How I prove God exists.

Nobody knows if God, or Gods, exist.

If Earth was created, we still don't know if God exists. We have more than one God, so which God, or Gods, are the true God(s), if any at all? Or if they all are Gods.

Aliens posing as Gods might have created Earth, for all we know.

The only thing we CAN discuss, and possibly prove, is the creation of Earth.

I'm fascinated by the issue.

Ancient maps show a flat Earth, which is covered by a dome. And the maps have far too many matching details to be dismissed. The maps are from many different places on Earth, over many years.

It answers why Antarctica is never flown over, when it would be the shortest path between certain points.

Antarctica is the key to proving a flat Earth. If the North Pole can be flown over, then why not the South Pole?

a reply to: turbonium1

First point - the Sun and moon are the only 2 celestial bodies [d]directly above us, seen every day/night. Everything else above us is just seen as a vast blanket of tiny lights, in the distance. You need telescopes to even see a few details. By human eye, they are all twinkling lights. We have only two celestial bodies close to Earth, and one is seen in daylight, the other at night (in general).

This is just pure ignorance or simply the way you explain things makes it sound completely wrong

Mars, Venus and Mercury are all closer at times to earth than the Sun is.

And they are the exact same size, and are perfectly aligned to each other, and even eclipse each other perfectly....all by random chance, of course!

No, the sun and the moon are not the exact same size.

But even more, these two celestial bodies are aligned perfectly

any two objects can be perfectly aligned, every celestial object is aligned with another, alignment means two things line up, in 3d space even with everything moving, 2 objects can always be perfectly aligned, its when you add more objects then the odds rise.

But if you think life, itself, was all created by random chance, out of some primordial soup, then I'm sure you'd think celestial bodies align in perfect unison, all by random chance, too...

I don't think it was random but I do think life can easily be created using chemical reactions.
I don't think eclipses are random either.

It's very ironic that the people who claim life cannot possibly have been created by a superior being, are the same people who believe that scientists will eventually be able to create life!!

who in this discussion/thread has claimed this?

Scientists claim that we are eventually going to know how to create life.

I'm no scientist, but I can guarantee that I know how to create life, Its quite enjoyable.

The chance that the moon and sun are the same size in the sky is low, very low. But compared to the change that a living cell of any type, self assembled in nature makes the previous chance seem quite likely. The odds have been estimated at 1:1x10^40,000. For comparison the estimated number of subatomic particles estimated to be in the universe is 1x10^256

a reply to: turbonium1

originally posted by: turbonium1
Antarctica is the key to proving a flat Earth. If the North Pole can be flown over, then why not the South Pole?

Planes do fly over Antarctica, but not many. Reasons are mainly due to safety, not esoteric or conspiracy theory. Good details located HERE

And no - we know, 100% the earth is round(ish) and not flat.

People who attempt to argue that dead argument are genuine idiots. Even watching the latest Space X Falcon Heavy which showed the video of the craft looking backwards see a globe... jesus, who is that retarded to think the earth is actually flat in the 21st Century?

originally posted by: AdKiller
a reply to: Woodcarver

Then that force, the most fundamental one, is God!

Not complicated!

To a computer, the 120v power supply is God.

God is not an output. It is the most fundamental input from which all other inputs originate. As long as you think materialistically, you will liken God to be water, the sun, sex, the government, or some other poor understanding of THE MOST HIGH POWER (which by definition is the lowest frequency highest amplitude waveform there is, which happens to be a dynamic magnetic waveform that permeates all, has no beginning, and no end.)

I can see that you know nothing of science. It is so much easier to invent a fantasy that makes you feel good than to do the hard work that will enlighten and educated you. Sorry for your loss.

