Experimenting on God (or religion) -- silly, concur first on the concept of God

[CandideWest]

Dear Candide, I said that you have a segmentic mind but no wholistic mind at all…

As per my previous post, I’m going to stick to the topic at hand and ignore all your guesses and assumptions about my mind etc.

as the universe has a beginning (the fact), therefore it has a cause outside itself (the conclusion) – because anything with a beginning (the fact) needs a cause to bring it to existence (the logic).

Ok, this is progress, so you’ve now given us something else to work with.

1. The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago
2. anything with a beginning needs a cause to bring it to existence

Obviously we are still a long way from your conclusion that the cause must be some other thing, and you have not yet demonstrated that 2. Is correct. But this is progress. Please continue to present your case.

Now you have abandoned your previous attack of bringing in the fallacy of my supposedly engaging in assumptions, to bringing in the imaginary fallacy of my arguing from ignorance, namely, just because I do not know something does not justify my conclusion to another thing.

??? Not sure what you’re trying to say here. Thus far you still appear to be making assumptions, and you still haven’t stated what these are (other than 2. you wrote above.

Also what you’ve written is not quite what an argument from ignorance is. I tried to explain this in my previous post, I’d suggest looking it up, there’s a reasonable explanation on Wikipedia if it helps. but if you need further explanation let me know and I’ll do my best to help.

Okay, how do you expound on your contrary claim: that the Big Bang wasn’t the start of our universe but rather just a change in it?

You have misunderstood, I am NOT claiming that the Big Bang wasn’t the start of the universe. I’m simply stating that it is possible that it wasn’t. For the sake of discussion I’m happy to assume that it was the beginning (and not for example a change in a state of a pre-existing universe, which could of course also match observation).

Again though, you have still not provided any argument linking your initial observation, that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago to your conclusion that the universe has cause outside itself. As I said before, you need to write out your argument so that someone else can follow it and agree or challenge as appropriate. Why not have a shot at that rather than trying to make guesses about my mind and attacking example arguments?

So far nobody could possibly agree with you as they couldn’t know what they were agreeing to.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So far nobody could possibly agree with you as they couldn’t know what they were agreeing to.

 

[KingCoil]

…]

KingCoil:

Okay, how do you expound on your contrary claim: that the Big Bang wasn’t the start of our universe but rather just a change in it?

You have misunderstood, I am NOT claiming that the Big Bang wasn’t the start of the universe. I’m simply stating that it is possible that it wasn’t. For the sake of discussion I’m happy to assume that it was the beginning (and not for example a change in a state of a pre-existing universe, which could of course also match observation).

Again though, you have still not provided any argument linking your initial observation, that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago to your conclusion that the universe has cause outside itself. As I said before, you need to write out your argument so that someone else can follow it and agree or challenge as appropriate. Why not have a shot at that rather than trying to make guesses about my mind and attacking example arguments?

So far nobody could possibly agree with you as they couldn’t know what they were agreeing to.

You state:

You have misunderstood, I am NOT claiming that the Big Bang wasn’t the start of the universe. I’m simply stating that it is possible that it wasn’t.

I am telling you that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, but you are not listening to them, for you still say that “it is possible that (the Big Bang) wasn’t (the start of the universe).”

Okay, tell us, is there a beginning or start of the universe according to scientists, yes or no.

Please, don’t quibble, let me know what you know from scientists about the beginning or start of the universe.

Don’t invest your time with reacting to my words sporadically, I always focus on the most relevant thought that I want you to focus on, but you always just beat about the bush and now you are into taking flight from listening to scientists.

Okay, please just tell me what you know from scientists about what they tell us in regard to the beginning erh start of the universe, do they not tell us that the universe has a beginning erh start some 13.8 billion years ago?

When you react next to this post, start with answering with a yes or no, that you know scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, yes or no.

Dear readers here, let us see whether he will answer with a yes or no to my question to him, “Do you know that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning erh or start some 13.8 billion years ago, yes or no”.

