Does God want everyone to believe in him?

[Scuba Pete]

And do not change the text of my posts again.

I had to revisit this since THIS is in your signature line:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.

Oh, the irony and I thought God was the only iron!

 

[Tyho]

That could be a valid point if it wasn't inconsistent with the fact that at least according to the more popular books, the ones that speak about such free will at least, in the past he used to speak directly to people and according to many he still performs miracles here and there.

The free-will argument has been developped more extensively by Theist philosophers in the last century.

As pertaining to your post:
I don't think you can 'know' God even with a revelation and the mistake is to start thinking that it is the ultimate Truth. It's a personal thing.

I don't see divine revelations as necesserely a breach of our free will, since the choice is still entirely yours to believe in it at all. Other people will dismiss it if that's what they want to do. As for miracles, I agree, it doesn't have to be a divine intervention but maybe something like an unknown human faculty.

 

[Ingledsva]

Of course there's proof. You just don't want to see it. Watch the video (or, rather, listen to it).

I listened to the first few minutes and it was the usual God speaks through you, through people that are ready, etc.

All of which I see as excuses for no real proof.

Then he goes to automatic writing - forbidden in the Bible - I might add.

And we are supposed to believe this, let alone that it is from God?

*

 

[Ingledsva]

I had to revisit this since THIS is in your signature line:

Oh, the irony and I thought God was the only iron!

Don't even suggest such crap.

The quote was found online, and in view of the debates and constant misquoting, or out of context quotes, I thought it appropriate and funny.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

O rly? Which science would that be? Science says nothing about the existence of God, for or against. You can't quantify the super natural with the natural any more than you can measure radio frequencies with a potato. It's a most illogical approach.

Oh, yeah... we'll want to see some proof of that as well.

Baloney again.

Did you not notice he mentioned the UNIVERSE?

Guess I can talk about science.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

As are you... and your posts and texts are safe. I see them right up there. I only translated them so others could follow along. What? You don't like that? You want me to stop being condescending, then I suggest you stop as well. I believe there is a God and you don't. Both contexts require faith. At least I am honest enough to admit it.

Since this is a debate, maybe you should try using grown up logic and not this school yard "got ya" crap.

Really? Since when is - "Blah, blah, blah de blah..." - a translation so others can follow along?

It is straight out disrespect.


*

 

[Reflex]

I listened to the first few minutes and it was the usual God speaks through you, through people that are ready, etc.

All of which I see as excuses for no real proof.

Then he goes to automatic writing - forbidden in the Bible - I might add.

And we are supposed to believe this, let alone that it is from God?

*

You will believe what you want to believe. Everybody does. But the mere fact that you are asking for proof of God is in itself proof that your god is small. And don't say you don't have one, for where your heart is, so, too, is your god.

 

[Ingledsva]

You will believe what you want to believe. Everybody does. But the mere fact that you are asking for proof of God is in itself proof that your god is small. And don't say you don't have one, for where your heart is, so, too, is your god.

I will say I don't have a God, - because I don't.

Don't try to change the context here, - of a Supreme Being = God.

We are asking for real proof of existence - because you folks are claiming we - just can't see it, - aren't ready, - or you mention your religious books as proof, or the universe must have been created by a God, etc.

These are not proof of a God.

*

 

[Reflex]

I will say I don't have a God, - because I don't.

Don't try to change the context here, - of a Supreme Being = God.

We are asking for real proof of existence - because you folks are claiming we - just can't see it, - aren't ready, - or you mention your religious books as proof, or the universe must have been created by a God, etc.

These are not proof of a God.

*

Oh, you have a god, alright. Just look to where your heart is. The gods wear many faces. Of the one God, there is indeed proof. You just have to stop telling God how to be. (I'll bet that gets tiresome! )

Question: how do you provide evidence for something that is by definition infinite? How do you even define it? You think there might be a reason it is said. "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"?

Said another way, higher mathematics is gibberish to a kindergartner. For a scientist, it constitutes proof.

 

[use_your_brain]

Again - there didn't have to be a who.

I'm afraid I prefer science to ancient religious texts and their understanding of how things work.

