Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[Trailblazer]

Now, what about Truth. Is it a constant or not?

Spiritual Truth is a constant since it never changes. Elaboration is necessary to explain what I mean by that.

Scriptures of various religions contain the truth because the first part of religion refers to spiritual truth and it is the same in every religion. Spiritual truth is eternal and it will never be abrogated; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love God, love your neighbor, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy.

However, these spiritual truths are renewed in every age because the human virtues noted above disappear and only the form of religion subsists.

“These divine qualities, these eternal commandments, will never be abolished; nay, they will last and remain established for ever and ever. These virtues of humanity will be renewed in each of the different cycles; for at the end of every cycle the spiritual Law of God—that is to say, the human virtues—disappears, and only the form subsists.” Some Answered Questions, p. 47

Very well. I'm sure you'll understand, then, if I bring up any occasion where you go back to your original P.O.V. after changing it.

Bring up anything you want. I go back to my original P.O.V. whenever I get new information that leads me there. For example, I thought my tenant was telling the truth when he said he had sent the rent payments for September and October in the mail as money orders, but then when I went to the PO box last night and they were not there after a week, I thought he must have been lying because mail only takes two days at most. So I asked him for proof that he had sent them, scanned copies of the money order receipts showing he had made them out to me and the amount, attached to an e-mail. I was not expecting to get these but he did provide them and that is what I call objective evidence, so now he has to figure out how to replace the lost money orders and resend them to me.

My thinking is very simple.

I present an idea which I believe to represent reality as accurately as possible. I then present my reasons for holding that belief. If anyone disagrees, they can present their idea and explain why my idea is less accurate than theirs.

I, likewise, will explain why I find someone else's view less accurate than mine if I believe it is less accurate.

However, I am not trying to win and prove that my own view is the best. If someone presents an alternative view and I find that it is better than mine, I will abandon my original view and embrace the new view.

Okay, that sounds reasonable and fair.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Care to share it then, this verifiable evidence that proves your religious beliefs are correct?

..back to the OP..
What would be evidence of God’s existence?

There is no point in a believer answering that question just to be told that it doesn't count.

Here are a few reasons why theists believe in God..
3 Arguments for the existence of God

• 3.1 Empirical arguments
  • 3.1.1 Argument from beauty
  • 3.1.2 Argument from consciousness
  • 3.1.3 Argument from design
  • 3.1.4 Rational warrant
  • 3.1.5 Inductive arguments
• 3.2 Logical arguments
  • 3.2.1 Aquinas' Five Ways
  • 3.2.2 Cosmological argument
  • 3.2.3 Ontological argument
• 3.3 Subjective arguments
  • 3.3.1 Arguments from historical events or personages
  • 3.3.2 Arguments from testimony
    • 3.3.2.1 Arguments grounded in personal experience

..but if a person wants to be a disbeliever,
they can just claim that "you can't prove it"
Who cares? Belief in God is not about proof.
Almighty God can prove it, if He wished .. it's between a person and God.

"God is closer to us than our jugular vein" [ internal, and not external ]

..you want to see God? Look inside yourself !

 

[Sheldon]

..back to the OP..
What would be evidence of God’s existence?

Demonstrate the best you have.

Here are a few reasons why theists believe in God..
3 Arguments for the existence of God

• 3.1 Empirical arguments
  • 3.1.1 Argument from beauty
  • 3.1.2 Argument from consciousness
  • 3.1.3 Argument from design
  • 3.1.4 Rational warrant
  • 3.1.5 Inductive arguments
• 3.2 Logical arguments
  • 3.2.1 Aquinas' Five Ways
  • 3.2.2 Cosmological argument
  • 3.2.3 Ontological argument
• 3.3 Subjective arguments
  • 3.3.1 Arguments from historical events or personages
  • 3.3.2 Arguments from testimony
    • 3.3.2.1 Arguments grounded in personal experience

Is that it? Those are just bare claims, mostly citing subjective anecdote? There is no evidence of design at all, and no one has demonstrated any empirical evidence either. I have never see a rational argument that a deity is even possible, not that you can rationally argue something into or out of existence of course.

