What is the evidence you looking for?

[`mud]

Imagine the furthest point in the Cosmos,
think of anything way beyond that,
what is that; that you imagine is there ?
Can one's spirit feel the presence there ?
Not hardly, but you will eventually get there !
And then, you will have your evidence !

Ahh.... yes, makes no sense does it,
imagination is our shield from `God`,
and `His` total lack of any `power` !

But, why do we fear what isn't there ?
I guess our spirits know, don't they ?

Silliness abounds here.

 

[syo]

What would be evidence enough for you to say, "yes religions or spiritual teaching is true" or " yes now i understand God do exist"

What is those evidence? And how do you think they would prove spiritual teaching more then it already does?

God must walk on water.

Now seriously, what created us? Chance? accident?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So you think a God would show him self by stopping all guns human beings been stupid enough to make them self? I guess that is not something God would do it's our own fault we killing each others, not Gods fault

Who's blaming God?
Not me.

 

[Altfish]

Why assume such a being would have "power" or "ability?"

So what should I be assuming?
What am I looking for?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What would be evidence enough for you to say, "yes religions or spiritual teaching is true" or " yes now i understand God do exist"

What is those evidence? And how do you think they would prove spiritual teaching more then it already does?

I had a long post typed out, but I deleted it because I had a revelation: I don't think that the evidence to establish God could possibly exist.

Maybe I'm wrong, but here's my thought process:

It's simple enough to say what it would take: enough evidence that a worldview that includes God is more consistent with reality than any other worldview. In practice, though, what would that mean?

- the idea of God already has a number of logical problems that require theists to do mental gymnastics and invent stopgaps to address those problems.

- because of these problems, it would be difficult - or perhaps impossible - for theistic worldviews to become the most reasonable worldview just by piling more evidence on. God is so far behind that it seems like he could never catch up.

- establishing God isn't just a matter of refuting some other godless worldview, because there are uncountably many godless worldviews.

So I can think of many ways that my own personal worldview as it stands right now could be refuted, but I can't think of anything I'd encounter where accepting God would be the best way to address the disconnect between my worldview and reality.

IOW, I can think of plenty of situations where I might see something and say "I can't reconcile that with my skeptical worldview! I'll have to abandon my beliefs or accept a new belief to address it. I guess I'll have to accept that magic (or time travel, or aliens, or spirits, etc.) is real."

... but whatever new thing I accept, whether it's magic, time travel, aliens, or spirits, is going to be easier to swallow than magic, time travel, aliens AND spirits, all of which I'd have to accept in order to believe in one particular magical, time-travelling alien spirit (i.e. God).

So imagine me in the position that I do agree that my worldview is missing something, so I accept that magic is real. What could I possibly see or experience that couldn't be explained by magic? Why would I ever see that would convince me that materialism AND magic together aren't enough to explain what we experience? What need would we have to make the leap to God?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

They don't really want evidence.

The setup of forums is such that if there ever WERE evidence, people would stop responding, and the article would immediately be buried as new posts arrived.
And if anyone forced people to accept this evidence, they'd be subject to the forum's Bullying rules.

So you see, people can play the "Where's your evidence" game all day, and just denying seeing the evidence presented.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What would be evidence enough for you to say, "yes religions or spiritual teaching is true" or " yes now i understand God do exist"

What is those evidence? And how do you think they would prove spiritual teaching more then it already does?

Since I wasn't raised around and experienced a deities that talk, move, jump, and love, I wouldn't know or have any criteria to which people's claims of deities existences are true. I have no basis in comparison.

As for gods in a spiritual sense, I guess, evidence would be in ones convictions and actions. But, again, since everyone is different in morals I don't have basis of comparison.

But out of the two, at least I learn from the latter. I interact with people and shape my beliefs off lessons I physically, mentally, and spiritually learned. I can interact. The former is all theology. I can't interact with Paul and I can't vision a deity of love so it would need to be behavior and conviction. We can see and hear these things but with spirit-uality, we cannot. Spirituality should involve all senses. Material vs spiritual makes no difference in a world where everything and one is a spiritual lesson in and of itself.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So what should I be assuming?
What am I looking for?

That is what one should avoid - assuming. All problems are because of that.
You tell us. Looking for who created the universe? From where did life arise? Is there this or that (Free will, heaven, eternal life)? What are you looking for? What are your questions?

Buddha describes what should not be assumed: Kesamutti Sutta - Wikipedia
Kesamutti (Kesha- Hair, Mukti - release). So Kesamutti is getting free from a hair-hold, being free.

 

[Altfish]

That is what one should avoid - assuming. All problems are because of that.
You tell us. Looking for who created the universe? From where did life arise? Is there this or that (Free will, heaven, eternal life)? What are you looking for? What are your questions?

Buddha describes what should not be assumed: Kesamutti Sutta - Wikipedia
Kesamutti (Kesha- Hair, Mukti - release). So Kesamutti is getting free from a hair-hold, being free.

