The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe in It

[Muffled]

What does this have to do with my post? And statistics may or may not support the Bible, but until it does you have nothing and there was no point in bringing that up.

"evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

I was commenting on your basis for evidence.

 

[Muffled]

I think even many religious leaders in Jesus' day considered Scripture as fantasy preferring to teach Greek mythology.
Seems to me Jesus is Not interested in quantity (many) but in quality as per Matthew 7:21-23.

I believe Jesus mentions Moses in John 3:15 as performing a real act.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

I was commenting on your basis for evidence.

No, it only appears that you did not understand the phrase that you quote mined. Tell me what do you think that that means? How does it apply to the evidence for evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe Jesus mentions Moses in John 3:15 as performing a real act.

So you are saying that Jesus was not God since Moses was fictional.

 

[Muffled]

So you are saying that Jesus was not God since Moses was fictional.

I believe I am saying that Jesus as God in the flesh knows everything and corroborates the actions of Moses.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I believe Jesus mentions Moses in John 3:15 as performing a real act.

I agree the act or action that Moses took (John 3:14) with that brass/copper serpent was real as per Numbers 21:8-9

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I believe I am saying that Jesus as God in the flesh knows everything and corroborates the actions of Moses.

I wonder how Jesus could know everything when 1 Corinthians 2:16 lets us know who has the mind of God..... but we can have the mind of Christ.- 1 Corinthians 3:23

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I am saying that Jesus as God in the flesh knows everything and corroborates the actions of Moses.

You are contradicting yourself now. Believing something does not make it a fact. Have you looked into how archaeologists have concluded that there was nothing even closely resembling the Exodus of the Bible?

 

[Segev Moran]

Your answers were fun Thanks.

Nukes explode.

Lol. this proves bursts of energy, not the atoms themselves.
I meant the actual atom. but i will assume your answer would be the micron pictures of those small smeared balls and the mathematical calculations that describe the behavior of such atoms.

The LHC

This actually proves that we measure some kind of a wave that exists. but i will take it

The fact that you're reading this.

How so? i could read things online far before the quantum physics technology was applied.

I just dropped my keys and they fell down.

This doesn't prove gravity rather motion.

First, that's a work in progress.
Second, it's the proposed cause of very observable and measurable phenomena in space.

Cool

Nukes explode.
The fact that's you're reading this.
The fact that plants grow.
The sun.

This doesn't prove energy, it proves something is happening.
I really ask, how can you prove energy.
So far you didn't really provided any evidence for nothing (except for particles maybe).
If i were to prove God with the same language you use i could say
The evidence for God is the universe exists.
That's a very lame (yet surprisingly common) statement.

Mummy image LOL

This actually proves preservation of cells, not death.

MRI

MRI proves brain activity yet it doesn't prove thought.
It can map imaging (latest technology, which is quite amazing) aspects of your imagination, yet not the actual thought.
(It means it can describe what image your brain is currently processing, not what you think about it)
MRI can't show you someone thinks X about Y.

Star wars.
The bible. p )

(LOL 1-0 to you )
But that's not what i meant.
If you show Star wars to someone that doesn't know the human life on earth, it can seem as reality.
How do you prove the actual existence of imagination?

Dude screaming image
And Super Sayajin Son Goku, off course.

This proves the human ability to shout, scream ETC. it doesn't prove anger.
here BTW, an MRI might be more suiting as an answer

I just scream "BOE!" and my cat ran away.

This actually proves reflexes more than fear.
Fear is not a reflex.

My 3-year old son this afternoon, when he overcame his fear and gave my friend's dog a cookie.

Nice. But this is only valid if you know for a fact he was in fear.

Dice throws.

Dice throw is not random. if you'll throw the dices in the exact same force in the exact same vector, in the exact same conditions (surrounding them), the result will always be the same.
Actually... there is no real randomness, so this was misleading question
It is also a part of the objective evidence you can attribute to God.

This was kind of fun.

I Agree. Thanks for that.
But most of your answers were not seriously providing your way of understanding things.
If i use the same way to tell you the proof for God, it will be something like:

God exist because the universe exist.
God exist because I Live
God exist because the sun is shining.

these are all very nice statements, but are all wrong and provide no proof.

Lets try it from another perspective.

