Do You Know Why You Don't Believe?

[Autodidact]

The reason why God puts us through hardships in life is because he is testing our faith. God doens't want anyone of us to suffer because he created us. Sometimes, putting us through hard times in life is his way of letting us see that the only way we can survive is if we walk with him, not against him. So if someone doesn't belive because God is putting them through alot of negative situations, then they are failing his test. But for many people, the meaning behind God and how he works just can't be clarified as I have just done. So it's not that it's their ego that keeps them from believing, but it's just that they're confused.

And of course, you can't discount that other possibility, which is that there is no such thing.

 

[Super Universe]

The reason why God puts us through hardships in life is because he is testing our faith. God doens't want anyone of us to suffer because he created us. Sometimes, putting us through hard times in life is his way of letting us see that the only way we can survive is if we walk with him, not against him. So if someone doesn't belive because God is putting them through alot of negative situations, then they are failing his test. But for many people, the meaning behind God and how he works just can't be clarified as I have just done. So it's not that it's their ego that keeps them from believing, but it's just that they're confused.

Dear miss, I know you are just repeating what you've been told but God does not test us, we test ourselves. Each of us chose to come here.

God does not harm us, we harm each other. God does not become jealous, He created the universe, there is nothing He could possibly be jealous of. God does not torture us, disease naturally accompanies DNA/RNA beings. And most important of all, God does not kill us or any other living thing regardless of what we do or believe.

Your view is that God is the direct cause of certain events rather than taking responsibility for your own actions and beliefs.

 

[Super Universe]

O.K., so what you're saying is that you have absolutely no basis for your groundless assertions, and therefore they should be treated as having no merit? Because you don't expect us to accept things just on your say-so, right? After all, you're just some anonymous person on the internet, just like me. I don't expect people to accept what I say without some support or cite, do you?

No, what I said was "Why would I", meaning: Why would I give in to your demands?
What you want is control but you can't have it. You can't have it because you haven't earned it and you don't want to earn it, you want to take it.

Sorry...

You're just going to have to figure it all out on your own.

 

[Super Universe]

Well, I don't know if I would use the word, "afraid." I try to be as right as I can; don't you?

Sigh... Once again, trying to exercise control.

You might not use the word 'afraid' because you don't have any power to force others to speak as you would.

 

[Autodidact]

No, what I said was "Why would I", meaning: Why would I give in to your demands?
What you want is control but you can't have it. You can't have it because you haven't earned it and you don't want to earn it, you want to take it.

Sorry...

Don't do anything you don't want to, Super. We can all draw our own conclusions as to the merits of your claims..

You're just going to have to figure it out all on your own.

Too late; I already did. There is no God.

 

[Autodidact]

Sigh... Once again, trying to exercise control.

You might not use the word 'afraid' because you don't have any power to force others to speak as you would.

Do you have some kind of control issues? I speak only for myself. I'm not trying to control you, Super. I don't consider myself to be afraid. I'm just trying to use my intellect to be as right as I can. If you are acting out of fear, or don't care whether you're right or wrong, feel free to speak up for yourself.

 

[Darkness]

I do not believe in God because I see no positive evidence of His existence. I do not deny the existence of God.

Your view is that God is the direct cause of certain events rather than taking responsibility for your own actions and beliefs.

Do you believe in a Deterministic Universe?

 

[Super Universe]

I do not believe in God because I see no positive evidence of His existence. I do not deny the existence of God.



Do you believe in a Deterministic Universe?

Ah, the lack of evidence argument once again even though it is not a cause of your belief just an outcome of the real reason you don't believe.

And, once again, my argument is that you believe in all kinds of things (people, places, theories) that you have no direct experience with, you simply trust what others tell you or you trust what you have read.

So why is God different?

I believe that there are plans for certain places in the universe, for instance, the Earth. It is going to evolve. Now, individuals also have free will to do as they please.

If an individual had the power to destroy the Earth they very well could before other powerful individuals could stop it. God will not interfere in your free will choice regardless of what the consequences are because there is no real harm that you can do. The Earth is one in trillions.

Also God will not interfere because it would violate the whole purpose of this universe in the first place, free will.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Does anyone else here feel like this thread is going around and around and around and around..........

Although I do like circles - I'm a round-loving guy, but seriously, sometimes I feel like I've had enough of circles!

 

[Panda]

Does anyone else here feel like this thread is going around and around and around and around..........

Although I do like circles - I'm a round-loving guy, but seriously, sometimes I feel like I've had enough of circles!

That happens when someone in the debate does not have the ability to comprehend what the other is saying. SU does not seem to comprehend anything we have said to him.

