everyone seems to have a different version.

Would you get the same description of the current or past Presidents from various people?

Not what we would expect if it was an objective truth, but it's exactly what we'd expect if it was a subjective experience that came from within each person,

Woah. Two different individuals, being unique individuals, can have very different experiences, and hold very different opinions about the very same person. A quick look at the last US election will demonstrate that fact. Why would you expect the same opinions about God when two people can have completely different opinions about the very same human being? You're expectations are illogical.

not from an external God.

Why not? Our current President is external to me, and I assure you that I don't share the same opinions about him as other individuals I've talked to, and who post on Facebook. What does the "external" aspect have to do with anything?

No, your complaint was that it wasn't in a lab.

My complaint is that ideas aren't always falsifiable, and like many concepts in science, they lead to "dark matter of the gaps" arguments and such. There are in fact multiple empirical explanations for photon redshift, all of which work in a lab. Why then would I even need to use 'space expansion" to explain such observations?

Then I'll ask you again: what would falsify your idea? Because you weren't able to answer it last time.

Falsify my ideas about an electric universe? I already told you. Birkeland made a whole series of "predictions" about his cathode sun. You're welcome to falsify them if you can.

So it didn't make much sense to you. So what? The universe is not obligated to make sense to you. However, the people who study it find it DOES make sense.

Evidently not. They botched every lab result they ever "predicted". If it made any sense to them they wouldn't require 95 'dark' stuff, which amounts to nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance. If it made any sense to them, they wouldn't have to rely upon what Alfven called "pseudoscience" to try to explain high energy plasma events in light plasma in space.

Maybe they know something you don't?

If they did, the lab results would have shown that. Since they came up entirely empty, evidently they don't.

Since they have invested a lot more time in studying this than you have, I'd say that seems a safe bet.

If we'd had a bet on the outcome of the LHC results from 10 years ago, you'd owe me money. It's not nearly as safe as you imagine. They've struck out in *many* different experiments.

So you have no qualifications, and then you say that their qualifications are worthless.

*If* they'd found something you might have a real argument with respect to "qualifications". Since they came up empty, it's like claiming that only "master snipe hunters" can actually see snipes, and I'm not "qualified" to see them. Give me a break.

We spent *many millions* of dollar at LUX. We found nothing. We spent many *billions* of dollars at LHC looking for exotic forms of matter too, and not a hint of anything exotic has been observed, whereas the standard particle physics model passes those same "tests" with flying colors. I don't need any 'qualifications" to see that there "qualifications" have been *useless* in terms of any useful empirical predictions.

Sounds like you're a conspiracy theorist about this!

Huh? If this is a 'conspiracy', it's the single worst conspiracy in the entire history of physics. The mainstream keeps shooting their own claims in the foot, and falsifying their own mathematical models in the lab:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

How are any of those revelations and falsifications "my" fault?

You claim that they have qualifications,

No I don't! *You* claimed that they have some sort of "special"/magical qualifications in spite of their long string of lab failures. I haven't a clue what they might be "qualified" to do other than to flush money down a hole in the ground.

so they're part of, what, you'd call it Big Cosmology?

I'd call it the "dark ages" of astronomy actually.

And yet you are completely UNqualified,

Unqualified at what exactly? "Dark" stuff? What evidence of 'qualifications' on these *hypothetical* topics are required? Do I need snipe hunting qualifications to reject snipes as being "real" too?

and yet you are in a better position to talk about the subject and find out the truth than they are!

I never made any of those claims. Apparently you're confusing me with your own strawmen. We're all free to discuss these topics right here, right now. "Truth" isn't something that I think really applies to "science" and astronomy in general. I

Anti-vaxxers use the same logic, you've just replaced vaccines with dark matter etc.

Smear by association. Yawn. Wanna try creationism too?

Oh, well, tell them to move out of the way, since you've obviously got better credentials then them!

What do their "credentials" matter when every "test" and "prediction" they made was a complete disaster? That's like insisting that I need snipe hunting credentials to dismiss the concept of snipes for lack of evidence!

And yes, I can only speak for myself.

But that hasn't stopped you from playing the role of mind reader only to attack the individual rather than to stick to the topic.

Those scientists, on the other hand, are much better qualified than me, or you.

Qualified at what? If they were "qualified", their predictions would have been shown to be true, not shown to be false!

