Why I am a good proof that there is a God

[Sheldon]

You have insisted that every claim should be rejected as false; unless it has proof. Now you say I should just accept your opinion. At least be consistent.

Here's his post (verbatim) that you quoted, I don't see where he is asking anything of the sort, maybe you could embolden where you think he's saying you should just accept his opinion?

Which tells us that you are not reasoning rationally. You do not even know the methodology used and you are already denying it. And it also confirms that your belief is not rational either. If your belief is wrong you just said that you would keep believing.

 

[Sheldon]

Show you what?

That you cannot demonstrate any evidence, it's right here?

What evidence? I can't show you anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's his post (verbatim) that you quoted, I don't see where he is asking anything of the sort, maybe you could embolden where you think he's saying you should just accept his opinion?

Did you watch the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate? There was a clear point in the debate when Ken Ham lost. It was so obvious that Christian sites at that time noted it. His post reminds me quite a bit of that moment in time.

 

[74x12]

"Rejected" is a bit harsh. And no, what is needed is evidence not "proof" but then you probably do not understand either concept. Would you accept the fact that I have an invisible blue dragon in my garage without evidence? If not why not?

Invisible blue dragons are ridiculous; so that's why you use that analogy. You want God to be considered ridiculous. But it's not the same. Since we're bringing up logical fallacies I would say it's definitely an appeal to ridicule which is a fallacy.

Existence of all things itself begs for an explanation. That explanation would hardly be an invisible blue dragon without a very good reason. But the idea of a Creator/God is much more plausible than atheists like to admit. However their blindness of heart doesn't allow them to see that. So evidence, arguments ... etc. all wasted.

In any case I would not reject your claim either. You might have something in there that could be called an invisible blue dragon. It doesn't have to be literal. Not that this has anything to do with God. I'm just pointing out that making assumptions is often a mistake.

 

[74x12]

Now, now, No false accusations. You can get in trouble for that. If you claim that he is blind you are taking on a burden of proof. How will you prove that he is blind? And you do not get to assume that your beliefs are correct.

My point is he wastes my time. On purpose I might add. He's not reasonable. That's part of the blindness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Invisible blue dragons are ridiculous; so that's why you use that analogy. You want God to be considered ridiculous. But it's not the same. Since we're bringing up logical fallacies I would say it's definitely an appeal to ridicule which is a fallacy.

Existence of all things itself begs for an explanation. That explanation would hardly be an invisible blue dragon without a very good reason. But the idea of a Creator/God is much more plausible than atheists like to admit. However their blindness of heart doesn't allow them to see that. So evidence, arguments ... etc. all wasted.

In any case I would not reject your claim either. You might have something in there that could be called an invisible blue dragon. It doesn't have to be literal. Not that this has anything to do with God. I'm just pointing out that making assumptions is often a mistake.

Why are the ridiculous? They do not appear to be any more ridiculous than your magic three in one oil magic god.

And seriously, if you cannot support your claim about "blindness" it is just a personal attack. And that is not allowed by the forum rules. Where is your evidence that I am blind. Where is your evidence that @Sheldon is blind?

Existence may "beg for an explanation" but a magical god is no more of an explanation than an invisible blue dragon. We have a pretty good explanation going. No god need apply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point is he wastes my time. On purpose I might add. He's not reasonable. That's part of the blindness.

Actually he appears to be incredibly reasonable. Just like you not accepting my dragon claim he will not accept your god claim without evidence. This is not a hard idea to understand. You are attempting to use an argument from ignorance. That has never worked well historically.

 

[74x12]

Why are the ridiculous? They do not appear to be any more ridiculous than your magic three in one oil magic god.

And seriously, if you cannot support your claim about "blindness" it is just a personal attack. And that is not allowed by the forum rules. Where is your evidence that I am blind. Where is your evidence that @Sheldon is blind?

Existence may "beg for an explanation" but a magical god is no more of an explanation than an invisible blue dragon. We have a pretty good explanation going. No god need apply.

Not just Sheldon. All atheists and nearly everyone is blind.

I don't have time for this nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not just Sheldon. All atheists and nearly everyone is blind.

I don't have time for this nonsense.

If we are blind then you should have evidence for it. I could make the same claim about you, with the exception that I could support my claim better than you can support yours.

 

[Sheldon]

Invisible blue dragons are ridiculous; so that's why you use that analogy.

What is the objective difference? To me one unevidenced concept is the same as another. I think he used because he knew you'd find the concept ridiculous, but what you are failing to making clear is why?

You want God to be considered ridiculous.

Do you "want" invisible blue dragons to be considered ridiculous, because I don't have any strong desire at all, same with deities.

But it's not the same.

Can you explain what you think the objective difference is?

 

[Sheldon]

Existence of all things itself begs for an explanation. That explanation would hardly be an invisible blue dragon without a very good reason. But the idea of a Creator/God is much more plausible than atheists like to admit.

