Prove god exists.

[The Reality Salesman01]

---

In the interest of anticipating oncoming objections, some of the more experienced apologists will say that doubt is essential to faith. This is normally when the word "faith" becomes void of any traditional religious meaning though. There seems to be two kinds of religious people:

1) Godschild type
2)Chadwhooters type

1) The Godschild type may or may not admit that they have regularly doubted their beliefs but the majority of them will speak of their knowledge of God with absolute certainty. This is what leads to their terrible arguments. They more often appeal to literal readings of the text and then they use them to make specific claims. This kind of Christian uses the word "faith" exclusively to justify their certainty which is what makes their arguments such easy targets for refutation. These people do not understand altruism, they are selfish and fearful people who do what they do out of either fear of hell or hopes of reward. They enjoy the idea of a literal hell for nonbelievers and are oblivious to glaring inconsistencies within their worldview. The GC type depend on arguments that mainly beg questions rather than answering them.

2) The Chad Whooters lot are a much rarer breed. Don't expect them to attach themselves to any one definition of faith. They often use it interchangeably with belief and do not mind admitting doubt. Their arguments are more aimed at shifting the burden of proof. They have used God as the ultimate gap filler. They assert without batting an eye that their God gives them justification to use conclusions derived from logic and morality because unlike Atheists, they KNOW that God is the source of those things and so those sorts of questions should not be thought about by those who believe in God. They ignore their burden to prove that and spend their time insisting that they've won the arguments over Gods existence unless Atheists can give them an answer they like better. These types of Christians do not really argue for any type of Christianity that can be understood by reading the doctrine. They interpret the bible very liberally as they go and when objections to the text are raised, don't expect them to answer those objections honestly. They will make things up with Ad Hoc nonsense that are no where to be found in the bible. While you can have much more productive and intelligent conversations with this type of Christian with most other subjects, when it comes to God, they will abandon their otherwise lucid attitudes toward reality begin painting a very abstract picture of God that is so subjective that it cannot be distinguished from a preference in ice cream. Their belief in God is as real as the belief that chocolate is better than vanilla. I'm not saying that the object of their belief is as real as chocolate or vanilla, only that their God is real insofar as they hold the belief that it is. Their God exists within the subjective parameters of their own mind which is why their answers will never prove convincing for anyone else.

---

I disagree with your thesis, as there are more types of crazy. My hypothesys is that there are several degrees of crazy based on education.

To my best idea, the more intelligent theists know they are lying, the more uneducated are just sheep, if you want to dichotomise it.

Maybe I should've narrowed the scope to encompass only our resident theists. I don't know if I'd say any of them "know" their lying. I'd say that the more educated ones tend to offer more complicated versions of the same nonsense. They've twisted and contorted their beliefs Into such extravagant ideas that may seem palletible to them, but the extent of their delusion is anyways tucked neatly behind a veil that only ever gets pulled away by the likes of us. Outside these domains, they're all perfectly content in a circle-jerk of mental masturbation where they sit around reinforcing their delusions with the incoherent arguments fit for such a task.

[Lek]

The evidence for God is there in the existence of the universe. I think we just interpret the evidence differently. Some people see it and say "it can't be God, so I''ll just wait until science figures it out". Most people get it, but there always has and probably always will be, those who close their eyes to it or just don't get it. To answer your question Dyresand, I can't prove it to you scientifically. You just have to open up and see it.

[Chad32]

We need a divine creator to create the universe! Ok, now how do we get from "divine creator" to "Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life"?

You have to be in the right mindset? The problem is, you can believe anything if you're in the right mindset. That doesn't make it true.

[Cyberman]

The evidence for God is there in the existence of the universe.

Great. Now please explain how the existence of the Universe serves as evidence.

[Lek]

Great. Now please explain how the existence of the Universe serves as evidence.

Things without a purpose end up in disarray.

[Cyberman]

Can you demonstrate this?

[Spooky]

The evidence for God is there in the existence of the universe. I think we just interpret the evidence differently. Some people see it and say "it can't be God, so I''ll just wait until science figures it out". Most people get it, but there always has and probably always will be, those who close their eyes to it or just don't get it. To answer your question Dyresand, I can't prove it to you scientifically. You just have to open up and see it.

If you showed a plasma TV to Isaac Newton he'd probably run away screaming something about "witchcraft".

Science can, and does, figure it out.

[Ravenshire]

The evidence for God is there in the existence of the universe. I think we just interpret the evidence differently. Some people see it and say "it can't be God, so I''ll just wait until science figures it out". Most people get it, but there always has and probably always will be, those who close their eyes to it or just don't get it. To answer your question Dyresand, I can't prove it to you scientifically. You just have to open up and see it.

Neither can any cosmologist or theoretical physicist prove there is a gawd necessary to create the universe. In fact, the deeper they study, the closer they come to the "how" of creation, the less necessary any gawd becomes.

[Lek]

Neither can any cosmologist or theoretical physicist prove there is a gawd necessary to create the universe. In fact, the deeper they study, the closer they come to the "how" of creation, the less necessary any gawd becomes.

Scientifically, we don't know the how. How has science made God an less necessary?

[Chad32]

The more we know, the less we see of gods, and the fewer gaps you can put your god in. Even if you send him back to the beginning of the universe, it will only get you as far as deism. It doesn't help the case for theism.