How to prove God exists.

[Michael]

The Eastern Orthodox version of panenthism reduces to the doctrine that God maintains the universe in being. Nothing particularly controversial there, but also nothing to turn God into a testable hypothesis.

I think it entirely depends on what you personally mean by the term "testable hypothesis". Panentheism is at *least* as 'testable" as LCDM theory. In fact, I'd argue it is at least four times more testable than LCDM theory.

 

[lesliedellow]

If by transcend, you mean "more than", perhaps so. Even still, a preference for naturalism does not automatically lead to atheism.

Naturalism is the philosophical doctrine that everything which happens in the universe results exclusively from the operation of physical laws. Let's see you square that with miracles, and the Resurrection in particular.

 

[lesliedellow]

I think it entirely depends on what you personally mean by the term "testable hypothesis". Panentheism is at *least* as 'testable" as LCDM theory. In fact, I'd argue it is at least four times more testable than LCDM theory.

Oh yes, and what would your experiment to test the existence of God look like?

Always assuming you have no objection to ignoring Matt 4.7, that is.

 

[Michael]

Oh yes, and what would your experiment to test the existence of God look like?

I described a few potential experiments in those threads.

The gist of the experiment is to test to see if there is any EM field interaction between the brain and the room/environment during meditation and prayer. It is possible of course that "God" might simply manipulate atoms inside the brain, but there may be an external field involved as well.

 

[lesliedellow]

I described a few potential experiments in those threads.

The gist of the experiment is to test to see if there is any EM field interaction between the brain and the room/environment during meditation and prayer. It is possible of course that "God" might simply manipulate atoms inside the brain, but there may be an external field involved as well.

You think prayers reach God by way of a radio transmission? Even if that extremely dubious idea was allowed, the presence of an electromagnetic field would do nothing to establish the existence of God.

 

[Michael]

Naturalism is the philosophical doctrine that everything which happens in the universe results exclusively from the operation of physical laws. Let's see you square that with miracles, and the Resurrection in particular.

Technically speaking, quite a few people throughout history have been declared clinically dead and have risen from the dead, including Lazarus.

Why waking up in a morgue isn’t quite as unusual as you’d think | Carla Valentine

 

[Michael]

You think prayers reach God by way of a radio transmission? Even if that extremely dubious idea was allowed, the presence of an electromagnetic field would do nothing to establish the existence of God.

If they start to interact in predictable ways, it might be.

 

[lesliedellow]

Technically speaking, quite a few people throughout history have been declared clinically dead and have risen from the dead, including Lazarus.

Why waking up in a morgue isn’t quite as unusual as you’d think | Carla Valentine

So you advocate the swoon theory to account for the Resurrection?

 

[lesliedellow]

If they start to interact in predictable ways, it might be.

What might "predictable ways" mean? God is supposed to be a free agent. The ultimate free agent, in fact.

 

[Michael]

So you advocate the swoon theory to account for the Resurrection?

I'm not advocating anything, I'm simply noting that naturalism can explain such events.

 

[Michael]

What might "predictable ways" mean? God is supposed to be a free agent. The ultimate free agent, in fact.

Sure, but a mother responds to their child, usually in predictable ways. I wouldn't rule out the concept before trying it.

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm not advocating anything, I'm simply noting that naturalism can explain such events.

Naturalism can, by definition, not explain anything which defies the laws of nature, and returning from the dead after three days does that if nothing else does.

 

[lesliedellow]

Sure, but a mother responds to their child, usually in predictable ways. I wouldn't rule out the concept before trying it.

When a child says, "Can I have...." the answer is as likely to be no as yes. Nothing predictable about that from the child's point of view.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear everyone reading this thread, this morning I decided and actually started an article in Wikihow, on How to prove God exists.

Here below is the article but it is still to pass the site’s quality review process.

As you guys read this proposed article from yours truly, I will now go and see whether atheists in CF has answered my request to them, starting with dear Lady atheist, KTS, Please tell me if you know that there is the reality of causation in the objective realm of existence outside of thoughts in our mind which is the conceptual realm.
________________________________

https://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Prove-God-Exists&new=1

This article has not yet passed wikiHow's quality review process.
__________________________

How to Prove God Exists

First and foremost we must work as to concur on the concept of God Which we want to prove to exist, because unless we have the same concept, we would be into a useless exercise for we would be talking past each other's head, and that is not being reasonable, intelligent, and useful to mankind in man's search for knowledge of reality.

