Proof God Exists: Here is my 11-Step Logical Proof. Enjoy.

[Mashmont]

I'm not making claims to supernatural entities. Did you forget you are the one making those claims?

You're claiming God doesn't exist, without evidence. How do you feel about making those specious unsupported claims?

 

[Mashmont]

I'm not tasked with disproving your claimed "pwoofs". You are making the positive assertion for supernatural gods. Present a supportable argument.

Oh, I see. You absolve your self of the burden of proving your illogical claim. Very convenient. And if you've studied higher math, which I have,, you know it is very possible to construct a negative proof, provided one is possible.

 

[Hollie]

I just find it that man knows so little, the tiniest fraction of all there is to know, yet you claim he is the only creator in the universe. There is nothing rational about tha conclusion.
But the fact is Christian religion = truth = science. 100% compatible. In fact Christianity is science mankind has yet to learn or understand.

That's incorrect. I made no claim that your gods are the only creators in the universe. I have no reason to accept any claims to any gods.

Sorry, but "Christian religion = truth = science." is simply not true. You cannot make claims to truth and science with any discussion of primary events in the Bible. The act of creation, talking snakes, seas parting, men rising from the dead, global floods wiping most of humanity from the planet, etc., are all core elements of the Bible and mankind's existence on the planet. None of those primary elements are supported by truth or science.

 

[Hollie]

Oh, I see. You absolve your self of the burden of proving your illogical claim. Very convenient. And if you've studied higher math, which I have,, you know it is very possible to construct a negative proof, provided one is possible.

My claim is quite clear. Your claims to supernatural entities tasks you with the burden of proof for those claims.

You know you cannot so you sidestep and dodge.

 

[Hollie]

You're claiming God doesn't exist, without evidence. How do you feel about making those specious unsupported claims?

I have no evidence of any gods having ever existed.

Neither do you. Simple, really.

 

[Mashmont]

My claim is quite clear. Your claims to supernatural entities tasks you with the burden of proof for those claims.

You know you cannot so you sidestep and dodge.

I've already proven it.
Now it's your turn to prove otherwise.

 

[Mashmont]

That's incorrect. I made no claim that your gods are the only creators in the universe. I have no reason to accept any claims to any gods.

Sorry, but "Christian religion = truth = science." is simply not true. You cannot make claims to truth and science with any discussion of primary events in the Bible. The act of creation, talking snakes, seas parting, men rising from the dead, global floods wiping most of humanity from the planet, etc., are all core elements of the Bible and mankind's existence on the planet. None of those primary elements are supported by truth or science.

You're changing it. You said man were the only creators in the universe. I'm asking you how that's possible since man knows very little compared to all there is to know.

There is no such thing as supernatural. The Christian religion is simply science you have yet to understand.
Just as man considered lightning supernatural until 1755.

 

[Hollie]

I've already proven it.
Now it's your turn to prove otherwise.

I have disproven your argument. Prove I haven’t.

See. This is the problem the religioner has when he fails to support his claims.

 

[Hollie]

You're changing it. You said man were the only creators in the universe. I'm asking you how that's possible since man knows very little compared to all there is to know.

There is no such thing as supernatural. The Christian religion is simply science you have yet to understand.
Just as man considered lightning supernatural until 1755.

You have failed to identify any science in connection with the act of creation, talking snakes, seas parting, men rising from the dead, global floods wiping most of humanity from the planet.

The various bibles are replete with events outside of the natural, rational world, thus, the supernatural.

 

[Bezukhov]

I've already proven it.
Now it's your turn to prove otherwise.

Maybe you're making a case for some sort of First Cause. Now that's all fine and dandy, but now the onus is still on you to prove it was your version of this First Cause that was responsible for everything. You have as much proof for yours as I do for mine. I believe our Universe is the work of some hyperdimensional 6th grader, and we are his/hers/its science project.

 

[SavannahMann]

First. I believe God exists.

Second. You have proven diddly squat.

A wise person is not good. People use intelligence and wisdom to deceive and abuse people all the time. Their victims are what you would call good. But unaware of the trickery.

