Challenge to Theists: Prove Your God

[rational experiences]

Everything created IS.

Status it is created a relativity advice.

Thinker first says as theist everything WAS created.

Then one worse thought when nothing was creating.

Direct thought nothing equals nothing.

Bible teaching depended on a teacher human.

Theist human proven lying.

All creation in now as present status supported natural life.

Theist human in modern age. After ice age.

Don't allow him to cosmic theorise coerce.

Our God earth a planet. Our God owns balanced one gas mass immaculate natural light.

Natural light every one day supports life health.

Mass + false cross science adder.

Adder a snake theme.

Knows origin human parents lived about average 100 years in natural light. Died.

Thesis deceased survival in day natural light about 100 years instantly died. Not by instant radiation mass accumulation by cell surviving then not surviving.

Applies a mass radiation calculation for equals instant human death. Tried to instantly kill life pretending life to death was a thesis.

We don't own age until we have lived to gain another age.

Science calculated into a future not yet lived tried to remove us all at ground Zero earth heavens mass meeting position. By a radiation earth released mass.

By machines.

Lucky natural light supported living and not instant death.

 

[Spirit of Light]

With equal success of you 100% proving the Tooth Fairy does not exist.

Your request is absurd and not rational because it's exceptionally difficult to prove any arbitrary thing doesn't exist. This is why the burden of proof in on claimants. Those who aren't convinced any of the thousands of Gods exist don't have to worry about any of it.

But you already said God wasn't a rational process, why ask me to prove it doesn't exist when you admit you can't prove it does exist?


No, that's a play on words. We don't believe in the non-existence of things not known to exist. We just aren't convinced your claims that your version of God exists outside of your imagination.

I have already found God in my life, I have nothing to prove to others, as you know, faith and spiritual belief is personal. No need to prove to others.

 

[Spirit of Light]

With equal success of you 100% proving the Tooth Fairy does not exist.

Your request is absurd and not rational because it's exceptionally difficult to prove any arbitrary thing doesn't exist. This is why the burden of proof in on claimants. Those who aren't convinced any of the thousands of Gods exist don't have to worry about any of it.

But you already said God wasn't a rational process, why ask me to prove it doesn't exist when you admit you can't prove it does exist?


No, that's a play on words. We don't believe in the non-existence of things not known to exist. We just aren't convinced your claims that your version of God exists outside of your imagination.

So you can not prove God does not exist? Strange since you ask believers to prove what they believe

I require you to prove your non belief is true but you can't prove it. So it is a false non belief

 

[Heyo]

So you can not prove God does not exist? Strange since you ask believers to prove what they believe

I require you to prove your non belief is true but you can't prove it. So it is a false non belief

Though not directed at me, I feel addressed as I have started the thread with a request (challenge) to prove god. That challenge was mainly for apologists who like to prove god but always stop at a generic god and fail to prove their god.

If someone knows his believes to be just believes (and knows that mere believes are no basis to demand special treatment), I respect that choice. Freedom of religion is a human right in the UN Carta and many countries for good reason.

This is intellectual sports for those who like to participate.

(And if someone challenges me to disprove god, I'd jump on that challenge like a good sports.)

 

[Spirit of Light]

Though not directed at me, I feel addressed as I have started the thread with a request (challenge) to prove god. That challenge was mainly for apologists who like to prove god but always stop at a generic god and fail to prove their god.

If someone knows his believes to be just believes (and knows that mere believes are no basis to demand special treatment), I respect that choice. Freedom of religion is a human right in the UN Carta and many countries for good reason.

This is intellectual sports for those who like to participate.

(And if someone challenges me to disprove god, I'd jump on that challenge like a good sports.)

As I hope you know, I have nothing against non believers but I saw a chance to have a little inocent fun when the "prove your God" become a bit like " you can not prove God exists " so i just turned it around to say, if you can not disprove God and can not accept what form of "connection " believers has to God.

It will become a stale-mate situation where nothing is proven or disproven ( both are belief/non belief) and it would be impossible to either disprove or prove God because what believers looking for and what disbelievers looking for in search of God is two different ways that can not prove or disprove each other

 

[F1fan]

I have already found God in my life, I have nothing to prove to others, as you know, faith and spiritual belief is personal. No need to prove to others.

Am odd statement for someone on a religious debate forum, and often makes claims in debate that your God exists, even if only in your mind.

I think you ate other theists benefit from engaging with non-theists in that you get exposed to questions that y'all don't ask yourselves. I see theists becoming more fervent and defiant against reason, and for your belief, but there's an opportunity to adjust HOW you think about belief.