 

[Super Universe]

That happens when someone in the debate does not have the ability to comprehend what the other is saying. SU does not seem to comprehend anything we have said to him.

Exactly what great knowledge have the athiests come up with that don't I have the ability to comprehend?

 

[Panda]

Exactly what great knowledge have the athiests come up with that don't I have the ability to comprehend?

Um well everything. You seem unable to comprehend that it is possible God can't exist. You can not even comprehend anyone else's point of view and you don't seem to be able to understand when the talk to you no matter how simple a thing they are telling you. I pity you having such a closed and fixed view of the world.

 

[Super Universe]

Um well everything. You seem unable to comprehend that it is possible God can't exist. You can not even comprehend anyone else's point of view and you don't seem to be able to understand when the talk to you no matter how simple a thing they are telling you. I pity you having such a closed and fixed view of the world.

You're using the word comprehend incorrectly. The correct word is "accept".

Maybe you should concern yourself with graduating from college, raising a family, getting a job, purchasing a home, and when you are older with a bit more worldly experience and wisdom maybe then you'll be able to come up with something I truly can't comprehend.

My view is wider than the universe, the universe that is only a tenth of the total multiverse - you know, the thing YOU can't comprehend.

And no, I won't accept that God can't exist. Why would I accept the athiests plea that "No evidence is proof!" It lacks any supportive science.

 

[Storm]

And no, I won't accept that God can't exist. Why would I accept the athiests plea that "No evidence is proof!" It lacks any supportive science.

And again you misrepresent them. Nobody's said that no evidence is proof. They've said that they don't share your beliefs because of a lack of evidence to support them.

 

[Panda]

You're using the word comprehend incorrectly. The correct word is "accept".

Maybe you should concern yourself with graduating from college, raising a family, getting a job, purchasing a home, and when you are older with a bit more worldly experience and wisdom maybe then you'll be able to come up with something I truly can't comprehend.

My view is wider than the universe, the universe that is only a tenth of the total multiverse - you know, the thing YOU can't comprehend.

And no, I won't accept that God can't exist. Why would I accept the athiests plea that "No evidence is proof!" It lacks any supportive science.

*sigh* And here is the proof of my point.

 

[YmirGF]

Time is relative to the viewpoint taken? Hmm, if this is going to go into Einstein's relativity theory then I have nothing further to say. If this is going to go into a philisophical debate about whether time is a creation of perception, then I'm all in.

Um... what exactly is the difference other than one being testable and the other being within the realm of heresay.

Unlike Autodidact, I very rarely wonder how others know things. There are only so many ways to learn something, you were either informed in one way or another (taught or read it) or it was through personal experience. I generally know how you know just by your stance. Also, personality elements (fear, anger, pride, jealousy...) are in play as they always are. In fact, revealing them was the point of this thread.

Indeed this thread exposes many things for what they are in a very real and somewhat starkley breathtaking way, Super_Universe. Why is it that you chose to demonstrate the very clear weaknesses of your thinking for all to see? I have to admit, that is a pretty bold thing to do and takes a great amount of courage. I applaud you for stating your positions so clearly that someone with the intelligence of a fencepost will understand the inherent value found therein.

Probable realities... Of the largest numbers in existence, those that are so large that they are beyond imagination, the number of probable realities might just be in the top five.

Are you implying that there is a "final number" and that numbers are not in fact infinite? Super_Universe, from my standpoint, every individual that is self aware moves through an endless array of probably realities... and that feature of reality goes on forever. Now multiply those TWO infinites by the number of all beings that are self-aware and it should give you an idea of how vast probability theory is. A short recap: Infinity x Infinity x An unknowable number = the number of probable realities.

The prime timeline is complete from beginning to the end. That is why it is said that God is the Alpha and the Omega. It's all happened already. Now this prime timeline can be accessed at any point by souls. If they wish, a soul can join with Albert Einstein, Adolf Hitler, or a servant to Alexander the Great. Souls join with many beings over many times at once so they can experience many personalities to build their's from. Now, changes cannot be made in the prime timeline because they would change the outcome (of God) so any changes that are made form a new, alternate, timeline.

I am not being overtly critical of your thinking here but you really should study what you are saying and the implications of WHAT you are saying. My clue is think about the intersection of those timelines and therein you will find the error of your thinking. You are a pretty smart fellow, so I will leave you to dissect my meaning...

Your scientists have theorized an idea that both possible outcomes of a choice create universes, the choice you made is the one you exist in and another universe exists where you chose the other choice. This idea is not entirely wrong, it's just that another universe is not formed, an alternate timeline is formed where the events of that choice can play out.

