What proof do you have of God?

[waitasec]

That wouldn't be the same.

not at all.

I thought we had agreed not to worry?

i worry about myself, don't you?

oh right of course... you don't. you don't need to worry about yourself as you have the better perspective for others :areyoucra

 

[Thief]

not at all.

i worry about myself, don't you?

oh right of course... you don't. you don't need to worry about yourself as you have the better perspective for others :areyoucra

You think there would be something wrong with that?
Every now and then someone DOES have a better perspective.

That you don't agree...doesn't count as a label, it is not.

 

[otokage007]

27 pages and still no proof of God? ok, i will come back later :beach:

 

[waitasec]

You think there would be something wrong with that?

absolutely.

it's why same sex couples can't get married in most states and why people fly into buildings

Every now and then someone DOES have a better perspective.

if you are talking about parents with their young children, sure

That you don't agree...doesn't count as a label, it is not.

you are equating yourself to your god...a pretty unimpressive label
overcompensating perhaps?

 

[Thief]

absolutely.

it's why same sex couples can't get married in most states and why people fly into buildings

if you are talking about parents with their young children, sure


you are equating yourself to your god...a pretty unimpressive label
overcompensating perhaps?

None of this is worthwhile.

 

[Thief]

27 pages and still no proof of God? ok, i will come back later :beach:

Did you consider post 206 and 210?

 

[otokage007]

Did you consider post 206 and 210?

Of course not, I focused only on the posts that didn't seem to be a joke.

 

[waitasec]

Did you consider post 206 and 210?

why???
206 starts out with

I believe...

so what...???

 

[oldbadger]

Hi! I'm back...... So you want proof of God? Try this......
You....... you are all the proof of the Gods that you need.
You.... yourself, are a small part of God, and should be treated and approached with the respect and awe due to God.
To deny God is to deny yourself and eveything that exists.
The point is, If you deny this, then you surely would need to explain why this small universe, a tiny part of the whole, exists at all. Why anything?
?

 

[waitasec]

i'm more interested in the "how"
the "why's" put people in a precarious position

 

[oldbadger]

If you are interested in the 'how'of all things, then I guess that you will have read Stephen Hawking's 'A History of everything'. Professor Hawking explains that in the 1940's experiments showed (proved?) that particles sent on a journey undertake all available routes at the same time. This sort of stuff 'boggles' my brains, but you could be wiser and brighter than me, and see this as your first proven miracle? Did you want a miracle? The Atheist Professor Hawking should be your very first messenger for God! ......... whether he likes it or not. The 'how' is constantly regressing into the past, the more that we discover, so you can continue to 'how?' for all time. But the 'why' can be considered now......? Surely? You are a part of God, and there's not much that you (or I) can do about it....... well..... that's from my perception. Pinch yourself!!!

 

[waitasec]

If you are interested in the 'how'of all things, then I guess that you will have read Stephen Hawking's 'A History of everything'. Professor Hawking explains that in the 1940's experiments showed (proved?) that particles sent on a journey undertake all available routes at the same time. This sort of stuff 'boggles' my brains, but you could be wiser and brighter than me, and see this as your first proven miracle? Did you want a miracle? The Atheist Professor Hawking should be your very first messenger for God! ......... whether he likes it or not. The 'how' is constantly regressing into the past, the more that we discover, so you can continue to 'how?' for all time. But the 'why' can be considered now......? Surely? You are a part of God, and there's not much that you (or I) can do about it....... well..... that's from my perception. Pinch yourself!!!

i don't see myself relating to YOUR understanding of god.
one of the earliest known concept of god was "void", "abyss", and "bottomless gulf". this is how i approach the idea of god...
even in our own language the word "god" is a label which is subjected to ones
personal understanding of that label.

i agree that the proof for anyones god is found in their personal belief in it.
but this personal belief cannot take someone out of their own skin...it is a feedback of sorts and once the source of that feedback is eliminated so will the feedback be eliminated.

when revelation replaces investigation one places themselves in a precarious position only when the revelation is to be applied to others.

there is a difference between philosophy and religion.
philosophy is to be applied to one self...religion is there because it mistrusts the philosophy of the individual.

didn't hawking say there is no need for philosophy any more?
although i admit that this is a serious statement, but we also need to consider the source of this idea. hawking's existence is not dependent on the why...look at him...if he asked why he became sick he would be wasting his time. instead, he went for the how..(his personal philosophy) and i believe his condition enabled him to go as far as time will allow him to.

 

[otokage007]

If you are interested in the 'how'of all things, then I guess that you will have read Stephen Hawking's 'A History of everything'. Professor Hawking explains that in the 1940's experiments showed (proved?) that particles sent on a journey undertake all available routes at the same time. This sort of stuff 'boggles' my brains, but you could be wiser and brighter than me, and see this as your first proven miracle? Did you want a miracle? The Atheist Professor Hawking should be your very first messenger for God! ......... whether he likes it or not. The 'how' is constantly regressing into the past, the more that we discover, so you can continue to 'how?' for all time. But the 'why' can be considered now......? Surely? You are a part of God, and there's not much that you (or I) can do about it....... well..... that's from my perception. Pinch yourself!!!

If we are part of God... Not every part of God is perfect?

