What is your belief in regards to God?

[allfoak]

What, specifically, do you mean by "prove" and "truth"? Can you define those terms for us?

Truth is discovered and proven by listening to and then acting upon the still small voice within.

Seeking out this voice is difficult in the beginning but if you persist you will discover who you are and in doing so you will, through your own experience prove that the knowledge of who you are is the truth.

The truth can be tested by acting on it or ignoring it.
Act on the voice within and grow in knowledge and experience with grace and ease.
Ignore this voice and one will eventually gain the same knowledge but through the school of hard knocks.

Truth changes as we grow in wisdom.
There is always a higher truth.

These things can be learned by living them.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, sir. I am not just making that up.

I did get the name wrong. It's Pikki Woki.

And even if I was just making that up, how would your explanation of trees being evidence for God and my explanation of trees being evidence of Pikki Woki be any different?

Have you got a link to that other than the facebook one that comes up

 

[Robert.Evans]

Ha. I have a pride and ego moment just now; and, I'm liking it.

Don't let it go to your prettly little head will ya

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You cannot believe in something you don't know

Scientists are now mind-wiping theist beliefs with magnets, so watch out!

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/scientists-we-can-mind-wipe-your-belief-in-god/#yeX34OGHfkUHtwzr.99

 

[jonathan180iq]

Have you got a link to that other than the facebook one that comes up

http://www.pbase.com/perofsweden/pogla

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesian_mythology

In all fairness, I think the name Pikkiwoki is probably made up. I'd read it before, but looking into it further I can't reference the name in any reputable place. But that doesn't change the point or the question that I'm asking you in any way. There are countless claims to deity and mythological creation stories all over the world and I am going to assume you readily dismiss them because they don't credit your deity of choice with the creation.

So what if Pikkiwoki is entirely fabricated... Ahura Mazda certainly is not. So why don't you credit the creation of the tree to Ahura Mazda? Why do you insist on it being evidence of Yahweh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahura_Mazda

If you don't like one example, choose from any other on this list that you like, apart from Jesus or Yahweh, obviously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods

So, again, I'll ask you - why do you attribute qualities to God, or credit God with anything at all, when there is factually no evidence of God?
If I said that the tree was evidence of (PLACE NAME OF RANDOM CREATOR GOD HERE) would that be a satisfactory answer for you?

 

[Robert.Evans]

It's not computing in my ol' noggin'.

Belief

Is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.

This means that a person's belief in God (regardless if it comes from God or Zues) is only something he thinks/trusts/hopes to be true even though there is no empirical evidence to prove that is a fact.

You say "it comes from God, so it's knowledge/true/fact". There are many beliefs in many different gods. So, what you are saying is not objective. It is not a fact. Your knowledge becomes what you know or fact when it can be proven for all people even if they don't believe in it. Until then, from everyone's perspective not only yours, it is a belief.

Knowledge

Facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Knowledge, on the other hand, is something that you can prove. It is based on experiences and skills that you can use confirm the fact of a particular subject in question.



Belief in God does not fit this criteria. If it did, then all of us will know your God and hence, we would know it is real. Then we have the choice to trust it or not. Until then, it is only a belief that is knowledge to you. It is not a fact until you can use education, theoretical, or practical understanding and testing of that knowledge to know it is true.

Once you test your belief, find it's true, it becomes fact. You do not need belief anymore. You KNOW it is true. We would all know it is true. Regardless of what we believe about it.

Until then, it is a belief. It may be knowledge to you since it came from God, but objectively, it is not.

There is nothing wrong with that. You just have to understand the terms and applications of them objectively not from your own belief.



Remember I said, "life does not exist because I do." and you said "How do you know?"

Of course life could be just my reality; however, I am speaking objectively.

I have no clue (subjectively) if you guys will exist after I am dead. From my point of view you will not. Objectively I have a 99.9% chance you will. Only because the existence of life does not revolve around me, objectively. It only does subjectively. We can say perhaps; perhaps; perhaps. That doesn't change that we are not the center of attention.