Most likely as I know already his attitude, he will not answer this question but quibble again and bring in some alien extraneous unconnected silliness, and of course that I misunderstand him altogether – please forgive me. Candide, but you are a most misunderstood poster when it comes to your interaction with me.

.
You see, dear readers here, my purpose in talking with people is first to invite them to first that we concur on things which we can and must concur on, like that the universe has a beginning according to scientists some 13.8 billion years ago: for it is nonsensical to communicate at all when both sides in the communication have nothing they concur on, but each side is talking in his own direction opposite to the other side, and both are declaiming a lot of unconnected learning, not linked to the issue at hand.

I am not displaying any unconnected learning from rote memory, but I see Candide and others here to be into the bad habit of displaying from rote memory their silly learning from yes rote memory, but ne’er any insight into the fact that everything in actual objective existence outside our mind, including of course our brain the organ of our mind but still distinct from our mind, is interconnected ineluctably together, as every particle, field, force, laws of nature and laws of physics whatever are interlinked together, and the whole universe studied by scientists (for myself as one who knows God to exist from my intelligent* thinking grounded on logic and facts) are connected to God as their creator and operator.

*Perhaps Candide will now want to tell me that I do not know what is intelligent thinking? Dear Candide, intelligent thinking is to not engage in quibbles and to not inure yourself in segmentic thinking: if you want to know what is intelligent thinking, first, remove quibbles from your words, and acquire the skill and habit of wholistic grasp of everything in the universe, the one scientists tell us has a beginning erh or start some 13.8 billion years ago.

And dear Candide, do not bother to react sporadically to my post, just attend to my one request to you at this instance of the thread, answer with a yes or no, “Do you know that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning erh or start some 13.8 billion years ago, yes or no.”

Okay, I will close this post with this reminder to Candide, tell me whether you know that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning erh or start some 13.8 billion years ago, yes or no?

I fear that he will want to talk about the difference between beginning and start, that is his quibbling self again.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Okay, tell us, is there a beginning or start of the universe according to scientists, yes or no.

Drawing your attention to this part:

For the sake of discussion I’m happy to assume that it was the beginning

Take it to mean “yes”.

 

[CandideWest]

I am telling you that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, but you are not listening to them, for you still say that “it is possible that (the Big Bang) wasn’t (the start of the universe).”

Ok, I fear you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how science works. Currently most models of the origin of the universe have the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I tend to agree with that position.

But there is nothing in science which shows that the Big Bang COULDN’T have been a change from some pre-existing universe. So when constructing logical arguments it is not something which is necessarily true.

Okay, tell us, is there a beginning or start of the universe according to scientists, yes or no.

As I’ve already said, for the sake of discussion I’m happy to assume that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang. So - yes.

The question I keep asking is - where do we go from there? How do we get from there to your conclusion?

*Perhaps Candide will now want to tell me that I do not know what is intelligent thinking? Dear Candide, intelligent thinking is to not engage in quibbles …

Indeed, and also not engaging in irrelevant digressions as well. So I’ll leave these alone in the hopes that perhaps this time you will show how you get from

“the universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago”

To

“The universe had a cause outside itself”

And I don’t just mean putting the word “therefore” in between the two statements.

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, Candide, for your reply.

Before I go to your post, I want to remind you that you are not doing intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, because you are doing fictions in your mind and not going into the universe which according to scientists has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

You see, and I keep reminding you and readers on this matter, that when we talk we are occupied with thoughts, ideas, concepts, imaginations, even and most in particular: fictions as distinct from non-fictions, in our mind, that is all in what I call the realm of concepts in the mind.

So, the realm of concepts in our mind is divided into two sub-realms: non-fictions or fictions.

What distinguishes non-fictions from fictions?

Here:
Non-fictions have to do with thoughts in our mind on or about or for which we DO GO into the objective actual reality of existing things and events outside our mind in the universe to look for them, which things and events correspond to our concepts of them in our mind; this world is what I call the realm of things and events outside our mind in the universe of objective existing reality.

