An invitation to all theists. Show me the proof of your god/gods. Whatever you've got, just list it all, sources and everything.

To all others, please give the theists a chance to show what they've got.

Adam; your thread is causing me to salivate, but I'll keep from tearing into their flesh for now ;).

LOL, Nebula, what would that "tearing our flesh apart" be? Giant purple squid monkey and fuzzypink elephants? LOL....

Nope. It would simply be showing that you DO NOT have any proof. But you're doing a good enough job demonstrating that yourself :D.

I'll tell you what I am about to tell Nebula in his similar topic: You need to be able to understand the concept of what God is before you can engage proofs of its existence.

I've found that most atheists chase after small game. Very few that I ever meet are ever prepared to address larger versions of God, as their prejudices prevent them from understanding it.

It's fair enough to say, for instance, that a Christian won't be able to prove out the existence of God.

However it is abundantly clear to me from debating with you for many months that you are not prepared to understand notions of God before examining their legitimacy.

God is simply an idea. It is a representation of everything in the Universe; everything that was, is and will be; it is the whole of existence personified to represent the condition of human ignorance in relation to human function. But I know that atheists don't like my ideas about God because they generally can't wrap their heads around them. This is changing, slowly.

But once you understand certain ideas about God, you'll see that proof is unnecessary, because once you get hold of even the apron-strings of such ideas about God, the silly accretions of the Christians and others simply melt away.

It depends on which gods one is prepared to examine. The Christian god cannot be proven, and is designed as such. The Sufi version of God is inherent, and goes without description; it represents a condition in the Universe as near as I can tell.

To me, the word "God" represents the whole of existence and all its potential. If there is merely a Universe, then God is all of that from beginning to end, and can only be understood by understanding the Universe. If there is a multiverse, then such is God.

Thing is, by that representation, there's not much to prove.

However, when it comes to the Christians or Muslims or others with firmer assertions about God ... it's fair enough if you want to play in the Farm Leagues, but you need to work on the fundamentals of the idea if you're ever going to be called up to the Majors.

Consider for a moment that we cannot objectively prove to one another that either of us exist. Perhaps then the absurdity of what you and Nebula are asking in your similar topics will occur to you.

It would seem to me that this topic is generally an effort to get Muscleman, TruthSeeker, and others worked up into a self-righteous frenzy. The nature of your phrasing tells me that: Show me the proof of your god/gods.

Their gods will naturally be limited by the necessities of what they hope to get from God. As is your perspective. You already have a notion of what God is or isn't in your head, Adam. I've debated with you too long to think otherwise. It's the reason why I predict that you won't understand the content or significance of this post.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tiassa;

For the record, I'm not atheist; I'd say I'm agnostic. Anyway...

When I speak of god, I mean a BEING, something aware of its own existence, something omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient, timeless, changeless...basically a supreme being the way that Christians/Muslims personify one.


Consider for a moment that we cannot objectively prove to one another that either of us exist. Perhaps then the absurdity of what you and Nebula are asking in your similar topics will occur to you.

I don't see how this is absurd; the fact is I CANNOT PROVE your existence! But, that doesn't mean either way that you do/don't exist. For practical purposes, I will assume you exist, but that doesn't mean that you truly do. No offence, but I see why it's that hard to doubt your existence ;).

You have in fact illustrated my point perfectly. "We cannot objectively prove to one another that either of us exist." Exactly. Therefore, to conclude that you do, in fact, exist is incoherent...as is the conclusion that God exists.

I'm saying that to prove that you DO exist, one needs proof. So far as I'm concerned, the only thing that I know for certain exists is me, thanks to Descartes ideas (if there really is another thing called Descarte ;)).

Anyone making an existential claim absolutely has to be the one to support it. Honestly, I don't think one can say a god doesn't exist with any more certainty than one can say a god does exist.

I'm saying that if theists want to believe in a god, they are required by logic to be the ones to present their case first.

tiassa;

It would seem to me that this topic is generally an effort to get Muscleman, TruthSeeker, and others worked up into a self-righteous frenzy. The nature of your phrasing tells me that: Show me the proof of your god/gods.

Why would it seem this way? I find that they get annoying when they go into that frezy; I would like to actually have an intelligent conversation with them, but they seem unable to set aside their personal beliefs, which keep getting in the way.

The harvest are many, but workers are few...