To start with, lets agree on what i mean when i say God (as there might be thousands of ways to describe God)

I speak about the God as described in the Jewish beliefs (not the humanization of it, rather the basic things the Jewish religion explains about God)

God is undefined. we can only describe how it works and not what it is.
Having said that, God is NOT an entity. it is not something that can be described to have a shape or form. it is not a force or energy rather a sum of everything that exist and more (the more is unknown). this means that God contains our reality and beyond. (hope that is not too confusing)

God is what sets our reality in motion. it is the driving force of everything in our universe and other dimensions we cannot understand or observe.

God constantly regenerates our existence. there is a constant state of creation.

God cannot be contained or limited.

God has no will nor any human characteristics. what is described in the Hebrew bible is a humanization so we can understand how God operates.

Lets start with that.. are those statements understood? if so i will start detailing each one.

 

[ratiocinator]

i could read things online far before the quantum physics technology was applied.

No, you couldn't. You need quantum physics for semiconductors. It was being taught electronics undergraduates in the 1970s.

But most of your answers were not seriously providing your way of understanding things.
If i use the same way to tell you the proof for God, it will be something like:

God exist because the universe exist.
God exist because I Live
God exist because the sun is shining.

You still don't seem to understand objective evidence.

The reason we have evidence for the objective things you listed is because we have constructed models of reality that include them and those models have made accurate predictions about the world. The success of the predictions (and the lack of success of rival hypotheses) is the evidence for the correctness of the models.

There is no similar evidence for any god hypotheses.

 

[Segev Moran]

No, you couldn't. You need quantum physics for semiconductors. It was being taught electronics undergraduates in the 1970s.

Okey. agreed.

You still don't seem to understand objective evidence.

I do. More than you think.

The reason we have evidence for the objective things you listed is because we have constructed models of reality that include them and those models have made accurate predictions about the world.

Agreed. That's a different way of answering and that is what i was expecting you to answer for each of my question. What do you assume was the model describing each.

The success of the predictions (and the lack of success of rival hypotheses) is the evidence for the correctness of the models.

True. yet we still don';t have models for imagination, thought, feelings ETC.
Yet what i understand from your answers is that objective evidence for God will be a prediction of reality that can be measured and tested to see if it succeeds or fails.

There is no similar evidence for any god hypotheses.

And this is exactly what you are missing.
There are predictions and detailed models that describe the objectivity of how our reality works. these models describe what is referred to as the way God operates.
In order for you to be able to read those models, you need to learn the language.
Same as you are expected to learn physics in order to understand e=mc2 (that is widely misunderstood... most people don't really know what it means and don't really understand this equation).
So in order to understand e=mc2, you need to understand E, you need to understand M and you need to understand C.
On the same note, in order to understand God is what motivates the reallity, you need to understand what is motion, what is reality and than you can decide if the model that describes this statement is true or not.
As many people don't really understand this model, you assume it is false.

Ask 10 common people what E=MC2 means, most of them will probably wont be able to give you a correct answer. this doesn't mean the statement is false

Lets try and build our way towards an understanding.

Can you tell me what you think motion is?
(not what causes motion, rather what motion is)
Also, can you tell me what you regard as reality?

In the Jewish texts, motion is described as a force that causes objects in space to move from one place to another. it is described as a force that is constant and that there is no object that have no motion.
This is described in details and explained that even in still objects like stone, there is an internal motion that always exist.
Please note this is described in texts that are proven to be written 1200 years ago.
It is further detailed that motion can not be stopped and it is all driven from an initial force that keeps generating motion without stopping.

Can you agree on this? (put aside the question of God or not)

Reality in the Jewish texts, is described as a state that is perceived in one's brain. it is described to be a sort of a simulation that humans experience using their 5 physical senses.
It is also explained that one can learn how to change the way he understands reality and by doing so can literally change his reality.

Can you agree on this explanation? (Again, put aside the question of God)

BTW, the description of the above is much more detailed and explained to the levels of particles (only using different words are used)[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[ratiocinator]

True. yet we still don';t have models for imagination, thought, feelings ETC.

No - although I'm not sure things like imagination are even objectively defined.

Yet what i understand from your answers is that objective evidence for God will be a prediction of reality that can be measured and tested to see if it succeeds or fails.

Yes, but it also has to be able distinguish the proposed god hypothesis from alternatives: no god(s), different god(s), some other explanation, or a simple unknown.

