• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mickiel's proof of God.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
I see your unbelief, and unbelief is a proof of God.

Unbelief is just evidence that we don't believe....


Why should I try to prove unbelief is a proof of God to an unbeliever?

You shouldn't because it is futile...the same way we shouldn't be trying to "prove" gods don't exist to a believer. It's an exercise in futility. But then again....no one here expects either to take place. What we do expect is for you, who make the claim that "evolution is foolish" to show some evidence...and what you have shown fits the model of evolution quite perfect.

I have been showing that consciousness is a static thing

What....?:areyoucra

and false influences can get into our consciousness and grow and become real to us, and grow in their complexity over the millenias.

Yea...and this doesn't sound like you're explaining a type of evolutionary process.....???????????????????????????????

You're so against evolution that you actually can't help yourself to cite an evolutionary process....Most people would call that hypocracy...I call it "foolishness"....:rolleyes:

Evolution is a corpse of Life trying to escape God.

Evolution has nothing to say about God....It doesn't address it nor does it dispute a creator...because ONCE AGAIN.....Evolution is not about "Creation"....:facepalm:

Dead from its birth as a theory, it only lives within the human mind.

And yet you have failed miserably to refute it....
 
Last edited:

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
I see your unbelief, and unbelief is a proof of God. Why should I try to prove unbelief is a proof of God to an unbeliever? That itself would be in error. I have been showing that consciousness is a static thing, and false influences can get into our consciousness and grow and become real to us, and grow in their complexity over the millenias. Evolution is a corpse of Life trying to escape God. Dead from its birth as a theory, it only lives within the human mind.

Peace.

My unbelief? I don't believe in God as some sadist masoginist like some people do.

Lack of belief will never be a proof for God. You can't prove something that is not there to be proven.
 

dragynfly0515

Satan Worshipper
God will give houses, and starve people at the same time, give life and death to whom he will, blessings and curses are his ways for us all.

I personally can't imagine worshipping such a god. I can't reconcile a monotheistic, omnipotent god with the reality I see around me. I think polytheism as a model poses much fewer problems.

:candle:
Crys
 

Akira

New Member
mickiel, i don't undertand how you reconcile the existence of suffering in the world. would you mind explaining, please? :)
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
You are ignoring me when I ask you to show me what I did that warrants an apology. When you demand an apology and yet refuse to say what it is for, I get the feeling that you are just avoiding things.

As I have said countless times already - Show me what I said that calls for an apology and you will get one.
 

The Neo Nerd

Well-Known Member
Two words Atheist love to bander about is Failure and Proof, two things very important in Romance. No one wants their romance to fail, and they often want proof from the other that this is real. This is really what Atheist want from God, proof of his existence , and failure of the proof. So they are not easy to Romance. But they are proof themselves of God, their lack of Romance with him.

Peace.

Yep we want proof. Is that too much to ask for? Really?

I mean i can't use my five senses to verify his existence, so is the asking of proof that bad.

And this romance with god. This is confusing. Does god take you out to candle lit dinners, buy you flowers and chocolates? How does this 'romance' manifest itself?

Your so called 'proof' starts of with the assumption that god exists then attributes everything to this god. Your 'proof' is built on an assumption. Real proof is based on facts.

Why aren't your proofs built on facts (i bet you won't answer this question)

Do you have any facts that support the existence of god? (or this one)

-Q
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
One time I asked God to make it so that I can impress others minds concerning the truth about him. He has answered that prayer in spades. I can't count the amount of people who contact me everyday with their stories about how something I wrote impressed them. I have no formal trainning in writing, am a terrible speller, and hold no educated degrees. Yet God has given my writing power and influence, I just know it.

Ans such a thing proves God to me.

Peace.

And if 50 people here at RF say your posts have the opposite effect, what do you conclude from that?
 

Morse

To Extinguish
I don't think I understand.

You are using anecdotal proof as absolute proof?

Please explain to me your reasoning behind these conclusions you've drawn.
 

