How I prove God exists.

Dear randyvs, you say:

"So a lack of scientific evidence isn't proof of anything. It's just a fallacy of the unwise."


The way I see scientists today, they are following the current contemporary fashion of socalled intellectuals, to ascribe to an atheistic attitude in regard to thinking on this statement of yours truly, namely:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

The comprehension of that statement brings members of the species homo sapiens to the fact that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

But today's socalled intellectuals which include scientists, they eschew thinking on anything that has to do with the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

That phobia and even taboo on thinking about existence, it is due to the fashion among as I said today's socalled intellectuals, to take up with the atheistic attitude of at least abstaining from thinking about the existence of God, if not explicitly denying the existence of God.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Pachomius

Simple terms it isn't necessary to prove God
exists. It can't be done scientifically because
he is a gentleman. He has abliged our request
to go it alone. Science safe harbors atheism.
If I were on the moon no one could prove
Scintifically I exist either. But it's obvious that
I do. But science would serve those who
hate me with a means to deny my very
existence. But those who love me would
remember me. So a lack of scientific
evidence isn't proof of anything. It's just
a fallacy of the unwise.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: randyvs

I say it can be done scientifically but science fails the sciencers continually because there lack of faith in their works.

Simply put reality is repeatable but we lack the knowledge and power.

Good to see you posting again

Maybe it has been done? With a childish
prejudice being so prevalent in that
community? When all we should see is
an open mind. How can we even trust
what is decided by peers to be public
information? Seems so much like
they're denying the truth they already
know sometimes. Why would they do
it? IDK but obviously someone is
determined with malice to spread
atheism. And people are releaved to
hear there is no God. Welcome news to
a great number of people who do not
want an athority in the equasion. Ergo
the immediate hateful responses we
find in every thread regarding a supreme
being. I don't even see how they
can honestly think it's as unlikely as
they make it out to be?

Science can't even explain thier own version
of existence with out it sounding like a miracle
on a grand scale more impressive than anything
we know of God.

a reply to: randyvs

I'm going to dissect your post a bit.
You are saying:

1. Scientists have a childish prejudice.
a prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Science is base on reason and actual experience and not preconceived or childish.

2. Scientists according to you do not have open minds.
Open minds for what? Metaphysics?

3. Scientists through their peers decide what should be public information.
So scientists are hiding crucial information. In particular information about the existence of God.

4. Scientists are denying the truth that they already know.
Do you understand how science works? There needs to be proof just not what you believe.

5. Scientists, with malice, are spreading Atheism.
Most Scientists don't even address Metaphysics. They are just trying to describe and predict how the current universe works based on physical laws of nature.

6. People are relieved to hear there is no God.
Why? A God would give more meaning to life I imagine.

7. Hateful responses regarding a supreme being.
If you read through this entire thread most of the negative/insulting responses are coming from the OP who is trying to prove the existence of God.

8. Scientists can't even explain their own version of existence without it sounding like a miracle.
It's not a bad thing if Science doesn't explain something. It's actually quite exciting that science cannot explain everything. Science is never settled and ever changing based on new empirical evidence.

It took me a while to go through your one huge paragraph to extract all your points but now they are enumerated at least to discuss with ease.




-

a reply to: Deluxe

It seems you meant dissect and take out
of context some what. And you also
have ignored the first word of that
monstrocity paragraph. (I have a tough time
on my phone sorry). But I'm happy to discuss
any part of what I wrote. But don't be offended
please. I'm sure you can tell it was mostly
poorly described conjecture reflecting some
ideas that are mine or feelings I've had
Impressions. All of which i may or may not
fully subscribe to myself. But after years of
threads and conversations and debates
regarding this very topic, on this very
site. I'm confident I can show good cause
for every word.

We can't prove love exists, either.

Spiritual existence cannot be proven in the material world.

It can often be felt, though, and that's all that really matters - at least, to me.

originally posted by: Pachomius
The way I see scientists today, they are following the current contemporary fashion of socalled intellectuals, to ascribe to an atheistic attitude in regard to thinking on this statement of yours truly, namely:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

Not all scientists think the same way.
Whom Should You Believe? Awake!—2006

“Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.”​—HEBREWS 3:4.

DO YOU agree with the logic of this Bible writer? Mankind has experienced some 2,000 years of scientific advancement since that verse was penned. Does anyone still think that the design evident in nature requires belief in a Designer, a Creator​—God?

Even in industrialized countries many people would say yes. In the United States, for example, a survey conducted by Newsweek magazine in 2005 found that 80 percent of people “believe that God created the universe.” Is this belief due to a lack of education? Well, do any scientists believe in God? The science journal Nature reported in 1997 that almost 40 percent of biologists, physicists, and mathematicians surveyed believe in a God who not only exists but also listens to and answers prayers.
...

