How to prove God exists.

[Michael]

That's like saying seeing an apple fall from a tree is not evidence for gravity, it is evidence for the belief in gravity.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is a movie called "Thor". Is that evidence that Thor is real?

Thor was a fallen angel.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thor was a fallen angel.

No. Thor was a god. Didn't you watch the movie?

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Thor was a god. Didn't you watch the movie?

Fallen angels aren't gods?

Hmmm ... perhaps they didn't make that clear in the movie, eh?

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Posts were removed or edited for flaming/goading/mocking/off topic.

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Do not discuss each other.

Stick to the OP topic.

First and before anything else, people who care to prove God exists, or for people who care to disprove or to deny God exists even without proving, because they just want to insist that God does not exist, or they want to maintain their right to not admit that God exists...

First and before anything else, all peoples have got to harbor in their mind or brain the information of the concept of God, otherwise they are not acting rationally and in fact they are acting un-intelligently.

So, dear posters here, and dear readers here who don't post: please, do speak out instead of being all the time passively reading, and not contributing your own thoughts on the issue God exists (or not).

At this point, I will invite posters here to give their comments, on my statement that first and foremost, peoples who want to prove or disprove or deny God exists even without proving anything at all, please give your comments in reaction to my statement about people not having at all any information on the concept of God Which God is to be proven to exist or to not exist, that they are conducting themselves irrationally and even un-intelligently.


So dear readers of this thread, let us sit back and await posters here to present their comments, on my statement that:

First and foremost you have got to have information on the concept of God, in order to be relevant to the proof or disproof of God existing, otherwise you are conducting yourselves irrationally or in particular un-intelligently.​

Again, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await posters here to present their comments or words, to the effect of reacting to my statement immediately preceding this ending paragraph of my post here.



[ A similar thread from me is started in another internet forum. ]

Discussing each other is off-topic, and may also be flaming/goading/mocking.

If you have nothing to say on the topic of the OP, then do not post.

If you want to discuss each other, do it by a PM, not on the open forum.

Do not mess up this thread with off topic discussions.

 

[Pachomius]

Okay, Loudmouth, here is my message on the OP of which I am the author, How to prove God exists.

In order to prove from your part as also from my part, don't you see that we have got to concur at all on necessary premises, it is like we two are going into a boxing bout, to determine who is a better boxer, we have got to concur on the rules of the sport.
Allow me therefore to repeat my message (with some lines deleted) which is all about the OP and nothing personal on you as a fellow human being, who is of the opposite conviction that God does not exist.

"Dear Loudmouth, you say. ”No atheist in this discussion has said that there is no God. How many times do we need to repeat this?” (Loudmouth, Saturday at 6:29 AM #816 )







So, as you if I recall correctly say also it is just that you don’t find evidence of God existing.







But before you can see evidence all around you, you and I have to work together in all honesty to concur on premises which are indispensable for a human to see evidence for the existence of something at all.



First premise to concur on then, if I may, tell me do you concur with me that:



“The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence?”

 

[Loudmouth]

First premise to concur on then, if I may, tell me do you concur with me that:



“The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence?”

I concur.

We have all concurred with this.

Will we have to concur another 10 times before you move past it?

Just get to the evidence already.

 

[bhsmte]

Okay, Loudmouth, here is my message on the OP of which I am the author, How to prove God exists.

In order to prove from your part as also from my part, don't you see that we have got to concur at all on necessary premises, it is like we two are going into a boxing bout, to determine who is a better boxer, we have got to concur on the rules of the sport.
Allow me therefore to repeat my message (with some lines deleted) which is all about the OP and nothing personal on you as a fellow human being, who is of the opposite conviction that God does not exist.

"Dear Loudmouth, you say. ”No atheist in this discussion has said that there is no God. How many times do we need to repeat this?” (Loudmouth, Saturday at 6:29 AM #816 )







So, as you if I recall correctly say also it is just that you don’t find evidence of God existing.







But before you can see evidence all around you, you and I have to work together in all honesty to concur on premises which are indispensable for a human to see evidence for the existence of something at all.



First premise to concur on then, if I may, tell me do you concur with me that:



“The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence?”

Are you ever going to get to the evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

EDIT: deleted.

waste of energy and webspace.