According to your argument. The scammer stealing Grandma’s money is a great guy.

Take a look at the world. The worst people are the self described believers of God. People who are certain God supports their abusive behavior. If we use the followers of God as proof that God exists then we are left with the conclusion that God would have to be an abusive Racist jackass.

God isn’t. So the piety of the followers is not proof. Plenty of people use God to justify their abuse or racism.

Every weekend there are sporting events. Even professional athletes. There is always someone on the winning side who wishes to credit God with the victory. Yet no one on the losing side blames God for the defeat. We would be outraged if a Running Back said that God tripped him and made him fumble the ball costing the team the game. But we celebrate the jackass who credits God for the victory.

 

[Mashmont]

First. I believe God exists.

Second. You have proven diddly squat.

A wise person is not good. People use intelligence and wisdom to deceive and abuse people all the time. Their victims are what you would call good. But unaware of the trickery.

According to your argument. The scammer stealing Grandma’s money is a great guy.

Take a look at the world. The worst people are the self described believers of God. People who are certain God supports their abusive behavior. If we use the followers of God as proof that God exists then we are left with the conclusion that God would have to be an abusive Racist jackass.

God isn’t. So the piety of the followers is not proof. Plenty of people use God to justify their abuse or racism.

Every weekend there are sporting events. Even professional athletes. There is always someone on the winning side who wishes to credit God with the victory. Yet no one on the losing side blames God for the defeat. We would be outraged if a Running Back said that God tripped him and made him fumble the ball costing the team the game. But we celebrate the jackass who credits God for the victory.

The problem is you define 'wise' as skillful in a particular area. I define it as one able to discern the best overall result for himself and others. I say it is not wise to scam old people, because that causes harm to those people and to society.

What people call themselves is irrelevant. It's what they do, what they truly believe, and how they act that counts.

 

[Mashmont]

Maybe you're making a case for some sort of First Cause. Now that's all fine and dandy, but now the onus is still on you to prove it was your version of this First Cause that was responsible for everything. You have as much proof for yours as I do for mine. I believe our Universe is the work of some hyperdimensional 6th grader, and we are his/hers/its science project.

I look at the lives of the staunchest practitioners of Christian principles and see how unbelievably great those lives are. Then I look at the lives of very staunch atheists as observed how troubled those lives are. Intelligent people make the connection between the results and the validity of the belief system.

It's just so easy to figure out how to live right. The directives are all there. People who start out with nothing become ON FIRE with the desire to do for other people. These best people, the saints, have that fire from the time they get up until the time they go to bed. They have more energy to accomplish far more than any ten people normally could.
Mother Teresa grew up dirt poor in Albania. She founded an order of sisters who serve the poorest of the poor in the worst possible conditions. You have 70-and 80-year old women doing backbreaking work all day every day because of the fire of their belief in Jesus. and the practicing of His preaching.

 

[Mashmont]

The various bibles are replete with events outside of the natural, rational world, thus, the supernatural.

You mean outside of the world as you understand it.

And mankind doesn't understand much, do we? Imagine there are six septillion stars out there, and yet we can't even travel to the nearest planet. So what gives you the idea that we have any basis of determining what is rational or natural in terms of science?

 

[Mashmont]

I have disproven your argument. Prove I haven’t.

See. This is the problem the religioner has when he fails to support his claims.

You have never addressed the fact that the staunchest practitioners of Christianity, the canonized saints, have lived extraordinary lives as defined by most logical rational people, and often have accomplished unbelievable feats, while atheists lead all belief groups in alcoholism, drug dependence, broken relationships, and suicides.

How do you explain that?

 

[Hollie]

You mean outside of the world as you understand it.

And mankind doesn't understand much, do we? Imagine there are six septillion stars out there, and yet we can't even travel to the nearest planet. So what gives you the idea that we have any basis of determining what is rational or natural in terms of science?

I see this a lot from those with an anti-science agenda. Because not every question is answered, science, knowledge and learning is to be vilified and condemned as flawed and untrustworthy.