I am curious why you say that another "universe" is not formed while in the next breath you say an alternate timeline is formed. What precisely IS the difference in your mind as the net result is more or less the same. It's almost a semantical trifle really.

Also, because souls join with multiple personalities over multiple times and all of this information comes into one being (the soul) there are times when some of the information inadvertently travels from one human to another human and they experience what they think are memories of a past life, one they never lived.

Well that is interesting but it runs counter to my direct experience. I have had fairly detailed "past" memories. There are indeed "bleedthroughs" that occur especially when two aspect selves are engrossed in very similar psychological situations. Aside from this we approach similar things from radically different viewpoints. If you experience a "past" life "memory" or rather a "bleedthrough" you will quickly understand that it is not your imagination at play. So we must agree to disagree on this one too.

If a void is truly nothing, then it is not only improbable, it is impossible for anything to form. So the logical continuation of your idea that nothingness is incapable of forming an idea is that - there must have been something.

Bingo! Now... follow it through. If there was "something" then it is somewhat ridiculous for that "something" to say, "There can be no nothing!" It is, in this scenario, a ludicrous thing for that "something" to discern as it clearly is NOT "nothing". Get it? So.... the original premise falls flat on its face in EITHER case. Back to the drawing board.

The point I was trying to make is that God has always existed, the Law that eventually formed a being called God is simply God unevolved. Many times, any definition of something so incredibly complex and beyond our understanding is insufficient. Any way you attempt to describe it is so lacking that it is inherently wrong by evolved standards. Even so, there is value in the effort and there is some degree of understanding, even if primitive by other standards, that we can achieve.

I understand that you are trying to define and undefineable thing. Whether such endeavors have any merit is quite another thing but it is my deep suspicion that the human animal is not capable of answering such a question with any definitive answer as there is no way to supply proofs to any theories as far as we currently know. THAT is the problem with laboring over things like this too much. IT is better if we work out the trivialities of daily life rather than waste our time dreaming about paper dragons that exist only in the mind of the believer.

My best advice is that you chuck your timeline theory altogether as it is definitely not on the right track... but hey, you will do what you must, regardless.

 

[Super Universe]

Um... what exactly is the difference other than one being testable and the other being within the realm of heresay.

Indeed this thread exposes many things for what they are in a very real and somewhat starkley breathtaking way, Super_Universe. Why is it that you chose to demonstrate the very clear weaknesses of your thinking for all to see? I have to admit, that is a pretty bold thing to do and takes a great amount of courage. I applaud you for stating your positions so clearly that someone with the intelligence of a fencepost will understand the inherent value found therein.

Are you implying that there is a "final number" and that numbers are not in fact infinite? Super_Universe, from my standpoint, every individual that is self aware moves through an endless array of probably realities... and that feature of reality goes on forever. Now multiply those TWO infinites by the number of all beings that are self-aware and it should give you an idea of how vast probability theory is. A short recap: Infinity x Infinity x An unknowable number = the number of probable realities.

I am not being overtly critical of your thinking here but you really should study what you are saying and the implications of WHAT you are saying. My clue is think about the intersection of those timelines and therein you will find the error of your thinking. You are a pretty smart fellow, so I will leave you to dissect my meaning...

I am curious why you say that another "universe" is not formed while in the next breath you say an alternate timeline is formed. What precisely IS the difference in your mind as the net result is more or less the same. It's almost a semantical trifle really.

Well that is interesting but it runs counter to my direct experience. I have had fairly detailed "past" memories. There are indeed "bleedthroughs" that occur especially when two aspect selves are engrossed in very similar psychological situations. Aside from this we approach similar things from radically different viewpoints. If you experience a "past" life "memory" or rather a "bleedthrough" you will quickly understand that it is not your imagination at play. So we must agree to disagree on this one too.

Bingo! Now... follow it through. If there was "something" then it is somewhat ridiculous for that "something" to say, "There can be no nothing!" It is, in this scenario, a ludicrous thing for that "something" to discern as it clearly is NOT "nothing". Get it? So.... the original premise falls flat on its face in EITHER case. Back to the drawing board.

I understand that you are trying to define and undefineable thing. Whether such endeavors have any merit is quite another thing but it is my deep suspicion that the human animal is not capable of answering such a question with any definitive answer as there is no way to supply proofs to any theories as far as we currently know. THAT is the problem with laboring over things like this too much. IT is better if we work out the trivialities of daily life rather than waste our time dreaming about paper dragons that exist only in the mind of the believer.

My best advice is that you chuck your timeline theory altogether as it is definitely not on the right track... but hey, you will do what you must, regardless.

