What proof do you have of God?

[Thief]

Don't patronize me.

Now, stop stalling and answer the question properly. If you refuse once more, then I shall take that as admittance that you don't have an answer and that your assertion of God is erroneous.

Better yet...let's run with the idea that your question is misleading and deserves no response?

It would be easier to continue from the point of singularity.
Without a decision which came first.....proceeding would 'pointless'.

Someone had to be First in mind and heart.
I don't believe substance to be 'self' starting.
Placing Mind and Heart as the beginning is not a problem.

Substance first, leads to believing all life is physical....and terminal.

 

[Thief]

My spiritual life is fairly solid I sometimes think, but I have no belief in spirit creatures.

This line is self contrary.
You have spiritual life and don't believe in spiritual creatures?
You ARE one.

Don't despair. Take solice in the uncertainty of our knowledge. I could yet be wrong about the Beautiful Shore in the Great By-and-By -- where all my family and friends and old dogs may or may not be waiting for me. It's a question I can't answer, so I spend my thinking time on other matters.

No despair here.
And how you spend your time is of no concern.

But stepping into the next life without consideration to what lays ahead?

 

[Thief]

I'm going to guess that you mean supernatural diety, as "divine diety" is just a synonym to the word god.

There is no scientific evidence, but there is emotional evidence. I didn't believe in God back when I was a Christian because the evidence pointed towards His existence. I believed because it comforted me, and I had a quite powerful experience during the eucharist which, together with some answered prayers (which I now attribute to coincidence and confirmation bias) was enough evidence for me.

Religious beliefs only stand really strong when they're beyond scientific evidence. As soon as we venture into the field of science, falsifiability applies.

I believe in God because of science.
Science is a study of His creation.

The creation is a reflection of it's Creator.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But stepping into the next life without consideration to what lays ahead?

Oh, I've considered it. And I've concluded that there's insufficient evidence to make further consideration worth my while.

If you don't understand that, think of the Easter Bunny. I'm not trying to be offensive but only to help you see what I mean. Do you spend a bunch of time thinking about the Easter Bunny's actual existence? No? Neither do I. I spend the same amount of time considering the afterlife as I spend considering the Easter Bunny.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This line is self contrary.
You have spiritual life and don't believe in spiritual creatures?
You ARE one.

I'm sorry but you don't get to define my words for me. They're mine.

I am very spiritual, but I don't believe that actual spirit beings exist.

 

[JustWondering]

Better yet...let's run with the idea that your question is misleading and deserves no response?

The question is not misleading. Where did god come from? If you propose that the universe around us is too complex to exist on its own and needs a creator than anything that has any complexity needs a creator. What created god? If its possible for something to always have existed why is it difficult to wrap your mind around the concept that matter and energy has always existed.

 

[Thief]

The question is not misleading. Where did god come from? If you propose that the universe around us is too complex to exist on its own and needs a creator than anything that has any complexity needs a creator. What created god? If its possible for something to always have existed why is it difficult to wrap your mind around the concept that matter and energy has always existed.

Linear existence...One before the other.

Linear events....The singularity came to be .....then 'bang'.

But I say Spirit first...as Creator and Impulse.

 

[waitasec]

Linear existence...One before the other.

Linear events....The singularity came to be .....then 'bang'.

But I say Spirit first...as Creator and Impulse.

so something came from nothing?

interesting.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Linear existence...One before the other.

Linear events....The singularity came to be .....then 'bang'.

But I say Spirit first...as Creator and Impulse.

I cannot accept the idea that time and space are linear. It's a matter of perspective.

 

[1robin]

Oh, come on out and play. You'll never convince anyone of your God by simply tossing insult.

I was not attempting to. I was simply stating the fact that it is uncanny and a little disturbing how many contadictions you can pack into a few words. It is almost as if you are doing it on purpose.

Unless... well, unless it's the God of Insult whom you worship. Is that what you're trying to demonstrate here -- that you follow the Insult God?

Nope, just that you have said more things that are opposites of each other than most people do in a lifetime.

You're not yet ready to hear of my God. I'm sorry. There are none so blind as those whose fields of vision are cluttered with a cloud of outgoing insults.

You said no God exists, now youu are reffering to one.
How much more of a contradictory claim is even possible.

You are saddled with one of the most extreme cases of word-belief that I've ever studied. But not to worry; I think I can fix it. Especially if you are dedicated to the endeavor and willing to forego all other plans for the next decade or so.

You fix your sentences first then worry about others.

It's funny how rights work. When the US was founded, slaves had no rights. Later, as we matured, we decided that owning slaves was wrong. And nowadays I have to listen as Americans argue with a straight face that slaves had those rights of freedom all along. Yikes... the human mind is a marvelous machine of trickery, I often think.

I do not get it.

Just testing you, bud. You did fine. Don't worry about it.