 

[1robin]

27 pages and still no proof of God? ok, i will come back later :beach:

There is no such thing as proof of God. It is a very reasonable conclusion given the evidence but requires in the end, faith. That is why 1/3 of the humans on Earth have faith in the Christian God and when added to the Muslims and Jewish believers I imagine it is over 60%. I would even say that God in general is believed in some capacity to exist by 85% - 90% of the world. When so many concepts and so great a portion of the things in our lives can not be proven as well, but belief in them is well accepted, I do not find the lack of absolute proof for God meaningfull.

 

[oldbadger]

Otokage007 sent:- If we are part of God... Not every part of God is perfect?

Which part(s) did you have in mind? We are told that there was matter and anti-matter, but that just enough matter was left over for our universe. Anything imperfect there? The bible tells us that God issues the devil (satan) with exact instructions and the devil complies (In Job, for example). Anything wrong there? Any animal, or bird or plant or supervova out of place? there seems to be only one creature capable of imperfection, and even then human babies, the simple, the mentally ill etc could be excluded from that list.
So I guess you want me to tell you that because we humans are not very perfect, yet part of God, that here is some sort of blasphemy? All I can say is that the Gods (I believe in 2, which is one less than most Christians believe in) no doubt know exactly what they are about. I hope that one day I may know about their plan, which might include a few naughty intelligent species from other galaxies as well! In Domino Confide!

 

[oldbadger]

To Waitasec. Wow! I just need to read your last post through, and then again...... and again! Once up to speed I'll attempt a reply. All the best, oldbadger

 

[beenie]

** Staff Advisory **

Several posts had to be deleted from this thread due to personal comments. Debate IDEAS, not the person, please. Keep Rule 1 in mind when posting. We do not wish to close this thread or do any further deletions, but will if it becomes necessary. Thanks.​

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

 

[oldbadger]

A reply to Waitsec....

Waitasec wrote :- i don't see myself relating to YOUR understanding of god. one of the earliest known concept of god was "void", "abyss", and "bottomless gulf". this is how i approach the idea of god...even in our own language the word "god" is a label which is subjected to ones personal understanding of that label.
Me:- But you are 'relating' here? And the words 'void' etc are perfect, although I think of 'nothingness', or even 'anti-matter'.

Waitasec:- i agree that the proof for anyones god is found in their personal belief in it. but this personal belief cannot take someone out of their own skin...it is a feedback of sorts and once the source of that feedback is eliminated so will the feedback be eliminated.
Me:- 'Reasoning' might lead to proof, but faith might come from an individual revelation or miracle, something that has no value to any other person, but which affects only the receiver?

Waitasec:- when revelation replaces investigation one places themselves in a precarious position only when the revelation is to be applied to others.
Me:- All these fishes and loaves are great to read about, but...... (Hang on!.... I'm agreeing with you!) I never intended to wave any miracles at you, apart from the obvious, such as 'we are here') . But any reports from scientists just seem to 'click' for God, despite their own beliefs.

Waitasec:- there is a difference between philosophy and religion................
Me:- Yes. That's why I don't think of myself as religious, I just think about the reason for everything's existence and constantly marvel at the whole creation. Religion? Some religions still want to hold beating bloody hearts! Professor Hawking did say that philosophy is redundant, but it will get re-employed pretty fast if we ever learn what happened 'before the big bang'.

 

[Thief]

But you are 'relating' here? And the words 'void' etc are perfect, although I think of 'nothingness', or even 'anti-matter'.


'Reasoning' might lead to proof, but faith might come from an individual revelation or miracle, something that has no value to any other person, but which affects only the receiver?

Yes. That's why I don't think of myself as religious, I just think about the reason for everything's existence and constantly marvel at the whole creation. Religion? Some religions still want to hold beating bloody hearts! Professor Hawking did say that philosophy is redundant, but it will get re-employed pretty fast if we ever learn what happened 'before the big bang'.

You and I have a common foundation.
Stick around.

Be careful how you feed the trolls.
They complain about the postings you make in reply...and then you get wrote up.

 

[waitasec]

A reply to Waitsec....

Waitasec wrote :- i don't see myself relating to YOUR understanding of god. one of the earliest known concept of god was "void", "abyss", and "bottomless gulf". this is how i approach the idea of god...even in our own language the word "god" is a label which is subjected to ones personal understanding of that label.
Me:- But you are 'relating' here? And the words 'void' etc are perfect, although I think of 'nothingness', or even 'anti-matter'.

yes. i have no choice but to relate it to the most benign of terms as language is what gets in the way

Waitasec:- i agree that the proof for anyones god is found in their personal belief in it. but this personal belief cannot take someone out of their own skin...it is a feedback of sorts and once the source of that feedback is eliminated so will the feedback be eliminated.
Me:- 'Reasoning' might lead to proof, but faith might come from an individual revelation or miracle, something that has no value to any other person, but which affects only the receiver?

yes.

Waitasec:- when revelation replaces investigation one places themselves in a precarious position only when the revelation is to be applied to others.
Me:- All these fishes and loaves are great to read about, but...... (Hang on!.... I'm agreeing with you!) I never intended to wave any miracles at you, apart from the obvious, such as 'we are here') . But any reports from scientists just seem to 'click' for God, despite their own beliefs.

i agree.

Waitasec:- there is a difference between philosophy and religion................
Me:- Yes. That's why I don't think of myself as religious, I just think about the reason for everything's existence and constantly marvel at the whole creation. Religion? Some religions still want to hold beating bloody hearts! Professor Hawking did say that philosophy is redundant, but it will get re-employed pretty fast if we ever learn what happened 'before the big bang'.

maybe so