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 -

Proof of God (Gnosticism = Knowledge is Power)


InvestigativeThinker
 Share

Recommended Posts

XenoFish

Posted 22 hours ago

   #265 

  22 hours ago, newbloodmoon said:

Can god be tested

The results are confirmation bias and false positives. Making it 100% subjective.

==============

 

Dear Xeno, you did conduct any test on God, so how can you declare that "The results are confirmation bias and false positives. Making it 100% subjective"?

 

Here is how to test the existence of God:

1. Get the definition of God from me who know "God exists as the permanent self-existent creator and opertor of man and the universe and everything transient."

2. Take notice that you are a transient entity, here now, gone tomorrow.

3. Transient existence implicates in the ultimate summation the existence of God, in definition as the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.

 

Okay, dear Xeno, conduct that test and you will see that the existence of God explains everything, while the non-existence of God explains nothing. (Therefore, God exists.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, oslove said:

 

But Htchens never proved that there is no evidence for God existing, so he can be also summarily dismissed.

Okay so here is how this works. The burden of proof falls upon the person or persons who are making a claim. For example Christians claim that the God of the bible exists so thus the burden of proof of a God falls on the shoulders of Christianity. I as well as Mr. Hitchens and many others have not been presented with any form of “proof” for the existence of god, so we don’t have to prove his non existence.

If I claimed that my neighbors name is Tim and someone doubted that claim, I could then present Tim to the doubter. I doubt the existence of God (notice I never said God doesn’t exist) so whomever claims that the God of the bible is real then present God for my consideration. If anyone thinks that just because this entity is mentioned in the bible then let me present the “evidence” for the existence of Gandalf the Grey/white because J.R.R. Tolkien wrote about him in the Hobbit or the Lord Of The Rings.

Edited by newbloodmoon
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, newbloodmoon said:

I doubt the existence of God (notice I never said God doesn’t exist) so whomever claims that the God of the bible is real then present God for my consideration. 

 

Since you never said God doesn't exist have you ever considered that the God that is real isn't the God of the Bible?

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Since you never said God doesn't exist have you ever considered that the God that is real isn't the God of the Bible?

 

 

 

Hi Will

Am interested in seeing your definitions of the differing god constructs and why these differences exist, please do add as much detail as possible for critique of substance.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

Am interested in seeing your definitions of the differing god constructs and why these differences exist, please do add as much detail as possible for critique of substance.

 

Jay,

The God that's real is not a "construct".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Will Due said:

 

Jay,

The God that's real is not a "construct".

 

 

Hi Will

Define the difference.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

Define the difference.

 

One is real and the other is not.

One is real and the other is a "construct,".

 

 

Edited by Will Due
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

One is real and the other is not.

 

 

Hi Will

I have 2 big toes, one one each foot and can describe them so we are working with which big toe is real or not. both of your god constructs are real top you so what is your real and not real are constructs by your definition of what a god is whether it exists or not. Describe both, it is a simple request.

Edited by jmccr8
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

One is real and the other is not.

One is real and the other is a "construct,".

 

 

Hi Will

Show the differences, what happened lately your posting attitude has changed and yet we are all the same people?

Edited by jmccr8
enter
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

I have 2 big toes, one one each foot and can describe them so we are working with which big toe is real or not. both of your god construct real and not real are constructs by your definition of what a god is whether it exists or not. Describe both, it is a simple request.

 

If you have a God "construct" then you constructed it in accordance with your choices. The God that's real has a reality that has nothing to do with anyone's choices that resulted in their "construct".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

If you have a God "construct" then you constructed it in accordance with your choices. The God that's real has a reality that has nothing to do with anyone's choices that resulted in their "construct".

 

 

Hi Will 

So it is all whatever you want it to be, seems mostly imaginary iof everyone is right especially when religions have been in conflict for a couple of thousand years. You know how I define god, it is a word that describes our ability to think, modify and create so my god construct has no personality outside of the one who thinks, no qualities of personality or character outside of the one who perceives their god as a god of not description or definable qualities.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will 

So it is all whatever you want it to be, seems mostly imaginary iof everyone is right especially when religions have been in conflict for a couple of thousand years. You know how I define god, it is a word that describes our ability to think, modify and create so my god construct has no personality outside of the one who thinks, no qualities of personality or character outside of the one who perceives their god as a god of not description or definable qualities.

 

When earth, wind, fire and water were thought of as the only elements in existence that "construct" had nothing to do with the reality that there were many more elements than just four.

"Constructs" have nothing to do with reality.

God "constructs" have nothing to do with the God that's real.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

Since you never said God doesn't exist have you ever considered that the God that is real isn't the God of the Bible?

 

 

 

Prove that any god is real, if any god is real than there should be zero issue with them as an all knowing all powerful entity to provide what evidence I or any other person would need to show they are real.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

When earth, wind, fire and water

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, newbloodmoon said:

Prove that any god is real, if any god is real than there should be zero issue with them as an all knowing all powerful entity to provide what evidence I or any other person would need to show they are real.

 

Back in time when there were only four elements, like I already mentioned; earth, wind, fire and water, there were scientifically inclined people who claimed that in reality there were more than just four elements.

However there was no way available for them to prove it. 

Did that mean in reality there weren't more than four elements?

 

 

Edited by Will Due
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, newbloodmoon said:

Okay so here is how this works. The burden of proof falls upon the person or persons who are making a claim.

