Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

It's Important that we have heroes such as yourself who are courageous enough to take on those atheistic evilutionist scientists and expose their conspiracies.

There are more than you know like me that are speaking out.

It's all a grand conspiracy! It must be the DEVIL! Nevermind that god would have endowed us with the capacity to reason and now he wants us to ignore that capacity! What a great and honest god to have done so!

YWC, you're position is a bunch of bollocks.

Np, when assumptions and explanations are wrong at the beginning the assumptions and explanations are gonna be wrong at the end.

 

[newpolitics]

There are more than you know like me that are speaking out.

It's all a grand conspiracy! It must be the DEVIL! Nevermind that god would have endowed us with the capacity to reason and now he wants us to ignore that capacity! What a great and honest god to have done so!

YWC, you're position is a bunch of bollocks.

Np, when assumptions and explanations are wrong at the beginning the assumptions and explanations are gonna be wrong at the end.

You're absolutely right. By this fact, your belief in the bible as a literal document is completely unsupported by anything exterior to the bible, making any arguments for literalism or young-earth creationism on which it is based, circular.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's Important that we have heroes such as yourself who are courageous enough to take on those atheistic evilutionist scientists and expose their conspiracies.

There are more than you know like me that are speaking out.

Yes there are. An important strategy would be to configure a major coup whereby converting Harun Yahya to christianity would provide a powerful ally in the fight against atheistic evilutionist scientists.

I would think that you would be an appropriate person to take the lead in that effort. Rank has its privileges and you could rise to General of The Crusaders, Conversion Brigade, Division of the Religiously Insane.

I don't care who restores integrity in the various fields of science but it has to be done.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's all a grand conspiracy! It must be the DEVIL! Nevermind that god would have endowed us with the capacity to reason and now he wants us to ignore that capacity! What a great and honest god to have done so!

YWC, you're position is a bunch of bollocks.

Np, when assumptions and explanations are wrong at the beginning the assumptions and explanations are gonna be wrong at the end.

You're absolutely right. What's your point? By this fact, your belief in the bible as a literal document is completely unsupported by anything exterior to the bible.

The bible had nothing to do with what we were discussing you and hollie are bringing it up.

 

[Hollie]

There are more than you know like me that are speaking out.

Yes there are. An important strategy would be to configure a major coup whereby converting Harun Yahya to christianity would provide a powerful ally in the fight against atheistic evilutionist scientists.

I would think that you would be an appropriate person to take the lead in that effort. Rank has its privileges and you could rise to General of The Crusaders, Conversion Brigade, Division of the Religiously Insane.

I don't care who restores integrity in the various fields of science but it has to be done.

And Christian fundamentalists are just the folks to do that.

Have you ever heard of the "Dark Ages"?

 

[newpolitics]

The argument from popularity, on which the OP is entirely premised, is a logical fallacy. Again, simply because X amount of people believe Y to be true, does not make Y true, under any conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so...

The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown,the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.

There is the problem of determining just how many are needed to have a majority or consensus. Is merely greater than 50% significant enough and why? Should the percentage be larger, such as 80 or 90 percent, and how does that make a real difference? Is there real consensus if there are one or even two people who have a different claim that is proven to be true?

It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A, this argument fails, because if opinion did determine truth, then there be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A.However small the percentage of those polled is distributed among any remaining answers, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.

This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one's community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.

One who commits this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviors. This is often not the case (see conformity).

The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 90% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also prefer that brand, and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other...


One could claim that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions of people do it. However, knowing the dangers of smoking, we instead say that smoking is not a healthy pastime despite the fact that millions do it.

One could claim Angelina Jolie is the best-looking woman in the world, because she is regularly voted as such, although the sample she is part of (celebrities) is insufficient, and ideals of beauty are arguably culturally determined and thus arbitrary to a significant degree. For instance, overweight bodies have been considered more beautiful in some cultures (such as Mauritania) because only the wealthy could afford to eat enough to become overweight or obese. By contrast, contemporary high fashion generally involves women who have been criticized for eating too much.

At a time in history when most people believed the world was flat, one could have claimed the world is flat because most believed it.

Advocates of heliocentrism, such as Galileo Galilei were strongly suppressed, despite scientific evidence, now recognized as factual, that supported heliocentrism at the expense of geocentrism.

Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true. In some domains, however, it is popularity rather than other strengths that makes a choice the preferred one, for reasons related to network effects.

 

[Hollie]

Np, when assumptions and explanations are wrong at the beginning the assumptions and explanations are gonna be wrong at the end.

