How I prove God exists.

Dear InhaleExhale, you ask me:

"Please tell the readers how you could possibly know if the person you are replying to hasn't thought about what they posted?"

Well, you have posted WOW two times in your post, see below reproduced.

I see that you have not thought straight about what you want to say with the word WOW.

Why? or how do I know that you have not thought straight what you wanted to tell me with your word WOW all three letters in upper case, because if you had through straight you would not have posted the word WOW in upper case two times.

If you had thought straight you would not have uttered in writing in upper case letters the word WOW, you should have told me exactly what you see to be sense or nonsense with my post.

That is basic with intelligent folks who do think about how other folks talk without thinking straight, but all into basically emoting instead of thinking, namely, they intelligent folks have knowledge of common human psychology on how people talk, when it is straight talk and when not straight talk but all into emoting.

Proof of that with you, is that you tried to think and talk straight after sending your post, with re-writing it as to give it some straight veneer, but you failed.

Here is how you corrected version of your post ends:

Do you know what faith is?
edit on 19-2-2018 by InhaleExhale because: (no reason given)

Okay, Inhale Exhale, let you think straight and tell me what is faith for you.

You must have some concept of faith, otherwise how could you be into straight thinking with asking me what is faith - if you had no concept whatsoever on what is faith with your own thinking.

Think about that straight.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Pachomius

Your statement that "there are some things you can't prove. One being a God," I see it to be grounded upon your self-complacency with knowing something like that "there are some things you can't prove. One being a God," but without ever doing some thinking about it.

WOW.


Please tell the readers how you could possibly know if the person you are replying to hasn't thought about what they posted?

Well, I am here to enjoy seeing a lot of folks can't think straight, unlike me.

You think straight?

The above what I quoted where you assume to know what a person has thought of is thinking straight in your opinion?



WOW, the ego is strong with this young padawan.


Do you know what faith is?
edit on 19-2-2018 by InhaleExhale because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Pachomius
Any proof needs axioms. The problems with axioms is they are assumed to be true and are not proven to be true. Axioms are the premises to begin an argument. If they are useful and self evident they may be accepted universally but they still cannot be proven. They are accepted.
Philosophy of logic is concerned with proofs and not the truth of axioms.

All elephants are orange.
I am an elephant.
Therefore I am orange.

The above categorical syllogism is a completely sound argument in logic even though the first two premises are ridiculous.
For people to accept your proof of God your going to need some pretty strong premises. I think this is the problem most people are having with your argument. And to be honest I'm not even sure if it's a logically sound argument.

a reply to: Pachomius

So let's analyze your proof.
1. You define God as the creator of all things with a beginning.
- For the sake of this argument let's accept your definition of God.
2. You subjectively as yourself search for everything with a beginning.
- 2 and 3 can be combined you don't need to tell us you searched for everything with a beginning.
3. Everything you experience that exists has a beginning.
- Like what? Your just witnessing energy changing forms. You are not witnesses energy being created.
- Are you saying eg a newborn baby has a beginning? It technically has a beginning as a baby but it's just recycled energy. By your argument God created the baby not the parents because God creates everything with a beginning and everything you experience beginning is created by God.
4. the rest is word salad. You should just say "Therefore God exists"

Now i could be wrong but this proof is not sound at all.

a reply to: Deluxe

Dear Deluxe, it is a great honor to exchange thoughts with you on my argument to prove the existence of God.

I will just reproduce my OP so that we can refer to it conveniently.

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.

Dear Deluxe, you are after examples of things with a beginning in the totality of existence, you say:

3. Everything you experience that exists has a beginning.
- Like what? Your just witnessing energy changing forms. [Etc.]

I now give you the nose on our face, babies and roses, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the night sky, for examples of things with a beginning.

Do you subscribe to things without a beginning? If so, please present examples of things existing but without a beginning.

a reply to: Pachomius

I see that you have not thought straight about what you want to say with the word WOW.

Then you need to have your vision checked.

However, when a person reads what you are posting ones thought process has to be a little bent to even try to understand what you are saying.

So I guess you are right, when I read your words that make very little sense to my logic make me go WOW because I am so perplexed.

Why? or how do I know that you have not thought straight what you wanted to tell me with your word WOW all three letters in upper case, because if you had through straight you would not have posted the word WOW in upper case two times.