What?

As the standard is decided by the proven whom, so is the issue whomed back into the original decision.

I wonder if what you say would be more meaningful if I read it backwards.

So there. Absolute proof that you are wrong. (Anyone who tries to out-wordsalad me has chosen the wrong dressing from the getgo.)

This makes no sence but I guess I am an idiot for thinking it should.

 

[Thief]

so something came from nothing?

interesting.

There are 'scientists' here at the forum that want to say it, repeatedly.

Not so interesting.

 

[Thief]

Oh, I've considered it. And I've concluded that there's insufficient evidence to make further consideration worth my while.

If you don't understand that, think of the Easter Bunny. I'm not trying to be offensive but only to help you see what I mean. Do you spend a bunch of time thinking about the Easter Bunny's actual existence? No? Neither do I. I spend the same amount of time considering the afterlife as I spend considering the Easter Bunny.

This rebuttal pops up now an then...along with Santa.

Try thinking Creator....existence...one action to another.

 

[Thief]

I cannot accept the idea that time and space are linear. It's a matter of perspective.

See previous post.

Time is not real...it is only a measurement.
A quotient on a chalk board. It is not substance or force.

Movement is real enough.
'Backing up' is not in the scheme of it.
Movement (not direction) goes to the future...only.

 

[waitasec]

This rebuttal pops up now an then...along with Santa.

Try thinking Creator....existence...one action to another.

so something came from nothing...
got it

 

[Thief]

so something came from nothing...
got it

Are you sure?.....you never did before.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I was not attempting to. I was simply stating the fact that it is uncanny and a little disturbing how many contadictions you can pack into a few words. It is almost as if you are doing it on purpose.

Sometimes I do it on purpose. I'm trying to help you see something important so that you might shed your word-belief and therefore become undisturbed by 'contradictions'.

Contradiction is a word game. It's a phenomenon of the language itself. A person can say any seemingly contradictory thing at all and then he can either resolve that apparent contradiction or else he can't. It's only if he can't resolve the little word game that we can conclude he may be actually confused. (I can always resolve my apparent contradictions, of course. It's why I have no fear of posting them.)

Here, I'll show you and our lurkers again:

The following words may appear contradictory to most minds, but my meaning isn't the least bit contradictory, and I'm happy to be tested on it:

AmbigGuy has proven all his points in this debate, and AmbigGuy has not proven any of his points in this debate.

There is nothing contradictory in my meaning. I dare you to test me.

For fun, here's another one: God exists, but God doesn't exist.

God speaks to me, but of course God has never spoken to me.

Jaylo is hot, and Jaylo is cool.

(Oh, my. I'm not sure I can stop myself!)

Another way of saying this same thing is to declare that statements can be both true and false at once.

Jaylo -- standing naked in Antartica -- is hot.

That claim is both true and false at once. Do you agree?

Nope, just that you have said more things that are opposites of each other than most people do in a lifetime.

Thanks. My love affair with the language has not cooled over the years.

I wonder if what you say would be more meaningful if I read it backwards.

I think it would make the same sense forward and back -- just like your answer to my question. You wrote a nonsensical answer because my question puts you off, yes? You aren't happy at the thought of addressing it.

To whom must a thing be proven in order for the thing to be proven?

You've told me that all sorts of things have and haven't been proven. I'm asking what you mean by that claim. When you say that the Biblical prophecies have been proven, I'm asking you this question: To whom must the prophecies be proven in order for you to insist that they have been proven?

Could you give me a simple non-wordsaladish answer to my question?

 

[1robin]

Sometimes I do it on purpose. I'm trying to help you see something important so that you might shed your word-belief and therefore become undisturbed by 'contradictions'.

I knew it. No one can be that contradictory by accident. It requires intent to be that consistently incorrect.

Contradiction is a word game. It's a phenomenon of the language itself. A person can say any seemingly contradictory thing at all and then he can either resolve that apparent contradiction or else he can't. It's only if he can't resolve the little word game that we can conclude he may be actually confused. (I can always resolve my apparent contradictions, of course. It's why I have no fear of posting them.)

Claimed you are a prophet of a God that told you he does not speak, and then that there is no God is not a word game. It is quite simply inaccurate and silly.

Here, I'll show you and our lurkers again:

The following words may appear contradictory to most minds, but my meaning isn't the least bit contradictory, and I'm happy to be tested on it:

The subject matter deserves far more sincere and meaningfull discourse. Complicating the obvious and trivialising the momentous because you think it is amusing serves no purpose.

AmbigGuy has proven all his points in this debate, and AmbigGuy has not proven any of his points in this debate.

It is impossible for those both to be true unless you are examining two points of reference. In that case it is meaningless. Those two claims can't possibly both be true by whatever singular standard is chosen.

There is nothing contradictory in my meaning. I dare you to test me.

