Does 'God' Intend to be Proven?

[Guyver]

7 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Jeez, people... Listen, You stated: "God cannot be proven scientifically" to which I replied: "Prove it", which means: "Prove to me the statement: 'God cannot be proven' to be true."

It's intuitively obvious to even the most casual of observers that God cannot be proven to exist.  Proving things is difficult enough as it is when you consider all the possibilities, but you especially cannot prove something which cannot be examined.  

You can speculate and believe, you can even experience and know, but not prove it.  So, yeah, it's just about recognizing what the words means, and acknowledging the facts.  Religion exists, this is known and proven.  People believe things, this is known and also proven.  But God cannot be invited down to the science lab for investigation so there is no possibility of proving his existence.  

[Guyver]

I've already said this before; but I was once at a company function at a resort in Tuscon and I decided to free climb the El Conquistador and make it back in time for dinner.  And I did.  I nearly died doing it and it was a pretty bad move.....but I did pull it off.  On the ride in, when I told the guys at work that I climbed that mountain they didn't believe me.  Only one guy did....and he wasn't even my roommate.  So, even though I scaled that beast, and looked out from the summit only hours before, not only could I not prove it; but no one even believed it.  Except for one guy.  

[Guyver]

If I said, not only did I climb that mountain, but I even talked to God up there.....not only would they not believe it; they'd think I was crazy.  And here's the irony - I actually did talk to God up there.  I was praying for my dear life because I was in a world of hurt.  

[Crazy Horse]

On 30 August 2017 at 1:26 AM, Mr Walker said:

Great post,  Will The heart of christ's message was the existence of a total dichotomy between the material and the spiritual worlds.  He said most humans will choose the material path in life but some will see the spiritual one 

Follow the material and you lose every thing  of real value, including your life.

Follow the spiritual and you gain the world, PLUS eternal life.

The OP question is an intriguing one to which I have a clear personal answer. But it is not really relevant.

 God exists and is real and powerful I know this because of his existence in my world, in my heart and in my mind.    That is is how we know anything is real  Humans don't need others to prove to them what is real They are perfectly evolved and adapted to do this  So my answer is that god proves his existence to those who  are ready for it. God  manifests to, and proves his existence to, those he chooses OR who choose god.  

The part which is not really relevant to me personally is that belief is much  more powerful than knowledge. PPeople who believe in god through faith are more highly motivated and driven than those who know he exists as a real being.

Ideas beliefs and concepts all have more power in the human mind than facts and knowledge.

Plus the only honest way to follow god is through a self driven belief/faith .Not  knowledge  of a real and powerful being  Knowing god is real means i have no choice,  but for one who believes, that is a choice freely made and uninfluenced by knowledge 

I am just starting to realise the importance of faith and the belief in "something" as a catalyst to fulfilling our highest potential.

Serveral examples of how powerful a force faith is have been pushed my way recently and your post is another example.

Dr Sheldrake talking about several physic experiments involving telephone calls, text messages and emails, all showed a healthy above average ability to predict who was calling, until there was a sceptic non believer who couldn't predict even  50/50 chance. The placebo and nocebo effect is another example. 

A lot of materialists will see the state of the world and feel helpless. A mechanical universe where you have no free will and there isn't an higher agency ready to help out - this is a very pessimistic out-look and not one that naturally lends itself to positive change, in fact a lot of atheists I know suffer from depression.

"Too much sanity may be madness and the maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be."  Miguel de Cervantes

My belief in God may have been a leap of faith in the first instance but now it is building upon my own personal experiences from moment to moment and from day to day. Mine is not a blind faith any longer and therefore self nourishing.

One other thing Mr Walker, you claim there is a total dichotomy between the physical, material world and the spiritual plane? 

I cannot see a  division between the two, after all, everything arises from God, everything is held within God, our spirit resides within this physical body, all is vibrating at different frequencies but all this energy comes from a single point - God. If our physical vessel is not clean enough, if our hearts and minds are not open and our feelings are deadened, there I don't see us being filled with the Holy Spirit anytime soon.

