How to prove God exists.

[Michael]

I am just gonna ask: What do you mean by "firm conviction"? As an atheist my standpoint is that the theists have not met their burden of proof and therefore I reject the claim that a god exists.

That would still simply be a subjective personal opinion that you happen to hold (your belief) which most of humanity happens to disagree with.

 

[quatona]

The current fashion is to claim atheism while vehemently denying that they don't believe in the inexistence of God.

Not sure why you would call it a "fashion", but, yes, "I don´t believe in the existence of a God" is indeed the position of pretty much every self-professed here.
If you want to discuss the position of the posters here, you would have to discuss this position.
If you want to tackle a different position, you are barking up the wrong tree.

But all that´s just irrelevant. We are waiting for the promised proof of God´s existence.

 

[Radrook]

Not sure why you would call it a "fashion", but, yes, "I don´t believe in the existence of a God" is indeed the position of pretty much every self-professed here.
If you want to discuss the position of the posters here, you would have to discuss this position.
If you want to tackle a different position, you are barking up the wrong tree.

But all that´s just irrelevant. We are waiting for the promised proof of God´s existence.

If you openly admit that you don't believe then you aren't included in the fashion that I described.

BTW
I usually refrain from barking at trees-but OK, thanks for the warning.

 

[quatona]

If you openly admit that you don't believe then you aren't included in the fashion that I described.

Every self-professed atheist here "admits" that, and of course I included in that description:
I don´t believe in the existence of a God.
I don´t believe in the inexistence of a God, either.
Nor do I believe in the non-inexistence of a God, or whatever other unnecessary multiple negation you´ll come up with next.

Cut the semantics games - we´re waiting for the promised proof.

 

[Radrook]

Every self-professed atheist here "admits" that, and of course I included in that description:
I don´t believe in the existence of a God.
I don´t believe in the inexistence of a God, either.
Nor do I believe in the non-inexistence of a God, or whatever other unnecessary multiple negation you´ll come up with next.

Cut the semantics games - we´re waiting for the promised proof.

Ah, there we go! So you are included in the latest fashion after all. Congrats!

BTW
I never promise proof to those impervious to proof.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, dear readers, Loudmouth has not yet come over.



I have checked carefully, and at this point in time in my location, I do not see Loudmouth having replied to my last posts here, prior to the present one.



Now, dear readers, I am in the process of getting words from Loudmouth, as to be ascertained that he has said things: for first I want to get his statements, to put them together, and also my statements.



This first phase of concurrence has to do with us both presenting forth our statements: because that is the best way to avoid, "you say this and I say that," and endless arguing over what each one says, or that you did not get what I said in toto, and on and on and on.



So, dear Loudmouth, when you return, please take notice of the following statements from you, and also from me, at this point in time.



Of course you can change your statements anytime and anyway you want, and we will take notice of our latest changes, and thus also add your or my latest changes to the list of statements from us both already set forth earlier.



This is the way to also give readers the notice that you and I keep on changing our statements, or who is steady with his words and who not.



You get the idea.



Okay, dear Loudmouth, let me just now present your statements and my statements, so far sent forth in public venue in posts from us.



From Pachomius:


My concept of evidence:

"Evidence is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing."

My firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”




From Loudmouth:


On Loudmouth’s concept of evidence:
"Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.


On Loudmouth’s firm conviction on the question God exists or not:

[No statement so far, for definitive inclusion in list of self-declared statements.]*




Dear Loudmouth, please do not insist that you already said this or that and I do not recall it.


You see, I always repeat what I said earlier verbatim, so you do likewise - it is so simple, just you go to your published posts and copy/paste it when I ask for it.



This means that you need not give warning that you are no longer going to talk to me because I do not read your posts, which is silly.



Okay, dear Loudmouth, when you come over, just give your statement on your firm conviction that God exists or God does not exist.



Now, if you say that you have the firm conviction that you are not certain about God existing or not existing, in which case I will have to tell you, to make up your mind and then return to our exchange of thoughts: because it is useless when you are not of any firm conviction at all on God existing or not existing, so don’t waste my time and trouble as also the time and trouble of readers here.*



Okay, dear Loudmouth, when you come over, please present your statement on your firm conviction on the God existing or not, like this, as follows


My [your] firm conviction is that God does not exist, or

My [your] firm conviction is that God exists.



