Does God want everyone to believe in him?

[use_your_brain]

This is going in circles.

Read the links. They address this.

*

always like this. when we are in a debate the user ask us to read the links. seems you avoid the truth. ok, the link says universe was built at the very first time by the gravitational effect of dark matter or dark energy. But, from where/what the gravitational effect of dark matter was made? how could they come into exist, suddenly?

 

[FearGod]

Again - evolution.

noun: evolution;

1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection

2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

From Google.

*

Does the seed of an apple evolve to an apple?
Did the apple became a different kind?
The seed grow to become a tree of apple and not evolved to a tree of apple.

So again,

How a tiny seed becomes a huge tree?
How that works?
How a tiny sperm and an egg becomes a wise human being?
How that works?

 

[LuisDantas]

Does anyone even remember what the OP asked?

 

[use_your_brain]

Does anyone even remember what the OP asked?

I think almost all threads tend to culminate to the "true and false religion" since this is a religion forum.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think almost all threads tend to culminate to the "true and false religion" since this is a religion forum.

Were that the case, it would have to change.

That is a degenerated discussion and not worth anyone's time.

 

[Mycroft]

I was going to ask why you're not open to the possibility of there being any God.

I'm open to the possibility of examining evidence based on its own merit that may reveal the existence of a God. And I'm certainly willing to change my views based on that evidence. That is what open-mindedness is.

Trouble is, no such evidence has ever yet presented itself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually the only reason I'm asking for real proof - is because they keep claiming we just don't see it, or accept it, or that nature has to somehow be from a God, etc.

I could care less if they believe it - as I've already said.

But if they are going to push it on us with such statements, - then they had better be able to actually prove there is a God.

For instance - Reflex said "I don't think anyone here believes you are prepared to open your eyes to see what is in front of your face."

When they make statements like that, - they had better be prepared to actually give real proof that - it is in front of my face.

*

I know, I get fustrated when asked to "proove it; and, being in a strict Christian area, surprisingly Idon't get that at all, only online. With that, I personally have to take a step back and ask giving the believer an option to explain his views. When I don't understand I ask for explanation. Usually online, they think I'm another "one of those atheists" which, that alone, is fustrating being put in a box.

So, it sounds like your needing to know isn't based on wanting knowledge and understanding but based on agrivated feelings of what they are claim f or you to accept. Do you get this offline to? Does this pop up and believers push it in your face outside of bringing up a thread about it first?

I still think it's an illogical questions regardless the reasons and feelings behind it. A lot ofnon-believers are asking believers to proove that by definition is not defining about cannot be defined (or physically proven). Hence why do non-believers keep asking this question? And if they are athiest, why ask the question if not out of knowledge, debate, or curiousity not by trying to proove something they clearly believe does not exist? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[allfoak]

What are those?

To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film.

http://beingoflight.brotherofyeshua.com/The_Holographic_Universe.htm

 

[prometheus11]

To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film.

http://beingoflight.brotherofyeshua.com/The_Holographic_Universe.htm

Interesting stuff!

 

[Scuba Pete]

Did you not notice he mentioned the UNIVERSE?

If I wanted to say something to him, I would have quoted him. I quoted you and focused on what you posted. You made a rather common, albeit fallacious claim that science proves that God does not exist. Yes, you actually implied that, but it's the underlying tone that Science and God are somehow mutually exclusive. I have asked which scientific discipline that would be and you have yet to answer. It appears you worship science as many people worship God: blindly. You really don't understand it and yet you place your faith in science without question. You conveniently overlook limitations which trouble real scientists. Your faith is as simplistic as it is resolute, yet you flaunt it like it's actually worth something. As if you're somehow superior for latching onto your beliefs rather than someone else's beliefs. I'm underwhelmed by the mockery you've made of science and amazed at your inability to see the inconsistency therein.

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

It is straight out disrespect.

Again, is it really any different than you comparing a belief in God to a belief in faeries? It's OK for you to trivialize me, but not for me to trivialize you? Again, the blatant hypocrisy is so thick, you could slice it and serve it for breakfast. It would be a bitter breakfast, but you seem to enjoy bitter. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. And I still think it's ironic that you have "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you." in your signature and are in such a blather about this. You want to be coddled and yet be as belligerent as you want with impunity. Well, that entire portion of your post was ill thought out, fraught with inconsistencies and meaningless. Any reasonable person would also translate it as "Blah, blah, blah de blah". It made as much sense as what you wrote and used fewer words to boot. It's apparent that as communication goes, you got the point that I thought what you wrote to be nothing more than an incoherent blather. The truth is often offensive, but it still remains the truth. It's not my fault you can't handle the truth.

Now, I had asked twice before about which discipline of science proves that God exists. Please provide the relevant information along with any supporting evidence. Of course, since that's going to be impossible for you to prove, much less find any evidence, I'll observe the first rule of Scuba: I won't hold my breath.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Does anyone even remember what the OP asked?

Unfortunately, the "There is no God" people have hijacked the thread.

Personally, I don't think God needs us to believe in him as long as we love others. The Christian scriptures tell us that God is love and whoever loves is of God. I think that's all that's needed. I don't see God as an attention whore demanding that we worship him publicly. In fact, it bothers me when Christians pray before a meal in a public setting. Jesus told us to go into the closet and pray. He told us that external signs of belief (wearing a cross, etc) should be avoided. How we love (serve) others should be the thing that sets us apart. It's my belief that God will honor the servants and not so much the egotists who flaunts his beliefs.

 

[LuisDantas]

Unfortunately, the "There is no God" people have hijacked the thread.

Not even remotely my reading of it, but whatever.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Diversity is good. No one has to believe the same as me. I'm OK with that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It would make sense why certain people never come around to believing in God in this case then. The reason why people never believe in God is simply because he never reveals himself to them, as a result they have no choice but to disbelieve. God could reveal himself to them through people around them but he doesn't. This is partially God's fault and partially the fault of those who claim to be God's servants.

I don't know... What do you guys think?

It seems like you're assuming that the beliefs of both theists and atheists are well-founded, and then inventing a scenario where this could work.

Personally, I think the time to muse about the motives of some hypothetical god is AFTER it has been established that the god exists.

 

[Thanda]

It would make sense why certain people never come around to believing in God in this case then. The reason why people never believe in God is simply because he never reveals himself to them, as a result they have no choice but to disbelieve. God could reveal himself to them through people around them but he doesn't. This is partially God's fault and partially the fault of those who claim to be God's servants.

I don't know... What do you guys think?

God embodies all truth. It can be said that he personifies truth. As such he is only discernible by those who seek the truth.

 

[prometheus11]

God embodies all truth. It can be said that he personifies truth. As such he is only discernible by those who seek the truth.

Not accepted. Grand assumption.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, the discussion at hand is the philosophical question about whether God wants everyone to believe in him/her. Trying to prove or disprove the super natural with the natural is a fool's errand. We are spirits in a material world. n'est pas?

Perhaps your fool's errand needs it's own thread?

One way of taking the OP is like this: "given the existence of God, justified theists, and justified atheists, what can we infer about God?" It's fair and relevant to take a step back and ask if those assumptions are reasonable.

 

[Reflex]

Does anyone even remember what the OP asked?

Like someone else said: the thread was hijacked.

As I see it, God is infinitely beyond any "want."

 

[McBell]

Well I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you. It makes perfect sense to me.

You assume to much.
I did not even imply I did not understand it.

I am wanting to know how it is not double speak.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Your reference was used to be condescending. The irony is that you keep using the word proof and don't have a clue to what it means. Your words are both evidence and proof of that contention.

Please show proof of your deity then?