How to explain existence of God from reality

[oslove]

Dear Hammerclaw, you are again into making sweeping statements without mature serious thinking, you say:

"That's not reality, that is fantasy, with nothing but sophistry to back it up. You're playing to a tough room and fairy tales are given short shrift, here. Try harder."

 

What you say is also if I proceed the way you do, to tell you that text above, is not reality but fantasy, with nothing but sophistry, etc.

Where will that get us?

 

Dear readers and posters here, always take attention to see whether a poster is talking reason or saying anything that comes to his mind without any indication of having thought up the words with examining them on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

 

Okay, let us think together, why my statements:

1. How to explain existence of God from reality - the title of thread from me.

2. God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

are not fantasy and not sophistry:

No. 1 is an invitation to any human with a working brain to join me to explain the existence of God from reality, I don't see how that can be a fantasy or founded on sophistry, like say: "There is an orbiting teapot in space"?

No. 2 Is a hypothesis, namely, if you are going to do a research paper on God, you can put it as the title of your research paper, so that intelligent readers with good academic background get it right away, that the researcher on that hypothesis will explain: how and why God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

 

I must abstain from further exchange with you if you resume again with sweeping categorical statements indicative of no thinking on truths facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

And the test for me to know that you are not into serious exchange, is that you reply to the present post, again with sweeping categorical statements which are to an intelligent reader with good exposure to intellectual issues, in most particular from academic circles, are fantasies and sophistries.

 

Annex

On 10/1/2017 at 4:30 AM, oslove said:

That is obviously a wrong conclusion from you.

The thread is "How to explain existence of God from reality."

This statement from me, "God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning," please tell me how is it a statement of faith?

So, dear Hammerclaw, allow me to lead you step by step to make you understand what it is to explain existence of God from reality,

Or you would rather that you explain to me how to not explain existence of God from reality?

You see, I fear you make sweeping statements like the above post from you, without thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

Anyway, as I am the author of this thread I will take the initiative to explain to you the meaning of the thread's title.

Please read posts Nos. 1 and 3 from yours truly, here I will reproduce them for your convenience:

That's not reality, that is fantasy, with nothing but sophistry to back it up. You're playing to a tough room and fairy tales are given short shrift, here. Try harder.

[oslove]

There are thinkers who insist that God exists or not cannot be proven, and to my mind that is not true.

On the other hand, we have to first work together as to concur on what we mean by proving something to exist in reality.

Dear readers and posters here, what do you say, Don't we have to first work as to concur on what it is to prove something to exist in reality?

What about this proof from Bertrand Russell, namely, that God is as ridiculous as an orbiting teapot in space?

Is that any proof from Russell, and he was writing from a commission by Illustrated magazine to contribute an article on (but never published by Illustrated magazine), "Is there a God?"

In fact he never goes into any proof at all - or disproof either.

So dear posters here, shall we first work to concur on what it is to prove the existence of something, like for example, the nose in our face, or more intellectual, the existence of God?

This means again we must first take it seriously that there are people who claim that they can prove God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

For example, one Oslove, a registered member of UM.

If any posters here will not accept that statement from me that I can prove God exists, and give me a hearing or reading, how can they these readers be so certain that I can't?

If anything at all, that is the proof that such posters have a closed mind.

So, please dear posters here, take courage and let us you and me take up the challenge to prove or disprove God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

BUT WE MUST FIRST WORK AS TO CONCUR ON WHAT AND HOW IT IS TO PROVE SOMETHING TO EXIST, LIKE THE NOSE IN OR FACE, OR THE MORE INTELLECTUAL CONUNDRUM, THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, IN CONCEPT AS FIRST AND FOREMOST THE CREATOR CAUSE OF EVERYTHING WITH A BEGINNING.

 

*In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

[eight bits]

oslove

Quote

If any posters here will not accept that statement from me that I can prove God exists, and give me a hearing or reading, how can they these readers be so certain that I can't?

Certainty is a tall order, os. Most of us settle for Mark Twain's standard of conviction:

The calm confidence of a Christian with four aces.

If you've got the straight flush (really, that's what it's called), then you'll let us know in your own good time. Meanwhile, nobody's stopping you.

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It has to do with 'I accept academic historians when they say there is no doubt that he actually existed as a human being.'.  I accept what most experts say about people claiming supernatural encounters with pillars of light, which is not, 'we finally have evidence of angels!'.  It's not 'ridicule', it's merely applying the same kind of appeals to authority you make against your position.

