How to prove God.

[F1fan]

Then why do you think most people believe in God?

I've explained the science behind this. Why aren't you satisfied with what science says about this human behavior?

 

[Truthseeker]

Being an objective thinker isn't about claiming a person doesn't;t have bias, it is about learning skilled thinking and how to set aside bias and examine evidence and claims with the tools of reason and logic. It also helps to have a good working knowledge of science, or at least how to reference credible science sources. This is what makes an objective thinker, looking for facts and truth.

Okay, I try to do that myself. I don't see Trailblazer as being illogical especially. I have had times myself where we couldn't agree. I don't know about your discussions with her, what was said back and forth. So I have no idea why see each other as illogical.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've explained the science behind this. Why aren't you satisfied with what science says about this human behavior?

I do not believe science can explain why people believe in God since science cannot explain everything about human behavior. There is a spiritual component science cannot address.

I agree with what Truthseeker9 said, most people believe in the religion they are brought up in or something like it. That is why most people believe in God.

 

[F1fan]

Okay, I try to do that myself. I don't see Trailblazer as being illogical especially. I have had times myself where we couldn't agree. I don't know about your discussions with her, what was said back and forth. So I have no idea why see each other as illogical.

If you read the back and forth with numerous atheists you'll see them point out the lack of logic. Making false claims is itself illogical. The vast majority of statements she makes are false claims. Many of these comments seem benign, like referring to what God wants or does or requires, etc. These have to be called out as false and unsubstantiated claims. Theists often try to state their beliefs as if they can smuggle them into a discussion and thus "prove" their God exists by implication.

Theists either aren't self-aware enough to realize what they're doing, or committing some sort of debate fraud. Either way it gets called out.

 

[F1fan]

I do not believe science can explain why people believe in God since science cannot explain everything about human behavior. There is a spiritual component science cannot address.

And this is an excellent example that I can point out to Truthseeker9 as to why your investigation was flawed, incomplete, and biased. You can't find truth by rejecting science when it goes against what you want to believe. If your view of truth has to reject science then it's likely your truth isn't true.

I agree with what Truthseeker9 said, most people believe in the religion they are brought up in or something like it. That is why most people believe in God.

That is part of what science states, and you just said you reject it.

This is why I advise you to learn and educate yourself on science so you can make better choices and decisions.

 

[Truthseeker]

And this is an excellent example that I can point out to Truthseeker9 as to why your investigation was flawed, incomplete, and biased. You can't find truth by rejecting science when it goes against what you want to believe. If your view of truth has to reject science then it's likely your truth isn't true.

She said science can't explain everything. That definitely is not rejecting science. Who's being flawed in logic? Who's distorting the truth?

 

[Trailblazer]

And this is an excellent example that I can point out to Truthseeker9 as to why your investigation was flawed, incomplete, and biased. You can't find truth by rejecting science when it goes against what you want to believe. If your view of truth has to reject science then it's likely your truth isn't true.

That is part of what science states, and you just said you reject it.

This is why I advise you to learn and educate yourself on science so you can make better choices and decisions.

I never said I reject science, you said I reject science, as if you know me better than I know myself. You do not know me, all you know how to do is criticize me. I did not need to get a degree in Masters degree in psychology to know why people do that. You have to somehow discredit me so you can believe that I am wrong about God and my religion. That way you can easily dispense with what I believe and feel confident that you were right after all.

Instead of engaging in a reasoned discussion about the actual subject matter at hand you talk about me and everything I am doing wrong. People who are confident can hold their ground in a discussion without having to resort to personal criticism. I have been having a ongoing discussion with another atheist on this forum for months. We disagree about most things we are discussing but he never got personal and told me how I think, how I feel, how I investigated my beliefs or why I believe in God or my religion. That demonstrates a lack of personal boundaries as well as a lack of respect for another person.

 

[rational experiences]

We are all humans.
Two human parents had sex. We are babies to adults have sex new babies born parents eventually die.

Science human first observation what you see first is natural.

Basic human rationale and human common sense.

If you use the word advice in a topic of human conversation the meaning first is human. Then deformed human are stated as a lesser human.

As the highest self human for human advice. In the sciences.

O planet stone has to exist stated first body in science rationally. No stone no human. O planet supports humans existence.

That status conscious advice human says is now a contradiction.

As a human is not stone nor a planet.

Being a human versus one God teaching. Earth being our God.