We are not the center of the universe. Our beliefs included.

People do have difficulty with this.
I think they start from the wrong position.

One can only believe if God enables you. Thus you can only believe when you know. No one not knowing God can believe in him; similarly, no one knowing God cannot not believe in him. For the one believing is sanctified through his son and his son is of God. So the one believing believes in his inner self, as his inner self is of God. The one not believing does not know God nor his son and is dead while they live. The one believing knows him and his alive even though they are dying and cannot die.
Yet all is reborn.
One is a position of knowledge and one is not. The one who is, believes, and knows that their belief is true, for their belief is of the son and the son does not lie for he represents the father.

 

[Robert.Evans]

http://www.pbase.com/perofsweden/pogla

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesian_mythology

In all fairness, I think the name Pikkiwoki is probably made up. I'd read it before, but looking into it further I can't reference the name in any reputable place. But that doesn't change the point or the question that I'm asking you in any way. There are countless claims to deity and mythological creation stories all over the world and I am going to assume you readily dismiss them because they don't credit your deity of choice with the creation.

So what if Pikkiwoki is entirely fabricated... Ahura Mazda certainly is not. So why don't you credit the creation of the tree to Ahura Mazda? Why do you insist on it being evidence of Yahweh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahura_Mazda

If you don't like one example, choose from any other on this list that you like, apart from Jesus or Yahweh, obviously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods

So, again, I'll ask you - why do you attribute qualities to God, or credit God with anything at all, when there is factually no evidence of God?
If I said that the tree was evidence of (PLACE NAME OF RANDOM CREATOR GOD HERE) would that be a satisfactory answer for you?

On the contrary, rather than say they are wrong, I would say they are just pieces of the same puzzle. In some way, what they are saying is right, however bizarre it might sound. But the intuitive understanding does not always represent itself correctly here because the corporeal universe is flawed. That is why we die and get injured etc. Reality is far more complex than we think, and I think more layered consciously than we know. They are a piece of a very big puzzle. I can't explain it much better than that, but each faith reveals a 'slice of the same pie' so to speak. When you speak of Yhvh, you are returning to the origin, the purest form, and was revealed truly through his son.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Raised by a religious mother, atheistic father. Never became religious myself because Science.

What does science have to do with it? Science just gives us the explanation of how it appeared within the physical.

 

[jonathan180iq]

On the contrary, rather than say they are wrong, I would say they are just pieces of the same puzzle. In some way, what they are saying is right, however bizarre it might sound. But the intuitive understanding does not always represent itself correctly here because the corporeal universe is flawed. That is why we die and get injured etc. Reality is far more complex than we think, and I think more layered consciously than we know. They are a piece of a very big puzzle. I can't explain it much better than that, but each faith reveals a 'slice of the same pie' so to speak. When you speak of Yhvh, you are returning to the origin, the purest form, and was revealed truly through his son.

But come on now, how do you know that your favorite deity is actually the purest origin deity? Factually, Ahura Mazda far predates even the first known mention of Yahweh...

Why is your God the pure God, while all others are just random expressions trying to describe your God, and then later his more recent incarnation as Jesus?

 

[Robert.Evans]

What is Truth...?

Is this just a measurement of what a lie is not?

What is a lie...?
Is it not just a measurement of what the truth is not?

What is in the middle of this measuring line?
Less truth?
More lies?
Less lies?
More truth?

It doesn't seem to work.

We live in a world of billions of people not one of which has the same perspective as another.
If i was educated in the USA and a friend of mine was educated in Communist China we would have very different ideas about this thing called truth.

Yet, we are both born, grow up and live out our adult lives thinking opposite things are the truth.
How is this possible?
How is it possible for people to live out their entire lives thinking something is the truth while others believe it to be a lie?
How is it that we can live out our entire lives without ever really knowing anything for certain?

Who really knows the truth?
Where does it come from?
Can we trust anyone to tell us?

