If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[steve_bank]

It is like moths drawn to a flame. Theists can not resist the arguments. Defending god, who is all powerful to begin, is what they do.

"I have met my god, and it is me."

I am humbled before the master.

 

[steve_bank]

If you truly believe why do you need a proof?

STOP ASKING.

I can't. It is every atheist's sworn duty.

Now you know how it feels to be walking down the street and have someone start preaching to you. Or come in to work and find Christian materials on your desk.

As the OP asks, if you truly believe your place in heaven is secured, why bother responding? Do you feel it is your duty to bring us to Jesus?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you truly believe why do you need a proof?

STOP ASKING.

I can't. It is every atheist's sworn duty. D

Now you know how it feels to be walking down the street and have someone start preaching to you. Or come in to work and find Christian materials on your desk.

As the OP asks, if you truly believe your place in heaven is secured, why bother responding? Do you feel it is your duty to bring us to Jesus?

Titus 3:10 says to shut hell up after two tries, though.

 

[Rhea]

If you truly believe why do you need a proof?

STOP ASKING.

LOL, says a Christian, completely exploding all of the irony meters in the known universe that hve ever been owned by someone who heard their doorbell ring...

 

[Rhea]

Remez has expressed an interest in why his reply was not worth answering.

[...]

We weren’t talking about whether I had certainty that a god (your god?) doesn’t exist. We were talking about HOW you became convinced that one does.

I negected to mention that it’s also not worth responding becuase he went off on a non-sequitur

remez, you seem to have entirely missed the whole point of my post, which was to say that when I ask this question, I am interested in the fascinating display of how humans decide to believe something. I was not talking about the existence of a god, I was clearly talking about HOW you became convinced that a god existed.

And then you decided the conversation as about something else, like whetehr there was a god. So it’s hardly worth answering when you didn’t understand the point at all.

We weren’t talking about whether I had certainty that a god (your god?) doesn’t exist. We were talking about HOW you became convinced that one does.

Thanks for trying. You presented nothing "NEW" save more insults.

What I presented was a statement that the question in the OP can be asked by different people for different reasons. I apologize if that is too complicated.

I was looking for an argument or two that you claimed to have heard and the reasoning why you rejected it.

Why I rejected what? I was posting about how humans decide things. I haven’t rejected anything. Whyy are you trying to pretend I said something I didn’t say?

 

[steve_bank]

If you truly believe why do you need a proof?

STOP ASKING.

LOL, says a Christian, completely exploding all of the irony meters in the known universe that hve ever been owned by someone who heard their doorbell ring...

It is slowly sinking in they may not even comprehend anything but scripture.

There s a line in the movie Inherit The Wind about the Scopes Trial and evolution.

'...the only book the jurors have probably read is the bible..'

 

[abaddon]

I negected to mention that it’s also not worth responding becuase he went off on a non-sequitur

remez, you seem to have entirely missed the whole point of my post, which was to say that when I ask this question, I am interested in the fascinating display of how humans decide to believe something. I was not talking about the existence of a god, I was clearly talking about HOW you became convinced that a god existed.

And then you decided the conversation as about something else, like whetehr there was a god. So it’s hardly worth answering when you didn’t understand the point at all.

He decided the convo was about something else - but not EoG. Rather about if you out-reason theistic reasoning or reject it out of hand. His single point on this board is he has a fully reasoned faith. It's atheists, he contends, who are the blind-faith believers. The fullest proof is they haven't reasoned how existence exists. They "reject" the theistic reasoning about origins out-of-hand and resort to weaker positions like "I Don't Knowism".

So your point was invisible to him. All he can see are seemingly out-of-hand dismissals of theist reasoning. He doesn't explain in full either, each instance that he describes atheists as blind-faith believers. But he figures he already showed that he out-reasons atheists when he argued his KCA some time back. But it's a wordy argument so he refers back to it now and again, assuming everyone has seen it. For here-now arguing, he'll niggle with any atheist who implies faith is something that can't be reasoned through. Each instance an atheist doesn't answer all his demands is an illustration (in his mind) they're the automatons.

 

[atrib]

I was looking for an argument or two that you claimed to have heard and the reasoning why you rejected it.

Why I rejected what? I was posting about how humans decide things. I haven’t rejected anything. Whyy are you trying to pretend I said something I didn’t say?

That is what he does. Attack strawman arguments because he cannot address the arguments actually being made.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I negected to mention that it’s also not worth responding becuase he went off on a non-sequitur

remez, you seem to have entirely missed the whole point of my post, which was to say that when I ask this question, I am interested in the fascinating display of how humans decide to believe something. I was not talking about the existence of a god, I was clearly talking about HOW you became convinced that a god existed.

