-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How to prove God exists.
- Thread starter Pachomius
- Start date
Dear readers, yes all who read this thread, including in particular atheists, and in most particular one agnostic but in acts and words an atheist no less, to wit, Loudmouth: with whom by mutual consent we he and I are having an exchange at present on what is evidence, in re 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,
I have said nth times that atheists do not think except if that is thinking, i.e. when the issue is God exists or not, they are into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism.
Take this example of self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, the definition of what is evidence from Loudmouth:
“Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
And so far he gives only one example of evidence, namely, DNA.
Dear readers, you have got to be into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism as to fashion that kind of a definition for evidence, and then to further go deeper into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, to give an example of evidence thus defined, namely, DNA.
How can anyone with reason and intelligence and with grasp on the reality of our environment where we breathe and move and have our being, by observation of everything we can access with our senses, starting of course with our super sense of consciousness, how can anyone fit that kind of an example of evidence, namely, DNA, into that kind of a definition of evidence, to wit, from Loudmouth, scil.:
“Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
Example, DNA.
Here, below, dear readers, is my definition of evidence and several examples of evidence, including DNA:
“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."
For example, investigators notice the presence of human sperm in the anus of a deceased human male subject, and they put in their notepad:
"Evidence of sex act with another human male, scil., sperm in anus."
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.
DNA is also one of my samples of evidence and it fits my definition of evidence.
___________________
Okay, I will now read the new posts in this thread, to see whether as I have reminded Loudmouth, he has produced four or more examples of evidence, as to fit his definition of evidence.
I have said nth times that atheists do not think except if that is thinking, i.e. when the issue is God exists or not, they are into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism.
Take this example of self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, the definition of what is evidence from Loudmouth:
“Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
And so far he gives only one example of evidence, namely, DNA.
Dear readers, you have got to be into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism as to fashion that kind of a definition for evidence, and then to further go deeper into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, to give an example of evidence thus defined, namely, DNA.
How can anyone with reason and intelligence and with grasp on the reality of our environment where we breathe and move and have our being, by observation of everything we can access with our senses, starting of course with our super sense of consciousness, how can anyone fit that kind of an example of evidence, namely, DNA, into that kind of a definition of evidence, to wit, from Loudmouth, scil.:
“Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
Example, DNA.
Here, below, dear readers, is my definition of evidence and several examples of evidence, including DNA:
“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."
For example, investigators notice the presence of human sperm in the anus of a deceased human male subject, and they put in their notepad:
"Evidence of sex act with another human male, scil., sperm in anus."
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.
DNA is also one of my samples of evidence and it fits my definition of evidence.
___________________
Okay, I will now read the new posts in this thread, to see whether as I have reminded Loudmouth, he has produced four or more examples of evidence, as to fit his definition of evidence.
Upvote
0
And how do you know that "mind" actually exists? Do you experience/observe your mind through sensory experiences, or does your mind experience various sensory experience?
How does one end up holding belief in something like big bang theory, where sensory experiences cannot directly detect things like dark matter or dark energy, or inflation, or space expansion?
Upvote
0
So it's possible for you to hold belief in intangible things like "mind" without direct sensory confirmation.
Upvote
0
Alert to KTS.
__________________
Dear readers:
No, Loudmouth has not been here since my last posting here yesterday.
He must be on one of his leaves of absence, and there goes also unanswered his from my challenge to him, the presentation by him of four or more examples of what is evidence, as to fit his own peculiar definition of evidence, aside from one example with DNA.
In the meantime, please dear lady atheist KTS: let you and me exchange thoughts on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
I see you to be a fan of Bertrand Russell,* but I am sure you know nothing about his departure from mathematics and philosophy, where he got himself badly busted by better minds during his earlier long lifetime, and finally took to become some sort of celebrity in regard to among other things, advocacy against the use of nuclear bombs.
Let me see if you have really done any serious and prolonged reading about Bertrand Russell,
Tell me if you know about this at least well founded anecdote, to his credit or discredit, namely:
When he was no longer into mathematics and philosophy, he was at a dinner and was seated right beside the head mistress of an exclusive girls college
The lady college head asked him:
“I learned that you have given up philosophy, why?”
Bertie answered: “Because I discovered I preferred gnikcuf" [read that in reverse].
