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 -
Aquila King

Does 'God' Intend to be Proven?

163 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

GlitterRose

I've mentioned many times how people idolize their religious texts. 

It's a bunch of words that very human men wrote down. And they worship the thing. 

And we know we can't believe them, because we know most of them weren't even telling the truth about who they were. 

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xeno-Fish

Maybe I've always lacked that "God Circuit" in my brain. Because religious beliefs never made much sense. Even when I was all into occultism it still didn't make sense. Why in the hell does a spirit care about a ritual and request you've made? Why would any god care about or even obey your wishes? Sounds very self-absorbed to me. Like "I am so important that God will bend the universe to my will." that's some arrogant stuff right there.

Share this post


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

Maybe I've always lacked that "God Circuit" in my brain. Because religious beliefs never made much sense. Even when I was all into occultism it still didn't make sense. Why in the hell does a spirit care about a ritual and request you've made? Why would any god care about or even obey your wishes? Sounds very self-absorbed to me. Like "I am so important that God will bend the universe to my will." that's some arrogant stuff right there.

I don't lack the God circuit. I just don't buy into the bs that people wrote on the subject. 

I sift through it for the nuggets of wisdom that you can sometimes find, and then I toss the rest. 

You sure need your waders on, though. 

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

If people don't realize that all that occult business is just about affecting the self, then they're doing it wrong. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

The weirdness and woo you can whip up around you is pretty cool, but ultimately, what purpose does it serve? 

The point is to grow out of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
2 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

Does it stray away from the prophetic texts of the bible in anyway? You would of have to have a background in Biblical studies, an understanding to know if it did, or how would anyone know.

Think of the Urantia Book this way.

There have been rare occasions in our religious history when actual contact from above, on High if you will, was occasioned here on our world. Usually, achieved with the advent and physical presence of a superhuman personality, a Son of God.

The third time this happened, it was done through Melkizedek. He delivered the epochal revelation of God in those days to Abraham, who he recruited and trained to prepare the way, to spread the word that soon, very soon, another Son of God would be appearing to deliver a new and even greater revelation of God, which would be the fourth time epochal revelation would occur in our world and was accomplished through the life and teachings of the incarnate executive ruler and Creator of this very universe we live in, Jesus of Nazareth. 

Now today, for the fifth time, epochal revelation has appeared, but this time its physical manifestation is accomplished through a book, which purportedly has never occured on any other world in our local universe except ours.

This new revelation delivered to us in modern times is the greatest of all so far, because it includes a definitive outline of all the previous four epochal revelations, their history and how they have influenced and are a major part of all the monotheistic religions that have evolved down from ancient times until today.

So in that sense, yeah, the UB supports all the essential truths contained in the Bible as well as all the other ancient texts of the world's main religions.

But in my opinion, the main thing that the UB does is to re-state the epochal revelation that is Jesus, for a very important reason:

 

To "follow Jesus" means to personally share his religious faith and to enter into the spirit of the Master's life of unselfish service for man. One of the most important things in human living is to find out what Jesus believed, to discover his ideals, and to strive for the achievement of his exalted life purpose. 

Of all human knowledge, that which is of greatest value is to know the religious life of Jesus and how he lived it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Well, that's me, always taking twists down things, (whether I'm aware I'm doing it or not!) :o Thank you for rephrasing the question. And, if I was bit confusing in my post, sorry. :blush:  I was wondering if I was getting my point out. I had to stare at it a couple of times. (had come home from a very intense long shift at work) 

I don't know if God, or a higher power, (if we're talking my spiritual look at things) would really have an intent to be proven or not. Because, I feel, a lot of the 'demand' of proof, I feel by observation, seems to come from the intended converts, or the 'targets' of proselyters. I would feel, that a lot of the already spirituals, the ones who grew up and/or already have a firm belief in God or the like, yeah they would have a spiritual crisis, and wonder at it too. And I would feel, (along with my basis of the many times I may feel I need proof for myself to believe in what I believe) that those who go through their own spiritual crisis would not demand proof for themselves, but wrestle with it only. So, on that note, it seems like the wish to have proof, doesn't come from the already believed, but the ones who are targeted by them. And to me, I would think would make sense. 

Many times over, I have come to observe, on various message boards like this one, (and in real life as well) that there are threads started, or questions raised, about what proof does one need to believe. And of course, these things are created by the believed, to wonder how they can then convert. (Like it's a deal breaker or something.) If the quest for proof of God does come from other situations, other than from none-God believers after they are being proselytised, please let me know. Anyone. But it seems more from those who already don't believe in God. 

