What proof do you have of God?

[tumbleweed41]

Ok, you're right. Maybe -1 is really only a mathematical concept, and has
nothing to do with science.
What about 1.602176565 * 10^-19, is this also nothing else but a
mathematical concept, which has nothing to do with science?
You really wanna tell me that the elementary charge of an electron is nothing else
but a mathematical concept, which has nothing to with science?
You're right! Numbers are nothing else but mathematical concepts!
Hence the elementary charge of an electron is also nothing else but a mathematical
concept. It's an idea.
Finally a guy who understood that also the results of science (which are typically
expressed as numbers) are nothing else but ideas which only exist inside
of the minds of humans, but not independently from a human mind.
lg

Read again.
I said mathematical concepts and scientific inquiry.
Your the one looking for the negative one wolf in in empirical inquiry.

 

[McBell]

In the spirit of recent adoption of a few seconds of clarity and humility I will do so in return. You might have a point but will state it again and let you decide. How can I actually believe in a God that claims there are no other God's and others as well. If I believe in others there is logical way to retain belief in the one that claims to be exclusive. If I believe in all then the exclusive one is no longer exclusive and is therefore not that God any longer. Another example would be that a certain God claimed that he was 100% made of stone and that there are no other God that is made of anything but 100% stone. If I believe in a God made of wood how is it logically possible to also believe in one that says that any God must be made of 100% stone. It logically is impossible for two contradictory claims to absolute truth to both be correct. It foolows that it is logically impossible therefore to believe in both claims as they are specifically stated.

I believe you exist.
However, that does not mean I believe everything you say, or everything others claim you have said.

Ok let's take a closer look at this verse. The English words "before me" are translated from the original Hebrew word: paniym

It Means:
f) as adv of loc/temp
1) before and behind, toward, in front of, forward, formerly, from beforetime, before
g) with prep
1) in front of, before, to the front of, in the presence of, in the face of, at the face or front of, from the presence of, from before, from before the face of
As can be seen the Hebrew is a lot more comprehensive in it's restrictions than the English. It basically means do not have another any other God where he should be. His role can be occupied by no other.

Also the English word God is from the Hebrew: 'elohiym
It means:
1) (plural)
a) rulers, judges
b) divine ones
c) angels
d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
a) god, goddess
b) godlike one
c) works or special possessions of God
d) the (true) God
e) God

Also very comprehensive. So This verse actual says do not put a ruler, authority, God, Godlike being, Godlike attributes, his servants, angles (Basically anything) in any role he is to occupy alone. However non believers are never satasfied with anything so let me add on to this:

1. "Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him." Deuteronomy 4:35
2. "See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me" Deuteronomy 32:39
3. "Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me." Isaiah 43:10
4. "Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God." Isaiah 45:14
5. "I am Yahweh, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18

That is five you can dismiss and here is a link to an additional 39 you can ignore.
Passages that say there is only one God

Nice execution of counting the hits and ignoring the misses.
You seem to have completely glossed over the mention of several other gods, Jupiter, Mars, belial... that are even referred to by name in the Bible...

What a bunch of garbage. I do not mind debates with Agnostics or atheists but would prefer changing ones. I would actually prefer several other kinds or God's or religions. I wish salvation were universal as in some religions. I chose the Biblical God because there is far and away more evidence for him and the Bible than any other by light years. There are many things in the Bible that I accept but like Jefferson would cut out if they would actually go away when I did it. If your statement had any merit instead of a simple punt then we would all believe in Santa Clause and and a religion where each of us was God. In fact Mormons do believe in a form of that. Why would anyone make up the concept of Hell and say they deserved to go there and emberassing explain in details the most horrible actions they commited if they were inventing a story up as wish fulllfilmet. Peter allowed it to be written that he denied Christ three times. Paul said of sinners he was chief. The Bible bears every single thing looked for experts in evidence, witness testimony, and historical documents that indicate reliability.

And yet there are those on this planet that say the exact same things about Allah and the Koran....

Your subjective opinion on which deity is the most likely one merely furthers my point.

Yes I am and that is why I reject it as stated. A safety net does not make logically impossible and contradictory claims, possible to all be believed and at the same time and still retain the details in the claims. It is like a round square, or an honest politician. Logical impossabilities.

And yet millions of people believe contradictory and illogical things all the time.

