That's really weird that you should say they are subjective given the fact that you keep putting yourself down for The Seven Things. Let's put you down for them again, shall we?
Putty Hollie Down for The Seven Things
These are The Seven Thingsâ„¢ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10193696/.
1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.
2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.
Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?
3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.
4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:
And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].
. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness".
Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.
Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.
5. Of course the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.
6. Now, though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not. So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:
We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered.
Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.
Got, Hollie?
But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the first six, which means. . . .
7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.
No one escapes The Seven Things.
It has not yet been proven scientifically that a god is needed to make the universe. Now you know.The God Axiom is total malarkey. Just thought you should know.
That's Really Weird Too
You're full of malarkey. We both know you can't refute it. Its a scientific fact of human psychology. You're barking at the moon.
If you want to haggle over whether or not it ultimately or transcendently holds true, see Post #895 addressed to Delta4Embassy; otherwise, provide a link of a peer-reviewed, experimentally verified body of evidence that this axiom has been overthrown by a resolution to the problems of existence and origin, i.e., (1) that either your materialistic metaphysics are true or (2) that something can arise from nothing.
Got
. . . that's what I thought.
It has not yet been proven scientifically that a god is needed to make the universe. Now you know.The God Axiom is total malarkey. Just thought you should know.
That's Really Weird Too
You're full of malarkey. We both know you can't refute it. Its a scientific fact of human psychology. You're barking at the moon.
If you want to haggle over whether or not it ultimately or transcendently holds true, see Post #895 addressed to Delta4Embassy; otherwise, provide a link of a peer-reviewed, experimentally verified body of evidence that this axiom has been overthrown by a resolution to the problems of existence and origin, i.e., (1) that either your materialistic metaphysics are true or (2) that something can arise from nothing.
Got
. . . that's what I thought.
Plus, god can't be solely rationalized through a load of mumbo-jumbo. You still need real proof.
I'm not an Atheist, I'm agnostic as I see no real proof either way for or against the existence of a god. it's the only rational position to hold, as theists and atheists are deluded, and have no proof of their position. No proof, just like you. Your "fact of human psychology" is irrelevant to having actual proof that your god exists. Please try again.It has not yet been proven scientifically that a god is needed to make the universe. Now you know.The God Axiom is total malarkey. Just thought you should know.
That's Really Weird Too
You're full of malarkey. We both know you can't refute it. Its a scientific fact of human psychology. You're barking at the moon.
If you want to haggle over whether or not it ultimately or transcendently holds true, see Post #895 addressed to Delta4Embassy; otherwise, provide a link of a peer-reviewed, experimentally verified body of evidence that this axiom has been overthrown by a resolution to the problems of existence and origin, i.e., (1) that either your materialistic metaphysics are true or (2) that something can arise from nothing.
Got
. . . that's what I thought.
Plus, god can't be solely rationalized through a load of mumbo-jumbo. You still need real proof.
Taz Affirms the OP's Charge Regarding the Character and the Quality of Intellect of the Typical Atheist (or Materialistic Pantheist) on this Forum
Precisely! You have no link. There's no such thing as a scientific affirmation for the metaphysics of atheism, materialism or ontological naturalism, is there? And unlike the fact of the formal proofs for God's existence in organic/classical logic, modal logic and propositional logic, there are no formal proofs for these things in any form of logic whatsoever!
The fact of the matter is that atheism has never stood on any foundation but sheer, blind faith. It has no rational or empirical support whatsoever. Indeed, it is paradoxical at best, the mindless baby talk of irrationalists.
I did not argue that the substance of God has been scientifically verified or falsified; I argued the opposite. Only an incredibly stupid, dishonest or childish person would imply or claim otherwise. The fact that you default to such a straw man is pathetic.
Further, proven/proof are non-standard terms for science. Meaningless. Science does not prove or disprove things, you pseudoscientific bumpkin. Logic is used to prove or disprove things, while science is used to tentatively verify or falsify things.