*

am I wrong in using WHO? you may replace it with WHAT, if you wish.

 

[use_your_brain]

Yes I understand that, and you are welcome to believe that.

However religious texts are not actually proof of any God, - most of them claim to be information sent from God.

For instance - you as a believer in Islamic texts, probably consider Pagan texts to be false, - though they claim to be about Gods too.

In that same manner I don't believe in the writings of the Abrahamic religions.

*

then their claims are true, since the religion teaches the true things.
Pagan texts are false if they are proven false.
why don't you believe in the writing of Abrahamic religions?

 

[Reflex]

Again - there didn't have to be a who.

I'm afraid I prefer science to ancient religious texts and their understanding of how things work.

*

Both have a place in my life, but neither are my master.

It's funny. Those who take pride in being "free thinkers" because they reject religion tend to be the least imaginative and therefore the least free.

 

[George-ananda]

I have one question. In your view is God perfect?

In non-dualist thinking (God and creation are not-two) the answer is 'Yes', although the question doesn't totally make sense. The universe is a play/drama of the creative aspect of Brahman.

 

[Ingledsva]

am I wrong in using WHO? you may replace it with WHAT, if you wish.

No, you are not wrong in using "who," because that is your belief.

I'm just saying I don't need a "who" or a "what" for the universe to be.

I prefer science.

*

 

[Reflex]

In non-dualist thinking (God and creation are not-two) the answer is 'Yes', although the question doesn't totally make sense. The universe is a play/drama of the creative aspect of Brahman.

I thought it was the dance of Shiva. Darn.

 

[Reflex]

I prefer science.

*

I like science, too. But I want answers for questions outside the purview of science. I want understanding, not mere facts.

 

[use_your_brain]

No, you are not wrong in using "who," because that is your belief.

I'm just saying I don't need a "who" or a "what" for the universe to be.

I prefer science.

*

what does the science say about the born of the universe?

 

[George-ananda]

I thought it was the dance of Shiva. Darn.

May be another way of looking at it.

 

[Ingledsva]

Oh, you have a god, alright. Just look to where your heart is. The gods wear many faces. Of the one God, there is indeed proof. You just have to stop telling God how to be. (I'll bet that gets tiresome! ).

How can I be telling a God - a "tiresome" thing - like "how to be," - when I don't believe in your God.

You God believing folks saying such, - does not make it true.

Question: how do you provide evidence for something that is by definition infinite? How do you even define it? You think there might be a reason it is said. "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"?

And again - I see such statements as just words from religious people, - because they can not prove the actual existence of their Gods. They come up with meaningless sayings like - ""the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:... - or only to those who are ready, or have spiritual understanding, etc. Just excuses, for no real proof that they can give to nonbelievers. Just hang around - and believe - and maybe when you are one hundred years old "something" will happen.

Said another way, higher mathematics is gibberish to a kindergartner. For a scientist, it constitutes proof.

Science has no problem with the universe. It is you folks that need a God to be involved. With no real proof.

*

 

[Reflex]

How can I be telling a God - a "tiresome" thing - like "how to be," - when I don't believe in your God.

You God believing folks saying such, - does not make it true.

And again - I see such statements as just words from religious people, - because they can not prove the actual existence of their Gods. They come up with meaningless sayings like - ""the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:... - or only to those who are ready, or have spiritual understanding, etc. Just excuses, for no real proof that they can give to nonbelievers. Just hang around - and believe - and maybe when you are one hundred years old "something" will happen.

Science has no problem with the universe. It is you folks that need a God to be involved. With no real proof.

*

Hmmm. Why so evasive? Why so belligerent? I didn't say or even suggest that you believe in my God. No one is asking you to "just believe." I don't think anyone here believes you are prepared to open your eyes to see what is in front of your face.

Tell us where your heart is; that is, tell us about your god. It seems to be science. Tell us how science teaches you appreciate the Alaskan landscape, for instance, or how it connects you to the universe and the weirdo next door.

You keep asking for proof. Does a scientific mathematical proof carry any meaning at all for a kindergartner?