Wait a minute let me restate something. It is impossible to believe in all of them and what they claim to reveal about themselves. I guess it might be possible to believe in them and consider them all liers. Yet belief in a lying God would not meet the intent of Pascal's wager.

It does when the person selling their favourite deity via Pascals Wager makes the claim that all they need to do is believe...

And yes, we have even had several right here on RF over the years.

There is no known potential gain in believing in a liar.

For you perhaps.
I wonder what those who worship the King of Lies would think of such a comment...

It is impossible to believe two contradictory claims as they are can even possibly be true. It is however possible to say you do. Actualluy believing in something is far more meningful than simply claiming to.

Ah, so everyone who claims to believe in the Trinity is by your standards a liar?

For example is it possible for you to actually believe that 2 + 2 =4 and at the same time actually believe 2 + 2 = excomunication + pizza x 3 unicycles. By the way the Trinity is not contradictory it is just dang hard to explain. There is no contradiction of three persons who comprise one being. There are coutless examples of three individuals comprising a single whole. I did not say hoever that I believe it is true. I do not know and what more I do not think it matters. I need to do the same thing to be saved regardless.

how about 1+1= 2?
I can show how 1+1 can equal 1
and six
and four...

 

[1robin]

I believe you exist.
However, that does not mean I believe everything you say, or everything others claim you have said.

Ok I guess we must go the full complicated route. I am no God and faith in me is no safety net worth having. Nor is faith in a liar God. It does me no potential good to believe in God who lies. THat brings up another point. All undesirable afterlife concepts can be rejected as well. For example reincarnation is not a net worth having for me. Even Islam's ambiguous way of getting to heaven is so meaningless that Muhammad did not know if he would make it. Add in some references to everybody accept martyrs going to hell and there is no safety net I value there either. That brings up another issue. If I believe in God then he claims I must must accept Christ as my savior. If Allah is believed then he says that Jesus was not my savior. Even if you could find a way to believe in both God's you can't simultaneously believe in both methods to heaven. Actually every sentence I type gives me another issue that can't be resolved. I also believe you have settled the issue by believing in none.

Nice execution of counting the hits and ignoring the misses.
You seem to have completely glossed over the mention of several other gods, Jupiter, Mars, belial... that are even referred to by name in the Bible...

Each would have a unique way of determining his reality or not. THe law of non contradiction was just one. There are many others. This subject does not deserve a breakdown of every method used to evaluate every God.

And yet there are those on this planet that say the exact same things about Allah and the Koran....

Then they are free to gamble on him. In no category can that be domonstrated, but they are free to gamble away. That does not resolve any issues concerning your safety net. I was not arguing to show that my God is in fact the most proven but to indicate that that is what must be determined or should be for whatever God is finally relied upon. The misuse of a method is not an indictment of the method its self.

Your subjective opinion on which deity is the most likely one merely furthers my point.

No, your assumed subjective nature of my position does not help you one bit if the fact that actual belief in all God's isn't possible is considered.

And yet millions of people believe contradictory and illogical things all the time.

I did not prove that all people are smart. I proved that the law of non contradiction makes belief in contradictory things irrational for a safety net. It is also impossible concerning the subject of a deity.

It does when the person selling their favourite deity via Pascals Wager makes the claim that all they need to do is believe...

I do not care even a little bit what a person says. If a God's self revelation is contained in a reliable document that bears clear indication of divine origin it makes a pitiful safety net.

And yes, we have even had several right here on RF over the years.

I am sure you can find a person who will believe in anything but that does not satasfy the intent of Pascal's wager. Safety implies unique characteristics on a Deity that lack of trust can't provide.

For you perhaps.
I wonder what those who worship the King of Lies would think of such a comment...

If they believe lies on purpose I have no interest in whatever they say after that point.

Ah, so everyone who claims to believe in the Trinity is by your standards a liar?

What? Has is come to this. You make a false fact and then derive a false conclusion in complete contradiction to what I specifically said and think you accomplished something. I would be emberassed to do what you just did.

how about 1+1= 2?
I can show how 1+1 can equal 1
and six
and four...

A fourth grade sunday school student knows why this does not represent the Trinity so ask them. I literally could not have posted that. So an argument against one of the most profound, complex, mysterious, and cherished concepts in human history studied by countless intellectual giants must resort to trivial natural law concepts that are not even remotely equivalent for any hope at an argument that is designed to dissprove faith in man's only hope against meaningless, purposeless, and eventual futile heat death. Good job. There is far too much at stake to gamble it on stuff so impotent and sad as this.