Okay, dear lady atheist KTS, fan of Bertrand Russell, see if you can find any link(s) in the internet on that anecdote.
And here is what I expect you to do, since you are parading all the time about evidence required by Bertrand Russell for God to exist, tell me what do you know from your own stock knowledge: what is evidence, and also give some examples of evidence.
Now, dear readers, let us sit back and await KTS to tell us what is her from stock knowledge idea of evidence, and some examples.
And dear lady atheist KTS, Don’t neglect to search for link(s) in the internet on Russell’s answer to why he gave up philosophy.
_______________
*This text from lady atheist KTS is paraded endlessly by KTS as some gem of terrific wisdom from Bertrand Russell:
"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." — Bertrand Russell
If you ask me, the man was a consommé escape artist.
__________________
Dear readers:
No, Loudmouth has not been here since my last posting here yesterday.
He must be on one of his leaves of absence, and there goes also unanswered his from my challenge to him, the presentation by him of four or more examples of what is evidence, as to fit his own peculiar definition of evidence, aside from one example with DNA.
In the meantime, please dear lady atheist KTS: let you and me exchange thoughts on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
I see you to be a fan of Bertrand Russell,* but I am sure you know nothing about his departure from mathematics and philosophy, where he got himself badly busted by better minds during his earlier long lifetime, and finally took to become some sort of celebrity in regard to among other things, advocacy against the use of nuclear bombs.
Let me see if you have really done any serious and prolonged reading about Bertrand Russell,
Tell me if you know about this at least well founded anecdote, to his credit or discredit, namely:
When he was no longer into mathematics and philosophy, he was at a dinner and was seated right beside the head mistress of an exclusive girls college
The lady college head asked him:
“I learned that you have given up philosophy, why?”
Bertie answered: “Because I discovered I preferred gnikcuf" [read that in reverse].
Okay, dear lady atheist KTS, fan of Bertrand Russell, see if you can find any link(s) in the internet on that anecdote.
And here is what I expect you to do, since you are parading all the time about evidence required by Bertrand Russell for God to exist, tell me what do you know from your own stock knowledge: what is evidence, and also give some examples of evidence.
Now, dear readers, let us sit back and await KTS to tell us what is her from stock knowledge idea of evidence, and some examples.
And dear lady atheist KTS, Don’t neglect to search for link(s) in the internet on Russell’s answer to why he gave up philosophy.
_______________
*This text from lady atheist KTS is paraded endlessly by KTS as some gem of terrific wisdom from Bertrand Russell:
"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." — Bertrand Russell
If you ask me, the man was a consommé escape artist.
Upvote
0
gudz23
Active Member
We can all agree that we wouldn't be here to discuss, were it not for the Universe. What function God serves in your particular worldview, is still a complete mystery.
I haven't read all the 70 or so pages of the threads you started, but I take note that none of the scientists you refer to in your opener, have had anything so fantastical to say about their findings. All they done is to solemnly describe detectable physical phenomenons, and explaining how they operate or occur.
To say that the existence of electrical charge in the universe, is evidence that the universe itself is a great big mind, aka. God, is equivalent to saying that chemicals react because they fall in love (before filing for divorce, some time later).
So, in your view, is there any "evidence" that the universe has made any conscious and intelligent decisions lately?! I certainly don't think so... It appears rather mechanical.
Well, I suppose that our brain appears rather "mechanical" as well, from a purely anatomical perspective (We certainly can't find a "mind" by dissecting one). So yeah, lets imagine that the universe is one functioning mind... What then makes you think that this mind is able to perceive and/or alter its own "make-up"?
This is rather a futile exercise, I don't really care for it... Yes, we assume that the world is real.
Even if everything else is fake (including my brain and body), I can't really escape the fact that I experience "something", now can I? So of course I must exist, even if everything else is fake. I can't know for sure about you guys, but I certainly "assume" that you exist also. It's sort of a no-brainer, even if it kind of isn't. We'll get nowhere down this path... Continue down this path, and I might myself be God.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Commence cleansing...
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,809
- 52,549
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I'll be glad to.
Just as gravity, which is invisible, is known by observing its effects, I submit that God, who is invisible, can be known by observing His effects.
Time divided into BC/AD; churches and other edifices erected in His name; hymns, carols and songs; holidays; iconography; the Bible, bumper stickers, books and slogans; personal testimonies and anecdotes, TV shows and public debates; and martyrs all point to God.