Is the truth learned, or is it discovered?

Yeah, you make an interesting point. The only thing we all agree on is that we must eat, drink and sleep; but that seems to come natural. To me, we are all different parts of the same consciousness expressed in physical form, thus we would expect to see differences.
Secularists tend to think that we are is by the chance of birth. I don't. I think we are where we are because that is exactly where we should be.

 

[Robert.Evans]

But come on now, how do you know that your favorite deity is actually the purest origin deity? Factually, Ahura Mazda far predates even the first known mention of Yahweh...

Why is your God the pure God, while all others are just random expressions trying to describe your God, and then later his more recent incarnation as Jesus?

Good point, perhaps it is older. But how do you know it is not expressions of the one God. There is ultimately only ONE God. After that we see expressions of that one God in different forms, just as we see humanity express in different forms, but they are all human. Yhvh means " I will be what I will be" or something similar. That fits perfect with your point I think.
You must remember, that again, ultimately, God has no name, as there was no one to name him. Much has happened since then.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

People do have difficulty with this.
I think they start from the wrong position.

One can only believe if God enables you. Thus you can only believe when you know. No one not knowing God can believe in him; similarly, no one knowing God cannot not believe in him. For the one believing is sanctified through his son and his son is of God. So the one believing believes in his inner self, as his inner self is of God. The one not believing does not know God nor his son and is dead while they live. The one believing knows him and his alive even though they are dying and cannot die.
Yet all is reborn.
One is a position of knowledge and one is not. The one who is, believes, and knows that their belief is true, for their belief is of the son and the son does not lie for he represents the father.

I understand. Do you understand that belief and knowledge associated with belief is subjective? You and every other believer (myself included) may know that, say, spirits exist; and, that is perfectly fine. Yet, according to my last post, our knowledge to us is only a belief, opinion maybe, to others. Therefore, we need to differentiate the difference.

The reason it helps me to know the difference is because I do not want to fall into the trap of "I am right, you are doomed" type of thinking. Many believers have that mind set because they, again, mistake belief for knowledge/fact.

When we have a fact, say we know someone will fall if they jump off the cliff (pretending that there is a chance they won't but we, in this case, know it), we are going to warn them, of course.

In the case of belief we cannot warn people they will go to hell or are dislluted. It won't work. It is something they have to believe is true. Knowledge does not need our belief. If that person jumps, he will fall regardless of my warning. In belief, that person can still live. My warning doesn't make reality change for who I warn. Understand?

So when you say this:

The one not believing does not know God nor his son and is dead while they live. The one believing knows him and his alive even though they are dying and cannot die.

This blows my mind. That is what you believe that is not a fact. If it was, we would all know this is true (because you said knowledge comes before belief), and we do not. It's not that we are dead while we live. That is another subjective answer which is wrong. It's an unsubstatiated opinion. There is nothing wrong with that.

What I find irritated is saying these things (as other people do) as if they were facts

They tell others "you are dead and I am alive" type of thing based only on belief!

Then the other person says, "okay, you warned me. How do I know? Where is the cliff"

You say (assuming you're Christian), "it's right here in the Bible can't you see!?"

"No, I cannot" The Bible says (analogy) there is a cliff, he reads. "Okay, where?"

You say, "it's inside you. You have to believe it's true. It IS true."

"How so? What I read does not make anything true; what I read gives me knowledge." When he checks the facts (as stated int he definition of knowledge) and he finds nothing, how can he come to any belief?

All other people who are not Christians (which are thousands) have not come to this fact because many religions know that each person has their own truth. We all consider what we believe as fact.....

but objectively, it is Not.

If we don't accept that, we will keep telling people they are lost. That is a poor way of looking at the world, in my opinion. Looking at our beliefs as beliefs is not wrong. It just helps with helping people who do not share your belief. It helps you understand their position not just your own.