And then you decided the conversation as about something else, like whetehr there was a god. So it’s hardly worth answering when you didn’t understand the point at all.

He decided the convo was about something else - but not EoG. Rather about if you out-reason theistic reasoning or reject it out of hand. His single point on this board is he has a fully reasoned faith. It's atheists, he contends, who are the blind-faith believers. The fullest proof is they haven't reasoned how existence exists. They "reject" the theistic reasoning about origins out-of-hand and resort to weaker positions like "I Don't Knowism".

So your point was invisible to him. All he can see are seemingly out-of-hand dismissals of theist reasoning. He doesn't explain in full either, each instance that he describes atheists as blind-faith believers. But he figures he already showed that he out-reasons atheists when he argued his KCA some time back. But it's a wordy argument so he refers back to it now and again, assuming everyone has seen it. For here-now arguing, he'll niggle with any atheist who implies faith is something that can't be reasoned through. Each instance an atheist doesn't answer all his demands is an illustration (in his mind) they're the automatons.

Lion is a presuppositionalist.

Presuppositional apologetics

Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews.

 

[remez]

I was looking for an argument or two that you claimed to have heard and the reasoning why you rejected it.

Why I rejected what? …….. I haven’t rejected anything. Whyy are you trying to pretend I said something I didn’t say?

Come on really……That’s easy…..Here………

Just for the record, when other atheists ask this same question, we can be genuinely interested in the answer because the thing we’re wondering is not whether there’s a god, (we’re convinced there is not, and the theist never has any new evidence) but rather the thing we’re wondering is HOW you believe it. How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it. So we’re curious, how your process of convincing yourself goes - what that looks like.

That BOLD HIGHLIGHT is an OVERT statement that you have rejected theistic evidence presented to you. ALL EVIDENCE. WELL……. What evidence and why?

I wanted to know what evidence you rejected and why. I mean really…… “How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it.” I was going right back at you with the same request and I am also…. genuinely interested. ” Keith and skepticalbip understood my request. And I was fair with them.
But …….
atrib and abaddon missed it just like you did. And they always blame their lack of perception on me. Ironically you were trying to expose this “theistic arrogance” and clearly missed your own.
I wonder…………
Can you even see it know?.......”the theist never has any new evidence.” How is that not an assertion that you have rejected theistic evidence?

atrib?
abaddon?
Rhea?


And what’s with the “that that” grammar cop?........“How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it.”

……I was posting about how humans decide things…….

Me too.

…… Whyy are you trying to pretend I said something I didn’t say?

Whyy are you trying to pretend to trying you didn't say something you did say?

 

[Rhea]

Remez. It’s quite simple. Not a gotcha, not a trick.

It’s just this simple: Not a single thing that any Christian has ever said about their religion and their god and their rules and their angels and their miracles and their afterlife, not one thing they have ever said abut their supernatural beliefs has ever been convincing to me.

I am unable to muster up a “belief” in the things they claim. It just never has any convincing elements that cause me to believe it.

And it never, ever has. Not when I was raised up in a Chrsitain household, not when I attended church, not when I took classes and sacrements. All of it has always just felt like make-believe and it is all utterly baffling to me how grown humans can express a belief in a talking snake and a god that turned a woman to a pillar of salt and a god who makes a woman pregnant with a piece of himself who grows up to speak in “parables” when trying to give the most important information in the universe and the speaking in tongues and the saints fighting dragons and jesus’ face in toast...

All of it. I don’t “reject” it. I just find that I cannot muster any belief that it is true. Not even a flutter. It’s uncompelling. Unconvincing. It sounds like a little kid’s story. It doesn’t make me “reject evidence,” because there is no evidence. It is simply a story.

It just outright baffles me that people believe it. I don’t get it.

...


So, as I was saying in my post in this thread, sometimes when people ask “If you’re so certain of god, why prove it,” it’s not because we care about the proof. We’ve heard all your “proofs.” None of you have anything new to say that we haven’t heard already. No, the question is about YOU and how YOU decide that you are certain about something. So the answer is not a list of scientific theories. It would need to be a discussion about WHY that theory convinces you. That’s the only thing I’m curious about. What is the mechanism by which people decide to call something a fact that is clearly not a fact.