 

[F1fan]

So you can not prove God does not exist?

None of us can prove Santa Claus doesn't exist, either. Does that mean we should believe in Santa as rational adults by default or because it feels good?

[quote[Strange since you ask believers to prove what they believe[/quote]
That is because it's a rule in debate and logic that claimants have the burden of proof that their claims are true. The logical default is that all claims are NOT true and a claimant has to offer facts and reasons why their claim IS true or reasonable. Many theists offer reasons, but they tend to be that belief feels good to them. They get some reward by believing. It becomes habitual. These are not reasons that demonstrate belief is rational or warranted.

I require you to prove your non belief is true but you can't prove it. So it is a false non belief

This statement illustrates why logic has rules. You might think this is a rational point and you trapped me, and your belief is safe from criticism, but as I just explained this approach is useless and flawed in logic and debate. The logical default is that we treat ideas and claims as false UNTIL they are shown to be true, or at least, probable. The law works much the same way. You're innocent until proven guilty.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, I admire your honesty, but the atheist can still ask, "Don't many Muslims claim the same thing about their experience of their Islamic god? What about Hindus?"

I mean, I don't want to discourage you, but your experience means little when this information is taken into account. From the point of the view of the objective observer, many believers of contradictory religions feel unshakable certainty of their mystical experiences, which means this kind of experience is not trustworthy.ㅤ:）

Then can I discount the experience of atheists who say they have no experience of God within?

How about addressing the other point, which Islam lacks--FULFILLED, VERIFIABLE prophecy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And so you have proved that you believe in "the God of the Bible". That says nothing about that belief being true.

Fulfilled, accurate prophecy = extreme prescience = belief is true.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You might like this. It's not exactly what you asked for, but close. The god is specifically identified:

Neither of those is an argument. They are both unsupported claims. And neither supports your claim about a god. And I just did debate you on the meaning of your inner experience. Nor do I consider your interpretation accurate.

Unsupported claims of what, exactly? There are thousands of Bible prophecies, many of them quickly verifiable. "Unsupported" is an untrue statement you've made. And "Edom will perish and leave behind empty dwellings", for one of many examples, is specific and verifiable, and has nothing to do with "interpreting" as you call it.

As for inner experience, you claim to have no inner experience of any god, ever in your life, yes? So we can use any argument you've ever made regarding my inner experience and apply it to your own.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Argument 1: The God of the Bible is prescient, accurate, specific.

Argument 2: I experience the God of the Bible and no one can debate my inner experience with accuracy but me.

Neither of those is an argument. They are both unsupported claims. And neither supports your claim about a god. And I just did debate you on the meaning of your inner experience. Nor do I consider your interpretation accurate.

Unsupported claims of what, exactly?

They're your unsupported claims. Read them out loud if you want to know what they are. You called them Argument 1 and Argument 2. There is no argument there.

"Unsupported" is an untrue statement you've made.

Perhaps you mean something different by unsupported that I do. I'm not saying that the your claims can't be supported, just that you didn't do that.

As for inner experience, you claim to have no inner experience of any god, ever in your life, yes?

No, I don't. I used to be a Christian. I would say now that what I interpreted as the Holy Spirit then I see as something else now, a psychological experience once misunderstood.

So we can use any argument you've ever made regarding my inner experience and apply it to your own.

You are free to speculate about what goes on in my mind.

But once again, I don' see an argument from you, just the claim that nobody can be more accurate about your inner experiences than you. That's simply incorrect. Of course you can be wrong and others know that.

It's not difficult to recognize when somebody is misrepresenting their inner life. What harder is deciding if they know that they are doing this. I'm thinking of the guy who gave me statistics on masks in COVID as his reason for not wearing one. Of course that's not accurate. This kind of person doesn't make decisions based in science. We know this because he's attempting to use a crumb of it to justify ignoring all the rest. He wants what he wants, and there's really not much more to it than that, but he won't say that. He may not even know that it's not the mask data influencing him. He just knows that if he doesn't feign some interest in scientific evidence, that he will be disesteemed for his decision.

Now we're seeing it with the vaccine, where people who have zero interest in science, zero understanding of how vaccines are approved or what it means when they are, tell us or imply to us that they're waiting for full FDA approval. Whether they know it or not, I know that that is not the case. Once again, these people don't care what the FDA, the CDC, or Dr. Fauci have to say about anything. If they did, they'd be vaccinated. Once again, they merely want what they want, but feel that they need to put a bit of science in there to make it seem like they have good reason for their opinions.