(Oh wait, I forgot. your long term interest in this means you are better qualified then them, even though they have been trained in the field and you have not.)

Ya, they've been better trained in the field of invisible snipe hunting alright.

Once again, trying to discredit the qualifications of others just because they disagree with you. And again, the same kind of techniques used by antivaxxers.

More smear by association.

Wow, you really missed the point, didn't you?

Miss your personal smear campaign? No. I see what you're doing just fine.

Again, point missed. And of course a person needs training to fix a computer. Or would you like to give your problem-ridden computer to the granny who can't program a VCR? (Man, I'm showing my age...)

You missed my point I'm afraid. I'm quite competent at fixing a computer, and I'm reasonably knowledgeable about astronomy too. In fact I've spent the better part of the last 10 years debating many astronomers in cyberspace. I've been around the virtual block a time or two even. 10 years ago your 'experts' had "high hopes' with respect to LHC and LUX, and the were "sure" they'd find evidence to support their claims. They didn't. Today they don't even want to discuss it and debate it in public. Why? It's obvious that they didn't find anything, that's why.

Qualified in that they actually have degrees, recognized education, years of experience sorting through the data, access to things that provide raw data...

I'm sure they're quite competent at collecting raw data. I'm also quite sure that they're equally prone to error with respect to the *interpretation* of that raw data, just like every other human being. For all their skills at data collection, their "predictions" failed in the lab.

Do you have any of those things? No?

Do you have a degree in divinity? What makes you personally qualified to discuss the topic of God, or more knowledgeable on the topic of God than all the Priests and the Pope?

You must see how silly it sounds for you to be hiding behind a pure appeal to authority fallacy, when your so called "authorities" struck out repeatedly in the lab?

Then stop saying you are able to to their job better than they can!

Quote me please.

You don't have the qualifications to back up your statements.

Which ones *exactly* are you referring to? I have all the qualifications I need to pass judgement on various topics in physics.

So lucky we have you here then. Surely you will win the Nobel prize...

Psst. Did you know that Hannes Alfven *did* win the Nobel Prize, and he's the author of EU/PC cosmology theory?

Better send this to the scientists then, and surely they will see the error of their ways!

Nah. Most of them would prefer to wallow around in the dark ages of astronomy because otherwise they'd have to admit that they were wrong, and dark stuff probably never existed in the first place.

And you have the education to allow you to properly understand what you read?

Yes I do. You do realize that your entire argument is one big personal attack strategy, right? Doesn't that get old after awhile?

Once again, you have no relevant qualifications, you are not in a relevant field. You are not in a position to say that they are wrong.

By "relevant" what do you mean? I've formally studied circuit theory, I've studied MHD theory and I've studied physics in general for decades. All the things I "hold belief' in are things that *work in the lab*. Whether they apply in space might be debatable, but I've proposed no new forms of mass or energy to explain events in space.

Folks like Hannes Alfven, who *wrote the book* on EU/PC theory and who wrote the Nobel Prize winning work on MHD theory did have all those necessary qualifications that you're so worried about. He too rejected BB theory in favor of plasma cosmology theory. He called their abuse of his MHD formulas "pseudoscience" with respect to their claims about "magnetic reconnection" too. In short, *they* weren't qualified!

Let me clarify that - an appeal to a RELEVANT authority! You can't even do that!

What authority is relevant to an invisible snipe hunt that keeps wasting money and coming up empty?

The fact that they have actually got relevant credentials in the relevant fields? Why, what have you got?

Let's see. I've got Hannes Alfven, Anthony Peratt, Eric Lerner, Dr. Charles Bruce, Kristian Birkeland, and mathematical models up the wazoo. I'm not even the author of the cosmology theory I prefer. You do realize that, right? You do realize that people with credentials (including a Nobel Prize) wrote it, right?

 

[Michael]

You're welcome to respond in full of course, but let's also make at least *some* attempt to stay on point. Falsification is *optional* in science. It's not a requirement for something to be falsifiable for it to be considered "scientific".

When an atheists tries to reject the entire concept of God based on a perception of unfalsifiability, it's simply a bogus argument, and a non-scientific argument.

Lots of hypotheses in science lack a clear falsification mechanism, and/or make no "unique predictions". That doesn't stop any "scientist" from studying such hypotheses.

 

[Radrook]

So have we established the correct way to prove that God exists yet?

You aren't convinced?

 

[Radrook]

So, unless it's turtles all the way down, I assume you think belief in your convictions qualifies as justification for your assertions?

All the way down to where?

 

[Kylie]

You're evidently a tad naive:

Hubble Finds Universe Expanding Faster Than Expected

Where in that article would I find any hint that "space expansion", isn't "fact"? They've claimed to have nailed down the speed of "space expansion" to within a few percent, and they plan to get the number to less than 1 percent. Where in that article is it mentioned that Edwin Hubble discussed *two* potential causes of photon redshift including "tired light" alternatives to expansion models?



On the contrary, I know how science works and functions in real life better than you think. With respect to astronomy, I also happen to know where all the supernatural and unfalsifiable skeletons are buried.



Say what? I gave you a perfectly good way to falsify the model of the universe I happen to 'hold belief" in. I'm beginning to think that you don't wish to discuss the *issues* so you're focusing on bashing the messenger.



Would you get the same description of the current or past Presidents from various people?



Woah. Two different individuals, being unique individuals, can have very different experiences, and hold very different opinions about the very same person. A quick look at the last US election will demonstrate that fact. Why would you expect the same opinions about God when two people can have completely different opinions about the very same human being? You're expectations are illogical.



Why not? Our current President is external to me, and I assure you that I don't share the same opinions about him as other individuals I've talked to, and who post on Facebook. What does the "external" aspect have to do with anything?



My complaint is that ideas aren't always falsifiable, and like many concepts in science, they lead to "dark matter of the gaps" arguments and such. There are in fact multiple empirical explanations for photon redshift, all of which work in a lab. Why then would I even need to use 'space expansion" to explain such observations?



Falsify my ideas about an electric universe? I already told you. Birkeland made a whole series of "predictions" about his cathode sun. You're welcome to falsify them if you can.



Evidently not. They botched every lab result they ever "predicted". If it made any sense to them they wouldn't require 95 'dark' stuff, which amounts to nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance. If it made any sense to them, they wouldn't have to rely upon what Alfven called "pseudoscience" to try to explain high energy plasma events in light plasma in space.



If they did, the lab results would have shown that. Since they came up entirely empty, evidently they don't.



If we'd had a bet on the outcome of the LHC results from 10 years ago, you'd owe me money. It's not nearly as safe as you imagine. They've struck out in *many* different experiments.



*If* they'd found something you might have a real argument with respect to "qualifications". Since they came up empty, it's like claiming that only "master snipe hunters" can actually see snipes, and I'm not "qualified" to see them. Give me a break.

We spent *many millions* of dollar at LUX. We found nothing. We spent many *billions* of dollars at LHC looking for exotic forms of matter too, and not a hint of anything exotic has been observed, whereas the standard particle physics model passes those same "tests" with flying colors. I don't need any 'qualifications" to see that there "qualifications" have been *useless* in terms of any useful empirical predictions.



Huh? If this is a 'conspiracy', it's the single worst conspiracy in the entire history of physics. The mainstream keeps shooting their own claims in the foot, and falsifying their own mathematical models in the lab:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

How are any of those revelations and falsifications "my" fault?



No I don't! *You* claimed that they have some sort of "special"/magical qualifications in spite of their long string of lab failures. I haven't a clue what they might be "qualified" to do other than to flush money down a hole in the ground.



I'd call it the "dark ages" of astronomy actually.



Unqualified at what exactly? "Dark" stuff? What evidence of 'qualifications' on these *hypothetical* topics are required? Do I need snipe hunting qualifications to reject snipes as being "real" too?



I never made any of those claims. Apparently you're confusing me with your own strawmen. We're all free to discuss these topics right here, right now. "Truth" isn't something that I think really applies to "science" and astronomy in general. I



Smear by association. Yawn. Wanna try creationism too?



What do their "credentials" matter when every "test" and "prediction" they made was a complete disaster? That's like insisting that I need snipe hunting credentials to dismiss the concept of snipes for lack of evidence!



But that hasn't stopped you from playing the role of mind reader only to attack the individual rather than to stick to the topic.



Qualified at what? If they were "qualified", their predictions would have been shown to be true, not shown to be false!



Ya, they've been better trained in the field of invisible snipe hunting alright.



More smear by association.