 

There is no comparison. Academic historians have authority by virtue of their education training and expertise  This applies to scientists or any other professional. Ii hope you would take note of your doctor when the y gave you advice  

There ARE no experts on angels No  scientifically based systematic study of them.  No professional organization with university educations and a lifelong study of them hence to provide peer reviews.   There is no "authority" or people recognised to have authority on them (there may indeed be people who have spent a life time researching them and etc but without all the other background support and accepted expertise of a professional academic their opinions cannot be held to be authoritative)

I know that entities which  many people call angels exist because i have a lifetime of contact with them  (well half a century any way)   While genuine and real, this is peroanl experiential knowledge  and not testable by or transferable to others.   I can compare it through reading and research to similar experiences by others  and knowing my own exercises to be real i can view those  with a more open mind. This does not make me an authority on angels any more than being married makes me an authority on marriage .

Ps I Only account as knowledge things i know from experience.

However i accept as justified true belief, other information gained from second hand and other sources  There is a big difference in my own mind when i evaluate the academic consensus on the historical christ  and when i hear a person's account of a supernatural event.

 In the first i use justified true belief to accept it. like i accept any data form a reputable source. eg the distance of the earth from the sun. In the second i neither accept nor reject the account but DO deliberately keep an open mind (I have to given my own experiences)  Thus i do not believe or accept the theological beliefs about christ's divinity  but i don't outright reject them, either.

i dont believe a person's account of a supernatural encounter, but i don't reject it.

 I DO reject the  "christ as myth" theory,  because it is not acceptable academically I also reject creationism and intelligent design because i accept as true and justified belief that evolution does a better job of explaining our existence.  

[oslove]

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

oslove

Certainty is a tall order, os. Most of us settle for Mark Twain's standard of conviction:

The calm confidence of a Christian with four aces.

If you've got the straight flush (really, that's what it's called), then you'll let us know in your own good time. Meanwhile, nobody's stopping you.

Now, would you like dear eight bits to work with me on how we are certain that the nose in our face exists?

That will require us to work as to concur on what is certainty, what do you say?

Shall we two work together to resolve the question what is certainty, so that we won't have to entertain humans who are not ever certain of anything at all, like not certain that there is a nose in our face, and even worse, they are not certain they exist either.

So, I await your decision, are you joining me to work together to come to resolve the question what is certainty, and thereby we can judge what we know to be certain, and what not certain?

[jmccr8]

On 30/09/2017 at 1:02 PM, oslove said:

To everyone here, I never say that absolutely everything has got to have a beginning.

What I say is "There exists God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

____________________________

 

Dear colleagues here, I just put this message in my profile, so that posters keen to know my purpose in the UM forum, they have the answer in my profile; here I will reproduce that message as follows below:

 

These are your conclusions and therefore the onus is on you to demonstrate  how you formatted the criteria to attain these conclusions. None off us are required to accept broadband comments without supporting data.

jmccr8 

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, oslove said:

Now, would you like dear eight bits to work with me on how we are certain that the nose in our face exists?

That will require us to work as to concur on what is certainty, what do you say?

Shall we two work together to resolve the question what is certainty, so that we won't have to entertain humans who are not ever certain of anything at all, like not certain that there is a nose in our face, and even worse, they are not certain they exist either.

So, I await your decision, are you joining me to work together to come to resolve the question what is certainty, and thereby we can judge what we know to be certain, and what not certain?

I can't answer for 8bits but personal experience from having my nose broke a couple of times would be one of the more definitive tests that produced the expected results and because it was repeatable and the results were the same I would state with a certainty that my nose does indeed exist.

jmccr8 

[Wes4747]

So.. Here we are... And i think we need to define exactly what constitutes a nose. A lump of flesh on our face capable of creating mucus acting as a passage for air into and out of the lungs? That wouldnt have worked for Michael Jackson.... 

I dont think we can cosmetically define it, as my nose is way sexier than yours. Has it always existed?

This nose you speak of, if it were cut off my face, assuming i have one, ground up and baked in a bell pepper, would it still be a nose? If no, perhaps the nose never existed...

If i cannot logically prove a "nose" ever existed,  how can i possibly deduce anything of a god from a nose?

 

[jmccr8]

2 minutes ago, Wes4747 said:

So.. Here we are... And i think we need to define exactly what constitutes a nose. A lump of flesh on our face capable of creating mucus acting as a passage for air into and out of the lungs? That wouldnt have worked for Michael Jackson.... 