So that 40% number is excluding things like Deism, Spinozism, Pantheism, Polytheism, etc. I've also heard of a study regarding just the believe in God, the question was asked among people working at universities and research establishments in the US and there it was 7 out of 10 that affirmed a belief in God. So that's 70%, surprisingly close to that 80% number among the general public in the US. It's just that a certain type gets 'all' the attention in the media and the promotion in "this system of things" by "the god of this system of things" (2 Corinthians 4:4).

Has Science Done Away With God?

FOR 50 years, British philosopher Antony Flew was highly respected as an atheist by his peers. “Theology and Falsification,” his 1950 paper, “became the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the [20th] century.” In 1986 Flew was called “the most profound of the contemporary critics of theism” (the belief in God or gods). So it came as a great shock to many when, in 2004, Flew announced that he had changed his viewpoint.

What made Flew change his mind? In a word, science. He became convinced that the universe, the laws of nature, and life itself could not have arisen merely by chance. Is that a reasonable conclusion?

How Did the Laws of Nature Arise?

Physicist and author Paul Davies points out that science does a wonderful job of explaining physical phenomena such as rain. But he says: “When it comes to . . . questions such as ‘Why are there laws of nature?’ the situation is less clear. These sorts of questions are not much affected by specific scientific discoveries: many of the really big questions have remained unchanged since the birth of civilization and still vex us today.”

“The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature,” wrote Flew in 2007, “but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked​—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.”

Indeed, many highly respected scientists do not consider it unscientific to believe in an intelligent First Cause. On the other hand, to say that the universe, its laws, and life just happened is intellectually unsatisfying. Everyday experience tells us that design​—especially highly sophisticated design—​calls for a designer.

Which Faith Will You Choose?

Although the new atheists like to wave the banner of science over their camp, the fact is that neither atheism nor theism rest purely on science. Both involve faith​—atheism in purposeless blind chance; theism in an intelligent First Cause. The new atheists promote the notion that “all religious faith is blind faith,” writes John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, England. He adds: “We need to emphasize strongly that they are wrong.” The question, therefore, is this: Which faith stands up under test​—that of the atheist or that of the religious believer? Consider, for example, the origin of life.

Evolutionists readily acknowledge that the origin of life remains a mystery​—although there are many conflicting theories. A leading new atheist, Richard Dawkins, claims that by virtue of the vast number of planets that must exist in the universe, life was bound to appear somewhere. But many reputable scientists are not so sure. Cambridge Professor John Barrow says that the belief in “the evolution of life and mind” hits “dead-ends at every stage. There are just so many ways in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment that it would be sheer hubris to suppose that, simply given enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible.”

Keep in mind, too, that life is not just an assortment of chemical elements. Rather, it is based on an extremely sophisticated form of information, which is encoded in DNA. Hence, when we talk about the origin of life, we are also talking about the origin of biological information. What is the only source of information that we know of? In a word, intelligence. Would chance accidents produce complex information, such as a computer program, an algebraic formula, an encyclopedia, or even a recipe for a cake? Of course not. Yet, when it comes to sophistication and efficiency, none of these even begin to compare with the information stored in the genetic code of living organisms.

Luck as the First Cause​—Good Science?

According to atheists, “the universe is as it is, mysteriously, and it just happens to permit life,” explains Paul Davies. “Had it been different,” say atheists, “we would not be here to argue about it. The universe may or may not have a deep underlying unity, but there is no design, purpose, or point to it all​—at least none that would make sense to us.” “The advantage of this position,” notes Davies, “is that it is easy to hold​—easy to the point of being a cop-out,” that is, a convenient way to avoid facing the issue.
...

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? 1 of 2

If this thread proved God exists then it would be the most popular thread in existence.
This thread has clearly fizzled out and is not popular at all.
therefore God does not exist.

originally posted by: Deluxe
If this thread proved God exists then it would be the most popular thread in existence.
This thread has clearly fizzled out and is not popular at all.
therefore God does not exist.

If popularity means truth, then I'd like to point out that Jesus Christ is the most talked about and well known person throughout history.

originally posted by: saint4God
If popularity means truth, then I'd like to point out that Jesus Christ is the most talked about and well known person throughout history.

Says who? Because I got a a few billion Buddhists who would say otherwise.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Says who? Because I got a a few billion Buddhists who would say otherwise.

I'm sure they would, but I'm more concerned about the facts. One, but certainly not the only, of the whos would be Wikipedia:

List of Religious Populations

The ONLY reason any individual knows about "God", or believes in God, is because they were told of God.

Humans dictate everything, period.

Life is the only thing that exists.

The meaning of life is life itself.

The creation of a God figure to the masses was pure genius. Without it, humans may not have made it this far.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
The ONLY reason any individual knows about "God", or believes in God, is because they were told of God.

Humans dictate everything, period.

Not the case for me, I did not believe in God until Satan showed up. I concluded there should be God since Satan proved himself to me.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
Life is the only thing that exists.

The meaning of life is life itself.

The creation of a God figure to the masses was pure genius. Without it, humans may not have made it this far.

