How to prove God exists.

[Pachomius]

Now, dear Loudmouth, you state:

“Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”

Will you just explain how DNA as example of evidence fits your definition of evidence?

And please also present four or more other examples of what is evidence that you see to fit your definition of evidence, scil., “Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
It is this kind of thinking that I find you to be a very confused mind in thinking on things as to put them in writing that should be clear, precise, simple, and definitive, but they are not, which is a tribute to the habitual mindset of atheists, which is to sow confusion.


Tell readers, what is the falsifiable claim that DNA is evidence to?

 

[PsychoSarah]

My original comment about a two word book, was a lame attempt to interject some humor, and respond to Sarah's prior comment:



I couldn't conceive of any book that two people couldn't "interpret" differently if they so chose, so I tried to create a very "short" book.

The fact that you read *way* more into my book than I intended shows that I failed, and Sarah's off the hook.

Even a two word "book" would normally not be legible to the illiterate, and one of the aspects of the book was that even the illiterate could read it and get the same message out of it. Not to mention breaking the language barrier.

What hook could you have thought I was on ?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

How are those things evidence for God?

Now, dear atheists, you can regurgitate your rancid comments to your heart's content, but you know and I know that you have no exposition whatsoever as explanation on why and how you come to the idea of taking up with the atheists’ ideology of you just lack belief in any God, Gods, god, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities.

My explanation is that you haven't shown how any of those things are evidence for God.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now, dear Loudmouth, you state:

“Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”

Will you just explain how DNA as example of evidence fits your definition of evidence?

I ALREADY DID!!!!

The process of sequencing each STR is completely independent of the conclusion. Also, there is a strong chance that the STR pattern won't match the suspect. There is nothing inherent in the method that biases towards the suspect.

I can also add that out of the billions of possible STR combinations, only 1 out of those billions will match the suspect. There are billions of possible outcomes that will not match the suspect. That makes DNA fingerprinting falsifiable.

If any STR combination would be consistent with the suspect, then it would not be evidence.

In the same way, if every single possible observation in nature is claimed to be evidence for God, then none of it is evidence for God. A claim has to be potentially falsifiable.

And please also present four or more other examples of what is evidence that you see to fit your definition of evidence, scil., “Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
It is this kind of thinking that I find you to be a very confused mind in thinking on things as to put them in writing that should be clear, precise, simple, and definitive, but they are not, which is a tribute to the habitual mindset of atheists, which is to sow confusion.

Do you lack a sense of irony?

 

[Michael]

Even a two word "book" would normally not be legible to the illiterate, and one of the aspects of the book was that even the illiterate could read it and get the same message out of it. Not to mention breaking the language barrier.

What hook could you have thought I was on ?

Maybe a picture book then, starting with a photo of a mother hugging her child?

Hey, I'm trying.

 

[gudz23]

Plowing through pages upon pages of this thread, I can safely sum up the whole theist argument with this nonsensical formula:

2 = 2 + x, where x =! 0, because x = God (and God is creator of 2, and thus can not be 0)

 

[Loudmouth]

Plowing through pages upon pages of this thread, I can safely sum up the whole theist argument with this nonsensical formula:

2 = 2 + x, where x =! 0, because x = God (and God is creator of 2, and thus can not be 0) LOL

ROFL

 

[HitchSlap]

Plowing through pages upon pages of this thread, I can safely sum up the whole theist argument with this nonsensical formula:

2 = 2 + x, where x =! 0, because x = God (and God is creator of 2, and thus can not be 0)

I concur!

 

[Cearbhall]

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

Sure, if you want to write a poem. Not for an actual serious discussion about proving his existence.

 

[Uncle Mikey]

Sixty pages of DERP.

Yet none see the obvious...

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet none see the obvious...

Sorry, uncle.

God is not a female.

 

[Kylie]

My original comment about a two word book, was a lame attempt to interject some humor, and respond to Sarah's prior comment:



I couldn't conceive of any book that two people couldn't "interpret" differently if they so chose, so I tried to create a very "short" book.

The fact that you read *way* more into my book than I intended shows that I failed, and Sarah's off the hook.

The trouble is that there are people out there who actually believe the things I thought you were trying to say. In effect, you became an unintentional Poe.

 

[Radrook]

Atheist equation.

2+2-G = 4

but

2+2+G ≠ 4

G = God

 

[gudz23]

Atheist equation.