And this is exactly what you are missing.
There are predictions and detailed models that describe the objectivity of how our reality works. these models describe what is referred to as the way God operates.
In order for you to be able to read those models, you need to learn the language.

OK...

Lets try and build our way towards an understanding.

Can you tell me what you think motion is?

It's a continuous change of position over time. More technically, it's a non-zero first derivative of position with respect to time.

Also, can you tell me what you regard as reality?

Objective reality is that which can be intersubjectively verified.

In the Jewish texts, motion is described as a force that causes objects in space to move from one place to another.

Well this didn't start well, did it? Motion is a force that causes things to move (that is, to have motion)? Is this even serious? A force is something different to motion. A force can cause motion but it certainly isn't the same as motion.

Can you agree on this?

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lol. this proves bursts of energy, not the atoms themselves.

The bomb is build based on atomic models. It is carefully designed with a sophisticated mechanism to release the power of splitting atomic nuclei.

To say that such technology doesn't objectively prove the existance of atoms and the power they contain, then I don't know what would.

I'ld expect that if physicists are wrong and atoms don't exist, that those nukes wouldn't explode, since there would be no atomic nuclei to split and harness power from.

I meant the actual atom.

Yes nukes will be splitting the nuclei of actual atoms.
Not fake or imaginary atoms. Fake and imaginary atoms tend to not release any energy when split.

but i will assume your answer would be the micron pictures of those small smeared balls and the mathematical calculations that describe the behavior of such atoms.

Those mathematical calculations that descibe the behaviour of these things, form the basis of nuclear technology, which is abundant. Just what do you think happens in a nuclear power plant?
Do you think they would create any electricity if atoms were imaginary things that only exist in the imagination of physicists?

How so? i could read things online far before the quantum physics technology was applied.

Dude, the entire computer industry is pretty much built on quantum mechanics.
It would be impossible to build modern micro chips without any understanding of the quantum nature of matter, what electrons are, how they behave etc etc.

Your smartphone works because the engineers that build them understand the fundamental quantum effects that are at play in micro chips and nany transistors etc.

You can't build these things without understanding these quantum effects.

This doesn't prove gravity rather motion.

They certainly didn't shoot off into space.
No, they fell to earth. Every single time.
Bodies with mass exert attraction to other bodies with mass. We call it gravity.
It's a demonstrable fact.

This doesn't prove energy, it proves something is happening.
I really ask, how can you prove energy.
So far you didn't really provided any evidence for nothing (except for particles maybe).
If i were to prove God with the same language you use i could say
The evidence for God is the universe exists.
That's a very lame (yet surprisingly common) statement.

The difference between "energy" (in physics) and your god, is that energy is well defined.
And because it's well defined, those things I mentioned prove the presence of energy.
This is again, testable fact.

This actually proves preservation of cells, not death.

/facepalm.

If that body isn't dead, then I don't know what "dead" means when you use that word.

MRI proves brain activity yet it doesn't prove thought.

Except that brain activity reflects thoughts.
Again, testable.

It can map imaging (latest technology, which is quite amazing) aspects of your imagination, yet not the actual thought.
(It means it can describe what image your brain is currently processing, not what you think about it)
MRI can't show you someone thinks X about Y.

You're changing the goalpost. Your initial question was about JUST "thoughts". Not about specific thoughts or specific content of a thought.

Seeing that someone is thinking in an MRI, is different from seeing WHAT someone is thinking, obviously.

(LOL 1-0 to you )
But that's not what i meant.
If you show Star wars to someone that doesn't know the human life on earth, it can seem as reality.
How do you prove the actual existence of imagination?

Your what-if doesn't make sense because we DO know about human life on earth and all of use know and understand that stories for entertainment can be made up and that people actually literally do that for a living. You ourself has made up stories in the past I'm sure.

So very existance of Star Wars, or any other work of fiction, is proof that imagination is a real thing, which we humans use to make stuff up.

This actually proves reflexes more than fear.
Fear is not a reflex.

The reflex happens out of fear. It runs because it thinks there is danger.

Nice. But this is only valid if you know for a fact he was in fear.

Which I do.
You'ld know it for a fact as well if you would see his reaction when suddenly in close proximity to a dog.

Dice throw is not random. if you'll throw the dices in the exact same force in the exact same vector, in the exact same conditions (surrounding them), the result will always be the same.