What weakness have I demonstrated? I'm sorry that after six hundred posts you still do not understand my position. I guess it's true what they say, but then, you don't know that either.

Maybe instead of insulting me you can come up with a nice little theory about something, anything, that happens to provide some support for your idea that a "lack" of evidence means that God does not exist? The only thing it means is... you can't figure Him out. What's that say about you now?

Am I implying that there is a final number? No. Are numbers infinite? No, they are not, values are. Think of the largest number in existence. Now double it. What is this number?

The intersection point of the prime timeline and an alternate timeline is... a character. It's like playing a computer game and simply selecting one of a trillion saved characters. The original game is unchanged.

Semantics? My posts are full of them, most here usually understand the obvious meaning, rarely the alternate meaning. They are trifle? How would you know?

I'm sure you have had detailed memory bleedthrough. I didn't say it was imaginary at all, they are real memories, just not ones your personality lived through.

Did the Law actually announce "There can be no nothing"? No, it did not physically speak. What happened in the beginning happened within a specific framework, a small but very complex defining structure was already formed. What became did so because of a First Cause. It was only much later that the Law learned that it was this First Cause, kind of like you sleepwalking. You did it but only later do you realize how.

God is not an undefinable thing we just don't have all the information about Him at this level.

It is better that we work out the trivialities of daily life? But what is this but a temporary thing? A game? A personality challenge where your personality always wins? What is lasting from this, do you even know?

I should chuck the timeline theory? Hehe... Okay, you chuck this thing you call gravity then, since you can't figure it out. Or maybe chuck your idea of relativity or quantum physics since they don't agree, and that means getting rid of Strong/Weak Nuclear Forces as well. Hmm, yeah, now you are truly being fair since you had no evidence of them either, they go out with God until someone proves them to you.

Oh and, paper dragons exist...

 

[Autodidact]

Ah, the lack of evidence argument once again even though it is not a cause of your belief just an outcome of the real reason you don't believe.

You keep saying this but unless you choose to provide some support for it, no one will accept it.

And, once again, my argument is that you believe in all kinds of things (people, places, theories) that you have no direct experience with, you simply trust what others tell you or you trust what you have read.

But it's not a matter of direct experience; it's a matter of reasonable evidence. Please stop talking and listen for a moment: I BELIEVE THINGS BASED ON REASONABLE EVIDENCE. Reasonable evidence is NOT the same thing as direct experience. If you could provide reasonable evidence for the existence of God, I would believe in God. It's that simple. The reason I don't believe in God is that I have not seen such evidence, not some weak psycho-analysis. This is because of what I said earlier. I like to be right. I have observed that using evidence gives me the best bet at being right. Now, got any?

So why is God different?

He isn't. That's my point.

I believe that there are plans for certain places in the universe, for instance, the Earth. It is going to evolve. Now, individuals also have free will to do as they please.

That's interesting. I believe that tiny invisible frogs are jumping in and out of my nose. I have exactly as much evidence as you do. Why do you not believe in my frogs? Is it because of your own selfish nature, and desire to assert your intellectual supremacy?

 

[Autodidact]

Exactly what great knowledge have the athiests come up with that don't I have the ability to comprehend?

Access to our own minds, and knowledge of what we think and why.

 

[Super Universe]

You keep saying this but unless you choose to provide some support for it, no one will accept it.[/size]

But it's not a matter of direct experience; it's a matter of reasonable evidence. Please stop talking and listen for a moment: I BELIEVE THINGS BASED ON REASONABLE EVIDENCE. Reasonable evidence is NOT the same thing as direct experience. If you could provide reasonable evidence for the existence of God, I would believe in God. It's that simple. The reason I don't believe in God is that I have not seen such evidence, not some weak psycho-analysis. This is because of what I said earlier. I like to be right. I have observed that using evidence gives me the best bet at being right. Now, got any?

He isn't. That's my point.
That's interesting. I believe that tiny invisible frogs are jumping in and out of my nose. I have exactly as much evidence as you do. Why do you not believe in my frogs? Is it because of your own selfish nature, and desire to assert your intellectual supremacy?

Direct experience is not the same thing as reasonable evidence? So if you directly experience something it's still not considered reasonable evidence in your mind? Hehe, and someone said I'm the one with the closed mind??? What's it take for you people?

What evidence do you have that Alaska exists? None, but you believe in it, don't you? Antarctica? How about Pluto? The planets the scientists have supposedly found around far away stars? You sure believe in a lot of things with some pretty shady evidence.

It's okay, I know the real reason you won't believe.

I didn't say I don't believe in your frogs. It explains a lot.