Lack of personal evidence does not mean evidence does not exist elsewhere.

a reply to: saint4God

Obviously I was joking.
But the thread has fizzled.
My point was if the OP's proof was valid then this would be world-changing.
The OP insulted my intelligence a few times so unfortunately I resorted to provoking him.
I also had a few beers in me at the time.
I apologize.

If we could create advanced life forms, which could recognize us as being their 'creators', those life forms would also think we were Gods.

But we are not Gods. We merely created an advanced form of life, which believes we are omnipotent.


What if 'God' is merely a God to us, because we think of God as the creator of human, or the creator of all Earth-based life?

God might have his own God, who created him. And so on, and on...


Yikes! Forget I said it.

a reply to: saint4God

If popularity means truth, then I'd like to point out that Jesus Christ is the most talked about and well known person throughout history.

If popularity means truth then humanity is in real trouble.


Let me just post a few names


Miley Cyrus


The Kardasian's


Justin beiber


do i need to list more to show the state of affairs we are in if popularity means truth

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
If popularity means truth, then I'd like to point out that Jesus Christ is the most talked about and well known person throughout history.

If popularity means truth then humanity is in real trouble.

Let me just post a few names

Miley Cyrus

The Kardasian's

Justin beiber

do i need to list more to show the state of affairs we are in if popularity means truth

I couldn't get past the worship songs at the First Cyrus Church and the United Beiber Congregation. Temple of Kardasians had all these idols that weirded me out.

Bieber must be the anti-christ, because millions believe his music is worth listening to, and only Satan himself could be capable of fooling so many people!

God itself is a Grey Alien idea.

But the reason you might seek a similar one is because we are all a bit Grey, at least the part of the brain that feels in command and aware of itself, is

It is an odd chance that from the 'random' laws of physics that suns are hot, and not cold. If they were solid, they would not give off heat. The life that forms on planets could not form from no heat or see with light when they form.

It seems like the perfect design. Knowing that in this universe if you take away heat, things freeze and can't move

It is what it is but Grey's defined this as having a design from a creator

But Grey's are delusional

All of you against Greys are secretly on their side, they are the ones who instilled the ideology of any 'God' in this planet. They are the ones who believe in it. And your genes of theirs help you pick it up even faster.

It's just one ideology among infinite.

My more accurate theory is all the particles are working in unison, 300 particles 'feel' vibrationally on a higher level one another, not to mention have some kind of a mind of their own, so all of them unisonly along with the entire planet might feel 'instead of just piling flat on the ground like we are, it would feel joyous as a whole to have stalacite formations (like spikes)" and then from a higher joy, they make that formation.

So there isn't one God but everything working together is like a God.

The only God would be the collective feeling of all particles in existence

The God idea may never truly strongly vibe with you
You might try to make it, but it just doesn't 'ring' strongly in your being. That's because it's just from Greys and it's not the one truth. It's just a perception they hold on to out of desperation.

Find the truth and disconnect from the Greys pathetic attempt to save face for their hopeless existence.

Be original

---
Another thing that Greys like to think with their God idea is that nothing can go wrong, whatever happens, God allowed and pushed exactly.
Another lie. Things go wrong all the time.

But that's the only way existence would be authentic and free

God exists beyond fear.

Can you understand what it is to believe before you experience what believing is? You won't understand what believing is until you have experienced what it is. Your understanding is part of the experience, and you will not be able to believe in what you cannot see and do not understand if you understood what it means to believe before actually experiencing what it is.

Only through a true friend can you experience what unconditional love is, but you cannot understand this either until you experience it, which means you won't know you experienced it until you understand it.

If I knew what believing was before I experienced it, then it would not be sincere. I would never know what it even is, and then it would not be what believing is because it would be a fake belief and untrustworthy. You cannot practice or condition yourself to believe anything. One act of forgiveness is not going to cause anunderstanding. This is part of the experience of life. You don't have to believe in anything, but then you are going to be searching for something to fill the void for a meaning to life that you can trust in instead of experiencing the literal belief that you trust and getting to understand it personally. How can you expect to understand and experience what it is to believe without trusting without trusting your own love and forgiveness?

If I believed in Satan I would not know what love and forgiveness is. You won't experience what believing is if Satan is part of the very trust and hope that you are believing in. This Satan # is keeping you distracted from being the hope a friend experiences true love and forgiveness in and discovets what believing is.

You won't find how to do this in the Bible or by faking to believing in Jesus Christ.
Love and forgiveness can only come from you, it will not come from a book or a name. The Bible does not have my trust, love does. People that say they have a relationship with Jesus Christ is lying. Love and forgiveness is just as fake as Satan if it you do not believe this kind of love exists. Unfortunately, no one will find hope in a love that is given by someone who does not believe in love. How can you believe in love and trust it if you cannot give it unconditionally yourself? Who can trust the love you try to give if you cannot even forgive? Without believing in love you will never know love. Even Jesus in the Bible talks about how once he leaves Earth it will only be through the love to our friends will people find what it is to believe.

Is your trust in God or Satan?

Why not trust love? It is easier to trust it when you expect nothing in return. That is what love is afterall.