I dont think we can cosmetically define it, as my nose is way sexier than yours. Has it always existed?

This nose you speak of, if it were cut off my face, assuming i have one, ground up and baked in a bell pepper, would it still be a nose? If no, perhaps the nose never existed...

If i cannot logically prove a "nose" ever existed,  how can i possibly deduce anything of a god from a nose?

 

Only god nose

jmccr8 

[Ozymandias]

It's all in the mind. If you can't see, hear, taste, smell or touch God then He doesn't exist. Same is true of the Tooth Fairy, Bigfoot and the Yeti, Santa Claus and Extraterrestrials.

Name me one phenomen that actually exists in reality that we cannot see, hear, taste, smell or touch.

What?! Love. Oh, yeah, I forgot about love. I can't see, hear, taste, smell or touch love BUT IT EXISTS!!

Maybe God is like love? What do you think?

[Wes4747]

8 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Only god nose

jmccr8 

 literally lol'd, but your smiley and my smiley are missing something?

No sé?

[eight bits]

oslove

Quote

Now, would you like dear eight bits to work with me on how we are certain that the nose in our face exists?

Not really. The announced topic of the thread concerns something altogether different from my nose, and a cognitive performance (explanation) that doesn't entail certainty.

Quote

That will require us to work as to concur on what is certainty, what do you say?

I don't use the word certainty when I mean confidence, and I take certainty to mean irrebuttable confidence, something pretty much I've only experienced for tautologies.

If you've got something, then I'll read it, just as I've read your other posts so far. Obviously, if the jaw-dropping argument for your god's existence was in there, then I missed it. In that case, just point.

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

It's all in the mind. If you can't see, hear, taste, smell or touch God then He doesn't exist. Same is true of the Tooth Fairy, Bigfoot and the Yeti, Santa Claus and Extraterrestrials.

Name me one phenomen that actually exists in reality that we cannot see, hear, taste, smell or touch.

What?! Love. Oh, yeah, I forgot about love. I can't see, hear, taste, smell or touch love BUT IT EXISTS!!

Maybe God is like love? What do you think?

Very much like love

But some of your other  examples don't hold water, either. Just because you have never  personally touched,  heard, tasted, or smelled, a coelacanth, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.     black hole, dark matter,  There are even many things as yet unknown which exist   My point? You can touch taste hear smell and feel god. But not everyone has.

Oh and do your dreams exist even though (as yet)  only you can view and hear them?   How about your memories? 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Mr Walker

[Ozymandias]

17 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Very much like love

But some of your other  examples don't hold water, either. Just because you have never  personally touched,  heard, tasted, or smelled, a coelacanth, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.     black hole, dark matter,  There are even many things as yet unknown which exist   My point? You can touch taste hear smell and feel god. But not everyone has.

Oh and do your dreams exist even though (as yet)  only you can view and hear them?   How about your memories? 

I didn't use the coelacanth as an example, did I? That would have been stupid. I haven't been to Brazil either but it exists. My examples were God, the Tooth Fairy, Bigfoot and the Yeti, Santa Claus and Extraterrestrials.  I was using sensory knowledge in relation to God.

In reference to God, I also said 'He' doesn't exist - as in a person. Whatever God is - and I believe in God - God is not a person. God is love, in my book. Was it not clear from my post that I was poking fun at my own argument. Read it again.

As to my dreams, they are entirely imagined while I sleep, and therefore obviously imaginary and not real; that is, entirely the product of chemical reactions in my brain. Even when awake I can imagine Santa flying across the sky on Christmas night: my mental image is real but the reality of Santa in the sky certainly is not. 

The nub of the issue here is that this is all subjective and a matter of personal belief once we leave the realm of concrete reality. I respect your absolute right to your own world view and belief system. I am now retreating into my own personal relationship with God and will no longer attempt to inflict it on you or others here.  

 

[Mr Walker]

20 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

I didn't use the coelacanth as an example, did I? That would have been stupid. I haven't been to Brazil either but it exists. My examples were God, the Tooth Fairy, Bigfoot and the Yeti, Santa Claus and Extraterrestrials.  I was using sensory knowledge in relation to God.

In reference to God, I also said 'He' doesn't exist - as in a person. Whatever God is - and I believe in God - God is not a person. God is love, in my book. Was it not clear from my post that I was poking fun at my own argument. Read it again.

