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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes, if you don't keep it to yourself. If you keep it to yourself, then you don't have to. As soon as you start telling others about it, you need to prove it or otherwise, claiming something without proof is good as lying.
You can easily prove God by remembering he sees you exactly as you are, nothing else can, and you need to be seen to exist accurately because you are qualia and require judgment to who you are.
Yes, and this is why each person has to do his/her own search and then go in the direction that seems to better fit him or her.
Would my no longer being anxious or depressed be adequate evidence for the existence of such a god? If not, why not?
Gosh no. That would be egotistical. People come to their own beliefs on their own accord via experiences. Most people just want to be left alone, even the folks who don't leave others alone, and that goes for a ton of other topics besides religion with regard to unsolicited advice. Of course, asking for advice is another matter.
As far as I am aware, different entities (Jinn) have telepathic abilities and may or may not be guided. I was happier as a new Age person. Islam is a lot more sad especially when you in a constant state of understanding it's warnings and take them seriously. I don't choose the type of God I want nor choose religion on happiness.
Not being a theist, I can't answer the question. I will say, however, that unless I want someone else to believe as I do about anything, I should be prepared to give them my best reasons for believing as I do. And this is about any subject, not just God. And that's the whole point -- my beliefs serve to inform my actions, and I've no responsibility to prove myself to anyone.
You just did. But this will not satisfy those who want to argue with you about it.
Those with brains recognize this as an insult.
It was a hypothetical. I have no personal gods.
We read criticism towards non-believers/skeptics when the challenge religious belief. My approach is that I will leave anyone to their religious beliefs, and won't challenge them, unless it is an issue in open deabte. To my mind many believers want to advocate for their beliefs but aren't aware why they believe at all, and what the believe. Some get a bit of a shock in open debate. I think it is all part of the experience as being human.
You mean a quack biochemist supporting fake journals made up by Creation Science Institute with their own unaccredited peer reviews.
I think you mean "to anyone with a brain that makes the same assumptions that you do."
This is just so incredibly bizarre to me. Because we really do not apply this ridiculous standard to the vast majority of interpersonal interactions in our lives because doing so would be... well... just plain stupid and unreasonable. If I tell other humans my favorite color is green - not keeping it to myself that I have a favorite color and that it is green and tell others about it - why on earth would I need to "prove" to other humans that my favorite color is green? And if I don't "prove" my favorite color is what it is, I'm lying somehow? Just... what the hell?
No I don't
No, because I'm sure that if God wanted to prove His existence to someone He'd just do it Himself
This is a very common "kangaroo court" mentality that seem to be quite popular these days. Wherein we presume everyone else is a defendant in our own personal kangaroo court, where we decide what is and isn't 'evidence', and we decide what is and isn't 'reason', and we decided that our worldview is the correct one, in advance of hearing about any others, so that anyone with another view must then convince us against our will that theirs is 'superior' to ours before we will deign to take it seriously. Otherwise, it's immediate dismissal on the grounds of "no evidence, bad reasoning, and the judge is always right".
Proof is actually irrelevant as the threshold for achieving "proof" status is completely subjective.
True and false are relative value judgments that we make based on our currently held cognitive facsimile of reality. It would be unwise to ignore it, but also unwise to place too much emphasis on it.
Those with unchecked egos see this as an insult. Those with brains see it as a simple observation.