Venatoris

Active Member
And this romance with god. This is confusing. Does god take you out to candle lit dinners, buy you flowers and chocolates? How does this 'romance' manifest itself?

I'm kinda curious about the etiquette involved.
Is it insulting to pour a glass of wine for Jesus?
How do I know if he feels the same way I do?
How do I let him down gently if I don't see a future in the relationship?
If we have a romantic relationship, does that make God gay?
Does that make me gay?
Who pays the bill?
I have many such questions but I think you get the idea.
 

Morse

To Extinguish
Sigh.

Mikiel posts thought,

Atheists attack.

Anyway, I'll pose a question that lacks sarcasm, since that is what you seem to answer to.

How does this align with the fact that attraction is caused by the unique mix of chemicals people release? If attraction is caused chemically, could we not just say that "romance" in the sense you are speaking of is caused by a desire to remain with the partner as the chemicals they release are pleasurable to them? And when both people are strongly attracted to each other, a strong relationship forms. Likewise, when two people don't enjoy each other's "Smells", they repulse.

Regards,
Morse
 

The Neo Nerd

Well-Known Member
Hi Morse,

Mikiel posts thought

It should be noted that the thread title is 'Romance, Another Proof of God' not 'Romance, Thoughts on God'. There has yet to be any proof just his thoughts on the subject.

Atheists attack.

A number of us have tried to have a reasonable discussion with Mickiel on this subject. Our posts are usually completely ignored or he claims that this so called 'proof' is only for him, which is kinda strange since he is posting for other people to see not just him. So what you see as attacks is really just us trying to get an intelligent response from Mick. I mean he did say he had proof, but there has yet be anything but his personal opinions (or as you put it, his thoughts).

How does this align with the fact that attraction is caused by the unique mix of chemicals people release? If attraction is caused chemically, could we not just say that "romance" in the sense you are speaking of is caused by a desire to remain with the partner as the chemicals they release are pleasurable to them? And when both people are strongly attracted to each other, a strong relationship forms. Likewise, when two people don't enjoy each other's "Smells", they repulse.

You are indeed correct about the chemical attraction. However i would like to theorise that romance is more of a psychological phenomenon (But that's probably just because i'm a student of the human mind).

I theorise that romance is a by product of a females emotional views on sex and a males pandering to this.

-Q
 

Morse

To Extinguish
Hi Morse,



It should be noted that the thread title is 'Romance, Another Proof of God' not 'Romance, Thoughts on God'. There has yet to be any proof just his thoughts on the subject.



A number of us have tried to have a reasonable discussion with Mickiel on this subject. Our posts are usually completely ignored or he claims that this so called 'proof' is only for him, which is kinda strange since he is posting for other people to see not just him. So what you see as attacks is really just us trying to get an intelligent response from Mick. I mean he did say he had proof, but there has yet be anything but his personal opinions (or as you put it, his thoughts).



You are indeed correct about the chemical attraction. However i would like to theorise that romance is more of a psychological phenomenon (But that's probably just because i'm a student of the human mind).

I theorise that romance is a by product of a females emotional views on sex and a males pandering to this.

-Q

Of course there is a psychological factor, in fact, you could consider "the desire to remain with said partner" to be a superego factor.

I'll just string my thoughts together clearly,
Attraction is mainly the pleasure found in another person's chemical mixture, Romance is partly the cultural byproduct of the desire to keep company with a person who has a pleasing chemical mixture, the psychological factors that play into both romance and attraction are, in my opinion, heavily influenced by the culture in which a person was raised.
 

cottage

Well-Known Member
First your apoligy, then the discussion.

Peace.

Oh for heaven's sake! You were asked a perfectly legitimate question. If everything is caused and sustained by God then that must include all the things we would rather not talk about, bodily functions not excepted. This childish demanding of an apology every time your tender sensibilities are offended is hypocritical when you are so very quick to insult others. Do you you want me to post examples? I await your response.
 

TomTomCollier

New Member
"Nothing is evolving, all things are growing or decaying and heading to its end. No matter is evolving, its all decaying. No human flesh, or animal flesh is evolving, only decaying."

