How to prove God exists.

[Radrook]

You didn't get that straight - the statement implies they were hanged upside down, sawn in half, and flayed alive for something they had no good reason to believe (i.e. for faith).

Your definition of faith isn't the biblical one.

 

[Radrook]

Try actually answering his question.

That is the answer. From his viewpoint I have presented no evidence whatsoever so he could have never actually rejected any evidence at all-just bogus data or unadulterated drivel.

 

[bhsmte]

That is the answer. From his viewpoint I have presented no evidence whatsoever so he could have never actually rejected any evidence at all-just bogus data or unadulterated drivel.

What evidence has been rejected, please be specific.

 

[Radrook]

So 'no evidence at all' is being 'unceremoniously dismissed'?

If that's not what you meant, what evidence, from your viewpoint, is being 'unceremoniously dismissed'?

From your standpoint what is being dismissed isn't evidence-it is drivel.

 

[Radrook]

What evidence has been rejected, please be specific.

My data is prominently posted. So there is no excuse for the repeated requests that I make it known.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... they were martyred because they gave excuses.

The logical parsing is that they were martyred for their beliefs, that were held without a good reason or justification and for which they gave faith as the excuse for holding.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From your standpoint what is being dismissed isn't evidence-it is drivel.

That red-herring doesn't answer the question.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your definition of faith isn't the biblical one.

It's not my definition. I'm helping you parse Skreeper's simple statements - take it up with him.

 

[bhsmte]

My data is prominently posted. So there is no excuse for the repeated requests that I make it known.

Prominant? LOL

 

[KCfromNC]

How did the Bible writer KNOW that from space the Earth looks as if it is hanged on NOTHING?
Job 26:7

Same reason they "knew" it was a flat circle covered by a solid dome which kept the waters of the sky from raining down.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now, dear Loudmouth, Do you have any at all firm conviction on the existence of God or non-existence of God?

My conviction is that theists don't have evidence for the existence of God. I have never seen evidence for the existence of God. Therefore, I don't believe in God. If such evidence is presented, then I will believe in the existence of God.

This thread is yet another affirmation of the position that I have held for decades now. Theists don't have evidence.

Here is my firm conviction in this thread of mine where you are also exuding your fruits of thinking:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”

Why do you keep repeating this? We have read it multiple times already.

Please get to the evidence, or admit you have none.

And here is my concept of evidence, as follows:

#863 from Pachomius:
"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."

I have read that multiple times already.

Now, please present the evidence. Show us the inference already.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Refusing to present evidence is indistinguishable from having no evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

The question is are Pachi's questions being answered or is he being ignored?

The only question that needs to be answered is "What is the evidence for the existence of God?". Everything else is just an attempt to play hide and seek with that question.

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.

You then turn around and base your argument for an intelligent designer on a handful of logical fallacies.

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.

Agnostics are atheists, by definition. It's not that hard to figure out. In the same, Oregonians are Americans. They aren't separate things.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like abiogenesis.

Don't you believe that God created the universe so that abiogenesis would occur?

 

[Loudmouth]

The whole proposition seems like a joke since we both know that you have already rejected all possible explanations and all possible presentations of evidence as unsatisfactory. So it really constitutes an invitation to an exercise in futility.

What evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, it’s well nigh two days already and no sight of Loudmouth.

This is not an isolated case, for I have if memory serves met this kind of a development with two posters here - but they turned up afterwards when the discussion went to another direction, some days after.

If you did pay attention to the pattern you would find that I don't post on weekends.

Okay, dear KTS, suppose you take over and you and I will engage in a sustained exchange on evidence, for as you are an atheist you have a correct objection to God existing, in that you don’t see evidence of His favor.

So, let you and me discuss evidence, what is it, what is its target, and how does evidence hit its target.

Okay, just you in case you want to continue from where Loudmouth leaves off, here are so far the statements presented by yours truly and Loudmouth.

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.]

Addendum:
From Pachomiuis, examples of evidence: babies, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the evening sky, stones, the nose in our face, everything in our environment that we live in and move in and have our existence in, in most particular everything with a beginning.

From Loudmouth, his example of evidence:
DNA.

On target of evidence:
From Pachomius, the target of evidence in my cited examples of evidence is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

From Loudmouth, no presentation of what is the target of his example of evidence, to wit: what is the target of DNA evidence, or what is DNA evidence, evidence to?

Loudmouth waxes eloquent on what is DNA in his one example of evidence, but becomes completely silent and absent when I asked him, "Pray, what is the target of the DNA evidence?"

