Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 3 votes

Prove to me that God exists.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
857 replies to this topic

#691    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 20 February 2012 - 03:49 AM

View PostParanoid Android, on 20 February 2012 - 02:56 AM, said:

Funny, if you were me in my life with my experiences it would be "self evident" that God exists.  You have a fundamentally different paradigm, and you are free to hold your opinion.  That doesn't mean that everyone else is suddenly deluded or wrong just because they don't meet YOUR expectations.
Honestly? I do think you're slightly deluded. And I think everybody else who has had these "personal experiences" is either hallucinating, making up stories, or simply cannot explain a perfectly natural phenomenon that they've experienced pragmatically and mundanely, so they use God as an explanation because they want to believe that there is more to life than what is presented to them. Frankly, I find comfort in knowing that my life is short, and that we do not continue on after death.

Quote

You're not curious, you just want to find new ways to tell me I'm wrong.  I could give several ways that God could have answered their prayers, but you would simply put it down to a non-existent entity.  Negative reinforcement, AB.  I said that to you once before - your attitude is not really conducive to us opening up and sharing with you when the likely result is going to be ridicule and attack.  There's no reason for me to share, and every reason for me not to.  

Best wishes,

~ PA
Well, that is partially true; yes. You can give me several ways that god answered their prayers, and I can give you several ways in which he didn't answer their prayers.

Edited by Alienated Being, 20 February 2012 - 03:52 AM.


#692    No-thingBornPassion

No-thingBornPassion

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,283 posts
  • Joined:16 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • (Christian) Gnosticism also has the Holy Spirit, Christ(os), Jesus, LOVE...and God.

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:36 AM

View PostAlienated Being, on 25 January 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:

I want empirical evidence that suggests, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an omniscient, anthropomorphic supernatural being that governs the fates of his products exists.

I will write you a $10,000 cheque if you can convince me that a God truly, undeniably exists.

Go.
Even though I haven't merged with God(?), according to Exodus 33:20, "...you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." In my "limited" experience, it is true today as it was during Moses' time. Also, in my experience, to "live" is not limited to our sojourn on earth. For one to "live," one must be "aware" of one's unique existence. In my "limited" experience, to merge with God(?) is to lose one's "awareness," for God(?) is one, only one, not a committee. Plus, He(?) is completely oblivious of this world. God(?) is not part of this world; therefore, to prove something that's not even here to begin with is a brain-teaser.

You don't have to take my word for it. You may want to ask yourself, however, why you are back here on earth...if, for some reason, God(?) is real. I, on the other hand, do not doubt the reality of God(?), and my position is not just a belief system, even if I'm separate from It, in the "now."

https://www.youtube....ix3pVUX86yBWWzS  (playlist )    https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008232820397

According to Gnosticism, Christ came to world to give us a way out; so, why is Gnosticism so secretive and elitist when it comes to salvation??

#693    Alan McDougall

Alan McDougall

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Joined:29 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male

  • The truth is the truth remains the truth no matter what we believe or do not believe the truth is the truth What then is the source of absolute truth?

Posted 20 February 2012 - 09:27 AM

View Postbraveone2u, on 20 February 2012 - 07:36 AM, said:

Even though I haven't merged with God(?), according to Exodus 33:20, "...you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." In my "limited" experience, it is true today as it was during Moses' time. Also, in my experience, to "live" is not limited to our sojourn on earth. For one to "live," one must be "aware" of one's unique existence. In my "limited" experience, to merge with God(?) is to lose one's "awareness," for God(?) is one, only one, not a committee. Plus, He(?) is completely oblivious of this world. God(?) is not part of this world; therefore, to prove something that's not even here to begin with is a brain-teaser.

You don't have to take my word for it. You may want to ask yourself, however, why you are back here on earth...if, for some reason, God(?) is real. I, on the other hand, do not doubt the reality of God(?), and my position is not just a belief system, even if I'm separate from It, in the "now."



