How I prove God exists.

a reply to: Pachomius

that is not the official definition of evidence.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

maybe you should work on that before attempting to debate with the forum about proof and deities.

You are basically just rephrasing the ontological argument. In rebuttal:

a. God cannot be thought of as existing contingently.
b. Everything that exists can only be thought of as existing contingently.
Therefore
c. God does not exist.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You know migo I’m gonna try and be fair and give him a pass for that point...

“How I Prove” sounds like a fair way to put it.


Added in edit: never mind. Homie did try to redefine evidence lol..

a reply to: Pachomius

........


You should have gone with , “that is why I put “how I prove”...

to me that says..

“How I validate a belief in god to myself, subjectively”.

Which makes any answer you give fair game.. imho atleast..


You don’t get to redefine what objective evidence though....

a reply to: noonebutme

Religion has already lost to science in whatever the creationist in schools trial was.. there they had the opportunity to prove it was a science and failed miserably..

Troll thread. Arguing over a bunch of poorly defined concepts. Might as well be arguing about whether Superman or the Flash would win a race.

Dear TzarChasm, seek not what is the official definition of evidence from a dictionary, there all kinds of dictionaries of all kinds of deficiencies - let you not bring in the word official, unless you are conditioned to look for authorities all the time.

Time to consult your very own personal experience and verbalize what you know to be evidence.

That is why I am inviting you and noonebutme to for us work out together a mutually concurred on concept of evidence.

You seem to fear to think out your concept of evidence from your very own personal stock knowledge of evidence: perhaps you have little stock of your experience in re evidence?

TzarChasm says:

your god seems to defy the very rule that defines him/her/it. your god must by necessity exist because everything has a cause and only a god could be the ultimate causer of all things. and yet, by some inexplicable miracle, this god does not need to be caused despite you literally just stating that all things must have a cause and therefore god. you see the irony yet?

Dear TzarChasm, you like all atheists always quote deficiently.

The principle is not everything has a cause.

It is Everything with a beginning has a cause.

From Pachomius
1. I define God as in concept first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.
2. So I search for everything with a beginning to its existence.
3. And I find everything I experience to be in existence having a beginning to its existence.
4. There, that is the evidence of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.
5. Wherefore God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Dear InhaleExhale, you tell me:

From Pachomius
Dear Misterlondon, let us work as to concur on what is proof and what is opinion. As you bring up the word opinion, certainly you have a concept of what is opinion, so let us all here dear colleagues read from Mister his concept of what is opinion. I will from my part proffer my concept of what is proof.


From InhaleExhale
Instead of confusing readers and trying to redefine words why not just use the already existing definitions of these words, opinion and proof?

You see, we will go into endless and useless argument on what the dictionaries say about what is proof and what is opinion.

Please, we can do better by working together to concur on the mutually agreed on meanings of what is proof and what is opinion.

Here is again my concept of what is proof:

Proof in regard to God existing is the evidence which leads us to come to the certainty on the existence of God.

Now, from your part, you please produce your concept of what is opinion.

Then we will work together as to come to mutually agreed on concepts of proof and of opinion, and then determine whether my argument makes up proof or only opinion

Dear Woodcarver, perhaps you would like to accept my invitation for us two to work together as to arrive at a mutually agreed on concept of what is evidence?

That is a better way than appealing to dictionaries, for with dictionaries we will end up uselessly debating the meanings found in dictionaries.

Everyone with experience and good working reason, let us all work together to arrive at a mutually agreed on concept of what is evidence.

I will again for an initiative present my concept of what is evidence:

Evidence is anything existing (thing1) which leads man to the existence of another thing (thing2), owing to the connection between thing1 and thing2.

Example of evidence:
A homeowner sees blood (thing1) on the floor, so he concludes from the evidence of blood that there was a man (thing2) bleeding in the house.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Pachomius

If anything, this thread is about how people can convince themselves of something with absolutely no evidence or reason.

originally posted by: Pachomius
Example of evidence:
A homeowner sees blood (thing1) on the floor, so he concludes from the evidence of blood that there was a man (thing2) bleeding in the house.

How does the blood (which is actual evidence) become a "man?" Could it be an animal? A rat wounded in a trap? A lady during her time of the month? Dripped blood from a rare steak?

