How to prove God exists.

[Radrook]

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.

The question is are Pachi's questions being answered or is he being ignored? I find that what he is trying to do is to point out that the atheist position of questioning the existence of an intelligent designer is illogical to begin with.
As to my pointing out the irony of claiming atheism and then not claiming atheism but claiming agnosticism and yet claiming atheism, it is something so quaint that I felt I had to mention it. But if it is indeed a deviation from the thread topic I will try to refrain from mentioning it again. Thanks fort pointing it out. My apologies.

 

[Radrook]

I recommend you to reconsider your attitude.


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.

When I responded I was unaware that he is the thread-starter who seems to promise evidence of God. So if indeed he is promising evidence of God then it is indeed logical that you should be asking to see it. My apologies.

 

[Radrook]

I recommend you to reconsider your attitude.


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.

I was unaware that he was promising proof. I understood it as a rhetorical statement in view of how he followed through. Ad hominem? I was being humorously playful. Sorry that it offended you. I find a little levity reduces tension and that was my intention. Don't know what ad hominem you are referring to since you clearly said that you are atheist and that yet you allow for the existence of God-right? Well, that does place you in the category that I was referring to. If you don't wish to be placed in it, then please do not describe yourself as if you are in it. Thanks.

 

[Freodin]

The question is are Pachi's questions being answered or is he being ignored? I find that what he is trying to do is to point out that the atheist position of questioning the existence of an intelligent designer is illogical to begin with.

I think you are intelligent enough to have noticed that Pachi is not doing anything like that. Yes, he had his questions answered. Repeatedly, in some places.

And his "modus operandi" is to ignore anything that he got as answers, repeat his definitions, ask the same questions again... and never does anything to progress the conversation.

If he did indeed wanted to "prove God" by showing that a non-existence of God is impossible or illogical, he is free to do that.
But he doesn't do that, he never tried to do that in this thread... and you know that!

I disagree very much with your own approach to demonstrate your claims, and sometimes you diverge from this to (unreasonably) attack atheists. But at least YOU have an approach.
Pachi is just babbling. There is no rhyme or reason behind his posts, but he thinks using "Oh Ye Atheists" makes him sound... smart? Cute? Unique? I don't know.

You said you didn't offer proof for God. Well, indeed you didn't. Cudos to you for knowing your limits.

But then I don't understand why you lend your support to someone who opned a thread about "How to prove God exists"... and then spends weeks deliberately not doing that.

As to my pointing out the irony of claiming atheism and then not claiming atheism but claiming agnosticism and yet claiming atheism, it is something so quaint that I felt I had to mention it. But if it is indeed a deviation from the thread topic I will try to refrain from mentioning it again. Thanks fort pointing it out. My apologies.

Several atheists have, in several posts over several threads, already explained that there is no conflict between atheism and agnosticism. But its seems that "Refusal to acknowledge seeing doesn't mean that there is nothing there to see." is something that you know quite well from personal experience.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I find that what he is trying to do is to point out that the atheist position of questioning the existence of an intelligent designer is illogical to begin with.

In order to demonstrate that, he would first have to demonstrate why it is logical to posit a god in the first place....

Just like the thread title suggests he would be doing. But he does not. All he does is attack the opposite position. This is not how one demonstrates their claims. And it most certainly is not how one PROVES their claims.

As to my pointing out the irony of claiming atheism and then not claiming atheism but claiming agnosticism and yet claiming atheism,

We've been over this multiple times. How many times must it be repeated before it will sink in???

Again: the only thing that defines an atheist is the following:

Q: "do you believe a god exists"
A: "no" ==> this makes you an atheist.

Atheism is NOT a claim and atheism is about a position of BELIEF. Whereas (a)gnosticism pertains to KNOWLEDGE.

They (= agnosticism and atheism) are different answers to different questions and in no way are they mutually exclusive.

it is something so quaint that I felt I had to mention it

First and foremost, it is something very false - as has been pointed out to you plenty of times. Yet, here you are again... pretending as if it was never pointed out.

