Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).

Gawdzilla Sama said:
Any god worth his/her/its sodium chloride could prove "god" by simply appearing to every human on Earth at the same instant and claiming the job.
Click to expand...
But, so the melody goes, that would ruin the need for faith. Prove something and there is no place for faith. And God is all about faith, is it not?

Me, I'm faithless in this regard. And I don't mean insomnia. ;)
 
The "need for faith" is tailchasing.

"And God is all about faith, is it not?"

No, it's about worshipping and obeying God. The Need for Faith™ is the dodge that makes actual appearances something you can't even ask for.
 
Trek said:
Forget it guys
You’re all too sensitive for this kind of discussion.
You just want me to get banned.
Click to expand...
I would much rather you put together better arguments, ones that actually contain compelling evidence.
 
Trek said:
So why do you think, given that your definition of God is the same as mine, that external evidence of God is needed to know God is real?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "external evidence". Is there "internal evidence"?
 
Trek said:
Life..
Unless you can show otherwise.
Click to expand...
That implies that life has always existed.

The question of where life came from in that case is irrelevant.

Do you believe the universe had a beginning, Trek? If so, then there was a time before the universe's history when there was no life. Or do you think life in our universe came from life in a different universe? Or what?
Trek said:
Where did life come from then?
Click to expand...
Non-life.
 
Trek said:
The best theory about the origins of the universe is hands down the Big Bang. ....This is a problem for atheists because it means the universe had a beginning.
Click to expand...
That's not a problem for atheists.
 
Moderator note: 56 off-topic posts have been moved to Trek's other thread.

Clearly, Trek knows that he doesn't have any convincing evidence for God, so he is desperate to try to change the subject onto what atheists believe about his God, instead. Which is strange, since Trek never tells us about his God or why he believes in it.
 
Last edited:
Trek's remaining posts to this thread (i.e. the ones that are vaguely related to the thread topic and which haven't moved elsewhere due to being off-topic) are notable in that only one or two out of dozens make any attempt to provide any evidence for God.

The one that Trek keeps referring back to is the one where he posted that he believes the best evidence for God is a couple of philosophical arguments that have had holes picked in them for literally centuries by philosophers and other critical thinkers.

In that same post, Trek told us that he thinks cells are too complex to have come about by natural processes. Only a magical God could make it happen, he asserts. This argument seems to be drawn straight from Michael Behe or one of those other CreatIntelligent Design Proponentsionists. The problem is, nobody in the respectable scientific community agrees with Behe that cells are "irreducibly complex". In fact, there's nothing like a consensus among qualified biologists that anything biological is irreducibly complex.

None of this gives Trek pause for thought, apparently.

Mind you, the entire "evidence" thing is really just skylarking, as far as Trek is concerned, because Trek as told us that he doesn't believe in his God because of evidence. Trek doesn't care about evidence.

Trek has been careful not to disclose to anybody the actual reasons why he believes his god is real. Maybe, when it comes down to it, he fears he might be embarrassed if he ever told us.
 
Moderator note: Trek has been warned for repetitive off-topic posting.

Earlier, I posted several posts in this thread after moving off-topic posts to a different thread. I explained why they were off-topic for this thread.

Trek, for whatever reason, seems to have decided to ignore my polite requests to keep his off-topic obsession with atheists out of this thread, which is for believers to show that their gods aren't just fiction.

So, I am escalating from polite requests to official warnings. We'll see if they help to get the message through.

Due to accumulated warning points, Trek will be absent from the forum for at least a few days.

To other posters: Trek has consistently tried to change the topic away from evidence for God, onto questions like "How do atheists define God?" and other distractions. I would advise that you don't respond to the troll bait. Stick to the topic and hit the "report" button on any off-topic posts.

To be clear: the topic of how atheists define god(s) is certainly not off limits for sciforums. In a thread created to discuss that topic, Trek can discuss that to his little heart's content. Just not in a thread where such questions are just an attempt to distract from the topic.
 
Last edited:
Trek said:
The best explanation for the appearance of the universe is the cosmological argument based on the evidence that the universe had a beginning.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, your "best explanation" is flawed, in many ways.

Here on sciforums, we have had several threads dedicated to discussion of various versions of the cosmological argument for god (which is philosophy, by the way, not evidence).

Here's a good one from 2016:

Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

Let us discuss the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This is a more modern variant of the plain-vanilla Cosmological Argument that aims at proving that God exists. However, both arguments are flawed. The traditional Cosmological argument runs as follows: Everything that exists must have a cause...
www.sciforums.com www.sciforums.com

You will see that, back then, the banned user Jan Ardena, whose views are strikingly similar to the ones you have expressed in your time here, didn't have any good responses to the objections put to the cosmological argument.

Maybe you, Trek, can improve on Jan's failures (?)

Interestingly, the linked thread also had a poll that asked readers whether they found the cosmological argument convincing as an argument for God's existence. There were 26 responses to the poll: 1 yes and 25 nos. Make of that what you will.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
What do you mean by "external evidence". Is there "internal evidence"?
Click to expand...
I use the terms thusly: Internal evidence, in this case, would be the Bible and religious things generated by the church. External evidence is from sources other than the interested parties.
 
James R said:
Trek has been careful not to disclose to anybody the actual reasons why he believes his god is real. Maybe, when it comes down to it, he fears he might be embarrassed if he ever told us.
Click to expand...
Yep,

We got, a wiki link with arguments for and against the existence of god. He obviously wanted up to do the editing on his behalf.

He cannot see cells forming from “the goo” therefore god.

Look at the universe, how did it begin therefore god, a variation of the look at the trees argument.

Unfortunately for Trek he was not aware that:

Some (probably not consensus- I do not want to over sell it)Modern cosmologists think the universe is eternal.

At least two cyclic models give eternal universes (Penrose CCC, Turok Cyclic universe)

No creation ego no creator required.

He still has the goo though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top