Proof of the existence of God

James R,

You are in denial, which is why it is difficult to comprehend God, and
you need to at least comprehend God, honestly, to decide whether He is real (or
not, to you).

If you want to be convinced of something, you have to play the game of
the one trying to convince you.
Every question I ask you, I expect an honest answer. This way I can
know how to approach you.

Me explaining love to you, does nothing to convince you of the reality of God.
Neither does denial at every stage.

There's nothing that you have said that leads me to think you believed
in God. You seem scared to talk about God in a positive light even
though you believe He doesn't exist.

Let's start with: Why did you believe in God?

I've made no claim as to what love is, but I did ask you a couple of
questions, and you have avoided (yet again) answering.
Do you think you could answer the questions without trying to switch
them back to me?

See my response to Sarkus.

Can you elaborate on this?

Do you believe that you can outwardly tell if someone has love in their
heart (or brain)?

Not really. Just what is ''intense devotion''
Are you saying love IS this ''intense devotion'', and without that
''intense devotion'' there is no love despite what one thinks?

There's no love in holding your baby in your arms, they are simply
carrying out a function like carrying a table. By your logic there's no
love in anything we do, yet you say you can tell people love because of
how they behave. How is that possible?

See my response to Sarkus.

It's a start.

So?

I don't get what ''the problems'' are.
You believe those things are man made concepts, I just agree that they
are man made.

Tell me the concepts and give the names of the people who created them, then let's read up on how
those objects came about.

If I come across any I'll let you know.

I just think you'll have a good, honest, comprehensive knowledge, on what
and who God is. Then maybe we can have some good discussions. At the moment you're in denial city.

Maybe you have more knowledge than you're letting on,
it wouldn't surprise me. But your reluctance to discuss God, seriously,
and honestly, is probably more intense than you're willing to admit.
Either way it becomes very tedious engaging you in discussion.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Finally, after dozens of posts, we get to the crux of the issue - Jan's hypothesis, which can now be discussed rationally! After all this time looking quite like a troll, she will actually submit her ideas for discussion!

. . . . never mind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You equate subjective with mental and objective with physical:
"The way I look at subjective thoughts, concepts, etc.. that are only present in the individual mind. Objective is when something is out in the open, and can be witnessed by other people."

Objectivity is the state / quality of being true even outside of a person's interpretations, feelings, biases, thoughts, imaginings, judgements etc.
Subjectivity is when the state / quality of being held true by a person is only due to the person's interpretations, feelings, biases, thoughts, imaginings, judgements etc.

Do you comprehend now how your own personal definition of the terms is incorrect?
And bear in mind that shared subjectivity does not make something objective.

See above: you are claiming something as being objective when it isn't.

See above: you are arguing a case using incorrect definitions. As such it is a red-herring and you need to comprehend the correct definitions that we have used.

Define love.

No - the objective painting is the same (the physical aspects of the painting: the canvas, the brush strokes, the paints etc), but the feelings, the emotions conveyed, the message interpreted by the viewer is subjective. Two people can view the same piece of art and get very different emotions.
And as stated above, a shared subjective view does not make something objective.

So please stop with your drivel: learn what subjective and objective mean.

If it is a "brilliant forgery" then it would. A brilliant forgery would likely be identical to the original in every aspect other than not being original. After all, a photocopy of a piece of prose conveys the same emotions, message etc as the original.
Or do you think you have to read the original manuscript of books to achieve that?

Because the only way something can be objective is if the truth (i.e. the interpretation) is independent of personal bias, interpretation etc.
If it does not matter, then you are agreeing that such things are only subjective, and thus disprove your own argument. Is that what you're now doing.

No. Love can merely be a cause, not what it is made out of. But again, for the umpteenth time, what does any of what you say show how love is not merely a subjective emotion?

"Out of" as in "caused by", but that does not change the fact that love is merely subjective. Not everyone sees the Taj Mahal and sees the love that caused him to build it. To some it is just a building.

So again: what does any of what you say show how love is not merely a subjective emotion?

All I'm reading from you now is deflection, avoidance, evasion and obfuscation with drivel upon drivel until it gets to the point that you don't have to acknowledge your error, or that you've been wasting everyones' time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Funny how people who deny reality and base their life on foolish fantasy accuse others of being in denial.

 

God has been given the attributes of omnipresent and omniscience; all present and all knowing, way before science was around. These attributes can be extrapolated from basic concepts of consensus science theory to show this is conceptually possible.

If we start with the concept of space-time, and separate the "fabric" of space-time and into separated threads of time and threads of space, one could move along a time thread, without the restrictions of space. This allows to see what happens everywhere at the same time; omniscience. If we move along a thread of space without the restrictions of time, we can be anywhere in the universe in zero time; omni-present.