But if it is indeed a deviation from the thread topic I will try to refrain from mentioning it again. Thanks fort pointing it out. My apologies.

Speaking of the thread topic.... when are we going to receive this PROOF of god's existance?

 

[Radrook]

I think you are intelligent enough to have noticed that Pachi is not doing anything like that. Yes, he had his questions answered. Repeatedly, in some places.

And his "modus operandi" is to ignore anything that he got as answers, repeat his definitions, ask the same questions again... and never does anything to progress the conversation.

If he did indeed wanted to "prove God" by showing that a non-existence of God is impossible or illogical, he is free to do that.
But he doesn't do that, he never tried to do that in this thread... and you know that!

I disagree very much with your own approach to demonstrate your claims, and sometimes you diverge from this to (unreasonably) attack atheists. But at least YOU have an approach.
Pachi is just babbling. There is no rhyme or reason behind his posts, but he thinks using "Oh Ye Atheists" makes him sound... smart? Cute? Unique? I don't know.

You said you didn't offer proof for God. Well, indeed you didn't. Cudos to you for knowing your limits.

But then I don't understand why you lend your support to someone who opned a thread about "How to prove God exists"... and then spends weeks deliberately not doing that.


Several atheists have, in several posts over several threads, already explained that there is no conflict between atheism and agnosticism. But its seems that "Refusal to acknowledge seeing doesn't mean that there is nothing there to see." is something that you know quite well from personal experience.

Pachi is entertainingly and creatively using literary irony to illustrate the fallacious modus operandi continually being employed by atheists when responding to evidence of God. So I view it as a form of Karma and don't really see how atheists have the high moral ground to be accusing him of doing anything wrong since that is exactly how their own modus operandi functions albeit couched in pseudo-scientific jargon to dress it up as dignified whereas he is using a uniquely different approach to get his point across.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Pachi is entertainingly and creatively using literary irony to illustrate the fallacious modus operandi continually being employed by atheists when responding to evidence of God

What evidence?

 

[Radrook]

I think you are intelligent enough to have noticed that Pachi is not doing anything like that. Yes, he had his questions answered. Repeatedly, in some places.

And his "modus operandi" is to ignore anything that he got as answers, repeat his definitions, ask the same questions again... and never does anything to progress the conversation.

If he did indeed wanted to "prove God" by showing that a non-existence of God is impossible or illogical, he is free to do that.
But he doesn't do that, he never tried to do that in this thread... and you know that!

I disagree very much with your own approach to demonstrate your claims, and sometimes you diverge from this to (unreasonably) attack atheists. But at least YOU have an approach.
Pachi is just babbling. There is no rhyme or reason behind his posts, but he thinks using "Oh Ye Atheists" makes him sound... smart? Cute? Unique? I don't know.

You said you didn't offer proof for God. Well, indeed you didn't. Cudos to you for knowing your limits.

But then I don't understand why you lend your support to someone who opned a thread about "How to prove God exists"... and then spends weeks deliberately not doing that.


Several atheists have, in several posts over several threads, already explained that there is no conflict between atheism and agnosticism. But its seems that "Refusal to acknowledge seeing doesn't mean that there is nothing there to see." is something that you know quite well from personal experience.

I'm intelligent enough to perceive what a thread starter is striving to convey and not to stubbornly insist that he is striving to convey something else-of course.

Pachi is simply striving to illustrate a flaw in how atheists themselves proceed to respond to evidence when they are presented with it. So if indeed his methodology is irritating to atheists please note that it is equally irritating to us theists whenever you continuously deploy it against us. Yet when we bring it to your attention you deny ever using it and continue to use it anyway.

BTW
Your frustration is primarily based on a misunderstanding of the purpose for the thread which should be crystal clear by now had you been paying unbiased attention to what Pachi keeps saying or strongly implying via his chosen modus operandi.