So this isn't a battle between the physical, material universe and a spiritual one, more a peaceful resolution and coming together of all ideals, philosophies and peoples.

Faith and Love are in my humble opinion, the two keys needed to unlock our inert wisdom and highest potential. 

[Crazy Horse]

5 hours ago, Guyver said:

I've already said this before; but I was once at a company function at a resort in Tuscon and I decided to free climb the El Conquistador and make it back in time for dinner.  And I did.  I nearly died doing it and it was a pretty bad move.....but I did pull it off.  On the ride in, when I told the guys at work that I climbed that mountain they didn't believe me.  Only one guy did....and he wasn't even my roommate.  So, even though I scaled that beast, and looked out from the summit only hours before, not only could I not prove it; but no one even believed it.  Except for one guy.  

Does that bother you, that only one guy believed your story?

[Skirnum]

On 29.8.2017 at 5:43 PM, Aquila King said:

The big debate for several millennia is whether or not the existence of what many people call 'God' can be proven. Some say they can prove God exists, others vise versa. Still others say God's existence can't be proven either way, or at the very least that we simply have no way of knowing at this time.

But what if God never intended to be proven to exist in the first place? What if being proven to exist is irrelevant to his/her goal(s)? What if this whole debate that's been raging for thousands of years was intended to take place, or at the very least meant to remain an open question?

Of course this is all under the assumption that God does exist, and that God has a plan; just that the 'plan' doesn't involve proving his/her own existence. I have my own ideas concerning what we call 'God' (as we all do), but when it comes to these big questions I honestly don't know. Just figured I'd throw this idea out there since there seems to be many people operating under some pretty big assumptions.

I don’t think Jesus, Buddha or other like them was believers, I think they knew. I think we all are meant to know just like they knew. Belief is a good tool when it is used practically. Like the smiths hammer is a practical thing; belief can also be practical and get results. Practical because belief let us chose and experience. And experiencing is to gain knowledge. Unless of course we get blinded by the experience and therefore imagine the answers, and then become a great sage with benefits. Hehe. Or if we restrict our possibilities with our own mind.

None believers and believers can both have faith in truth. It`s like scientists I think, what would they be doing if they did not have faith in truth, what would they be trying to find out? To have faith in the existence of truth do not come with labels like Muslim, atheist, Christian or other. We can all trust the truth, it comes natural to human. 

If truth is real, then life is part of it. And life is looking out through our eyes, hear with our ears, tastes with our mouth, feel with our feelings and heart. Through our senses Life lets us gain knowledge. And because life is within us, that’s where the answers is. Go and get some experiences is my suggestion.    :-)  As I see it so far.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Skirnum
missing.

[Guyver]

4 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Does that bother you, that only one guy believed your story?

Yes.  Who wants to be considered a liar?  They were pretty much calling me a liar right to my face. The real point is that it is very difficult to prove anything, and even if the claim is true, people will not accept it.  And they are wrong.  Yet, it also has to be considered that people do lie, and if I were lying, they would be right.  In this case they were not.  

[Crazy Horse]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

Yes.  Who wants to be considered a liar?  They were pretty much calling me a liar right to my face. The real point is that it is very difficult to prove anything, and even if the claim is true, people will not accept it.  And they are wrong.  Yet, it also has to be considered that people do lie, and if I were lying, they would be right.  In this case they were not.  

I suppose that I don't "want" to be considered a liar, but then again I wouldn't let it bother me either.

Like you said "......they were wrong." So I'm struggling to find the upside of letting myself get bent outa shape by some wrong folk. To me thats kinda dumb!

And if someone was lying, then ultimately speaking, thats their probs too. 

The truth is the truth is the truth no matter what I say, you claim, or anybody else for that matter believes. And thats good enough for me! 