Real proof?! You mean scientific verification. Science is methodology, not agency. Science is ontologically and epistemologically secondary, not primary. Science cannot address the strictly rational problems of transcendental phenomena, metaphysical a priorities, metaphysical delineation and definition, the prescriptive standards for formal logic, the descriptive standards for science, or the formal standards for justified true belief/knowledge. The science of logic, the philosophy of science and theology address these problems.
Behold what the epistemological relativism of materialistic, leftist academia and popular culture, in general, and what the new atheism, in particular, have done to the disciplines of logic, theology, philosophy and science for so many. They have filled their heads with mush.
Bottom line: The God axiom is a scientific fact of human psychology, and the logic thereof proves that God must be; as for atheism, materialism or ontological naturalism—there are no logical or scientific supports for any of them. None!
The OP regarding the character and the quality of intellect of the typical atheist on this forum has been affirmed over and over again on this thread.
Actually, no. What has been affirmed is the danger that religious fanaticism poses. It's a poisoning of the mind and a retreat into the dark places of fear, ignorance and superstition.It has not yet been proven scientifically that a god is needed to make the universe. Now you know.The God Axiom is total malarkey. Just thought you should know.
That's Really Weird Too
You're full of malarkey. We both know you can't refute it. Its a scientific fact of human psychology. You're barking at the moon.
If you want to haggle over whether or not it ultimately or transcendently holds true, see Post #895 addressed to Delta4Embassy; otherwise, provide a link of a peer-reviewed, experimentally verified body of evidence that this axiom has been overthrown by a resolution to the problems of existence and origin, i.e., (1) that either your materialistic metaphysics are true or (2) that something can arise from nothing.
Got
. . . that's what I thought.
Plus, god can't be solely rationalized through a load of mumbo-jumbo. You still need real proof.
Taz Affirms the OP's Charge Regarding the Character and the Quality of Intellect of the Typical Atheist (or Materialistic Pantheist) on this Forum
Precisely! You have no link. There's no such thing as a scientific affirmation for the metaphysics of atheism, materialism or ontological naturalism, is there? And unlike the fact of the formal proofs for God's existence in organic/classical logic, modal logic and propositional logic, there are no formal proofs for these things in any form of logic whatsoever!
The fact of the matter is that atheism has never stood on any foundation but sheer, blind faith. It has no rational or empirical support whatsoever. Indeed, it is paradoxical at best, the mindless baby talk of irrationalists.
I did not argue that the substance of God has been scientifically verified or falsified; I argued the opposite. Only an incredibly stupid, dishonest or childish person would imply or claim otherwise.
The fact that you default to such a straw-man tactics is beyond pathetic. What is the psychology of one who lies to himself in this manner, rather than face the truth about his ideology? It is sick, cowardly and sociopathic.
Further, proven/proof are non-standard terms for science. Meaningless. Science does not prove or disprove things, you pseudoscientific bumpkin. Logic is used to prove or disprove things, while science is used to tentatively verify or falsify things.
Real proof?! You mean scientific verification. Science is methodology, not agency. Science is ontologically and epistemologically secondary, not primary. Science cannot address the strictly rational problems of transcendental phenomena, metaphysical a priorities, metaphysical delineation and definition, the prescriptive standards for formal logic, the descriptive standards for science, or the formal standards for justified true belief/knowledge. The science of logic, the philosophy of science and theology address these problems.
Behold what the epistemological relativism of materialistic, leftist academia and popular culture, in general, and what the new atheism, in particular, have done to the disciplines of logic, theology, philosophy and science for so many. They have filled their heads with mush, and tragically there are even traditional theists on this thread who have been taken in by the rubbish incessantly pumped into their heads by popular culture, causing even them to parrot the nonsense that there exists no evidence or proofs for God's existence, when in fact the evidence for God's existence is everywhere; the logical proofs for God's existence, self-evident. Indeed, God's fingerprints are all over the universe and the minds of the rational-moral agents thereof.