Don't you think I've looked for who created the Universe?
I've looked and found no evidence beyond the Big Bang - anyway, if I did find a God, it's not helpful because I then start asking, "who created God?"

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What would be evidence enough for you to say, "yes religions or spiritual teaching is true" or " yes now i understand God do exist"

What is those evidence? And how do you think they would prove spiritual teaching more then it already does?

I think the key to understanding why "spiritual teaching" is simply not good enough as any sort of "proof", "evidence" or demonstration of "truth" is to ask: to whom should I make a request for trustworthy evidence, do you think?

• Do you think I should request such evidence from human beings? Do they have or provide the evidence for the truth of religious claims?
• Do I make such a request of God? Is that the route I should go? In which direction do I find "God?"
• Do I look to the texts? Weren't the texts ultimately written by human beings?
• Do I look to myself? How is this any different than requesting the evidence from another human being?

There is no valid place to look for such evidence. There is no valid chain of evidence to be followed that "leads to God." Such a thing has not been demonstrated to exist. And that is what is needed. The unequivocally direct route.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

What would be evidence enough for you to say, "yes religions or spiritual teaching is true"

Evidence that *all* religions and *all* spiritual teachings are true? That is not logically possible.

Now you have to pick and choose; get more specific.

or " yes now i understand God do exist"

All Gods? That is not going to happen either as there are thousands of them and several of them are at loggerheads with each other.

If you get specific and start with one God, you will realize that there is no evidence that can prove the existence/power/role of such a God. The only thing that keeps these Gods alive and powerful is faith.

The very fact that there are thousands of Gods can be strong evidence that every one of them is false.

 

[Nakosis]

What would be evidence enough for you to say, "yes religions or spiritual teaching is true" or " yes now i understand God do exist"

What is those evidence? And how do you think they would prove spiritual teaching more then it already does?

I suppose some sort of existence after death.
If I found my existence to continue after death, I think that would be a strong indicator that there is something more than the material realm involved.

Unfortunately, one has to wait until they die for that kind of evidence.

 

[HonestJoe]

I am not a God or a Buddha my OP was created so it would be possible to answer your understanding, and i ask more questions.

No it wasn't. Your OP was created to attack people who believe differently for you. You asked a question knowing full well that you would dismiss any answer out of hand. You'd already decided that you wouldn't accept there is any kind of evidence to support "spiritual teaching" or the existence of God.

The funny is that disbelievers demand believers or Even God to show them proof that God exist.

Non-believers do nothing of the such. When believers demand that we change our laws and live our lives in line with their religious beliefs, we legitimate ask why we should do that, especially when the consequences of those practices are potentially harmful, discriminatory or costly. If believers don't proselytise their beliefs, nobody will demand they prove them.

But when a believer ask of an non believer, prove God does not exist, they can not come up with a clear answer. So they attack believers.

A non-believer simply doesn't believe by definition. They have no responsibility to prove any gods don't exist, especially if they're not demanding anything as a consequence of their (non) belief.

You see only when someone realize enlightenment would they be fully able to give those proofs, but as får as i know nobody in RF is enlightened beings

Only when someone achieves their full arrogance do they demand enlightenment means being in complete agreement with them.

 

[Heyo]

No it wasn't. Your OP was created to attack people who believe differently for you. You asked a question knowing full well that you would dismiss any answer out of hand. You'd already decided that you wouldn't accept there is any kind of evidence to support "spiritual teaching" or the existence of God.

Telling other people what they believe? That's a bad argument, bad style and probably against the rules.

 

[rational experiences]

His story says, this story about life and science is my own.

And says I named O the planet stone, I named the planet Earth and I said it was a philosophy about the stone as first science.

Theme the Creator.

The male group who today own the over view agreement by group thinking as males...the over God theme.....said to self as that self, male and in groups that God the stone O Creator created its own gases/spirits of Immaculate form for ejecting it into space.

First 2 notifications of incorrect use of information claims the Earth is like a male for it spurted out of its body by a rigid ejection...the mountain arose out of the stone body and burst its gases out. Went into out of space....and the male group said it conceived Immaculately in a womb condition new gas evolution.

What has that theme got to do with any other so called relative ideal...as you stand on that stone body living inside of its gases from spatial emptiness zero cold, to have cooled the gases.

We own no condition in the nothing of space...and the cold radiation mass held in the nothing of space belongs just to space.

We know as a human that radiation mass can move in and out of the gases.

Therefore in relative argument of males against their own self, males first group said I want to change the relative natural history of God the stone.....for their theory.

Everything in this condition is natural, and all laws of natural order, naturally existing.

All a male as a group did was build a machine that he controlled to forcibly change the state of natural, with natural owning all and any body he wanted to change.

What does that history factually mean to his want to argue today? Rationally?