As long as you see them lost, how can you help them find themselves?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I understand. Do you understand that belief and knowledge associated with belief is subjective? You and every other believer (myself included) may know that, say, spirits exist; and, that is perfectly fine. Yet, according to my last post, our knowledge to us is only a belief, opinion maybe, to others. Therefore, we need to differentiate the difference.

The reason it helps me to know the difference is because I do not want to fall into the trap of "I am right, you are doomed" type of thinking. Many believers have that mind set because they, again, mistake belief for knowledge/fact.

It is fine to think you are right about God. It is not fine to hurt others. That should be sufficient enough of an answer to anyone who believes in the lord.

When we have a fact, say we know someone will fall if they jump off the cliff (pretending that there is a chance they won't but we, in this case, know it), we are going to warn them, of course.

In the case of belief we cannot warn people they will go to hell or are dislluted. It won't work. It is something they have to believe is true. Knowledge does not need our belief. If that person jumps, he will fall regardless of my warning. In belief, that person can still live. My warning doesn't make reality change for who I warn. Understand?

So you are saying we follow are five senses primarily, which is true.

So when you say this:



This blows my mind. That is what you believe that is not a fact.

How do you know? It appears you say it is not true because you don't believe it because you then say:

If it was, we would all know this is true (because you said knowledge comes before belief), and we do not. It's not that we are dead while we live. That is another subjective answer which is wrong. It's an unsubstatiated opinion. There is nothing wrong with that.

Knowledge of God is within, that is what causes belief. As it is written... You are saved by faith through grace, and that is not of yourself, it is the gift of God. Thus I do not believe, I do not think it through and make a decision, I am enabled, I have the presence of God with me, thus I know and that is why I believe. A believer is evidence of God.

What I find irritated is saying these things (as other people do) as if they were facts

They tell others "you are dead and I am alive" type of thing based only on belief!

Then the other person says, "okay, you warned me. How do I know? Where is the cliff"

You say (assuming you're Christian), "it's right here in the Bible can't you see!?"

"No, I cannot" The Bible says (analogy) there is a cliff, he reads. "Okay, where?"

You say, "it's inside you. You have to believe it's true. It IS true."

"How so? What I read does not make anything true; what I read gives me knowledge." When he checks the facts (as stated int he definition of knowledge) and he finds nothing, how can he come to any belief?

All other people who are not Christians (which are thousands) have not come to this fact because many religions know that each person has their own truth. We all consider what we believe as fact.....

but objectively, it is Not.

Objectively it is, we just don't all see it. But I understand what you are saying.

If we don't accept that, we will keep telling people they are lost.

Not necessarily. But if we do, when they are reborn, perhaps they stand in a better position. Reality is more complex than the small part of it that we see and call the universe.

That is a poor way of looking at the world, in my opinion. Looking at our beliefs as beliefs is not wrong. It just helps with helping people who do not share your belief. It helps you understand their position not just your own.

As long as you see them lost, how can you help them find themselves?

Well, I don't see them as lost, and perhaps what I wrote is not really for those who don't understand it in the first place, as it seems you have not taken it as I intended.

Reality I think, is very complex. An analogy: what if each one of us is like a light in a room; lights come on, lights go off. They represent life and death. So each is a reality that lights up the world for a time and then dies.
You see, when it comes to Gods/gods/godesses I don't see anything as fundamentally wrong, rather representing what it is. There is right and wrong in everything.
But to deny that God is true and fact would be to deny my own self. I could not do it. I understand that many here see that as wrong. But it is not.
I have already said, that if you met someone and then then left, you would still believe in them but you would also know that they existed. You could not deny that person. What you are asking me to do, is not believe in that person because you never met them. i can't do that, as I would have to lie then. Do you see?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm going to try to answer this in full. This is objective. If it is my opinion or belief, I will say that.

Definitions:

Fact=Something that can be proven for all people. Something that can be tested (regardless if its spirits or gravity). Something that can be studied (even if its beyond our five senses) Something that does not need us to be here for it to be fact.

