Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
kartikg

How will God prove himself?

1,144 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

XenoFish
4 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

IMHO, You could benefit from a dose of humility, in fact, you say it is a flaw, you see it as you are somehow inferior, I think your understanding is the problem, humility acts as a checks and balance in social settings, come one we all get full of ourself at times, especially when our ego feels threatened, but humilty is the ability that reminds us to get over ourself, to understand at the end of the day we are all equal we all have strengths and flaws. I think you bring on a lot of the social issues you have in this area due to an aversion to humility, and I don't think your lack of emotional nature is helping you at all it seems it has depleted you of the ability to know when and where to leave yourself out of the argument, Being humble is a trait that knows when to remove competition and move towards unity and equality. 

Without the full spectrum of emotions are you really human? Do you even grow as a human being? Without anger would you know love or compassion? Without being hurt (emotionally) would you not know kindness? A gentle heart or a cruel one is forged in the fires of life.

17iide.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Certainly, as an ex Athiest you can appreciate an apathesits point of view.

I think it is you who is threatened by X's disbelief. 

Why would you insist that others should just accept your beliefs as true in the S vs. S forum? 

Intelligence in application seeks neutrality, compromise, and respect, not dogmatic righteousness. 

 

I have already stated that I can accept a spiritual point of view from a therapeutic perspective. As a means of calming, clearing, and focusing the mind. What I have real issue is with the adamant insistence that god is real without proof. This goes for pretty much everything. If evidence is presented, that has been validated by several outside studies I will freely change my mind. But do not tell me, "Just because" and expect me to accept that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
59 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

17iide.jpg

According to Attachemt Theory (AT), the differences in the way a person responds emotionally can give insight into how they were responded to, communicated with, and shared with in childhood. 

The child foreshadows the future adult if you will according to AT.

The emotional nature is biological and just one of many systems in the spectrum of being human, this one in particular is integral to helping us cope, adapt, regulate responses, towards  understanding and cooperating with each other in our human interactions, you would want a full functioning emotional system it enriches our experiences and bonds us to each other. It is what makes us uniquely human. 

I am not an expert, but for the most part based on my recent experience with borderline personality disorder, complicated by wet brain, the obvious psychopathogy ( specific  behaviors)based on first hand knowledge are grandiose sense of self, lack of empathy, shallow/superficial social functioning, doesn't have emotions, other then anger, hostility, cannot accept responsibility for anything, always blames others,  they don't feel healthy does of guilt, lack appropriate remorse, have no clue as to why they have social issues, can't incorporate change no matter how much something is pointed out, or addressed etc. they see themselves as generous people, yet there is not actual evidence of this they are often accused of dishonesty, or inappropriate behavior, another thing is they talk incessantly about how happy they are, in fact, they preach positivity, yet behind the scenes they are miserable.

The lady I cared for admired her abusive tyrant father till her dying breath, regardless, that no one else in the family did, the man was an abusive monster. Her childhood set the seeds and she was a psychologist who used it to manipulate others, she never used it to help herself and she could have, for me that was the tragedy, as a personal survivor of childhood abuse with intervention and the brain's malleability, change is possible. 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
47 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I have already stated that I can accept a spiritual point of view from a therapeutic perspective. As a means of calming, clearing, and focusing the mind. What I have real issue is with the adamant insistence that god is real without proof. This goes for pretty much everything. If evidence is presented, that has been validated by several outside studies I will freely change my mind. But do not tell me, "Just because" and expect me to accept that.

Indeed, this seems reasonable to me and quite frankly to a lot of Christians I know too. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

The problem with threads like this is not asking, "What is god?" and "Who's god?" It always seems to be a general "God". Not specifics. Just god. Plus we've no definition to work with and no god of XYZ religion. It's almost like asking, "How will the Flying Spaghetti Monster prove itself?"

And to add. There is always someone who will say that I/We don't believe enough or my experience trumps yours. The whole subjective/objective thing again. And this thread is talking about an objective god, not a subjective spiritual experience.

Edited by XenoFish
More words and then some more.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

The problem with threads like this is not asking, "What is god?" and "Who's god?" It always seems to be a general "God". Not specifics. Just god. Plus we've no definition to work with and no god of XYZ religion. It's almost like asking, "How will the Flying Spaghetti Monster prove itself?"

And to add. There is always someone who will say that I/We don't believe enough or my experience trumps yours. The whole subjective/objective thing again. And this thread is talking about an objective god, not a subjective spiritual experience.

Exactly, yet we have a certain poster who misses this repeatedly. 

IMO you have made it clear that you have no issue with ones subjective experience or need to believe. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Exactly, yet we have a certain poster who misses this repeatedly. 

IMO you have made it clear that you have no issue with ones subjective experience or need to believe. 

 

 

I only have a problem when someone suggest their subjective experience is the only valid one. 

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Even in the case of you Sherapy. When you are called a pseudo-psychologist. To me you are not one, but someone who's (far beyond mine) educated in that direction. You possess knowledge. And freely share that knowledge when it pertains to the subject matter. I will admit when someone called you Therapy, I was a little tick and also saw a bit of humor in it. Because to me it was an admittance to their person issues. 

