It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How I prove God exists.

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:54 AM
link   
That is no reason to say that God does not exist, because you don't see Him.

And it is not any argument at all.

You should first if you care to articulate a rational statement on God exists or not, first ask yourself: Do I have the correct concept of God?

You see, many folks have the concept of God as an orbiting teapot in space (Bertrand Russell), and flying spaghetti monster, and invisible pink unicorn, and Santa, and tooth fairy, and magic old man in the sky, etc.

So, dear Ghost, if you care to present a rational statement, start with your concept of God, otherwise readers I submit will not take you to be a rational thinker and talker.


originally posted by: Ghostsinthefog
There is no God because i can't see him/her

My argument is just as valid as yours.




posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Pachomius

What convinced you that god(s) exist?



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Pachomius

You sound like some kind of game show host. Nobody here is going to play.

The fact of the situation is that we are all walking around in the same world, looking at the same things. We all have the same tools at our disposal.

Except you are making the claim that there is this thing that exists, that you can’t describe very well, but they talk about it in a book written by people who didn’t know what lightning was. They didn’t know what germs were, and they certainly didn’t understand mental illness or even that the brain is where thoughts come from. Or what a hallucination is.

We don’t see or feel this thing. Our tools can’t see it and since you can’t really describe it in any meaningful way that will help us to determine what it is and if it is doing any of this stuff you think it’s doing. there is no reason to believe you. It’s as if you have imagined it all in your head. When compared to other people’s claimed experiences, there seems to be no consensus. It’s as if their experience originated from their imagination too. Some of these claims are similar but not enough to bring any real meaning when compared to the vast amount of different testimonies around the world and throughout recorded history.

So unless you can present a fossilized shin bone of some deity that we can inspect, i’m really not interested in starting at ground zero with another online proselytizer.

your own personal anecdotal story, that doesn’t match anyone else’s, is not proof of anything except that you believe your own beliefs.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Either life is created by primordial soups, or a supreme being(s)

We can't create life, so what does that suggest?

The Sun and moon seem like they were meant to match up, in size, and shape, and alignment, to eclipse perfectly.

Either random, or intended, to match perfectly.


What odds would it be to have life created in glop, and every life after is random luck, and Sun and moon match up perfectly in yet another magical coincidence, to boot?


It's not realistic to believe even one is random luck - but two times? No way.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pachomius
"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

What do you understand from my statement above?

I think I have an idea what you're talking about but it does sound a bit odd to me the way it's phrased in that statement. It sounds like you're talking about the fact that things that are part of reality are things that exist (an attribute or quality). That is after all part of the google dictionary definition for "reality":

1. the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

2. the state or quality of having existence or substance.


Coming back to you, dear whereislogic, do you have the adventure-some heart and mind to join me in the expedition to reach the certainty of God existing, by reasoning?

I've already come to the conclusion that God exists, I'm certain of it. I even know his name, it's not "God", "the LORD" or "Jesus". The latter being described numerous times in the bible as "the Son of God", logically excluding him from being the God he's already the Son of (among many many other reasons spelled out in the bible, such as Paul's usage of the phrase: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ", Ephesians 1:3, clearly pointing to someone else than Jesus as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no God of this individual. God has no god that can be described as "the God and Father of our God". A phrase you will not find in the bible. My reasons or reasoning which led me to my conclusions regarding God's existence and his identity are a little different from yours though I suspect.

edit on 25-2-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Either life is created by primordial soups, or a supreme being(s)

We can't create life, so what does that suggest?

The Sun and moon seem like they were meant to match up, in size, and shape, and alignment, to eclipse perfectly.

Either random, or intended, to match perfectly.


What odds would it be to have life created in glop, and every life after is random luck, and Sun and moon match up perfectly in yet another magical coincidence, to boot?


It's not realistic to believe even one is random luck - but two times? No way.


Dear turbonium1, I can't really make out what you are driving about, because the inconsistency and incoherency of your post is quite easy to readers who look for consistency and coherency in a piece of writing.