Facts are universal. Gravity is a fact because it exists no matter if we are here or not. No matter what part of the world we are at, we have gravity. It's universal.

Belief=Something we think is true. Belief is more of a personal statement sence it is defined individually. For example, I believe in spirits. John does not. We both believe. We just have different opinions.

Facts are not like that. Gravity will always be gravity regardless if we believe it or not.

Supernatural oriented beliefs, like belief in gods, are not based on fact. They are based on belief. They cannot be proven outside ourselves. It is not universal like gravity.

Facts are objective.
Beliefs are subjective.

Both can be truth.
Only facts are true.

Nothing wrong with that.

It is fine to think you are right about God. It is not fine to hurt others. That should be sufficient enough of an answer to anyone who believes in the lord.

You--as in generael or me?

My opinion:

If in general, it is fine that people in general feel they are right about god. It is not fine when people mistake their beliefs as facts and as a result fall into the trap of telling others what they believe is fact for them not just for themselves.

Basically, people are staying their belief as if it were a fact like gravity. Religion doesn't work that way.

So you are saying we follow are five senses primarily, which is true.

Objectively, (not my opinion), for it to be true or knowledge (as defined), it has to be true for all people. So if spirits actually exist it cannot just be yours and mine five thousand people's word for it. It has to be true for atheist. It has to be true for the Buddhist across the street. It has to be true for everyone just as the existence of Africa exists without us needing to believe it does. Likewise with spirits.

Until then, based on what I just said, it is not true. It is not knowledge. It is a belief or opinion. Which isn't wrong. Just keep as that when talking to others who do not share your knowledge/fact.



(Not my opinion) Not many people just go off their five sense. They just don't attribute things that are not defined by our five sense to supernatural things like gods and spirits. Nothing wrong with that.

How do you know? It appears you say it is not true because you don't believe it because you then say:

Because that statement does not apply to all people. I am not lost just because I don't share your belief. However, that's how that statement read out. Since it is not true for half the people in the world, it is not a fact, it is a belief. It cannot be proven outside of your own experiences and your tests etc. not a fact.

Facts are unversal. Beliefs do not need to be. From a religious standpoint, beliefs based on the supernatural are not facts.

Knowledge of God is within, that is what causes belief. As it is written... You are saved by faith through grace, and that is not of yourself, it is the gift of God. Thus I do not believe, I do not think it through and make a decision, I am enabled, I have the presence of God with me, thus I know and that is why I believe. A believer is evidence of God.

I understand that. As long as you understand that that is a belief because it is not universal to all, you have the right that view. I believe that spirits exist. I dont believe in god. I believe that if you are not tied to your acesters, you don't know yourself. If you don't communicate with them and family not only alive but those who have passed, then the support is lost. I believe that without the spiritual support from our family, the support we have on earth is umbalanced. God does not figure into this equation.

Yet, I cannot say it is a fact. Why? Because it is not universal. It is a fact to me and others who share my belief in ancestral religions but you may not share it just like the person next to me may not. As a result, objectively, it is not a fact.

Unless you believe there are more than one definition of fact?

Objectively it is, we just don't all see it. But I understand what you are saying.

Objectively it is not, we just don't see that because we can only see through our own belief systems. For example, it is a fact to me that spirits exist. Without the spirits and nature spirits, for lack of better terms, we would not be here chatting today. They are our foundation.

It's a fact, you just don't see it.



Do you see how that statement is wrong? "It's a fact, you just don't see it" What I said is subjective. It's not a fact (to me it is). It is not universal.

We have to step out of our belief systems to understand this. If we cannot (which many cant) then this would go on forever. Got to let go of the reigns and see reality from a universal perspective not a personal one. We're not the center of the universe.

Not necessarily. But if we do, when they are reborn, perhaps they stand in a better position. Reality is more complex than the small part of it that we see and call the universe.

It could be. Sounds like a belief, and not universal/aka not a fact.