You're absolutely right. What's your point? By this fact, your belief in the bible as a literal document is completely unsupported by anything exterior to the bible.

The bible had nothing to do with what we were discussing you and hollie are bringing it up.

It must be brought up. The bibles are the core of knowledge. What better source to refute atheistic evilutionist scientists than with the bibles?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes there are. An important strategy would be to configure a major coup whereby converting Harun Yahya to christianity would provide a powerful ally in the fight against atheistic evilutionist scientists.

I would think that you would be an appropriate person to take the lead in that effort. Rank has its privileges and you could rise to General of The Crusaders, Conversion Brigade, Division of the Religiously Insane.

I don't care who restores integrity in the various fields of science but it has to be done.

And Christian fundamentalists are just the folks to do that.

Have you ever heard of the "Dark Ages"?

No I am perfectly fine with both sides honestly working together for truth. The science community when they suspect a fraud they should make it known it is a fraud.

The Church will never ever be in control like it once was. It's funny you guys argue doctrine you say how superior the catholic church is and there was a reason why many Christians broke off from them. I don't mean to offend Catholics but they drove many believers away.

I have never been a fan of organized religion for many reasons. God apparently feels the same way because he never built a religion only man has.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're absolutely right. What's your point? By this fact, your belief in the bible as a literal document is completely unsupported by anything exterior to the bible.

The bible had nothing to do with what we were discussing you and hollie are bringing it up.

It must be brought up. The bibles are the core of knowledge. What better source to refute atheistic evilutionist scientists than with the bibles?

Hollie I never said that now did I ?

 

[newpolitics]

Np, when assumptions and explanations are wrong at the beginning the assumptions and explanations are gonna be wrong at the end.

You're absolutely right. What's your point? By this fact, your belief in the bible as a literal document is completely unsupported by anything exterior to the bible.

The bible had nothing to do with what we were discussing you and hollie are bringing it up.

Then why are you bringing up assumptions with regards to me? I am merely responding to the OP, which is chalk full of assumptions. You have no idea what my assumptions are. You merely assume.

The dishonesty with you is your inability to see your own bias here. You agree with the conclusion of the OP, that god exists, so simply assume that the argumentation and methods of inference are correct, when they are not. This assumption is a false one.

 

[Hollie]

I don't care who restores integrity in the various fields of science but it has to be done.

And Christian fundamentalists are just the folks to do that.

Have you ever heard of the "Dark Ages"?

No I am perfectly fine with both sides honestly working together for truth. The science community when they suspect a fraud they should make it known it is a fraud.

The Church will never ever be in control like it once was. It's funny you guys argue doctrine you say how superior the catholic church is and there was a reason why many Christians broke off from them. I don't mean to offend Catholics but they drove many believers away.

I have never been a fan of organized religion for many reasons. God apparently feels the same way because he never built a religion only man has.

Well, yes, we can always rely on christian fundies to be honest and objective:


"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."

- Henry Morris President, Institute for Creation Research

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're absolutely right. What's your point? By this fact, your belief in the bible as a literal document is completely unsupported by anything exterior to the bible.

The bible had nothing to do with what we were discussing you and hollie are bringing it up.

Then why are you bringing up assumptions with regards to me? I am merely responding to the OP, which is chalk full of assumptions. You have no idea what my assumptions are. You merely assume.

The dishonesty with you is your inability to see your own bias here. You agree with the conclusion of the OP, that god exists, so simply assume that the argumentation and methods of inference are correct, when they are not. This assumption is a false one.

I think he makes valid points I don't agree with everything he states as you can see I have given my opinions on this with him.

He believes God Exists as do I but he is not willing to say God is a personal God and that is where we part ways.

You see you need physical evidence to believe in God but you don't need physical evidence to believe naturalism is the cause of all we see. These explanations of naturalism are only opinions not physical evidence.

 

[Hollie]

The bible had nothing to do with what we were discussing you and hollie are bringing it up.

It must be brought up. The bibles are the core of knowledge. What better source to refute atheistic evilutionist scientists than with the bibles?

Hollie I never said that now did I ?

Your posts are literally drenched in, and reek of biblical literalism.

Tell us again your position on the biblical account of creation vs. an ancient universe and planet earth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And Christian fundamentalists are just the folks to do that.

Have you ever heard of the "Dark Ages"?

No I am perfectly fine with both sides honestly working together for truth. The science community when they suspect a fraud they should make it known it is a fraud.

The Church will never ever be in control like it once was. It's funny you guys argue doctrine you say how superior the catholic church is and there was a reason why many Christians broke off from them. I don't mean to offend Catholics but they drove many believers away.