Bottom line: The God axiom is a scientific fact of human psychology, and the logic thereof proves that God must be; as for atheism, materialism or ontological naturalism—there are no logical or scientific supports for any of them. None!
The OP regarding the character and the quality of intellect of the typical atheist on this forum has been affirmed over and over again on this thread.
That's really weird that you should say they are subjective given the fact that you keep putting yourself down for The Seven Things. Let's put you down for them again, shall we?
Putty Hollie Down for The Seven Things
These are The Seven Thingsâ„¢ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10193696/.
1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.
2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.
Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?
3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.
4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:
And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].
. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness".
Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.
Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.
5. Of course the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.
6. Now, though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not. So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:
We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered.
Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.
Got
But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the first six, which means. . . .
7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.
No one escapes The Seven Things.
Everyone escapes the The Seven Fraudulent Thingsâ„¢
Here again, we have the most prolific spammer on the board cutting and pasting his nonsense posts across multiple threads.
M. Pompous Rawling concedes to the fraud of the Five, no wait, It's now Seven Fraudulent Thingsâ„¢
Actually, no. What has been affirmed is the danger that religious fanaticism poses. It's a poisoning of the mind and a retreat into the dark places of fear, ignorance and superstition.It has not yet been proven scientifically that a god is needed to make the universe. Now you know.The God Axiom is total malarkey. Just thought you should know.
That's Really Weird Too
You're full of malarkey. We both know you can't refute it. Its a scientific fact of human psychology. You're barking at the moon.
If you want to haggle over whether or not it ultimately or transcendently holds true, see Post #895 addressed to Delta4Embassy; otherwise, provide a link of a peer-reviewed, experimentally verified body of evidence that this axiom has been overthrown by a resolution to the problems of existence and origin, i.e., (1) that either your materialistic metaphysics are true or (2) that something can arise from nothing.
Got
. . . that's what I thought.
Plus, god can't be solely rationalized through a load of mumbo-jumbo. You still need real proof.
Taz Affirms the OP's Charge Regarding the Character and the Quality of Intellect of the Typical Atheist (or Materialistic Pantheist) on this Forum
Precisely! You have no link. There's no such thing as a scientific affirmation for the metaphysics of atheism, materialism or ontological naturalism, is there? And unlike the fact of the formal proofs for God's existence in organic/classical logic, modal logic and propositional logic, there are no formal proofs for these things in any form of logic whatsoever!
The fact of the matter is that atheism has never stood on any foundation but sheer, blind faith. It has no rational or empirical support whatsoever. Indeed, it is paradoxical at best, the mindless baby talk of irrationalists.
I did not argue that the substance of God has been scientifically verified or falsified; I argued the opposite. Only an incredibly stupid, dishonest or childish person would imply or claim otherwise.
The fact that you default to such a straw-man tactics is beyond pathetic. What is the psychology of one who lies to himself in this manner, rather than face the truth about his ideology? It is sick, cowardly and sociopathic.
Further, proven/proof are non-standard terms for science. Meaningless. Science does not prove or disprove things, you pseudoscientific bumpkin. Logic is used to prove or disprove things, while science is used to tentatively verify or falsify things.
Real proof?! You mean scientific verification. Science is methodology, not agency. Science is ontologically and epistemologically secondary, not primary. Science cannot address the strictly rational problems of transcendental phenomena, metaphysical a priorities, metaphysical delineation and definition, the prescriptive standards for formal logic, the descriptive standards for science, or the formal standards for justified true belief/knowledge. The science of logic, the philosophy of science and theology address these problems.
Behold what the epistemological relativism of materialistic, leftist academia and popular culture, in general, and what the new atheism, in particular, have done to the disciplines of logic, theology, philosophy and science for so many. They have filled their heads with mush, and tragically there are even traditional theists on this thread who have been taken in by the rubbish incessantly pumped into their heads by popular culture, causing even them to parrot the nonsense that there exists no evidence or proofs for God's existence, when in fact the evidence for God's existence is everywhere; the logical proofs for God's existence, self-evident. Indeed, God's fingerprints are all over the universe and the minds of the rational-moral agents thereof.