One could make the case that it was approximately the middle of the 19th century when tools and methods of science began to expand exponentially We began a transition away from superstitious beliefs thanks to the ever expanding success of science investigation and technology. The idea that science and reason are subordinate to fear and superstition is self-imposed blindness.

You want to denigrate science for not explaining the origin of the universe using “natural laws of physics”. Using those natural laws, science has largely (not entirely), explained the expansion of the universe to fractions of a second before Planck time, after the start of expansion. Those pesky natural laws of physics, motion, gravity seem to be consistent from Planck time going forward. Are you suggesting that natural laws are inferior and we need “un-natural laws” to gain a complete understanding?

 

[Hollie]

You have never addressed the fact that the staunchest practitioners of Christianity, the canonized saints, have lived extraordinary lives as defined by most logical rational people, and often have accomplished unbelievable feats, while atheists lead all belief groups in alcoholism, drug dependence, broken relationships, and suicides.

How do you explain that?

Your idolization of "saints" does nothing to support the notion of supernatural gods.

 

[SavannahMann]

The problem is you define 'wise' as skillful in a particular area. I define it as one able to discern the best overall result for himself and others. I say it is not wise to scam old people, because that causes harm to those people and to society.

What people call themselves is irrelevant. It's what they do, what they truly believe, and how they act that counts.

The basis of the economy today is everyone acting in their own self interests. If you watched A Beautiful Mind. The idea was self interests that coincided with collective interests.

It doesn’t happen. It just doesn’t happen.

Look. The most kid friendly place in the world is Disney. But for every year of my more than half century on earth Conservatives have railed against Disney. Calling for Boycotts and other shit.

All in the name of God. These Wise men you say have pure motives. Are worthless. They rant and rail against Gay’s. They completely miss the lessons of the book they quote. They ignore any other sins. None of them matter.

I said. I believe in God. I just reject the religions. Because all the Religions advocate that if you don’t believe as I do you are going to hell. That isn’t their call. God decides such things. Not some self important jackass ranting and raving on Sunday.

A friend asked me if I thought a pedophile would burn in hell. I said I don’t know. It isn’t my call. He insisted that the man should. I said that is God's call not mine.

I asked me this question. Let’s say you get to Heaven. You find Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Hitler around a table playing Bridge. Are you going to rush to Jesus and demand to know why they are here? Are you going to ask Jesus what he was thinking? Don’t you know what they’ve done?

I am absolutely certain of two things. 1) There is a God. 2) I am not God.

And those wise men you say prove God exists. Don’t. We can learn from them. Things they were right about. We can learn just as much from what they were wrong about.

 

[Mashmont]

I see this a lot from those with an anti-science agenda. Because not every question is answered, science, knowledge and learning is to be vilified and condemned as flawed and untrustworthy.

One could make the case that it was approximately the middle of the 19th century when tools and methods of science began to expand exponentially We began a transition away from superstitious beliefs thanks to the ever expanding success of science investigation and technology. The idea that science and reason are subordinate to fear and superstition is self-imposed blindness.

You want to denigrate science for not explaining the origin of the universe using “natural laws of physics”. Using those natural laws, science has largely (not entirely), explained the expansion of the universe to fractions of a second before Planck time, after the start of expansion. Those pesky natural laws of physics, motion, gravity seem to be consistent from Planck time going forward. Are you suggesting that natural laws are inferior and we need “un-natural laws” to gain a complete understanding?

You don't read the posts; you just blab. I've said repeatedly science and the Christian religion are 100% compatible, that Christianity =truth = science.

 

[Mashmont]

Your idolization of "saints" does nothing to support the notion of supernatural gods.

Neat way to skirt the question. You aren't big on answering questions, are you? So I'll ask again:

You have never addressed the fact that the staunchest practitioners of Christianity, the canonized saints, have lived extraordinary lives as defined by most logical rational people, and often have accomplished unbelievable feats, while atheists lead all belief groups in alcoholism, drug dependence, broken relationships, and suicides. How do you explain that?