I will just guess that you know God does not exist, because everything rests on randomness to have come into existence.

Okay, present something that is produced by randomness, and explain why and how.

When you succeed then I will tell you:

"That ain't randomness, that is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Dear active posters here in particular atheists, if I may - and it is not any attempt at spamming, reproduce the OP, so that every active poster can read it and react to it on target.



originally posted by: Pachomius posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 05:23 PM

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.



So, tell me what you do not understand in this statement on my concept of God:

"1. I define God as in concept first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

You see, dear atheist colleagues here, you tend to make flippant comparisons to God, with such ridiculous analogies as:


...an orbiting teapot in space (Bertrand Russell), and flying spaghetti monster, and invisible pink unicorn, and Santa, and tooth fairy, and magic old man in the sky, etc.


Try to abstain from flippancies and get serious with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and on the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

If you don't accept my concept of God, then please tell me what is the information of the concept of God you have in your heart and mind?

And also, I am not here to convert you i.e. proselytize you.

My purpose is to enjoy studying how people think, in most particular atheists.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   
- Everything that is finite is created/formed.

- Finite can not be infinite. Therefor finite is not infinite. The definition of finite is: Not infinite.

a. Being neither infinite nor infinitesimal.


So what created/formed finite? Only the infinite void can do so. A infinite void rule ut some facts that prevent finite from being created randomly. Random causes can not exist within a infinite empty void of space that is absolut empty of finite initially.

A absolut empty void of space is a void of Space without finite and it takes up all Space possible. When finite is formed it must and can only exist within the infinite void of Space. There is no other Place/dimesion finite can exist.

A infinite empty void of Space is absolut neutral, and a absolut constant. And in a void of Space that is a absolut constant and absolut neutral. No random events can take Place. Therefor this infinite void of Space need to be aware and intelligent. Or no cause will ever take Place.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   
ops
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66
You are actually using dictionary definitions. Seriously.
All dictionary definitions are circular.

edit on 26-2-2018 by Deluxe because: Adding more clarification.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deluxe
posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 10:40 AM
a reply to: spy66

You are actually using dictionary definitions. Seriously.
All dictionary definitions are circular.

edit on 26-2-2018 by Deluxe because: Adding more clarification.



Dear Deluxe, you tell mankind that all dictionary definitions are circular.

You want to make a point, namely, that dictionary definitions are useless because they don't tell you anything, as they are circular statements.

For your information, you don't have to consult a dictionary if you already know the meaning of a word.

But for people who don't know the meaning of a word, the dictionary is very useful, in place of having to ask another person who know the meaning of the word you don't have the meaning of.

So, suppose you tell me, what is your real point in telling mankind that all definitions in dictionary are circular?



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Pachomius

not all definitions are circular.
But if a definition is circular it simply means it assumes the reader has a prior understanding.
A circular definition is therefore lacking and shouldn't be used to prove a point.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius

not all definitions are circular.
But if a definition is circular it simply means it assumes the reader has a prior understanding.
A circular definition is therefore lacking and shouldn't be used to prove a point.



This is what you said to me:


You are actually using dictionary definitions. Seriously.
All dictionary definitions are circular.


But then you go on to say that: not all definitions are circular?

The definition of finite is hardly circular. The definition of finite is actually telling you what finite is not. The definition is telling you the two states finite can not be.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

I actually do think every dictionary is circular but i backed off that statement because I didn't want to tangent off into another discussion.
For now it's easier to say some definitions are circular.

Anyhow spy here is a quote from your post

"- Finite can not be infinite. Therefor finite is not infinite. The definition of finite is: Not infinite.


a. Being neither infinite nor infinitesimal."

The above is a circular definition.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: spy66

I actually do think every dictionary is circular but i backed off that statement because I didn't want to tangent off into another discussion.
For now it's easier to say some definitions are circular.

Anyhow spy here is a quote from your post

"- Finite can not be infinite. Therefor finite is not infinite. The definition of finite is: Not infinite.


a. Being neither infinite nor infinitesimal."