Fictions, as opposed to and thus distinct from non-fictions, fictions have to do with thoughts in our mind on or about or for which we DON’T go into the objective actual reality of existing things and events outside our mind in the universe to look for them, although they non-fiction concepts in our mind can be of possible things and events, or even impossible things and events.

Let me put my thoughts into a concise classification:

http://i58.tinypic.com/oivmts.jpg

Repeat in non-picture text ]

Realm of concepts in our mind
   1. Non-fictions
   2. Fictions
      a. On possible things and events
      b. On impossible things and events

http://i62.tinypic.com/xdxj7b.jpg

Dear Candide, please tell me what you understand by the word model, as you use it in the following statement from yourself:

Currently most models of the origin of the universe have the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe…

Now, tell what you understand by the word evidence, as you use it in the following statement from yourself:

Currently most models of the origin of the universe have the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I tend to agree with that position.

What other models do you have of the start of the universe, aside from the one according to which scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago?

Now, tell me, what do you understand by science, is there such a thing as speculative science and non-speculative science.

In speculative science do you see that it can be into pure fictions, if there is no evidence i.e. facts whatsoever in the realm of objective actual existing universe of things and events?

Please, try to do some genuinely intelligent thinking grounding yourself on logic and facts.

Is it not a fact according to scientists that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago? please see that a fact is not a model at all, but an instance of reality.

A fact is not a model at all because it has evidence in the objective actual realm of reality in the existing universe of things and events.

So, if you will only do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, tell me which model of the universe is the one favored and supported by intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, the one which scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, or some other models of the universe of which I am asking you to present some.

Okay, please abstain already from manipulating words and concepts to do fraudulent thinking that is totally contrary to intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

The fact is that according to scientists the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, the logic is that anything with a beginning has a cause, the conclusion is therefore the universe has a cause outside itself.

The transit consists in genuine intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts and the search for the cause in the objective actual realm of reality in the universe of existing things and events, in which universe we do find that everything in it has a beginning as the whole universe itself has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Okay, you will ask me again where is the transit? and I will then ask you how did you score in IQ tests when you applied for a job or say tried to get into a proper college course of studies, to prepare yourself for a genuinely intelligent thinking life grounded on logic and facts?

Please study my classification above and do genuinely intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, abstain from fictions even though you might be able to conjure up the kind of abstract math to support your fictions, because if you do not have evidence i.e. facts in the objective actual existing universe of things and events, they are all fictions.

In your reply to my present post, please tell me what other models of the beginning of the universe you know about.

And also do some genuinely intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts on what I am saying all the time to you and readers here: keep in mind the distinction between segmentic thinking which is not intelligent thinking, and wholistic thinking.

• From Admin: The text that you have entered is too long (6029 characters). Please shorten it to 6000 characters long. ]*

Okay, see the next post where I have put the last words of the present post.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Continuation ]

That is the biggest fallacy of all fallacies, to not attend to the whole big picture of reality, but to occupy oneself most of the times if not in every instance of un-intelligent thinking, namely, to occupy yourself in segmentic thinking, and forgive me, that is what you do all the time as you think of yourself as a clever but perverse manipulator of words and concepts, that is all you are doing with your brain.

And please, no more sporadic shooting into my posts, stick to the meat of my posts.

Best regards,

KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

Thanks, Candide, for your reply.

Before I go to your post, I want to remind you that you are not doing intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, because you are doing fictions in your mind …

Irrelevant and thus ignored. Again, please stick to the topic, you’re just wasting your own time writing out all this unrelated text.

Dear Candide, please tell me what you understand by the word model…

Now, tell what you understand by the word evidence…

Now, tell me, what do you understand by science…

Sorry, but this thread isn’t really the place to explain the scientific method to you. Again there’s info on Wikipedia if you need it. But it’s nothing to do with the subject of this thread, so I’ll ignore this as yet another digression.

The fact is that according to scientists the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, the logic is that anything with a beginning has a cause, the conclusion is therefore the universe has a cause outside itself.

Ok, so here we are in the same place again. The challenge that lies before you is still to present an argument.

