proof of the true God?

[DPMartin]

Science itself teaches us that "witnessing" changes "the truth". It's just one of several reasons why scientists don't make truth-claims, like philosophers do, but instead just share their observations and move on to the next questions.

No it don’t, it teaches you that you didn’t know the truth, and what you witness is the truth. the truth doesn’t chance, only what you think the truth is.

 

[DPMartin]

I believe I am the proof.

If you are, then prove it.

 

[PureX]

No it don’t, it teaches you that you didn’t know the truth, and what you witness is the truth. the truth doesn’t chance, only what you think the truth is.

The truth is 'what is', and that is changing all the time. What we witness of it is only what we 'see it to be'; that is a small portion of what is, understood only vaguely and partially, by us.

These are not the same things.

 

[Muffled]

If you are, then prove it.

I already have by stating it.

 

[Skwim]

talk to people who work in science the proof isn't the theory its the witnessing that its true.

??????????

.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But, in my opinion, you cant get to that enligthenment when youre depend on things that change. Kind of like trying to stand on a high wire thinking because you are standing on a rope, it wont rock from under you.

I think Jesus could agree with the ^ above ^ because Jesus did Not depend on things that change.
Jesus based his teachings on the established old Hebrew Scriptures that did Not change.
That is why Jesus could use logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures on which to base his teachings.
Those old Hebrew Scriptures did Not rock from under Jesus, thus Jesus could solidly teach from them.
That is why Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written..." because it was already recorded or written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures explaining them for us. The corresponding or parallel cross-reference verses or passages to the Hebrew Scriptures show us how unchanging and timely Jesus teachings are for everyone.

 

[Trailblazer]

no one in the context of what you say is going to argue whether the Lord sends messengers or not, but they carried proofs that they are the real deal also, don't they?

Most atheists argue with me and say that God does not send Messengers. Even some nonreligious believers deny that God sends Messengers. Of course they carry proofs that they are the real deal but most people do not recognize the proofs.

thing is, to rely on someone else to be close to God for you is a real bad idea, this is how the many are fooled. why, doesn't one have the time? this life in the flesh is to important to spend time making one's self available to the Lord God? did the Almighty tell you to go away to talk to Him don't listen for Him? i didn't read that in the Bible did you?

I do not think that we have to rely upon the Messengers to get close to God. Their purpose is to reveal God and His will for humanity. Once we know God from what a Messenger reveals then we can get close to God by prayer and meditation.

I fully agree that this life in the flesh is not important compared to getting close to God. The human heart cannot be divided between worldly things and God.

“Dispute not with any one concerning the things of this world and its affairs, for God hath abandoned them to such as have set their affection upon them. Out of the whole world He hath chosen for Himself the hearts of men—hearts which the hosts of revelation and of utterance can subdue. Thus hath it been ordained by the Fingers of Bahá, upon the Tablet of God’s irrevocable decree, by the behest of Him Who is the Supreme Ordainer, the All-Knowing.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 279

Matthew 6:19-21 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

“For every one of you his paramount duty is to choose for himself that on which no other may infringe and none usurp from him. Such a thing—and to this the Almighty is My witness—is the love of God, could ye but perceive it.

Build ye for yourselves such houses as the rain and floods can never destroy, which shall protect you from the changes and chances of this life. This is the instruction of Him Whom the world hath wronged and forsaken.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 261

 

[Riders]

Yes but the bible says this generation will not go away till his return. It also says the gospel will be preached everywhere on the earth before time.

So truthfully this scenario makes the bible a lie.

 

[Riders]

I think Jesus could agree with the ^ above ^ because Jesus did Not depend on things that change.
Jesus based his teachings on the established old Hebrew Scriptures that did Not change.
That is why Jesus could use logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures on which to base his teachings.
Those old Hebrew Scriptures did Not rock from under Jesus, thus Jesus could solidly teach from them.
That is why Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written..." because it was already recorded or written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures explaining them for us. The corresponding or parallel cross-reference verses or passages to the Hebrew Scriptures show us how unchanging and timely Jesus teachings are for everyone.

But Jesus did agree with things that change he said this generation will not goa way before I come back. It already changed and he did not come back.