My link

A PRACTICAL MAN'S PROOF OF GOD

    The existence of God is a subject that has occupied schools of philosophy and theology for thousands of years.  Most of the time, these debates have revolved around all kinds of assumptions and definitions.  Philosophers will spend a lifetime arguing about the meaning of a word and never really get there.  One is reminded of the college student who was asked how his philosophy class was going.  He replied that they had not done much because when the teacher tried to call roll, the kids kept arguing about whether they existed or not.
    Most of us who live and work in the real world do not concern ourselves with such activities.  We realize that such discussions may have value and interest in the academic world, but the stress and pressure of day-to-day life forces us to deal with a very pragmatic way of making decisions.  If I ask you to prove to me that you have $2.00, you would show it to me.  Even in more abstract things we use common sense and practical reasoning.  If I ask you whether a certain person is honest or not, you do not flood the air with dissertations on the relative nature of honesty; you would give me evidence one way or the other.  The techniques of much of the philosophical arguments that go on would eliminate most of engineering and technology if they were applied in those fields.

    The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective.  To do this, we are assuming that we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real.  If you do not believe that you exist, you have bigger problems than this study will entail and you will have to look elsewhere.

THE BEGINNING

    If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be.  Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning.  The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1).  Most atheists maintain that there was no beginning.  The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been.  The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.

    The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question.  The picture below on the left represents our part of the cosmos.  Each of the disk shaped objects is a galaxy like our Milky Way.  All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other.  Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day.  If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C in the second diagram below, and if they are located as shown, tomorrow they will be further apart.  The triangle they form will be bigger.  The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet.  We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.

Posted Image

Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards!   If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together.  The day before that, we were still closer.  Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been?  At a point!  At the beginning!  At what scientists call a singularity!  In 1999, it was discovered that the galaxies are accelerating in their expansion.  Any notion that we live in an oscillating or pulsating universe has been dispelled by this discovery.  The universe is not slowing down, but speeding up in its motion.


A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos.  The picture to the right is a picture of the sun.  Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion.  Every second that passes, the sun Posted Image compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy.  In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence.  This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the sun.  Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way.  Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos.  Just think about it!  If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?

Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it.  As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen?  I am going to run out of gas!  If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago!  The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen.  The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe!  Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21-cm line in the spectrum--a piece of light only given off by hydrogen.  This could not be unless we had a beginning!

A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics.  In any closed system, things tend to become disordered.  If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more.  Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics.  In space, things also get old.  Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death.  If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan was so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it.  Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.

The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong.  The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.

THE CAUSE

If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question--was the creation caused or was it not caused?  The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause (a creation) but it also tells us what the cause was.  It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created."  If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing.  From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent.  Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry.  All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics.  All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!  Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason!  In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science.  No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong.  The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect.  The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.

THE DESIGN

If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the cause?  The Bible tells us that God was the cause.  We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic.  Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is "through the things he has made."  The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance.  Julian Huxley once said:

We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides.  We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.

The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways.  For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance.  Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena.  A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle."  The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life.  If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.






My quote, "The truth is the truth remains the truth no matter what we believe or do not believe even in total ignorance the truth is the truth!  What is absolute Truth?  What is the source of absolute truth  What is the source of life
Let the unknown become known.
We must know what we do not know (And admit it)
Regards Alan

#694    Habitat

Habitat

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 20 February 2012 - 09:53 AM

You realise, of course Alan, that the critics will say you have just regressed the 'cause' by one step and now have to explain the existence of God. The other option is that rational processes cannot deal with an undifferentiated singularity, being only able to speak to the relationship of parts within a system. I think this is the situation here.