I feel like it’s like someone offering you a cigarette, and you’ve never found cigarettes interesting or appealing, but they just keep offering you a smoke. ANd they try to say, “yeah, but look, there are menthols!” And I say, “sorry, I just can’t muster up a desire for that. It ain’t there. And I’ve heard of menthols before, and strongs, and lights, and cheroots and cigars, and they’ve all been offered to me before and none of that convice me to like them. It’s just doesn’t make me want one. And offering me the same thing over and over with no change is not going to suddenly make it look appealing. It just plain is NOT appealing to me. Not a choice, just - it isn’t.”

In the same way, Christianity is just not believable. And you saying all the same things that 10,000,000 christians before you have said already is not going to make it believable.

I just canNOT muster up even a flicker of credulity for your story. I am unable to make myself believe it.

 

[abaddon]

The question is reasonable to ask... just not to ask of believers. To ask them HOW they believe nutty stuff assumes they're aware it's nutty and yet believe anyway.

It's similar to asking a psychotic person who's unaware that the hallucination is a hallucination "why do you hallucinate that?"

I'm a "de-convert" from Christianity and was aware of the nuttiness only during and after the de-conversion. I do remember hearing about atheists and wondering in amazement "HOW can a person be like that?" But then eventually after enough prayers went unanswered, when I kept asking God in all earnestness for "a sign" and there was no response and the world clearly was more random and impersonal than I had wanted it to be, I started wondering "How can I go on believing in God?"

So I do understand the question 'how do the believers believe?' because now I'm on the other side of it looking at theists believe objectively nutty things. If it's a nutty question to ask, then that's only because the question was directed at persons who can't answer except by reiterating their beliefs, either about the Bible or about the forcefulness of ludicrous medieval arguments.

 

[Rhea]

I disagree that it can’t be asked. It is reasonable to ask a person, “if you see that hallucination, why do you need me to say I saw it, too?” It is reasonable to ask, “if you claim that you are absolutely certain of that hallucination, why do you take a picture to verify it?”

Those questions engage a conversation about why their statement of faith contradicts their actions of seeking proof. That conversation, say it is held with a psychiatrist, helps to uncover HOW they prop up their belief.

Then there are those who say they do not have “faith,” they are convinced by reasoned evidence - it’s not “faith” at all.

For example remez here says, “my proof is that I said the words, ‘Red Shift’.” To which I reply, you have to do more than say the words, ‘Red Shift,’ for it to show why you find red shift convincing. You have to connect the thoughts and explain your work. Otherwise you might as well just say ‘dump truck,’ that’s my evidence.

At that point, he’s already admitted that he does not believe due to faith, and he brags about that. So at that point it’s perfectly valid to ask, “okay, so how?”

 

[Rhea]

Come on really……That’s easy…..Here………

Just for the record, when other atheists ask this same question, we can be genuinely interested in the answer because the thing we’re wondering is not whether there’s a god, (we’re convinced there is not, and the theist never has any new evidence) but rather the thing we’re wondering is HOW you believe it. How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it. So we’re curious, how your process of convincing yourself goes - what that looks like.

That BOLD HIGHLIGHT is an OVERT statement that you have rejected theistic evidence presented to you. ALL EVIDENCE. WELL……. What evidence and why?

So just to clarify. I cannot "reject evidence" if no evidence has been shown.
Remez, this is what you have done so far:

I don't believe in god by faith, I believe by reason and logic!
What reason and logic?
Big bang and Redshift!
What about it?
I just told you?
No, you just made a list. What about that is a proof?
See my previous answer.
I see your previous answer. It is not logic. It is a list. It doesn't explain how that physical phenomenon proves anything.
Yes it does, you are dodging!
Dodging what, you haven't said what your reasons were.
Yes I did. Big Bang and Redshift.
But what about them proves there's a god?
Sigh. You are so dishonest. If there's Big bang and Redshift, then there's a God. I have said this so many times.
You have, but that is not reasoning and logic. You haven't explained HOW those things indicate a god. I mean, they could indicate other things also.
No, they only indicate a god.
How? What's your reason to exclude other things?
See my previous post. Why are you rejecting the reasons I give?
I can't reject something you haven't presented. You have given no reasons, only a list of scienc-ey words.
See? I am more reasoning than you.
No. You are masturbating.

 

[steve_bank]

remez sill does not get the difference between subjective feelings and objective evidence.

I feel a few ancient lines in a text is true, therefore it is true. Not evidence.

I look at the world and it is obvious it was created by god. The fore it is true. Not evidence.

I was talking about evolution and creationism with a Christian and he pointed out the window and said 'Just look it is obvious it was created b god!' Definitely not evidence for a proof..