As to my dreams, they are entirely imagined while I sleep, and therefore obviously imaginary and not real; that is, entirely the product of chemical reactions in my brain. Even when awake I can imagine Santa flying across the sky on Christmas night: my mental image is real but the reality of Santa in the sky certainly is not. 

The nub of the issue here is that this is all subjective and a matter of personal belief once we leave the realm of concrete reality. I respect your absolute right to your own world view and belief system. I am now retreating into my own personal relationship with God and will no longer attempt to inflict it on you or others here.  

 

Ah but your dreams are real.

They are physical electrochemical patterns of energy and can even be recorded on machines.

I was just suggesting that there are many things we do not think of as real or physical, but are, and many things we have no personal knowldge of, nor experience with, yet exist.

Whatever the nature of god, every human connects with that entity in a different way.. Just  as we all connect with other people, dogs and cats, etc., In different ways.  This is because we bring our inner self to every relationship we have; physical, emotional or intellectual.

God, like all real things, has two components.  It's own inner natural reality, and our perception of it.  I would never consider you to be inflicting a worldview or  belief on me; rather i am interested in how everyone makes their own connections to the world around them, including, even, to things of the mind, and to things like god.  For example, how a person sees themself,  will critically influence how they perceive god . How they view their parents, and authority, will influence how they perceive and feel about a god. 

ps i would argue that while many of your examples are belief constructs, extraterrestrials are almost certainly real  Not saying they have come to earth or that we have contact with them  although this is possible, but unlike bigfoot or the tooth fairy they do potentially have their own independent existence as we might one day be lucky enough to discover.

For me, they remain on the real, and personally known,  but as yet  scientifically undiscovered, list of things.

 Of course  any real god, and indeed any real angel, will be an alien, rather than  a human, with a separate evolutionary history, different biological functions, and different genetic heritage.  

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

I didn't use the coelacanth as an example, did I? That would have been stupid. I haven't been to Brazil either but it exists. My examples were God, the Tooth Fairy, Bigfoot and the Yeti, Santa Claus and Extraterrestrials.  I was using sensory knowledge in relation to God.

In reference to God, I also said 'He' doesn't exist - as in a person. Whatever God is - and I believe in God - God is not a person. God is love, in my book. Was it not clear from my post that I was poking fun at my own argument. Read it again.

As to my dreams, they are entirely imagined while I sleep, and therefore obviously imaginary and not real; that is, entirely the product of chemical reactions in my brain. Even when awake I can imagine Santa flying across the sky on Christmas night: my mental image is real but the reality of Santa in the sky certainly is not. 

The nub of the issue here is that this is all subjective and a matter of personal belief once we leave the realm of concrete reality. I respect your absolute right to your own world view and belief system. I am now retreating into my own personal relationship with God and will no longer attempt to inflict it on you or others here.  

 

We can see how love makes an impression in the physical world. I wonder though how one would explain how some people love the abstracts of life like pain, domination, are just a couple of examples and not all cases could be classified as lust.

jmccr8

[oslove]

13 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

These are your conclusions and therefore the onus is on you to demonstrate  how you formatted the criteria to attain these conclusions. None off us are required to accept broadband comments without supporting data.

jmccr8 

Dear imccr8, what is your point?

From my part, my point is that I can and I will prove that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So, I invite you and me to go into an expedition together to find out how I will show to you that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

You see, dear readers here, all the arguments socalled of atheists against God existing, they are all evasions purely and exclusively, like with one Bertrand Russell who engages all exclusively and purely with ridiculing God by comparing God to an orbiting teapot in space, but never really taking up the genuine work of thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind to disprove that God exists.

Dear atheists here, when you want to argue that God does not exist, you have to logically first harbor a concept of God, otherwise you are engaged in talking about no God but not telling your audience what is the concept of God in your mind, and that is talking against something of which you do not or will not have any concept at all about the something you are arguing to not exist.

That is irrational.

The most it is, is that you are into evasions from the issue altogether whether God exists or not, by not first presenting what is your concept of God.

Read the article of Russell on "Is there a god," commissioned in 1952 by Illustrated magazine; but the magazine never published it, because I dare say it was not worth publishing for the editing board of the magazine saw it clearly that Russell was into everything of funny ridicule at the expense of God, instead of any genuine argument against God, and they were not going to get their magazine discredited with publishing trash, even from a Bertrand Russell.

Now, when I ask atheists what is their concept of God, many of them or almost all of them will retort back to me, as follows:

"We don't have to know any concept of God because we don't accept the existence of any God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities."