Then nothing is random because ultimatily everything in physics is deterministic.
But when we use the word "random", we really mean "things that have so much and such complex variables to calculate that it becomes impossible to predict the outcome".

That certainly is true with dice throws. Especially when throwing a lot of dice at once.
I'ld say putting 25 regular (so no nonsense with magnets etc) dice in a cup and then throwing them all over the floor with a swift shake of the cup, is about as random an outcome as we could get.

Actually... there is no real randomness, so this was misleading question

I know and I think I just acknowledged that (and I'm reading as I reply, so I actually didn't know this was your next sentence either )

It is also a part of the objective evidence you can attribute to God.

That makes no sense to me.

But most of your answers were not seriously providing your way of understanding things.

They actually were, though.
I had fun coming up with silly examples maybe, but I did mean every word and I think my answers were very valid.

If i use the same way to tell you the proof for God, it will be something like:

God exist because the universe exist.
God exist because I Live
God exist because the sun is shining.

This is simply not the same.
My answers were demonstrable. Yours are just statements.

To start with, lets agree on what i mean when i say God (as there might be thousands of ways to describe God)

I speak about the God as described in the Jewish beliefs (not the humanization of it, rather the basic things the Jewish religion explains about God)

God is undefined. we can only describe how it works and not what it is.

Kind of funny that when you are going to define god, the first characteristics is, that it is "undefined", but moving on.....

Having said that, God is NOT an entity. it is not something that can be described to have a shape or form. it is not a force or energy rather a sum of everything that exist and more (the more is unknown). this means that God contains our reality and beyond. (hope that is not too confusing)

Yes, it is quite confusing.
First you say that it's not energy, not a force, doesn't have shape and isn't a thing.
Then you say that it is everything that exist. But everything that exists.... is energy, has a shape and is a thing.

To me, that is self-contradictory.

God is what sets our reality in motion. it is the driving force of everything in our universe and other dimensions we cannot understand or observe.

If you can't understand or observe it, how can you possibly know anything about it?
What are you doing making claims about things that can't be understood or observed?

You know what else can't be understood or observed? Things that don't exist.................

God constantly regenerates our existence. there is a constant state of creation.

Another statement / claim.

God cannot be contained or limited.

Another statement / claim.

God has no will nor any human characteristics. what is described in the Hebrew bible is a humanization so we can understand how God operates.

Lets start with that.. are those statements understood? if so i will start detailing each one.

Those statements are just that: statements.
Some of them are self-contradictory.
None of them are in evidence.

 

[Muffled]

I wonder how Jesus could know everything when 1 Corinthians 2:16 lets us know who has the mind of God..... but we can have the mind of Christ.- 1 Corinthians 3:23

I believe that passage is saying we have the mind of God because we have the mind of Christ but the natural man does not, only the spiritual man.

 

[Muffled]

You are contradicting yourself now. Believing something does not make it a fact. Have you looked into how archaeologists have concluded that there was nothing even closely resembling the Exodus of the Bible?

I don't believe archeologists have all the facts nor do I believe they always understand the ones they do have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe archeologists have all the facts nor do I believe they always understand the ones they do have.

That is an unreasonable standard. No matter what they will never have "all the facts" and if you believe that they do not understand their evidence the burden of proof is upon you to show otherwise.

 

[Segev Moran]

No - although I'm not sure things like imagination are even objectively defined.

They might. if we can understand in depth the patterns of our brain, it will be possible to describe imagination in a way that is objectively true to all humans.
Some experiments today are close to do such things with dreams and thoughts.
Very interesting

Yes, but it also has to be able distinguish the proposed god hypothesis from alternatives: no god(s), different god(s), some other explanation, or a simple unknown.

Agreed.
The Jewish belief BTW provides several ways to prove the religion as false. no one to this day (although many have tried) was able to do so.

It's a continuous change of position over time. More technically, it's a non-zero first derivative of position with respect to time.

Great. what causes this change of position? and for that matter, what is the initial cause for that change in position?

Objective reality is that which can be intersubjectively verified.

I have yet to meet such reality
We also today have an understanding that our reality is actually subjective... it is bound to our 5 senses and how our brain interprets the data gathered by them.

can you give an example of such objective reality?