Thus far we have

1. the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago
2. anything with a beginning has a cause
   …

Now we just need some way to get from there to your conclusion. Again, please note that the word “therefore” is not a substitution for a logical argument.

Once you have done that then (and only then) can we go about establishing if your argument is valid and sound and perhaps reaching some agreement.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So, the realm of concepts in our mind is divided into two sub-realms: non-fictions or fictions.

In science there is also the concept of something being “provisionally true.” Scientific results are provisional, always subject to being modified or even overturned by subsequent events.

For example, estimated formation dates for the the earth (the earth and universe were thought to have been formed at the time time by some) and the estimated formation of the universe have varied over time.

• 1760 Earth was estimated to be 75,000 years old based on estimates of crust cooling
• 1831 - Earth estimated to be 240 million years old based on fossil evidence
• 1897 - Earth estimated to be between 20 - 400 million years old based on based on information of heat conduction and radiation
• 1901 - Earth estimated to be between 90 and 100 million years old based on ocean salinity levels
• 1905 - 1907 - Earth estimated to be 4.3 billion years old
• 1929 - Hubble estimates galaxies were together about 2 billion years ago based on the red shift of stars.
• 1947 - George Gamow estimates universe to have formed 2 - 3 billion years ago based on Hubble’s observations
• 1952 - Estimates of the formation of galactic clusters between 1 to 10 billion years ago
• 1999 - NASA estimates (observable) universe formed about 12 billion years ago
• 2001 - 12.5 billion years based on radioactive measurements
• 2002-12-13 billion based on cooling of white dwarf stars
• 2003 - 13.7 billion based on cosmic background radiation
• 2012-2013 - 13.798 ± 0.037 based on WMAP and other data

I’m not disputing the present numbers, but based on history I can see why it may be thought to be possible for current estimates to change. Until that day the current estimate can be treated as correct (provisionally true).

Dear Candide, please tell me what you understand by the word model, as you use it in the following statement from yourself:

[Scientific Model (https://www.wolframalpha.com/(name removed by moderator)ut/?i=scientific+model) - an approximation or simulation of a real system that omits all but the most essential variables of the system.

wiki:

A scientific model seeks to represent empirical objects, phenomena, and physical processes in a logical and objective way. All models are in simulacra, that is, simplified reflections of reality, but, despite their inherent falsity, they are nevertheless extremely useful. [Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces.]

 

[CandideWest]

In science there is also the concept of something being “provisionally true.” Scientific results are provisional, always subject to being modified or even overturned by subsequent events.

…

It’s nice of you to try to help Kingcoil out TS but I fear this is only going to provide yet another ramble unrelated to the topic at hand.

I just want to see what his / her argument is at this point.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It’s nice of you to try to help Kingcoil out TS but I fear this is only going to provide yet another ramble unrelated to the topic at hand.

I just want to see what his / her argument is at this point.

I fear you are correct.

 

[hasantas]

.[/indent]

God could not be recognized without prophets. İf prophets did not herald about God mankind would never know and define God.

Science can not explain everything as material(example:senses). İf we had not known God than when we learn that universe emerged about 13.8 billion years ago than we will image and presume eternal and countless Big Bangs or something like that. Or this point would remain imprecise to us. Although there are thousands of prophets someone can not find The Creator of everything.

 

[CandideWest]

God could not be recognized without prophets. İf prophets did not herald about God mankind would never know and define God.

Or they might have invented imaginary gods to explain things they did not understand. As indeed we know that many cultures throughout human history have done.

If we need “prophets” for some reason then how do we establish whether these guys are saying something true or not? Especially when different “prophets” contradict each other. Surely we need some method to discern which (if any) are right?

Also, what (if anything) does this have to do with the subject of this thread?

Science can not explain everything as material (example:senses). İf we had not known God than when we learn that universe emerged about 13.8 billion years ago than we will image and presume eternal and countless Big Bangs or something like that. Or this point would remain imprecise to us. Although there are thousands of prophets someone can not find The Creator of everything.

Ok, and many people of course still do not believe in any gods and those who do believe in many different and often mutually exclusive gods.