God is an objective standard by which all truth may be judged in an absolute sence. He could never say you statements are both true. It is likely neither are.

For fun, here's another one: God exists, but God doesn't exist.

God speaks to me, but of course God has never spoken to me.

Jaylo is hot, and Jaylo is cool.

(Oh, my. I'm not sure I can stop myself!)

Another way of saying this same thing is to declare that statements can be both true and false at once.

Jaylo -- standing naked in Antartica -- is hot.

That claim is both true and false at once. Do you agree?



Thanks. My love affair with the language has not cooled over the years.



I think it would make the same sense forward and back -- just like your answer to my question. You wrote a nonsensical answer because my question puts you off, yes? You aren't happy at the thought of addressing it.

Saying meaningless things in different ways does not make them meaningfull.

To whom must a thing be proven in order for the thing to be proven?

To whom ever is used as the standard.

You've told me that all sorts of things have and haven't been proven. I'm asking what you mean by that claim. When you say that the Biblical prophecies have been proven, I'm asking you this question: To whom must the prophecies be proven in order for you to insist that they have been proven?

If the fulfillment can be verified by the historical method then it can be relied on as truth. AS with many things probability is a factor. The historical method being met it has a very very high probability of being true. More than suffecient for faith.

Could you give me a simple non-wordsaladish answer to my question?

Done

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I knew it. No one can be that contradictory by accident. It requires intent to be that consistently incorrect.

I can't tell whether you don't get it yet, whether you get it but refuse to engage it, or whether you are constitutionally incapable of getting it. Not everyone manipulates logic and language coherently.

I've just demonstrated that there is nothing 'incorrect' about "Jaylo is hot, even when standing naked in the Antartic." But you ignore that and continue to speak of 'incorrectness' in my statements. Pretty darned curious. You really do believe in words and language, don't you? I suppose that is to be expected from those who study holy scriptures. Do you know the term 'bibliolater'?

God is an objective standard by which all truth may be judged in an absolute sence. He could never say you statements are both true. It is likely neither are

That's why I engaged you in the first place, you know... because you presume to tell others of the nature of God. In this case, you actually presume to speak for Him.

I have always been a sucker for undeclared prophets of God.

To whom ever is used as the standard.

Boy, when you don't want to answer a question, there is truly nothing to be done about it.

But I'm still game. I'll post your answer for the lurkers to examine. Here is what you say:

1robin: In order for a thing to be proven, it must be proven to whomever is used as the standard.

As nonsensical an answer as I've ever encountered.

I think that if a question flusters a debater into answering tersely and nonsensically, then that debater may not be quite ready for serious debate.

Just my humble opinion, of course.

 

[1robin]

I can't tell whether you don't get it yet, whether you get it but refuse to engage it, or whether you are constitutionally incapable of getting it. Not everyone manipulates logic and language coherently.

Your statements are very good proof that people are many times incoherent. My task is to weed out the incoherent from the coherent, and point the difference out.

I've just demonstrated that there is nothing 'incorrect' about "Jaylo is hot, even when standing naked in the Antartic." But you ignore that and continue to speak of 'incorrectness' in my statements. Pretty darned curious. You really do believe in words and language, don't you? I suppose that is to be expected from those who study holy scriptures. Do you know the term 'bibliolater'?

No, I am ignoreing your trivial Jaylo statement and commenting on the other more meaningfull but incorrect contradictory statements that you made. You admit you are being contradictory on purpose and then try and equate one spurious statement as a totality to prove you are not being contradictory which as usual is itsel't a contradiction.

That's why I engaged you in the first place, you know... because you presume to tell others of the nature of God. In this case, you actually presume to speak for Him.

No, I pressume to tell people What God said about himself in the most reliable religous text in human history.

I have always been a sucker for undeclared prophets of God.

Why is that relevant?

Boy, when you don't want to answer a question, there is truly nothing to be done about it.

There is not much that can be done with an incomplete question, but give incomplete answers.

But I'm still game. I'll post your answer for the lurkers to examine. Here is what you say:

1robin: In order for a thing to be proven, it must be proven to whomever is used as the standard.

As nonsensical an answer as I've ever encountered.

I think that if a question flusters a debater into answering tersely and nonsensically, then that debater may not be quite ready for serious debate.

Your question is the prime mover of meaninglessness in this discussion. It is the first cause wich produced all meaningless effects concerning it. There are additional things needed to make it meaningfull which you apparently can't suppply. So your original ball of nonsence just keeps getting bigger as it rolls along. There is nothing amusing, wise, or meaningfull in asking half a question.

 

[shivadas]

God is real... true
God is false.... true
The supreme whatever is far beyond human logic, there for no possibility of of proving anything about God...
Personally I think God is self proven as I understand that God is the entirety of existence.
As my grandma taught me when I was 13 "you know but you ain't wise...."