Well I can't speak for other atheists, but i have seen no objective evidence a deity is any more plausible than any unfalsifiable concept, and yes that includes invisible blue dragons.

I'm just pointing out that making assumptions is often a mistake.

Atheists always demand evidence but I'm just saying they can't see evidence because they're blind.

That's called irony...

 

[Sheldon]

Not just Sheldon. All atheists and nearly everyone is blind.

I don't have time for this nonsense.

Well I did ask, but you never answered, is it blindness that stops you seeing all the things you don't believe are real? How is your "sight" here infallible, but atheists is not? Did a deity make me blind? that seems a bit cruel tbh..

 

[ratiocinator]

Existence of all things itself begs for an explanation.

Which a god (that existed) would not provide. You'd still have the same lack of explanation for "the existence of all things" as you started with - it's just that then "all things" would include a god.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My testimony to that affect should be enough

Why do you think that?
Do you consider it enough when anybody makes any kind of similar claim that you don't already believe in?

If you say "yes", then why aren't you a scientologist?

1. God speaks to me.
2. God gives me dreams and visons.
3. God heals my diseases.
4. God keeps me from sin.
5. God helps me to understand scripture
6. God speaks through me.

And now for your evidence in support of these things....?
Or are we supposed to "just believe" you?


I also think it's kinda funny that you think that it becomes "enough" by just piling on even more unverifiable anecdotal claims

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't see how but perhaps you could explain that to me.

I believe first and foremost Aliens are real because they kidnapped me.

My testimony to that affect should be enough but people need to know there are discernable affects that indicate aliens are present.

1. Aliens speaks to me.
2. Aliens give me dreams and visons.
3. Aliens heal my diseases.
4. Aliens help me to understand the world
5. Aliens speak through me.

 

[Sheldon]

Existence of all things itself begs for an explanation. That explanation would hardly be an invisible blue dragon without a very good reason.

You can change invisible blue dragon there for a deity, and your claim makes the same sense. Explanations have explanatory power, bare claims a deity did it all, with inexplicable magic, have no explanatory power.

Humans evolved, as of course did all living things, the mechanism that drives that evolution is natural selection, not only does the scientific theory of evolution explain human existence thoroughly, it is supported by a weight of evidence that puts it beyond any reasonable or rational doubt. It's hard to imagine anyone more closed minded than someone who would deny a scientific fact that well evidenced. Especially since it is not as many theists keep asserting, a choice between the scientific fact of species evolution, or completely unevidenced creationism. Creationism gets no traction whatsoever from attacking evolution, none.

 

[Muffled]

So... god is possessing you? or are you "one with god"?

God is always present

What does it say?

Only you? or all people?

Really? I bet ya that if you'll have an infection that grows, god will probably won't save ya.
But I really hope you'll never have to find out

How?

What scripture? specific one? all of them?

So what you say, is... that god speaks through you to say it speaks through you?
Hmmm.
I assume that if god spoke through you, it was probably self explanatory from the content of the message without the need to declare so [/QUOTE]

For the first question I believe the answer is yes. The whole concept of having Jesus as Lord is Him in me taking over my mind and body. This is essential Christianity.

For the second question, I believe the answer is no. I unlike Jesus am a separate person from God. The Paraclete however which is God in me, is the same person as God.

I believe that is correct but God is not always present in people working His will. He has to be asked to do that. He will not usually simply take over someone against their will.

I believe you are hearing Him speak as I write although sometimes He speaks more directly as opposed to through me.

I believe dreams and visions are gifts of the Holy Spirit given to whom God wishes. I believe you would have to ask other Christians on here if they have had that experience. For instance Joseph (coat of many colors) had many brothers but he had the dreams.

I believe He healed me of Covid-19. He has not healed me of high blood pressure nor of psoriasis. These things are manageable. I am sure when the time comes for me to die, I will.

I believe Jesus keeps from sin because I can't do anything without Him and He does not sin.

I believe it is all of them and some things that are not scripture.

 

[Muffled]

Regarding #1: Exactly which God speaks to you? The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit or Jesus?

I believe there is only one God so that means all of the above.

 

[Muffled]

I believe first and foremost Aliens are real because they kidnapped me.

My testimony to that affect should be enough but people need to know there are discernable affects that indicate aliens are present.

1. Aliens speaks to me.
2. Aliens give me dreams and visons.
3. Aliens heal my diseases.
4. Aliens help me to understand the world
5. Aliens speak through me.

I believe something to that affect has already been said. I would not automatically dismiss the possibility but as I must you would also have to show evidence that those things really happened. After all it is only my OP, lol. I believe you should read some more posts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe something to that affect has already been said. I would not automatically dismiss the possibility but as I must you would also have to show evidence that those things really happened. After all it is only my OP, lol. I believe you should read some more posts.

Yes, claims have a burden of proof.

The point is that you listed those points as-if they were evidence of the opening main claim.
They are not.

They are just the piling on of even more unevidenced claims.

You don't support a claim by making even more claims.