Evidence of God existence

[Cougarbear]

People who actually do research are among the
most likely to be so aware of how much remains a
mystery, least to indulge in the arrogance you
speak of.

Religious fundies, prominent among those who do
think they have a handle on it. And closed- minded?

On dead / still alive, there is no bright line distinction.
Failure by fallible people to see the distinction on
occasion is not a surprise.

Few cells have died when someone "dies",
and cultures can be kept alive indefinitely-
making time of death harder still to determine,
or define. All familiar facts.

Doth thou suggest there is no point after which
there is no reviving?

Yes! The resurrection! Our spirit body will reunite with our physical body. Physical Death is temporary.
You say it's hard to tell when someone dies? I think it's harder for our world to tell when life begins. We seem to love killing unborn living babies.

 

[Audie]

Yes! The resurrection! Our spirit body will reunite with our physical body. Physical Death is temporary.
You say it's hard to tell when someone dies? I think it's harder for our world to tell when life begins. We seem to love killing unborn living babies.

Um, yeah, whatevs

 

[Gulo]

what is the best evidence of God existence?

I can prove that God exists.




God exists, even if only as a word...or an idea. Imagination exists, therefore God exists.

- A deist

 

[Milton Platt]

Because we ask, and we are not separate from existence, we are part of existence. So existence, itself, is asking the 'why' question, through us. And it's even using "natural means" to do it.

I didn't say that the question was asked. I asked why there actually has to be a why........Just because there is someone in the universe to ask the why does not mean there is a why. I can ask what is the sound of the color purple. That does not mean therefore that purple has sound.

 

[PureX]

I didn't say that the question was asked. I asked why there actually has to be a why........Just because there is someone in the universe to ask the why does not mean there is a why. I can ask what is the sound of the color purple. That does not mean therefore that purple has sound.

You're confusing the question with the answer. The question already exists: 'why does existence exist?'. The answer, if it can be said to 'exist', is not known to us. And may not even be knowable by us. So your question: 'does there have to be an answer?' is just another way of asking the question, itself.

 

[ronandcarol]

Evidence of God existence
Your next heartbeat.
ronandcarol

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Agreed. I tried it with a new thread. Nothing came out. Maybe you try. But my idea "it must be very simple"

Like "If we don't define God first, we better STOP debating about God. We just make ourselves look like fools"

And it would be convenient to find a definition that all RF member agree on [when they participate in the debate]

[And from now on this is what I will tell people who evangelize/proselytize. Provide definition of God first. agreed by all]

Unfortunately, not everyone is well versed in Hindu, Pagan, Buddhist, even Jewish, etc deities and gods; so, they back to christianity where a lot of us are familiar with whether as an idea and concept, an actual deity, or jesus himself.

It would be nice to debate other gods but pagans, Hindu, and Jews don't really do that from what I know of RF. Not many Catholics here I assume do it either. Think it's a evangelical (those who are outspoken about their faith Baha'i included) thing. Others are more humble about it.

 

[PureX]

Unfortunately, not everyone is well versed in Hindu, Pagan, Buddhist, even Jewish, etc deities and gods; so, they back to christianity where a lot of us are familiar with whether as an idea and concept, an actual deity, or jesus himself.

It would be nice to debate other gods but pagans, Hindu, and Jews don't really do that from what I know of RF. Not many Catholics here I assume do it either. Think it's a evangelical (those who are outspoken about their faith Baha'i included) thing. Others are more humble about it.

It's not even possible to debate the tao/zen based ideologies and practices as they assert the primacy of the unknowable.

"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding."
- from the Tao Te Ching

How does one 'debate' this?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's not even possible to debate the tao/zen based ideologies and practices as they assert the primacy of the unknowable.

"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding."
- from the Tao Te Ching

How does one 'debate' this?

I didnt mention Tao

Not many people are familiar with other religious spiritual concepts. I did see someone challenging Hindu beliefs, though. I don't know if they learned anything or if it just went dead.

Jews say their god isn't the same as the Christian god. But they are reluctant to describe their god to where one can talk about it.

I tried talking to a Muslim but the Convo was cut short. I figure people who believe in gods find it hard or reluctant to explain their beliefs. I guess separating themselves from evangelicals rather than seeing the discussion unrelated and a debate unto itself as so the website promotes.

But I don't know the cultural language of Tao. To me, it sounds as though all god concepts supernatural or not has similar views whether nature, importance, sacredness, or so have you. That's why it's so hard. No one else wants to speak.

 

[Milton Platt]

You're confusing the question with the answer. The question already exists: 'why does existence exist?'. The answer, if it can be said to 'exist', is not known to us. And may not even be knowable by us. So your question: 'does there have to be an answer?' is just another way of asking the question, itself.

I'm saying that the correct question is "how" not "why". "Why" implies a reason or purpose.

 

[PureX]

I'm saying that the correct question is "how" not "why". "Why" implies a reason or purpose.

Why isn't why a "correct" question?