*Notice I am using fact to mean universal knowledge rather than what we view individually as knowledge*

Well, I don't see them as lost, and perhaps what I wrote is not really for those who don't understand it in the first place, as it seems you have not taken it as I intended.

Reality I think, is very complex. An analogy: what if each one of us is like a light in a room; lights come on, lights go off. They represent life and death. So each is a reality that lights up the world for a time and then dies.

You see, when it comes to Gods/gods/godesses I don't see anything as fundamentally wrong, rather representing what it is. There is right and wrong in everything.

But to deny that God is true and fact would be to deny my own self. I could not do it. I understand that many here see that as wrong. But it is not.

I have already said, that if you met someone and then then left, you would still believe in them but you would also know that they existed. You could not deny that person. What you are asking me to do, is not believe in that person because you never met them. i can't do that, as I would have to lie then. Do you see?

The first bold only is true (universal) if all people believe in god. Since not all people do, it is what you believe is true. There is nothing wrong with that. My point is I get irrited when people don't know the difference and they use what they see as fact on others...defining reality for other people rather than accepting their reality as that persons' and leave it there.

The second bold, no. Im sorry you got that impression. Based on the "they are losed" comment, it makes me think that you cannot (which is not wrong, just I get bothered by it) see the difference between universal knowledge/fact and your belief. For example, "but to deny God is to deny oneself". That may be true for some but not for others.



I know we don't always want to say "in my opinion" all the time. In most cases, it is assumed. Sometimes when I say opinion or belief people think I'm calling them liers or they should think their belief as a lie.

No. Im just saying know the difference between universal knowledge and belief (or subjective knowledge). Also, know the difference in truth (what you believe is true) and whats true (what is universally true).

Helps with evangalization and keeps each other learning about others beliefs without imposing our beliefs on others.

 

[viole]

People do have difficulty with this.
I think they start from the wrong position.

One can only believe if God enables you. Thus you can only believe when you know. No one not knowing God can believe in him; similarly, no one knowing God cannot not believe in him. For the one believing is sanctified through his son and his son is of God. So the one believing believes in his inner self, as his inner self is of God. The one not believing does not know God nor his son and is dead while they live. The one believing knows him and his alive even though they are dying and cannot die.
Yet all is reborn.
One is a position of knowledge and one is not. The one who is, believes, and knows that their belief is true, for their belief is of the son and the son does not lie for he represents the father.

Are you telling us that believers in a God without sons (e.g. Muslims or Jews) do not believe in God?

Must be. For if belief entails knowledge, then the fact that they do not show any obvious knowledge about HIm having progeny, should entail that they do not have belief, either.

Where your argument fails, is that they can say exactly the same, with the same evidence. That knowledge of God makes it clear to them that He never had a son.

Ciao

- viole

 

[jonathan180iq]

Good point, perhaps it is older. But how do you know it is not expressions of the one God.

I don't. The bigger point is, neither do you - yet you exclaim it to be so.

There is ultimately only ONE God.

Is there? How do you know? Can you prove the existence of any god?
If you cannot, then surely you see the fallacy of your argument.

After that we see expressions of that one God in different forms, just as we see humanity express in different forms, but they are all human. Yhvh means " I will be what I will be" or something similar. That fits perfect with your point I think.
You must remember, that again, ultimately, God has no name, as there was no one to name him.

I understand the philosophy. I'm asking you show me show the basis of the philosophy is founded on anything more than make believe.

I just admitted that Pikki Woki is made up. We can agree on that point. But I doubt you'll admit that Yahweh is also just a man-made invention, am I right?

Much has happened since then.

And, using your logic, all of it would be an expression of the "one true god"... But why call it God?


We are essentially talking about the difference between personal subjective truths vs. the factual element of reality. Many things can be true to many people based solely on the level of conviction within the individual. Children can believe to the very core of their little souls that Santa Claus will bring them presents in a few weeks. But you and I both know that this is factually not true.

