What would you consider to be undeniable proof of God

what would you consider to be undeniable proof of God
>hard mode, no "muh sunsets" argument

...

Perhaps if you keeled over only because of how gay you are

>looks around, universe exists
proved

The entire point of religious faith is you believe despite the lack of proof

Literal movie magic

Even the point 1 isn't true.

Ever been sucked off while you smoke a blunt? That's how I know.

hmmm
but how do you know it was the christian God who made it

...

>what would you consider to be undeniable proof of God
Define God. Be specific. Until we have an exact scientific definition, the question is unanswerable. Ditto for "love," which I notice doesn't stop libtards from yammering about it endlessly as if it were measurable with a ruler or a stopwatch.

If we could prove an outcome is truly random, i.e. unattributable to anything else.

Fine. Here:

1. Things exist
2. Those things came from somewhere.
3. The thing that created the thing that made those things came from somewhere.
4. In the infinite chain of events a God logically must exist in an infinitely long chain.
5. Even if that God was made by something it does not negate that fact that it is a God.
6. God exists.

Ok, stay with me here. The ancients figured it out. Something out us here on this perfect planet made for us. The moon was artificially put with the Earth as well.
Proof. Read "Who built the moon?" By Christopher Knight.

12742
Earth diameter km

3474
Moon diameter km

R = 1
Asquare = 4
Acircle = 3.1416
4-3.1416 = 0.8584

0.8584/3.1416 = 0.273
3474/12742 = 0.273

The moon takes 27.3 days to get around Earth too.

Look at the drawing to the left. It is a circle inscribed inside a square. The Earth and the Moon conform absolutely to this simplest of geometrical figures. Let us imagine that the green circle represents the Earth. If this was the case, then everything in the drawing that is not green and is shown in red, would represent the Moon.

The drawing is an expression of a mathematical fact. It represents the relationship between π (Pi) and the number 4. The symbol π appears time and again in mathematics and it has fascinated people for at least 6,000 years. π defines the relationship of the diameter of a circle to its circumference. The true definition of π cannot be discovered because it appears to go on forever. However, if we round it off at the fourth decimal point we could say that π is 3.1416. This is exactly what the builders of the Moon did – they considered π to be equal to 3.1416 – which is yet another way we know that the Moon cannot be a natural object.

The relationship of π and the number 4 throws up a number of ratios.

π + 0.366 of π = 4.

We could also express this as 27.322% of π added to π would equal 4.

The relationship of the Earth and the Moon throws up the same ratios.

Earth’s polar circumference, plus 0.366 of Earth’s polar circumference equals Earth and Moon size combined. As a result it would also be correct to say that the Moon is equal to 27.322% of the size of the polar Earth.

No that's called fideism, something considered heresy until recently, only dumb Americans and/or enlightened psychos like Kierkegaard embrace it

90% of this board thinks believing in God is some kidn of macho or "good" thing they ought to do so they do it. They don't care aobut God they dont care about humans they are just nihilistic little babies who cum to anime and like seeing the black ppl die :))) Don't even have the bravery to disbeieve.

For god to real

What should start to make you scratch your head a bit is the prefect eclipse. 1/400 away from the sun, 1/400 size of the sun.

Kalām Cosmological Argument

DUDE

>Define God
what your typical amerimutt's definition is

classic brainlette argument , i cant even tell if this is bait.

There is no such thing in this life as an insatiable desire.
We experience hunger because we can fulfill that need through eating.
We desire sex, we can get it.
There are certainly things we desire that we can fail to get, but the possibility of getting them is always there, otherwise life would be completely ridiculous. It would make no sense.

Why does man feel a longing fro the divine if the same principle does not apply?
Why would man invent an impossible desire?

out of fear.

>4. In the infinite chain of events a God logically must exist in an infinitely long chain.
Wrong. There is zero evidence for this claim.

>doesn't understand minute probabilities multiplied infinitely makes them infinite.