I see you don't understand that I was addressing 2 different things, I quoted exactly what I was addressing.

I though real hard and real straight about it, I even got a ruler out to make sure it was straight.

If you had thought straight you would not have uttered in writing in upper case letters the word WOW, you should have told me exactly what you see to be sense or nonsense with my post.

WOW, yes I am perplexed again.

I did say what was nonsense by asking how you could possibly if another poster has thought about what they posted.


Maybe you should start thinking straight and following or answering the questions about the things you post.

Proof of that with you, is that you tried to think and talk straight after sending your post, with re-writing it as to give it some straight veneer, but you failed.

you mean the edit.

Yes I added the word "you" in its first use in the question when I asked this "Please tell the readers how you could possibly know if the person you are replying to hasn't thought about what they posted?"


I forgot one word that made it sound wrong.


I didn't fail as it makes sense with the edit.

Here is how you corrected version of your post ends:

NO that question was originally in the post.

see above what the edit was.

Okay, Inhale Exhale, let you think straight and tell me what is faith for you. You must have some concept of faith, otherwise how could you be into straight thinking with asking me what is faith - if you had no concept whatsoever on what is faith with your own thinking. Think about that straight.

So this is your answer to me asking if you know what faith is?


I have thought very straight about it and have concluded you to be quite lost


quite simply because

I asked 3 questions,

based on what you posted.

Questions asked to get a clarity or deeper understanding of where are coming from.


You answer with more nonsense about not thinking straight.

Dear InhaleExhale, thanks for your reply.

I invite you to present a thought from your thinking not more than in 50 words, representing straight thinking from you.

And I will tell you what I understand to be your thinking, with my straight thinking examination of your thought, okay?

a reply to: Pachomius

I invite you to present a thought from your thinking not more than in 50 words, representing straight thinking from you.

A thought from my thinking?

What is that suppose to mean, cant you just say present a thought? where else does thought come from other than thinking?

I invite you to answer the questions

You posted things that made me ask the questions


Its 3 questions, 4 if count me saying in the form of a question "you think straight".

Do I really need to ask again, they are all in one post on page 7.

answering the first about how you know if another has thought about what they posted will give some indication how and why you could say you think straight and others don't.


Or

are you purposely not answering these 3 questions and doing this back and forth posting because the answers will show who is and isn't thinking straight?

originally posted by: Pachomius
a reply to: Deluxe

Do you subscribe to things without a beginning? If so, please present examples of things existing but without a beginning.

I know I wasn't asked but I'd like to present an example of a thing existing that didn't have a beginning:

- an eternally existing God, i.e. an eternal God, a God that has always existed and therefore does not have a beginning

From your commentary it doesn't seem you want to argue that God does not exist, that God is not "a thing", or that God has a beginning. It seems you subscribe to at least 1 thing without a beginning if the God you spoke about in the OP is eternal.

I try to avoid these topics, as I know it's like
tossing water on a ducks back.

The mind of man without revelation is incapable of
comprehending his Creator. Which leads those without
such a revelation to rely upon logic.

Unfortunately the limits to linear cause-and-effect
logic trying to disprove a Creator is comparable to
explaining computer programming to an ant.

The limits of my logic does not comprehend why He
choose to grant such revelation to a limited few.

Which in other ages was not made known unto the
sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy
apostles and prophets by the Spirit. Ephesians 3:5

Dear colleagues here, I am only one but you are many.

So, I will just for the present interact with DeLuxe, as he wants to engage in a one on one exchange with me, on my argument for the existence of God from my investigation of existence.

To keep you all busy, please think on this post from a thinker in another forum, see Annex below.

In the meantime I am still waiting for Deluxe to reply to my last post to him, in continuation of our exchange on my argument for God existing by my investigation of existence.

posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 11:39 AM, by Pachomius, in reply to Deluxe

Dear Deluxe, it is a great honor to exchange thoughts with you on my argument to prove the existence of God.

I will just reproduce my OP so that we can refer to it conveniently.


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.


Dear Deluxe, you are after examples of things with a beginning in the totality of existence, you say:
3. Everything you experience that exists has a beginning.
- Like what? Your just witnessing energy changing forms. [Etc.]

I now give you the nose on our face, babies and roses, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the night sky, for examples of things with a beginning.