That kind of an answer proves that they are either totally irrational with their denial of God existing when they don't know of any concept of God, or cleverly into essentially evasion from the very issue of God exists or not: for to be into the issue God exists or not, intelligently rational humans have to first know of a concept of God - otherwise they are irrational or engaged in evasion of all sorts.

Back to imccr8:

Dear imccr8, what is your point?

From my part, my point is that I can and I will prove that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath for imccr8 and all opponents to me, to tell us what is their point.

Start with your concept of God.

[jmccr8]

25 minutes ago, oslove said:

Dear imccr8, what is your point?

From my part, my point is that I can and I will prove that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So, I invite you and me to go into an expedition together to find out how I will show to you that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

You see, dear readers here, all the arguments socalled of atheists against God existing, they are all evasions purely and exclusively, like with one Bertrand Russell who engages all exclusively and purely with ridiculing God by comparing God to an orbiting teapot in space, but never really taking up the genuine work of thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind to disprove that God exists.

Dear atheists here, when you want to argue that God does not exist, you have to logically first harbor a concept of God, otherwise you are engaged in talking about no God but not telling your audience what is the concept of God in your mind, and that is talking against something of which you do not or will not have any concept at all about the something you are arguing to not exist.

That is irrational.

The most it is, is that you are into evasions from the issue altogether whether God exists or not, by not first presenting what is your concept of God.

Read the article of Russell on "Is there a god," commissioned in 1952 by Illustrated magazine; but the magazine never published it, because I dare say it was not worth publishing for the editing board of the magazine saw it clearly that Russell was into everything of funny ridicule at the expense of God, instead of any genuine argument against God, and they were not going to get their magazine discredited with publishing trash, even from a Bertrand Russell.

Now, when I ask atheists what is their concept of God, many of them or almost all of them will retort back to me, as follows:

"We don't have to know any concept of God because we don't accept the existence of any God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities."

That kind of an answer proves that they are either totally irrational with their denial of God existing when they don't know of any concept of God, or cleverly into essentially evasion from the very issue of God exists or not: for to be into the issue God exists or not, intelligently rational humans have to first know of a concept of God - otherwise they are irrational or engaged in evasion of all sorts.

Back to imccr8:

Dear imccr8, what is your point?

From my part, my point is that I can and I will prove that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath for imccr8 and all opponents to me, to tell us what is their point.

Start with your concept of God.

Well to start out with I wouldn't refer to myself as an atheist. Secondly you made a post that I thought needed to be expanded on with some verifiable sources which is a reasonable request. After the god/nose comparison  I was not sure that you would be able to illustrate your position effectively.

Yes many of us have concepts of God that are not defined by religious doctrine myself being one of them. I admit that the way I see god is not provable by any means, and I have no intention of trying to prove that concept to others as it is based on personal experience. To me god has no form or personality because it is me that makes things  intelligible and gives things meaning. If man did not exist neither would the concept of god and for me it it the existence  of us and the physical world that is god. I did explain my position earlier and find redundancy in explaining it again a frivolous effort as those of us that do read each post are aware of the other's  positions.

The fact that you do not understand Russell's  statement is your personal position and not relevant to how I or others see what he is saying.

jmccr8 

Edited October 3, 2017 by jmccr8

[oslove]

 

9 hours ago, eight bits said:

[...]

I don't use the word certainty...

[...]

 

Dear eight bits, you did use the term certainty, see below, in Annex.

Annex

Posted 21 hours ago ·  Post #178

from oslove

If any posters here will not accept that statement from me that I can prove God exists, and give me a hearing or reading, how can they these readers be so certain that I can't?

From eight bits

Certainty is a tall order, os. Most of us settle for Mark Twain's standard of conviction:

The calm confidence of a Christian with four aces.

If you've got the straight flush (really, that's what it's called), then you'll let us know in your own good time. Meanwhile, nobody's stopping you.

[jmccr8]

5 minutes ago, oslove said:

 

 

Dear eight bits, you did use the term certainty, see below, in Annex.

Annex

 

What I see is that you stated that you could make a claim from the position of certainty and 8bits is asking you to lay your cards on the table if you are certain that you can take the pot.

I agree  and want to see your hand as well so lay your cards and let's see if your bluffing or take the pot.

jmccr8 

[oslove]

Dear readers and posters here, it is indeed a most difficult task for an author of a thread to get responding posters to focus on the topic of the thread.

This thread is about: "How to explain existence of God from reallty."