Dumbass

>tfw we're the only animals smart enough to think about death and fearfully wonder what comes afterwards

it really boils down to this

>not understanding that 'infinity' doesn't mean anything can and will happen
There are infinite numbers between 1 and 2.

If you don't, the elites do, and that's why they're there

the best proof will be that he make an apparition to the world and explain us why the fuck he made us.

>doesn't know infinite is just an abstract idea and not a physical thing

physical proof of his existence

eitherway the point of god isn't to debate whether he's even there, the point is the rules that god (the pillar of all western philosophy and morality, even today's nihilistic philosophy) lays down for civilization

Proof for God would never be accepted inductively. Atheists freely admit that even if God came down to Earth and did miracles on video camera people would chalk it up to fabrication/hallucination. Proof of God can be had deductively which doesn't allow for such pettiness.

>Atheists freely admit that even if God came down to Earth and did miracles on video camera people would chalk it up to fabrication/hallucination.
A statement that is in no way based on fact. It's all you can produce.

im an atheist and if god came down and started doing shit id be on my hands and knees singing Hallelujah

if god came down to Earth, many churches will try to hunt him down or denounce him. because too much money and political interest are invest in the religions.

the joke of course is that he already did

Had prayers answered to many times for it to be a coincidence

ya so long ago people cant be sure about authenticity , if it occurred in modern time we would have proof instead of speculation.

Yes there are 1.00000000000000000____ forever___000001

You're fucked if you can't conceptualize that.

The universes forces are so perfect that it miraculously didn't immediately contract back in on itself after coming into existences

theoretical math that doesn't reflect reality isent proof of anything. as all things are made of smaller things and those smaller things are finite.

>>Ive never heard anyone bring this up before this thread. I was watching the recent lunar eclipse stream and they mentioned this and said it was a coincidence. I suppose with an almost infinite number of solar systems it possibly could be but this one also created and supports life so it’s kinda like golly dang jeez what the heck is going on here for real

the universe is creative

god is an archetype of ideal human consciousness

it is good to contemplate ideals bc we attain higher consciousness that way

the bliss of higher consciousness feels really good so people call that "of god"... thats about it.

Yeah!

You could never have absolute proof inductively. That's the whole point. There is nothing stopping people from saying they were hallucinating the miracles. Just as Hitchen's and countless other atheists have said that they are infinitely more likely to believe that the chemicals in their brain caused them to hallucinate than God exists and came down to alter space-time.

I will asume that you are christan


>the joke of course is that he already did

yup, he came down and (((they))) killed because he was a threat to their interest.

ya your right absolute proof is impossible but it sure beats the shit out of no proof at all huh?

If you bothered enough yo do some research you would find that there are more reasons to believe in God than there are to not believe in God.

Cosmological Argument
Teleological Argument
Ontological Argument
Moral Argument
Argument from Necessity.
Law of Non-contradition
Law of Biogenesis
The Big Bang beginning of a finite universe
Anthropic Principle
Intelligent Design
Prime Mover
Jesus of Nazareth
Personal Experience
etc.

Almost all of these are religiously neutral, deductive arguments independent of Christianity or any other faith.

You should check out Antony Flew's (one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th century) book "There is a God" on how after over 70 years of being one of the most famous atheists on the planet he came to the conclusion that God necessarily exists.

great list , its to bad none of these prove the existence of god or even lead to the logical conclusion that god exists.

Bees and marijuana - ie. how the FUCK did they evolve?

Didn't we already agree that you will never have absolute proof in this life? You're dilemma should be what is the most plausible explanation. So far it's 2017 and scientists are still stuck on "In the beginning there was nothing and then nothing exploded". But they keep up the science of the gaps and preach that one day science will find out what happened. Good luck.