[Only_]

This the reason we know close to nothing about God:

''The powers and principalities turned to their Adam and took him and expelled him from the garden along with his wife; for they have no blessing, since they too are beneath the curse. Moreover, they threw mankind into great distraction and into a life of toil, so that their mankind might be occupied by worldly affairs, and might not have the opportunity of being devoted to the holy spirit.''

- The Hypostasis of the Archons (The Reality of the Rulers).

Wrapped in myth here lies the truth.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Be.cause

[Guyver]

On 8/29/2017 at 0:37 PM, and then said:

The Bible...?  

A perfect example is the ancient book of Ezekiel, the Hebrew prophet. Chapter 38 speaks of a time in the "last days" when a specific confederation of nations will come against Israel.  This version of Israel will apparently be at peace and will BELIEVE they have nothing to fear. Also known as the war of Gog of Magog, the participants are generally considered to be Russia, Iran, Turkey, Sudan and some of the northern African states as well as some of the "STANS" nations in the south of Russia.  

THIS is what God says will happen at that time: 

I will execute judgment on him (Gog) with plague and bloodshed; I will pour down torrents of rain, hailstones and burning sulfur on him and on his troops and on the many nations with him. 23And so I will show my greatness and my holiness, and I will make myself known in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the Lord.’

So, in answer to the OP - yes, God does mean to "Prove He exists"
He says that then many nations will KNOW He is the Lord.  It doesn't say they will willingly accept his sovereignty.  Pity, that.

I find difficulty with this post.  First of all, the bible is quoting "God" as saying.  That doesn't mean it was God saying.  In fact, the whole notion of not only this passage, but the rest of the Old Testament actually being a reflection of who God is, the real God, his nature, attributes, and interactions with men is rather bogus.....IMHO, for many reasons.

So, to address the heart of your post - you claim that God does indeed to prove that he exists.  But, the way he is intending to prove this thing (according to you) is by pouring out plague and bloodshed.....destruction, fire and death.  So let's just deal with that.

God is going to prove he is the Lord by killing people.  That is the point.  And, apparently to you, and many others this makes perfect sense.  Well, let me offer another perspective.  That makes no sense whatsoever.  Would you find it necessary to demonstrate your superior power by kicking an infant?  I mean, you could show how powerful a human being you are by waiting for a toddler to come walking toward you - and then punting it forty yards downfield.  

Would you do such a thing?  No?  Well good, cause neither would a Satanist.  Yet, you'd like to offer that the real "God" ie. the Maker of All Things would have less understanding and compassion than a Satanist.  

 

 

[Guyver]

To restate.  Considering the doomsday prophecies of the bible that are supposed to prove God.  Consider this.  This is what it is.  

"I'm going to kill you."  I'm telling you before hand that I'm going to kill you and cause you to suffer.  That way, when i kill you and make you suffer; you will know that it's me who's doing it.

There.

I don't understand how people buy into this type of thinking.  Now, the same people who buy this nonsense believe the rest of the bible which states that God is love.  Not only that, he is called the God of Love and Peace.  Well guess what?  That mess is not the work of the God of Love and Peace.  At all.

There will probably be a lot more of this type of speech to come from me because I feel a rant coming on.  If you don't like it, you have been warned.  

 

 

[Guyver]

On 8/30/2017 at 1:11 PM, Aquila King said:

 

Jeez, people... Listen, You stated: "God cannot be proven scientifically" to which I replied: "Prove it", which means: "Prove to me the statement: 'God cannot be proven' to be true."

I'm not asking you to prove God exists!  I'm just asking for you to logically justify your original statement that "God cannot be proven scientifically"!! If you can't prove to me that 'God can't be proven', then you're just asserting something to be true with no facts or reason to back it up. I mean, sure, it may be true that God's existence can't be proven, but at least give me a reason for why you think that before making all sorts of rash judgments.

Jesus Christ. To think I have to spell all this out for you people! Gives me a friggin' headache...

 

*Post Edit: Sorry, don't mean to sound harsh. I'm just real sick atm and in bit of pain.

When the pain becomes too great; we will medicate.  Understand it.....live it. 