 

[Pachomius]

Loudmouth, you say, "Just get to the evidence already."
Here, first evidence is of two kinds, in term of venue: in the conceptual realm, in the objectival realm.
In the conceptual realm which is in our mind, an example is this truism, namely, The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence; you concur to that with me - thanks.
In the objectival realm which is all things which surround us in everyday's life and work and leisure, etc., for examples the nose in our face, babies, stones, the sun in the day sky, and the moon in the night sky, etc., you get the idea.
______________
I am hoping that we two can have a sensible thus viable exchange, with getting linked as to not talk past each other's head.
Here goes, my attempt to get linked with you.
You see, I ask you for your information on the concept of God Which you deny to exist, and also pieces of evidence the absence of which is the ground by which you conclude to the non-existence of God.
You say you accept the concept of God as per my offer of information to you, see below.
Now, in regard to evidence, I have already expatiated on evidence passim in this thread, see below.
So, see if I can read something from you, in pursuit of us two getting linked up as to achieve a sensible and thus viable connection, on the issue God exists or not.

Write up of my brief exposition on God and evidence for God:
Now, Loudmouth, I will tell you that for myself as a theist, God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
And for pieces of evidence which I see all around me everyday and everywhere, I will just mention the nose in our face which is not going to fall off uncertainly, babies, the sun in the day sky, and the moon in the evening sky, etc., all which lead me to infer to the existence of God in per concept above, you get the idea.
What exactly is evidence in regard to the existence of God as per concept above?
It is anything at all that we know in everyday’s life and work and leisure in our environment, and also in our mind, from which we can and do infer ultimately to the existence of God, namely, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

I hope you will continue with me, now that I have presented to you the information on the concept of God, and also some pieces of evidence which lead me to infer to the existence of God as per concept above.

Tell you what, suppose you just tell me in your reply, again what is the information of the concept of God with you, from your self thought out idea of God?
And what pieces of evidence do you know to be missing which absence leads you to infer to the non-existence of God, as per YOUR information on the concept of God Which you deny to exist.

 

[bhsmte]

Loudmouth, you say, "Just get to the evidence already."
Here, first evidence is of two kinds, in term of venue: in the conceptual realm, in the objectival realm.
In the conceptual realm which is in our mind, an example is this truism, namely, The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence; you concur to that with me - thanks.
In the objectival realm which is all things which surround us in everyday's life and work and leisure, etc., for examples the nose in our face, babies, stones, the sun in the day sky, and the moon in the night sky, etc., you get the idea.
______________
I am hoping that we two can have a sensible thus viable exchange, with getting linked as to not talk past each other's head.
Here goes, my attempt to get linked with you.
You see, I ask you for your information on the concept of God Which you deny to exist, and also pieces of evidence the absence of which is the ground by which you conclude to the non-existence of God.
You say you accept the concept of God as per my offer of information to you, see below.
Now, in regard to evidence, I have already expatiated on evidence passim in this thread, see below.
So, see if I can read something from you, in pursuit of us two getting linked up as to achieve a sensible and thus viable connection, on the issue God exists or not.

Write up of my brief exposition on God and evidence for God:
Now, Loudmouth, I will tell you that for myself as a theist, God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
And for pieces of evidence which I see all around me everyday and everywhere, I will just mention the nose in our face which is not going to fall off uncertainly, babies, the sun in the day sky, and the moon in the evening sky, etc., all which lead me to infer to the existence of God in per concept above, you get the idea.
What exactly is evidence in regard to the existence of God as per concept above?
It is anything at all that we know in everyday’s life and work and leisure in our environment, and also in our mind, from which we can and do infer ultimately to the existence of God, namely, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

I hope you will continue with me, now that I have presented to you the information on the concept of God, and also some pieces of evidence which lead me to infer to the existence of God as per concept above.

Tell you what, suppose you just tell me in your reply, again what is the information of the concept of God with you, from your self thought out idea of God?
And what pieces of evidence do you know to be missing which absence leads you to infer to the non-existence of God, as per YOUR information on the concept of God Which you deny to exist.

Still no evidence.

 

[Skreeper]

...And for pieces of evidence which I see all around me everyday and everywhere, I will just mention the nose in our face which is not going to fall off uncertainly, babies, the sun in the day sky, and the moon in the evening sky, etc., all which lead me to infer to the existence of God in per concept above, you get the idea.
What exactly is evidence in regard to the existence of God as per concept above?
It is anything at all that we know in everyday’s life and work and leisure in our environment, and also in our mind, from which we can and do infer ultimately to the existence of God, namely, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

The nose on our face is evidence for the existence of our nose. Babies are evidence that babies exist...you get the idea.
You cannot infer something like a god into existence unless you provide us with the criteria by which you did so and then actually provide evidence.