Well this didn't start well, did it? Motion is a force that causes things to move (that is, to have motion)? Is this even serious? A force is something different to motion. A force can cause motion but it certainly isn't the same as motion.

Correct, that's what I meant... that motion is caused by a force (not that it is the actual force). it was a bad writing from my end
Its hard for me to translate the Hebrew to English, so i will try in another way
There is the word, תנועה, which refers to the word motion (in a way)
And the word מניע, which the thing that causes the motion.
Yet in the texts, it is not described as the actual force, rather the cause of the force.
there it is explained that this "motivator", is constantly causing an endless motion in any physical object.
It is described that even rocks have moving parts in them that cannot be brought to a halt.
It is very interesting that this is described in texts that are at least 1200 year old.
Further more it is described that this motion is inside the smallest parts of our physical building blocks.
Very interesting.
This is actually only a small part of the entire description, that leads to an explanation that what we call God is the initial "motivator".
It is not described that God is a character that moved things with its hands

No.

Lol.
You might call what i described above as God of the gaps.
This is a term i agree with in many theistic views.
This is not the case though. what you call God and what i call God are two different things.
So i guess we need (if you wish) to understand first what it is this God i am claiming that can be objectively proven

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't believe archeologists have all the facts nor do I believe they always understand the ones they do have.

I don't believe creationists have any facts whatsoever.
At least archeologists have some... ;-)

 

[Segev Moran]

Thanks for your time answering my post
Really appreciate that.

The bomb is build based on atomic models. It is carefully designed with a sophisticated mechanism to release the power of splitting atomic nuclei.

I know, but it is still not the proof for atoms.

An atom bomb that explodes proves that we can generate an enormousness amount of energy.
The fact it is done by splitting or fusing atoms, doesn't prove the actual existence of the atom, rather that there is something that generates enormousness amount of energy.
The atom, it self, is a complex structure.
What we describe as atom, in its simplest idea, is a small physical part that is a building block for different molecules.
These molecules in turn generate other physical blocks and so on.
The Atom itself is described as a three type parts structure.
There is a big difference between proving what the atom is (with its parts, and the forces that act in it) and proving that you can clash these atoms and generate energy from them.

When i say prove Atom, i mean prove the actual description of the scientific atom.
But from your above answer i understood what you meant when you said atom bomb proves atoms.

Dude, the entire computer industry is pretty much built on quantum mechanics.
Yes, but this doesn't prove the actual quantum physics..

Lol.. i wish we could talk in Hebrew.. it would be much easier for me to explain what i mean

They certainly didn't shoot off into space.
No, they fell to earth. Every single time.
Bodies with mass exert attraction to other bodies with mass. We call it gravity.
It's a demonstrable fact.

Yes.. but this is not the actual gravity.. its its affect.
Instead of calling it gravity, i could say it is a magical force causing things to attract one another...
the gravity force itself.. is a very different thing.
but again, as it seems, if i'll describe you the effects of God.. you will conclude that it proves God?

The difference between "energy" (in physics) and your god

Lol. it is not my God

is that energy is well defined.
And because it's well defined, those things I mentioned prove the presence of energy.
This is again, testable fact.

I really appreciate your patience
how do you define energy?

If that body isn't dead, then I don't know what "dead" means when you use that word.

Exactly! Maybe here we can find the difference between what i wanted to ask and what you thought i asked.
You show me an image of a corpse.
How do you know its dead? what in the corpse's state proves it is dead?

Except that brain activity reflects thoughts.
Again, testable.

Not really.. brain activity reflects many things.. how do you know it is an actual thought?
it reflects electrical signals passed between neurons.
Is this what you call thought?
When i stick a needle in your hand, your brain will go nuts. activity in many places.
Yet i can stick you hand, and you will think about flowers, and i can stick your hand and you will think about blood.
There is no "no thought" state in the brain (unless you are brain dead.. and we don't really know that for a fact)
But what is the objective proof that someone is having a thought?
Do plants think? how about rocks?

You're changing the goalpost. Your initial question was about JUST "thoughts". Not about specific thoughts or specific content of a thought.

True, sorry

Your what-if doesn't make sense because we DO know about human life on earth and all of use know and understand that stories for entertainment can be made up and that people actually literally do that for a living.

So this makes it is relative to the observer.
If i need to see X in order to prove Y, it mean I have no objective proof of Y.
If i say that a square have 4 edges, it doesn't matter if i know a triangle has 3 or not.. it is objectively a square
So Star wars proves imagination unless it is real.
As you cannot prove it is not real, it is not objective.

