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

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[JTsyo]

If we have an omnipotent being that wants us to believe in him, we would. If as mortals we can come up with ways that would conceive others, God would have even a better one. The requirement of faith is itself a strike against God.

 

[Pacfanweb]

There have been designer fireworks that more or less can write messages in the sky with words of fire, and we have been to the moon, and could deploy large reflective mylar messages there too ...

I get your point, and i'm sorry for bein a bit of an ass here, but the whole thing is, a magic show isnt a proof...

How would we differentiate between an alien with better technology vs a god?

I'm thinking we see the letters as they're being written. Higher than any fireworks can go. It would be obvious that it wasn't done by humans.
Maybe couple that with everyone on Earth hearing the voice.
Hell, make a mountain float in the air....who knows? There are plenty of things that would do the job.
You'd always have skeptics, but most would be convinced.

 

[Iron Woode]

The evidence for the Big Bang is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, from this radiation scientists come to the age of the universe as some 13.8 billion years old.

Previous to this piece of information scholars thought that the universe was eternal, because they equated universe with existence.

But once scientists maintain that everything is material, namely, that there is no such thing as an immaterial something, scholars who are not happy with the they submit arbitrary insistence of scientists that everything is material, these scholars come to distinguish two kinds of existence, material and immaterial.

An example of material things is of course a pebble, and an example of immaterial things is of course an idea like all men are equal.

Now, what are more important material things or immaterial things?

As humans are the entities talking about material things and immaterial things, so we must ask with greater precision, thus: what are more important to humans: material things or immaterial things?

I submit without false modesty, that I am 100% certain that immaterial things are more important to man, than material things.

Consider this situation, a human got injured very gravely in his head from an accident in a construction site, that he became unconscious.

Being unconscious means that an unconscious human does not have ideas at all, but he is all materially complete.

The ideas are immaterial things inside his brain or more correctly inside his mind, but now being unconscious all ideas have gone out of existence inside his mind.

Now, consider that the politicians finally got into a nuclear holocaust war, which entirely destroyed all lives on earth, including of course all mankind.

So, no more mankind, and therefore no more ideas.

You mean that the idea, all men are equal, because all men have died, therefore all ideas have gone out of existence - considering that ideas are in the mind of man, and all minds have gone into extinction with the nuclear holocaust?

That is correct.

Not to worry, ideas are still existing, in the mind of God, and one day He will create mankind again.

NSFW

 

[Marius Dejess]

You guys are what I call inconsequential repeaters of one or two lines of nonsense ideas, which you picked up from inconsequential stringers of similar useless lines of verbiage.


I challenge you all to write a short piece propounding an idea.

See if you can do that, it would be evidence that you do honest intelligent productive thinking, instead of babbling inconsequential at most two useless liners.

Thinking is what members of the tribe homo sapiens only can do, but alas almost all members do not think, but just regurgitate rancid nonsense from their nonsense idols of wasteful bandwidth intellectual cowards.

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[Marius Dejess]

If we have an omnipotent being that wants us to believe in him, we would. If as mortals we can come up with ways that would conceive others, God would have even a better one. The requirement of faith is itself a strike against God.

Please elaborate, I can't comprehend what you are saying, it does not seem to have any coherency and consistency.

(Enumeration provided by Marius)

(a) If we have an omnipotent being that wants us to believe in him, we would. (b) If as mortals we can come up with ways that would conceive others, God would have even a better one. (c) The requirement of faith is itself a strike against God.

Suppose you just develop (c) into a hundred words or more but not over 150, okay?

 

[Marius Dejess]

Dear atheists, have you read this post from me? Reproduced below.

I already am telling you that you have a wrong because deficient idea about burden of proof.

So, please for the love of self-education, you are missing 50% of reality, with repeating that the burden of proof is on the party making a claim.

Let's talk about burden of proof.

Atheists have this idea that the burden of proof is on the party making a claim.

That just shows again that they don't really know what they are talking about.

A claim can be positive or negative, of course atheists don't know that, because they just swallow all kinds of semantic deficiencies from their idols of deceit.

In a related connection their idols of deceit teach them that a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, that is another semantic deficiency and trickery from the part of atheists' masters of deceit, they are also all the time into semantic obfuscation.