"Just look at the trees!" is not and never will be evidence for a creator/designer.

 

[Pachomius]

PS
Dear Loudmouth, perhaps if you will, just present in one brief write up your expatiation on your thinking by which you come to the non-existence of God, or whatever you are to my impression denying to exist, in re of this thread on How to prove God exists.
Then when you are seeing that I am repeating my expatiation on how I think to the existence of God, you just repeat your expatiation on how you on your part have come to the non-existence of God, or whatever you are denying to exist, in re of this thread, which in on How to prove God exists.
In that manner we both will get to know definitively how we are into an impasse.
And at that point we will go into the examination of how the impasse comes about.

 

[bhsmte]

PS
Dear Loudmouth, perhaps if you will, just present in one brief write up your expatiation on your thinking by which you come to the non-existence of God, or whatever you are to my impression denying to exist, in re of this thread on How to prove God exists.
Then when you are seeing that I am repeating my expatiation on how I think to the existence of God, you just repeat your expatiation on how you on your part have come to the non-existence of God, or whatever you are denying to exist, in re of this thread, which in on How to prove God exists.
In that manner we both will get to know definitively how we are into an impasse.
And at that point we will go into the examination of how the impasse comes about.

Still waiting on your evidence to show god exists.

 

[Pachomius]

Now, to atheists who react to my expatiation with No evidence.
You have to present your write up on what is your idea of evidence, and what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

 

[Skreeper]

PS
Dear Loudmouth, perhaps if you will, just present in one brief write up your expatiation on your thinking by which you come to the non-existence of God, or whatever you are to my impression denying to exist, in re of this thread on How to prove God exists.
Then when you are seeing that I am repeating my expatiation on how I think to the existence of God, you just repeat your expatiation on how you on your part have come to the non-existence of God, or whatever you are denying to exist, in re of this thread, which in on How to prove God exists.
In that manner we both will get to know definitively how we are into an impasse.
And at that point we will go into the examination of how the impasse comes about.

No offense but it is very hard to understand the actual content of your posts. I grant that my first language isn't English but maybe you could try to compact your posts. I think you can get to the point a little bit quicker.

your expatiation on your thinking by which you come to the non-existence of God, or whatever you are to my impression denying to exist

Well that is easy: You have not shown any evidence for the existence of a god or gods.

 

[Skreeper]

Now, to atheists who react to my expatiation with No evidence.
You have to present your write up on what is your idea of evidence, and what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

One simple google search later: Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

 

[bhsmte]

Now, to atheists who react to my expatiation with No evidence.
You have to present your write up on what is your idea of evidence, and what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

Well, things that support your claim. That are objective, verifiable and point to a god existing.

 

[Pachomius]

You say: "One simple google search later: Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
That is all in your mind, in the realm of concepts.
You have to look for evidence also and in most particular outside your mind, in the objectival realm of everyday's life and work and leisure and babies and the nose in our face and the sun in the day sky and the moon in the evening sky, etc., you get the idea?
But in your mind, there are also instances of evidence which are all truisms, like The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
Or that A thing either exists or not.
Such truisms are in our mind and they are evidence for us to conclude i.e. to infer as to reach the certainty that non-existence is never and nowhere ever any default status of things in the totality of reality:
Wherefore a human being cannot proceed at all from the fundamental premise of nothingness, as when you posit nothingness as the default status of things in the totality of reality, then logically you have to already consider yourself as part of nothingness.
Consequently you keep inside the silence of nothingness, unless of course you want to play the paradoxical fiction of nothingness as somethingness i.e. existence - and that is total illogic.

Dear atheists, please do more reading from very serious literature on evidence, and let you know that evidence is not into propositions except that the propositions are into the existence of an act or an object in the realm of things in the concrete world of babies, nose in our face, shooting in the school campus, etc., including the existence of God, in concept as as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Now, atheists here, please give instances of no evidence by which you conclude to the falsity of the existence of God, and of course what is your information on the concept of God which you deny there is evidence to the truth of the existence of God, based on my thinking on reason and observation.
Or as I see you to be into next, your explanation for the existence of babies, namely, because there is a law of gravity, then babies could and did come about in the ultimate terms.

Or that there is the randomness of events, so the universe happens, that is all.

Don't forget your evidence for the law of gravity, and also as there is a law, then there is an author of the law.

And don't forget to produce evidence of how randomness brings forth into existence anything at all - but best, present your proposition on how randomness exists at all outside your mind.