Existence of God

[Fool]

how can you appreciate something, that isn't evident; such as, god?


how do you provide evidence of something that isn't evident?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

how can you appreciate something, that isn't evident; such as, god?


how do you provide evidence of something that isn't evident?

God is evident to me, to others they do not see the evidence and that's okay - it's all about interpretation of the world and the events around us.

 

[AlexanderG]

God is evident as the creator of the universe in the same way that trees growing is evidence for magical, invisible, tree-growing turtles.

1. "It's all about interpretation of the world and the events around us."
2. "I know the magic turtles exist because every growing tree must have a grower."
3. "I feel it in my heart that the turtles exist, which lets me know they exist with certainty. It's a self-authenticating experience that overcomes any evidence presented against it." (Thanks, William Lane Craig)
4. "Science can't explain exactly how trees grow. It either happens randomly for no reason, or it is caused by immaterial, magical turtles. That's just logic."
5. "So many people believe in the invisible magical turtles. This tends to prove that the turtles exist."

 

[dybmh]

how can you appreciate something, that isn't evident; such as, god?

By using imagination and faith.

how do you provide evidence of something that isn't evident?

I don't provide evidence, I offer possibility.

 

[Fool]

By using imagination and faith.

I don't provide evidence, I offer possibility.

that is an action; so an action is required to appreciate god and it always a one way process by the observer of the imaginative? god is impotent? inert?

 

[PureX]

how can you appreciate something, that isn't evident; such as, god?


how do you provide evidence of something that isn't evident?

I'm not looking for any evidence. "God" is a matter of faith, for me, not evidence. I choose to trust in something that I can't know to be so because doing it significantly improves the quality of my experience of being. Faith in God as I choose to comprehend God, works for me. So I don't need any convincing. If it didn't work, I wouldn't choose it.

 

[Fool]

I'm not looking for any evidence. "God" is a matter of faith, for me, not evidence. I choose to trust in something that I can't know to be so because doing it significantly improves the quality of my experience of being. Faith in God as I choose to comprehend God, works for me. So I don't need any convincing. If it didn't work, I wouldn't choose it.

to be is a verb, an action, actions are physical.
to be is physically being something.

doesn't necessarily have to be a form of matter vs some other form but it's definitely not nothing

 

[Fool]

I don't provide evidence, I offer possibility.

to be is everything possible?

 

[Fool]

God is evident as the creator of the universe in the same way that trees growing is evidence for magical, invisible, tree-growing turtles.

1. "It's all about interpretation of the world and the events around us."
2. "I know the magic turtles exist because every growing tree must have a grower."
3. "I feel it in my heart that the turtles exist, which lets me know they exist with certainty. It's a self-authenticating experience that overcomes any evidence presented against it." (Thanks, William Lane Craig)
4. "Science can't explain exactly how trees grow. It either happens randomly for no reason, or it is caused by immaterial, magical turtles. That's just logic."
5. "So many people believe in the invisible magical turtles. This tends to prove that the turtles exist."

the overall issue i've discoverd is that the seeker/observer wants to see it as a form, a fixed thing, in contrast to some other thinginess. to be is a verb, a moving, being action that isn't static but dynamic and has no shape, form, contrast because all is active from the tiniest to the greatest, the whole

 

[dybmh]

that is an action; so an action is required to appreciate god and it always a one way process by the observer of the imaginative?

no, an action isn't required for divine intervention. your question asked: "how can you appreciate something, that isn't evident; such as, god?" "How can you" means the action is initiated by the person. In answering the question, I didn't intend to make an over-arching claim that the action is required. It's something that a person can do to appreciate something that isn't evident. it's initiated by the observer, but that doesn't mean it's exclusively one-way.

god is impotent? inert?

God is concealed. If the absolute interefered openly, it would be a terrifying world. People would be getting zapped for transgressions left and right. No one would know who was getting zapped next. Unbelievers would be considered insane. etc.

 

[dybmh]

to be is everything possible?

to be is everything and non-things. it includes both what exists and also what doesn't exist.

 

[Fool]

no, an action isn't required for divine intervention. your question asked: "how can you appreciate something, that isn't evident; such as, god?" "How can you" means the action is initiated by the person. In answering the question, I didn't intend to make an over-arching claim that the action is required. It's something that a person can do to appreciate something that isn't evident.

God is concealed. If the absolute interefered openly, it would be a terrifying world. People would be getting zapped for transgressions left and right. No one would know who was getting zapped next. Unbelievers would be considered insane. etc.

i didn't say divine intervention.

to be is ambiguous. it doesn't take a form. it's a physical action. like spirit is an action


exodus 3:15

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

how can you appreciate something, that isn't evident; such as, god?


how do you provide evidence of something that isn't evident?

You start with this: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

 

[PureX]

to be is a verb, an action, actions are physical.
to be is physically being.

doesn't necessarily have to be a form of matter vs some other form but it's definitely not nothing

Every "thing" is an experience or collection of experiences conceptualized and idealized in our minds, and then labeled for easy recall. "God" is no different. In that way God is as real as anything else is. I just had to identify and conceptualize that set of experiences: love, forgiveness, kindness, generosity, honor, honesty, empathy, and so on. To experience those things is to experience "God". And to place my faith in the positive value of those things, I find, improves my experience of being.

For me, it's that simple. I have no need to seek out or debate about any "evidence" or lack thereof. It's a matter of conceptual definition, and then a personal choice. Not 'evidence'.

 

[Fool]

You start with this: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

no, you start with the idea that your observation either exists and you're looking for the wrong thing, or it doesn't.


to exist is a verb. it isn't a noun.


so why claim its a noun; when it is a verb?

 

[Fool]

Every "thing" is an experience or collection of experiences conceptualized and idealized in our minds. "God" is no different. In that way God is a real as anything else is. I just had to identify and conceptualize that set of experiences: love, forgiveness, kindness, generosity, honor, honesty, empathy, and so on. To experience those things is to experience "God". And to place my faith in those things, I find, improves my experience of being.

For me, it's that simple. I have no need to seek out or debate about any "evidence" or lack thereof. It's a matter of conceptual definition, and choice. Not 'evidence'.

you are acting to do those things; so for you god is self-evident.


that is literally what evident means. to be is self-evident = to see

evident | Etymology, origin and meaning of evident by etymonline

 

[Fool]

God is concealed. If the absolute interefered openly, it would be a terrifying world. People would be getting zapped for transgressions left and right. No one would know who was getting zapped next. Unbelievers would be considered insane. etc.

to be is both before, within, behind, above, below

it isn't hidden except by looking for a form.


people don't recognize love by a form. they recognize it by an action and say, hey look that's love. being is a verb 1st and then recognized as a thing 2nd. exodus 3:16

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

no, you start with the idea that your observation either exists and you're looking for the wrong thing, or it doesn't.


to exist is a verb. it isn't a noun.


so why claim its a noun; when it is a verb?

I have no idea what you're getting at.

 

[PureX]

you are acting to do those things; so for you god is self-evident.

EXACTLY! God is self-evident.

that is literally what evident means. to be is self-evident = to see

But to "see" also means to recognize and/or understand what is being seen. To grasp it conceptually. Without the latter, the former is just "pixels on a screen", so to speak.

 

[Fool]

I have no idea what you're getting at.

i'm getting at the fact that what is considered holy divine isn't something based on how it looks but based on how it behaves, acts, evolved based on changes. the form is deceptive.


the universe is not static. its being. evolving


the divine too. it is constantly reforming