The above is a circular definition.





No, it is covering two aspect of its definition so that it can not be missuesed.

The difinition state that finite is in no way infinite. You do know that some People think that finite is actually infinite. That is because they dont undertand the meaning of the definition of finite. Or they dont want to Accept its definition.... What People think dont really matter,.. finite is still finite..... not infinite.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pachomius

So, suppose you tell me, what is your real point in telling mankind that all definitions in dictionary are circular?

Oh, can I, can I (have a go at that question)? (excited smiley, if there was one)

I know the question wasn't for me, but...from the article in my signature:

AS MEANS of communicating have expanded—from printing to the telephone, radio, television, and the Internet—the flow of persuasive messages has dramatically accelerated. This communications revolution has led to information overload, as people are inundated by countless messages from every quarter. Many respond to this pressure by absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.

Acknowledging the usefulness of dictionaries and particular definitions sort of gets in the way of that bolded technique (if dictionaries are used properly it can clear up any ambiguity, exposing flaws in argumentation and ways of thinking). So along with using that technique, some propagandists also diss dictionaries (or more often particular inconvenient definitions in them, such as the fact that "begotten" means "created, brought into existence , brought into being"; those are synonyms) cause they show what game they're playing (cherry-picking definitions that suit a line of argumentation is another technique; which is why I emphasized "if....used properly"). This in turn has its effect on the victims of propaganda (who pick up that way of thinking). Which one of the 2 someone is, is always a bit tricky to determin, cause the arguments and ways of thinking (such as an opinion about dictionaries and truth, that which is true/absolute/unambiguous/certain/factual/conclusive/correct, without error) are often the same. When capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, you don't always want to make things more clear by using, referring to or acknowledging certain dictionary definitions or synonyms that are less ambiguous or clear up the matter. Vagueness (often accompanied by some form of agnosticism, selective or general) also rules supreme in presenting mythology and unverified philosophies as enlightenment, insight or knowledge/science (from the Latin "scientia" which means "knowledge", essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities acquired by personal experience, observation, or study).

Wherever you see me using a / in my commentary above, I'm using synonyms as reminders and to combat the technique I bolded. Cause the agnostic mind (way of thinking, approach to figuring out the truth of a matter) likes to pretend that 'science does not deal with absolutes' (or that one can never be 100% certain about a particular subject or regarding anything, i.e. what I refer to as selective and general agnosticism respectively), a contradiction in terms if "absolutes" is referring to things that are absolute/factual/certain/true/conclusive/unambiguous/correct, without error; and if you don't conveniently ignore the original meaning of the word "science" derived from the Latin "scientia" which means "knowledge", a familiarity with things that are factual/absolute/certain/true aquired by personal experience, observation, or study.

There are way more people who think according to the code above that the writer(s?) of South Park would like to admit. Themselves included. And it isn't limited to the subject spoken about above (the video above would be describing the way of thinking of what I would call selective agnosticism, but general agnosticism or convenient selective agnosticism regarding other subjects is quite popular as well, especially when discussing evolutionary philosophies, where a lot of appeals to the Great 'We Don't Know Yet' (but we're making great progress supposedly)-God of the agnostic gaps are made when challenging questions are raised regarding the claims made by those adhering to, expressing or promoting evolutionary philosophies and philosophical naturalism (which often go together, but Trinitarians like to do it too in response to inconvenient questions about the doctrine of the Trinity, or other religions when asking questions about the myth of the immortality of the soul, allthough they use different phrases and terminologies such as "the mystery of faith", "God is a mystery", "it was revealed to me by God or by the Holy Spirit", "I have faith..." when referring to blind faith with no evidence or reason to believe something, etc.). Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.”

They also call it "the mystery of faith".

Synonyms for "paradox" are:

mystery
contradiction

1 Timothy 6:20

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”* [*: Latin Vulgate: scientia; KJV: science]

The Paradox of Tertullian

...
Tertullian showed that the Scriptures made a clear distinction between the Father and the Son. After quoting 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28, he reasoned: “He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected​—must necessarily be two different Beings.” Tertullian called attention to Jesus’ own words: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) Using portions of the Hebrew Scriptures, such as Psalm 8:5, he showed how the Bible describes the “inferiority” of the Son. “Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son,” Tertullian concluded. “Inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.”