There are three very much adhered to and influential faiths today, namely: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Now, when we examine God as taught in these faiths, we notice that all three concur that in concept God is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

At this point, persons who do not accept this 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, they can prove whatever God they care to convince mankind to exist or to not exist in objective reality; but they are being unreasonable, unintelligent and useless to mankind in man's search for knowledge of reality.

So, here are what I propose as steps in proving to oneself and to others, namely, to everyone who is reasonable, intelligent, and useful to mankind in the common search for knowledge of reality - I mean that the person proving God to exist and the person wanting to know God exists, both sides must be reasonable, intelligent, and useful to the rest of mankind in man's search for knowledge of reality.

1. Work to come to the concurrence on the concept of God, namely, that God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

2. Look for all events of causation in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, like for example, babies are caused by their parents to come into existence, that is an example of causation in objective reality independent of thoughts in man's mind, meaning that even when man is not thinking of babies being caused, babies are being produced by mankind as long as there are humans around, male and female.

3. From the evidence of events of causation, we infer ultimately to the existence of an entity that is the ultimate and first cause of the chain of causation.

4. This chain of causation starts with the beginning of the universe as studied by scientists, namely, the universe that man lives in and wherefore man exists in, has a beginning; that means that it the universe has a cause, and that includes wherefore that everything that has a beginning within the universe, like babies, they have a cause also.

5. Conclusion: God exists in the universe and in man and in everything with a beginning.

So, there, that is the proof of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

[End of proposed Wikihow’s article on How to prove God exists.]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Original draft of article for Wikihow on How to prove God exists.]

First and foremost we must work as to concur on the concept of God Which we want to prove to exist, because unless we have the same concept, we would be into a useless exercise for we would be talking past each other's head, and that is not being reasonable, intelligent, and useful to mankind in man's search for knowledge of reality.

There are three very much adhered to and influential faiths today, namely: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Now, when we examine God as taught in these faiths, we notice that all three concur that in concept God is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

At this point, persons who do not accept this 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, they can prove whatever God they care to convince mankind to exist or to not exist in objective reality; but they are being unreasonable, unintelligent and useless to mankind in man's search for knowledge of reality.

So, here are what I propose as steps in proving to oneself and to others, namely, to everyone who is reasonable, intelligent, and useful to mankind in the common search for knowledge of reality - I mean that the person proving God to exist and the person wanting to know God exists, both sides must be reasonable, intelligent, and useful to the rest of mankind in man's search for knowledge of reality.

1. Work to come to the concurrence on the concept of God, namely, that God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

2. Look for all events of causation in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, like for example, babies are caused by their parents to come into existence, that is an example of causation in objective reality independent of thoughts in man's mind, meaning that even when man is not thinking of babies being caused, babies are being produced by mankind as long as there are humans around, male and female.

3. From the evidence of events of causation, we infer ultimately to the existence of an entity that is the ultimate and first cause of the chain of causation.

4. This chain of causation starts with the beginning of the universe as studied by scientists, namely, the universe that man lives in and wherefore man exists in, has a beginning; that means that it the universe has a cause, and that includes wherefore that everything that has a beginning within the universe, like babies, they have a cause also.

5. Conclusion: God exists in the universe and in man and in everything with a beginning.

So, there, that is the proof of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

[End of original draft]

 

[Skreeper]

From the evidence of events of causation, we infer ultimately to the existence of an entity that is the ultimate and first cause of the chain of causation.

Demonstration required.

4. This chain of causation starts with the beginning of the universe as studied by scientists, namely, the universe that man lives in and wherefore man exists in, has a beginning; that means that it the universe has a cause, and that includes wherefore that everything that has a beginning within the universe, like babies, they have a cause also.

5. Conclusion: God exists in the universe and in man and in everything with a beginning.

There is a giant leap you are doing between 4. and 5.
I can accept that the universe has a cause for it's existence. But I'd like you to explain how you can investigate what this cause was, considering scientists do not know and currently cannot investigate what happened prior to the Big Bang.

 

[Pachomius]

Whoa!

What do we have today, an outpouring of posts when I was thinking that atheists and theists are leaving this thread, and I was thinking of working with pleasure on for example, one Loudmouth, to examine how the man is into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism.

Okay, very good, Michael is back, and he has a new game to play with another Christian theist, Leslie: they are into the distinction between God and His creation.