Notice here how Jesus promotes Himself ...
Luke 7:19 And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
Luke 7:20 When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
Luke 7:21 And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.
Luke 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
Upvote
0
gudz23
Active Member
So basically: "Humans made '
ileofpoop:', therefor God"This is just a rehash of what you already told us. You are called to defend your reasoning, not reiterate the exact same thing. Even Radrook indirectly thinks that your reasons are weird.
Here, let me remind you:
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,809
- 52,549
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I beg your pardon?So basically: "Humans made '
You want me to change my story, do you?gudz23 said:
Ain't gonna happen.
I thought I did defend my reasoning with both science (mentioning gravity) and Scripture (quoting from Luke).gudz23 said:
If that's not good enough, that's just too bad.
It was good enough for Jesus.
And if Radrook likes my reasoning, will you follow suit?gudz23 said:
Upvote
0
Essentially God sustains everything in my worldview, and I can support my claims about the universe as well as anyone else, and probably better.
True, but that's about all I can do to support the concept of 'mind' in the first place.
Er, no. I can demonstrate that the universe has far more active circuits than any living organism on Earth, and that it's electrical and chemical in nature just like a brain. If it's aware, I certainly have no *control* over it, but humans have been reporting their experiences with "God" since the dawn of recorded civilizations. Whereas BB theory doesn't necessarily 'predict' such a relationship or any such human experiences, my particular definition of the universe does make that particular prediction. Bonus points for Panentheism as a cosmology theory. I don't even need to resort to adding any supernatural elements to my description of the universe, whereas BB theory requires *four* different supernatural agents.
Specific parts of my own body have mechanical type features. How would that observation eliminate either definition of the universe?
I can alter my physical makeup. In fact it's been altering itself since conception, right up to this moment in time. Change seems to be a constant in nature.
And yet my view of the world and universe requires no supernatural agents, whereas modern cosmology beliefs require four of them. Which cosmology theory is "better" from the standpoint of empirical cause/effect justified in the lab forms of physics?
More specifically we are each a piece of God, and God in the form of matter and energy exists inside of each and every single one of us. For all I know, my "awareness" is but a piece of God's "awareness".
I assure you that whatever empirical limitations might apply to Panentheism absolutely *pale* in comparison to the numerous problems that exist in current cosmology theory.
Upvote
0
gudz23
Active Member
I want you to elaborate how you come think that "things" and "concepts" made and made up by humans represent evidence for the existence of God.
Very well.
Apples fall all on their own. Gravity is measurable, calculable, predictable.
The "things" you bring as evidence for God, is all man made!
He told you that?
No, I just thought it funny that a fellow Christian might disagree with you, probably most Christians would. After all, you did claim that you follow "basic" doctrine... I really don't think you do. Usually, Christians are a lot more coy with their special pleading...
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
-_- most atheists are agnostic. Agnostic is the knowledge statement, atheist is the belief statement.
It gets no less insulting when you repeat that while ignoring my posts. Who's fooling oneself here?
Why would he need more examples? If you want more examples, you could've just asked. Preferably without using the diction that makes me wonder if you type these using a thesaurus. The word salads don't make you sound smarter, they just make you sound condescending. Not that you'll bother to respond to me.
What super sense of consciousness? Is this a reference to human intellect, or some sort of spiritual awareness you think humans have? In terms of how consciousness fits Loudmouth's definition, it's measurable as electrical impulses in our brain. It's existence is both falsifiable (since we know what to look for) and is based in factual observation.
By your definition, a monster I imagined up has valid evidence to support its existence in reality in the fact that it exists in my mind. This is not a workable definition for evidence.
And you have no authority on what words mean or what qualifies as scientific evidence for anything, so none of what you claim has any weight to it.
So, are you going to continue to ignore me, because it doesn't make you look good.
Upvote
0
I am no more against God than you are against Santa Claus.
Just present the evidence for God already.
Upvote
0
The theists do seem to throw logic out the window when they try to insert God into the equation.
Upvote
0
I already answered all of your questions in previous posts. I am done repeating myself.
Now, please explain why babies are evidence for God.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,809
- 52,549
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Then I'm Genghis Khan.
Trivia question:
Who is Santa Claus to us?
- doesn't exist
- Satan
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,809
- 52,549
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Similar threads