Once you have evidence, then the next step is to establish causality. Thing 1 is responsible for Thing 2. Unfortunately for you, all you have are ill-defined concepts, so you have a tough case to prove.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Flash obviously....

a reply to: Pachomius
Regarding point 3.
All you are witnessing is energy changing from one form to another. You are not witnessing the creation of energy.
Therefore you are witnessing the beginning of energy taking on new forms.
You never witness the beginning of energy because it can neither be created nor destroyed.
If you want a god it's energy and he's always conserved.

Now it seems to me you are trying to prove that god creates energy. Good luck with that.

originally posted by: Pachomius
Dear TzarChasm, seek not what is the official definition of evidence from a dictionary, there all kinds of dictionaries of all kinds of deficiencies - let you not bring in the word official, unless you are conditioned to look for authorities all the time.

Time to consult your very own personal experience and verbalize what you know to be evidence.

That is why I am inviting you and noonebutme to for us work out together a mutually concurred on concept of evidence.

You seem to fear to think out your concept of evidence from your very own personal stock knowledge of evidence: perhaps you have little stock of your experience in re evidence?

No. I quoted the definition. Your argument is invalid.

originally posted by: samrobx
a reply to: Pachomius

Man is created in Gods image or a holographic fractal system of consciousness. You can prove God exists by a simple process of deductive reasoning resulting in an enlightened state of consciousness.

Ebook - page 59 - goo.gl...

that just proves that biology and astrophysics both employ a lot of the same mechanic. Not intelligent design, just survival of the most functional pattern.

a reply to: TzarChasm

just a small (important) part of the puzzle...

you need to integrate a 'thousand' similar pieces of information leading to a spiritual change in consciousness and God is 'realized' through an inner Gnostic understanding or knowing...

originally posted by: samrobx
a reply to: TzarChasm

just a small (important) part of the puzzle...

you need to integrate a 'thousand' similar pieces of information leading to a spiritual change in consciousness and God is 'realized' through an inner Gnostic understanding or knowing...

What is spirit exactly? Just asking, because you seem to know.

originally posted by: samrobx
a reply to: Pachomius

Man is created in Gods image or a holographic fractal system of consciousness. You can prove God exists by a simple process of deductive reasoning resulting in an enlightened state of consciousness.

Ebook - page 59 - goo.gl...

Have you reached this enlightened state? What can you tell us that we don’t already know?

originally posted by: Pachomius
Dear Woodcarver, perhaps you would like to accept my invitation for us two to work together as to arrive at a mutually agreed on concept of what is evidence?

That is a better way than appealing to dictionaries, for with dictionaries we will end up uselessly debating the meanings found in dictionaries.

Everyone with experience and good working reason, let us all work together to arrive at a mutually agreed on concept of what is evidence.

I will again for an initiative present my concept of what is evidence:

Evidence is anything existing (thing1) which leads man to the existence of another thing (thing2), owing to the connection between thing1 and thing2.

Example of evidence:
A homeowner sees blood (thing1) on the floor, so he concludes from the evidence of blood that there was a man (thing2) bleeding in the house.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Pachomius

If anything, this thread is about how people can convince themselves of something with absolutely no evidence or reason.

How did you determine (thing2) was a man?

Definitions exist for a reason and i am happy to use the already existing definition for evidence. The concept for evidence is already defined to a T. I don’t think we could add anything to that discussion that would make it any clearer.

a reply to: Pachomius

You see, we will go into endless and useless argument on what the dictionaries say about what is proof and what is opinion.

yes, if you want redefine words then it will be an endless argument and no one will understand you because words already have a definition and reader go by what words mean not what you want redefine them as.

If you use the definitions of words that all of us know then there is no confusion, there are no endless arguments on dictionary definitions.




A few posters have said the same thing, tried to get clarity by posting definitions of words that you seem to using incorrectly which creates confusions.

Then we will work together as to come to mutually agreed on concepts of proof and of opinion, and then determine whether my argument makes up proof or only opinion

OR

OR


we just use the known definitions of the words.

please produce your concept of what is opinion.

My idea of what is an opinion is like that of everyone else's that knows what the definition of the word opinion is.

That is a better way than appealing to dictionaries, for with dictionaries we will end up uselessly debating the meanings found in dictionaries.

WTF


Who debates what words mean?


I don't get what you saying, it sounds insane.

You sound like you want to redefine words that already have a definition.


Why?