" in·fin·i·tive (ĭn-fĭn′ĭ-tĭv)n. Abbr. inf. or infin. A verb form that functions as a substantive while retaining certain verbal characteristics, such as modification by adverbs, and that in English may be preceded by to, as in To go willingly is to show strength or We want him to work harder, or may also occur without to, as in She had them read the letter or We may finish today." Therefore the "to" is not the "infinitive"
you guys are feeding the trolling. Inc will take you down an infinite rabbit hole which completely derails the actual topic and you just go back and forth arguing definitions.
In English it may be preceded by to. My example was preceded by to, which infinitives may do. Once again, not sure where I'm losing you. Maybe look up "split infinitive" as well for context that may help.
Truth is an implication. It is necessarily what it is. Proof is an inference. It is the product of testing. To the extent that a thing is tested, it is proved.
I seldom chime in on these things, but if he wishes me to believe he exists, then there must be proof. I have little time or tolerance for faith.
I would have thought that nothing in this universe needs to prove it 'exists' including God. The answer to the question of whether or not something exits or not lies within the remit of the observer not the observed.
"Prove He exists" to whom? To His creatures? Does an author have to prove that He exists to His novel characters?
invalid comparison. Charectors in a novel are not part of reality. The author is. Your imaginary god would be part of reality, as well as it's creation. So it would need to prove it exists to it's creation.
If nothing needs to be proven to exist, then what is the point of scientific inquiry in the first place? Discovery of that which we do not readily perceive or naturally observe is at the heart of human progress. Microbes and galaxies readily come to mind as examples. Both "proofs of existence" sparked massive scientific and technological development.
All true but those discoveries you refer to (and all others) are the fruits of scientific investigation. Mankind discovered them by searching. The discovery of new ideas /concepts/scientific truths etc is not a passive endeavor, we seek and thereby learn and that search is a choice. Some (few) basic truths thrust themselves upon us as children or adults e.g. fire burns, it hurts when we lose someone etc but the vast majority have to be actively searched for.
One would like to think that the pursuit of the "truth" is a universal human endeavor, but regrettably that is not the case. There are too many intangible "truths" that are simply assumed by the spiritually incurious.
He may have made you to believe that He does, but He did not make me believe that He does. I don't think that He does. No where in the bible does the bible hold out the bible as the reason that men could know that there is a God. The bible holds out the nature of the balance of creation as the reason why we can know that this is a creation, and we have a creator.
doesn't it strike you as rather suspicious that god was so willing to perform miracles to prove his existance in the past and now in the modern world we are suddenly expected to take it all on faith?
Of course there is! I challenge it to strike me dead. Will post if I am here tomorrow, and assume that will prove the non existance of god to everyones satisfaction.
No one makes me believe anything, certainly no deity. I see religion as just another form of government and a deity just another symbol, like a flag. So, a deity does no more to make me believe in something any more than a flag. The Bible is a nice collection of myths, selectively chosen as a collection by a few government leaders.
Jesus made that quite clear after His resurrection in His comments to doubting Thomas. Blessed are those who having not seen, believe.
God is our father right? I don't know about any of you but I'd actually show up and physically be around my children. If God really existed, we wouldn't have to wonder whether he existed or not because he'd be around in ways that were indisputable. He might show up and make some remarks when 9/11 happened or come down and heal a few people. Jesus did supposedly perform some miracles, but that was only a 3 year period 2,000 years ago and the only evidence we have of this are unverified claims by some religious people back then. Why doesn't he and his prophets perform miracles on a regular basis just like parents help their children on a regular basis? There are many other religions that have their own supernatural and miracle claims too like Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc. We also have UFO, Bigfoot sightings as well as physic and ghost claims. Just because someone claimed that miracles happened in a time of superstition doesn't mean we should just believe it.
That is what rational people call a copout. And pretty funny since while he was alive he had no issue with performing cheap stunts to fool the masses.