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

Recommended Posts

On 8/1/2022 at 5:29 AM, oslove said:

There are three ways to know God exists:

1. By the intelligence, rational faculty, and reasoning process of man.

2. By reading the Bible for Christians and Orthodox Jews, and the Koran for Muslims.

3. By meditation

 

I know God exists by my intelligence, rational faculty, and reasoning process.

I notice that Cormac and Will are disputing the existence of God by reading the Bible.

Suppose you Cormac and you Will take up your intelligence, rational faculty, and reasoning process: to determine the existence of God, instead of belaboring the Bible.

 

How to find God by our intelligence, rational faculty, and reasoning process:

1. We consider that there is always existence, and it is never ever going to become extinct i.e. non-existence.

2. We observe that there are things and entities in existence which have a beginning and an ending - they are transient, not permanent, for example we humans: we get born and survive but little by little our body becomes weaker and weaker until finally we die.

3. The existence of transient things and entities implicates the existence of an entity that is permanent, self-existent, and is the creator ad operator of man and the universe and everything transient, and we call Him God.

The all powerful God of Abrahamic religion is the result of an evolution that took centuries, originally there wasn't an all powerful God and evidence of this can be found in the OT. 

1) Originally there was the god El at the head of a pantheon, no Yahweh included

2) Yahweh (a god from the south) is introduced as a god in this pantheon as one of the many children of El.

3) El and Yahweh merge into one god (emphasis on Yahweh, El becomes a title)  Asherah the consort of El thus becomes the consort of Yahweh

4) Only Yahweh is to be worshipped, the other gods still exist but are not worthy of worship (henotheism / monolatry), the cult of Asherah was probably the last to be abolished.

5) Yahweh is the only god and is all powerful, existence of other gods is denied (monotheism), "God" is born.

Bible scholars have identified texts in the OT referring to each one of the 5 phases mentioned above (partially also supported by archaeological research).

Trying to prove the existence of (the Abrahamic) God imho is meaningless, since it can be shown how people made him up and "fine tuned" him through the course of time. Christianity just made more stuff up, not accepted by Judaism thus creating a "new" religion.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Djedi said:

Hi Oslove, do you know what abiogenesis is (see here)? No need for the existence of a life creating God.

 

Abiogenesis means life came from nature.

And where does nature come from, it did not create itself from nothingness.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, oslove said:

 

Abiogenesis means life came from nature.

And where does nature come from, it did not create itself from nothingness.

Don't dawdle Oslove, we're going to end up with the Big Bang again and I already told you that the Big Bang as evidence of the existence of God was an opinion launched by pope Pius VII in 1951.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2022 at 5:35 PM, oslove said:

Okay, everyone, there is existence, where does it come from?

                       is    :)        

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, lightly said:

                       is    :)        

Right. Existence has always existed and didn't need talking monkeys to come along, 13 billion years later and declare an imaginary entity created it.

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

6 hours ago, oslove said:

Abiogenesis means life came from nature.

And where does nature come from, it did not create itself from nothingness.

Nope: 

Quote

Abiogenesis

the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WhiteCraneFeather

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

   #700 
9 hours ago, oslove said:

 

Abiogenesis means life came from nature.

And where does nature come from, it did not create itself from nothingness.

Don't dawdle Oslove, we're going to end up with the Big Bang again and I already told you that the Big Bang as evidence of the existence of God was an opinion launched by pope Pius VII in 1951.

----------------------

 

I don't ascribe to the teachings of any popes at all.

The Big Bang came from the creation of God, in ultimate summation, in your case in ultimate summation, it came from nothingness - that is an absurd position.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Right. Existence has always existed and didn't need talking monkeys to come along, 13 billion years later and declare an imaginary entity created it.

Ya,   seems like it :P   I dunno if  later, sooner, before, or after,  even apply ?   I just like to say  is  because nearly everyone agrees that it   is,  so it’s nearly impossible to argue about.  :w00t:     ..I think  being  is my second favorite word and concept,   but it’s a little more complicated. ?  :)   

Edited by lightly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the Big Bang came from God.