So many ignorant children, so little time..

tiassa;

The kind of shit whatsupall just pulled is EXACTLY what I did not want entering these threads. It does not further the discussion at all. I'm sick of arguing with theists! ARGH!!!!!!!

**dies**

Tiassa, I just want to know why the universe as a whole, beginning to end, has to be known as God. Why can't it just be the universe as a whole, beginning to end? No mystification...

Wonder what he's scared of? The truth isn't that bad is it?

Edit: About Whatsupyall

I think she is contrasting the view that God is an independent entity to the view that the universe is the embodiment of God, and the differences in how one would argue either case.

Thor; what who is scared of?

*edit*

BTW, I think this thread has lost focus, I'm partly to blame. Let's get back to the original idea: theists just post (AND CITE!) evidence that supports your arguement.

Ah, well if so, how does this independant entity have any relation with me or any other human in this universe?

When I speak of god, I mean a BEING, something aware of its own existence, something omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient, timeless, changeless...basically a supreme being the way that Christians/Muslims personify one.Fair enough; I shall leave your topic, Nebula, to the Christians and Muslims.

But, just for the record, that's your own limitation of your own perception of God. There is nothing which says God must be a being as such. Sure, the Christians and Muslims might assert it, but even their mystical sects see the folly of such a presumption.I don't see how this is absurd; the fact is I CANNOT PROVE your existence! But, that doesn't mean either way that you do/don't exist. For practical purposes, I will assume you exist, but that doesn't mean that you truly do. No offence, but I see why it's that hard to doubt your existence I don't doubt my existence. But I can't prove it to anyone. As I understand it, that's how a good many born-again Christians, at least, feel about God.Therefore, to conclude that you do, in fact, exist is incoherent...as is the conclusion that God exists.I can cope with that. In fact, it seems quite obvious.I'm saying that to prove that you DO exist, one needs proof. So far as I'm concerned, the only thing that I know for certain exists is me, thanks to Descartes ideas (if there really is another thing called Descarte ;) ).You've got it. Bear it in mind in all considerations. After a while, the effort of doing so will disappear, and the concept will be inherent in your perspective. I submit that this development will be very helpful to you as a conscience and as a mind.Anyone making an existential claim absolutely has to be the one to support it. Honestly, I don't think one can say a god doesn't exist with any more certainty than one can say a god does exist.This is correct.I'm saying that if theists want to believe in a god, they are required by logic to be the ones to present their case first.This is a strange phenomenon. Atheism is a reaction to theism, and thus makes its assertion against what was previously believed. In that sense, the burden can fall on atheism.

But why bother saddling people with impossible burdens? We may as well just crucify the lot of them to the same effect.Why would it seem this way?I pointed it out: Show me the proof of your god/gods.

The challenge seeks a ridiculous goal. Each person's god is based in the individual. Insofar as we seek proof for those internalizations, we will fail. As such, about the only purpose I can think of for such a pointless challenge is to rile the people who are dumb enough to try to prove their individual conceptions of what God is.

It seems a little bit like baiting the Special Ed kid so that he'll react spectacularly, and to the savage amusement of others.The kind of shit whatsupall just pulled is EXACTLY what I did not want entering these threads. It is the expected result, as far as I can see, of Adam's topic phrasing.

If we pop over to your topic (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=13452) for a moment, it seems that your topic post is aimed toward evangelical assertions. Mysticism, even in Christian and Muslim traditions, often rejects the notion that God exists, preferring the subtly different phrasing, God is, which is still a little too specific.

Aiming toward evangelical assertions, you will find many of your responses to be the kind of evangelical tripe you consider so annoying.I'm sick of arguing with theists! ARGH!!!!!!!• It is your own decision to argue with them.
• As long as you continue to transfer evangelical ideas like Islam and Christianity onto the whole of theism, you will not understand the very problems you lament.**dies**Ironically, this is the only way to find out the actual answer.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Okay, before i answer any questions, prove to me that the sky, on a clear day, is blue.

Notme2000Tiassa, I just want to know why the universe as a whole, beginning to end, has to be known as God. Why can't it just be the universe as a whole, beginning to end? No mystification...Provide another single word which encompasses all of what the idea of God has covered in its time. Anybody ever provides that word, and I'll be happy to use it instead of "God".