#695    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,746 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 20 February 2012 - 10:13 AM

[quote]name='Alienated Being' timestamp='1329608749' post='4208052']
No, we don't believe in God as a default. If religion wasn't preached in society, I can almost guarantee you that everybody would invest their belief in science and logic, not a silly all-knowing deity. They would question, of course, how everything came into being, however... nobody is BORN believing in God; however, humans are BORN to question... but that doesn't indicate we are programmed, prior to birth, to invest belief in God... it is not a DEFAULT at all.[/quote]
I dont mean to be rude, but you are factaully wrong about this and if you believe it, then you will never truly understand the role of spirituality/religion in the human mind and society. It has been scientifically demonstarted that all human children create/ construct the concept of god, even when they have never been exposed to that concept. It is the only way our minds as children can explain much that is inexplicable.  And this has long been truee for adults, in societies where we do not have the knowledge to answer or know everything.
[quote]
The minds of children are very fickle and naive. I was always taught to believe in god from a young age, and I did for a very, very long time. I did because it was constantly preached by everybody around me, yet I made the conscious, logical decision in becoming an atheist simply because there wasn't enough evidence to suggest the existence of such a being... and there still isn't. You say, "personal experience suggests otherwise"... I say... "can you prove that what occurred to you can not be explained in a more mundane, pragmatic context?".[/quote]You are allowing you own expernce to prejudice your opinion  If you had not been taught about god you would have invented the concept for yourself. As an adult you might rationally change your mind, but that is still a choice based on reasons/rationality not evidence So is a choice to believe Children believe in god before they are taught not to. You were given choices which are not available to a child's mind because they lack experiential knowledge and data. To a child it appears that god must be everywhere, causing things to happen. This is less true for most adults :devil:

[quote]If god wasn't preached, then we wouldn't have any belief in god; we would invest all of our beliefs into science, logic and rationalization, especially with the availability of information via the Internet. God was created simply because we couldn't logically deduce the origin of our existence thousands of years ago. There were some mighty creative people back in the day. "I wonder where we came from... maybe we were created by some higher power?". Cavemen did not invest a belief in a deity. They did, however, have rituals involving death... but, there's no conclusive evidence to suggest that cavemen or any of our other ancestors invested belief in a deity.[/quote] Actually, of course cave men invested a belief in a deity. In fact in many many deities. Aboriginal people of australia and isolated stoneage people around the world still do so. Logic rationalisation  etc all apply to religions and religious beliefs. That is why we come to believe that the sun is a deity. Because it acts with a singular purpose and we know that we act with such purpose because we are self aware. Hence the sun must be self aware. It is pure logic and rationalisation, just uninformed by knowledge.

Today many educated people are religious and believe in god. In australia the more educated you are, the more likely you are to believe in god and be religious. It is the uneducated who chose NOT to believe or act with religious motivation.. I find that interesting. I know why it is so, but it flies in the face of your concept that religosity is based on ignorance .


[quote]Society is still very much subjected to Christian dogma... We see it in movies, we see it on TV, in magazines, on billboards, everywhere... hell, even the mantras "God dammit", "God damn you", "Jesus Christ", "God help me", "Holy ****" are used by pretty much everybody. Hell, we even have a holiday called Christmas. If a young child heard that, they would say "What's god?" or "Who's Jesus Christ?"... or "Why do we call it Christmas?"[/quote]

You wrote the above in response to this


[quote]So history also demonstrates conclusively that humans do not need to be taught about the existence of god(s) They find god(s) individually, via the workings of their minds, (or their intellectual reasonings) and their hearts(or emotions)
That is why only sapient, self aware, beings can construct or perceive the presence of god(s)
Societies have long been preaching the non existence of god, yet even now, only about 5% of humanity "admits to" being atheist.[/quote] My point was that humans do not need to be taught about god. They find him themselves. A child doesnt need to be taught butterflies exist they see them all around.  Same with god. How would you prevent a child seing butterlflies or references to butterflies. How would you prevent a child seeing god or refernces to god.

This is NOT teaching a child to believe in god any more than teaching a child to believe in butterflies. Its acknowledging a perceived reality which exists, not just to the child but to others. Your problem is that you are so abslutelyy certain that god does not, and cannot, exist, that you see a conspiracy. It is like a person who refuses to believe in butterflies Maybe because they are blind for example) and wants all references to them purged.