If a Christian says I see god's hand in creating the word, I have no problem with such a belief. heproblem is when theits try to put the belief in scientific terms and try to refute any science contrary to hte belief, as with evolution.

 

[remez]

Remez. It’s quite simple. Not a gotcha, not a trick.

It’s just this simple: Not a single thing that any Christian has ever said about their religion and their god and their rules and their angels and their miracles and their afterlife, not one thing they have ever said abut their supernatural beliefs has ever been convincing to me.

I am unable to muster up a “belief” in the things they claim. It just never has any convincing elements that cause me to believe it.

And it never, ever has. Not when I was raised up in a Chrsitain household, not when I attended church, not when I took classes and sacrements. All of it has always just felt like make-believe and it is all utterly baffling to me how grown humans can express a belief in a talking snake and a god that turned a woman to a pillar of salt and a god who makes a woman pregnant with a piece of himself who grows up to speak in “parables” when trying to give the most important information in the universe and the speaking in tongues and the saints fighting dragons and jesus’ face in toast...

All of it. I don’t “reject” it. I just find that I cannot muster any belief that it is true. Not even a flutter. It’s uncompelling. Unconvincing. It sounds like a little kid’s story. It doesn’t make me “reject evidence,” because there is no evidence. It is simply a story.

It just outright baffles me that people believe it. I don’t get it.

...


So, as I was saying in my post in this thread, sometimes when people ask “If you’re so certain of god, why prove it,” it’s not because we care about the proof. We’ve heard all your “proofs.” None of you have anything new to say that we haven’t heard already. No, the question is about YOU and how YOU decide that you are certain about something. So the answer is not a list of scientific theories. It would need to be a discussion about WHY that theory convinces you. That’s the only thing I’m curious about. What is the mechanism by which people decide to call something a fact that is clearly not a fact.


I feel like it’s like someone offering you a cigarette, and you’ve never found cigarettes interesting or appealing, but they just keep offering you a smoke. ANd they try to say, “yeah, but look, there are menthols!” And I say, “sorry, I just can’t muster up a desire for that. It ain’t there. And I’ve heard of menthols before, and strongs, and lights, and cheroots and cigars, and they’ve all been offered to me before and none of that convice me to like them. It’s just doesn’t make me want one. And offering me the same thing over and over with no change is not going to suddenly make it look appealing. It just plain is NOT appealing to me. Not a choice, just - it isn’t.”

In the same way, Christianity is just not believable. And you saying all the same things that 10,000,000 christians before you have said already is not going to make it believable.

I just canNOT muster up even a flicker of credulity for your story. I am unable to make myself believe it.

You offer only your conclusion with no evidence. You have gone back full circle to just proclaiming that theists have no evidence and reasoning BECAUSE YOU RIGHTEOUSLY SAY SO.
Therefore……
Theists have no evidence because Rhea 1:1 says so. After all Rhea has viewed “IT”……(that always unidentified IT of theistic reason and evidence)…. and proclaimed “IT” unreasonable.
How?
Does not matter…… Rhea 1:1 just says so. She does not have to explain or defend any of her gospel conclusions, because according to Rhea 1:1 all theists are just wrong because Rhea says so.
And
From that lofty throne of arrogance she gets to question the unreasonable theists for their reasons (Rhea 1:2) but does not have to give reasons for her own conclusions.

So back at YOU……..

If you already know then why do you ask?
Thus………………
You’re not seeking a discussion of this……… you’re not truly interested. You want those in that atheistic cuddle huddle like abaddon and atrib to bow to your proclamations and worship your unreasonable conclusions as gospel. It looks like abaddon already has that one memorized quite well.
Because…….
Trust me, I’m witness that he is a true believer in Rhea and practices her ways.
BUT
If you combine the reasoning of the gnostic gospel Dia verse 3:2 which says…If it looks like and smells like crap it must be crap…..with Rhea 1:1 Then you would have something I would judge as reasonable.

 

[Rhea]

remez, you don't seem to get it.

I claim that theists have no convincing evidence because it does not convince me. If there was convincing evidence, I would be convinced. Not arrogance, just reaction.

You say, 11:11 is the longest minute of the day! It is! It is longer than all the others! And I will say, "nothing about what you said offers me any reason to even go get a stop watch and sit in front of the clock at 11:11 to test that. There is no reason for that to be true and you have not convinced me that I should assume it might be, or that it is even important enough for me to care."