Tertullian viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. However, in his attempt to counteract modalism, he went “beyond the things that are written.” (1 Corinthians 4:6) As Tertullian erroneously sought to prove the divinity of Jesus by means of another theory, he coined the formula “one substance in three persons.” Using this concept, he attempted to show that God, his Son, and the holy spirit were three distinct persons existing in one divine substance. Tertullian thus became the first to apply the Latin form of the word “trinity” to the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit.
...

And then we haven't talked yet about producers of dictionaries that will list a definition for a word that suits their beliefs and doctrines (which is done for the word "begotten" and "beget" for example by Trinitarians producing dictionaries that want to deny that Jesus was created/brought into being/begotten by his God and Father by listing an alternative definition, or by fans of evolutionary philosophies and philosophical naturalism regarding the definition for "evolution" being very careful to either exclude or conveniently not mention anything about "chemical evolution" a.k.a. "the chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis").
edit on 28-2-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic


So lets make this a bit Shorter, If i use the definition of finite in my argument i am automatically misusing the definition of finite...... just to state some propaganda?

How may i ask. Propaganda is when you basically try to alter or modify the definition to make the defintion fit Your argument.

So if Finite is the opposite of infinite. I gues we have to agree on what the defintion of oppoiste means as well then, or is it okay to use opposite to describe that finite is not infinite?

How would you describe finite correctly compared to infinite when finite is stated to be the opposite of infinite?
Are finite and infinite realted in anyway?



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: whereislogic


So lets make this a bit Shorter, If i use the definition of finite in my argument i am automatically misusing the definition of finite...... just to state some propaganda?

No, no need to be so defensive. I wasn't talking about your usage of a possible (and for me quite reasonable and understandable) definition for "infinite". Nicely succinct too; if people don't know what "finite" means they could look that up, but I have a feeling Deluxe knows just fine what "finite" means. Some people train or indoctrinate others to want to open up every word for debate, there's more to be said about that phenomena as well, 1 Timothy 6:3, 4. Again, not saying it's Deluxe doing the indoctrination or conditioning, but implying it's possible he's demonstrating the effects of it on those taken in by the "teachers" described for example at 2 Timothy 4:3,4; people who benefit from making things more vague/unclear/ambiguous/uncertain (a "mystery" if we think back to or compare the quotations and demonstrations by Trinitarians for a moment) because it helps with selling, promoting of or getting attention and/or admiration with unverified (but often intriguing or attention-grabbing) philosophies and speculations, wishful thinking and mythology, and because the ruler of this system of things that is pulling the strings here and pushing people's buttons, benefits from keeping people in the dark, so they cannot see anything clearly and cannot gain understanding about God and related subjects and the evidence involved or available regarding those subjects; he creates a smokesceen, a fog, a veil of darkness, he doesn't want people to figure it out, to reach conclusive answers, to know the truth that sets men free* (from his manipulation of the minds of men and their way of thinking, reasoning and arguing). I was responding with possible causation and origins of the feelings and opinions Deluxe has towards dictionary definitions and motive for saying:

You are actually using dictionary definitions. Seriously.
All dictionary definitions are circular.

Demonstrating a particular amount or level of disdain for dictionaries and the definitions in them. And...

I actually do think every dictionary is circular but i backed off that statement because I didn't want to tangent off into another discussion.
For now it's easier to say some definitions are circular.

So he still feels that way about dictionaries but he doesn't want to give some reasons in a bit more detail right now about that particular statement (perhaps he just realized his first statement about dictionaries was way too dogmatic and a bit unreasonable to tar all definitions in all dictionaries with the same brush; which would be nice if that's the case). So I went ahead and started talking about where this feeling may have come from. I wasn't saying Deluxe was using propaganda either but I did imply he could potentially be a victim of it.