So, that's why I don't see it as an issue really, (though this thread and it's question I think is a great thought provoking one :tu: ) Because it's not that I see that God intended or did not intend proof of himself, but those who are being pushed to believe in him. Which makes sense to me, because how can you believe in something, when you already have a pre-set observation of no proof of God in the first place. You can't talk yourself into believing, that would cause a conflict in your soul, heart, and mind and that would bite back later on. 

Which makes me wonder, on God's outlook on disbelievers questioning and understandingly asking for proof, when one is asked to only believe no matter what. 

I have come across a lot of discussions, where some believers are discussing that it's in the process of 'just believing' that makes up one to being a true follower. That you just have to believe, and that's only is what needed, and you should do it, because that is what makes you a true believer and then this is followed up by a relief from the other, who thinks you're being saved from eternal damnation. I don't think, that really makes sense in the long run. How is it, if it's in the art of believing, that is part of the process in being a true follower? To me, that doesn't make sense, because that just makes it something to watch over you for doing, when in the end, to believe just so you look good believing to get 'points'. Almost looking to me, like a waste of time. I think, it's probably having a true belief, so you understand why you're behaving role you are in as a believer. In fact, going through life, questioning yourself and why you believe, would get in the way, to follow the path that you're suppose to believe in. I think, that's too much 'clutter' in your soul to deal with, when you behave accordingly to your spiritual path. 

I would think, a caring higher power, wouldn't want you to go through that. Kind of like, needing a test to be part of that 'special' club. I would think, a higher power, God, what have you, would want you to do good stuff and pay attention to that. Meaning, the wish that everyone would believe, and probably would go through the effort to give proof to gain that goal. I think it's kind of the situations where someone would want a friend to be going through tests to become your friend, or parents making their children prove their love for them, and does that really sound like a good way to have loyalty to you? Would you want to be a friend to someone, who feels you have to be tested to be your friend, or parents giving you love, because you did something to prove it them? I think, friends, true friends, wouldn't do that, your friends for a more natural reason, and a loving parent loves you unconditionally. (I don't put down jobs, because the intent is to do the job you were hired for, and it's for reasons of what the job is suppose to give and the payback is understandable pay so you can survive. And that would not be something that would be honestly compared to this.) 

I would understand, that if God or other otherworldly beliefs, would think our human bodies wouldn't comprehend them or it, but then there would be an understanding why some wouldn't believe, and would understand one's disbelief by reason of the situation. (I kind of believe, it would work out in the afterlife, if that is the case.) Even then, some form of message would still be tried to be convened and with the note of 'at your convenience', type of thing. To tie this up, I don't think God really wouldn't intend to have proof, because of the situations involved. (I also come to this understanding, through my own experiences of my belief.) 

I also think, that there is a much higher goal to it's agenda of it's religion, and that the wish to be proven just for the sake of being known, may seem to be a waste of time. Bottom line, if God wants to be proven, I would think God would go through the trouble. *shrugs* 

That's how I see it. :) 

giphy.gif

That was incredibly well said. :D I completely agree! Couldn't have said it better myself, so hats off to you my friend. Well done. :tu:

I'm searching for things to add to that, but I think I'll simply say this.

I think the burden of proof depends primarily on the individual. Don't get me wrong, The amount of evidence necessary to establish something as 'proven' can indeed be objectively measured, however it is more often then not obscured. This is because it is indeed possible to be both too skeptical and too believing. Some people are willing to believe in something without any evidence at all, where as others are willing to be skeptical of it no matter how much evidence you present, and of course the majority of us fall somewhere in between. Under these mindsets, 'proof' is relative to their own individual pre-existing requirements. What is considered to be necessary evidence to constitute as proof to some people will not be nearly enough evidence necessary for others. Therefore proof's relativity to the individual makes it ever elusive.

So how do we get past these two extremes in order to find the objective truth? I think the simple answer is to be as open-minded as possible. It's dogmatism that brings these strong biases on both sides, a.k.a., the human ego. The goal is to strike a balance between the two. So in other words, genuine objective 'proof' may only lie in the in-between place where all biases are dropped and where one is willing to completely and entirely abandon the ego and ones self-preservation of pre-existing belief systems, and where one is willing to embrace concepts that might be previously unknown to us otherwise. Rather than attempting to prove your beliefs correct, we should instead simply seek to understand the universe around us with full willingness of total self abandonment. Then, and only then, will we find real 'proof'.

Anyway, that's my rant. ^_^

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King

As for me responding to the rest of you, please give me a minute to read through all the atheist spam. :rolleyes: I'll respond to you shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
3 hours ago, Guyver said:

None of these things prove God exists.  Even if all these things can be measured and confirmed scientifically, it proves the phenomenon exists....not that God himself exists.  