Belief in god is self generated Not taught. Its universality around the world and over all recorded history proves this point. The earliest tempple to animal deities has  been studied in modern turkey i tis over 10000 years old and the mode of worship and the nature of belief evolved over time  Ancient babylonians and sumerians believed everything came from god  Early pagans druids and celts found god in every living thing. The mongols worshiped gods of the earth and the sky. Australian aboriginal people worship ancestor spirits, totem animals, and the very country they occupy, in a modern form of pagan belief.
It is almost unheard of for ANY human society NOT to worship gods. And as early as neanderthal man, humans have demonstrated  the form of spiritual awareness which creates religious belief.

Edited by Mr Walker, 20 February 2012 - 10:32 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#696    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,560 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 February 2012 - 10:28 AM

View PostAlienated Being, on 20 February 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

They can regard it as being true, however, if there is no evidence to support it, it is considered deception, in my opinion. It misleads people and sways them from logical deduction.

You can regard your opinion as true, but it does not prevent it from being wrong.  After all, you do not get to define the word "deception", any more than you get to define what God is or isn't or what He does or does not do.  The word "deception, as defined by the English speaking population and as reported by pretty much every dictionary out there, is inescapably tied to intentional trickery, deceit, and fraud.  If you can find a working definition out there where the word is used in an innocent manner, I would be much surprised.

Opinions, unlike personal beliefs (let alone religions), tend to cover rather banal matters, and thus are fairly easy to verify if true or false.  If I were a suspicious person, I would wonder if this was an intentional deception on your part, to claim as opinion something that is so easily verifiable, utterly ignoring the irony of doing this in the same breath as claiming the opposition has nothing to support their opinion.  In all honesty, it seems more like a cheap tactic to make the other side look bad.

Although, to be fair, I do have another option:  Instead of thinking about this as a deception, with all the negative connotations this implies, I could simply think you are misled.  That you really do think that word definitions are a matter of personal opinion, that you really do not intend to refer to all believers of the JudeoChristian faith as intentionally out to deceive people, and that you really can't conceive of the notion that people other than yourself may well actual be intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions.  In short, to use the academic definition of the word, you are ignorant of the position of other people.

Quote

Also, preaching doesn't necessarily need to incorporate dogmatism. Posted Image

Yes, that would be the logical extension of the statement: "Preaching is pretty much entirely done in a dogmatic fashion."

In other words, the lack of dogmatism is most notable in its absence.

Quote

It is definitely self evident... No evidence to support it = incredible.

Yeah, see, the way discussions work is that one person makes a statement (i.e. Your belief is fallacious.  This is self-evident), another person counters it by addressing specific points (unsupported definitions, accusation as fact, contradictory documentation, etc...), and then that counter gets countered by the original person.

If the original person attempts to pretend that a different point was being addressed altogether, that is deception.  If a person tries to support their argument by...well, by repeating their argument and not actually addressing any of the points in the counter, then, well, that's just not a strong position.  At least, in the opinion of professional debaters.

Quote

Really? How so?

Covered it in my first response to you.  In essence, you are defining God in a manner inconsistent with any reports of his behaviour, you are assuminng incorrectly that personal beliefs must conform to logical or critical analysis in order to be valid, you are generally accusing everyone in a religion of being tricksters. And, last but not least, you have two entirely biased and unscientific attitudes at play, the first that of the authoritarian, the second of the cynic.

Quote

Not only that, but it didn't meet the credible and validation standard of logic and science, either.

You are trying to mislead people, Alienated Being.  You denied acting like a decisive authority, you were called out on it, and your response above is an attempt to make people think this was about someone else's opinion, when it was actually about your own behaviour.

And what makes it even weaker is that even if it were about someone else's opinion, it still does not address the point that personal beliefs do not require logic and science to be credible and valid.

Quote

And I assume based on his replies, and the contents within them.

No, you don't.  You assume based on what you expect him to say, not on what he is saying.  Much like you assume that you know what people believe God's behaviour is.  Much like you assume that religious beliefs are defined the same way scientific and logical beliefs are.

Basically, you are a scientifically ethnocentric.  Stop making the rest of us look bad.  Don't be the "ugly scientist", to paraphrase a social idiom from my youth.