Here's the thing.  To sum up more succinctly.  You suggested that the statement "God cannot be proven scientifically" be proven.  I understood the point from the get go, but I less than succinctly expressed the truth.  The truth is that the statement needs no proof because it's not a premise.  It's not point one of the standard form of logical argument.  It's a statement of fact.  Therefore, the statement itself needed no proof. 

Now, I'm no scientist, but I am an educated man.  And, when I was educated, I was taught that a scientifically reliable sample must be 30 or greater.  If not, by convention then the sample cannot be considered scientifically reliable.  

So, let's just say that God came down....to a place and time.  He came to a science lab....and said...."Here I am.  Examine me."  

Since such a thing is never heard of; that would be an unlikely event.  But, even if it did happen, and it was documented, and the scientists involved documented it with a "hot" article open to peer review.  There is no peer review.  Unless God came down to 30 places simultaneously and allowed himself to be examined, detractors could consider it an unreliable sample, incapable of repetition, therefore, no peer review.....therefore.....unscientific.

 

[Guyver]

Now, let's say someone saw a sasquatch.  Prove it?  Nope.  Saw the sasquatch and got some video?  Nope.  Not scientifically reliable.  But what if someone actually shot a sasquatch - blew it's brains out with a high caliber rifle, dropped it.  Scientific?  Yep.  Why?  Because not only do you have a body everyone can see, but you have cells available for DNA analysis.

You can put it in the freezer and charge every primatologist or any other scientist $100,000 per sample to examine it.  Not only would it be proven scientifically; but you'd make bank getting it done.

 

[Guyver]

Slow time on the forum.  I'm talking to myself.  Should just walk away....but if someone says "bring it" it will be brought.  Right here.  Right now.  

  

 

[Guyver]

Nevermind then.  ~slinks back into anonymity.  

[XenoFish]

God is a drug.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/mormons-experience-religion-like-drug-takers-feel-highs-neuroscientists-say

http://bigthink.com/going-mental/the-neurological-origins-of-religious-belief

[Aquila King]

Guyver -

You're assuming 'God' to be a tangible thing from which to take material test samples, but not everything in science has to fit in a test tube.

Take the laws of the universe for example. What "samples" do we have to prove Einstein's theory of General Relativity? None. Because Gravity isn't a tangible thing, per se. It's a force. Yes, it can be measured and scientifically tested, just as I personally believe the question of whether what we call 'God' exists or not can also be scientifically tested. However the examples you give for scientific validity don't apply when it comes to topics such as physics.

Most importantly though, I don't think we can just go out and test whether 'God' exists or not since that's incredibly broad and vague. It's better to dissect it down and then test those pieces so we can use them to build a cohesive picture of this 'God' we all seek to understand.

[Guyver]

21 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Guyver -

You're assuming 'God' to be a tangible thing from which to take material test samples, but not everything in science has to fit in a test tube.

Take the laws of the universe for example. What "samples" do we have to prove Einstein's theory of General Relativity? None. Because Gravity isn't a tangible thing, per se. It's a force. Yes, it can be measured and scientifically tested, just as I personally believe the question of whether what we call 'God' exists or not can also be scientifically tested. However the examples you give for scientific validity don't apply when it comes to topics such as physics.

Most importantly though, I don't think we can just go out and test whether 'God' exists or not since that's incredibly broad and vague. It's better to dissect it down and then test those pieces so we can use them to build a cohesive picture of this 'God' we all seek to understand.

How would you propose that God be scientifically tested?  After all the ranting I just threw down, I'm interested.  

[Aquila King]

6 minutes ago, Guyver said:

How would you propose that God be scientifically tested?  After all the ranting I just threw down, I'm interested.  

Well first of all, like I've said, we have to dissect this 'God' down into it's individual parts and then build it up from there.

Thankfully there are a number of scientists who've already done just that.  Dr. Rupert Sheldrake is a prime example of such scientists, as he's done numerous studies regarding things such as:

• the sense of being stared at
• dogs who know when their owners are coming home
• animal premonitions of disasters
• telephone telepathy

just to name a few.