..but if a person wants to be a disbeliever,
they can just claim that "you can't prove it"
Who cares?

Straw man fallacy...

Belief in God is not about proof.

Or any objective evidence apparently. The fact you have included Aquinas's five ways in there is pretty hilarious.

Almighty God can prove it, if He wished .. it's between a person and God.

Two more unevidenced assertions.

"God is closer to us than our jugular vein" [ internal, and not external ]

A meaningless deepity sorry.

..you want to see God? Look inside yourself !

Ah I see vapid deepities are like buses, none for ages then two at once.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Demonstrate the best you have.

That doesn't answer the question.
You need to give examples of what would be admissible, in your opinion.

Straw man fallacy...

Really? What's fallacious about it?
A person who dislikes "what scripture teaches" can INDEED choose to ignore it, or argue against it.
That is not to say that all atheists do that, obviously.

 

[Trailblazer]

"God is closer to us than our jugular vein" [ internal, and not external ]

..you want to see God? Look inside yourself !

"Consider, moreover, how frequently doth man become forgetful of his own self, whilst God remaineth, through His all-encompassing knowledge, aware of His creature, and continueth to shed upon him the manifest radiance of His glory. It is evident, therefore, that, in such circumstances, He is closer to him than his own self. He will, indeed, so remain for ever, for, whereas the one true God knoweth all things, perceiveth all things, and comprehendeth all things, mortal man is prone to err, and is ignorant of the mysteries that lie enfolded within him…" Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 186

 

[CG Didymus]

..back to the OP..
What would be evidence of God’s existence?

There is no point in a believer answering that question just to be told that it doesn't count.

Here are a few reasons why theists believe in God..
3 Arguments for the existence of God

• 3.1 Empirical arguments
  • 3.1.1 Argument from beauty
  • 3.1.2 Argument from consciousness
  • 3.1.3 Argument from design
  • 3.1.4 Rational warrant
  • 3.1.5 Inductive arguments
• 3.2 Logical arguments
  • 3.2.1 Aquinas' Five Ways
  • 3.2.2 Cosmological argument
  • 3.2.3 Ontological argument
• 3.3 Subjective arguments
  • 3.3.1 Arguments from historical events or personages
  • 3.3.2 Arguments from testimony
    • 3.3.2.1 Arguments grounded in personal experience

..but if a person wants to be a disbeliever,
they can just claim that "you can't prove it"
Who cares? Belief in God is not about proof.
Almighty God can prove it, if He wished .. it's between a person and God.

"God is closer to us than our jugular vein" [ internal, and not external ]

..you want to see God? Look inside yourself !

As I've asked Baha'is... Some religions had or have false beliefs about God or even have a belief in what many religions call a belief in "false" Gods. How do you know which beliefs and Gods are false? A good example of this would be Trinitarian Christians... I'd imagine most Muslims and Baha'is do not believe that Jesus is part of a Trinitarian Godhead. Yet, those Christians can probably use most all of those proofs you posted. But you, Baha'is and Atheists, I'm sure, would say that you know that belief and concept of God isn't true.

 

[Tiberius]

The reason our wires get crossed is because of what you think I mean by what I say which is not what I mean.

When I said: "The purpose of religion is not to reflect objective truths about the universe" I meant that is not the purpose of religion, since I believe the purpose of religion is what I stated before:

“The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 215

God objectively exists, but the purpose of religion is not to provide any objective truths about God.

How can you claim that God objectively exists if you have no objective evidence that God exists?

When I said they are not equivalent I was thinking of something entirely different from what you were thinking. I was thinking that rerligion is not equivalent ti a TV series. Do you see the problem?

Now that I understand how you were comparing the two I can see that they are equivalent, since the facts about Baha'u'llah, even though they are objectively true, are not testable any more than the facts about Star Trek.

I'm glad you agree.

And the objective facts about Mr B no more prove that he really was a messenger of God than the objective facts about Star Trek prove that Klingons are real.