That all depends on what you define as "God". If those phenomenon collectively build a cohesive structure of 'universal consciousness', then yes, it does in a sense prove that God exists.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
3 hours ago, Guyver said:

The way that the scientific method works is to view everything with skepticism in a sense.  Everything that gets measured or offered as a working hypothesis or theory is based on the idea that the experiments must be repeatable, and when better data is generated which refutes the idea, it gets discarded.  We also have the issue of the divine and how it's perceived.  ESP can exist, and be a real thing....yet still not prove that God exists.

It just means that things exist which we don't understand.  But just because we don't understand something doesn't mean that we can say - well that must be God then.  If God wanted to reveal himself to us....it seems he would be quite capable of doing so.  

Once again, you're unnecessarily drawing a distinction between what we call 'God' and ESP phenomenon. If you're in any way at all familiar with eastern philosophy you'd know that the existence of a universal consciousness that permeates throughout everything in the universe and is, essentially the universe, wouldn't be that far off from the concept of what the western philosophies call 'God'. Therefore if you can demonstrate that all things are spiritually connected in some way (be it by ESP phenomenon or otherwise) then you could surmise that this great conscious 'force' the exists throughout the universe is essentially God.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
13 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

As for me responding to the rest of you, please give me a minute to read through all the atheist spam. :rolleyes: I'll respond to you shortly.

Not an atheist. But nice try. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
2 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Kind of a funny sort of argument.

The OP proposes that God doesn't intend to be proven, and then asks us to prove why science can't prove God. 

But you just...

nevermind. 

Not the case. I was using totally open-ended hypothetical language to stir discussion on the topic of proof and intention in reference to what we call 'God'. I made no absolutist style statements nor did I ask you to prove anything. You're over-simplifying my OP like crazy.

Edited by Aquila King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

Not the case. I was using totally open-ended hypothetical language to stir discussion on the topic of proof and intention in reference to what we call 'God'. I made no absolutist style statements nor did I ask you to prove anything. You're over-generalizing my OP like crazy.

Ha! Classic!

This is where you try to claim you didn't type what we all just saw you type.

See that tactic is awesome, because you can never be wrong. Ever. LOL. 

Except that you can be, and everyone can see it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
2 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Why not just do good things because it's nice?

Why need the threat of hell and the promise of heaven in order to do them?

This is where I totally agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
  On 8/29/2017 at 9:01 PM, Guyver said:

God.... cannot be proven scientifically.

You said: Prove it.

Were ya being metaphorical? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
3 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Ha! Classic!

This is where you try to claim you didn't type what we all just saw you type.

See that tactic is awesome, because you can never be wrong. Ever. LOL. 

Except that you can be, and everyone can see it. 

Just in case I was wrong I went back and re-read my OP just to make sure, and low and behold I wasn't. If you're seeing something I'm not seeing then please enlighten me. Otherwise I have no intention of arguing senselessly over your 'alternative facts'.

You can disagree with me all you want and I won't be offended, but insinuate me to be a liar or that I'm in some way dishonest again and I'll simply ignore you or if necessary block you. I have no place for accusatory insults in my life.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
Just now, Aquila King said:

Just in case I was wrong I went back and re-read my OP just to make sure, and low and behold I wasn't. If you're seeing something I'm not seeing then please enlighten me. Otherwise I have no intention of arguing senselessly over your 'alternative facts'.

You can disagree with me all you want and I won't be offended, but insinuate me to be a liar or that I'm in some way dishonest again and I'll simply ignore you or if necessary block you. I have no place for accusatory insults in my life.

See post above.

You asked...more than one time...for people to prove that God could not be proven, scientifically.

And I could prove that with your own OP. 

You proposed some premises in your OP. That God might exist, and that it might not care to be proven. If it exists and does not care to be proven, then it follows that it might not show up to be examined by scientists. Therefore, if it does not show up to be examined by scientists, it could never be proven to exist by scientists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
8 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:
You said: Prove it.

Were ya being metaphorical? 

1) I didn't say that in the OP, it was a response to someone I quoted.

2) I wasn't asking him to prove God's existence as I VERY CLEARLY laid out specifically in a later post. You would know that if you had actually read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

1) I didn't say that in the OP, it was a response to someone I quoted.

2) I wasn't asking him to prove God's existence as I VERY CLEARLY laid out specifically in a later post. You would know that if you had actually read it.

Are you brain damaged? 

I'm not trying to insult you here. I'm serious. Because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying, and I'm speaking clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

I know you didn't say it in your OP. But you demanded several times in this discussion that people prove to you that God could not be proven by science.  

Using your OP, I was able to prove it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

And no one ever said you were asking him to prove God's existence. You were asking him to prove that God could not be proven by science. And I proved that using your OP. I used your own argument to prove what you were demanding. I'm not sure you're comprehending this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
Just now, ChaosRose said:

I know you didn't say it in your OP. But you demanded several times in this discussion that people prove to you that God could not be proven by science.  