Is not irrational human advice.
Irrational human advice is to claim what a planet wasn't.

As when earth never existed as you use earth as your human reference inferring it's contradiction in thought as no longer existing. When it does exist.

In science this type of human theist was termed a liar and not rationally a truthful theist.

Why scientists found themselves in jail conferred to be a logical criminal assertion about the human in theism and life's attack destruction assessment. Applied by humans living on God planet earth.

Proven God. Planet earth.

Stone present released its stone gases to create its stone gas heavens. Not one God as not the first term stated statement God.

God status. God only owned the immaculate heavens. As a God body a planet in space.

God status. Earth was attacked converted by the sun. Gases now burning the teaching light only.

Past science status science. Evolution in science for science as science was stated by a living human to be cooling changes to gas mass.

In a voiding vacuum. Status science.

Reason of intent.

Biological science is discussed seen and observed by humans for humans as human expressed science.

Never owned any evolution thesis. Why science as an Intelligent human owning our biology stated it was lying as a human condition the ego. To claim an evolution thesis.

Status proven. Take a cell of any body. Clone it. It produces it's own baby. Status whole history of a present cell being just a cell owned by its two parents produces two babies.

Why God sciences as science said you cannot argue against God in science otherwise you remove natural presence. Correct biological medical healer advice as a human overseeing nature's health and human life support..

So the intent don't argue against a God scientist was factual personally as a human as there is no argument about self living and self dying. Humans.

Actually.

 

[F1fan]

She said science can't explain everything. That definitely is not rejecting science. Who's being flawed in logic? Who's distorting the truth?

She is. She wrote this:

"I do not believe science can explain why people believe in God since science cannot explain everything about human behavior. There is a spiritual component science cannot address."

"I don not believe science" means something. Then it's followed by the false claim "There is a spiritual component". This is irrational. Rejecting science because of a false belief is irrational. Objective thinkers will recognize the false idea of there being a "spiritual component" and examine religious belief and behavior via facts.

Does this clear it up?

 

[F1fan]

I never said I reject science, you said I reject science, as if you know me better than I know myself. You do not know me, all you know how to do is criticize me. I did not need to get a degree in Masters degree in psychology to know why people do that. You have to somehow discredit me so you can believe that I am wrong about God and my religion. That way you can easily dispense with what I believe and feel confident that you were right after all.

Instead of engaging in a reasoned discussion about the actual subject matter at hand you talk about me and everything I am doing wrong. People who are confident can hold their ground in a discussion without having to resort to personal criticism. I have been having a ongoing discussion with another atheist on this forum for months. We disagree about most things we are discussing but he never got personal and told me how I think, how I feel, how I investigated my beliefs or why I believe in God or my religion. That demonstrates a lack of personal boundaries as well as a lack of respect for another person.

Look at my previous response. It's apparent you like your religious view, and you like being on this forum, but you work hard to navigate around facts, and can't discern your false beliefs from facts. That's why your arguments and claims fail logically.

This insult fellowship where your assumptions and beliefs are assumed correct. this is debate among diverse people.

 

[Trailblazer]

She is. She wrote this:

"I do not believe science can explain why people believe in God since science cannot explain everything about human behavior. There is a spiritual component science cannot address."

"I don not believe science" means something. Then it's followed by the false claim "There is a spiritual component". This is irrational. Rejecting science because of a false belief is irrational. Objective thinkers will recognize the false idea of there being a "spiritual component" and examine religious belief and behavior via facts.

Does this clear it up?

But I did not say "I do not believe science." You ripped what I said right out if context because you cannot admit you are wrong about what I said.

I said "I do not believe science can explain why people believe in God since science cannot explain everything about human behavior." It is completely ludicrous to think that science can explain everything about human behavior because scientists do not even make any such claims!

Please present the scientific research that states that the only reason people believe in God is for the reasons you claim they do. Otherwise it is just a personal opinion, a bald assertion.

That there is a spiritual component to human behavior is not false unless you can prove it is false. Can you?

I do not reject science and I do not have a false belief unless you can prove it is false.

Does this clear it up?

 

[Trailblazer]

but you work hard to navigate around facts, and can't discern your false beliefs from facts.

What facts? You have no facts, just personal opinions and bald assertions.
If you had actual facts you could present them and back them up with research.

 

[rational experiences]

O God one earth stone existed first sealed. Intelligent humans know no planet no human.