 

[Freodin]

Yet when we bring it to your attention you deny ever using it and continue to use it anyway.

Considering that your own "modus operandi" when asked for evidence is to refuse giving evidence because it would be denied... I think we can easily ignore that further attack against atheists.

But, please, surprise me. Present me with just a single example of "us" using this approach.

Pachi is simply striving to illustrate a flaw in how atheists themselves proceed to respond to evidence when they are presented with it.

Is he? How would you illustrate a reaction to being presented with evidence by not presenting evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yet when we bring it to your attention you deny ever using it and continue to use it anyway.

Personally, I just deny your baseless claims.
I've repeatedly asked you to prove your accusations with links to posts, which consistenly refuse to give.

When you fail time and again to demonstrate your bare claims, it is pretty safe to conclude that you got nothing.

 

[Radrook]

Considering that your own "modus operandi" when asked for evidence is to refuse giving evidence because it would be denied... I think we can easily ignore that further attack against atheists.

But, please, surprise me. Present me with just a single example of "us" using this approach.


Is he? How would you illustrate a reaction to being presented with evidence by not presenting evidence?

That is a complete misrepresentation of my modus operandi. Please note that I do present evidence and very often it is in the video form followed by comments or explanations as to why I prefer the explanation or evidence presented in the video over atheistic explanations. When I respond that way you folks say that you don't understand, don't see, or simply demand to see evidence. You also respond by saying that you will NOT view the evidence presented in the video and then demand to see evidence. Whereupon I stop directly responding because time is precious and I am not a machine to be repeating myself continuously on atheistic irrational demand.

As for evidence of a single example-this post with your response is a single example. LOL!

 

[VirOptimus]

That is a complete misrepresentation of my modus operandi. Please note that I do present evidence and very often it is in the video form followed by comments or explanations as to why I prefer the explanation or evidence presented in the video over atheistic explanations. When I respond that way you folks say that you don't understand, don't see, or simply demand to see evidence. You also respond by saying that you will NOT view the evidence presented in the video and then demand to see evidence. Whereupon I stop directly responding because time is precious and I am not a machine to be repeating myself continuously on atheistic irrational demand.

As for evidence of a single example-this post with your response is a single example. LOL!

Science is not "atheistic".

 

[Freodin]

That is a complete misrepresentation of my modus operandi. Please note that I do present evidence and very often it is in the video form followed by comments or explanations as to why I prefer the explanation or evidence presented in the video over atheistic explanations. When I respond that way you folks say that you don't understand, don't see, or simply demand to see evidence. You also respond by saying that you will NOT view the evidence presented in the video and then demand to see evidence. Whereupon I stop directly responding because time is precious and I am not a machine to be repeating myself continuously on atheistic irrational demand.

As for evidence of a single example-this post with your response is a single example. LOL!

Case in point: what you present here is a disgreement about what evidence is, whether it is valid evidence, whether it is even worth considering. We can discuss whether the skeptic' response to what you consider "presented evidence" is valid, productive, reasonable...

But you will notice - at least I hope you will - that this is definitly NOT what Pachi does here in this thread, so you cannot claim that this is Pachi's intention.

Simply put:
- what you claim atheists do:
deliberately misunderstand the "evidence"
deny the "evidence"
refuse to consider the "evidence"

So to turn the tables, you would have to ask the atheists for evidence for some of their claims and then:
deliberatly misunderstand the "evidence"
deny the "evidence"
refuse to consider the "evidence"


But that is not what Pachi is doing. He is doing exactly what atheists claim towards you: he doesn't present the evidence that he claims to have.

You might consider this a fantastic ploy to expose the irrationality of atheists... but all it does is support the criticism that atheists present.

Remember the first rule of holes!

 

[Radrook]

Science is not "atheistic".

True! Science per se is neutral. In fact, when science is used to support an atheist viewpoint it invariably ceases to be science because it employs irrationality and irrationality and science just don't mix.

