Enough objective proof for you?

[Will Due]

If objective proof of the reality of God is what you need, and if God did relegate the creation and administration of parts of his universe to subordinates, and if these subordinates, as a part of earning their right to rule their domains, are then sent to live the same life as their creatures like us, and if this occurs on a world like ours, that the actual person who created the universe walks the same ground as us, and if this person lives a life that exemplifies everything we need to know about God . . . 

If that were to happen, would that fulfill the need for objective proof?

 

And if this person, the actual creator and ruler of the universe wherein our world exists, as a part of his presence and teachings, indicates that only so much can be revealed at one time, and that at sometime in the future (now the present) the hidden things that could not be revealed then, would be eventually, and if this has occured, that the hidden things have been revealed, and if this moment occured already, and if instead of these revelations being revealed by a flesh and blood person, were revealed instead by the words printed in a book . . .

Would that be enough objective proof for you?

 

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Will Due

[Aquila King]

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

If objective proof of the reality of God is what you need, and if God did relegate the creation and administration of parts of his universe to subordinates, and if these subordinates, as a part of earning their right to rule their domains, are then sent to live the same life as their creatures like us, and if this occurs on a world like ours, that the actual person who created the universe walks the same ground as us, and if this person lives a life that exemplifies everything we need to know about God . . . 

If that were to happen, would that fulfill the need for objective proof?

Nope.

6 minutes ago, Will Due said:

And if this person, the actual creator and ruler of the universe wherein our world exists, as a part of his presence and teachings, indicates that only so much can be revealed at one time, and that at sometime in the future (now the present) the hidden things that could not be revealed then, would be eventually, and if this has occured, that the hidden things have been revealed, and if this moment occured already, and if instead of these revelations being revealed by a flesh and blood person, were revealed instead by the words printed in a book . . .

Would that be enough objective proof for you?

Nope.

[Will Due]

7 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Nope.

Nope.

Then what would be enough objective proof for you Richard?

 

 

[Aquila King]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Then what would be enough objective proof for you Richard?

It's not that what you mentioned isn't enough, it's just that it isn't relevant to the question. People's moral behaviors (whether it be divine beings acting in human bodies or whatever you mentioned or not) tell us nothing as to whether 'God' exists.

First and foremost, you need to define 'God'. 'God' is such a relative concept, that it could be applied to just about anything. What kind of god specifically are we talking about here? You need to clarify in detail as to what kind of God you're making the case for.

Second, you need to demonstrate that this specific god that you've laid out to us exists in the real world. In other words, use logic, reasoning, evidence, philosophy, at least something that we can externally verify ourselves, that leads us to the conclusion that this specific god exists. otherwise, your 'God' holds no more weight then many other proposed 'gods' out there.

Look Will, I'm not asking for any objective proof. I think proof is a relative term, and that skeptics that always demand this 'proof' are always unfairly shifting the argument in their favor. However what I do ask, is that you present some sort of logical arguments and reasons, as to why you believe that your specific God exists. That's all.

[Illyrius]

15 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

First and foremost, you need to define 'God'.

This is not easy at all.

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

It's not that what you mentioned isn't enough, it's just that it isn't relevant to the question. People's moral behaviors (whether it be divine beings acting in human bodies or whatever you mentioned or not) tell us nothing as to whether 'God' exists.

First and foremost, you need to define 'God'. 'God' is such a relative concept, that it could be applied to just about anything. What kind of god specifically are we talking about here? You need to clarify in detail as to what kind of God you're making the case for.

Second, you need to demonstrate that this specific god that you've laid out to us exists in the real world. In other words, use logic, reasoning, evidence, philosophy, at least something that we can externally verify ourselves, that leads us to the conclusion that this specific god exists. otherwise, your 'God' holds no more weight then many other proposed 'gods' out there.

Look Will, I'm not asking for any objective proof. I think proof is a relative term, and that skeptics that always demand this 'proof' are always unfairly shifting the argument in their favor. However what I do ask, is that you present some sort of logical arguments and reasons, as to why you believe that your specific God exists. That's all.

Well in response to what you said I would like to know if you think there is no chance that God exists in the first place.

If you don't, and you're sure about it, then for you I suppose, any proof of any kind would be irrelevant. 

I say this because we humans generally make determinations or judgements about what's true and then go out to find the evidence of what we need to backup what we think.

Of course, the opposite is true too. That if evidence is bumped into that counters what we think is true, then we dismiss it as people are inclined to do.

So having said that, I guess it will matter which side of the question you line up on, that God exists, or that he doesn't, in order for the proof of his existence, even if his personal representative, or some other manifestation, is standing right in front of you, for it to be relevant objectively. 

 

 

[Illyrius]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I say this because we humans generally make determinations or judgements about what's true and then go out to find the evidence of what we need to backup what we think.

It is painful to shatter our perception of reality because we are emotionally attached to it. It hurts.

[GlitterRose]

That was a whole lotta ifs.

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

That was a whole lotta ifs.

You percepted a post from an interesting perspective.

[Will Due]

Just now, Mr. Argon said:

It is painful to shatter our perception of reality because we are emotionally attached to it. It hurts.

Quite an understatement sir.