#697    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,418 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 20 February 2012 - 10:33 AM

PA

Quote

Sure, I could be wrong, but it doesn't invalidate my questioning of ST's assumptions about God's actions. Does it?
I interpret differently from you atheists' remarks, including ST's very often, but many, many others' besides him.

This is the kind of claim that I see them to be rebutting,

Quote

I believe that our understanding of God can be known through the Bible.
And just as ST is not alone in making his argument, you are not alone in making yours.

Your view is that God exists, has unlimited temporal power, and is beneficent without bound. On the other hand, there is a fresh picture on the web of a group of starving children, reliably whenever you search. Starving children are as much a feature of life on earth as the seasons.

In fact, I believe that Jesus, paraphrasing Deuteronomy, remarked on that to Judas. Presumably, that puts paid to this being some kind of atheist canard.

It is natural to argue, then, that one or more of your premises seems wrong, or perhaps there is something crucial about God that you have left out. That is an argument about human beings having made an inference. It is about as simple as arguments get: based on what you said, I don't expect to see such-and-such, and yet I often do see such-and-such.

In my post, I offered the "perhaps there is something more about God that you have left out" option. This seems promising to me, because you are quite literal in many cases about that "through the Bible" part. (Although I notice that you believe that First-Century Christians, and disciples of Jesus in particular, were persecuted apart from the internecine civil unrest among Jews under Rome, a belief which is extra-Biblical. It is funny, I think, how extraneous ideas can sometimes color a reader's experience, and even possibly affect their reading of a passage.)

This is what I proposed:

Quote

I would think that we could at least agree that any statement like "God is good" would need to be qualified "... as God himself, and himself alone, reckons goodness."
Agreement to that would be prior to any speculation about the nature of God, like how God actually reckons the good.

Posted Image

#698    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 20 February 2012 - 10:56 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 20 February 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

. To a child it appears that god must be everywhere, causing things to happen. This is less true for most adults :devil:

Funny you should say that.. I once told Becky that God is everywhere, he can see you at all times, so you best behave.......She goes -  I am not happy with that, because it is rude to look at someone when they are on the toilet, he doesn't see me on the toilet does he mommy?     I laughed and all I could say back to that was - No, he doesn't look at you on the toilet...Posted Image

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#699    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 20 February 2012 - 11:02 AM

View PostAlienated Being, on 19 February 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:


We'll simply never know, because god can't be proven.

And you still made a thread asking for proof?  that makers sense  lol Posted Image

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#700    No-thingBornPassion

No-thingBornPassion

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,283 posts
  • Joined:16 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • (Christian) Gnosticism also has the Holy Spirit, Christ(os), Jesus, LOVE...and God.

Posted 20 February 2012 - 11:14 AM

View PostAlan McDougall, on 20 February 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

we are the product of an intelligent God.
[The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect. The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.]

The universe IS self-existing. It's a perfect matrix. A part of God(?), however, created it. That part is probably what many people call the Holy Spirit, or "flow," to most mystics. God(?), however, is not part of our universe, at least that's the way I got it.

Is the Holy Spirit God(?)? That's a matter of interpretation. Nevertheless, It is very powerful. It is available...

Therefore, what you call "energy" is strictly material/ethereal plane phenomenon. "Energy" is not valid in the realm after the ethereal plane because it is a "no-thing" reality.

God(?) is also the Omega. One has to shed one's "awareness" in order for one to merge with It. God(?) is only one, after all, not a committee. This is when the "breath" merges back to God(?) -- the end game.

[Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is "through the things he has made."] That's a matter of interpretation, but there's a more definite way to know God(?). It is not, however, going to happen in this plane of reality -- not even in a dream state nor NDE.

https://www.youtube....ix3pVUX86yBWWzS  (playlist )    https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008232820397

According to Gnosticism, Christ came to world to give us a way out; so, why is Gnosticism so secretive and elitist when it comes to salvation??