2+2-G = 4

but

2+2+G ≠ 4

G = God

Nice try, but there is no G in the atheist equation.

 

[Michael]

The trouble is that there are people out there who actually believe the things I thought you were trying to say. In effect, you became an unintentional Poe.

Admittedly it was a pretty lame attempt at humor on my part.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear all readers of this thread, I have not read the posts here since I was last here yesterday morning.

But I like to share with readers here of all religious and/or non-religious stripes, and also humans here who are hostile or not hostile to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

The atheist posters here are the ones I see to be hostile to God.

Loudmouth self-labels himself here as an agnostic; in terms of generics, he is in doubt in regard to God exists or not, but in actual acts and words he is hostile to God.

So, I know for a certainty that all atheists here and together with Loudmouth who self-labels himself as agnostic, they are all hostile to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Their number one ‘argument’ against God is to make fun of God - and period, because they don’t really have any arguments against God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

And most important, aside from making fun of God owing to their emotional hostility to God, they also engage in what I call negative epistemology against God.

What is negative epistemology against God?

First, what is epistemology?

Here, from Webster, is the super brief but very instructive definition of epistemology:

Click on the link as follows,

Definition of EPISTEMOLOGY

“The study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity.”

So, dear readers here, can you already know by extrapolating in a way from Webster, what I mean by the negative epistemology against God, on the part of atheists and one Loudmouth who identifies himself as an agnostic but in acts and in words, also imbued with the hostility of atheists against God?

Here is how I would draft the meaning of negative epistemology against God, as I see it in atheists and one agnostic, Loudmouth:

“It is the studious effort to infect with obfuscation and obscurantism the knowledge of God in oneself, the atheist, and also in others so that no genuine knowledge of God existing will be harbored in the atheist’ heart and mind.

That includes also Loudmouth who though self-identifying as an agnostic, a human who is in doubt about God existing or not, but in acts and in words, an atheist.

Now, I will go and read the new posts from since yesterday, and see what Loudmouth is into, in regard to his understanding of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

 

[bhsmte]

Dear all readers of this thread, I have not read the posts here since I was last here yesterday morning.

But I like to share with readers here of all religious and/or non-religious stripes, and also humans here who are hostile or not hostile to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

The atheist posters here are the ones I see to be hostile to God.

Loudmouth self-labels himself here as an agnostic; in terms of generics, he is in doubt in regard to God exists or not, but in actual acts and words he is hostile to God.

So, I know for a certainty that all atheists here and together with Loudmouth who self-labels himself as agnostic, they are all hostile to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Their number one ‘argument’ against God is to make fun of God - and period, because they don’t really have any arguments against God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

And most important, aside from making fun of God owing to their emotional hostility to God, they also engage in what I call negative epistemology against God.

What is negative epistemology against God?

First, what is epistemology?

Here, from Webster, is the super brief but very instructive definition of epistemology:

Click on the link as follows,

Definition of EPISTEMOLOGY

“The study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity.”

So, dear readers here, can you already know by extrapolating in a way from Webster, what I mean by the negative epistemology against God, on the part of atheists and one Loudmouth who identifies himself as an agnostic but in acts and in words, also imbued with the hostility of atheists against God?

Here is how I would draft the meaning of negative epistemology against God, as I see it in atheists and one agnostic, Loudmouth:

“It is the studious effort to infect with obfuscation and obscurantism the knowledge of God in oneself, the atheist, and also in others so that no genuine knowledge of God existing will be harbored in the atheist’ heart and mind.

That includes also Loudmouth who though self-identifying as an agnostic, a human who is in doubt about God existing or not, but in acts and in words, an atheist.

Now, I will go and read the new posts from since yesterday, and see what Loudmouth is into, in regard to his understanding of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

Still no evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Loudmouth self-labels himself here as an agnostic;

What's with the obsession with Loudmouth?

Is this some kind of interforum conflict, where you're chasing him around the Internet (stalking)?

Did he say something that touched a nerve?

You might want to be careful, as you're committing an offense that could bring a staff action against you.

 

[Radrook]

Nice try, but there is no G in the atheist equation.

Well, whenever G is introduced 2+2 no longer equals four since logic flies right out the window while quacking like a duck.

 

[Freodin]

Well, whenever G is introduced 2+2 no longer equals four since logic flies right out the window while quacking like a duck.

How scientific and natural!