Proving gods existence

I have heard/Read this argument before.

I would struggle a little to respond, in her shoes.

I would probably refer to the Prophecies in Scripture. KJV.

I hope there is an interesting answer to this.

Please update me/us on it.

Is this an ancient debate/argument??

Either people have evidence to believe in a claim, or they don't. As the Dr stated, and others, ask a person what it would take for them not to believe. Also ask them what it would take for them not to believe in things like The Everett Hypothesis, B theory of time, Information based quantum mechanics while you're at it. The traditional arguments for God, unequivocally prove that God exists, unless you think you have better reason to believe in some of these hypothesis' offered as refutations. 

Do you believe an infinite number of universes exist in the multi-verse, in which case things like unicorns, hobbits and spaghetti monsters certainly exist through an infinite number of iterative changes and evolution, or that the universe is information based and is really an illusion? If the information based universe is true, then things like the planet, ourselves and Indonesia truly do not exist.

These are the kinds of things that  must   be true if God does not exist. The universe is either fine tuned, by God, or there's an infinite number of universes, that's simply where we're at and people who are extremely well read on the topic know this.

 You research thoroughly and ask yourself which has the best reasons for belief, and believe it, or remain an agnostic. Any notion put forth by anybody that the theist position is somehow less reasoned, or can only be a result of some cognitive bias and theirs is not, is utterly ignorant about the topic. There is literally no reason whatsoever to believe in the things they offer as refutations they offer to theistic arguments such as infinite parallel universes, yet because of various cognitive biases, they will still make an epistemological claim that they are "more likely true" and they are "more rational to believe" 

Rather you believe in God or not, belief in God is the epitome of the word "rational". People can give dumb reasons for believing almost anything. You'd probably get the same sort of answer if you asked how someone "knows" that 2+2=4 "cuz... it just does". However, that doesn't mean the belief isn't rational.

The isse here is that you are not approaching the problem with logic (the problem's inherent logic, not the theme's logic).

So here is a start: 

YOU are stuck in a circular argument with her. That's because you did not define the nature of your problem (she doesn't have any problem with you).  So in order to exit this circularity of YOURS, you firstly need to define your problem  The problem might be: I am interested in this debate because I value this person's opinion, but WE are stuck in a circular argument. OR:  her opinion is  none-sense and I want to convince her to abandon it. 

The second step will be to understand the logic of beliefs.  We are not divided into 'believers' and 'non-believers', but in four categories: those who WANT to believe, those who don't want to believe, those who want NOT to believe, and those who don't want NOT to believe.  

If you start reasoning with logic about the problem at hand, rather than the 'theme', you will be much better equipped to continue the conversation with this person.  The first thing I would do is define my aim (continue this interesting conversation or convincing her), and then identify this person's category. 

As a side note, what confuses me is the Christians claim four gods (not counting the evil god they call Satan) to be one, thereby maintaining their monotheism. The four are: The Holy Impregnator, Mary the Impregnated, Jesus the Progeny, and the Big Guy, who got his kicks watching the impregnation process, Jehovah. 

I'm pretty sure Christianity does n ot claim by and large that Mary is a God. Mary was a human that is why Christians say Jesus was fully man and fully God. The human part is from his human mother. The claim that Mary is part if the Godhead is typically seen as heresy.

Could be Mary is not one of their gods.  It still leaves me confused about the other three. 

Mary is not God, this was completely false by the questioner. In Catholicism, where Mary is venerated,  Hyperdulia is like an ultra state of saint hood. Mary is not eternal, but a contingent human being. Satan obviously is not God, but also was created, and is not eternal (in Christianity, Satan is a fallen angel).

The questioner has a lot of work to do to really understand the subject, but it's good to ask questions!

Thank you. My, but the mythology is complicated. Satan sure sounds to me like a bad god in the good god / bad god stories, otherwise, he wouldn't be so powerful. He was an angel, but fell? What did he trip over?  If he's not eternal, I guess the Christians just have to wait him out and all will be well. 

Yeah, tripped.

