How do I convince others that God exists?

You can't. That's God's work.

>>16516243
Fuck off faggot

lying

>>16516243
Sadly isn't something that can be easily done. I mean, arguing doesn't help much if they're set in believing that he doesn't exist. Probably the best discussion point you can make is "Well, why can't he exist?".

>>16516243
Become God

>>16516273
Shhh they must not know..

>>16516272
In that situation the burden of proof would be on you

File: 1443159274149.jpg (32KB, 300x310px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x310px

>>16516243
>>16516251
>>16516272
There's a 50/50 chance of a god existing. However the chance of any religious god being right is around 1 in 5000. It's 2015, grow the fuck up and stop living off of pascals wager.

File: the pope.jpg (325KB, 531x989px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 531x989px

>>16516285
nice argument fagtron
>50/50
on what grounds?

File: 1386695175149.gif (370KB, 500x465px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 500x465px

>>16516300
God can either exist or not exist.

>>16516285
>Implying anyone here was using Pascal's wager

>>16516306
Glad to know you didn't try to hide the fact that you're retarded.

File: 1443499931737.jpg (76KB, 424x599px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 424x599px

>>16516315
>doesn't refute my point
>uses ad hominems instead
Okay smart guy, disprove the existence of god. Have fun wasting your time.

Stop feeding the troll scrubs.

>>16516324
you didn't try to make a point

i'm also 100% certain that god exists

File: 1372961182476.png (117KB, 372x351px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 372x351px

>>16516330
>i'm 100% certain god exists
KEK! Okay, guy.

File: 1441851896842.png (578KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 900x900px

>>16516334
STOP POSTING ANIME IMAGES

File: 1448857616188.png (281KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 512x512px

>>16516338

File: fire_community.gif (961KB, 245x250px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 245x250px

this thread sure went off rails

>>16516330

foolio, you can't be even 1% certain. there is no way to test this. technically you could be less than 100% confident, but that would imply that there are instances where god doesn't exist. since there's this one instance (life in this current universe) that we care about, that's kind of besides the point. therefore any quantifiable confidence level is absurd. Thus for the case of God's existence all you can say is that you can be trivially confident. QED.

And who gives a crap about trivial confidence? Jesus? I know I sure as hell don't.

>>16516350

I want a slice.

>>16516306
>God can either exist or not, so the chance of God existing is 50/50
>I can step onto any road and either be hit a car or not, so the chance of getting run over is 50/50
>My mummy can either be a sociopath or not, so the chance of her being sociopathic is 50/50
>Russia can either drop a nuclear bomb on my town or not, so the chance of getting nuked is 50/50

>>16516243

Some tips I find helpful;
>Knocking on peoples doors and harassing them at home is a great way to do it. They'll be instantly convinced and will love you for it.
>Threaten those who do not share in your beliefs with "eternal burning".
>Why try talking? throw holy water over people and baptise them on the spot...
>Lastly, target sinners more. I'm sure words of how evil their existance is, is sure to make the gays repent you homophobic god (Who let's face it, is gay as shit because he' within us all).

By forcing them to grow up in a religious household.

You could always alluha snackbar the belief into them.

>>16516243
You don't.
Pushing beliefs is one of the most obnoxious things a person can do.

You tell them why you believe what you do, and honestly say "I wish you would believe too."
The rest is up to them.

>>16516989
>>16516922
manly

>>16516941
subersive but i lie it

>>16517019
lmao @ your life

W-why not just live and let live? Live how one wants to, and let oneself have the repercussions of an eventual afterlife.

>>16516243

If they don't believe in a god(s) then you won't cage their minds.

The same as if someone wanted to try to convince you that there isn't a god.
Woukd you accept it.... probably not.

>>16516941
Doesn't work, very many people raised religiously later stop believing.

OP if someone's really set in their belief (or lack thereof), there's nothing you can do without proof. You should probably take the appeal to emotion route, because the appeal to logic route won't work.

>>16516278
It wouldn't. Did viruses not exist just because no human could prove their existence before 1800?
Benefit of doubt. Leave.

>>16517336
They existed, but that doesn't mean you could walk up to someone in 1650 and claim viruses exist without proof.

>>16516306
I agree with you.

The numbers start stacking against you when you try to figure out who God is, what God wants and whether or not God actually participated in the grand scheme of things.

>>16517345
That doesn't mean they didn't exist. Existence is not dependant upon proof. Proof is just used to convince others.
If someone walks up to you and say, "God doesn't exist", they must prove that, or accept the fact that neither is correct and it is a subjective thing based on other criteria (faith vs reason, neither being inherently better)
I'm obviously not saying that someone can walk up to an atheist who is minding his own business and say "prove me that God doesn't exist". In fact, they can, but, unless they prove it, they are not convincing anyone, and the status quo is mantained.

>>16516243
Here's my 2 cents.

Working within a human scale it is impossible to determine whether or not God exists and so it really comes down to whether or the person can feel the presence of God.
When you try to assign meaning to this is when I think it gets a bit silly, but on the other hand faith is a powerful and beautiful thing (for example boxers can flow better if they have faith in a God that has already fairly predetermined the match).

>>16517351
What exists, exists, and what doesn't exist, doesn't exist.
However, if were were in the middle ages and you told me viruses were what made me have a cold, and I asked you why you thought that, and your argument boiled down to "well I feel it's true", you would be right about viruses existing, but your reasoning wouldn't hold any water and thus be meaningless.

>>16517351
Not that guy but no, the burden of proof lies always on the one trying to prove, rather than disprove. Inability to prove does not necessitate the thing not existing, but that's like saying " there's a teacup between us and mars, you cannot disprove it therefore it exists". You must prove the claim of existence. He must point out the flaws in your proof, if any.

>>16517359
>>16517367
I don't think you get what I'm saying.
One thing is the rational world, which is based upon debate. The other is the factual world, which is NOT.
I'm arguing that you can never truly grasp the factual world, because some criteria, as I said (faith and reason) will inevitably get in the way. Neither will ever know which is truly right, and you cannot disprove faith with reason nor the opposite, why? Because they are different criteria of perception.
The burden of proof must fall on whoever is trying to change the other's convictions.
It is easy to say that "what exists, exists". But what is that "what" which you refer to? Can you know what objectively exists, all of it? If so, why can you not show it to me? As Camus once put, can you tell me what comes after a quark in scale of complexity? And after that? And after that? Does it mean they don't exist? Of course they do. Something is glueing everything together, isn't it?
What I'm trying to say is, neither side can convinve each other because they perceive the world differently based on elected assumptions. To adress separately,
>>16517359
Why does it matter if it is "meaningless"? In the end, did they exist or did they not? What you are saying is absolutely true in the logical field, which is where discussions find themselves into, but not on the onthological one. Winning an argument is not about being right. Socrates knew this all too well and that's why he criticized the sophists (which, then again, weren't completely wrong either).
At the time, no one was 'right'. The one who used the virus argument wouldn't be able to prove and thus be "right", but that didn't mean the virus didn't exist because he could not yet prove. Understand? The lack of an opposite (being right) doesn't mean by itself that the other (being wrong occurs). It is more or less of a logical stalemate.
>>16517367
It falls on whoever: a) is trying to convince or b) has more means of doing so.

>>16516915
Yea, pretty much. What's your point?

>>16517463

For faithfags probability is the same as certainty.

>>16517465
Yes, because they don't include the very real possibility of them being wrong. Delusion is a common theme in religion.

>>16517480
As well as in cults. This is no coincidence either.

>>16517487

Organized religion would probably fit most peoples definition of a cult.