You keep thinking that your zany claim for a magical creature deserves refutation.
But first you have to have a CONVINCING ARGUMENT for why it should rise to the level of a valid hypothesis.
You have not done that. I don't owe you anything. It's not arrogance, it's lack of interest. You haven't made your claim worth any effort. It's just silly. "Magic creature created all the universe including parasitic wasps, and then has abandonment issues and tortures people for not believing in its invisible self." That's just weird and silly. It doesn't get an automatic seat at the table. (Notwithstanding that your "evidence" still consists of just a list of scientific words)

 

[Rhea]

Thus………………
You’re not seeking a discussion of this………

Still waiting for you to say WHAT about the big bang theory convinces you that a god looking like yours exists. So far you've only typed, "Big Bang Theory." Are you seeking to discuss this?

So what I'm telling you is that THIS is why you are not convincing. You have provided zero analysis. So you have offered nothing.

 

[remez]

Oh wait……I almost missed this one…….It wasn’t bravely addressed to me……….it’s more like some atheistic cuddle huddle squawking….but it does fit the bill of what I’ve been asking for. So………….

Then there are those who say they do not have “faith,” they are convinced by reasoned evidence - it’s not “faith” at all.

OK, sort of…… do continue…..

For example remez here says, “my proof is that I said the words, ‘Red Shift’.” To which I reply, you have to do more than say the words, ‘Red Shift,’ for it to show why you find red shift convincing. You have to connect the thoughts and explain your work. Otherwise you might as well just say ‘dump truck,’ that’s my evidence.

Parsed below……

For example remez here says, “my proof is that I said the words, ‘Red Shift’.”

I realize that this is your fantasy, but I would never reason that. If I did then you would be correct. But that is inherently the problem with fantasy.

I did not say that, so your reasoning (which is what I’ve been looking for) is already an unfair straw man. That noted, I’ll still fairly attempt to address what you were after……………..
In hopes that you understand this…..I’m just briefly going to point out that red shift is “evidence” (not proof) that supports a premise in a valid argument that concludes the universe has a cause and thus has direct theological implications. Can explain further if needed.

To which I reply, you have to do more than say the words, ‘Red Shift,’ for it to show why you find red shift convincing. You have to connect the thoughts and explain your work. Otherwise you might as well just say ‘dump truck,’ that’s my evidence.

Remember this conversation is a fantasy you made up to represent how you fantasied our conversation would go. Thus again ……. It has already been properly identified as a straw man reasoning. Because I’m not saying red shift is “proof” that the universe is past finite. I’m saying it is one of many evidences that support the reasoning that the universe is past finite.
The reason????? Is pretty straight forward……
Even Einstein understood the implications of an expanding universe. Because if you reverse the GTR you would reasonably return to a past finite universe. Well a singularity at the limit of science. He even added a fudge factor into his equations to render the universe static and eternal. He went on to call the fudge factor his biggest mistake. (at least I pretty sure he said that, I’m trying to be quick). BTW it was the evidence of red shift that convinced him that the universe was expanding.

So you would not have really witnessed me reasoning the red shift proves the universe is past finite. Red shift is evidence the supports the reasoning that the universe is expanding…..it was for Einstein. And as reasoned ….evidence for a past finite universe.

So the fantasy you presented of my reasoning is an obvious fallacy. Thus the KCA is unharmed by your fallacious reasoning.

Thank you….. that is what I was after……. A chance to examine the reasoning you had to reject the evidence and reasoning of the theist. For in this case your reasoning was far far less reasonable than mine. Thus your assertion that all you have seen from theistic reasoning and evidence is flawed. But you can still have “faith” that you’re are right.

Which is what I expected. Thanks for the chance to expose your reasoning.

But wait …..you were so proud of your fantasy……you had to add….

At that point, he’s already admitted that he does not believe due to faith, and he brags about that. So at that point it’s perfectly valid to ask, “okay, so how?”

So again back at you for my justification for asking…….
….so at this point, she’s already fantasied the theistic reasoning and brags of her wisdom to rejected it…….. So at that point it’s perfectly valid to ask, “okay, so how?”

I’m so glad you finally understand.

 

[remez]

Thus………………
You’re not seeking a discussion of this………

Still waiting for you to say WHAT about the big bang theory convinces you that a god looking like yours exists. So far you've only typed, "Big Bang Theory." Are you seeking to discuss this?

Again the SBBM is evidence for a past finite universe. A past finite universe needs a cause. The reasoning from cause to the theistic God was mentioned briefly earlier in the thread, or maybe the other, two thread at the same time.
But.....
It was not my goal to absolutely convince you that the theistic God exists.

It was my goal only to debunk the notion that I as a theist have no evidence and reason for my belief that God exists.