#701    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 20 February 2012 - 11:16 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 20 February 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

I dont mean to be rude, but you are factaully wrong about this and if you believe it, then you will never truly understand the role of spirituality/religion in the human mind and society. It has been scientifically demonstarted that all human children create/ construct the concept of god, even when they have never been exposed to that concept. It is the only way our minds as children can explain much that is inexplicable.  And this has long been truee for adults, in societies where we do not have the knowledge to answer or know everything.
That would be an awfully hard thing to prove, in all honesty, especially considering you would have to isolate the child completely in order to ensure that no other variables were involved in forming his belief surrounding god (ie. the media, television, his parents, his peers, etc). I am curious as to how this could possibly be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt. A child's mind is very influential. I believe that children try to construct a reason/purpose for our existence, but that doesn't indicate the belief in a deity or god. They believe that we got here somehow, however, they also believe that their imaginary friend is walking alongside them down the grocery aisle when they're with their parents.

Quote

You are allowing you own expernce to prejudice your opinion  If you had not been taught about god you would have invented the concept for yourself. As an adult you might rationally change your mind, but that is still a choice based on reasons/rationality not evidence So is a choice to believe Children believe in god before they are taught not to. You were given choices which are not available to a child's mind because they lack experiential knowledge and data. To a child it appears that god must be everywhere, causing things to happen. This is less true for most adults :devil:
If I had not been taught about god, I would not have invented it myself. There's no solidified, irrefutable data to reinforce such a claim. A small study involving children is not enough for me to believe that children, by default, believe in god. They BELIEVE that we got here SOMEHOW... there's NOTHING that states that they believe that a deity put us here by DEFAULT. NONE WHATSOEVER. Again, you'd have to completely isolate a child and eliminate all potential variables available to them that may suggest to them the possibility of a deity.

You'd be surprised at just how much a child's brain can absorb.

Quote

Actually, of course cave men invested a belief in a deity. In fact in many many deities. Aboriginal people of australia and isolated stoneage people around the world still do so. Logic rationalisation  etc all apply to religions and religious beliefs. That is why we come to believe that the sun is a deity. Because it acts with a singular purpose and we know that we act with such purpose because we are self aware. Hence the sun must be self aware. It is pure logic and rationalisation, just uninformed by knowledge.
There's not one morsel of evidence to suggest that cave men believed in a deity. We have evidence to suggest that they had rituals involving death, but none suggesting that they believed in a deity.

Quote

Today many educated people are religious and believe in god. In australia the more educated you are, the more likely you are to believe in god and be religious. It is the uneducated who chose NOT to believe or act with religious motivation.. I find that interesting. I know why it is so, but it flies in the face of your concept that religosity is based on ignorance .
So, the higher the degree that somebody has, the more likely they are to invest belief in a fictitious being who simply put us here, instead of natural occurrences and the proper conditions?


Quote

My point was that humans do not need to be taught about god. They find him themselves. A child doesnt need to be taught butterflies exist they see them all around.  Same with god. How would you prevent a child seing butterlflies or references to butterflies. How would you prevent a child seeing god or refernces to god.
*Sigh* Again, there's nothing to even remotely suggest that HUMANS will merely accept the existence of a deity. In reiteration, children simply try to make sense of what they see; they understand the concept of SOMETHING causes SOMETHING... but they don't know the root cause of everything, so they use their imaginations to try and make sense of it. That doesn't necessarily indicate that they believe in a god. And, if they do believe that a deity exists and is causing whatever they can't explain, then I would ask, "what sources were they exposed to which could alter their line of belief? were they exposed to television? to the radio?"

Quote

Belief in god is self generated Not taught. Its universality around the world and over all recorded history proves this point. The earliest tempple to animal deities has  been studied in modern turkey i tis over 10000 years old and the mode of worship and the nature of belief evolved over time  Ancient babylonians and sumerians believed everything came from god  Early pagans druids and celts found god in every living thing. The mongols worshiped gods of the earth and the sky. Australian aboriginal people worship ancestor spirits, totem animals, and the very country they occupy, in a modern form of pagan belief.
It is almost unheard of for ANY human society NOT to worship gods. And as early as neanderthal man, humans have demonstrated  the form of spiritual awareness which creates religious belief.
The Vikings believed in gods like Thor, the Greeks believed in Gods like Zeus, the Egyptians in gods like Ra..... but, only because they were attempting to make sense out of the natural world without the technologies available today.