 

[McBell]

Ok I guess we must go the full complicated route. I am no God and faith in me is no safety net worth having. Nor is faith in a liar God. It does me no potential good to believe in God who lies. THat brings up another point. All undesirable afterlife concepts can be rejected as well. For example reincarnation is not a net worth having for me. Even Islam's ambiguous way of getting to heaven is so meaningless that Muhammad did not know if he would make it. Add in some references to everybody accept martyrs going to hell and there is no safety net I value there either. That brings up another issue. If I believe in God then he claims I must must accept Christ as my savior. If Allah is believed then he says that Jesus was not my savior. Even if you could find a way to believe in both God's you can't simultaneously believe in both methods to heaven. Actually every sentence I type gives me another issue that can't be resolved. I also believe you have settled the issue by believing in none.



Each would have a unique way of determining his reality or not. THe law of non contradiction was just one. There are many others. This subject does not deserve a breakdown of every method used to evaluate every God.

Then they are free to gamble on him. In no category can that be domonstrated, but they are free to gamble away. That does not resolve any issues concerning your safety net. I was not arguing to show that my God is in fact the most proven but to indicate that that is what must be determined or should be for whatever God is finally relied upon. The misuse of a method is not an indictment of the method its self.



No, your assumed subjective nature of my position does not help you one bit if the fact that actual belief in all God's isn't possible is considered.

I did not prove that all people are smart. I proved that the law of non contradiction makes belief in contradictory things irrational for a safety net. It is also impossible concerning the subject of a deity.


I do not care even a little bit what a person says. If a God's self revelation is contained in a reliable document that bears clear indication of divine origin it makes a pitiful safety net.


I am sure you can find a person who will believe in anything but that does not satasfy the intent of Pascal's wager. Safety implies unique characteristics on a Deity that lack of trust can't provide.


If they believe lies on purpose I have no interest in whatever they say after that point.


What? Has is come to this. You make a false fact and then derive a false conclusion in complete contradiction to what I specifically said and think you accomplished something. I would be emberassed to do what you just did.

A fourth grade sunday school student knows why this does not represent the Trinity so ask them. I literally could not have posted that. So an argument against one of the most profound, complex, mysterious, and cherished concepts in human history studied by countless intellectual giants must resort to trivial natural law concepts that are not even remotely equivalent for any hope at an argument that is designed to dissprove faith in man's only hope against meaningless, purposeless, and eventual futile heat death. Good job. There is far too much at stake to gamble it on stuff so impotent and sad as this.

You have this really nasty habit of missing the point.
I suspect that it is not on purpose, it is merely how you deal with things you do not wish to deal with.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No you didn't [prove anything].

There's that illogic and contradiction again. They just can't seem to keep their head down. Let me walk you through it one more time:

1) You agree that a thing is "proven" if an individual human mind accepts it as proven.

2) I am an individual human mind, and I accept that all my points are proven.

3) Yet you deny that my points are proven.

What can I say. I just don't know how to deal with such blatant contradiction. All I can do is point it out.

Of course, if you'd like to explain why it should not be seen as confusion and contradiction, you're welcome to try that. I will listen carefully. Are you claiming that you, 1robin, are the final decider of what is proven and what is not in this thread? If so, please just answer my question honestly and directly. Your answer will look like this: In order for a thing to be proven, it must be proven to me, 1robin.

Don't be shy. Just say it. Then we can move forward and figure out other truths together.

... you have even said that proving anything was impossible. I think that Descartes was wrong. He said the only thing that can be known absolutely is that we think therefore we are. I think in addition to that that Ambiguous Guy will contradict himself is the second absolute truth in the universe.

I have never contradicted myself, of course. I've only tried to help you overcome your confusion about contradition existing within the language rather than where it actually exists -- in a human mind.

Jaylo, standing naked in the Antarctic, is hot.

I am not contradicting myself when I say that. I am only showing you why you should not accept language as the container of contradiction.

Einstein has an advantage over you in that he demonstrated mastery over physics. You have not done so with language or anything else. In fact you have violated most of the few language principles I do know.

I don't want to hurt your heart. I really don't. But I have to say that if you knew anything about language and how it works, you would be able to demonstrate that knowledge in your thought and your writing here. Sorry.

Already did and it didn’t help you.