You can believe down to the very core of your soul that Yahweh is the creator of the Universe and Jesus Christ is his son, born of the flesh and sent to die for the eternal sins of mankind... But anyone outside of the Christian faith knows that this is factually not true.

So, logically, how can you maintain arguments for one faith and not similarly accept those exact same arguments from any other faith?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Are you telling us that believers in a God without sons (e.g. Muslims or Jews) do not believe in God?

Must be. For if belief entails knowledge, then the fact that they do not show any obvious knowledge about HIm having progeny, should entail that they do not have belief, either.

Where your argument fails, is that they can say exactly the same, with the same evidence. That knowledge of God makes it clear to them that He never had a son.

Ciao

- viole

And they are right, he didn't. And yet there is the son. Now work that one out.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm going to try to answer this in full. This is objective. If it is my opinion or belief, I will say that.

Definitions:




You--as in generael or me?

My opinion:

If in general, it is fine that people in general feel they are right about god. It is not fine when people mistake their beliefs as facts and as a result fall into the trap of telling others what they believe is fact for them not just for themselves.

Basically, people are staying their belief as if it were a fact like gravity. Religion doesn't work that way.



Objectively, (not my opinion), for it to be true or knowledge (as defined), it has to be true for all people. So if spirits actually exist it cannot just be yours and mine five thousand people's word for it. It has to be true for atheist. It has to be true for the Buddhist across the street. It has to be true for everyone just as the existence of Africa exists without us needing to believe it does. Likewise with spirits.

Until then, based on what I just said, it is not true. It is not knowledge. It is a belief or opinion. Which isn't wrong. Just keep as that when talking to others who do not share your knowledge/fact.



(Not my opinion) Not many people just go off their five sense. They just don't attribute things that are not defined by our five sense to supernatural things like gods and spirits. Nothing wrong with that.



Because that statement does not apply to all people. I am not lost just because I don't share your belief. However, that's how that statement read out. Since it is not true for half the people in the world, it is not a fact, it is a belief. It cannot be proven outside of your own experiences and your tests etc. not a fact.

Facts are unversal. Beliefs do not need to be. From a religious standpoint, beliefs based on the supernatural are not facts.



I understand that. As long as you understand that that is a belief because it is not universal to all, you have the right that view. I believe that spirits exist. I dont believe in god. I believe that if you are not tied to your acesters, you don't know yourself. If you don't communicate with them and family not only alive but those who have passed, then the support is lost. I believe that without the spiritual support from our family, the support we have on earth is umbalanced. God does not figure into this equation.

Yet, I cannot say it is a fact. Why? Because it is not universal. It is a fact to me and others who share my belief in ancestral religions but you may not share it just like the person next to me may not. As a result, objectively, it is not a fact.

Unless you believe there are more than one definition of fact?



Objectively it is not, we just don't see that because we can only see through our own belief systems. For example, it is a fact to me that spirits exist. Without the spirits and nature spirits, for lack of better terms, we would not be here chatting today. They are our foundation.

It's a fact, you just don't see it.



Do you see how that statement is wrong? "It's a fact, you just don't see it" What I said is subjective. It's not a fact (to me it is). It is not universal.

We have to step out of our belief systems to understand this. If we cannot (which many cant) then this would go on forever. Got to let go of the reigns and see reality from a universal perspective not a personal one. We're not the center of the universe.



It could be. Sounds like a belief, and not universal/aka not a fact.

*Notice I am using fact to mean universal knowledge rather than what we view individually as knowledge*



The first bold only is true (universal) if all people believe in god. Since not all people do, it is what you believe is true. There is nothing wrong with that. My point is I get irrited when people don't know the difference and they use what they see as fact on others...defining reality for other people rather than accepting their reality as that persons' and leave it there.

The second bold, no. Im sorry you got that impression. Based on the "they are losed" comment, it makes me think that you cannot (which is not wrong, just I get bothered by it) see the difference between universal knowledge/fact and your belief. For example, "but to deny God is to deny oneself". That may be true for some but not for others.



