The easiest and simplest way to prove God's existence is to provide evidence of its existence. But there is lot lot easier way to do it. Disapprove the theory of Naturalistic Evolution and this automatically Proves God's existence or Prove Evolution and you automatically disapprove God's existence.

The two options.

A)Prove Naturalistic Evolution to be true and you take out God's existence because this shows a natural explanation of how everything came into existence without the assistance of the supernatural.
B)Take out Naturalistic Evolution and the existence of God is automatically Proven.

Because it's either,

A):We came here by an accident without true meaning or purpose, but we are just some random living organism in space, Or
B):God created us with a meaning and purpose to life, not including our private wants.

But it also depends on ones honesty as well, not just the evidence, no amount of evidence is going to convince someone who is unwilling to accept it. So we must look at ii, in both ways.

A) Is there convincing evidence for Naturalistic Evolution?
or
B) Is there convincing evidence against Naturalistic Evolution?

When atheists say, the burden of Proof is on the theist to provide the evidence for Gods existence. There is a twist to the game you see, a theist may say the burden of Proof is on the atheist to provide proof of Naturalistic Evolution that we came into existence by an accident, see the problem? So, we must check both sides.

(November 18, 2016 at 7:11 am)The Joker Wrote: Disapprove the theory of Naturalistic Evolution and this automatically Proves God existence or Prove Evolution and you automatically disapprove God's existence.

Wrong on both counts.

Wrong. You're reducing all possibilities to those two, without justification. And they're not even correct either.

You might want to define "God" before you even consider any evidence for or against.

God could exist, whatever the fuck it's meant to be, but yet have nothing to do with our reality. So A is wrong. You could define "God" to try and make this work better.

B is also wrong because you're presenting a false dichotomy. Removing one explanation is not license to make up anything you want in its place.

This was wrong the first time you posted it. Repeating it doesn't make it any more valid.

(November 18, 2016 at 7:27 am)robvalue Wrote: God could exist, whatever the fuck it's meant to be, but yet have nothing to do with our reality. So A is wrong. You could define "God" to try and make this work better.

B is also wrong because you're presenting a false dichotomy. Removing one explanation is not license to make up anything you want in its place.

Defining God depends on which religion is the true religion of God, because different religions defines God differently. You will have to examine the different religions.

If you're the one making claims, it's up to you to define it. Pick any one you like.

It still won't help your false dichotomy, unless you define "God" to be "every explanation except The Theory of Evolution".

(November 18, 2016 at 7:35 am)robvalue Wrote: If you're the one making claims, it's up to you to define it. Pick any one you like.

To be honest you can't pick what you like, but the one which is true. It's not a matter of ones private taste.

Wait, you posted this in Christianity. So why are you asking me which religion?

Also, why should I care if God exists? I have a separate thread about that subject.

You can define a word to mean anything you like. Whether or not it represents anything in reality doesn't matter.

Your words are not defined and your arguments are wrong. You need to address this, or else you're not saying anything useful.