Do you subscribe to things without a beginning? If so, please present examples of things existing but without a beginning.

posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 01:45 AM, by Deluxe, a reply to Pachomius


So let's analyze your proof.
1. You define God as the creator of all things with a beginning.
- For the sake of this argument let's accept your definition of God.
2. You subjectively as yourself search for everything with a beginning.
- 2 and 3 can be combined you don't need to tell us you searched for everything with a beginning.
3. Everything you experience that exists has a beginning.
- Like what? Your just witnessing energy changing forms. You are not witnesses energy being created.
- Are you saying eg a newborn baby has a beginning? It technically has a beginning as a baby but it's just recycled energy. By your argument God created the baby not the parents because God creates everything with a beginning and everything you experience beginning is created by God.
4. the rest is word salad. You should just say "Therefore God exists"

Now i could be wrong but this proof is not sound at all.

Annex

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...
Dear posters here who are out and out atheists, you see I am working on the idea that out and out atheists have nothing to show in regard to their any step by step explanation of: why and how they come to hold to the brand of their being atheist.

When they do appear to produce any explanation at all on why and how they get to adopt the brand name of atheist, they are in fact not into any rational explanation, but into gobbledygook.

You don't accept that?

Okay, at the risk of extremely antagonizing you all out and out atheists, I challenge you to produce a rational explanation of why and how you become atheist.

________________________

gobbledygook
noun

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
synonyms: gibberish, claptrap, nonsense, rubbish, balderdash, blather, garbage; informalmumbo jumbo, drivel, tripe, hogwash, baloney, bilge, bull, bunk, guff, eyewash, piffle, twaddle, poppycock, phooey, hooey
"a letter full of legal gobbledygook"


Courtesy of google

a reply to: Pachomius

Sorry Pachomius I am done conversing with you.
You don't seem to respond to my examples or posts but just re-iterate your points.
You seem like your a bot.
Have you ever argued with a bot. Strikingly similar.

My sincerest regrets for your decision to no longer exchange thoughts with me.

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius

Sorry Pachomius I am done conversing with you.
You don't seem to respond to my examples or posts but just re-iterate your points.
You seem like your a bot.
Have you ever argued with a bot. Strikingly similar.

This post is not directed to any particular poster, but to all posters who desire to exchange thoughts with me.

My thread is entitled thus: "How I prove God exists."

So, if you have your idea on how you prove God does not exist, then we can have a most interesting exchange.

So, what are you waiting for? - as the commercials on tv puts it in a sale pitch.

Of course we can or you can ask me to repeat my step by step argument for God's existence.

Or we can start from as from a tabula rasa, and you be the one to begin with your step by step argument on how you prove God does not exist.

originally posted by: Pachomius
This post is not directed to any particular poster, but to all posters who desire to exchange thoughts with me.

My thread is entitled thus: "How I prove God exists."

So, if you have your idea on how you prove God does not exist, then we can have a most interesting exchange.

So, what are you waiting for? - as the commercials on tv puts it in a sale pitch.

Of course we can or you can ask me to repeat my step by step argument for God's existence.

Or we can start from as from a tabula rasa, and you be the one to begin with your step by step argument on how you prove God does not exist.

Yea, but, you don’t want to discuss this in a rational way, so, what’s the point?

originally posted by: Pachomius
This post is not directed to any particular poster, but to all posters who desire to exchange thoughts with me.

My thread is entitled thus: "How I prove God exists."

So, if you have your idea on how you prove God does not exist, then we can have a most interesting exchange.

So, what are you waiting for? - as the commercials on tv puts it in a sale pitch.

Of course we can or you can ask me to repeat my step by step argument for God's existence.

Or we can start from as from a tabula rasa, and you be the one to begin with your step by step argument on how you prove God does not exist.

Yea, but, you don’t want to discuss this in a rational way, so, what’s the point?

Dear whereislogic: Yes, you get me correctly: "It seems you subscribe to at least 1 thing without a beginning if the God you spoke about in the OP is eternal."

I truly know God exists and He is the only entity without a beginning.

And everything else existing owes its existence to God.

That is why I say that in concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Now, how do I prove that God exists?

Simple, by investigating existence.

Try thinking on this statement from me:

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

What do you understand from my statement above?


No, this is not an attempt to proselytize you into a God believing human, but just to test my certainty, that with investigating existence, I and any human can and does come to the certainty of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Now, I can get banned here or in forums which are against all proofs of God existing, even just for the sake of pure exchange of thoughts, not from any intention to proselytize at all.

