How I prove God exists.

a reply to: Deluxe


If memory serves.

I was expecting to exchange thoughts with you, Deluxe.

I recall you opted to not pursue the idea after our first exchange of posts.

Would you be now disposed to resume the exchange of thoughts on how to prove God exists?

a reply to: Pachomius

I have no idea how to prove a God exists.
I have no desire to prove a God exists.
I'm not even sure it can be proven.
All I know is you have not proved a God exists.
You have proved to me that you want God to exist and have faith it exists.
I'm being polite by using a capital G to not offend.

WARNING

This is NOT a Flat Earth thread.

Stick to the topic of the OP.

Those wishing to debate Flat Earth may do so in the threads that are dedicated to that subject.

Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius

I have no idea how to prove a God exists.
I have no desire to prove a God exists.
I'm not even sure it can be proven.
All I know is you have not proved a God exists.
You have proved to me that you want God to exist and have faith it exists.
I'm being polite by using a capital G to not offend.

Well, that is a most if I may, closed minded attitude from your part.

Still, I notice that you contribute your thoughts to posts which if I am not mistaken are into the discussion of God exists or not.

So, I will just react to you when you show yourself to be articulate when such materials come up in posts from colleagues here, which have to do with proving or disproving God exists.

By the way, for a disclaimer on my part, I am a theist from philosophy, and in regard to religion I call myself a diy Christian.

So, no need to bring up the anti-proselytization card.

I just checked on where I am in this ATS forum.

And I am in the right place, namely: ATS forum > Philosophy and metaphysics > How I prove God exists.


So, addressing Deluxe, perhaps and no offense to you, you may dispense your presence from this thread; otherwise I fear that your presence here is incoherent and inconsistent with your closed-minded attitude to all matters having to do with proving or disproving God exists, from philosophy and metaphysics.

a reply to: Pachomius

I analyzed your proof of God and found fault in it earlier in this thread.
I suggested you needed to come of with better axioms for your proof. Axioms that can be accepted as self evident and agreed upon.
I gave you an example of something that does not have a beginning (witnessed). Energy. It can neither be created nor destroyed.
Have you witnessed energy being created? Having a beginning?
You responded:
"I now give you the nose on our face, babies and roses, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the night sky, for examples of things with a beginning."
Noses, babies, roses, sun in the day sky, moon in the night sky. The are just configurations of matter and energy that had existence before they came to be.

I'm not here to prove God exists or not. I'm in this thread to tell you your proof is wrong. I have every right to post in this thread.

Upside Down...
Inside Out...
Round & Round...

As A Masquerading Angel Of Light In The Beginning.... He Shows You The Three And You Delight. But... The Three Statements Are Far From Delight. The Devil Is Real....

When the Earth is finally proven to be a creation of a supreme being(s), we'll have proof that God exists. No other way, as I see it.

Deluxe, you say:
"I gave you an example of something that does not have a beginning (witnessed). Energy. It can neither be created nor destroyed. "

Where and how did you get this idea?

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius

I analyzed your proof of God and found fault in it earlier in this thread.
I suggested you needed to come of with better axioms for your proof. Axioms that can be accepted as self evident and agreed upon.
I gave you an example of something that does not have a beginning (witnessed). Energy. It can neither be created nor destroyed.
Have you witnessed energy being created? Having a beginning?
You responded:
"I now give you the nose on our face, babies and roses, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the night sky, for examples of things with a beginning."
Noses, babies, roses, sun in the day sky, moon in the night sky. The are just configurations of matter and energy that had existence before they came to be.

I'm not here to prove God exists or not. I'm in this thread to tell you your proof is wrong. I have every right to post in this thread.

a reply to: Pachomius

en.wikipedia.org...

"In physics, the law of Conservation of Energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, it is said to be conserved over time.[1] This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another. For instance, chemical energy is converted to kinetic energy when a stick of dynamite explodes. If one adds up all the forms of energy that were released in the explosion, such as the kinetic energy of the pieces, as well as heat and sound, one will get the exact decrease of chemical energy in the combustion of the dynamite. Classically, conservation of energy was distinct from conservation of mass; however, special relativity showed that mass could be converted to energy and vice versa by E = mc2, and science now takes the view that mass–energy is conserved."

a reply to: Pachomius

If you wish to prove God exists i suggest further study of the universal constant, Phi, Pi, and the like.

Stay away from alleged religious texts that are nothing more than a product of Man with all our fear and fallibility at play.

a reply to: Pachomius

That is your bone of contention

No its not.


You don't want discuss this in a rational way.

simple questions asked about what you post gets replied to with "your not thinking straight".


Its not anyone's bone of contention but a clear observation from a numerous posters.

Dear Deluxe, you say:
"I gave you an example of something that does not have a beginning (witnessed). Energy. It can neither be created nor destroyed."

How does energy cannot be created nor destroyed extrapolates to energy has no beginning?

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius

I analyzed your proof of God and found fault in it earlier in this thread.
I suggested you needed to come of with better axioms for your proof. Axioms that can be accepted as self evident and agreed upon.
I gave you an example of something that does not have a beginning (witnessed). Energy. It can neither be created nor destroyed.
Have you witnessed energy being created? Having a beginning?
You responded:
"I now give you the nose on our face, babies and roses, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the night sky, for examples of things with a beginning."
Noses, babies, roses, sun in the day sky, moon in the night sky. The are just configurations of matter and energy that had existence before they came to be.

I'm not here to prove God exists or not. I'm in this thread to tell you your proof is wrong. I have every right to post in this thread.

a reply to: Pachomius

Because we haven't witnessed energy having a beginning.
You claimed to witness things beginning all the time.

Actually you said everything you witness has a beginning.



And since everything is made of matter and energy you haven't witnessed anything having a true beginning.

How does you not witnessing energy having a beginning extrapolate to energy not having a beginning?

You have a beginning, because the doctor brought you out from your mother's womb.

And before that you have a beginning when your papa ejaculates semen into your mama's womb, and an egg from her got penetrated by a sperm from your papa.

That beginning is visible.

But that you do not witness energy having no beginning, that does not extrapolate into energy has no beginning.

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius

Because we haven't witnessed energy having a beginning.
You claimed to witness things beginning all the time.

Actually you said everything you witness has a beginning.

a reply to: Pachomius

It doesn't mean energy and matter have no beginning but you claimed that everything you witness has a beginning. That is false.

So this line in your proof is false.

"3. And I find everything I experience to be in existence having a beginning to its existence."