Likewise with the anti-choice contingent. They can't tell you that they want abortion recriminalized because they believe that their god wants them to object, so you hear every other reason instead: it's a human being (not a factor for me), it causes long-term mental health issues in the almost-mother (who they don't care about at all).

You may not like having your motives second-guessed, and you might believe that because your thoughts are in your head that they are hidden from others and should just be believed, but that's just not the case.

My wife belongs to a garden club and sits on the board. The club has not been meeting for over a year now, but the president, a Trump Republican, has been arguing against requiring proof of vaccine to attend. She tells others she doesn't approve. They were going to meet without her, so suddenly, she reports that she got a vaccine, albeit reluctantly. When asked to provide proof, she demurred, claiming that her health care was her business and nobody else's. What do you think? Should be be believed? Do people have a right to second guess what's going on in her head even though they only have direct access to her words and deeds? I'd say they have a responsibility to do that, and that it's not too difficult to do.

 

[1213]

That is actually part of the challenge, to explain how you can add properties to the "proven" generic god without running into contradictions and with explaining how you know that your god has those properties.

I was speaking of Bible God, and He has those properties according to the Bible. There are also other properties.

 

[Magical Wand]

Then can I discount the experience of atheists who say they have no experience of God within?

Sure, do however you like. That still doesn't refute the point, which was that people from different religions have the same unshakable certainty of their deities because of some experience, even though they can't all be correct. ㅤ:）

 

[Heyo]

I was speaking of Bible God, and He has those properties according to the Bible. There are also other properties.

There is still the same gap in your argumentation. You have a god proof which proves a generic god and you have the "Bible God" (which one?) but you have no argument why the generic god is the same as "Bible God".

 

[rational experiences]

Mr know it all human. Design applier to format plans to build to cause a controlled machine designed reaction to gods spirits.

Energy he says is his God in science and it is mass accumulated or a gas owning a Huge amount of space.

Two variables of energy presence.

A human challenging humans about the God in science as destroyed by science of men.

Pretty basic human advice why science says hence there is no God. I am the God as dominion over all form. I destroy anything I want by my science will.

Actually.

So a spiritual human said okay what about the God that created god where we came from nor being an energy accumulator cell?

The journey why multi held energy forms variable exist in space where it accumulated.

We live inside it's heavens gods stone accumulated itself!

So we own no connection to space.

His answer UFO energy came into the gases.

Gases less energy than mass accumulated only get attacked. By force of mass itself. Which says form not equal to form destroys form.

So we knew. The eternal God had released God into creation. Our parents plus all other spirits had come out of the eternal as gas heavens as gas water filled in space at ground zero.

Tree spirit first was floating above the ground.

No says science it isn't true.

Why?

I can't argue about it as it is not science.

Exactly.

 

[Alex22]

I don't try to convert people to my religion because I don't preach like monotheists do. Hell I don't talk about my religion unless someone asks.

 

[rational experiences]

I don't try to convert people to my religion because I don't preach like monotheists do. Hell I don't talk about my religion unless someone asks.

Science as science terms is asking.

By human in science theories for machine reaction intent. Causes.

Why can a human believe in God when science proves it takes gods gases spirits and mass back to an empty sink hole. Nothing. Gone.

Why does a human as the one self saying I removed God by one thesis as the one human who thought it still exist.

The very reason he is researching.

His idea because there are two of the one human. So he began to study bioligical life continuance in science to work out how to eradicate the other one human.

As men theoried science to time shift their one human self by strings back to nothing. As they never wanted an incarnated life. Reason. It's historic why they keep reinventing life's destruction.

 

[lukethethird]

Challenge to Theists: Prove Your God
My God doesn't exist, but I know He's there.

 

[lukethethird]

I don't try to convert people to my religion because I don't preach like monotheists do. Hell I don't talk about my religion unless someone asks.

I don't try to convert people to my religion because I wouldn't wish my religion on to anyone, it's that bad.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Am odd statement for someone on a religious debate forum, and often makes claims in debate that your God exists, even if only in your mind.

I think you ate other theists benefit from engaging with non-theists in that you get exposed to questions that y'all don't ask yourselves. I see theists becoming more fervent and defiant against reason, and for your belief, but there's an opportunity to adjust HOW you think about belief.

Why is it strange that the one who practice see no reason to prove to others? It is a personal path, if you do not believe in God that is your choice, I believe and that is my choice.

Discussion with a few atheists like your self, whete you ask for proof, where when pr3sented with personal proof from the believer, you say, no that is not proof.

It is not proof to you because you can not see the proof as long you your self do not practice.