Is there proof of a monotheistic God?

[Bear Wild]

Yes if theories have even a chink of a flaw they are completely wrong; and yes my theory exposed by my religion is without any flaws.

So there are no scientific theories that are correct? The fact that the computer and internet you are communicating on which relied on those incorrect scientific theories? Interesting, you have not problem using technology based on completely wrong science.

 

[Shantanu]

So there are no scientific theories that are correct? The fact that the computer and internet you are communicating on which relied on those incorrect scientific theories? Interesting, you have not problem using technology based on completely wrong science.

How do we know that with better theories on Science we would not have had even better technologies?

 

[Bear Wild]

How do we know that with better theories on Science we would not have had even better technologies?

That may happen in the future although most likely there will just be refinements to the already established theories but for now we are communicating on a technology based on science which you reject. Why do you even use technology based on incorrect science?

 

[Shantanu]

That may happen in the future although most likely there will just be refinements to the already established theories but for now we are communicating on a technology based on science which you reject. Why do you even use technology based on incorrect science?

I am a truth seeking truth accommodationist (satya-advaitist) who exists to his maximum potential. This means utilising whatever is available to survive on this planet until I reach a grand old age. That is the philosophical position of an Existentialist.

 

[ecco]

Why do you believe that? Are you asserting that if theories have minor flaws they are completely wrong?

Yes if theories have even a chink of a flaw they are completely wrong; and yes my theory exposed by my religion is without any flaws.

Your theory? No flaws? Would it matter if someone found flaws in your theory? I'd sure like to give that a try.

 

[Bear Wild]

I am a truth seeking truth accommodationist (satya-advaitist) who exists to his maximum potential. This means utilising whatever is available to survive on this planet until I reach a grand old age. That is the philosophical position of an Existentialist.

So you do not mind using something you do not believe in if it benefits you. So why even argue about scientific theory if you have no issue using what we have learned from it to meet your self-centered goal?

 

[Shantanu]

Your theory? No flaws? Would it matter if someone found flaws in your theory? I'd sure like to give that a try.

You are welcome to try and find flaws in my conception of the universe: I am God living as a human being infallibly and perfectly in conducting my dharmic actions to survive with dignity in this world until I reach a grand old age: that is Existentialism.

 

[Shantanu]

So you do not mind using something you do not believe in if it benefits you. So why even argue about scientific theory if you have no issue using what we have learned from it to meet your self-centered goal?

I do not argue: I find flaws to expose the truth as a satya-advaitist.

 

[Watchmen]

The “law” of cause and effect and the theory of relativity have nothing to do with proving a fairytale god exists

 

[ecco]

Yes if theories have even a chink of a flaw they are completely wrong; and yes my theory exposed by my religion is without any flaws.

Your theory? No flaws? Would it matter if someone found flaws in your theory? I'd sure like to give that a try.

You are welcome to try and find flaws in my conception of the universe: I am God living as a human being infallibly and perfectly in conducting my dharmic actions to survive with dignity in this world until I reach a grand old age: that is Existentialism.

It is undignified for a human to pretend to be a God. Therefore you can not be living with dignity. Therefore your theory has a chink of a flaw. Therefore your religion is false.

-alternatively-

It is undignified for a God to live as a human. Therefore you can not be living with dignity. Therefore your theory has a chink of a flaw. Therefore your religion is false.

Gee, that was easy.

 

[Shantanu]

It is undignified for a human to pretend to be a God. Therefore you can not be living with dignity. Therefore your theory has a chink of a flaw. Therefore your religion is false.

-alternatively-

It is undignified for a God to live as a human. Therefore you can not be living with dignity. Therefore your theory has a chink of a flaw. Therefore your religion is false.

Gee, that was easy.

I am as perfect as I need to be to address all the issues that arrive at my door so that no one can get the better of me.

 

[Bear Wild]

I do not argue: I find flaws to expose the truth as a satya-advaitist.

Except in yourself of course. You would not like to find those flaws would you. Others though can seen them in your arguments but you would have to care what others think to have meaning.

 

[Shantanu]

Except in yourself of course. You would not like to find those flaws would you. Others though can seen them in your arguments but you would have to care what others think to have meaning.

Find flaws in me if you can.

 

[ecco]

I am as perfect as I need to be to address all the issues that arrive at my door so that no one can get the better of me.

Shantanu, post #113
Find flaws in me if you can.​

First, you said, "infallibly and perfectly". Now you're falling back to "as perfect as I need to be". You are finding flaws in your own "flawless" theory.

Have you really thought this through or are you going to continue waffling before admitting that your "theory" is just a full of nonsensical holes as all other religious theories?

 

[Shantanu]

First, you said, "infallibly and perfectly". Now you're falling back to "as perfect as I need to be". You are finding flaws in your own "flawless" theory.

Have you really thought this through or are you going to continue waffling before admitting that your "theory" is just a full of nonsensical holes as all other religious theories?

I am as perfect as I need to be infallible in attaining the objective of saving myself from any criticisms of my knowledge: is that very difficult to understand? See how this Blog has stood the test of infallibility: Shantanu Panigrahi's Blog: Towards Knowledge for World Conservation. Moderators may please note that I am making a point in argument here not advertising my Blog or preaching.

 

[tayla]

The Law of Cause and Effect.

I doubt dry philosophical arguments prove anything. I would never use one to prove God exists (and there are many of these kinds of arguments).

 

[tayla]

The Laws of Probability and Fulfilled Prophecy. There are 1,093 prophecies in the Bible that refer to Jesus and His Church, and each one of those prophecies was fulfilled! The Old Testament contains 48 prophecies that pertain to the crucifixion of Jesus.

These so-called prophecies were either: (1) written after the fact, or (2) depend on interpretation, or (3) the fictional myths that the early Christian leaders and teachers developed were based on these prophecies, so of course they match.

 

[tayla]

Is there proof of a monotheistic God?

No, there is no proof. But I believe in monotheism anyway.

Usually when people refer to monotheism they mean Christianity or Judaism or Islam. But monotheism can be believed in without including any of the beliefs specific to those religions. Attributes of God such as: conscious person-hood, love and concern for each one of us individuality, indwelling the universe intimately, and etc.

 

[ecco]

ecco:
First, you said, "infallibly and perfectly". Now you're falling back to "as perfect as I need to be". You are finding flaws in your own "flawless" theory.

Have you really thought this through or are you going to continue waffling before admitting that your "theory" is just a full of nonsensical holes as all other religious theories?​

I am as perfect as I need to be infallible in attaining the objective of saving myself from any criticisms of my knowledge: is that very difficult to understand?

It's not at all "difficult to understand" that you have retreated from your position of "infallibly and perfectly". Therefore, by your own definition, you are not qualified to be a god.

 

[Shantanu]

ecco:
First, you said, "infallibly and perfectly". Now you're falling back to "as perfect as I need to be". You are finding flaws in your own "flawless" theory.

Have you really thought this through or are you going to continue waffling before admitting that your "theory" is just a full of nonsensical holes as all other religious theories?​

It's not at all "difficult to understand" that you have retreated from your position of "infallibly and perfectly". Therefore, by your own definition, you are not qualified to be a god.

I am not qualified to be the Creator and Preserver God of the universe.