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
8 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I only have a problem when someone suggest their subjective experience is the only valid one. 

So do I. 

As you said this thread is not exploring subjective experience or ones need to start arguments so they can name call and accuse others of being a bully, then make a show of putting them on ignore, to really not ignore them. Today it's you, a few days ago it was someone else, tomorrow it will be me. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

And all the while the chance and opportunity to improve is passing them by. I am not the person I was 3 years ago because of the people here. Those who've influenced and educated me. Shown me different ways of thinking. It's growth and without it, it's mental death.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Even in the case of you Sherapy. When you are called a pseudo-psychologist. To me you are not one, but someone who's (far beyond mine) educated in that direction. You possess knowledge. And freely share that knowledge when it pertains to the subject matter. I will admit when someone called you Therapy, I was a little tick and also saw a bit of humor in it. Because to me it was an admittance to their person issues. 

Thank you for your very kind words and tolerating my posts (opinion) on the subject.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
Just now, Sherapy said:

Thank you for your very kind words and tolerating my posts on the subject. 

There is no tolerance. I see what you've wrote/write (and others) glean any useful information and add it to my own. It's all about sharing knowledge. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
35 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

And all the while the chance and opportunity to improve is passing them by. I am not the person I was 3 years ago because of the people here. Those who've influenced and educated me. Shown me different ways of thinking. It's growth and without it, it's mental death.

Indeed, I agree the end comes faster then we think. I agree self awareness is an ongoing process; we will not be who we are now in a few weeks, thank god. :wub:

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Just now, XenoFish said:

There is no tolerance. I see what you've wrote/write (and others) glean any useful information and add it to my own. It's all about sharing knowledge. 

It is for me too, thank you my friend for your kind support. I love my friends on UM, without you I wouldn't be growing at all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog
1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

So he can tell us what created "him" and what existed before "him"?

Sure, why not? Maybe there was nothing before God, because God did create the universe, but God came from a place that is not part of the universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, godnodog said:

Sure, why not? Maybe there was nothing before God, because God did create the universe, but God came from a place that is not part of the universe

Then you've falling into the infinite question. "Who made god and who made god's creator and who made the creator of god's creator?" this is a never ending question. It can not be answered. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Then you've falling into the infinite question. "Who made god and who made god's creator and who made the creator of god's creator?" this is a never ending question. It can not be answered. 

Yep, infinite regress...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
omni9

 

god is not a religion .

god is really about life . A Universal life energy .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
12 minutes ago, omni9 said:

 

god is not a religion .

god is really about life . A Universal life energy .

So you can prove this energies existence? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Sherapy

Quote

Yep, infinite regress...

Mmm... not so fast. If you look at the history of the currently disfavored "steady state hypothesis" (the physical Universe always was, more or less as it is now), once upon a time it was well-thought-of among atheists.

There is a mirror-symmetry here. If a theist asserts that any particular something always was (e,g, God), then the theist needs to explain why everything else couldn't always have been (and so, no need for an exceptional creator). If a steady-state atheist asserts that everything always was (i.e., the Universe), then the atheist cannot object to the theist proposing that some particular thing always was.

Infinite regress may be a symptom of modeling inaccuracy. For example, the implicit assumption that all causal chains must unfold 'through time' in one 'direction' seems especially vulnerable, being neither observable, nor its opposite being obviously contradictory, nor is it "inconceivable," since theists and atheists have both conceived of it.

Recall that there was a time when Euclid's parallel postulate enjoyed "just had to be so" status. Oops, not just abstractly, apparently the geometry of space-time isn't Euclidean. Causality might be trickier than we think, too.

ETA: An especially mind-expanding question was offered about 100 years ago by the great Polish logician Jan Lukasiewicz. If with the passage of time, all possible evidentiary traces bearing on the truth of a correct contingent hypothesis about some situation in the past are lost, is it "still" true now?

Intuitively yes, Aristotle-y yes, but "really" true? "God had a beginning earlier than anything else that now exists" is an admissible hypothesis about the past ... Conclude: God didn't have a beginning anymore. (And you thought Godel's Theorem was weird :) ).

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

So which one of you is going to throw the quantum wrench into the gears?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
omni9
1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

So you can prove this energies existence? 

Of course 

Lifes energy exists in all of us . 

It is what changes , non-living matter , into living matter . 

The environment matters however .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
2 minutes ago, omni9 said:

Of course 

Lifes energy exists in all of us . 

It is what changes , non-living matter , into living matter . 

The environment matters however .

So all I need is to add some life energy to a rock to get a turtle. Yeah, makes sense.

Your comment looks all to familiar. Wasn't there a thread where someone said the exact same thing? Something about evolution and bean sprouts. What thread was that????

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
omni9
5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

So all I need is to add some life energy to a rock to get a turtle. Yeah, makes sense.

Your comment looks all to familiar. Wasn't there a thread where someone said the exact same thing? Something about evolution and bean sprouts. What thread was that????

What the rock is made of , its constituents , is what is important .

Notice that life uses minerals in order to survive .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

You didn't answer my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.