I don't mean this as an insult, but you clearly don't understand the theory of evolution, this is a very very common problem, even among people who advocate "evolution" many people don't fully understand the fundamental pricipals of evolution.

Individual, Living organisms, and living tissues don't "Evolove", they can MUTATE while alive, which is how many people picture "Evolution" happening, dramatic incidences of growing extra limbs, wings, changing colour etc. (this image is promoted by adverts, films, sci-fi and other media for dramatic effect), but this is not Evolution, very very far from it.

You are partly correct in your observation that all living tissue/organisms are in a state of constant decay, but you ommited to say that they are also in a constant cycle of reproduction and re-generation, and it is during reproduction, (the replication, spliting, jumbling, mixing, fertilisation, fusing of a new cell with half mothers half farthers genes, know as meiosis) that very tiny and very infrequent mutations happen which give arise to new variations within the population of a species. Please Note: this part of the process of evolution happens over and very very long time.

So, the arise of large variation within a species is the first step (eg. breeds of dog, all the same species with huge variation). Although people think of "Evolving" as animals changing to suit thier enviroment, this is not so, evolution is a SPECIES changing in its characteristics.

Large variation of genetic "versions" (Allels) of the same componant part of an animal (Eg. fur colour), arise in times of stable enviroment.

The second part of evolution is a changing enviroment, the PROCESS of evolution can be sped forward by natural disasters or dramatic climate changes, which kill off all varients within a population that cannot survive. Eg. There may be variation in a global population of mamoths (all the same species) where some varietys have genetics that code for very thick fur, and some have genetics that causes hardly any hair at all, then an ice age strikes, and all varietys with little hair die of cold, and only the mamoths with very thick hair genetics survive and therefore pass these genetics to their offspring, and thus the characteristics of that species has changed over time. Then if the climate stays the same for a long time, tiny infrequent mutations during meiosis can cause NEW variations to occur in that population of mamoths and the process continues.
But enviromental change pressures can be gradual as well.

So in summary The theory of evolution is a theory (with overwhelming evidence and probability) of a PROCESS of changes within POPULATIONS of a SPECIES over a very very very long time which ultimatly change the colective charateristics of that species.

I hope I have been clear enough and consise enough to explain what is in pricipal a simple formula, but complex in its magnitude. I'd also like very much to invite anybody to correct me if in fact I have misuderstood this theory or any part of it.

Tom x
 

mickiel

Well-Known Member
Sigh.

Mikiel posts thought,

Atheists attack.

Anyway, I'll pose a question that lacks sarcasm, since that is what you seem to answer to.

How does this align with the fact that attraction is caused by the unique mix of chemicals people release? If attraction is caused chemically, could we not just say that "romance" in the sense you are speaking of is caused by a desire to remain with the partner as the chemicals they release are pleasurable to them? And when both people are strongly attracted to each other, a strong relationship forms. Likewise, when two people don't enjoy each other's "Smells", they repulse.

Regards,
Morse


I agree that attraction is caused by a unique mix of chemical release, and all that is physical, but then our consciousness attaches itself to these reactions, and mixes our emotions with those two, and then you have complette function. The Consciousness, or the Spirit in the human, is still the central core. God is the creator of consciousness, thus anything that involves the Consciousness, such as Romance and Emotions, are proof of God.

Peace.
 

mickiel

Well-Known Member
Oh for heaven's sake! You were asked a perfectly legitimate question. If everything is caused and sustained by God then that must include all the things we would rather not talk about, bodily functions not excepted. This childish demanding of an apology every time your tender sensibilities are offended is hypocritical when you are so very quick to insult others. Do you you want me to post examples? I await your response.


I don't care what you do.

Peace.
 

mickiel

Well-Known Member
I don't think I understand.

You are using anecdotal proof as absolute proof?

Please explain to me your reasoning behind these conclusions you've drawn.


Everything is proof of God, he made everything, thus all things are proof of him.

Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top