Bottom line: The God axiom is a scientific fact of human psychology, and the logic thereof proves that God must be; as for atheism, materialism or ontological naturalism—there are no logical or scientific supports for any of them. None!
The OP regarding the character and the quality of intellect of the typical atheist on this forum has been affirmed over and over again on this thread.
Actually, no. What has been affirmed is the danger that religious fanaticism poses. It's a poisoning of the mind and a retreat into the dark places of fear, ignorance and superstition.It has not yet been proven scientifically that a god is needed to make the universe. Now you know.The God Axiom is total malarkey. Just thought you should know.
That's Really Weird Too
You're full of malarkey. We both know you can't refute it. Its a scientific fact of human psychology. You're barking at the moon.
If you want to haggle over whether or not it ultimately or transcendently holds true, see Post #895 addressed to Delta4Embassy; otherwise, provide a link of a peer-reviewed, experimentally verified body of evidence that this axiom has been overthrown by a resolution to the problems of existence and origin, i.e., (1) that either your materialistic metaphysics are true or (2) that something can arise from nothing.
Got
. . . that's what I thought.
Plus, god can't be solely rationalized through a load of mumbo-jumbo. You still need real proof.
Taz Affirms the OP's Charge Regarding the Character and the Quality of Intellect of the Typical Atheist (or Materialistic Pantheist) on this Forum
Precisely! You have no link. There's no such thing as a scientific affirmation for the metaphysics of atheism, materialism or ontological naturalism, is there? And unlike the fact of the formal proofs for God's existence in organic/classical logic, modal logic and propositional logic, there are no formal proofs for these things in any form of logic whatsoever!
The fact of the matter is that atheism has never stood on any foundation but sheer, blind faith. It has no rational or empirical support whatsoever. Indeed, it is paradoxical at best, the mindless baby talk of irrationalists.
I did not argue that the substance of God has been scientifically verified or falsified; I argued the opposite. Only an incredibly stupid, dishonest or childish person would imply or claim otherwise.
The fact that you default to such a straw-man tactics is beyond pathetic. What is the psychology of one who lies to himself in this manner, rather than face the truth about his ideology? It is sick, cowardly and sociopathic.
Further, proven/proof are non-standard terms for science. Meaningless. Science does not prove or disprove things, you pseudoscientific bumpkin. Logic is used to prove or disprove things, while science is used to tentatively verify or falsify things.
Real proof?! You mean scientific verification. Science is methodology, not agency. Science is ontologically and epistemologically secondary, not primary. Science cannot address the strictly rational problems of transcendental phenomena, metaphysical a priorities, metaphysical delineation and definition, the prescriptive standards for formal logic, the descriptive standards for science, or the formal standards for justified true belief/knowledge. The science of logic, the philosophy of science and theology address these problems.
Behold what the epistemological relativism of materialistic, leftist academia and popular culture, in general, and what the new atheism, in particular, have done to the disciplines of logic, theology, philosophy and science for so many. They have filled their heads with mush, and tragically there are even traditional theists on this thread who have been taken in by the rubbish incessantly pumped into their heads by popular culture, causing even them to parrot the nonsense that there exists no evidence or proofs for God's existence, when in fact the evidence for God's existence is everywhere; the logical proofs for God's existence, self-evident. Indeed, God's fingerprints are all over the universe and the minds of the rational-moral agents thereof.
Bottom line: The God axiom is a scientific fact of human psychology, and the logic thereof proves that God must be; as for atheism, materialism or ontological naturalism—there are no logical or scientific supports for any of them. None!
The OP regarding the character and the quality of intellect of the typical atheist on this forum has been affirmed over and over again on this thread.
Romans 1: 18 - 22:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . .
Was thinking more of rain as mentioned in certain prayers and life sustaining stuff like that.
"And it shall come to pass if you surely listen to the commandments
that I command you today
to love the Lord your God and to serve him with all your heart and all your soul,
That I will give rain to your land, the early and the late rains,
that you may gather in your grain, your wine and your oil.
And I will give grass in your fields for your cattle and you will eat and you will be satisfied."
- Jewish shema recited daily (except on the Sabbath.)
So how did Noah get kangaroos from Australia to his boat and back again?Actually, no. What has been affirmed is the danger that religious fanaticism poses. It's a poisoning of the mind and a retreat into the dark places of fear, ignorance and superstition.It has not yet been proven scientifically that a god is needed to make the universe. Now you know.The God Axiom is total malarkey. Just thought you should know.
That's Really Weird Too
You're full of malarkey. We both know you can't refute it. Its a scientific fact of human psychology. You're barking at the moon.
If you want to haggle over whether or not it ultimately or transcendently holds true, see Post #895 addressed to Delta4Embassy; otherwise, provide a link of a peer-reviewed, experimentally verified body of evidence that this axiom has been overthrown by a resolution to the problems of existence and origin, i.e., (1) that either your materialistic metaphysics are true or (2) that something can arise from nothing.
Got
. . . that's what I thought.
Plus, god can't be solely rationalized through a load of mumbo-jumbo. You still need real proof.
Taz Affirms the OP's Charge Regarding the Character and the Quality of Intellect of the Typical Atheist (or Materialistic Pantheist) on this Forum
Precisely! You have no link. There's no such thing as a scientific affirmation for the metaphysics of atheism, materialism or ontological naturalism, is there? And unlike the fact of the formal proofs for God's existence in organic/classical logic, modal logic and propositional logic, there are no formal proofs for these things in any form of logic whatsoever!
The fact of the matter is that atheism has never stood on any foundation but sheer, blind faith. It has no rational or empirical support whatsoever. Indeed, it is paradoxical at best, the mindless baby talk of irrationalists.
I did not argue that the substance of God has been scientifically verified or falsified; I argued the opposite. Only an incredibly stupid, dishonest or childish person would imply or claim otherwise.
The fact that you default to such a straw-man tactics is beyond pathetic. What is the psychology of one who lies to himself in this manner, rather than face the truth about his ideology? It is sick, cowardly and sociopathic.
Further, proven/proof are non-standard terms for science. Meaningless. Science does not prove or disprove things, you pseudoscientific bumpkin. Logic is used to prove or disprove things, while science is used to tentatively verify or falsify things.
Real proof?! You mean scientific verification. Science is methodology, not agency. Science is ontologically and epistemologically secondary, not primary. Science cannot address the strictly rational problems of transcendental phenomena, metaphysical a priorities, metaphysical delineation and definition, the prescriptive standards for formal logic, the descriptive standards for science, or the formal standards for justified true belief/knowledge. The science of logic, the philosophy of science and theology address these problems.
Behold what the epistemological relativism of materialistic, leftist academia and popular culture, in general, and what the new atheism, in particular, have done to the disciplines of logic, theology, philosophy and science for so many. They have filled their heads with mush, and tragically there are even traditional theists on this thread who have been taken in by the rubbish incessantly pumped into their heads by popular culture, causing even them to parrot the nonsense that there exists no evidence or proofs for God's existence, when in fact the evidence for God's existence is everywhere; the logical proofs for God's existence, self-evident. Indeed, God's fingerprints are all over the universe and the minds of the rational-moral agents thereof.
Bottom line: The God axiom is a scientific fact of human psychology, and the logic thereof proves that God must be; as for atheism, materialism or ontological naturalism—there are no logical or scientific supports for any of them. None!
The OP regarding the character and the quality of intellect of the typical atheist on this forum has been affirmed over and over again on this thread.
Romans 1: 18 - 22:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . .
