Why I am a good proof that there is a God

[Muffled]

So God controls the actions of demons. That is, he doesn’t let them do what they allegedly have free will to do? Doesn’t he permit people to commit atrocities in his name, speaking for him?

I believe the book of Job says something about this. God allowed the devil to plague Job but He did not allow him to kill Job.

I believe He has allowed that but that does not make it right. He also allows the righteous who are more in keeping with His name to be killed.

I doubt demons have free will. God can grant free will to whom He wishes but He is less motivated to grant boons to an enemy. Jesus cast out demons and they did not have much choice in the matter.

 

[Watchmen]

Until Muffled learns that words have meaning, Andy further debate is pointless.

 

[Muffled]

I’ll be your son. I need a Dad.

I believe I would enjoy that but at this time I can only accommodate the ones I have.

 

[Muffled]

Until Muffled learns that words have meaning, Andy further debate is pointless.

There is a quote from the Wheel of Time book series and now tv series: The Aes Sedai will always tell the truth but it may not be the truth you think it is."

 

[Watchmen]

There is a quote from the Wheel of Time book series and now tv series: The Aes Sedai will always tell the truth but it may not be the truth you think it is."

Guess what? WoT is a fantasy, just like your God, and you have no evidence (as that word is commonly understood) to the contrary.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe the mind processes information so every piece of information is subjective because the mind processes it. I see things differently .If the mind generated the information then it is subjective but if the mind receives i then it is objective. My exoeriences are not mind generated but are mind reeived.

Objectivity and subjectivity are not binary states, what makes something objectively sound or correct is the amount of objective evidence that can be demonstrated to support it.

I've read your post there 3 times, and still don't know what you're trying to say?

 

[Sheldon]

However I can experience God so the concept that there is not a God can't be experienced because it doesn't exist.

I can make myself invisible and fly, but it can't be detected in any empirical way.

Is that claim evidence that I can become invisible and fly?

 

[Sheldon]

I believe the book of Job says something about this. God allowed the devil to plague Job but He did not allow him to kill Job.

Just Job's family, lovely.

 

[Muffled]

Guess what? WoT is a fantasy, just like your God, and you have no evidence (as that word is commonly understood) to the contrary.

I believe I know the difference but it appears you do not.

 

[Muffled]

Why do you think that?
Do you consider it enough when anybody makes any kind of similar claim that you don't already believe in?

If you say "yes", then why aren't you a scientologist?



And now for your evidence in support of these things....?
Or are we supposed to "just believe" you?


I also think it's kinda funny that you think that it becomes "enough" by just piling on even more unverifiable anecdotal claims

I believe it is enough because I am not making claims I am testifying to the truth of my experience.

I believe claims are not the same thing as testimonies. I accept a testimony until it turns out to be false. That was the case with Krishna and the B man.

I believe I was not a Born Again Christian when I encountered the Scientolgists. I believe even then when I knew so little, I recognized it as psycho babble.

If you can't recognize the truth when I tell it to you then how would you ever be able to recognize the truth. As a previous person has pointed out: If a person can't see because he is blind then how will he be able to verify what a seeing person testifies he sees.

 

[Muffled]

There is no evidence of god. If there was, then there would be no need for faith, right.

And of course I can evaluate your mental state. Everyone here is evaluating the mental states of those who post here to some degree. It’s inherent in all communications.

I believe you can evaluate what I say but you can't experience what my mind experiences.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe I know the difference but it appears you do not.

Could you explain what you think the objective difference is, or is it just a bare subjective opinion?

 

[Sheldon]

I believe it is enough because I am not making claims I am testifying to the truth of my experience.

Well prima facie I have to say that just seems like semantics, as in order to testify something it would necessarily need to contain evidence or proof.

I accept a testimony until it turns out to be false. That was the case with Krishna and the B man.

That seems wrong, since a testimony must be based on evidence or proof. So belief of a testimony would depend on that "evidence or proof" obviously, to believe anything until it is disproved is the very definition of any argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

If you can't recognize the truth when I tell it to you then how would you ever be able to recognize the truth.

Well a circular reasoning fallacy is a lot easier to spot when you use such an obviously redundant tautology. It is for you to properly evidence your claims, not for others to recognise some esoteric truth you are making a bare claim exists.

As a previous person has pointed out: If a person can't see because he is blind then how will he be able to verify what a seeing person testifies he sees.

A flawed analogy, as it is of course a no true Scotsman fallacy to create a sub group you arbitrarily describe as blind, for anyone who doesn't share your beliefs. Nothing in your post contains any objective evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe you can evaluate what I say but you can't experience what my mind experiences.

I agree, in fact I can't even assess your claim to have experienced anything, thus it is meaningless unless you can demonstrate some objective evidence to corroborate the bare claim. You are offering bare subjective assertion, and it appears to also be unfalsifiable.

 

[Watchmen]

I believe I know the difference but it appears you do not.

You “believe” you know the difference, but you don’t.

 

[Watchmen]

I believe you can evaluate what I say but you can't experience what my mind experiences.

And what your mind experiences is proof of nothing except what your own my experiences. It’s not proof that God exists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe it is enough because I am not making claims I am testifying to the truth of my experience.

You are making claims. Beliefs imply claims that are being believed.

I believe claims are not the same thing as testimonies.

Anecdotes are claims.

I accept a testimony until it turns out to be false.

So you believe people have seen bigfoot? That people are being abducted by aliens and anally probed on flying saucers?

I believe I was not a Born Again Christian when I encountered the Scientolgists. I believe even then when I knew so little, I recognized it as psycho babble.

Ow? But you just said that you accept testimony until it turns out to be false?
Double standards much?

If you can't recognize the truth when I tell it to you then how would you ever be able to recognize the truth.

Through independently verifiable evidence instead of through hearsay and anecdotal bare claims.

As a previous person has pointed out: If a person can't see because he is blind then how will he be able to verify what a seeing person testifies he sees.

Say that to yourself when you called the anecdotes of scientologists "psycho babble".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe you can evaluate what I say but you can't experience what my mind experiences.

Which is exactly why you require independently verifiable evidence.

 

[joelr]

I believe first and foremost God is real because He abides in me.

My testimony to that affect should be enough but people need to know there are discernable affects that indicate god is present.

1. God speaks to me.
2. God gives me dreams and visons.
3. God heals my diseases.
4. God keeps me from sin.
5. God helps me to understand scripture
6. God speaks through me.

Then it's a good chance to demonstrate your connection. I have a 9 digit and an 8 digit number from pi written down. Have him tell you the number, or both. Then write them in a post.

 

[Muffled]

And what your mind experiences is proof of nothing except what your own my experiences. It’s not proof that God exists.

I believe then that the number two does not exist because it is your mind that experiences it. Can't you see how illogical that is?