If you could define 'concept' in your own words, I would fall backwards from my chair. You can't do it. Trust me. I have tested high-level wordsmiths and philosophers to do it and so far none have been able.

Any reader is welcome to try, of course. What is a concept, exactly?

That is not the standard by which strings of letters are determined to be actual recognized words.

Of course it is the standard. If I make a sound, oral or written, and you take meaning from that sound, then that sound is a word. Did you take meaning from 'babyhood'?

Your mastery of linguistic philosophy is truly underwhelming. Words like many things are codes. Codes are specified order. Pay attention to this: Codes require both a code maker and a code resolver. Both the code maker and receiver must have a predetermined code identifier and decoding standard. Sounds even if they make sense to the coder if not able to be decoded by the receiver are useless as words. When a baby says dhuilwehc7ieghdgcjhdcguiwjk" there is no way to decode that so in effect it is not a word.

So you took no meaning from 'babyhood'? You could not decipher my code?

Well then why didn't you ask what it meant?

Some of your comments are disturbing. It would not be so bad if you were a female but with your Ambiguous GUY handle then they are simply disturbing.

Ah, so you are of a carnal mind. You believe that love must have a sexual component. How curious.

So when someone tells you that Jesus loves the little children, you find that disturbing? What a stressful time you must have, trying to work out an integrated understanding of your own religious path. Why not adjust your understanding of the word 'love'? Then you won't have to be suspicious of Jesus' intentions.

Actually that was simply a bluff. There are some ways to see if you looked up certain things but nothing that would let me know for sure you did. However I did notice, you this time, did not even attempt to address this latest test to establish any competency in language. You are approx. O - 10 so far. Instead you diverted the conversation and went on a linguistic odyssey.

I once got up in Einstein's face and said, "OK, Mr. Genius, you're such a great physcist and all, let's see you prove yourself. I'll give you 30 seconds to recite Martha Stewart's recipe for Tomato Basil Soup!"

"Huh?" he replied, glancing toward the nearest exit.

"Fourteen seconds! Can't do it, can you. You faker!"

And so life goes.

I think Otokage was pretty close. Apparently it wasn't that hard after all.

Otokage took his best guess, and of course you will claim that he got it right. I would expect nothing else.

Is that why a few statements ago you claimed to have done this specific thing. I have never seen anything like your ability to destroy your own claims. It must be intentional.

The bibliolater will necessarily be jerked this way and that by mere words. He is their slave rather than their master.

Have you just completely run out of things to say? I have answered it tat least twice. It wasn't meaningful then and isn't now either.

No, you haven't answered it yet. But don't feel so bad. It is a question which intimidates very many people.

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

To you? To me? To God?

Or, as the certain prefer to think, to some unnamed group of absolute experts behind that door over there.

 

[1robin]

You have this really nasty habit of missing the point.
I suspect that it is not on purpose, it is merely how you deal with things you do not wish to deal with.

Why do you keep inventing things concerning me and then without checking draw conclusions and give up. I did not think anything you have posted that merited avoidence. Why don't you clarify your point if I missed it and then I will show you why it's wrong. I kid of course.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I did not anythink you have posted the merited avoidence.

Otokage!! You're up, man.

 

[1robin]

Originally Posted by 1robin
I did not anythink you have posted the merited avoidence.

I will give you this one. I do not know what I was thinking. That is pathetic. I am currently getting about two PMs every five minutes from another guy. Talking to two moderators about another thread and trying to get an F-15 air data computer to pass a test. I do not think even Otokage can help straighten this out. I went back and corrected it.

 

[1robin]

There's that illogic and contradiction again. They just can't seem to keep their head down. Let me walk you through it one more time:

If 2 + 2 did not = 5 then it won't help to explain it again. It is a never ending word game with you.

1) You agree that a thing is "proven" if an individual human mind accepts it as proven.
2) I am an individual human mind, and I accept that all my points are proven.
3) Yet you deny that my points are proven.

I do not have to bother pointing out the flaws in this. Buried somewhere within your previous mountain of contradictory rhetoric you have claimed it is impossible to prove anything. I do not agree but in this case will simply let your own words reveal your error.

What can I say. I just don't know how to deal with such blatant contradiction. All I can do is point it out.

Now that’s IRONY.

Of course, if you'd like to explain why it should not be seen as confusion and contradiction, you're welcome to try that. I will listen carefully. Are you claiming that you, 1robin, are the final decider of what is proven and what is not in this thread? If so, please just answer my question honestly and directly. Your answer will look like this: In order for a thing to be proven, it must be proven to me, 1robin.