We stand living on the planet being present as a planet evolved its presence. In the space body no human involved.

A human for human science teaching is just a human. Evolution the law of gods presence first is a planet.

O God stone is formed in evolution no argument. Cooling.

As a human consciousness the first observer is the scientist conscience first....rational or irrational thinker.

Equal presence human. Also no argument.

So instant science is fake. It is only human practiced. As science versus natural human with God earth was the argument. Using God products instant reaction.

Can't argue if you don't exist.
Can't false cross + add to do a subtraction unless you human exists.

So human in natural science said to human in gods destruction science you are our destroyer.

Pretty basic science observation first equal highest self natural spiritual human.

Theists claiming I know everything egotists our spiritual warning as a human.

Biologists study of human DNA genesis therefore quote closest life body to human is a monkey.

So suppose a monkey had sex. Notice sex is life continuance and not human theories.

Two babies who grow into new form human like. Have sex humans.

Sex the correct scientific thesis.

No says a theist when you never existed. Egotism expressed. No such status for a human.

When a human is not existing science is saying that status as a scientist a human.

In life when a human does exists as the preaching is done by a human the human once living is deceased.

Realisation theist who say criminally when a human never existed. Were in fact stated by science laws to be criminal by intent.

Image says science.

In the beginning image never existed. Magically image existed the end. As image remains as it's formed status the image.

If a human thinks says once a monkey. Suddenly magically then there was a human baby. It is not bible as a baby is Not a human adult.

God theists talk about how the first two adults existed as the adult is the theist. In human natural life theorising back. Back is human death no life.

So the theist about past is not realistic.

So you read the Bible and after the nature garden the status two humans living is stated. As stated. That circumstance would involve humans in science practice.

What is said before about non existence is only a theory. A story of belief.

Why God in the beginning as a magic act was never accepted as science.

Human stated.

Now I can say eternal as a spirit is our pre owned form. Highest spirit. Crossed into heavens at ground state the face of stone zero inside heavens spatial plane as a story.

Claiming why spiritual human phenomena existed. Yet in knowledge human it is now only a story and not a thesis.

As there is no connections in science via stories.

I can and am allowed to argue my owned human adult presence as not being any monkey birth without the scientist knowing sex and not thesis is why any species is living today.

As science does not own any answer factually. Argument by adults.

As the topic life is living today only.

To say I was and came from spirit and be reviewed as intelligent as a thinker without derision.

For a fact that I do not claim it is science. Owned by science or proven by science. Which is why I am not defined as lying.

If science says I must have proof to believe in a spiritual.thesis just a story there is no proof. So science cannot quantify it for science.

Why science says I believe in a spirit thesis and I want it for and as science.

That status proves why science doing reactive science know that type of theist is our life destroyer.

As they use machines to experiment only human built designed and controlled allowing unnatural experiments attacking life to be practiced. Researching I will find spirit beginnings.

Claiming I will find it.

The human historic science argument why we argue. As God science planet earth.

 

[F1fan]

But I did not say "I do not believe science." You ripped what I said right out if context because you cannot admit you are wrong about what I said.

I said "I do not believe science can explain why people believe in God since science cannot explain everything about human behavior." It is completely ludicrous to think that science can explain everything about human behavior because scientists do not even make any such claims!

You actually said "I do not believe science...". But I never said science can explain everything. Science is very good at explaining many things, and that includes why people believe in religious concepts. It's irrelevant that you reject this work. It only points to you needing to reject facts and knowledge to justify whatever you believe. That is a serious flaw in your framework.

Please present the scientific research that states that the only reason people believe in God is for the reasons you claim they do. Otherwise it is just a personal opinion, a bald assertion.

We observe believers believing in gods. We ask many of the believers why they believe. Some claim they have evidence, but this evidence is never adequate for an objective claim. Some claim faith. In any event there is never a set of facts that support a belief that any god exists. There's no argument that is compelling or convincing to conclude any god exists. If there were facts that a god exists theists would be copying and repeating this evidence ad nausium all over these debate boards. There is no such pattern.

I suggest you read Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence as he outlines the evolution of religious belief and the biology behind it, and he uses facts and studies to explain it. Also I suggest you read the
The Biology of Belief : How Our Biology Biases Our Beliefs and Perceptions
by Joseph Giovannoli

That there is a spiritual component to human behavior is not false unless you can prove it is false. Can you?