And yes, if you're dealing with polytheism, Satan would be a "bad god". Those are totally different religions though. In Monotheism, the only God is a single God, and everything else is His contingent creation, or derived from His contingent creation. In polytheism gods generally are all contingent beings. That's why they have offspring (not just an incarnation). Zeus' father was Cronus for example, and was one of several children. They had weaknesses and strengths much like humans and other contingent entities, and are good or bad, amoral etc. This paradigm pretty much has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity or any monotheistic religion.

And that is correct. In Christianity, Satan has a beginning and an end. Mary has a beginning, and thus is not past-eternal, same with us. However, God is "from everlasting to everlasting" as stated in the Bible, or as in philosopher verbiage  a "necessary" entity.

Yes, ridicule is "fun", probably the funnest for people who are least qualified to be doing it. Lawrence Krauss??? Seriously? 

David Albert, Professor of Philosophy of Science at Columbia University, and an atheist, NY Times review of Lawrence Krauss "A universe from nothing"

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

There's just so many others.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/

Lawrence Krauss literally has no idea what he is talking about on this subject.

You seem to be sadly indoctrinated by the completely philosophically defunct and logically contradictory "New Atheists" just by reading your response.

Yes, ridicule is fun, but there are those among us who are so oblivious that they don't seem to realize that they aren't the ones qualified to do it. All of the "new atheists" like Krauss would fit into that category.

[To ] 

Tying me to the New Atheists would be like me assuming you are a dentist because you apply the Dr. appellation to your christened name.  In each case, such an assumption would probably be wrong and equally irrelevant.

Besides, it is obviously an erroneous ad hominem (guilt by association) slur to
personally attack me and my somewhat tongue-cheek answer to the OP’s
question. 

(Ooooh, atheist, baaaad! New Atheist, even badder!) Pshaw! 

My answer was neither an argument nor a statement of fact, but merely an anecdotal commentary on the futility of arguing with fundamentalists - the equivalent of playing chess with a pigeon. Why you felt it deserved such a mediocre response is revealing.

My response had little to say about atheism or New Atheism, but rather the inanity and inherently circular nature of fundamentalist argumentation. So your condescending response is uncalled for and, quite frankly, an embarrassing projection fallacy on your part.

You have no clue about my attitudes on New Atheism or even atheism but simply project your own unsupported prejudices on me.

Now, the whole point of logic and identifying logical fallacies (and hence the purpose of this site) is to develop techniques for evaluating the cogency of arguments independently of the arguer's identity. Apparently, you didn’t get the memo, and apparently, you have some knee-jerk grievance against the renowned and admittedly disgraced theoretical physicist and cosmologist Lawrence Krauss. That's legitimate. I just don't share that point of view.

But it would otherwise constitute a genetic fallacy except for the simple fact I was quoting his views on ridicule in debate and not theoretical physics. You oddly
post criticisms of his book "A Universe From Nothing” as if this discredits him. Let me remind you It is an integral part of scientific methodology to draw criticism for one’s theories - so it says absolutely nothing that his theories would invite his own share of critics.

But his views on physics are not the subject. So this is nothing but a shameful red herring. 

If you want to describe his debate abilities as unqualified I invite anyone here to watch his many debates and arrive at the same conclusion. He happens to be a 
brilliant debater and fascinating orator whatever you might think of his personal behavior. In fact, Christopher Hitchens, who partnered with him in many debates, described him as “One of the greatest theoretical physicists alive”.  As far as your other idiotic assertion that ridicule requires some kind of scientific qualification I would point out the long list of humorists, comedians, philosophers, social activists, musicians, comic artists, and thinkers who have made brilliant use of sarcasm and ridicule with no scientific bona fides whatsoever.  Certainly, H.L. Mencken was one of the best of them.

As for my views on New Atheism, I would just say I reject the term and cannot for the life of me tell the difference between it and old atheism. If there was anyone here who seems to be intellectually (and rather hysterically) in its thrall - that would be you. 

Just wanted to make clear that this response wasn't in response to Dr. Richard, but a former member who was removed from this forum for his constant diversions into hatred against atheists and academics (and ironically, used the designation "PHD" after his name). There was a bug that showed the wrong name when the user who posted was removed. I think I have this fixed now. Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks for the clarification. Let me know if I need to revise anything.