It goes without saying no one would claim something is proven until it was proven to them or that proof made apparent to the. That hardly needs to be said. Regardless it is all void if you simply adopt what you have said.

I have never contradicted myself, of course. I've only tried to help you overcome your confusion about contradiction existing within the language rather than where it actually exists -- in a human mind.

Everyday you produce a new wonder. Today you made a contradiction in a statement claiming to have never made a contradiction.

Jaylo, standing naked in the Antarctic, is hot.

I do not care about Jaylo. What is this. Do you have a random sentence generator? Are you a computer?

I am not contradicting myself when I say that. I am only showing you why you should not accept language as the container of contradiction.

What is even apparently contradictory about that. I have already stated why it is not. This was one of the few statements you have made that wasn't.

I don't want to hurt your heart. I really don't. But I have to say that if you knew anything about language and how it works, you would be able to demonstrate that knowledge in your thought and your writing here. Sorry.

So far you have failed every test I have presented in your field. I have even seen bad grammar and a violation of the few basic grammatical standards I know. Why should I consider what you say as authoritative on the subject. Any one can claim to know about something, only those that do can demonstrate it. You haven't.

If you could define 'concept' in your own words, I would fall backwards from my chair. You can't do it. Trust me. I have tested high-level wordsmiths and philosophers to do it and so far none have been able.

You did not even recognize the name of the father of philosophy I posted. I have already defined it twice. You have even done so once. I will do so one last time but it will not help you will ask the same question next week. Concept is an abstract intellectual construct composed of finite ideas and has unique characteristics that mark it's specific abstract boundaries and define it as a unique whole. I dare you to balk at that because it is based on a very very well respected philosopher’s paper.

Of course it is the standard. If I make a sound, oral or written, and you take meaning from that sound, then that sound is a word. Did you take meaning from 'babyhood'?

I was joking about babyhood and do not care either way. It was simply a weird word. It might be an accepted word it might not be. I do not care.

Ah, so you are of a carnal mind. You believe that love must have a sexual component. How curious.

It is only your statement that has the word sex in it. In love is romantic. Love might be platonic.

So when someone tells you that Jesus loves the little children, you find that disturbing? What a stressful time you must have, trying to work out an integrated understanding of your own religious path. Why not adjust your understanding of the word 'love'? Then you won't have to be suspicious of Jesus' intentions.

see above.

I once got up in Einstein's face and said, "OK, Mr. Genius, you're such a great physicist and all, let's see you prove yourself. I'll give you 30 seconds to recite Martha Stewart's recipe for Tomato Basil Soup!"
"Huh?" he replied, glancing toward the nearest exit.
"Fourteen seconds! Can't do it, can you. You faker!"
And so life goes.

That must be how he died. Laughter. If they keep your brain after you die in the interest of science then you may be right. I believe that anyone who constantly dismisses experts is either hiding something or values their theories so much they will not risk them to scrutiny.

The bibliolater will necessarily be jerked this way and that by mere words. He is their slave rather than their master.

How is this a reply to my statement.

No, you haven't answered it yet. But don't feel so bad. It is a question which intimidates very many people.
To whom must a thing be proven in order for it to be proven?
To you? To me? To God?
Or, as the certain prefer to think, to some unnamed group of absolute experts behind that door over there.

To whom is making the decision. What is about this silly CONCEPT you find so interesting. It isn't even a good high school riddle. I love riddles and challenges this isn't one. You have asked me silly questions over and over, even after I answered them more than once, you have yet to answer a single test question I gave you. You are one of those people you wonder just how someone can think what you do.

 

[Photonic]

Wait I think I missed something. Did someone really use pascals wager to support their argument?

 

[1robin]

Wait I think I missed something. Did someone really use pascals wager to support their argument?

Not again. I did not, someone else may have. I hate that stupid wager. However we were discussing a claim made about an aspect of it. Please review the posts.

 

[Photonic]

Not again. I did not, someone else may have. I hate that stupid wager. However we were discussing a claim made about an aspect of it. Please review the posts.

Meh. :beach:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is a never ending word game with you.

You can't produce God for me. You can't bring Him in front of me to examine with my eyes and ears and nose and touch.

But prayer and meditation bore me. I don't find those useful ways to search for God.

So I use words for that.