Nevertheless, we live in an evolving world, so to become static and stationary in our growth as a person spiritually, this will ultimately be much more hurtful than having to endure the false pain of admitting to yourself that there is something about the perception of reality that needs to be adjusted.

 

 

[Will Due]

3 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

That was a whole lotta ifs.

Lol

Rose, I know you know, there are a lot more ifs than that.

 

 

[Illyrius]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Quite an understatement sir.

Nevertheless, we live in an evolving world, so to become static and stationary in our growth as a person spiritually, this will ultimately be much more hurtful than having to endure the false pain of admitting to yourself that there is something about the perception of reality that needs to be adjusted.

Well said. I could sign this.

[GlitterRose]

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Lol

Rose, I know you know, there are a lot more ifs than that.

 

 

That much is certain...

that there's a lot that is uncertain.

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

That much is certain...

that there's a lot that is uncertain.

True that.

But just like night has its day, uncertainty has its certainty too.

 

 

[Only_]

Many times I am asked: ''Why doesn't the Alien God of the Sethians help the world?'' Easy, I say I say, like an Abraxas foghorn. The pleroma is transformative information, that plasmate Philip K Dick wrote about. And does not have an effect on matter. Carl Jung, in the Seven Sermons To The Dead, wrote that the emanation of the pleroma on the material world is like light going through a balloon. This transformative information, or call of Sophia can fan the divine spark of those who have hears to hear but it will not sully Itself in that which is temporal, illusionary and ultimately ignorance-causing. In other words, our manifest Universe.

Edited October 28, 2017 by TruthSeeker_

[Will Due]

5 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Many times I am asked: ''Why doesn't the Alien God of the Sethians help the world?'' Easy, I say I say, like an Abraxas foghorn. The pleroma is transformative information, that plasmate Philip K Dick wrote about. And does not have an effect on matter. Carl Jung, in the Seven Sermons To The Dead, wrote that the emanation of the pleroma on the material world is like light going through a balloon. This transformative information, or call of Sophia can fan the divine spark of those who have hears to hear but it will not sully Itself in that which is temporal, illusionary and ultimately ignorance-causing. In other worlds, our manifest Universe.

You're probably not going to believe this, but dude, I get what you're saying!

 

 

[GlitterRose]

Stephan Hoeller has a great series of lectures on the Seven Sermons. 

I stumbled across them on youtube.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

if God did relegate the creation and administration of parts of his universe to subordinates, and if these subordinates, as a part of earning their right to rule their domains,

Why does it have to be like this?  Why such a structure of great kings and vassal kings?  Why  does creation need ruling?  I guess it is difficult for me to conceive an unfettered being who would wish to rule anything other than itself.

[Will Due]

6 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Stephan Hoeller has a great series of lectures on the Seven Sermons. 

I stumbled across them on youtube.

Gnosis means "knowledge of spiritual mysteries" right?

Then why not . . . oh forget it, nevermind.

 

 

[GlitterRose]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Gnosis means "knowledge of spiritual mysteries" right?

Then why not . . . oh forget it, nevermind.

 

 

Trying to figure me out, eh?

Lol. 

I'll let you know when I get it sorted. 

[Only_]

13 minutes ago, Will Due said:

You're probably not going to believe this, but dude, I get what you're saying!

 

 

Pray for the archons, for those earthly results. Or sell your soul to Mana, like most of humanity already has.

Edited October 28, 2017 by TruthSeeker_

[GlitterRose]

7 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Pray for the archons, for those earthly results. Or sell your soul to Mana, like most of humanity already has.

You pray for the archons?

[DebDandelion]

59 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Well in response to what you said I would like to know if you think there is no chance that God exists in the first place.

If you don't, and you're sure about it, then for you I suppose, any proof of any kind would be irrelevant. 

I say this because we humans generally make determinations or judgements about what's true and then go out to find the evidence of what we need to backup what we think.

Of course, the opposite is true too. That if evidence is bumped into that counters what we think is true, then we dismiss it as people are inclined to do.

So having said that, I guess it will matter which side of the question you line up on, that God exists, or that he doesn't, in order for the proof of his existence, even if his personal representative, or some other manifestation, is standing right in front of you, for it to be relevant objectively. 

 

 

I don't agree.

If you present your findings in an objective manner you create the opportunity for the findings to be questioned, so the mere fact that some intellectual reasoning is taking place means the findings are being thought about.

That said, your findings will never convince anyone if they dont want to be convinced. But you may stimulate thought...which is good!

Personal opinion: it is not for me to convince people. I present what i have to the best of my ability and allow God to work in their hearts.

 

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, Tatetopa said:

Why does it have to be like this?  Why such a structure of great kings and vassal kings?  Why  does creation need ruling?  I guess it is difficult for me to conceive an unfettered being who would wish to rule anything other than itself.

Why does it have to be like this?

I guess, like God has created us in his image and all that, he wants us to be free. We have a limited free will right? Within limits we can do what we want. For example, nobody can walk through walls.

But God has used his free will to fetter himself. He has put up rules for his will. He has apparently limited his infinity right? That's how we are able to exist. We're finite because of the self-imposed limitations God has put on his will.

This is the image we need to make ourselves in. We need to become like him and that is the cause of the tension we feel.

Because of free will. Free will that needs to be freely limited.

 

 

[GlitterRose]

I thought you might pray to be rid of the archons, but why for them?