I am not going to allow this go go off track again because it only leads to further misunderstandings.

What do you think the difference is between my "only verified in my mind" evidence and REAL verified evidence.
In other words, what does REAL verified evidence mean to you?

Evidence can be verified if others can check your work.

If I count the number of animals in a herd of zebra, say, then I can tell my method and result to someone else, and they can count the number of animals to see if they get the same result. I can do the same thing with an experiment I run, or a measurement I take. And the good thing is that people can use differnt methods to check my results, they do not need to use the same method I used. And if I have made a mistake in there somewhere, then by sharing my method, others can say, "Hey, Tibs, you made a mistake in this bit here, because you forgot to do such-and-such."

But your "verification" does none of that. You don't get others to check your work, you check it yourself. So if you have made any mistake at all, it's unlikely to be caught. And so when you check your work, you'll make the same mistake again, leading to the same flawed and incorrect result. Verification must eliminate errors, but your method has no error correction at all.

 

[Tiberius]

Spiritual Truth is a constant since it never changes. Elaboration is necessary to explain what I mean by that.

Scriptures of various religions contain the truth because the first part of religion refers to spiritual truth and it is the same in every religion. Spiritual truth is eternal and it will never be abrogated; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love God, love your neighbor, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy.

However, these spiritual truths are renewed in every age because the human virtues noted above disappear and only the form of religion subsists.

“These divine qualities, these eternal commandments, will never be abolished; nay, they will last and remain established for ever and ever. These virtues of humanity will be renewed in each of the different cycles; for at the end of every cycle the spiritual Law of God—that is to say, the human virtues—disappears, and only the form subsists.” Some Answered Questions, p. 47

This, byu contradicting your earlier claim that "Science is consistent whereas religion is not," would seem to indicate that religion is not a source for spiritual truth.

Bring up anything you want. I go back to my original P.O.V. whenever I get new information that leads me there. For example, I thought my tenant was telling the truth when he said he had sent the rent payments for September and October in the mail as money orders, but then when I went to the PO box last night and they were not there after a week, I thought he must have been lying because mail only takes two days at most. So I asked him for proof that he had sent them, scanned copies of the money order receipts showing he had made them out to me and the amount, attached to an e-mail. I was not expecting to get these but he did provide them and that is what I call objective evidence, so now he has to figure out how to replace the lost money orders and resend them to me.

If only such objective evidence was available for religious claims.

Okay, that sounds reasonable and fair.

That, of course, leads to the question of how we can determine if something is accurate.

I propose science as the best method of determining accuracy.

 

[Tiberius]

..back to the OP..
What would be evidence of God’s existence?

There is no point in a believer answering that question just to be told that it doesn't count.

Here are a few reasons why theists believe in God..
3 Arguments for the existence of God

• 3.1 Empirical arguments
  • 3.1.1 Argument from beauty
  • 3.1.2 Argument from consciousness
  • 3.1.3 Argument from design
  • 3.1.4 Rational warrant
  • 3.1.5 Inductive arguments
• 3.2 Logical arguments
  • 3.2.1 Aquinas' Five Ways
  • 3.2.2 Cosmological argument
  • 3.2.3 Ontological argument
• 3.3 Subjective arguments
  • 3.3.1 Arguments from historical events or personages
  • 3.3.2 Arguments from testimony
    • 3.3.2.1 Arguments grounded in personal experience

..but if a person wants to be a disbeliever,
they can just claim that "you can't prove it"
Who cares? Belief in God is not about proof.
Almighty God can prove it, if He wished .. it's between a person and God.

"God is closer to us than our jugular vein" [ internal, and not external ]

..you want to see God? Look inside yourself !

Please feel free to chose any of those and we can examine it in detail. I'll explain why I do not believe that they are valid arguments for the existence of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

How can you claim that God objectively exists if you have no objective evidence that God exists?

Simple, the Messengers of God are the objective evidence of God's existence.

I'm glad you agree.

And the objective facts about Mr B no more prove that he really was a messenger of God than the objective facts about Star Trek prove that Klingons are real.