I know we don't always want to say "in my opinion" all the time. In most cases, it is assumed. Sometimes when I say opinion or belief people think I'm calling them liers or they should think their belief as a lie.

No. Im just saying know the difference between universal knowledge and belief (or subjective knowledge). Also, know the difference in truth (what you believe is true) and whats true (what is universally true).

Helps with evangalization and keeps each other learning about others beliefs without imposing our beliefs on others.

I see what you are saying.
I understand it could lead some to do or say the wrong things. But nonbelievers can have strong beliefs which could make them do wrong things, which I'm sure you already kno

However, even though we shall not agree, and I can't fully explain it, I know God is a fact. Sorry. It is the world that cannot see it. It does not mean it is not fact just because others cannot understand. And that believe means you 'know'. It is a different reality I guess; something hard enough to speak of here, but uncalled for in the physical world.
Perhaps the definition of "fact" is the problem. Was gravity a fact even before we knew of the explanation of it? I would say it was.

 

[illykitty]

Hmm, not sure what my beliefs qualify as, the "all-deity" is nature, the universe and perhaps even beyond if there is such a thing. But I don't think it's a being. More akin to gravity, a natural force... It's hard to explain. I don't think it's a personal deity and I don't think it interferes by that I mean, it won't stop something from happening. Things just happen, nature just "is". So anyway, to me, it's an impersonal deity but I still sometimes communicate with it without expecting to get anything back from it. I don't know why I do it but it comforts me when I need to let something off my chest.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't. The bigger point is, neither do you - yet you exclaim it to be so.

I have no problems with other beliefs... they are all part of the same consciousness. It is varied, dynamic, sometimes different, sometimes similar.

Is there? How do you know? Can you prove the existence of any god?
If you cannot, then surely you see the fallacy of your argument.

There can only be one Souce, life origin, big bang, they both follow the same pattern, the original print within the consciousness.

I understand the philosophy. I'm asking you show me show the basis of the philosophy is founded on anything more than make believe.

I just admitted that Pikki Woki is made up. We can agree on that point. But I doubt you'll admit that Yahweh is also just a man-made invention, am I right?

In one sense he is manmade, because he comes from the same consciousness. We are him, he is us. One is higher, one is lower. Both form each. But we answer to him as we are the lower. Thus we have no one to complain to but ourselves. That is just, is it not?

And, using your logic, all of it would be an expression of the "one true god"... But why call it God?

Call it what you want. It is the origin, the sourse, reality, yesterday, today, tomorrow, your dreams, your fears, your life and your death. There is nothing else. The thing you don't believe in is the only thing that truely exists

We are essentially talking about the difference between personal subjective truths vs. the factual element of reality. Many things can be true to many people based solely on the level of conviction within the individual. Children can believe to the very core of their little souls that Santa Claus will bring them presents in a few weeks. But you and I both know that this is factually not true.

You can't say that. That is false. If I meet someone and then they leave, are you telling me that that was not fact because no one else was there? I think you will find it was fact.

You can believe down to the very core of your soul that Yahweh is the creator of the Universe and Jesus Christ is his son, born of the flesh and sent to die for the eternal sins of mankind... But anyone outside of the Christian faith knows that this is factually not true.

So, logically, how can you maintain arguments for one faith and not similarly accept those exact same arguments from any other faith?

But I have accepted them. I might not embrace them as they might not be the best understanding of the realm we live in, but all things that are 'now' have been and will be again. Nothing is new. Nothing is either right nor wrong in the bigger picture, only in the smaller is one right or wrong. That is the one we live in and answer for. But there is always two sides. The reason we see so many faiths and also atheism is becuase of the expression of the evolving consciousness that is all we see.
You expect to see things in a certain way that will never happen that way. You expect to see someone else agree and confirm it. Yet believers have billions of people who confirm it. How many do we need to make nonbelievers say that it is fact? Belief comes from God, not man. Belief comes to man from God.