God, to be consistent with these attributes, would need to exist in a realm where space-time breaks down; not of matter. It would need to be in the speed of light reference, where matter cannot exist and space-time is not a limit.

 

Or maybe God just isn't real.

 

31 pages, still no proof...

 

Who "gave" Him those attributes? The people who made Him up?

 

A perfect dice roll.

 

These speculations came thousands of years before modern physics. For example; omnipresent;
Proverbs 15:3
The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good.

If we take space-time and break it into separate threads of time and space, these, conceptually say the same thing. This occurs at a speed of light reference where space-time reaches a point limit. This limit is where matter cannot go, according to relativity. The idea that god and man existed in two realms is very old and consistent with the speed of light. It is also consistent with the new/old theory of multi-universes.

Those who believe in dice controlling the universe, worship a god of chaos and his assistance Murphy, whom Murphy's Law was named after. What is the history or story about this god of chaos and what are her/his attributes?

She/he can be found in gambling casinos, with her worshippers there for fun but many are obsessive and compulsive, often changing their minds. Coffee can be good for you today but wait and it will be bad for you tomorrow. This could be due to Murphy. In the universe of chaos, the house always wins. Who is this house and why did the mafia play a role in this house being built?

The goddess/god of chaos is also very old and was around before science. The gods of polytheism were whimsical, both the male and female gods and goddess, and man could not figure out what they would do, next. One had to accept their fate. So the god/goddess Chaos is more bi-sexual and allows anything to happen since all is relative, as long as the house wins over time.

 

Do you enjoy making such nonsense up and running with it???
Murphy as an assistant to a god of chaos?? Please tell me you don't seriously believe what you write!?

The name of the law is in most likely in reference to a Capt. Ed Murphy from JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory), who back in 1949 commented about a technician "if there is any way to do it wrong, he will". This was picked up and used by others in press-conferences shortly after, and subsequently named after him, albeit in an altered form: "whatever can go wrong, will go wrong" or some such variation.

There are other "owners" of the law and/or similar - such as Reilly's Law and Sod's law (as in "unlucky sod!" - a British colloquialism)

 

Notions about gods came before the study of modern physics. The inherent physics of the universe was there long before there was anybody to make up gods.

Dice don't control the universe, the universe controls the dice.

 

Dice don't control the universe, the universe controls the dice.[/QUOTE]

"Precognition" this is the ultimate blessing of God you will recieve in the probable reality of space when you are very close to Him with that you are virtually invincible...I currently fall short of this blessing but maybe one day it shall be so.

 

i'm sorry but gods intelligence is roughly equal to smartest shepherd of the dominating species, he is definitely not dumb and if you believe we are the dominating species you are wrong.

 

Fundies say the darndest things.

 

If evolution was the creative force, it can be shown to be almost non-intelligent. I don't see much evidence for being shepherded by anything. But I'm glad to see someone showing interest in my past wisdom.

 

i said gods intelligence is roughly equal to the smartest shepherd of the dominating species. not the force driving evolution.

 

Well, I don’t agree. I believed I have proved back in april that God exists. I may have used too few words back then so let me try again:
I believe the first question must be: what is(!) God? Only after answering that can we ask: does God exist or not? Without defining what God is, the question “does God exist or not” is nonsense and debating this question without defining “God” will only lead to very high emotions and aggression as we have witnessed throughout history.
One things is obvious: most people seem to assume God is some kind of out-of-this-earth and all powerful entity. Typically in the form of an elderly white male with white hair and a white beard wearing long white clothes sitting on a white cloud looking down at us with a magic wand in hand.
Lets look at the facts however:
- all cultures seem to have a need for a religion at some point.
- independent cultures will have/develop different religions and Gods.
- all religious artifacts are manmade or found in nature.
- all Gods work is done by people.
- all cultures have a religion and most children born in such cultures that are religious grow up to believe in the religion and God of that culture.
- there is no evidence that God ever showed himself/herself.
Anyway: the conclusion must be and can only be, that any self-conscious culture (on earth, or any other planet) will get to a point where they encounter events that they can only and will only explain by attributing that to something they call “God”. They will need this at that point in their cultural development to make sense of things and their leaders will use this to successfully control society.
The conclusion will fear many people and for that reason will not, and cannot, be accepted by many people for a long time but the conclusion is very obvious nonetheless:
We humans are God ourselves (at least we can be if we want). Just as much as we are, or can be, the Devil by-the-way.
Fact is that any and all observed so-called miracles and other things attributed to God can be explained by having been done by humans.
So: we exist and therefore God exist. Q.E.D.
Be courageous and accept this, because only when everybody understands this to be the true nature of God, only then will there be true peace and happiness for all.

 

Someone proved god exists by calling the universe god. I can prove god exists by defining it as my big toe.

< >