And earlier this morning only, I got suspended for 14 days, with warning that more proofs for God existing will get me more days of suspension, that is with one forum, where the moderators there don't see nothing but proselytization from me.

So, I decided to no longer have anything to do with that forum: it professes to be an open forum for the diffusion of useful knowledge, but in fact its operators are not open to knowledge of all kinds, in particular on the existence of a creator cause with everything having a beginning.

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?

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Pachomius
a reply to: Deluxe

Do you subscribe to things without a beginning? If so, please present examples of things existing but without a beginning.

I know I wasn't asked but I'd like to present an example of a thing existing that didn't have a beginning:

- an eternally existing God, i.e. an eternal God, a God that has always existed and therefore does not have a beginning

From your commentary it doesn't seem you want to argue that God does not exist, that God is not "a thing", or that God has a beginning. It seems you subscribe to at least 1 thing without a beginning if the God you spoke about in the OP is eternal.

Dear Woodcarver, you tell me:

Yea, but, you don’t want to discuss this in a rational way, so, what’s the point?

That is your bone of contention, and you and I will know who is rational, you or me, unless and until you and I exchange thoughts on God exists or not, each one arguing step by step, and thus readers can judge and we also if we be both possessed of intelligent and honest discernment, who is rational and who not.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Pachomius
This post is not directed to any particular poster, but to all posters who desire to exchange thoughts with me.

My thread is entitled thus: "How I prove God exists."

So, if you have your idea on how you prove God does not exist, then we can have a most interesting exchange.

So, what are you waiting for? - as the commercials on tv puts it in a sale pitch.

Of course we can or you can ask me to repeat my step by step argument for God's existence.

Or we can start from as from a tabula rasa, and you be the one to begin with your step by step argument on how you prove God does not exist.

Yea, but, you don’t want to discuss this in a rational way, so, what’s the point?

originally posted by: Pachomius
Dear Woodcarver, you tell me:

Yea, but, you don’t want to discuss this in a rational way, so, what’s the point?

That is your bone of contention, and you and I will know who is rational, you or me, unless and until you and I exchange thoughts on God exists or not, each one arguing step by step, and thus readers can judge and we also if we be both possessed of intelligent and honest discernment, who is rational and who not.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Pachomius
This post is not directed to any particular poster, but to all posters who desire to exchange thoughts with me.

My thread is entitled thus: "How I prove God exists."

So, if you have your idea on how you prove God does not exist, then we can have a most interesting exchange.

So, what are you waiting for? - as the commercials on tv puts it in a sale pitch.

Of course we can or you can ask me to repeat my step by step argument for God's existence.

Or we can start from as from a tabula rasa, and you be the one to begin with your step by step argument on how you prove God does not exist.

Yea, but, you don’t want to discuss this in a rational way, so, what’s the point?

You already admit that you can believe things that have no evidence to support them, so, there is nothing to talk about.

Dear Woodcarver, you say:
"You already admit that you can believe things that have no evidence to support them, so, there is nothing to talk about. "

Where have I said that I "can believe things that have no evidence to support them"?

So that we will not be into endless but useless talk, please tell me where, give the link and my verbatim words, where I said that I can believe things with no evidence to support them.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Pachomius
Dear Woodcarver, you tell me:

Yea, but, you don’t want to discuss this in a rational way, so, what’s the point?

That is your bone of contention, and you and I will know who is rational, you or me, unless and until you and I exchange thoughts on God exists or not, each one arguing step by step, and thus readers can judge and we also if we be both possessed of intelligent and honest discernment, who is rational and who not.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Pachomius
This post is not directed to any particular poster, but to all posters who desire to exchange thoughts with me.

My thread is entitled thus: "How I prove God exists."

So, if you have your idea on how you prove God does not exist, then we can have a most interesting exchange.

So, what are you waiting for? - as the commercials on tv puts it in a sale pitch.

Of course we can or you can ask me to repeat my step by step argument for God's existence.

Or we can start from as from a tabula rasa, and you be the one to begin with your step by step argument on how you prove God does not exist.

Yea, but, you don’t want to discuss this in a rational way, so, what’s the point?

You already admit that you can believe things that have no evidence to support them, so, there is nothing to talk about.

There is no God because i can't see him/her

My argument is just as valid as yours.