Mystification is symptomatic.Ah, well if so, how does this independant entity have any relation with me or any other human in this universe?Generally speaking, it doesn't except for the fact that we humans exist within its confines. Everything else is symbolic and accords with individual and cultural priorities as affected by living, real factors such as economy, education, oppression, freedom, ad nauseam.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Ok, to make my point clear, I will use a metaphor... Let's say your house is the universe and everything that has ever been in it, is in it and ever will be in it is the contents of the universe... Does that make the house God, or just a plain ol' house that we can't completely comprehend?

Originally posted by Davearchy
Okay, before i answer any questions, prove to me that the sky, on a clear day, is blue.

It isn't, stupid.

lmao

I don't see how this is absurd; the fact is I CANNOT PROVE your existence! But, that doesn't mean either way that you do/don't exist. For practical purposes, I will assume you exist, but that doesn't mean that you truly do. No offence, but I see why it's that hard to doubt your existence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't doubt my existence. But I can't prove it to anyone. As I understand it, that's how a good many born-again Christians, at least, feel about God.

They do feel like that about god. And I'm asking why? I can assert own existence a priori, but how can you assert god's existence a priori? My beef is that they have not yet given any argument in favor of this. Except the ontological argument, which seems to be simply playing around with language ;).

Now GB GIL, i realize that, i was trying to make a point:) You see, the sky is only considered blue because the appearance of that color has been labeled it and of course been accepted by the general populace. Since the most part of the world accepts a form of God in one way or another, how come the sky can still be called blue because it is accepted, and there be no God, even though He is accepted also. I'm not offering this as proof, just trying to get you to think a little more before you ask general questions *like i realize i did*, and make vague statements.

Finally the proof that God is real!
Note: I may come off sounding like a raving maniac.

I have the proof that God does exist.

Ive heard whatsupmuscle ask "Show me proof of King Henry!" Well, it seems a bit stupid to be asking that, considering that he's all over the history books. But if you take it into consideration you cant really prove that he does exist. But he does. How do we know this? Simple; King Henry's effects are still around today. He did certain things in the past that have affected our present and the future. Thats how we know that he exist. Now instead of it being King Henry lets replace him with God!

God is all over the history book for one. And in a book thats very old, the bible. Well, how do you prove that God exist? Simple. His effects are still seen today. Step outside and look at that sunshine, he made the sun. Breath in some of that wonderful air! He made that air. You call it the big bang, I call it one of Gods effects. You call it evolution, I call it one of Gods effects. God sets things in motion and effects are a result. Sorta like throwing a bowling ball into some pins, some of the pins knock other pins down, the ball didnt necessarily touch them. Cause and effect. Simple... or did it just come off counfusing?

Counsler, that's all well and good, but consider this.

I write a book about a fuzzy pink elephant named Ogd. I claim this book was written 2000 years ago, and that I discovered it in a cave. I write in the book that Ogd created the Sun and indeed the whole universe. By your logic, since Ogd's effects can still be seen (the sun is here), his existance has just been proven. This is obviously a very simple example, but I think you get my point.

How do you know you are proving the existance of someone who really did live at one time rather than a fictional character of a novel written 2000 years ago?

narrow minded atheists talking to another narrow minded atheists; you guys need education...

Thats ALL the argument you can ever gather, giant purple squid monkey and fuzzy pink elephants...When will you kids grow up? Will you ever grow up? Noone made that claim, and noone believed that claim is real...(maybe kids and retards)...

whatsupyall - to call the people narrowminded and claim that they need education just shows that you truly are the one in need of learning. The reference to pink elephants is just an example used by atheists to show the absurdity of believing in things that cannot be proven. And to say that only children would believe in pink elephants....I would for the most part agree with that, but then how come so many adults believe in the pink elephant known as god when this being has just as much basis in reality as the pink elephant?

will you grace us with your understanding of god whatsupyall, or do you only like to comment on other's ideas?

How do you know you are proving the existance of someone who really did live at one time rather than a fictional character of a novel written 2000 years ago?

I never said that he lived and I used the bible as an example.

God is by no means a character in a novel written 2000 years ago. I said that God made the sun and the air, God made the big bang happen. God made evolution happen when he caused the big bang. I never said that God did all those things in the bible, God merely caused one event that led to another and another and another.....

Novel?? The bible is a novel??? I'm not sure if it fits that genre...more like miscellaneous....