[ . . . . ]

 

11 hours ago, oslove said:
But Htchens never proved that there is no evidence for God existing, so he can be also summarily dismissed.
================

oslove
Posted yesterday at 02:19 AM

About burden of proof, that it is the work of a claimant to prove i.e. convince the public that he owns say a watch, which is now worn on the wrist of the suspect, and the latter can just feel so safe with doing nothing, as he is even presumed to be innocent.

However, there can be present among the public, an intelligent observer who will insist that the accused, though presumed innocent, still he bears the burden of explanation, why and how he came to wear the controverted watch on his wrist.


So, there is the burden of proof and there is the burden of explanation.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So as I suspected this is going round and round in circles so this will be my last post in this thread. Let me be as clear as possible, If there is an all knowing and powerful deity and If they can’t or they are unwilling to prove their existence which would be really easy beyond fallible mortal mouth pieces who needs me or anyone else to worship them then they are unworthy of worship and belief in. As I have said If there is a god than it isn’t my burden to disprove their existence because I have not made the claim they don’t exist but merely that I don’t believe one exists. To turn the burden of proof on me for my disbelief in god instead of proving god’s existence is intellectually dishonest.

Edited by newbloodmoon
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, newbloodmoon said:

So as I suspected this is going round and round in circles so this will be my last post in this thread. Let me be as clear as possible, If there is an all knowing and powerful deity and If they can’t or they are unwilling to prove their existence which would be really easy beyond fallible mortal mouth pieces who needs me or anyone else to worship them then they are unworthy of worship and belief in. As I have said If there is a god than it isn’t my burden to disprove their existence because I have not made the claim they don’t exist but merely that I don’t believe one exists. To turn the burden of proof on me for my disbelief in god instead of proving god’s existence is intellectually dishonest.

 

Didn't your momma tell you not to feed the trolls?

There's no sense in participating in a circular argument......unless your life is that boring......

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, newbloodmoon said:

So as I suspected this is going round and round in circles so this will be my last post in this thread. Let me be as clear as possible, If there is an all knowing and powerful deity and If they can’t or they are unwilling to prove their existence which would be really easy beyond fallible mortal mouth pieces who needs me or anyone else to worship them then they are unworthy of worship and belief in. As I have said If there is a god than it isn’t my burden to disprove their existence because I have not made the claim they don’t exist but merely that I don’t believe one exists. To turn the burden of proof on me for my disbelief in god instead of proving god’s existence is intellectually dishonest.

 

Bye, Felicia

 

"And so on down through the others until the last of the servants, on being called to account, reported: ‘Lord, behold, here is your pound, which I have kept safely done up in this napkin. And this I did because I feared you; I believed that you were unreasonable, seeing that you take up where you have not laid down, and that you seek to reap where you have not sown.

Then said his lord:

"You negligent and unfaithful servant, I will judge you out of your own mouth. You knew that I reap where I have apparently not sown; therefore you knew this reckoning would be required of you. 

And then said this ruler to those who stood by:

"Take the money from this slothful servant

 

 

"To every one who has shall be given more, but from him who has not, even that which he has shall be taken away from him.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 I believe in   Something/Everything  but I don’t know what! ….Not an anthropomorphic (humanlike) god ..more of a universal sort of  god.  I’m going to ask you Piney,,,and you cormac.. (if you would wish to ,and It’s perfectly understandable if you’d rather not)  to please expand on your personal views or beliefs???    I remember you, Piney, saying that you believe in a “spiritual living universe”..?     And I remember you, cormac ,saying that you are an “extreme”  “deist” ?       …here goes! :P [Submit Reply] *click*!        No hurry..I gotta charge this up and go for a long bike ride :)

Edited by lightly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, lightly said:

 I believe in   Something/Everything  but I don’t know what! ….Not an anthropomorphic (humanlike) god ..more of a universal sort of  god.  I’m going to ask you Piney,,,and you cormac.. (if you would wish to ,and It’s perfectly understandable if you’d rather not)  to please expand on your personal views or beliefs???    I remember you, Piney, saying that you believe in a “spiritual living universe”..?     And I remember you, cormac ,saying that you are an “extreme”  “deist” ?       …here goes! :P [Submit Reply] *click*!        No hurry..I gotta charge this up and go for a long bike ride :)

Check your inbox. 
 

cormac

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2022 at 10:29 PM, InvestigativeThinker said:

There's different types of angels and demons. Demons are fallen angels but they are corrupted on our plane.

20220702_195448.jpg.f41001c59a01dc13d48782cc506c395c.jpg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

I have 2 big toes, one one each foot and can describe them so we are working with which big toe is real or not. both of your god constructs are real top you so what is your real and not real are constructs by your definition of what a god is whether it exists or not. Describe both, it is a simple request.

 

There is really no need for constructs, when all humans have access to reality.

Start on the reality of God's existence, by noticing the concrete reality of yours and mine reality, namely, we exist - and we all humans will conclude that our transient existence implicates the existence of God, the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Check your inbox. 
 

cormac

Thanks cormac…I replied in there.. not sure how to send it to your  inbox. :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, oslove said:

 

There is really no need for constructs, when all humans have access to reality.

Start on the reality of God's existence, by noticing the concrete reality of yours and mine reality, namely, we exist - and we all humans will conclude that our transient existence implicates the existence of God, the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.

Hi Osbald

If you claim one god is more real than the other god then one should be able to demonstrate the differences between them. At this time all we have to work with are constructs as no god has shown up yet to announce itself to us globally in person.

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.