If only you would play along, imagine what we might learn about God together.

I do not have to bother pointing out the flaws in this.

Whew! I was terrified that you might finally turn up the heat! It's really unpleasant, you know... to live my forum life under Damocles' Hardball Sword.

I do not agree but in this case will simply let your own words reveal your error.

Sure. It's the way of all fundamentalist scripturalists. They have no need to fight with their confused brethren over the meaning of scripture. They only need to point at God's Words and declare, "There!"

Oh, Lord, why do You blind my enemies to the obvious meaning of Your Words? Why do You leave everyone except me in a state of ignorance and confusion --- while Your words so clearly reveal their error!

It goes without saying no one would claim something is proven until it was proven to them or that proof made apparent to the. That hardly needs to be said.

How curious. So when you proclaim that my words prove their own contradiction and error, what does that mean? How can words themselves prove error when you admit that nothing can be proved without a human mind to decide whether a thing is proven?

Is it possible that you are suffering some confusion in your view of these matters? You certainly seem to be of different minds at different moments.

Everyday you produce a new wonder. Today you made a contradiction in a statement claiming to have never made a contradiction.

Thank you for thinking me wonderful, but it isn't so in this particular instance. I'm afraid it's just your memory again. Actually, I have always and repeatedly told you that I myself am incapable of contradiction.

I do not care about Jaylo. What is this. Do you have a random sentence generator? Are you a computer?

I have been called ComputerMan by more than one person, but I always assumed it had to do with my squarish head, reflective shades, and massive memory and computing power. Are you thinking there were other reasons?

Of course I don't care about Jaylo either. Who does? Is she even still alive? We computers sometimes need a name to stand in the place of X -- to spice up our writings. Jaylo has always stuck in my mind since I once heard a person breathlessly exclaim, "Jaylo's got a new look!" Ever since then, Jaylo has been my stand-in for 'plastic pop icon.' In this case, if her name really bothers you, substitute 'sexy woman' whenever you hear me say 'Jaylo.'

So far you have failed every test I have presented in your field. I have even seen bad grammar and a violation of the few basic grammatical standards I know. Why should I consider what you say as authoritative on the subject. Any one can claim to know about something, only those that do can demonstrate it. You haven't.

In my view, you can't even come up with a relevant question in the field of language. You keep asking me Tomato Soup questions and such. If you ever want to actually talk about language, let me know.

I have already defined it twice.

No. And if you really think that a synonym is the same as a definition, I think you will never be capable of theology, nor of RF debate.

Concept is an abstract intellectual construct composed of finite ideas and has unique characteristics that mark it's specific abstract boundaries and define it as a unique whole. I dare you to balk at that because it is based on a very very well respected philosopher’s paper.

Based on? That's a most polite way of saying it. Clearly it is not your own thought, in your own words. I knew that after the first six words.

Can you define 'concept' in your own words, rather than posting the gobbledegook of some offstage philosopher?

Failing that, bring your philosopher here so that I might question him. He looks pretty confused from what you've posted so far. (What the heck is a 'construct'... for just one quick example of his apparent confusion.)

I was joking about babyhood and do not care either way. It was simply a weird word. It might be an accepted word it might not be. I do not care.

Accepted words. Goodness. It is still so remarkable to me how you love the passive voice. I think the passive voice gives comfort to those who crave certainty. It's not that 1robin accepts or rejects a word. It's that the word is either accepted or rejected. I suppose you must conceive some Language God out there who either accepts or rejects a sound as a 'real word', but I myself hold no such belief.

Do you remember that I was a linguistics student and that my comrades in that program became lexicographers? Do you understand that I could have become the editor of a major dictionary and therefore I would have had the power to announce a word as either 'accepted' or 'rejected'?

Dictionaries are not written by gods, man, and they are not Bibles.

I believe that anyone who constantly dismisses experts is either hiding something or values their theories so much they will not risk them to scrutiny.

I believe that anyone who worships (his own favorite) experts is someone who is afraid to strip naked and step out into the intellectual world all alone. He's the sort of person who just isn't made for adventuring, and I wouldn't want him beside me in a fight.

To whom is making the decision. What is about this silly CONCEPT you find so interesting.

The way you contradict yourself. That's what I find so interesting. The way you seem to be confused about your own thoughts. You like to claim that I haven't proven any of my points. But what you really mean by that is that I have not yet convinced 1robin of my points.