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

"God is by no means a character in a novel written 2000 years ago. I said that God made the sun and the air, God made the big bang happen. God made evolution happen when he caused the big bang. I never said that God did all those things in the bible, God merely caused one event that led to another and another and another....."

Assuming he ever existed at all. You're trying to argue that because the universe exists, and because a book says God created the universe, that the book is automatically true and that God did indeed do what that book says. You can't call this proof.

Counselorcoffee, beware of their words, watch out because they dont always tell the truth, they are like wolves seeking for prey, just becarefull your not the prey...They sure cant mess with me, Im the Lion, Ill tear them all apart...So they dont mess with me...

If they are skeptic, you be skeptic too, if they ask for proof, ask them for proof too...Two can play the same game...

Originally posted by bobbobbins
And to say that only children would believe in pink elephants....I would for the most part agree with that, but then how come so many adults believe in the pink elephant known as god when this being has just as much basis in reality as the pink elephant?

You said there is just as much basis in reality of Good as the pink fuzzy elephant? Well then you have no escape in answerng these...How many are those concvinced that fuzzy pink elephants exist? Billions like those who believe in God? What has the fuzzy pink elephant have done on earth? Has it done any miracles? Any healing under its name? How many claimed of these? Millions as those to God? And if there is, is there any scientific investigations done to it as the healings of God? Is there any historical location of fuzzy pink elephants? If so where? What is the point of believing in Fuzzy pink elephants? Does it have any teaching? If so is it effective and usefull? Is it like the moral virtues, in which is very effective for world governing...

IF YOU CANT ANSWER ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS, THEN FACT REMAINS, FUZZY PINK ELEPHANTS DONT HAVE AS MUCH BASIS IN REALITY AS GOD...PERIOD...SO DONT LIE ANYMORE OK CHILD....

Lol, if for nothing else; entertainment. :D

http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung/tiere/tiere040.gif A pink fuzzy elephant (http://www.bearsonthesquare.com/botspics/BD079.JPG)

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Finally the proof that God is real!
Note: I may come off sounding like a raving maniac.

I have the proof that God does exist.

Ive heard whatsupmuscle ask "Show me proof of King Henry!" Well, it seems a bit stupid to be asking that, considering that he's all over the history books. But if you take it into consideration you cant really prove that he does exist. But he does. How do we know this? Simple; King Henry's effects are still around today. He did certain things in the past that have affected our present and the future. Thats how we know that he exist. Now instead of it being King Henry lets replace him with God!

God is all over the history book for one. And in a book thats very old, the bible. Well, how do you prove that God exist? Simple. His effects are still seen today. Step outside and look at that sunshine, he made the sun. Breath in some of that wonderful air! He made that air. You call it the big bang, I call it one of Gods effects. You call it evolution, I call it one of Gods effects. God sets things in motion and effects are a result. Sorta like throwing a bowling ball into some pins, some of the pins knock other pins down, the ball didnt necessarily touch them. Cause and effect. Simple... or did it just come off counfusing?

the problem with this approach is that most historical sources are generally in agreement about the existence, actions, etc of King Henry. For the existence of God there are many different books and sources, which all tell a different story. The problem is that they can't all be right. Therefore they are all wrong or just one is right. Now it is up to you again to proof which story is right, or even if there is one that is right. Maybe they are all not real.

http://members.truepath.com/sapphoo/horse.gif

Does life suck because ceasing to exist after it is a factor? I don't believe it has to be.

Alot of people believe we are nothing more then germs which grew from the ocean or some such bull as that. Or maybe a germ from the air, right?

Why not? This is what it comes down to.

Why are we not monkeys? Why are we not spermacells which sprouted from the ocean as tadpoles grew legs and walked onto the land? Because stupid.

If we were doing it back then, wouldn't we still be walking out of the ocean right now? If you say, "there ARE things walking out of the ocean 'RIGHT NOW'." I'm gonna whap ya. Know why?

The stages would be too many, there would be more mutant type creatures walking around. Think about it. Half monkey people that are catching up on the evolution process because the air or the ocean sprouted them up a little late.

How can such complex creatures as we come from matter which holds no such complex properties? -YFI(s)

If we get rid of the germ theory the ocean theory/air theory. What's left?

ya! You got it. The God theory. Now have yourself a heart attack and die because another world waits for you beyond this one.
L8r peeps.

---What's it like to die? Try this link!!!!!!!!
http://www.spiritonline.com/files/messages/357/366.html?965426280