That is true, the objective facts do not prove He was a Messenger of God but they indicate that He was, if interpreted properly.

Evidence can be verified if others can check your work.

If I count the number of animals in a herd of zebra, say, then I can tell my method and result to someone else, and they can count the number of animals to see if they get the same result. I can do the same thing with an experiment I run, or a measurement I take. And the good thing is that people can use different methods to check my results, they do not need to use the same method I used. And if I have made a mistake in there somewhere, then by sharing my method, others can say, "Hey, Tibs, you made a mistake in this bit here, because you forgot to do such-and-such."

But your "verification" does none of that. You don't get others to check your work, you check it yourself. So if you have made any mistake at all, it's unlikely to be caught. And so when you check your work, you'll make the same mistake again, leading to the same flawed and incorrect result. Verification must eliminate errors, but your method has no error correction at all.

How do you think a religious belief can ever be verified as true? If other people did the same research I did and came to a different conclusion who can ever say that they came to the right conclusion and my conclusion was wrong? Can you see why people checking my work is not a solution?

God wants us all to do our own research and come to our own conclusions since we are all responsible for our own beliefs. Everyone will not get it right. If we are wrong we are wrong and there is no way to avoid that.

 

[Trailblazer]

This, by contradicting your earlier claim that "Science is consistent whereas religion is not," would seem to indicate that religion is not a source for spiritual truth.

In my previous answer I agreed that we do not always get the same results with religion as we do with science; sometimes religion works and sometimes it doesn't, depending upon the person practicing the religion and depending upon how much the religion has been corrupted by man, but that does not mean that religion is not a source for spiritual truth. All religions consistently reveal spiritual truths.

If only such objective evidence was available for religious claims.

There is objective evidence, the known facts about Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith.

It would make it easier if we could verify that Baha'u'llah was telling the truth about getting messages from God in the same way I was able to verify that the tenant was telling the truth by visually looking at the receipts for the money orders to verify that they had been purchased, but there is no way to do that for obvious reasons, and
short of that all we can do is look at all the facts surrounding the religion and decide what they mean.

That, of course, leads to the question of how we can determine if something is accurate.

I propose science as the best method of determining accuracy.

Unfortunately, you cannot use science as a method to determine if a religious belief is accurate.

 

[Tiberius]

Simple, the Messengers of God are the objective evidence of God's existence.

No they aren't. At best, they are objective evidence that they claim to be messengers from God.

That is true, the objective facts do not prove He was a Messenger of God but they indicate that He was, if interpreted properly.

And how do you know that's the correct interpretation? It sounds rather circular to me.

How do you think a religious belief can ever be verified as true? If other people did the same research I did and came to a different conclusion who can ever say that they came to the right conclusion and my conclusion was wrong? Can you see why people checking my work is not a solution?

God wants us all to do our own research and come to our own conclusions since we are all responsible for our own beliefs. Everyone will not get it right. If we are wrong we are wrong and there is no way to avoid that.

That's exactly my point! No religious belief can EVER be verified as true!

And yet, if we can't verify something, then we can never claim that it is objectively true!

 

[Trailblazer]

No they aren't. At best, they are objective evidence that they claim to be messengers from God.

They are objective evidence that some men claim to be Messengers from God.
At best, they are objective evidence that God exists and sends Messengers.

And how do you know that's the correct interpretation? It sounds rather circular to me.

All you can do is look at the facts in their entirety and try to figure out what they mean.
Ask yourself, how and why would Baha'u'llah do what He did and write what He wrote?

That's exactly my point! No religious belief can EVER be verified as true!

And yet, if we can't verify something, then we can never claim that it is objectively true!

No, religious beliefs cannot be verified the same way that scientific facts can be verified.
No, we should not claim a religious belief is objectively true and that is why I do not claim that, I only say I believe it is true.

 

[Tiberius]

They are objective evidence that some men claim to be Messengers from God.
At best, they are objective evidence that God exists and sends Messengers.