The origin of something.

do u know de way

im not asking for absolute proof as yes i did agree that would be unreasonable but you cant just list things and say "muh god did this" and expect intelligent people to listen and believe. i follow my heart and my head and they both say religion is made up nonsense with no basis in reality.

address those arguments or stfu. Exactly zero of them boil down to "muh god did it."
I don't care about your intuition. The idea that nothing exploded into everything for no reason is the least rational thing that has ever been seriously believed by anyone.

alright then i will but give me a sec because this might take a while , also nowhere in this thread did i ever say the big bang theory is correct so you can stop trying to make me defend an argument i know very little about.

Then explain why the moon is moving away from Earth.

Because something cant come from nothing... it's that simple also scientist are coming to consensus that we live in a simulation and if we live in a simulation that means it has to have an omnipotent God bringing us full circle into what Religions believe.

the fact that most things we enjoy are bad for us and most things we hate are good for us. Its almost like a test.

They eat da poo poo ZULUL

WEED

ok i guess i will start with the first one , the Cosmological Argument. This one is the defense that everything that exists or occurs must have had a cause and since things haven't been going on forever that there must be a "first cause" which theists argue is god.

my problem with this one is that there is nothing here to suggest the existence of god only to suggest an origin to the universe , which could be explained thought other theory's many of which work without a god in place.

sorry for the spelling mistakes and oversimplification but its late and your making me do lots of work.

If God is real I will receive trips that are below #4.

If not, he isn't real or doesn't meddle in human affairs.

how do they work without a god though?
You can kick the can down the road forever but eventually you absolutely must come to a first cause.
Now whether or not this is the christian God is absolutely up for debate. But that's not the point of the argument.

here is another thing to think of if we are in a simulation that means that we would never know what happened pass the beginning and that the bible would be right in saying that god is eternal he would be eternal in our reference because as long as he exist we exist.

>God as singular instead of "Gods"
Read about Arminius and how Varius had voices telling him to lead his battalions deeper into the forest

next is the Teleological Argument which i would recommend you do some research on Richard Dawkins as he tackles this defense more aptly than i can with my limited knowledge on the subject.

but i will sum it up by saying that this one can be counted out by things as simple as evolution and actually leads away from your intention and points towards god not existing at all.

>Richard Dawkins
You are so underage it hurts

next is the Ontological Argument

this one isent as interesting as the others and is kinda stupid , even Christians denounced it heres a quote from wikipedia because im lazy.

"Thomas Aquinas, while proposing five proofs of God's existence in his Summa Theologica, objected to Anselm's argument. He suggested that people cannot know the nature of God and, therefore, cannot conceive of God in the way Anselm proposed.The ontological argument would be meaningful only to someone who understands the essence of God completely. Aquinas reasoned that, as only God can completely know His essence, only He could use the argument.[50] His rejection of the ontological argument caused other Catholic theologians to also reject the argument"

Sufficient evidence wouldn't be bad start.

>my problem with this one is that there is nothing here to suggest the existence of god only to suggest an origin to the universe
his image shows that the only possible origin to the universe is something purely actual, and that by being "purely actual" it possesses every quality you'd give to a deity.

next is......... the moral argument? umm to be honest i dont know how this one points to the existence of god.

so people have a moral compass and we can tell good from evil , how does that prove your sky wizard why dont you explain this one to me.

should i start responding or keep going?

the beauty of the female body.

We exist. Matter exists. It came into being by way of something. That something, however undefinable/unknowable/unquantifiable is "God". It's just personification to the extreme for humans to have created some story about this force/thing/creation and call it Jesus.

There's really no point if you've made up your mind completely because you read the God Delusion. People have been discussing the attributes of God for millennia and have written countless books on the subject but if you're little leaf brain reads one meme scientist book and chooses "yep this aligns with what I want to believe" then there's no hope for you until you do some real research into the matter beyond hearing only what you want to hear.