*:

Remember, I was responding to Pachomius' question that he asked Deluxe, unless you're using any of those accounts, you and your commentary wasn't really part of my analysis of Deluxe's statement that Pachomius asked a question about regarding his motive or reason for saying that (phrased as "what is your real point").
edit on 28-2-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
And then we haven't talked yet about producers of dictionaries that will list a definition for a word that suits their beliefs and doctrines (which is done for the word "begotten" and "beget" for example by Trinitarians producing dictionaries that want to deny that Jesus was created/brought into being/begotten by his God and Father by listing an alternative definition, or by fans of evolutionary philosophies and philosophical naturalism regarding the definition for "evolution" being very careful to either exclude or conveniently not mention anything about "chemical evolution" a.k.a. "the chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis").

Out of edit time:


The latter video also contains a clue as to a possible motive or cause for Deluxe to talk and think the way about dictionary definitions that he does (as if it's not clear, or perhaps even never clear or never will be clear, see South Park video). Using the phrase "as clear as mud".

Also remember for those thinking I'm going too far off-topic or bringing up too much irrelevant stuff in response to one statement by Deluxe and question by Pachomius about that:

A thread about God's existence is very broad. I'm not limiting my commentary to just talking about dictionaries and how people feel about those, but I am connecting those feelings to certain ways of thinking that are all related to thinking, arguing or reasoning about God's existence.
edit on 28-2-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
I recommend ending the first video at 5:00 to avoid confusion or being distracted from the reason I shared those videos. Likewise the 2nd video can be ended at 4:13. Otherwise I feel I need to point out some caveats I have with them (not that I don't have some caveats with some things said before it, but these things said are less significant, less confusing or less distracting, or it's just a minor rephrasing that I would like to have seen).

In my country there is a way of thinking that is described as "ietsism(e)", translated to the English "somethingism", which is related to much of what is mentioned in my commentary about being vague and opening things up to speculation, wishful thinking, debate and philosophizing without real understanding or insight (fake enlightenment, the delusion of being enlightened with a more openminded modern way of thinking, a fake sense of insightful superiority over those who follow the advice at 1 Thess.5:21).

2 Timothy 3:7

...always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.

E·piʹgno·sis, a strengthened form of gnoʹsis (e·piʹ, meaning “additional”), can often be seen from the context to mean “exact, accurate, or full knowledge.” Thus Paul wrote about some who were learning (taking in knowledge) “yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge [“a real knowledge,” TC; “a personal knowledge,” Ro; “clear, full knowledge,” Da ftn] of truth.” (2Ti 3:6, 7)

Source: Knowledge: Insight, Volume 2
1 Thess 5:21

Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.

All forms of agnosticism and the promotion of vagueness (in slogans such as 'science does not deal with absolutes') that I've encountered encourage (or operate) against applying the advice given above (see ending conclusion of the South Park agnostic code).* There is one main benefactor for this vague way of thinking (and those falling into his pattern of behaviour such as Donald Trump for example, which is a nice example, along with those prominent pastors that endorsed him and got him the biggest evangelical vote in a long time, demonstrating a lot of hypocrisy in those voting for him, predominantly Trinitarians):

He is a liar! (part 1 of 2)

*: The phrase "all dictionary definitions are circular" is possibly spillover.

I'd like to use Isaac Newton's comment about "atheism" and swap it out with "agnosticism" (or this vague way of thinking which isn't always accurately described as agnosticism such as in the case of somethingism):

"Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors."

But I can't do that cause this vague way of thinking is today so popular among professors and those who are perceived as wise by many that the following biblical statement really rings home for me, 1 Cor.1:19,20:

For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectuals I will reject.”* [Or “shove aside.”] 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe?* [That is, an expert in the Law.] Where is the debater of this system of things? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?

Yep, as demonstrated below as well:

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

Also note the word "mysterious" again as used by Dawkins above.

Stephen Hawking is on the same bandwagon, or in the same boat.
edit on 28-2-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join