No they aren't objective evidence that ther is a God and they are not objective evidence that God sends messengers, since people can claim that they are messengers from God even if there is no God, and even if there is a God, people can still claim they are messenmgers sent by him even if God never sends messengers at all.

All you can do is look at the facts in their entirety and try to figure out what they mean.
Ask yourself, how and why would Baha'u'llah do what He did and write what He wrote?

We do not determine the truth by speculation only.

No, religious beliefs cannot be verified the same way that scientific facts can be verified.

They can't be verified at all.

No, we should not claim a religious belief is objectively true and that is why I do not claim that, I only say I believe it is true.

Except you have done so several times. You have claimed to know that God is objectively real.

 

[Trailblazer]

No they aren't objective evidence that ther is a God and they are not objective evidence that God sends messengers, since people can claim that they are messengers from God even if there is no God, and even if there is a God, people can still claim they are messenmgers sent by him even if God never sends messengers at all.

That is not logical.

If God sent the Messengers as evidence of His existence, then the Messengers ARE evidence of God's existence.

Sure, people could claim that they are Messengers from God even if there is no God, and even if there is a God, people could still claim they are Messengers sent by him even if God never sends messengers at all, but that has no bearing upon whether there are actually Messengers of God.

The existence of false messengers of God does not prove that there are no true Messengers of God.
That is as illogical as saying that the existence of junky cars in a junkyard is proof that there cannot be nice new cars in the car lot down the street. The existence of one has nothing to do with the other since both can exist and neither one negates the other.

Of course many people claim to be Messengers of God but that does not mean that a true Messenger of God would not also claim that. Of course He would claim that because He would want people to know who He was and what His message was.

It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because many people falsely claim to be Messengers of God, therefore there have never been any true Messengers of God. What indicates whether a man was a true Messenger a God is the evidence that backs up his claims.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern

1. X is true for A.
2. X is true for B.
3. Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

For example, if a person sees 10 people, all of them falsely claiming to be Messengers of God they may erroneously conclude that there are no true Messengers of God.

If there is even one true Messenger then it is possible there are other true Messengers of God, since an omnipotent God can send as many Messengers as He wants to, whenever He wants to.

We do not determine the truth by speculation only.

There is no other way to determine the truth except by looking at the facts and deciding what they mean. That is not speculation.

They can't be verified at all.

They can be verified by independent investigation of truth.

Except you have done so several times. You have claimed to know that God is objectively real.

I have not claimed it, I have said that 'I believe' that God is objectively real, according to the following definition.

 

[Truthseeker]

That is not logical.

If God sent the Messengers as evidence of His existence, then the Messengers ARE evidence of God's existence.

Sure, people could claim that they are Messengers from God even if there is no God, and even if there is a God, people could still claim they are Messengers sent by him even if God never sends messengers at all, but that has no bearing upon whether there are actually Messengers of God.

The existence of false messengers of God does not prove that there are no true Messengers of God.
That is as illogical as saying that the existence of junky cars in a junkyard is proof that there cannot be nice new cars in the car lot down the street. The existence of one has nothing to do with the other since both can exist and neither one negates the other.

Of course many people claim to be Messengers of God but that does not mean that a true Messenger of God would not also claim that. Of course He would claim that because He would want people to know who He was and what His message was.

It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because many people falsely claim to be Messengers of God, therefore there have never been any true Messengers of God. What indicates whether a man was a true Messenger a God is the evidence that backs up his claims.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern

1. X is true for A.
2. X is true for B.
3. Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

For example, if a person sees 10 people, all of them falsely claiming to be Messengers of God they may erroneously conclude that there are no true Messengers of God.

If there is even one true Messenger then it is possible there are other true Messengers of God, since an omnipotent God can send as many Messengers as He wants to, whenever He wants to.

There is no other way to determine the truth except by looking at the facts and deciding what they mean. That is not speculation.

They can be verified by independent investigation of truth.

I have not claimed it, I have said that 'I believe' that God is objectively real, according to the following definition.

I didn't know videos like that exist. I just look for an online dictionary.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Please feel free to chose any of those and we can examine it in detail..