Something cant come from nothing or the universe wouldn't function their has to be an omnipotent god that created this universe, things could appear an disappear time would stop and start in Universe without something that is the ultimatum/God.

after that is the Argument from Necessity which is almost the same as the cosmological defense and is defeated the same way because it only tells of an origin and not of god.

this argument feels like "well things exist so were did they come from?" which is just silly

iv never read the god delusion

do whatever you think is best

The existence of God or gods cannot be "proven" as to prove something you need to be able to falsify it. Good luck knowing when God or gods do not exist so you can also know when they do exist.

THIS , this is what i dont understand

Something cant come from nothing (this sort of makes sense )
SO
their has to be an omnipotent god that created this universe (thats a HUGE fucking leap , how does this suggest this at all?!)

Nothing, but I don't understand the arguments against the existence of God that don't lead to nihilism, or, because life truly has more misery than pleasure, that avoiding suicide truly isn't a form of cowardice. This to me to be an absolute certainty, while it's not so certain to me that there is no basis in believing in miracles or revelation, which, why they aren't as strong as I would like, aren't as weak as reasons to live if consciousness totally ends at the end of this life, reasons which don't exist in my opinion.

Better to start with one argument and discuss it thoroughly, but that's my opinion. Some people will only stand for some arguments and not all of them.

>at the beginning of the universe time, space, and matter came into existence
>whatever started the universe must be outside of time, space, and matter

It's not that hard to understand. Call it a necessary force, flying spaghetti monster, whatever. But typically people for thousands of years have called it God and have attributed person-hood to it because of history/personal experience/fulfilled prophecies/various other arguments.

next is law of non contradiction which im going to be honest , i dont understand how you think this one hints at god because id say it follows more along the logical path that a god like creature or being could never exist and is in fact impossible.

i understand this , but whats to say whatever started the universe is god? id argue that its much more likely we live in a simulation or something else equally as far fetched and ridiculous.

LMAO

>something can't come from nothing
You don't know that there was ever nothing.

biogenisis is more of the same

basically if life can only come from life what created the first life . basically this one will be blown out of the water once we start making life artificially give it 20 or 30 years.

Nice proving that the universe around us exists, idiot.

Because if things can come from nothing randomly the Universe would cease to function. think of it like this you create a video game a simulation of our universe naturally they wouldn't know who or what created them it would be no way for them to know. Now you create a universe but you add in a rule to undercut what your doing saying that things can come from nothing then the whole universe would cease to exist because things would pop in randomly and fuck things up, hope this makes sense.

>2. Those things came from somewhere.
This premise is unverified.

If you are redpilled on the JQ and yet don't believe in Christ then you are only halfway there. The Synagogue of Satan killed Christ and now it runs the world.

The Big Bang beginning of a finite universe
again dont understand how this helps you explain god it only points towards an origin of our universe and nobody is trying to deny that.

the lesser cannot give birth to the greater.
A picture of a mountain cannot bring a mountain into existence.
Something which created EVERYTHING even the nothingness in which everything is contained and expanding into must be of a higher degree. And this thing would be indistinguishable from god.
Again, don't get hung up on the anthropomorphized Judeo-Christan God imposing morals, judgement, sin etc, the arguments for that are somewhat separate.

>This is exactly what the builders of the Moon did – they considered π to be equal to 3.1416 – which is yet another way we know that the Moon cannot be a natural object.

Interesting read.
You're saying "builders". Who do you mean?

Even if we live in a simulation, the person operating the simulation is God. God could be a bumbling chucklefuck nerd in his world, but in ours that doesn't matter- god has full control of our universe/simulation and his word is divine law in ours.

These arguments say little about the character of a god, only that something with omnipotence, timelessness(with respect to creation/simulation) and possessing all possible knowledge in our universe(everything that is possible is coded) is what you're going to get. These arguments only lead to deism, not any particular form of theism.

they are the same thing what ever started the universe would be god because he would be omnipotent and have all power to create what he wants, it wouldn't make a difference if you called this a simulation or not this is all we have