All these thousands of god concepts don’t seem to have advanced our understanding of the origin of the universe at all thus far.

 

[KingCoil]

Okay, folks it was fun and most productive with this thread, and for myself in the process of managing it as the author, I have come to a lot of insights into the what and how of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Now, that some folks here are into what I call doggerel in place of constructive posting, I will leave you now, with this OP from my new thread.

Title of Thread: How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.

Atheists here, I like to ask you what do you have for information of the concept of God in the Christian faith, as also in the Judaic faith and in the Islamic faith?

You see, if you do not have any information about the concept of God in these religions, then it is forgive me for saying so, useless or nonsensical on your part to proclaim endlessly that you just do not believe in the existence of God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, whatever else.

I have decided not to any further reply to posters in my earlier thread on experimenting with God, etc., forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11832752&postcount=46: because some posters there are getting to be un-intelligent in their thinking, not grounding themselves in logic and in facts, and I find them to be now in the state and stage of going into doggerel instead of genuine constructive posting.

But I will just put in a last post there again about how the transit is made from the fact of the universe according to scientists having a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago to the existence of God as the cause outside of the universe, namely, God is the cause of the universe.

Here as follows is how the transit is made:

1. The fact, from scientists, the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.
2. The logic, anything with a beginning has a cause outside itself.
3. The transit, Premise 1 is included within the circumference of the circle that is Premise 2, namely, it is one of the anything that has a beginning.
4. The conclusion, therefore: the universe has need of a cause outside itself to have come into existence.

If folks cannot see the transit there, then I fear they are beyond rational thinking i.e. intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Anyway, dear atheists here or anyone not seeing the logic of how we must concur on the concept of God before we can with us knowers of God, know God at all, and from your part who deny God to exist, know what God you are denying to exist: otherwise you are not being logical, for how can you hit the correct target of God in denying God to exist, if you do not have at all any information of the concept of God, in particular the concept of God in the three Abrahamic faiths – Christianity, Islam, Judaism.

I invite you to work with me to arrive the concurrence on the correct information of the concept of God in these three Abrahamic faiths.

You see, dear atheists and atheists’ colleagues, I have this psychological and also epistemological principle that we can and do come to the existence of God by intelligent thinking grounding ourselves on logic and facts, and from the concept of God, we do by that psychological and epistemological principle come to the existence of God, from the concept of God.

That concept, namely, by which we know God in relation to the universe and man, as first and foremost, cause of the universe, which universe scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

If you are not an atheist or a colleague of atheists, meaning you are sympathetic to their advocacy of there being no God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, whatever else, you are also invited to I mean for us to work together to come to concurrence on the concept of God in the three Abrahamic faiths, of course not exclusively, but just for having a scope limit to our exchange we will concentrate on these three faiths in regard to the concept of God, for there are other faiths which have the concept of God, as first and foremost the cause of the universe.

Let us see if we can have a productive undertaking, employing intelligent thinking grounding ourselves in logic and in facts.

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

Okay, folks it was fun and most productive with this thread, and for myself in the process of managing it as the author, I have come to a lot of insights into the what and how of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Now, that some folks here are into what I call doggerel in place of constructive posting, I will leave you now, with this OP from my new thread.

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

KingCoil

Ok, to avoid repetition I’ll reply to your post on the new thread as it seems a similar topic.

Cheers

 

[hasantas]

(( Or they might have invented imaginary gods to explain things they did not understand. As indeed we know that many cultures throughout human history have done.))

First mankind were a prophet so humanbeing know prophethood and Creator. But by time they changed religion and faith. So there could be some corrupt religion which got away from revelations. Example: When Moses let his people alone for some time His tribe start to worship a sculpture of calf which they made with their hands.

Believing in a Deity power and supporter is a need for mankind. Because humanbeing is so weak and poor. To avoid himself from enemies and to get and derive his lacks he always needed a support so from this points he can find The Creator and his Deity. But if there were not prophet maybe he would belive in sun, moon, stars, fire, statues etc.