Again:
It is at that point when I asked Loudmouth, what is DNA evidence to, that he leaves off for now two days already from putting up an appearance in this thread.


Okay, KTS, will you take up the challenge to discuss with me about evidence: what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how does evidence hit its target.

You have the option to continue where Loudmouth takes to his leave of absence, and appropriate the so far only one statement of Loudmouth, his concept of evidence, scil., "Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”

Take notice of the term “falsifiable” in Loudmouth’s concept of evidence, I recall that you are a specialist in falsifiability, that makes you a scientist if your being a specialist in falsifiability is falsifiable.

Still no evidence presented. My conclusion is supported once again.

 

[Loudmouth]

My data is prominently posted. So there is no excuse for the repeated requests that I make it known.

Your opinions and beliefs are posted elsewhere, but no evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is the answer. From his viewpoint I have presented no evidence whatsoever so he could have never actually rejected any evidence at all-just bogus data or unadulterated drivel.

So what evidence did you present that wasn't recognized as such by him?

 

[Pachomius]

Dear readers:

This morning before anything else I like very much to tell you what I think about the peculiar epistemology of atheists here.


And it is an epistemology that I would describe as inhibitive, i.e. designed by them to keep themselves in bad faith with self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, and yet at the same time paradoxically avails them of a hot but empty hubris.


You see, dear readers here, when the issue is God existing or not, an investigator cannot and must not dispense with the peculiar psychology of epistemology of people who are on the one side certain of God existing on evidence, these are the theists, and on the other side people who deny God existing on the lack of evidence as they see to be lack of evidence, these are the atheists, who no matter how they want to say that they are just without any belief in God, Gods, god, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., they are in fact into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, and are so smug with their hot but completely empty hubris.



There, that is my confirmation again of my impression with atheists.


Dear atheists, please also do a psychological examination of my peculiar if any of peculiarity at all, of my epistemology of the search for certainty of 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 will go forth and see whether Loudmouth has already appeared here and replied to my posts on our mutual endeavor to resolve our impasse, namely, on his lack of evidence for God existing, and my certainty of God existing: and that on evidence.


Or see whether KTS has accepted my challenge for her to engage me in the resolution of the impasse, namely that with her she has not found evidence for God existing, and I have found evidence of God existing, and therefore as fellow seekers of truth, fact, logic, and the conclusion of the best thinkers of mankind in the history of ideas, we are both each one into the work to concur between us, me and KTS, into the examination of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target, all in re God existing or not.


My observation with ex-Christians now atheists and very self-suffused with hot but empty hubris, how they can now be into the most uncritical ways and means of thinking, whereas before when they were theists of the Christian faith, they were trained in thinking on reason, intelligence, observation, truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas from the best teachers of mankind from since the beginning of consciousness and reason with mankind.


And that is why I always tell myself and people who talk with me on reason and intelligence, that we must examine atheists, not on their epistemology, but on their psychology with converting to now call themselves atheists, who maintain that they just are without any belief in God, Gods, god, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc. – all nonsensical self description but with hot and still yet all empty hubris.


In other words, when one comes to examine the epistemology of atheists in their self-declaration of their identify of atheists, one must not focus on their epistemology but on their psychology i.e. motivational factors in their socalled deconversion from theism in the Christian faith to now call themselves atheists.



So, dear readers when you finish reading this post from me, please wait for me to compose my next post, it might take some time, but not forever.

 

[Pachomius]

Sorry, but I have to continue from the preceding post because I forgot to tell you, dear readers and Oh ye atheists, that I was going to tell you all, what is my proof for God existing, in a few words.


So, here goes:


1, The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.


2. Existence is of two kinds in the most broad dimensions of existence: necessary existence, transient existence.


3. Transient existence depends on necessary existence to come into existence.


4. Babies, our nose in our face, the sun in the day sky and the moon in the night sky, and the stones, and rivers, and mighty oceans, and everything that we see and we live in and move in and have our existence, they are all things which are evidence 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.


5. Therefore God exists as per concept 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, scil., on evidence.



Okay, atheists, think about this proof above of the existence of God on evidence, in my next post I will look up for Loudmouth and/or KTS, to see whether either or both of them have replied to my posts, the first Loudmouth to resume his and my our common endeavor to talk about what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target, and the second KTS, whether she cares to take up my challenge to her to replace Loudmouth, or even join Loudmouth in contributing her thinking on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target. And all in all, in regard to the issue God exists or not.




Dear everyone, I will now go to the posts of Loudmouth and KTS to see what they have posted in reply to my latest posting here in this thread also from myself, namely, How to prove God exists.