Right after I prove Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't exist.

Again you don't know logic and debate. YOU claimed there is a spiritual component. YOU prove it. YOU have the burden of proof.

There is nothing factual about the word "spiritual".

I do not reject science and I do not have a false belief unless you can prove it is false.

Above you said you reject the science that explains religious behavior. Again you are in denial here.

Does this clear it up?

Apparently it's clear you are confused.

 

[Trailblazer]

You actually said "I do not believe science...".

No, I did not say "I do not believe science." You ripped what I said right out if context because you cannot admit you are wrong about what I said.

I said "I do not believe science can explain why people believe in God since science cannot explain everything about human behavior."

I never said that science cannot explain ANY human behavior. I am not an idiot.

Above you said you reject the science that explains religious behavior. Again you are in denial here.

No, that is not what I said. I said "I do not believe science can explain why people believe in God since science cannot explain everything about human behavior."

 

[F1fan]

NO, I did not say "I do not believe science." You ripped what I said right out if context because you cannot admit you are wrong about what I said.

I said "I do not believe science can explain why people believe in God since science cannot explain everything about human behavior."

I never said that science cannot explain ANY human behavior. I am not an idiot.

We all read what you wrote. Science can explain religious behavior. Do you accept that? Yes or no?

 

[Trailblazer]

Science can explain religious behavior. Do you accept that? Yes or no?

Science can explain some of the reasons for religious behavior, but science cannot explain all of the reasons for religious behavior. That means there are some reasons that science cannot explain.

No logical person would state that science can explain all of the reasons for religious behavior, because that is illogical.

all or nothing fallacy. Definition: When an inference is made based on two options (many times extreme) are given as if they were the only ones when other options exist (which are many times more probable than the two presented), then the resulting error in reasoning is known as the all or nothing fallacy.

Accident, ad hominem, all or nothing, equivocation and ...

 

[F1fan]

Science can explain some of the reasons for religious behavior, but science cannot explain all of the reasons for religious behavior.

What reasons are outstanding and exempt from what science can explain?

That means there are some reasons that science cannot explain

Give examples.

all or nothing fallacy.

Definition: When an inference is made based on two options (many times extreme) are given as if they were the only ones when other options exist (which are many times more probable than the two presented), then the resulting error in reasoning is known as the all or nothing fallacy.

Accident, ad hominem, all or nothing, equivocation and ...

Not applicable or relevant.

I asked you if you accept explanations in science. Science self-corrects and follows facts. It's a simple and fair question that I ask if you respect the findings in science or not. You're evading answering for a reason.

 

[rational experiences]

Inference is to claim nothing as empty space created. When you live upon a mass owning it's heavens burning in a void vacuum as lights constant.

The mind would say nothing is now missing mass that preceded not consuming itself was consumed so presence came from space being. Emptied of pre form.

As we live upon the presence formed.

Self human scientist present knowing nothing means empty.

Says as a human Ain mount plus ain was my first pyramid scientific thesis when space zero is empty space not stone as mass held fused.

That circumstance is outright lying.

The zero you discussed changed was mountain peak held as fusion by conditions law empty cold space to a flat top mountain. Taking fused fusion by pyramid peak formula back to non existence by theory only.

Teaching self the science of conversion as a human.

I know humans became aware of lying in science as a law.

Said science as a human was in fact a criminal murderer by causes of human and nature's life on earth sacrificed in evil phenomena causes. By men in science.

To the extent of forbidding Alchemy the starting place of human chosen science practices.

 

[Trailblazer]

What reasons are outstanding and exempt from what science can explain?

1. Science cannot explain the Spiritual Reasons why people believe in God.
2. Science cannot explain the Evidence for God.

Give examples.

1. Spiritual Reasons = Being guided by God.
“Whoso maketh efforts for Us,” he shall enjoy the blessings conferred by the words: “In Our Ways shall We assuredly guide him.””
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 266-267
2. Evidence for God = Messengers of God

I asked you if you accept explanations in science. Science self-corrects and follows facts. It's a simple and fair question that I ask if you respect the findings in science or not. You're evading answering for a reason.

I did not evade answering, I answered. I said: Science can explain some of the reasons for religious behavior, but science cannot explain all of the reasons for religious behavior. That means there are some reasons that science cannot explain.

I respect scientific findings but I do not agree with all of them. Why should I? Do scientists all agree with each other?