Through all of his years of individualized research, he was able to put the pieces together and build a cohesive working hypothesis, claiming that there exists an infinite 'energy field' of consciousness that permeates throughout the entire universe. And the exact properties of it can be identified by the minute everyday conscious experiences that he describes in his many books and has demonstrated in his numerous experiments.

And if you think he's just one fringe nutjob scientist then think again (he just happens to be my favorite). There are other great scientists like Dr. Sheldrake, such as:

• Dean Radin
• F. David Peat
• Traer Scott
• Gary Lachman
• Stanislav Grof
• Charles T. Tart
• James E. Lovelock
• Richard Tarnas
• Bruce H. Lipton
• Colin Wilson
• Mario Beauregard
• John E. Mack
• David Bohm

And there are many more!

Unfortunately atheistic materialism dominates the scientific community, and systemized oppression of any opposing viewpoints operates under the guise of 'skepticism', in which any and/or all scientists who dare venture out into these topics risk being labeled a part of the fringe...

It is sad, but the reality is that there have already been numerous attempts to scientifically document the divine, but they continue to be hushed up and swept under the rug due to materialist biases...

Anyway, my point I guess is that there are ways of scientifically measuring the divine, as many people have already done numerous time. You simply don't hear about it because it isn't deemed a part of the 'main stream.'

[Stubbly_Dooright]

On 8/29/2017 at 11:43 AM, Aquila King said:

The big debate for several millennia is whether or not the existence of what many people call 'God' can be proven. Some say they can prove God exists, others vise versa. Still others say God's existence can't be proven either way, or at the very least that we simply have no way of knowing at this time.

But what if God never intended to be proven to exist in the first place? What if being proven to exist is irrelevant to his/her goal(s)? What if this whole debate that's been raging for thousands of years was intended to take place, or at the very least meant to remain an open question?

Of course this is all under the assumption that God does exist, and that God has a plan; just that the 'plan' doesn't involve proving his/her own existence. I have my own ideas concerning what we call 'God' (as we all do), but when it comes to these big questions I honestly don't know. Just figured I'd throw this idea out there since there seems to be many people operating under some pretty big assumptions.

I have skimmed through the three pages so far, and I thought I'd go back to your main OP and see if my 2 cents could be of use.  

I find your question interesting. Is the intent for God to be proven, there? I wonder, why would that particular question be asked? Well, yeah, I think I know, because too much emphasis on proof, when there is the push to convert. (I then would wonder why the big push for conversion) Anyhow, I think on one hand, whether there is an intent for the proof of God, there does seem to be the intent to make everyone to believe in God. And I think, there seems to be more than one reason why to do that. 

And the beside wanting to convert, to get others to 'believe' in God, there doesn't seem to be thinking how they can do it, fully, when they can't show it because of a lack of 'back up' to do it. Meaning, the proof to show why to believe. 

The questioning and belief, that maybe God doesn't want everyone to know fully, or that feels that his full persona could not be fully understood, is something that will stay at questioning and belief. It's stays at conjecture, the way I see it. I think the priority of wondering if there is an intent of proof of God, is not something to be considered. Because, I feel, there is too much left to imagination, for there to be one hundred percent knowing. 

Why is it, the existence has to be debated, when something that wants to be know, would go through the trouble. If someone or some entity doesn't want to be known full out, should probably not try to do it under the table, being subtle, if you will. Why go through the middle man? 

Yes, I have my own belief, but I don't think there should the thought that not everything should be known, that I could use what I have to get fellow believers. Actually, it doesn't matter to me. What I have works for me, and anyone else interested, can observe and then go from there for their own path. I think, if you're converting, because of reasons of following a tenet to convert, realize there is not so much to go on. If anything wants to be known or proved, wouldn't there be an easy way for it to be done? 

 

[Aquila King]

1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I have skimmed through the three pages so far, and I thought I'd go back to your main OP and see if my 2 cents could be of use.  