But I think everyone knows that I haven't convinced you of my points. So why do you keep declaring that I haven't proven anything?

Well, maybe it's because what you really believe -- but are too shy to say -- is that things can be proven in some sense transcending personal opinion. Maybe.

You are one of those people you wonder just how someone can think what you do.

Otokage? Would you mind actually paraphrasing this one for me? Don't tell me what it means. Just put it into words which the average person can understand.

Here's my best guess as to how it would read if clearly written: AmbigGuy, you are someone who perplexes the rest of us. We wonder how you could possibly think as you think.

Close to his meaning, do you think? In the vicinity?

If so, 1robin, here is my answer: Thank you. Genius comes only from great struggle. It warms my heart that you recognize what I've been through.

 

[Animevox]

One doesn't need proof to have faith. If you simply just don't believe in the signs of God, then you are just one of the people who God has led ashtray.

Qur'an 17:45 "When you recite the Quran, We place a curtain as a barrier between you and those who do not believe in the hereafter".

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

One doesn't need proof to have faith. If you simply just don't believe in the signs of God, then you are just one of the people who God has led ashtray.

Hi, Animevox. What if there are actually no signs of God?

Then the people who believe in the signs of God are the ones who are being led astray, aren't they?

Anyway, what are some of the signs of God in your opinion?

 

[Dag101]

Hello Ashir
You want scientific evidence so I will try as hard as I can to show you that Jesus Christ is the way to heaven. I don't want to push him onto you so remember if you don't want to carry on with the conversation I won't be offended in anyway.

Anyway, if you look outside what do you see. Trees, grass and all types of life forms. I find it hard to believe that these complex organisms were simply created by accident or that the eye which can distinguish over a million colours and shades was created in a 'Big Bang'/.
So who did make the plants and animals we see everyday.
Is creation itself not proof of God's existence. Design does not happen without a designer. Chaos does not produce beauty.

 

[1robin]

Hi, Animevox. What if there are actually no signs of God?

Fortunately that is not the case and therefore the question is at best is a rhetorical exercise.

Then the people who believe in the signs of God are the ones who are being led astray, aren't they?

No you are you are making a inaccurate statement. If there is no God then there are no signs of God to be misled by. That was a cheap shot, I actually understood what you said.

Anyway, what are some of the signs of God in your opinion?

800,000 words in the most cherished and scrutinized book in human history is a start. The book that the greatest experts in law and evidence in human history say meets every standard of evidence and the historical method. The complexity in nature is another, especially as thermodynamics suggests nature can't possibly do so unaided. The absolute unimaginable fine tuning down to one part in 10 to 58 zeros of the universe in some characteristics. Heck the fact that anything exists instead of nothing suggests something outside the universe created it. If it was part of the universe it didn't exist previous to it in order to create it. God is the only concept that potentially meets that condition. Those are not fast balls but they are not lobs either. By the way if you unwisely risk losing credibility in order to attempt to show that they are not correct and if you are successful you would be the first.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Fortunately that is not the case and therefore the question is at best is a rhetorical exercise.

OK. It's a fine opinion. But as I've told you repeatedly, I don't accept you as a prophet of God who can inform me of the actual nature of things. It's nothing personal. It's just that I consider myself to be the best judge of truth.

800,000 words in the most cherished and scrutinized book in human history is a start. The book that the greatest experts in law and evidence in human history say meets every standard of evidence and the historical method. The complexity in nature is another, especially as thermodynamics suggests nature can't possibly do so unaided. The absolute unimaginable fine tuning down to one part in 10 to 58 zeros of the universe in some characteristics. Heck the fact that anything exists instead of nothing suggests something outside the universe created it. If it was part of the universe it didn't exist previous to it in order to create it. God is the only concept that potentially meets that condition.

It's a fine opinion. I'm happy that you've found a way to assure yourself of God's existence.

By the way if you unwisely risk losing credibility in order to attempt to show that they are not correct and if you are successful you would be the first.

As I've said and as everyone must realize by now, I cannot successfully convince 1robin that his evidence isn't compelling. I can't prove to 1robin that his evidence is poor.

So I don't understand why you keep insisting that I can't prove anything to you.

 

[McBell]

So I don't understand why you keep insisting that I can't prove anything to you.

It is as if he has to constantly remind himself...

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is as if he has to constantly remind himself...

Well, he oughta write it on the back of his hand then. He doesn't need to keep making the rest of us hear about it.