The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
53,765
6,252
126
it's obvious that this thread is dead. No one cares about proving God exists.

So, now lets post classic rock song videos:

1. Eris pads her chest

2. I don't think you can call that a "video" since it lacks a major component of "videos", to wit, moving images.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
22,986
5,058
136
In my lifetime

Isn't you know .... ACTUALLY BEING ALIVE a prerequisite for having a life? :D

And assuming so, how would "you" know?


it's obvious that this thread is dead. No one cares about proving God exists.

So, now lets post classic rock song videos:

Sorta on-topic! :p





However fortunately for the lame-bot this is still ATOT's situation:


 
Last edited:

Marius Dejess

Senior member
Sep 7, 2015
320
34
101
Dear readers and my opponents, please cease and desist already from your wistful fake news obituary that my thread is dead, you could die earlier than my thread going off online, because it has the recipiency from AnandTech to stay and flourish in its forum space.
.

Now, dear readers and honest intelligent productive posters here, this morning I want to share with you that all words wasted by my opponents and atheists against God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning...

All them words from my opponents and atheists indicate most glaringly that they my opponents here and all atheists, that they are not accustomed to see the big picture of things in reality i.e. in existence.

What they have are bits and pieces of reality by which they cannot have the whole entirety of the big true picture of existence, namely, there is the Higher Power that is in charge of everything that has a beginning, aka God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

And owing to their blind faith in nonsense thinking, they postulate an insane idea of randomness as the cause of the universe and life and the nose on their face.

It is a fact that randomness does not bring about anything that can survive at all as to continue to stay put in reality, like the nose on their face.

An example of randomness is the big cement mixer of a massive steel drum with gravel sand water and cement powder, rotating whirling and whirling and whirling on and on and on, and it will never produce even just an amorphous one cell amoeba, much less the nose on the face of our near-sighted my opponents here and all atheists.

.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
107,527
23,404
146
Or how about a real music video?
Man, I have always loved these guys. ...but of course Lebowski took it up a notch! Can't not hear this now without thinking about The Dude. Here's a better music video for this tune:


First time I saw this movie, this was probably my favorite scene. Every damn beat. Dude gets his car back! Happy day, jamming to Creedence! ...reveals that he's smoking a J, of course! Happy day....reveals the beer in his hand! lol! then the paranoia. the man, maybe, creeping, the J flicked into the lap! the beet in the lap! the accident! ....the homework buried in the seat! ...an F! See me after school, Larry!

lol

(this clip cuts out too much)
 

Marius Dejess

Senior member
Sep 7, 2015
320
34
101
Dear readers and my dear opponents, it is really so clear that atheist so-callled scientists are into nonsense thinking, like with the word randomness.

First and before anything else, the word randomness describes an event that occurs without us human beings knowing about its going to occur, like, yes the event of the Big Bang, because we were not around when it occurred.

But also in particular because we cannot possibly at all predict its occurrence, still it did occur.

So, randomness means we cannot at all foretell the occurrence of an event which has occurred, that is all.

Now, with atheist so-called scientists they endow it with agency, meaning with causality, so that if atheists cannot accept God as the God of the gaps, they now have what they can and should call Randomness of the gaps.

From myself, it seems to be alright if atheists prefer the word randomness to the word God, since they describe in effect randomness as the creator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning - even though originally randomness means in regard to human knowledge: we cannot know by whom and to or for or with what and when and where and why and how an event occurs.

Just the same, although I can congratulate atheist so-called scientists, still I cannot see how they can be into honest intelligent productive thinking, more they represent clever but crooked thinking.



Dear readers and my opponents, please cease and desist already from your wistful fake news obituary that my thread is dead, you could die earlier than my thread going off online, because it has the recipiency from AnandTech to stay and flourish in its forum space.
.

Now, dear readers and honest intelligent productive posters here, this morning I want to share with you that all words wasted by my opponents and atheists against God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning...

All them words from my opponents and atheists indicate most glaringly that they my opponents here and all atheists, that they are not accustomed to see the big picture of things in reality i.e. in existence.

What they have are bits and pieces of reality by which they cannot have the whole entirety of the big true picture of existence, namely, there is the Higher Power that is in charge of everything that has a beginning, aka God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

And owing to their blind faith in nonsense thinking, they postulate an insane idea of randomness as the cause of the universe and life and the nose on their face.

It is a fact that randomness does not bring about anything that can survive at all as to continue to stay put in reality, like the nose on their face.

An example of randomness is the big cement mixer of a massive steel drum with gravel sand water and cement powder, rotating whirling and whirling and whirling on and on and on, and it will never produce even just an amorphous one cell amoeba, much less the nose on the face of our near-sighted my opponents here and all atheists.

.
 

Marius Dejess

Senior member
Sep 7, 2015
320
34
101
Time to go to the OP again, and it is about:
  • The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Step No. 1 consists in working together among all parties of concern, on the mutually agreed on concept of God.

Here is again my concept of God:
  • God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

What about you guys here, what is your information on the concept of God, take notice, I say your information, not that you have a convinced concept of God: so, no need to insist that you don't accept God exists, wherefore you have no concept of God.

Now, if you insist that you don't have any information on any concept of God, well, then just read my concept of God above, okay?

There, now you have information on the concept of God, at least from yours truly who is a God knower.



There is endless debate over God existing or not.

But there is no talk at all about how to concur on what it is or how to prove or disprove that something at all exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

I think I can and do so prove for myself that God exists, and you can also if you will concur with me on how to prove that something at all exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

Here is step #1 in proving or disproving that something at all, be it the nose in our face or God existing in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind:
#1 Parties engaged in proving or disproving something to exist must first work to concur on the concept of the thing, anything at all be it the nose in our face or God, otherwise it is an insane exchange of thoughts because parties will be talking past each other's head, and that is not communication at all or getting connected at all.​
What do you guys here say?

When you accept my step #1, then I will or you guys here can propose step #2 for us all to work on to concur on it.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
35,032
14,117
146
Time to go to the OP again, and it is about:
  • The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Step No. 1 consists in working together among all parties of concern, on the mutually agreed on concept of God.

Here is again my concept of God:
  • God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

What about you guys here, what is your information on the concept of God, take notice, I say your information, not that you have a convinced concept of God: so, no need to insist that you don't accept God exists, wherefore you have no concept of God.

Now, if you insist that you don't have any information on any concept of God, well, then just read my concept of God above, okay?

There, now you have information on the concept of God, at least from yours truly who is a God knower.
Cool, prove God exists with tangible data that can be recreated over and over again.
 

Marius Dejess

Senior member
Sep 7, 2015
320
34
101
Dear ch33zw1z:

You say, "Cool, prove God exists with tangible data that can be recreated over and over again."

By data you mean evidence.

What about that babies and roses are appearing again and again in every neighborhood, they are evidence to the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.


from ch33zw1z Yesterday at 3:09 AM #472

  • Marius Dejess said:
    Time to go to the OP again, and it is about:

    The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.


    Step No. 1 consists in working together among all parties of concern, on the mutually agreed on concept of God.

    Here is again my concept of God:

    God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.


    What about you guys here, what is your information on the concept of God, take notice, I say your information, not that you have a convinced concept of God: so, no need to insist that you don't accept God exists, wherefore you have no concept of God.

    Now, if you insist that you don't have any information on any concept of God, well, then just read my concept of God above, okay?

    There, now you have information on the concept of God, at least from yours truly who is a God knower.

    Cool, prove God exists with tangible data that can be recreated over and over again.

================
Processed Cheese Ambassador to the Amused Fsck Off and Die Club
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY