What proof do you have of God?

[Ashir]

Because it ultimately makes the word "possibility" completely meaningless. You might as well call it an endless string of waffle sundays.



Faith is not necessarily blind. I have faith, but that doesn't mean I have surety, as I said before. I don't believe stuff just because I was told to. I do some investigations first.

What's wrong with things being meaningless?
Belief without evidence is blind belief to me. If you have evidence to back it, even if I don't consider it evidence but you do, it would only be faith in my eyes.

I don't blame you but it will be worth it.

Maybe when I have a lot of time to squander

 

[Riverwolf]

What's wrong with things being meaningless?

In terms of language, it means you're just speaking gibberish.

Belief without evidence is blind belief to me. If you have evidence to back it, even if I don't consider it evidence but you do, it would only be faith in my eyes.

Blind faith is faith simply because you were told to without any investigation. I have done investigation, and maintain a certain degree of doubt. Blind faith allows for no doubt whatsoever.

Scientific evidence is physical and repeatable. As you said above, eyewitness testimony is not good for science. However, you experiencing something or seeing something can be more than good enough for you.

Let's say you're walking in the woods, and you come across a bigfoot. It's definitely a bigfoot and not a bear. You can tell because not only did you see it, you got very close to it and made out all the details. You could tell by its facial movements and the look in its eyes that it's definitely not a man in a suit.

Now, as far as you're concerned, bigfoot definitely exists. However, all anyone else has is your word, since you were unable to bring back any physical evidence for anyone else to look at. However, you have friends who know you well enough to know that you're not lying. These people have faith, since there's no evidence, but it's reasonable faith.

 

[1robin]

What's wrong with things being meaningless?
Belief without evidence is blind belief to me. If you have evidence to back it, even if I don't consider it evidence but you do, it would only be faith in my eyes.



Maybe when I have a lot of time to squander

Suit yourself. If you desire information then you would review it. There is more there than any other religion can provide. However that is only a small fraction of what exists.

 

[Ashir]

In terms of language, it means you're just speaking gibberish.



Blind faith is faith simply because you were told to without any investigation. I have done investigation, and maintain a certain degree of doubt. Blind faith allows for no doubt whatsoever.

Scientific evidence is physical and repeatable. As you said above, eyewitness testimony is not good for science. However, you experiencing something or seeing something can be more than good enough for you.

Let's say you're walking in the woods, and you come across a bigfoot. It's definitely a bigfoot and not a bear. You can tell because not only did you see it, you got very close to it and made out all the details. You could tell by its facial movements and the look in its eyes that it's definitely not a man in a suit.

Now, as far as you're concerned, bigfoot definitely exists. However, all anyone else has is your word, since you were unable to bring back any physical evidence for anyone else to look at. However, you have friends who know you well enough to know that you're not lying. These people have faith, since there's no evidence, but it's reasonable faith.

I don't see how, but alright

All faith, whether or not it is supported with a bit of research, is blind to me.

I have yet to experience such and will not properly perceive what people mean when they talk about a confrontation in God. I doubt even that would convert me; it's probably just your mind playing tricks on you, and even so I would want my question answered before I turned to worship God, even if they actually are recounting a past experience.

That wouldn't be definitely to me. It would simply be very likely.

That's trust, blind trust even.

 

[Ashir]

Suit yourself. If you desire information then you would review it. There is more there than any other religion can provide. However that is only a small fraction of what exists.

I've seen more from Islam, but it was as unreliable as yours (again no offense just saying what I think)

 

[Manss]

I bring a very simple and clearly proof. When we see a robot we are sure its designer and maker is a scientist. When we see a human so how we can believe he hasn't a creator. That creator's name is god or Allah

 

[Ashir]

I bring a very simple and clearly proof. When we see a robot we are sure its designer and maker is a scientist. When we see a human so how we can believe he hasn't a creator. That creator's name is god or Allah

Not trying to be offensive but this is what I meant in the first post when I said 'Please, nobody who doesn't have a bit of insight on the topic' but I'll respond anyway.

A robot is a manufactured object, different from a living organism, so your comparison doesn't work and thus your post meaningless but I guess you're bordering on something like the watchmaker analogy or the teleological argument.

People usually use our eyes as an example at how complex nature is. I have observed, however, that they fail to grasp the fact that years ago, I did not have eyes. I was but a sperm cell; such a simple organism there are theories stressing if it actually is an organism.
How did my eyes develop? Time. Evolution. Genetics. But let's not go too deeply into science. Point being, I was not born this complex, I was developed to be this complex.
This is what I attribute to the universe. Theists tend to believe that everything must have simply pop into existence and thus a natural occurrence like the big bang could not have made the universe has complex as it is now. I think not. I think that, things were originally simple, but developed to be as complex as it is today. There are many scratches of evidence for this theory. One is that new elements are seemingly emerging out of no where, more complex ones. Another is that the earth has been proven to have existed for over 4.6 billion years. After all that time, not too small in proportion to the estimated age of the universe even, do you not think that would be enough time for things to develop into such complexity? Adaption has happened on a far greater scale than most would care to believe, I think is likely.

In other words, you are simply making it seem as if I arrived on this earth in the form I am now when in reality I developed into it.

 

[Tristesse]

I bring a very simple and clearly proof. When we see a robot we are sure its designer and maker is a scientist. When we see a human so how we can believe he hasn't a creator. That creator's name is god or Allah

We know the robot had a designer because every robot we've encountered was designed, on the other hand humans and other living organisms reproduce naturally, and robots don't. You're making a category error with your analogy.

 

[Ashir]

And no, that creator's name is Mum and Dad.

 

[Ashir]

We know the robot had a designer because every robot we've encountered was designed, on the other hand humans and other living organisms reproduce naturally, and robots don't. You're making a category error with your analogy.

+1, plus the robot would have an artificial source of intelligence, we don't.

 

[Ashir]

This went to another page so I'll just say that I too posted a response to that, just not on this page.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't see how, but alright

Meaningless = gibberish.

All faith, whether or not it is supported with a bit of research, is blind to me.

A demonstration that you don't fully understand the definition of the word "faith."

I have yet to experience such and will not properly perceive what people mean when they talk about a confrontation in God. I doubt even that would convert me; it's probably just your mind playing tricks on you, and even so I would want my question answered before I turned to worship God, even if they actually are recounting a past experience.

That wouldn't be definitely to me. It would simply be very likely.

That's trust, blind trust even.

Would you consider all trust to be blind?

If you yourself have no experience, then you are under no obligation to believe. That's fine. A very wise Sage has taught not to believe until you yourself have experience.

I don't worship all Gods, anyway. Belief and worship don't necessarily go hand in hand.

 

[Sir Doom]

I already admitted I phrased the question wrong. I don't know how to put it, but yes he exists, but you're talking about the way dreams exist.

I can assume your lack of understanding for my answer is a product of the same lack of understanding for your own question. Let me try to explain (however hopeless that is).

A thing that exists must necessarily affect reality. A thing that doesn't exist must necessarily have no effect on reality. God (whether a concept or more) has a significant influence on those that believe in said concept. Those believers act upon that belief in reality. Some even structure their entire life around this concept. But it doesn't even stop there. Those actions performed by believers based upon their god concept have a cascading effect around the globe. There are so many believers that every single person on this planet is influenced in part by the concept of god. Including you. That's why you have made this thread. You would not be able to make this thread without a concept of god and without the massive influence that concept has on the world. So, god must necessarily exist through logical inference. The question should be, "What is god?" not, "Is there a god?"

There is, of course, a huge problem with this question as well. But since you aren't really asking that question... it's another thread. Your question is clearly answered though.

What proof do I have of God? The same proof I have for everything else. Existence is a given.

Evidence he is living, maybe? I don't know how to put it.

Its really not that important. Any qualities you assign to god will be assigned by you. Therefore, either you've assigned those qualities because you have evidence that those qualities are part of god (making proof redundant), or you are simply assigning them based on your personal desire for god to contain those qualities (regardless of the motivation behind that desire).

In the latter case, it would be self-defeating to prove your concept of god to be correct since it is a self-described myth (I'm guessing of course). Proving a myth to be a myth does not prove there is a god, quite the opposite. So the only recourse is to supplant your imagination with my own and then prove THAT exists. Since its impossible to control anyone else's imagination, the question becomes impossible to answer.

 

[1robin]

I've seen more from Islam, but it was as unreliable as yours (again no offense just saying what I think)

Wow, no offense taken. I am laughing too hard. Since Islam has a total of one witness to the revelation and that came with symptoms that look more like demonic or epileptic fits, I found this funny. The bible has over 40 authors and hundreds of witnesses to revelation. Plus Christianity is the only religion that demands and offers ever believer a spiritual experience with God so that is another several billion that no other religion can claim. Another laughable thing is the greatest experts in evidence presentation in history being called unreliable or the recorded thousands of archeological corroberations*. Plus the fact that the bible and Christ have more tectual evidence than any other person or text in ancient history. What is there that can be said? Me give up. Any way later.

 

[jasonwill2]

A divine deity, and something that supports a theory/fact. I'll take arguments too.

Can't definately say as for God/Satan, but I've empirically observed daemons through two of my five senses.

 

[Ashir]

Wow, no offense taken. I am laughing too hard. Since Islam has a total of one witness to the revelation and that came with symptoms that look more like demonic or epileptic fits, I found this funny. The bible has over 40 authors and hundreds of witnesses to revelation. Plus Christianity is the only religion that demands and offers ever believer a spiritual experience with God so that is another several billion that no other religion can claim. Another laughable thing is the greatest experts in evidence presentation in history being called unreliable or the recorded thousands of archeological corroberations*. Plus the fact that the bible and Christ have more tectual evidence than any other person or text in ancient history. What is there that can be said? Me give up. Any way later.

The Qu'ran's evidence were not 'i haz peoples dat come c my miracles', it was actual scientific evidence, only it was claimed to be invented by Muhammad when it wasn't.
I've already explained how there are endless possibilities that deny those witnesses are actually witnesses.
Several Muslims have claimed that God came for their tea party's too.
In history. The world's greatest minds now are agnostic or atheist. Take Newton. He claimed that it was too large a coincidence that the earth was placed suitable for life to exist. That was at a time when the universe was considered the size of the solar system. Had Newton grasped the real size of the universe he would have known better. So it was more logical to believe in a god then than it is now.
I would argue the Qu'ran has far more from what I've seen, but it is easily debatable, whether that actually originated from the Qu'ran, and whether it is all correct and such. The Bible offers nothing different.

Can't definately say as for God/Satan, but I've empirically observed daemons through two of my five senses.

Rather, you think you have.

 

[Manss]

Not trying to be offensive but this is what I meant in the first post when I said 'Please, nobody who doesn't have a bit of insight on the topic' but I'll respond anyway.

first you invite authors , explain your proof about god ,then you censure me way you sent your proof

A robot is a manufactured object, different from a living organism, so your comparison doesn't work and thus your post meaningless but I guess you're bordering on something like the watchmaker analogy or the teleological argument.

I said " 2.2= 4 " , you say these two two are different and this logical and vivid comparison is meaningless !

How did my eyes develop? Time. Evolution.

Another is that the earth has been proven to have existed for over 4.6 billion years. After all that time, not too small in proportion to the estimated age of the universe even, do you not think that would be enough time for things to develop into such complexity? Adaption has happened on a far greater scale than most would care to believe, I think is likely.

Time is not an intelligent being or existence to be able make a perplex and super developed camera as your eyes without any high knowledge ,science and ability. Disassemble your car motor and put it in a corner of your garage and wait for 10 billion years, time never develops it to a turbojet. Time is a passage no a decider and developer. When a thing is passing through this passage a super scientist existence which is called god does change ( develop) it.

In other words, you are simply making it seem as if I arrived on this earth in the form I am now when in reality I developed into it.

You hasn't been developed yourself .......One has developed you , although when human had been created he wasn't needy to develop much more

 

[Ashir]

Meaningless = gibberish.



A demonstration that you don't fully understand the definition of the word "faith."



Would you consider all trust to be blind?

If you yourself have no experience, then you are under no obligation to believe. That's fine. A very wise Sage has taught not to believe until you yourself have experience.

I don't worship all Gods, anyway. Belief and worship don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Not by definition.

Rather, a demonstration that I have a different definition of it than you do.

Yes.

I know.

 

[Ashir]

first you invite authors , explain your proof about god ,then you censure me way you sent your proof

I said " 2.2= 2 " , you say these two two are different and this logical and vivid comparison is meaningless !


You never said this. Again comparison rarely work. Please rephrase.
I have already explained how that comparison is far from logical.




Time is not an intelligent being or existence to be able make a perplex and super developed camera as your eyes without any high knowledge ,science and ability. Disassemble your car motor and put it in a corner of your garage and wait for 10 billion years, time never develops it to a turbojet. Time is a passage no a decider and developer. When a thing is passing through this passage a super scientist existence which is called god does change ( develop) it.

I already gave my explanation for this how many times would you like me to repeat myself? Have you visited the last page?
That's because a car motor is not a living organism. We are. Again, you fail miserably. Have you taken heed of a single word?



You hasn't been developed yourself .......One has developed you , although when human had been created he wasn't needy to develop much more
A load of bull. You have no evidence of this, and we need a lot more development. We aren't as perfect as you think.

[edited due to rule 1]

 

[jasonwill2]

Rather, you think you have.

No, I was there and I literally saw and felt them touch me. I don't "think" I saw them any more or any less than I "think" I see trees or the moon, or "think" I felt them any more or any less then when I feel carpet on my feet or a dog lick my face.

Fact: I saw and physically felt daemons touch me.