((If we need “prophets” for some reason then how do we establish whether these guys are saying something true or not? Especially when different “prophets” contradict each other. Surely we need some method to discern which (if any) are right?

Also, what (if anything) does this have to do with the subject of this thread? ))

Prophets performed miracles to prove their claim. İf they did not demonstrate their claims no one would believe in them. Even they performed so many miracles someone did not believe and said “this is magic”.

Non prophet contradict each other. The claims all prophets were: They United in same faith(There is a Creator, Judgement Day, Heavens, Hell.) The other issues are parts religion and religion can be different according to conditions, time, climates. But since last prophet world has been a unique and same class so there should not need different religion anymore. (communication and transportation are easy and general)

((Ok, and many people of course still do not believe in any gods and those who do believe in many different and often mutually exclusive gods.

All these thousands of god concepts don’t seem to have advanced our understanding of the origin of the universe at all thus far.))

Mutually exclusive gods! One Creator(God) belief is being supported with million proofs and evidences. I wonder do unbeliever can demonstrate their claims with any proof?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

First mankind were a prophet so humanbeing know prophethood and Creator…]

There are a lot of claims stated here. But you’ve shared them in the other thread too. For the sake of not separating the discussion I’ll share my comments about those in the other thread.

I wonder do unbeliever can demonstrate their claims with any proof?

I think here you may be asking about a specific set of claims that have been generally attributed to atheist. While that is an interesting point of discussion it’s a topic that is prohibited by the administrators of this forum.

 

[CandideWest]

First mankind were a prophet so humanbeing know prophethood and Creator. But by time they changed religion and faith. So there could be some corrupt religion which got away from revelations.

Ok, so how do we establish which (if any) “prophets” gave accurate information. As we have so many of them giving conflicting claims we cannot believe all of them, so we need a method to identify true claims of “prophets” from false claims. Do you have such a method? If not how do you propose to decide which prophets to believe?

Believing in a Deity power and supporter is a need for mankind.

No it isn’t, me and millions of other people reject all claims of deities.

Because humanbeing is so weak and poor. To avoid himself from enemies and to get and derive his lacks he always needed a support so from this points he can find The Creator and his Deity. But if there were not prophet maybe he would belive in sun, moon, stars, fire, statues etc.

Yes, historically. Back before we had developed a rational understanding of the universe and realised we could use the scientific method to find out what is true, we made up many explanations for things we didn’t understand. Some of these explanations went on to become religions.

Prophets performed miracles to prove their claim. İf they did not demonstrate their claims no one would believe in them. Even they performed so many miracles someone did not believe and said “this is magic”.

There are many CLAIMS of “prophets” performing miracles to support some claim or another. But, firstly we have no evidence that ANY of these miracles actually happened, second the miracles rarely if ever actually support the other claims of these “prophets”, and finally we still need some way to separate the miracle claims which we used to support true claims from those which were used to support false ones.

For example Christianity and Islam both have holy books containing claims of miracles. The two religions cannot both be right as they directly contradict each other. How do we determine which (if either) is correct?

Non prophet contradict each other. The claims all prophets were: They United in same faith(There is a Creator, Judgement Day, Heavens, Hell.)

I’m afraid your knowledge of the range of claims made by religious prophets is a little narrow. I have personally read into hundreds of different claims made by “prophets” of various different religions which are not on your list above. Those hundreds represent a tiny subset of the vast number of claims made by prophets.

The other issues are parts religion and religion can be different according to conditions, time, climates. But since last prophet world has been a unique and same class so there should not need different religion anymore.

The last prophet? There are loads of prophets still active right now, new prophecies are being made every day. Which one do you think is the last one and why do you pick one over the others?

Mutually exclusive gods! One Creator(God) belief is being supported with million proofs and evidences.

Actually what tends to happen in my experience is that many different contradictory gods are supported with the SAME weak evidence or flawed arguments.

That’s why as an atheist I’ve been given slight variations on the same arguments in favour of Hinduism, Christianity and Islam and rejected them all on the same basis - lack of rational justification.

I wonder do unbeliever can demonstrate their claims with any proof?

What claims???