Using your OP, I was able to prove it. 

 

I'm speaking in reference to the OP. I never asked people to prove anything in the OP. Anything other than that was further discussion in the thread which was open-ended by nature, and yes I did later ask people to prove God can't be proven scientifically. However you were accusing me of doing this in my OP, which I didn't do. Therefore, I didn't open this thread asking people to prove anything to me. When I asked people later in the thread, I was engaging in open-ended discussion as I had already established in the OP.

If what you are saying is, that I started out the OP open-ended, and then later asked people to prove certain things, then you are correct. But that's not how I interpreted your original quote. It sounded as if you were accusing me of supposed contradictory wording in my OP which I explicitly did not do.

Now this is all I have to say on the topic since you were so kind as to call me brain damaged. I'll be sure to ignore you as much as possible from here on since you're not apparently worthy of civil discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
6 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I'm speaking in reference to the OP. I never asked people to prove anything in the OP. Anything other than that was further discussion in the thread which was open-ended by nature, and yes I did later ask people to prove God can't be proven scientifically. However you were accusing me of doing this in my OP, which I didn't do. Therefore, I didn't open this thread asking people to prove anything to me. When I asked people later in the thread, I was engaging in open-ended discussion as I had already established in the OP.

If what you are saying is, that I started out the OP open-ended, and then later asked people to prove certain things, then you are correct. But that's not how I interpreted your original quote. It sounded as if you were accusing me of supposed contradictory wording in my OP which I explicitly did not do.

Now this is all I have to say on the topic since you were so kind as to call me brain damaged. I'll be sure to ignore you as much as possible from here on since you're not apparently worthy of civil discussion.

How many ways can I rephrase this so you understand it?

No one claimed you demanded this in your OP.

Do you get that?

Am I being clear enough?

What I said was that I used your own OP argument to give you the proof you later demanded in the discussion. 

And ya know...I probably wouldn't have rubbed your nose in it if you wouldn't have made the few douche moves that you did. One being going to another discussion and gloating how you had beaten up the skeptics over here. And then when you tried to lump me in with the "atheist spammer" group to just discredit us all in one swoop. Oh and also when you tried the I never said what you clearly saw me type bit. 

It's fine if you want to ignore me. But I clearly called you on your bs. 

Edited by ChaosRose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

How many ways can I rephrase this so you understand it?

1) No one claimed you demanded this in your OP.

Do you get that?

Am I being clear enough?

2) What I said was that I used your own OP argument to give you the prove you later demanded in the discussion. 

3)And ya know...I probably wouldn't have rubbed your nose in it if you wouldn't have made the few douche moves that you did. One being going to another discussion and gloating how you had beaten up the skeptics over here. And then when you tried to lump me in with the "atheist spammer" group to just discredit us all in one swoop. Oh and also when you tried the I never said what you clearly saw me type bit. 

4) It's fine if you want to ignore me. But I clearly called you on your bs. 

1) Very well, point taken. I must have misinterpreted your quote. That was my honest mistake, and I do apologize.

2) No you didn't. My OP wasn't an argument per say, it was more of a 'what if' scenario. It's impossible to answer the question: "Can you prove to me that God cannot be proven scientifically?" with: "Does God intend to be proven?" Now you could answer it with: "God doesn't intend to be proven.", and that could be a reasonable answer in a sense. However I didn't suggest that he did or didn't intend to either way. I left that question open for discussion. Furthermore, you would have to first prove that God doesn't intend to be proven before using it as proof for the original question, which you can't do because in order to do that you must first prove God exists. It's just a viscous cycle of infinite regress. You didn't answer anything, you just lackadaisically dismissed everything without putting much thought into it.

3) If I offended you I'm sorry, but I can assure you I wasn't trying to 'dismiss' you at all. I was currently in the process of responding to you and was intending to respond to other posts when you started this whole argument insinuating me to be a liar. Now you call me a gloat for merely referencing previous threads so I don't have to type things over again for the shear sake of brevity.

4) I don't want to ignore you, or anyone else on this forum. But given your apparent lack of human decency over a minor miscommunication on my part (which I do totally own as being my fault and again, I do apologize. see #1), I don't see any reason why I should waste any of my time discussing things with someone who has no qualms in resulting to name calling. The only 'bs' you've been able to successfully call me out on is my minor misunderstanding in whether or not I asked people to prove anything in my OP. However a minor miscommunication such as this is in no way deserving of being called 'brain damaged', as well as every other insult you've thrown my way. I don' have to put up with that, and I won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xeno-Fish
1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

As for me responding to the rest of you, please give me a minute to read through all the atheist spam. :rolleyes: I'll respond to you shortly.

I'm an indifferent agnostic. Mean I do not know nor care if god exist, and if god happens to exist it will not affect how I live.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.