Errr .. I'm waiting for you to answer the OP. You haven't done that yet..

What would be evidence of God’s existence?

Take notice ! You are being asked a question [ in the OP ]
REPEAT .. You need to give examples of what would be admissible, in your opinion.

I shan't ask again .. I'll assume you think that evidence cannot possibly exist.

 

[Tiberius]

That is not logical.

If God sent the Messengers as evidence of His existence, then the Messengers ARE evidence of God's existence.

That is very true.

But you didn't say that. You said, "Simple, the Messengers of God are the objective evidence of God's existence."

No IF in there.

Sure, people could claim that they are Messengers from God even if there is no God, and even if there is a God, people could still claim they are Messengers sent by him even if God never sends messengers at all, but that has no bearing upon whether there are actually Messengers of God.

Agreed.

The existence of false messengers of God does not prove that there are no true Messengers of God.
That is as illogical as saying that the existence of junky cars in a junkyard is proof that there cannot be nice new cars in the car lot down the street. The existence of one has nothing to do with the other since both can exist and neither one negates the other.

Of course many people claim to be Messengers of God but that does not mean that a true Messenger of God would not also claim that. Of course He would claim that because He would want people to know who He was and what His message was.

It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because many people falsely claim to be Messengers of God, therefore there have never been any true Messengers of God. What indicates whether a man was a true Messenger a God is the evidence that backs up his claims.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern

1. X is true for A.
2. X is true for B.
3. Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

For example, if a person sees 10 people, all of them falsely claiming to be Messengers of God they may erroneously conclude that there are no true Messengers of God.

If there is even one true Messenger then it is possible there are other true Messengers of God, since an omnipotent God can send as many Messengers as He wants to, whenever He wants to.

Agreed.

I don't know why you are bringing this up, since I never said anything that contradicts this.

However, we need to have some method of establishing whether a person is telling the truth or not if they claim to be a Messenger from God. After all, claiming to be a MfG is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There is no other way to determine the truth except by looking at the facts and deciding what they mean. That is not speculation.

You said, "All you can do is look at the facts in their entirety and try to figure out what they mean.
Ask yourself, how and why would Baha'u'llah do what He did and write what He wrote?" Making guesses as to a person's motivations and intentions is indeed speculation.

They can be verified by independent investigation of truth.

Okay.

So if Person A gets one result, but Persons B, C, D and E get different results, what does that say about the accuracy of Person A's result?

I have not claimed it, I have said that 'I believe' that God is objectively real, according to the following definition.

In post 2340, you said, "God objectively exists, but the purpose of religion is not to provide any objective truths about God."

You did not say, "I believe..." or anything else to indicate that your words were not a declarative statement.

 

[Tiberius]

Errr .. I'm waiting for you to answer the OP. You haven't done that yet..

What would be evidence of God’s existence?

Take notice ! You are being asked a question [ in the OP ]
REPEAT .. You need to give examples of what would be admissible, in your opinion.

I shan't ask again .. I'll assume you think that evidence cannot possibly exist.

First of all, your attempt to deflect the discussion is obvious and weak. Any discussion about the arguments you provided does not require that I answer the question the OP posted. It almost seems that you are attempting to avoid having to defend your claims.

In any case, my standard answer to that is this. If the Bible said something like:

"And the Earth moved in a great circle around the sun, held in place by the sun's mass. And the circle was not perfect, but was longer in one direction than the perpendicular, and the passage of the Earth swept out equal areas in equal times. And the sun shone with the light of its tiniest parts coming together."

I would indeed take it as evidence for God, because it describes knowledge that the people of the time could not possibly have.

Now that I have answered the OP (and not your OP, by the way, so I don't see what right you have to be upset that I didn't directly answer it in this thread), perhaps you will answer my post to you.

Pick any of the arguments that you listed in post 2342 and I will explain why I do not think it is a valid argument for God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I didn't know videos like that exist. I just look for an online dictionary.

That is what I usually use too, I just found that video by accident.