Coming back to burden of proof, the truth is that any member of the tribe homo sapiens making a claim whether positive or negative has the burden of proof.

That is the whole business of burden of proof, namely, it is incumbent upon anyone making a claim, whether positive or negative.

So atheists not acquainted with negative claims, they are missing 50% of reality in human affairs - but that is typical of atheists: they either miss the big complete picture of reality or they only have a distorted picture of reality.

You ask me for an example of a negative claim, here it is:

Two prisoners occupy the same cell, one morning the guard found one of them dead, and on close examination there is physical injury on the deceased prisoner.
The live prisoner claims that he did not kill the deceased companion.

What do you guys say? Do you now know that anyone making a claim whether positive or negative has the burden of proof?

 

[Marius Dejess]

Okay, dear atheists, tell me something you atheists hold dear in your heart and mind, say, what about in not over 50 words?

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[ElFenix]

well, i believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of susan sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap.

 

[JTsyo]

Suppose you just develop (c) into a hundred words or more but not over 150, okay?

After Jesus's resurrection he appears to the disciples while Thomas was absent. When Thomas heard of this he didn't believe them since the claim of the dead coming back is pretty outlandish. Next time Jesus came, Thomas was there and in seeing Jesus he fell to his knees and proclaimed "My Lord and my God." We can see from here that if someone lacks faith, personal intervention from God is enough to have them believe. Why does this not occur to for everyone? Why the line "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”? Why are we who live thousands of years after him to have faith while those that lived with him had proof?

 

[Marius Dejess]

well, i believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of susan sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap.

Thanks for your account of what as an atheist you count to be most dear to your heart and mind.


You are one courageous about your most dear to your heart mind things, as to talk about it.

Now, I like you and me to exchange thoughts on what is existence, is that okay with you?

But first, I must again congratulate you, for you are the only one coming forth to answer my invitation, namely, telling me what are the most dear things to your heart and mind, as an atheist.

You are not a coward about your dearest things as an atheist.

For even though no one knows you owing to the anonymity of the internet, still people in the internet have some concern about their internet 'persona'.

So that they also are affected that for all the brevity and anonymity of their internet presence, it is still psychologically impactful on their sense of self worth.

And they are cowards with not coming out openly with what to them are the dearest things in their heart and mind, with being an atheist.

That is saying a mouthful.


But I am sure any readers and my opponents here and all atheists reading this message, they know what I mean.


You can hide from the world but not from yourself.

Now, let me see if we can get connected.

Let us interview each other.

Tell me, ElFenix, you know you exist, but let you think how you come to know you exist, and see whether you have the verbal mastery to put in concise, clean, honest, intelligent, productive words: (a) that you know you exist, and (b) how you come to know you exist.

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[Marius Dejess]

Here is what I posted in another forum,* see below in quote.

a reply to: spy66

Dear spy66:

Mankind has to ask the question, Has existence created itself? How do we answer this question?

So, there are two questions actually that mankind has to answer:

1. Has existence created itself? This is Q1.

2. How do we mankind answer question 1? This is Q2.

But first and foremost, Do we mankind have to answer at all Q1 and Q2, this is Q3.

However there is still a Q4, namely, Is there some entity aside from mankind that should answer Q1, Q2, Q3, this is Q4.

Here are the four questions facing mankind proposed by one Pachomius:

• Q1. Has existence created itself?
  
  Q2. How do we mankind answer question 1?
  
  Q3. Do we mankind have to answer at all Q1 and Q2?
  
  Q4. Is there some entity aside from mankind that should answer Q1, Q2, Q3?

I Pachomius am a member of mankind, wherefore I feel that owing to my own curiosity I am entitled and also duty-bound to myself as an honest intelligent productive live entity, to answer for myself at least all four questions.

And why do I have to for myself answer the four questions?

Because the un-examined life is not worth living.*

Atheists, I seem to understand, they submit that they don't need to answer any of the and all four questions, because they claim to be ultimately by implication, not honest, not intelligent, and not productive, just like amoeba and Covid-19.