 

[Skreeper]

I prefer the explanation or evidence presented in the video over atheistic explanations.

What does that even mean? Is all of science atheistic to you? Or only when the evidence contradicts your preconceived explanation?

A video is never considered evidence in science. Scientists don't sit in a lab all day showing each other YouTube videos and saying: "Well this random guy on YouTube made a video explaining how a banana perfectly fits my hand! That means it was designed for us to be that way! Checkmate Atheists."

 

[VirOptimus]

True! Science per se is neutral. In fact, when science is used to support an atheist viewpoint it invariably ceases to be science because it employs irrationality and irrationality and science just don't mix.

But its you who try to mix science and religion, not the atheists.

And what exactly is a "atheist viewpoint" beyond the denying of god(s)?

 

[Freodin]

True! Science per se is neutral. In fact, when science is used to support an atheist viewpoint it invariably ceases to be science because it employs irrationality and irrationality and science just don't mix.

So, when science is used to support a theists viewpoint - something that the videos that you posts constantly try to do... does it cease to be science and employ irrationality?

 

[Radrook]

Case in point: what you present here is a disgreement about what evidence is, whether it is valid evidence, whether it is even worth considering. We can discuss whether the skeptic' response to what you consider "presented evidence" is valid, productive, reasonable...

But you will notice - at least I hope you will - that this is definitly NOT what Pachi does here in this thread, so you cannot claim that this is Pachi's intention.

Simply put:
- what you claim atheists do:
deliberately misunderstand the "evidence"
deny the "evidence"
refuse to consider the "evidence"

So to turn the tables, you would have to ask the atheists for evidence for some of their claims and then:
deliberatly misunderstand the "evidence"
deny the "evidence"
refuse to consider the "evidence"


But that is not what Pachi is doing. He is doing exactly what atheists claim towards you: he doesn't present the evidence that he claims to have.

You might consider this a fantastic ploy to expose the irrationality of atheists... but all it does is support the criticism that atheists present.

Remember the first rule of holes!

Unceremonious dismissal of evidence without a valid explanation or refutation , or offering some glib explanation which is no explanation at all doesn't constitute a rebuttal. Neither does a stubborn refusal to reason at certain crucial junctures of an argument or a refusal to remain consistent in the application of the scientific method constitute a scientific approach. An incessant barrage of such annoying responses will ultimately shut down a discussion instead of promoting it since a continuation of it in a give and take fashion is patently a waste of time for all involved.

As for digging a hole deeper, I disagree. An explanation for my likes of Pachi's responses was requested and I honestly provided it. That you tag it as digging a hole deeper is your prerogative. But that doesn't magically make it so.

 

[Freodin]

As for digging a hole deeper, I disagree. An explanation for my likes of Pachi's responses was requested and I honestly provided it. That you tag it as digging a hole deeper is your prerogative. But that doesn't magically make it so.

Oh, I don't doubt your honesty here... just your rationality.

Consider it closely (example creatively using literary irony for emphasis)
"Oh, atheists always refuse to acknowlegde my evidence, by claiming that I never present any! They are irrational! And LO! here we have a theist who cunningly exposes these irrational atheists by baiting them into irrationally refusing to acknowledging his evidence, by cleverly not presenting any. He's a real winner!"

No need for magic... you dig your hole deeper completely naturally.

 

[Radrook]

So, when science is used to support a theists viewpoint - something that the videos that you posts constantly try to do... does it cease to be science and employ irrationality?

No, it is totally rational and scientific to conclude an intelligent designer based on observation and justifiable inference. Irrational? What is irrational is your vehement insistence that an intelligent designer has to be a god, goddess, or God in in order to qualify as an intelligent designer. However, when faced with such films as 2001 and 2010 A Space Odyssey such a thought doesn't even flicker across the atheistic mind. In fact, your own physicists entertain such extraterrestrial or extra dimensional causes as feasible. However, if an ID proponent as much as whispers the idea of an intelligent designer then they immediately and angrily object and introduce God.