Take most careful notice that the explanation is from our knowledge of reality, so not from the Bible.

Anyway, guys here who are into Biblical exegesis or whatever, but not into our knowledge of reality, you can continue for there is no rule that you keep to the title of this thread.

Now, to posters who know that the thread is focused on our knowledge of reality, how to explain God exists namely from reality, not from the Bible - so that we will get linked properly, please let us get started with working together to first agree on what it is to prove something to exist, like for example the nose in our face - that is easy I dare say, and then also more intellectual, the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Now, dear posters here, my idea of what it is to prove that something exists in reality, is that we can and do experience its existence with our external senses, for example, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

And with sensations in our body like for example, a stomach ache,  it is by our consciousness of our body and its operation; so that when we are not conscious we are not aware of any sensations in our body.

What about things which we don't have direct immediate access to with our external senses, like sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell?

So, please dear posters here, let us work together on how to prove the existence of things which are not within our direct and immediate experience of.

 

 

 

 

 

[oslove]

Dear posters here, what cards do you want me to lay on the table?

I am trying my best to lay the foundations for the explanation of God existing, from our knowledge of reality.

What cards do you want me to lay on the table, like as with a card game?

You see, even in a card game, players have to know the foundations of the game, otherwise they are not playing the game of concern, at all.

At this point in time, I am trying my most best to get us to concur on what it is to prove something to exist in reality, and the proof or explanation is also from our knowledge of reality.

So, in the context of this thread, here are the cards I am laying on the table.

1. How to prove that something exists in reality.

2. We have got to know the concept of God, otherwise posters who do not have any concept of God, they are out of place here.

3. We must know what is reality instead of insisting that there is an orbiting teapot in space for a hypothesis on what is reality, which is all nonsense from even one Bertrand Russell who has contributed the trick of how to evade from the issue itself of God exists or not.

Now, you also lay your cards on the table, Oh ye posters in this thread, and please abstain from all numbers and kinds of flippancies.

[Euphorbia]

Bertrand Russell seems to really get under your skin.......time to let it go.....

I've read eight pages of this and you still haven't shown your hand. Show your proof that god exists already..... I mean eight pages of you talking about it and nothing to show for it .....

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, oslove said:

From my part, my point is that I can and I will prove that God exists, 

Okay, but I'm not sure what your delay is then in proving that God exists?  The thread is 8 pages long, you know several people are reading it, but I'm not sure yet if we've even moved much beyond the points in your very first post, you're still referring to the 'foundations'.  I would like to see both of your points, how to prove God from reality and how you have come to the certainty of God, so I'm not sure why it's taking so many posts to continue from your foundations.  I don't know why we have to 'work together' to get your argument out; I don't really have too much to say yet about your foundations because I need to see where you are then going to go based on them.  If you can lay out more comprehensively your argument I think it'd be a big help, and you will likely get several responses here related to 'working together' on the validity of the argument.

Quote

Now, dear posters here, my idea of what it is to prove that something exists in reality, is that we can and do experience its existence with our external senses, for example, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

And with sensations in our body like for example, a stomach ache,  it is by our consciousness of our body and its operation; so that when we are not conscious we are not aware of any sensations in our body.

What about things which we don't have direct immediate access to with our external senses, like sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell?

The above seems to be a step in the right direction, you seem to be building on your foundations here.  In general I agree with you on the above but there are a lot of exceptions; just because someone experiences something doesn't 'prove' it, our perception nor our interpretation abilities nor our memories are perfect.  But my objection to that specific point is an example of why I think it would be beneficial to lay out your entire argument, even at a summarized level, otherwise you'll get bogged down and distracted at every single step, potentially by conversations that aren't even relevant to your overall 'proof' (like the side conversation about Bertrand Russell).  If it helps I'm willing to just accept your foundation points for the purposes of discussion, but I may still question your foundations later once I see more context and the outline of your full argument.

Also I was curious, is English your primary language?

[eight bits]

oslove

Quote

Dear eight bits, you did use the term certainty, see below, in Annex.

It smacks of dishonesty to fiddle a quote to change its meaning, and then pretend that that was the original meaning. Doubtless this was an oversight on your part, and with luck, that won't happen again.

So to clarify, the clause I wrote was (emphasis added),

I don't use the word certainty when I mean confidence, ...

I went on to explain how I do use the word, and yes, per your example, irrebuttable confidence is a tall order.

Now, whatever foundation you're laying, it doesn't run through my nose. So just get on with it, please.