I have never been a fan of organized religion for many reasons. God apparently feels the same way because he never built a religion only man has.

Well, yes, we can always rely on christian fundies to be honest and objective:


"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."

- Henry Morris President, Institute for Creation Research

Presuppositions are a hard thing to fight off when you're looking at evidence. That is true and the same can be said for naturalism but it should be only the evidence to see which explanation best fits the evidence after all is that not what science is ?

That is why I pointed out what I did earlier the evidence your side creates does not fit the theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It must be brought up. The bibles are the core of knowledge. What better source to refute atheistic evilutionist scientists than with the bibles?

Hollie I never said that now did I ?

Your posts are literally drenched in, and reek of biblical literalism.

Tell us again your position on the biblical account of creation vs. an ancient universe and planet earth.

I have told you many times before I have no clue how old the earth is and it is futile do to so.

 

[Hollie]

No I am perfectly fine with both sides honestly working together for truth. The science community when they suspect a fraud they should make it known it is a fraud.

The Church will never ever be in control like it once was. It's funny you guys argue doctrine you say how superior the catholic church is and there was a reason why many Christians broke off from them. I don't mean to offend Catholics but they drove many believers away.

I have never been a fan of organized religion for many reasons. God apparently feels the same way because he never built a religion only man has.

Well, yes, we can always rely on christian fundies to be honest and objective:


"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."

- Henry Morris President, Institute for Creation Research

Presuppositions are a hard thing to fight off when you're looking at evidence. That is true and the same can be said for naturalism but it should be only the evidence to see which explanation best fits the evidence after all is that not what science is ?

That is why I pointed out what I did earlier the evidence your side creates does not fit the theory.

So, I suppose we're back to you insisting that atheistic evilutionist scientists are either wrong, deluded or conspiring to further a conspiracy regarding the many fields of science that point to an ancient universe.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie I never said that now did I ?

Your posts are literally drenched in, and reek of biblical literalism.

Tell us again your position on the biblical account of creation vs. an ancient universe and planet earth.

I have told you many times before I have no clue how old the earth is and it is futile do to so.

You have written previously that you believe the planet is somewhere between 6k and 14k years old.

Do you want syrup with that waffle?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, yes, we can always rely on christian fundies to be honest and objective:


"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."

- Henry Morris President, Institute for Creation Research

Presuppositions are a hard thing to fight off when you're looking at evidence. That is true and the same can be said for naturalism but it should be only the evidence to see which explanation best fits the evidence after all is that not what science is ?

That is why I pointed out what I did earlier the evidence your side creates does not fit the theory.

So, I suppose we're back to you insisting that atheistic evilutionist scientists are either wrong, deluded or conspiring to further a conspiracy regarding the many fields of science that point to an ancient universe.

I believe some are working towards their Ideological views and others are simply victims of their presuppositions. I would not say it is a conspiracy and I know why you and NP are trying to promote that appearance. If you want to continue this discussion focus on the evidence not personal attacks shall we ?

 

[newpolitics]

The bible had nothing to do with what we were discussing you and hollie are bringing it up.

Then why are you bringing up assumptions with regards to me? I am merely responding to the OP, which is chalk full of assumptions. You have no idea what my assumptions are. You merely assume.

The dishonesty with you is your inability to see your own bias here. You agree with the conclusion of the OP, that god exists, so simply assume that the argumentation and methods of inference are correct, when they are not. This assumption is a false one.

I think he makes valid points I don't agree with everything he states as you can see I have given my opinions on this with him.

He believes God Exists as do I but he is not willing to say God is a personal God and that is where we part ways.

You see you need physical evidence to believe in God but you don't need physical evidence to believe naturalism is the cause of all we see. These explanations of naturalism are only opinions not physical evidence.

I don't claim that naturalism is all there possibly is. I however, am not justified in believing in any more, given a lack of evidence. My belief is proportional to the evidence, as best as possible, using bayesian inference. This is the essence of skepticism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your posts are literally drenched in, and reek of biblical literalism.

Tell us again your position on the biblical account of creation vs. an ancient universe and planet earth.

I have told you many times before I have no clue how old the earth is and it is futile do to so.

You have written previously that you believe the planet is somewhere between 6k and 14k years old.

Do you want syrup with that waffle?

Hollie I have written that mostly because of the evidence that suggest a younger earth over the Ancient earth. I am a believer so the bible does provide a chronology from Adam on down to the present but it does not provide a definite time frame for the earth.