Methods for proving God's existence?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Cephus Only if you have no clue what atheism is.

They believe in not believing.

[Jack]

a truly logical person allows for the possibility of God because there is no proof He does not exist.

A truly logical person dismisses that which violates all the known evidence of physics, biology, astrophysics, etc. The truly logical person doesn't believe in unicorns, leprechauns, monsters under the bed or other imaginary beasties, like god(s).

[Gods_Mercenary]

A truly logical person knows that humans know nothing and that all things are possible. I guess even unicorns, although I don't get anything out of believing they're real.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary A truly logical person knows that humans know nothing and that all things are possible. I guess even unicorns, although I don't get anything out of believing they're real.

A truly logical person KNOWS that we know nothing? This logical person doesn't really know much about logic, now does he?

Logically, not all things are possible. Why the hell would you think that? Logic says one thing cannot be two things that contradict each other at the same time.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Logically, we are in a tiny corner of the universe only knowing what we observe. I perhaps went a little far with "we know nothing" but, you can't argue, we know very little.

[rcne]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary A truly logical person knows that humans know nothing and that all things are possible. I guess even unicorns, although I don't get anything out of believing they're real.

But unicorns are mentioned multiple times in the Bible, so they must be real, ,, just as real as the dragons also mentioned in the Bible.

So to believe in God's existence you must also believe in unicorns and dragons. And we have ample evidence of dragons from our folklore and dinosaur bones.

Additionally, here's a few interesting links for you to puruse...

I ran across this link on another site and immediately thought of this theme park as a vital piece of the Wedge Plan in swaying public opinion. This plan is amazing simple in its implementation.

Wedge strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and then this

A new high-tech temple to fundamentalist Christianity is due to open in heart of Middle America next May, aiming to provide the grandest riposte yet to Darwinian evolutionary theory. Staff and supporters of the Answers in Genesis organisation call it the Creation Museum. But secular scientists would take issue with the use of either word to describe the almost completed building that stands just a few miles west of Cincinnati, on the borders of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. Wherever you stand on the debate, it is impossible not to be impressed by the effort that has gone into constructing the $27m (£13.5m) museum, which hopes to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. "We have a planetarium to our left, and a virtually-finished bookstore. "The museum is right under that archway there," said Mark Looy, vice president for ministry relations, standing in the foyer next to an animatronics dinosaur that is munching on a synthetic plant. Playful dinosaurs The museum's aim is to bring Genesis - the first book of the Bible - to life for all ages, and promote the belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Creationists believe humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time Everybody who works at the museum has to sign on to the belief that the living Earth was created in six 24-hour days - rejecting the convention most scientists view as fact, that life evolved slowly over millions of years. To hammer that point home, two smiling children clad in tasteful animal skins, work and play alongside a pair of baby Tyrannosaurus Rex.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Creation museum pushes 'true history'

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: rcne But unicorns are mentioned multiple times in the Bible, so they must be real, ,, just as real as the dragons also mentioned in the Bible. So to believe in God's existence you must also believe in unicorns and dragons. And we have ample evidence of dragons from our folklore and dinosaur bones.]

No I don't believe in a strict literal reading of the bible.

Anyway, I sort of retracted that quote above.

[Jack]

the effort that has gone into constructing the $27m (£13.5m) museum

All to support their philosophy...while children starve around the world. That much money could have been put to such better uses also in keeping with their beliefs. It's a shameful waste; not that I expect too many theists to actually feel ashamed about it.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Cephus Not until I see evidence, nope. It's certainly possible, perhaps even statistically likely, but I don't think for one second that they're coming here, if they're out there at all.

You said nope, then you said it is perhaps statistically likely.

I am asking - despite the lack of evidence, do you believe they exist. Not, are they coming here - just, do you believe they exist?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood A truly logical person dismisses that which violates all the known evidence of physics, biology, astrophysics, etc. The truly logical person doesn't believe in unicorns, leprechauns, monsters under the bed or other imaginary beasties, like god(s).

In what way does a god violate known evidence from physics, biology, astrophysics, etc...?

[Cephus]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Atheism is the belief that there is no God, a truly logical person allows for the possibility of God because there is no proof He does not exist.

It is? News to me. Try again.

Virtually all atheists *LACK* belief in deities. Lack of belief is not, whether you like it or not, belief of lack.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary A truly logical person knows that humans know nothing and that all things are possible. I guess even unicorns, although I don't get anything out of believing they're real.

Cool, go jump off a tall building. After all, we know nothing, therefore violating gravity is possible.

Come on back and tell us how we know nothing after you take your leap of faith.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I am asking - despite the lack of evidence, do you believe they exist. Not, are they coming here - just, do you believe they exist?

No clue. I haven't seen any evidence to support either their existence or non-existence, therefore I take no position on their existence.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Cephus No clue. I haven't seen any evidence to support either their existence or non-existence, therefore I take no position on their existence.

Do you similarly take no position of the existence of gods?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Cephus Cool, go jump off a tall building. After all, we know nothing, therefore violating gravity is possible. Come on back and tell us how we know nothing after you take your leap of faith.

I meant to say that we know very little, many scientists believe it is possible to negate gravity.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Do you similarly take no position of the existence of gods?

That's our point, isn't it? Unless atheists can prove convincingly that God does not exist science must regard His existance as unproven.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Do you similarly take no position of the existence of gods?

Yup, I've said that before. I lack belief.

a = without
theos = belief in god(s)

I'm an atheist.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Cephus Yup, I've said that before. I lack belief. a = without theos = belief in god(s) I'm an atheist.

Perhaps I have just been overexposed to Zhavric.

[Jack]

Unless atheists can prove convincingly that God does not exist science must regard His existance as unproven.

Regardless of what atheists can "prove", science does not concern itself with questions of a philosophical nature unless they form the basis of a hypothesis to be tested.
That's why ID is so easily dismissed. It presents no testable hypothesis. It makes claims that cannot be falsified.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood Regardless of what atheists can "prove", science does not concern itself with questions of a philosophical nature unless they form the basis of a hypothesis to be tested. That's why ID is so easily dismissed. It presents no testable hypothesis. It makes claims that cannot be falsified.

Does evolution make claims that can be falsified?