To a computer? A god? You’re just making stuff up. I guess that sounded nice when you wrote it, but if anything, the cord gives power to a computer like food gives power to us. so, if anything, the power cord is like a ham sandwich to a computer. No gods are needed in this analogy.

a reply to: Pachomius

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

naw, the creation we see screams creator. man

our bodies can fix themselves wow momrnt

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
naw, the creation we see screams creator. man

our bodies can fix themselves wow momrnt

What we see is chemistry. I hear no screaming. Our bodies are chemistry. There is nothing in our universe that points to a creator. If you think otherwise, please point that out. All of science is waiting on you.

a reply to: Pachomius

Nice circular argument you got going there. Too bad that is a logical fallacy and not proof of god's existence though.

a reply to: turbonium1

There is always the chance they got lucky, or that we are interpolating how correct they are..


None are exactly right at all.

a reply to: Pachomius

Point 3, and I apologize if someone has pointed this out already.

I see energy changing from one form to another every day; not created.

So I suppose energy has no beginning or end if we are to believe it can neither be created nor destroyed.

a reply to: Deluxe

He was referring to the Big Bang.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

According to theory before the Big Bang all the energy still existed but in a very high-density and high-temperature state.

originally posted by: Pachomius
1. I define God as in concept first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

You're going to have to be a little more specific. God = creator? That's a lousy definition. And as for "a beginning," let's not forget this:

No beginning, no end, no need for "God."

a reply to: Pachomius


congratulation

you have managed to " create " a cosmological " argument " - that is somehow even worse than wiliam lane craigs infamous < cencorded >

a reply to: turbonium1

Antarctica is the key to proving a flat Earth. If the North Pole can be flown over, then why not the South Pole?

just for amusement - why do you accept the veracity of accounts of arctic flights , and yet reject the evidence for antarctic flights ? you do realise that some people have done both - dont you ???

It answers why Antarctica is never flown over, when it would be the shortest path between certain points.

such as ? name 2 places that a transpolar flight would connect

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: turbonium1
Why would anyone think life cannot have been created by some far advanced entity - a God - when they firmly believe that WE can someday create life?

Scientists claim that we are eventually going to know how to create life. Because we have greatly advanced our knowledge, already, they are confident it will happen, eventually.

No on is saying advanced intelligent life could not be seen or misinterpreted as 'God'. But that isn't the reference people are making when they try to prove the existence of (a) God.

People are, so far as I can tell, referring to the supernatural reference of a religious God - not aliens.

Pachomius said in his OP:

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

That does not sound like an alien to me - that sounds like the reference to the God described in the Bible - the supernatural entity.

And his points of proof or his opinion on how he proves God to himself fail between points 3 and 4, in my opinion.

originally posted by: 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.

Consider that there is evidence in 3 and 4, and that is the proof from evidence on the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

originally posted by: Pachomius
Consider that there is evidence in 3 and 4,

You don't 'consider' there is evidence -- you demonstrate what that evidence is.

That's like go to court for being accused of murder. In order to prove you are guilty of murder you need evidence, and the prosecution says, "Ladies and gentlemen, let's *assume* there's evidence.... therefore, he's guilty."

O_o

a reply to: Pachomius

Consider that there is evidence in 3 and 4, and that is the proof from evidence on the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

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.

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 colleagues noonebutme and TsarChasm:

Thanks a lot for your replies.

Now, I guess at this point of our exchange, I propose that we work together to come to concur on what is proof from evidence.

First, what is evidence?

From my part, simply put:
“Evidence is anything (thing1) at all existing that leads man to the existence of another thing (thing2), owing to the connection between them (thing1 and thing2).

For example, a homeowner sees blood on the floor, so he concludes that there was someone in the house who was bleeding.

Blood on the floor is the evidence that proves the presence of someone in the house bleeding.

What about you two, please present also your respective concept of what is evidence, and an example of your concept of evidence.

From Noonebutme
You don't 'consider' there is evidence -- you demonstrate what that evidence is.

That's like go to court for being accused of murder. In order to prove you are guilty of murder you need evidence, and the prosecution says, "Ladies and gentlemen, let's *assume* there's evidence.... therefore, he's guilty."

From TsarChasm
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?

originally posted by: 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.