Miss your personal smear campaign? No. I see what you're doing just fine.



You missed my point I'm afraid. I'm quite competent at fixing a computer, and I'm reasonably knowledgeable about astronomy too. In fact I've spent the better part of the last 10 years debating many astronomers in cyberspace. I've been around the virtual block a time or two even. 10 years ago your 'experts' had "high hopes' with respect to LHC and LUX, and the were "sure" they'd find evidence to support their claims. They didn't. Today they don't even want to discuss it and debate it in public. Why? It's obvious that they didn't find anything, that's why.



I'm sure they're quite competent at collecting raw data. I'm also quite sure that they're equally prone to error with respect to the *interpretation* of that raw data, just like every other human being. For all their skills at data collection, their "predictions" failed in the lab.



Do you have a degree in divinity? What makes you personally qualified to discuss the topic of God, or more knowledgeable on the topic of God than all the Priests and the Pope?

You must see how silly it sounds for you to be hiding behind a pure appeal to authority fallacy, when your so called "authorities" struck out repeatedly in the lab?



Quote me please.




Which ones *exactly* are you referring to? I have all the qualifications I need to pass judgement on various topics in physics.



Psst. Did you know that Hannes Alfven *did* win the Nobel Prize, and he's the author of EU/PC cosmology theory?



Nah. Most of them would prefer to wallow around in the dark ages of astronomy because otherwise they'd have to admit that they were wrong, and dark stuff probably never existed in the first place.



Yes I do. You do realize that your entire argument is one big personal attack strategy, right? Doesn't that get old after awhile?



By "relevant" what do you mean? I've formally studied circuit theory, I've studied MHD theory and I've studied physics in general for decades. All the things I "hold belief' in are things that *work in the lab*. Whether they apply in space might be debatable, but I've proposed no new forms of mass or energy to explain events in space.

Folks like Hannes Alfven, who *wrote the book* on EU/PC theory and who wrote the Nobel Prize winning work on MHD theory did have all those necessary qualifications that you're so worried about. He too rejected BB theory in favor of plasma cosmology theory. He called their abuse of his MHD formulas "pseudoscience" with respect to their claims about "magnetic reconnection" too. In short, *they* weren't qualified!



What authority is relevant to an invisible snipe hunt that keeps wasting money and coming up empty?



Let's see. I've got Hannes Alfven, Anthony Peratt, Eric Lerner, Dr. Charles Bruce, Kristian Birkeland, and mathematical models up the wazoo. I'm not even the author of the cosmology theory I prefer. You do realize that, right? You do realize that people with credentials (including a Nobel Prize) wrote it, right?

So you ARE trying to hijack this thread to talk about your pet theory. No. I'm not going to play. You've already got lots of threads to do that already. Stop hijacking this one.

 

[Speedwell]

All the way down to where?

Don't you recognize that punch line?

 

[Michael]

So you ARE trying to hijack this thread to talk about your pet theory. No. I'm not going to play. You've already got lots of threads to do that already. Stop hijacking this one.

It's not about "my pet theory". I'm pointing out to you that your *emotional need* for "falsification" isn't a "scientific" requirement, nor is it a scientific argument. It's your own personal pet peeve.

An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

 

[Kylie]

It's not about "my pet theory". I'm pointing out to you that your *emotional need* for "falsification" isn't a "scientific" requirement, nor is it a scientific argument. It's your own personal pet peeve.

An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

Don't tell me my own viewpoint.

 

[Strathos]

You aren't convinced?

I haven't read the thread. I'm just asking for a status update.

 

[Armoured]

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

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

How, exactly?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dear Hitch, you identify yourself as agnostic atheist.

So do I. So does practically every atheist I know.

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.

1. what is "emotional certainty"?
2. (a)gnosticism pertains to knowledge, (a)theism pertains to beliefs. These are not mutually exclusive. If anything, one qualifies the other.

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.

There is nothing incoherent or inconsistent about an exchange like:
Q: "Do you know if a god or gods exists?"
A: "No"
Q: "Do you believe a god or gods exists?"
A: "No"

Please choose one or the other, agnostic or atheist.

Please learn and understand what those terms really mean.

 

[Radrook]

So the purpose for your posting this info is?

 

[KCfromNC]

So have we established the correct way to prove that God exists yet?

No, but I'm pretty sure we now have a great example of how not to do it.