And don’t to jump the gun by repeating endlessly that you have not seen evidence, and on and on, because we are still in the preliminary process; the presentation itself of evidence and inference from it will come later when all essential preliminaries are concurred on, preliminaries like concepts of evidence and examples of evidence.





*ANNEX


Dear readers here, why do I not care to talk with people who are only firmly convinced that they are not certain on whether God exists or not, because it is useless, as they these kinds of posters will just write as to always be sitting on the fence and never ever saying anything at all by which I can definitively address my attention on, as to get linked to them with sure cross-hairline focus.


You see, dear readers here, when you have experienced a lot of exchange of thoughts with posters in web forums, you will inevitably come across such characters, always sitting on the fence and with their language thus intentionally designed by themselves, so that they will always say that their statements earlier issued were only provisional, all statements from them are FALSIFIABLE, etc., etc., etc.


And that is their recipe of wasting people’s time and trouble to get them to explain themselves clearly and definitiveely on the issue, like in the present context, God exists or not.

We get the idea, you have yet to present any evidence to prove a God exists.

 

[bhsmte]

The two are not mutually exclusive...

I don't think he wants to admit what is obvious.

 

[bhsmte]

Ah, there we go! So you are included in the latest fashion after all. Congrats!

BTW
I never promise proof to those impervious to proof.

Do you have proof of the existence of a God? Yes, or no?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have proof of the existence of a God? Yes, or no?

Yes.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes.

And......

 

[Radrook]

Refusal to acknowledge seeing doesn't mean that there is nothing there to see.

 

[AV1611VET]

And......

And what?

You want my proof?

How about the Bible? AD 2017? churches? holidays? bumper stickers? hymns? iconography? debates? testimonies? martyrs?

Just to name a few?

 

[bhsmte]

Refusal to acknowledge seeing doesn't mean that there is nothing there to see.

Sure, I agree with that. Now, we have nothing to see if you don't present this proof of God existing. Whenever you are bold enough, let us know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Refusal to acknowledge seeing doesn't mean that there is nothing there to see.

They see an apple fall and claim it is evidence for gravity.

They see a martyr fall (hanged) and claim it is evidence he died believing something he knew wasn't true.

 

[bhsmte]

And what?

You want my proof?

How about the Bible? AD 2017? churches? holidays? bumper stickers? hymns? iconography? debates? testimonies? martyrs?

Just to name a few?

Connect them, this proves a God exists, how exactly? Does this mean if there are places of worship for other Gods, they exist too?

 

[AV1611VET]

Connect them, this proves a God exists, how exactly?

LOL

How does an apple falling prove the existence of gravity?

We can't see gravity, but we can see its effects.

Ditto for God.

Does this mean if there are places of worship for other Gods, they exist too?

Yes.

If you make it a small "g" though.

Otherwise we monotheists say NO.

 

[VirOptimus]

And what?

You want my proof?

How about the Bible? AD 2017? churches? holidays? bumper stickers? hymns? iconography? debates? testimonies? martyrs?

Just to name a few?

Really really wanting (or beliving) something to be true doesnt make it so, or even counts as "proof".

 

[quatona]

Ah, there we go! So you are included in the latest fashion after all. Congrats!

I recommend you to reconsider your attitude.

BTW
I never promise proof to those impervious to proof.

The thread starter did promise a proof, and you are just the one who helps him distracting from this fact.
The ad hominem is noted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The current fashion is to claim atheism while vehemently denying that they don't believe in the inexistence of God.

Atheism is a single position on a single issue. It's not a claim. It's a response to a claim.

 

[Freodin]

The current fashion is to claim atheism while vehemently denying that they don't believe in the inexistence of God.

Ok, so here you have an atheist who declares that he believes in the non-existence of "God".

Atheists are allowed to disagree on these points, you know?

But, so what? Whether someone does or does not believe in the non-existence of "God" is completely irrelevant for the claim to be able to "prove God".

The only "waste of time" is Pachi's constant stalling. This is his thread about "how to prove God"... and all he does is repeat his sound-bite definitions, attack unbelievers and ask them to talk about their positions... and you support him in this approach.

Consider what would happen if the tables were turned. If I made a thread about "how to prove God does not exist"... and all I did was try to get theists to prove theists to prove it does exist. You would raise a hue and cry that could be heard across the oceans.

So whatever the failings of atheists might be... they are irrelevant in this thread.

Either Pachi is going to start talking some sense, or he will keep stalling.
Think carefully if you want to be seen as supporting such a trollish approach to conversation.