But not in the way people think. It was backwards created when God added a history to his present universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In ultimate summation, man came from the creation of God, for God is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.

There are three ways for man to come to know God exists:

1. By man's intelligence, rational faculty, and reasoning process.

2. By man reading the Bible, for Christians and Orthodox Jews, in the case of Muslims, reading the Koran.

3. By meditation

 

I know God exists from No. 1.

 

In the case of atheists, their only way of coming to know God does not exist is to hit a strawman, like calling God a Flying Spaghetti Monster, they learned that from Bertrand Russell who called God a Teapot Orbiting in Space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, lightly said:

Ya,   seems like it :P   I dunno if  later, sooner, before, or after,  even apply ?   I just like to say  is  because nearly everyone agrees that it   is,  so it’s nearly impossible to argue about.  :w00t:     ..I think  being  is my second favorite word and concept,   but it’s a little more complicated. ?  :)   

We don't even know everything there is to know about a single blade of grass, so that's pretty much given.B)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, oslove said:

In ultimate summation, man came from the creation of God, for God is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.

There are three ways for man to come to know God exists:

1. By man's intelligence, rational faculty, and reasoning process.

2. By man reading the Bible, for Christians and Orthodox Jews, in the case of Muslims, reading the Koran.

3. By meditation

 

I know God exists from No. 1.

 

In the case of atheists, their only way of coming to know God does not exist is to hit a strawman, like calling God a Flying Spaghetti Monster, they learned that from Bertrand Russell who called God a Teapot Orbiting in Space.

No, you don't. Anything you can only prove to yourself and no one else isn't knowledge, it's belief. You believe you know God exists, but you don't. Knowledge is transferable, belief isn't. That is the stone wall you keep smashing into here, time and again, to no effect. No one here accepts your personal rationalizations as evidence. Hence, they're only proof to yourself.

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

15 hours ago, oslove said:

they learned that from Bertrand Russell who called God a Teapot Orbiting in Space.

No he didn't, the point of Russell's Teapot seems to have sailed over your head.

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

It's hard to win an argument with a smart person

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, oslove said:

Hi atheists, what do you say, I am a theist, are there things we can concur on at all?

Hi Oslove

All atheists got together last night and concur that you are a square circle living in a trapezoid

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Oslove

All atheists got together last night and concur that you are a square circle living in a trapezoid

I remember. You're the one that walked and yelled: "Great party, where's the whiskey!"

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

I remember. You're the one that walked and yelled: "Great party, where's the whiskey!"

Hi Hammer

That is true, I am not an atheist and had no vote so was there strictly as an impartial and objective observer I was only trying to summon the Ka of the Grain to guide everyone to a fair consensus.:innocent::whistle:

By the way how did you like my new lampshade.:lol:

Edited by jmccr8
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, oslove said:

what do you say about that?

Hi Oslove

The vote has been taken and unfortunately things did not bode well for you.

4 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

All atheists got together last night and concur that you are a square circle living in a trapezoid

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Oslove

All atheists got together last night and concur that you are a square circle living in a trapezoid

 

You don't get me correctly, I am suggesting that you atheists and I a theist, we find out what things we can concur on and what not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oslove said:

 

You don't get me correctly, I am suggesting that you atheists and I a theist, we find out what things we can concur on and what not.

Ho Oslove

You don't get me correctly I am not an atheist all I can say is I don't know as there is no evidence. I find yours weak and lacking in expression of the hows and whys because you do not show more than the flash of a camera lights worth of reasoning in your concussion. Actually all you have given us is your conclusion try taking some time to sort out what you wish to say to us and give a full and accurate description of your belief.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Ho Oslove

You don't get me correctly I am not an atheist all I can say is I don't know as there is no evidence. I find yours weak and lacking in expression of the hows and whys because you do not show more than the flash of a camera lights worth of reasoning in your concussion. Actually all you have given us is your conclusion try taking some time to sort out what you wish to say to us and give a full and accurate description of your belief.

 

Forgive me, you are not an atheist, what then are you?

That is No. 1 question from me to you, in this post from me.

No. 2 question is what do you mean by evidence?

I love very much to learn from you what is evidence, is that all right with you?

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.