*
Someone also a member of mankind has already said The un-examined life is not worth living, scil. Socrates (d. 399 BC), he said "ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ," literally, "And an un-examined life is not worth living for man."
See, tomblackson.com..., ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ

*That should be fun, to seek the link to the post I refer to above.

 

[Quirky Chick]

My honey recently had a rare open heart surgery, I prayed to God that he would get through it with no complications. The surgery went very well, soon he will be back to hiS very sassy self.

 

[nakedfrog]

You guys are what I call inconsequential repeaters of one or two lines of nonsense ideas, which you picked up from inconsequential stringers of similar useless lines of verbiage.


I challenge you all to write a short piece propounding an idea.

See if you can do that, it would be evidence that you do honest intelligent productive thinking, instead of babbling inconsequential at most two useless liners.

Thinking is what members of the tribe homo sapiens only can do, but alas almost all members do not think, but just regurgitate rancid nonsense from their nonsense idols of wasteful bandwidth intellectual cowards.

My idea is that you get outside and play hide and go fuck yourself.

 

[Marius Dejess]

Dear my opponents here and atheists:

Tell me what is the difference between world and cosmos and universe and existence and reality and things?

Which word(s) has the most extensive and expansive reach and embrace and coverage?

ANNEX
Google the following words:

world = About 13,460,000,000 results (0.55 seconds)
things = About 8,670,000,000 results (0.50 seconds)
reality = About 993,000,000 results (0.49 seconds)
universe = About 769,000,000 results (0.51 seconds)
existence = About 531,000,000 results (0.45 seconds)
cosmos = About 282,000,000 results (0.72 seconds)

 

[UsandThem]

Dear my opponents here and atheists:

Tell me what is the difference between world and cosmos and universe and existence and reality and things?

Which word(s) has the most extensive and expansive reach and embrace and coverage?

ANNEX
Google the following words:

world = About 13,460,000,000 results (0.55 seconds)
things = About 8,670,000,000 results (0.50 seconds)
reality = About 993,000,000 results (0.49 seconds)
universe = About 769,000,000 results (0.51 seconds)
existence = About 531,000,000 results (0.45 seconds)
cosmos = About 282,000,000 results (0.72 seconds)

 

[nakedfrog]

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[Marius Dejess]

Dear my opponents here and atheists:

Tell me what is the difference between world and cosmos and universe and existence and reality and things?

Which word(s) has the most extensive and expansive reach and embrace and coverage?

ANNEX
Google the following words:

world = About 13,460,000,000 results (0.55 seconds)
things = About 8,670,000,000 results (0.50 seconds)
reality = About 993,000,000 results (0.49 seconds)
universe = About 769,000,000 results (0.51 seconds)
existence = About 531,000,000 results (0.45 seconds)
cosmos = About 282,000,000 results (0.72 seconds)

My purpose is just to get you my opponents here and atheists, to link with me, but why are you guys so very reluctant to just point out what word(s) has the most extensive and expansive reach and embrace and coverage?

Why the taboo and phobia with just choosing the word(s) you determine has the most extensive and expansive reach and embrace and coverage?

And the OP is about The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[Marius Dejess]

Dear sdifox:



You are the only one to have reacted to my yesterday's post, and you have been faithfully replying to my everyday post, so what exactly without any copy/paste graphics from the net, what exactly do you want to tell me?

Dear readers here and my opponents and atheists, I say again and again that atheists are in some kind of taboo and phobia, I call you atheists intellectual cowards, but I submit calling you reluctant and resistant to link up with me, that should be a more diplomatic approach to motivate you to connect with me, through the OP:

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

So this morning I will again invite you atheists and my opponents here to consider my concept of God, namely:

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

And my purpose is to see whether you for the end of determining at least some god to exist, will in a thought experiment between you and me, take my concept of God, and upon honest intelligent productive thinking, tender the suggestion whether such God is at least in concept coherent and consistent with the existence of say the universe.

Summing up this message, I am into two objectives:

1. Dear sdifox, what exactly aside from your recurrent video, exactly what thought you want and care to share with me?

2. Dear my opponents and atheists, what do you think: Does the concept of God, namely: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, does it cohere to and is consistent with the existence of the universe?

Eris pads her chest!

 

[UsandThem]

You are the only one to have reacted to my yesterday's post