I find your question interesting. Is the intent for God to be proven, there? I wonder, why would that particular question be asked? Well, yeah, I think I know, because too much emphasis on proof, when there is the push to convert. (I then would wonder why the big push for conversion) Anyhow, I think on one hand, whether there is an intent for the proof of God, there does seem to be the intent to make everyone to believe in God. And I think, there seems to be more than one reason why to do that. 

And the beside wanting to convert, to get others to 'believe' in God, there doesn't seem to be thinking how they can do it, fully, when they can't show it because of a lack of 'back up' to do it. Meaning, the proof to show why to believe. 

The questioning and belief, that maybe God doesn't want everyone to know fully, or that feels that his full persona could not be fully understood, is something that will stay at questioning and belief. It's stays at conjecture, the way I see it. I think the priority of wondering if there is an intent of proof of God, is not something to be considered. Because, I feel, there is too much left to imagination, for there to be one hundred percent knowing. 

Why is it, the existence has to be debated, when something that wants to be know, would go through the trouble. If someone or some entity doesn't want to be known full out, should probably not try to do it under the table, being subtle, if you will. Why go through the middle man? 

Yes, I have my own belief, but I don't think there should the thought that not everything should be known, that I could use what I have to get fellow believers. Actually, it doesn't matter to me. What I have works for me, and anyone else interested, can observe and then go from there for their own path. I think, if you're converting, because of reasons of following a tenet to convert, realize there is not so much to go on. If anything wants to be known or proved, wouldn't there be an easy way for it to be done? 

 

You took an interesting twist to this in going down the 'intent to convert' road.

It's a good idea to not only weigh 'God's' intentions but your own. So I'll ask it another way. Do you think our intentions on whether to try to prove or disprove the existence of God affects God's intentions on the matter?

Edited September 1, 2017 by Aquila King

[+and-then]

On 8/29/2017 at 4:34 PM, doctor wu said:

I don't accept the Bible as being automatically the word of God  or that it's even accurate for that matter....does that clarify things..?

Crystal...carry on...

[+and-then]

On 8/29/2017 at 6:33 PM, Will Due said:

Following is quoted a summary of how in the coming generations, Christianity will either adapt, or fade away and be displaced.

According to God's word in Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

I agree with you that the religion that grew up in the name of Christ is in for an awakening.  When He actually returns it is going to be an earth shaking event and mankind will never be the same again.  I read some of your posted text and never found any clear allusion to Christ's Deity.  Did I miss it or does this book deny it?

 

[+and-then]

7 hours ago, Guyver said:

To restate.  Considering the doomsday prophecies of the bible that are supposed to prove God.  Consider this.  This is what it is.  

"I'm going to kill you."  I'm telling you before hand that I'm going to kill you and cause you to suffer.  That way, when i kill you and make you suffer; you will know that it's me who's doing it.

There.

I don't understand how people buy into this type of thinking.  Now, the same people who buy this nonsense believe the rest of the bible which states that God is love.  Not only that, he is called the God of Love and Peace.  Well guess what?  That mess is not the work of the God of Love and Peace.  At all.

There will probably be a lot more of this type of speech to come from me because I feel a rant coming on.  If you don't like it, you have been warned.  

 

 

No harm, no foul.  Rant all you like.  You'd have to be extraordinarily good at it to out do Xeno Fish  

[Rlyeh]

On ‎31‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 1:02 PM, Guyver said:

I've already said this before; but I was once at a company function at a resort in Tuscon and I decided to free climb the El Conquistador and make it back in time for dinner.  And I did.  I nearly died doing it and it was a pretty bad move.....but I did pull it off.  On the ride in, when I told the guys at work that I climbed that mountain they didn't believe me.  Only one guy did....and he wasn't even my roommate.  So, even though I scaled that beast, and looked out from the summit only hours before, not only could I not prove it; but no one even believed it.  Except for one guy.  

Of course you couldn't prove it, you made no attempt to.