Tell you what, guys, just you both concur that God is distinct from His creation because God cannot annihilate Himself [so, Oh atheists, rejoice, that proves that God is not omnipotent, hahahahaha – how naïve i.e. diputs (read that in reverse), while His creation is subject to His annihilation if and when He so desires to do it, with just an act of His will, as also He brought everything into existence with an act of His will.

So, you gentlemen Christian theists, you two can continue to pursue your idle vain exchange in aid of titillating your if I may, your vanity of erudition, and Oh profound depths of abysmal irrelevancy, but that is the nature of with mankind, vanity of useless erudition.

See my next post.

 

[Skreeper]

Whoa!

What do we have today, an outpouring of posts when I was thinking that atheists and theists are leaving this thread, and I was thinking of working with pleasure on for example, one Loudmouth, to examine how the man is into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism.

Okay, very good, Michael is back, and he has a new game to play with another Christian theist, Leslie: they are into the distinction between God and His creation.

Tell you what, guys, just you both concur that God is distinct from His creation because God cannot annihilate Himself [so, Oh atheists, rejoice, that proves that God is not omnipotent, hahahahaha – how naïve i.e. diputs (read that in reverse), while His creation is subject to His annihilation if and when He so desires to do it, with just an act of His will, as also He brought everything into existence with an act of His will.

So, you gentlemen Christian theists, you two can continue to pursue your idle vain exchange in aid of titillating your if I may, your vanity of erudition, and Oh profound depths of abysmal irrelevancy, but that is the nature of with mankind, vanity of useless erudition.

See my next post.

Has someone ever told you that your write like a bad poet?

 

[lesliedellow]

So, you gentlemen Christian theists, you two can continue to pursue your idle vain exchange in aid of titillating your if I may, your vanity of erudition, and Oh profound depths of abysmal irrelevancy, but that is the nature of with mankind, vanity of useless erudition.

I may be a Christian theist, but I am no gentleman, and I will flatten the next person who says I am.

See my next post.

No thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

I may be a Christian theist, but I am no gentleman, and I will flatten the next person who says I am.

Let's test that.

You, sir, are a gen... oof!

 

[Pachomius]

The atheists here are as usual keeping very silent with coming forth as to answer to my request to tell me, Do you or do you not know the reality of causation?

That is the 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.

So, I will not invest time and trouble with them.

Now, I will talk with our dear lady atheist, KTS.

She is also full of erudition, and I hope that we will have a productive exchange on How to prove God exists, from her part it should be how to prove God does not exist.

Of course she will remind me that she has no burden to prove anything at all because she is not making any claim, as though a claim has to be all the time affirmative, it can be also negative, and whether negative or positive, anyone making a claim is obligated to explain how he comes to his claim whether affirmative or negative, otherwise he should just seal his lips and not contribute more of self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, in aid of idle vain talk, vain as in vanity.

Okay, dear lady KTS, you want to have proof of God existing because to date you do not see any proof from me, and but also you conveniently neglect to tell me whether you know the reality of causation.

First, tell me, dear KTS: Shall we first work as to come to what it is to prove that something exists?

There, dear KTS, start thinking on what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside of our mind.

No, I am not at this point in time, requiring you to prove anything, but just to do some serious thinking, on what it is to prove that something exists.

Tell me, suppose you prove to yourself and to your family members and closest of friends; yes, tell me how you prove to them that there is a nose in man’s face, man here embraces also woman.

That is simple enough, how to prove to yourself and your family members and your best friends, that there is in a human face, a nose.

Let us see whether, dear KTS, we keep on with our exchange; unlike with Loudmouth, he was into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, what with defining evidence as a set of facts confirming a falsifiable claim, something like that which is really some piece of self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, which is the kind of talk that is already the menu with atheists in the internet.

Okay, dear lady atheist, KTS, proffer your best thinking on what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality; for a starter, take the nose in the human face, it exists: but how do you prove it as to convince fellow humans that there is a nose in the human face?

See you guys again tomorrow, and I am glad that Michael is back, but what we or I don’t need are atheists who only know the mantra: no proof, no proof, no proof, like a talkbot badly programmed by its master, or no evidence, no evidence, no evidence.

Such talkbots would not be able to understand either that they have a nose in their face, and how to prove it to genuine humans who do have consciousness, reason, and intelligence.