 

[DPMartin]

I already have by stating it.

ok, we'll just leave that there. have a nice day

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But Jesus did agree with things that change he said this generation will not go away before I come back. It already changed and he did not come back.

Please keep in mind that Matthew chapter 24 and Luke chapter 21 have two (2) fulfillments:
* The ' minor ' fulfillment ( generation ) came in the year 70 when the Roman armies destroyed un-faithful Jerusalem.
* The MAJOR fullillment ( generation ) is for our day or the now time frame of Revelation 1:10.
I find that Matthew 24:14 and Acts of the Apostles 1:8 was Not fulfilled in the first century.
We are still asked to pray the invitation of Revelation 22:20 for Jesus to come.
Jesus will Not come in kingdom glory time of Matthew 25:31-33,37,40 until the international preaching work is done.
Never before in history has mankind been able to reach remote areas of Earth as being globally done today.
Modern technology has made possible rapid Bible translation possible so that remote translation offices can now quickly translate Scripture into people's mother tongues or native languages on location.
So, we are at the ' final phase ' of Matthew 24:14; Daniel 2:44.
What is left is the ' final signal ' of 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 when ' they ' (the powers that be) will be saying, " Peace and Security.... " as the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14 before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, ushers in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes but the bible says this generation will not go away till his return. It also says the gospel will be preached everywhere on the earth before time.
So truthfully this scenario makes the bible a lie.

I find the 1st-century generation did 'go away' when the Roman armies destroyed un-faithful Jerusalem in year 70.
I also find the generation of Revelation 1:10; 7:14 did Not yet 'go away' because we have Not yet reached the soon coming 'time of separation' on Earth as described at Matthew 25:31-33,37,40.

So, the ' minor ' fullfillment of Matthew chap. 24 and Luke chap. 21 was fuliffled on that un-faithful generation.
The ' MAJOR ' fullfiment -> Revelation 7:14 is for our day, the generation seeing Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8 fulfilled.
The gospel of God's kingdom of Daniel 2:44 is preached everywhere today. Do you know of anyone who has Not heard of the Bible.
Remote translation offices Now locally produce Scripture in people's mother tongues or native languages.
So, modern technology has helped make possible the preaching of the gospel everywhere on Earth.

 

[Ingledsva]

If a Loving Creator exists, and if it wanted us to have proof of its existence, we would have proof that would leave us no doubt. Therefore, either a Loving Creator doesn't exist or it has a good reason for keeping us in the dark about its existence.

If a Loving Creator exists and wants us to have free will along with moral guidance, we would be born with a simple, universal (meaning cross-cultural) moral guidance system. I think we probably have such a system -- and although it wouldn't be compelling evidence that a Loving Creator exists, it's enough to create the suspicion in my mind.

Over the last 30 years or so, science has been heading toward the intuitionist theory to explain conscience and away from the rationalist theory. This is the beginning of support for my hypothesis of a universal conscience. Here's a small sample:

From the New York Times: "According to Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, humans are born with a hard-wired morality. A deep sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. His research shows that babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel guilt, shame, pride, and righteous anger."

I haven't read the book - but - these appear to show that what Mr. Bloom actually said, was that we evolved a basic sense, and it is developed in early childhood. Our ideas of good and bad don't come from a god. To Headhunters it is perfectly good to eat your enemy. Most of us on the other hand - find this bad. LOL!

“Without God does anything go? No, because we have an evolved moral nature that gives us a sense of right and wrong. But when does this sense develop? Thanks to Paul Bloom and this remarkable and important book, we have an answer—very early childhood. Just Babies is a vital contribution to the scientific study of morality that fills in a major gap in our understanding of human nature, and as a bonus it’s a riveting read!”

–MICHAEL SHERMER, publisher of Skeptic magazine; author of The Science of Good and Evil

“’The Origins of Good and Evil’ is an ambitious subtitle, but this book earns it. Paul Bloom combines graceful, witty writing with intellectual rigor to produce a compelling account of how and why people are so wonderful and so horrible. … Drawing on his own pioneering work and the work of many other psychologists, Bloom shows that, from infancy on, the imprint of our creator, natural selection, is evident: we are in some sense moral animals, complete with compassion and a sense of justice, but our “moral compass” can be self-serving, sometimes to gruesome effect. Still, transcendence of a sort is possible; Bloom rightly emphasizes the edifying power of reason and self-reflection, and notes how these tools of enlightenment have led to genuine moral progress. This book, by fostering self-reflection, is itself a tool of enlightenment, and can help humanity take another step toward the good.”