You ourself has made up stories in the past I'm sure.

Yeah, i did.. yet i can't really for a fact tell you if they are my imagination or not.
I can tell you yesterday i say an alien spaceship.
How can you prove it was an imagination or not?

So very existance of Star Wars, or any other work of fiction, is proof that imagination is a real thing, which we humans use to make stuff up.

So this proves that humans can describe things.. we have no knowledge if they are true or not.
Do animals have imagination?

The reflex happens out of fear. It runs because it thinks there is danger.

Not really.
I guess it depends what you think fear is
I guess we have a very different way of defining things.

Which I do.
You'ld know it for a fact as well if you would see his reaction when suddenly in close proximity to a dog.

Good for him than. bravery is awesome

Then nothing is random because ultimatily everything in physics is deterministic.
But when we use the word "random", we really mean "things that have so much and such complex variables to calculate that it becomes impossible to predict the outcome".

Not really. some people really think things are random. for example people think snowflakes shape is random. yet it is not.

I know and I think I just acknowledged that (and I'm reading as I reply, so I actually didn't know this was your next sentence either )

That makes no sense to me.

Have you ever heard the term "Everything is written"?
It is a Hebrew saying.
It goes like this:
הכל רשום והרשות נתונה
It is a Jewish phrase saying that everything is pre-determined and you have the ability to change it.
That a very simple yet deep concept of the Jewish belief.
Basically it means that events in your life are never random.
Nothing in our reality is random, yet we have the ability to change the course of actions and affect the next chain of events.

This is referred to as Karma and Dharma in the east.
In the Jewish belief it is referred to destiny and freedom of choice.
Many people assume that when the Jewish religion say everything is written, they mean you are doomed to a specific destiny. but it is not the case.
What it actually means is that everything that happens in your life is already set based on the set of events starting with the first instant of reality. (lets assume it is the big bang for the simplicity of things). this means that starting that point, every event that ever happened, was destined to happen.
our earth was destined to happen as our entire universe follows very specific set of "rules".
These rules lead to a series of events that in theory, if we had the entire "database" of everything in our reality, we could predict to a 100% the next events.
This is what is referred to as "destiny".

Humans, have an amazing ability to go against those "pre-determined" chain of events. and this is what is called freedom of choice.

Actually it is much more complex and much more detailed than that.. but i was just trying to give an example of things that are misunderstood.

They actually were, though.
I had fun coming up with silly examples maybe, but I did mean every word and I think my answers were very valid.

Thanks for that.
I think i start to understand how you approach things

This is simply not the same.
My answers were demonstrable. Yours are just statements.

If i say God is proven because god causes Gravity.
It is demonstrable in the same way a falling rock demonstrated gravity (which it doesn't btw)

Kind of funny that when you are going to define god, the first characteristics is, that it is "undefined", but moving on.....

I didn't say i am going to define God, i said i will explain what i mean when i say God.
meaning and definition are two different things

Yes, it is quite confusing.
First you say that it's not energy, not a force, doesn't have shape and isn't a thing.
Then you say that it is everything that exist. But everything that exists.... is energy, has a shape and is a thing.

To me, that is self-contradictory.

Imagine i have A,B and C
And i tell you that D is A + B + C + ?
it doesn't mean D is A, nor that D is B nor the D is C
just like an Atom.
Hydrogen is not an Electron, it is not a neuron and it is not a proton.
It is the sum of these with additional forces and other things we don't really understand (yet)
Look at God the same way.. it is the sum of all we know "plus"
The "plus" can be whatever, no one will ever know probably.
We do know, though, the affects God have on our reality.

If you can't understand or observe it, how can you possibly know anything about it?

The same way we know black holes exist.
We don't really understand it, we cant observe it. we do , however, see its effects. this is how we know it exist, and this is how we describe it.
The same goes with God.
We don't really see it, we can't really understand it, yet we see it's effects all around.

You know what else can't be understood or observed? Things that don't exist.................

True

Those statements are just that: statements.
Some of them are self-contradictory.
None of them are in evidence.

Of course.
They weren't supposed to be proofs, rather statements that explain what i mean when i say God.
But it is important to understand those statements before trying to explain the proof for them