#702    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 20 February 2012 - 11:19 AM

View PostBeckys_Mom, on 20 February 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

And you still made a thread asking for proof?  that makers sense  lol Posted Image
I knew upon the creation of this thread that god can't be proven. I just wanted to see some hilarious arguments. :tu:


#703    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 20 February 2012 - 11:34 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 20 February 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

You can regard your opinion as true, but it does not prevent it from being wrong.  After all, you do not get to define the word "deception", any more than you get to define what God is or isn't or what He does or does not do.  The word "deception, as defined by the English speaking population and as reported by pretty much every dictionary out there, is inescapably tied to intentional trickery, deceit, and fraud.  If you can find a working definition out there where the word is used in an innocent manner, I would be much surprised.
It also doesn't prevent the opinions of those who believe in god as being wrong, either.

Also,

Quote

de·ceive/diˈsēv/
Verb:

    (of a person) Cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage.
   (of a thing) Give a mistaken impression: "the area may seem to offer nothing of interest, but don't be deceived".
Religion DECEIVES because it offers a mistake impression that god truly exists.

Quote

Opinions, unlike personal beliefs (let alone religions), tend to cover rather banal matters, and thus are fairly easy to verify if true or false.  If I were a suspicious person, I would wonder if this was an intentional deception on your part, to claim as opinion something that is so easily verifiable, utterly ignoring the irony of doing this in the same breath as claiming the opposition has nothing to support their opinion.  In all honesty, it seems more like a cheap tactic to make the other side look bad.
But, it's true - there IS nothing to support the existence of god...

Quote

Although, to be fair, I do have another option:  Instead of thinking about this as a deception, with all the negative connotations this implies, I could simply think you are misled.  That you really do think that word definitions are a matter of personal opinion, that you really do not intend to refer to all believers of the JudeoChristian faith as intentionally out to deceive people, and that you really can't conceive of the notion that people other than yourself may well actual be intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions.  In short, to use the academic definition of the word, you are ignorant of the position of other people.
It is always a shame to see intelligent individuals invest belief in fairy tales.

Quote

Covered it in my first response to you.  In essence, you are defining God in a manner inconsistent with any reports of his behaviour, you are assuminng incorrectly that personal beliefs must conform to logical or critical analysis in order to be valid, you are generally accusing everyone in a religion of being tricksters. And, last but not least, you have two entirely biased and unscientific attitudes at play, the first that of the authoritarian, the second of the cynic.
I am accusing anybody involved in a religion as illogical.

Quote

And what makes it even weaker is that even if it were about someone else's opinion, it still does not address the point that personal beliefs do not require logic and science to be credible and valid.
I wonder whose opinion individuals would be more inclined to follow; the opinion of Stephen Hawking, or the opinion of The Pope?.. Sadly, I think a lot of people would follow The Pope. Silliness.

Quote

No, you don't.  You assume based on what you expect him to say, not on what he is saying.  Much like you assume that you know what people believe God's behaviour is.  Much like you assume that religious beliefs are defined the same way scientific and logical beliefs are.
I assume based on observation of society.

Quote

Basically, you are a scientifically ethnocentric.  Stop making the rest of us look bad.  Don't be the "ugly scientist", to paraphrase a social idiom from my youth.
I don't need to make religious nut jobs look bad - they do a perfectly fine job in doing that to themselves.


#704    J. K.

J. K.

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,624 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 20 February 2012 - 01:59 PM

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes.  Proverbs 21:2

Even a fairy tale can contain truth.

One's reality is another's nightmare.

#705    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 20 February 2012 - 03:20 PM

View PostJ. K., on 20 February 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes.  Proverbs 21:2

Even a fairy tale can contain truth.
I agree, they can be right in their own eyes... but that doesn't make it a logical or reasonable righteousness.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users