–ROBERT WRIGHT, author of The Moral Animal and The Evolution of God

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Although written on perishable paper No one has been able to get rid of the Bible or Bible people.
If there was Not supernatural backing then the Bible because of enemies would have been gone long ago.
If it were Not for God's backing the global international work that Jesus said to do at Matthew 24:14 and Acts 1:8 would Not be able to be accomplished on such a vast world-wide scale as it is now being done today.

Further proof I find at 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 is that when ' they ' (the powers that be) will be saying, " Peace and Security..." as the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14 before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will usher in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill. As it is written (on fragile paper) so it shall be !

Obviously ALL of the other religions with ancient religious books could claim the same thing.

Obviously you can't all be right.

Personally, I don't think any of you are right.

*

 

[shunyadragon]

And what difference would it make to us, anyway?

I agree. This "God's will" thing is a pointless tautology. But I also understand that a lot of humans need to believe that there is something 'in charge', and that it can be persuaded to help us when we are hurt or frightened.

God's will is the attributes of his Creation, which is reflected in the nature of our physical existence and Natural Law. God's will is reflected in the physical and spiritual evolution in progressive Revelation.

 

[lukethethird]

What or where is the proof of the true God, the Creator and Judge, the Living God, the Most High who lives forever and ever?

As a Xian I don't need no proof.

 

[PureX]

God's will is the attributes of his Creation, which is reflected in the nature of our physical existence and Natural Law. God's will is reflected in the physical and spiritual evolution in progressive Revelation.

Again, if this weren't true, what difference would it make? And how would we even know? Whether nature is God's will, or something else, it remains the reality that we have to deal with. However, if in believing that it's God's will we become better able to accept it and respond to it, then that's a difference that matters.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe I am the proof.

I already have by stating it.

So intensely circular and egocentric it bites you in the butt.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again, if this weren't true, what difference would it make? And how would we even know? Whether nature is God's will, or something else, it remains the reality that we have to deal with. However, if in believing that it's God's will we become better able to accept it and respond to it, then that's a difference that matters.

'Know,' that is a claim that is difficult whether God exists or not.

The actual physical evidence does not remotely fit the claim of the individual ancient religions, and their claims, their world view reflect that of individual ancient cultures, and the fact that they are in conflict with the contemporary world.

The progressive spiritual and physical evolution of humanity in the Baha'i Faith is in harmony with the evidence whether it is true or not. It is the witness to the belief in progressive Revelation of humanity that clearly shows the advancement over time as is reflected in the evidence of the advancement of humanity and civilizations. Recognizing the evolving relative nature human knowledge over time in the sciences and the philosophical/theological knowledge is critical based on the evidence. The principles and teachings of the Baha'i Faith are relevant to the modern world, and many but not all Preceded and are in agreement with the secular advancement today. Progressive Revelation takes into account the human influence on the scripture and beliefs, and the cultural influence of the time that they were revealed.

Based on the evidence both the non-theist secular view of the nature of our existence and that of the Baha'i Faith fit the evidence, and in my view both can possibly be true. IF God exists, I presently find the Baha'i Faith the only viable option for Theism. There is not any proof for the existence of God. The fact that we do not 'know' should be a foundation criteria for recognizing the fallible nature of humanity, and the inherent limits of the belief in religions.

My objections are the claims and nature of the ancient religions, like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Their world views are consistently in conflict, and diametrically opposed to the evidence of our contemporary world, and need juggling the books to even come close to being relevant.

 

[viole]

What or where is the proof of the true God, the Creator and Judge, the Living God, the Most High who lives forever and ever?

Well, that is difficult. Proving the true god is sort of nonsensical at best, and a loss of time at worst. For you cannot say if he is true until you have proved him.

It is like saying proving the proven god.

Ciao

- viole