The truth is, where everything came from originally, the argument.

Science says it came from a big bang blast that evolved.....hence his idea is, if he finds the point of the beginning he would own all powers imaginable...yet his imagination does not own what is diverse and natural in all forms of it existing....his imagination is wrong about what he themes.

The argument of human history is natural spirituality versus the science Destroyer.

Our argument in spirituality said our spirit came out of the eternal...and so did God bodies a long time ago. And in their relative spatial placement reacted into what each body became.

And we say the same thing that science does...except we do not say big bang, we say eternal was the beginning of everything.

Yet our presence, never went through a whole lot of contorting/converting heating and cooling did it.

That situation he basis his ideals on his machine and control of that machine.

Yet he tries everyday to convince a human that the cosmology creation is where we were forming through all forms until we became a human...and thinks he is speaking common sense.

Why we argue against his mentality...for all states, no matter what he says is natural, and if he can knowingly manipulate natural, then he has proven he can.

But it does not give him ownership of any beginning....the only beginning he can cause is a reaction when he pushes the button on his machine.

Science once stated that God was the Creator and that all forms of gases and nuclear bases belonged in the stone body from which he could abstract.

So if anyone wants to ask why so many God themes exist, it is old science quotes...so I never understood why you get your nickers in a twist arguing about humans who say God is real.

In science the terms of God are real...for it is science.

What science espouses is that there is a special God somewhere that will give him the answers to owning all and every power imaginable. Yet he already imaged it all...by looking at it in its natural states.

If he had nothing to look at he also would not have anything to say, factually.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Evidence that *all* religions and *all* spiritual teachings are true? That is not logically possible.

Now you have to pick and choose; get more specific.



All Gods? That is not going to happen either as there are thousands of them and several of them are at loggerheads with each other.

If you get specific and start with one God, you will realize that there is no evidence that can prove the existence/power/role of such a God. The only thing that keeps these Gods alive and powerful is faith.

The very fact that there are thousands of Gods can be strong evidence that every one of them is false.

I have already my answer within Falun Gong but all of the religions hold a part of the truth, enough to get people reach enlightenment. Science can not do that

 

[MonkeyFire]

Knowing is easy, science and learning is the complex part.

 

[rational experiences]

Knowing is easy, science and learning is the complex part.

How does science then get a beginning when science states that it no longer exists?

If science as a thinker says from nothing, then what it was is now gone to be "from" the body. For the thinker is not just inferring nothing by also claiming "from".

And that status means if nothing was relative as a truth you would not own self existence to be discussing what is relative...and we know we certainly are not related to the state of nothing.

Biology said, previously in human science, if you want to pretend that you are nothing first, yet live after the life body of an Ape......then you first pretend that you are an ape...when you are not....you are a whole body as self identification with variables to an Ape body.

For if you did just pretend self to be an Ape...and then claim, a few different small changes and then the Ape would be a human......you would not be saying anything relative other than sperm and an ovary information of a human is the difference of a small amount of information.

Our parents can never as a human be quantified to just be from sperm for a male adult and an ovary for a female adult.

Therefore a lot of humans do not realize even biology infers just a slight amount of physical added onto information equals a human....from an Ape...when it is a whole one of spiritual body...not just a small amount of information.

Then a science group with a machine would be asked, for what reason do you keep inferring that a human is God or a human is Jesus...when you own formulas and machine reactions?

The answer is because the Bible infers God to be the planet of stone mass from which you withdraw energy for machines and resources...and the reference to Jesus is about cloud mass with an image.

Yet the term Immaculate God baby was the volcanic gas ejection into the spatial womb...where clouds came from...and Jesus the human sure did not come out of a volcano.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I am not a God or a Buddha my OP was created so it would be possible to answer your understanding, and i ask more questions.

The funny is that disbelievers demand believers or Even God to show them proof that God exist. But when a believer ask of an non believer, prove God does not exist, they can not come up with a clear answer. So they attack believers.

You see only when someone realize enlightenment would they be fully able to give those proofs, but as får as i know nobody in RF is enlightened beings

The funny is that disbelievers demand believers or Even God to show them proof that God exist. But when a believer ask of an non believer, prove God does not exist, they can not come up with a clear answer. So they attack believers.

What's funny is that theistic believers are about the only people I know of who make a claim get frustrated when people ask for verifiable evidence and then try and insist that it's other people who have an obligation to offer evidence that their claim is NOT true.

That's like if I were to claim that I have a magical invisible dragon in my garage and when you ask for some sort of evidence to back up my claim all I've got is "Prove that I DON'T have a magical invisible dragon in my garage!"

 

[QuestioningMind]

What would be evidence enough for you to say, "yes religions or spiritual teaching is true" or " yes now i understand God do exist"

What is those evidence? And how do you think they would prove spiritual teaching more then it already does?

Absolutely any verifiable evidence will do. Got any?