How I prove God exists.

a reply to: Pachomius
Sorry man there are some things you can't prove. One being a God.
That takes faith. If you have faith why are you here on Abovetopsecret.com

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius
Sorry man there are some things you can't prove. One being a God.
That takes faith. If you have faith why are you here on Abovetopsecret.com

Above Top Secret™ is a hotbed of faith. Faith in alien videos, UFO photographs, long-dead secret societies, data that some fellow scientist says is true. I'm here because as a skeptic I find the faith here extremely fascinating! You can get proof of God, the problem is sharing it.

a reply to: Pachomius

Not proof

Okay, this is my challenge to you all, Oh ye thinkers here: non-thinkers need not take any time and trouble, though.

Let us do this exercise, think hard on your stock knowledge acquired from since you started to think for yourselves, and produce your concept of what is evidence.

You see, the only proof that is of any salt at all is from evidence, that God exists.

Here is my concept of what is evidence, in plain, simple, clear, concise, and precise words:

"Evidence is anything (thing1) at all existing which leads man to another thing (thing2) existing, because thing1 and thing2 are connected. (21 words)

If you cannot think and you thus do not have any stock knowledge from your very own self personal thinking on the empirical world of objective reality: you may go to dictionaries, and then put in not more than 50 words your summary of what is the concept of evidence you have come forth with, by reading dictionaries, okay?

originally posted by: Pachomius
Okay, this is my challenge to you all, Oh ye thinkers here: non-thinkers need not take any time and trouble, though.

Let us do this exercise, think hard on your stock knowledge acquired from since you started to think for yourselves, and produce your concept of what is evidence.

You see, the only proof that is of any salt at all is from evidence, that God exists.

Here is my concept of what is evidence, in plain, simple, clear, concise, and precise words:

"Evidence is anything (thing1) at all existing which leads man to another thing (thing2) existing, because thing1 and thing2 are connected. (21 words)

If you cannot think and you thus do not have any stock knowledge from your very own self personal thinking on the empirical world of objective reality: you may go to dictionaries, and then put in not more than 50 words your summary of what is the concept of evidence you have come forth with, by reading dictionaries, okay?

you are redefining the word "evidence" to suit your purposes. post your evidence here and we will demonstrate to you what I mean. No more word games.

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius
Sorry man there are some things you can't prove. One being a God.
That takes faith. If you have faith why are you here on Abovetopsecret.com

Just for future reference- I have faith too, and I am on Abovetopsecret because it has defined places where faith can be discussed.
This is the philosophy forum- and the question of whether the existence of a God can have a logical proof has always been one of the topics of philosophy, ever since the Greeks began doing it.
This thread is in the right place.

Love cannot be proven to exist, either. God and love are the very same thing, to me.

Without love, there is no life.

Proving it is by living it.

a reply to: DISRAELI
You are correct and I apologize.
Personally I would love to see a proof of a God.
I just think it cannot be proven with human logic.
Heck we can't even prove mathematics. en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Pachomius
...and produce your concept of what is evidence.

Ticker Tape Machine & Information Processing in Living Cells (short version)

How could accidental, random, purposeless events result in such intricately interrelated systems? Living things are full of characteristics that show evidence of foresight and planning​—pointing to an intelligent Planner.

Many scholars have come to such a conclusion. For example, mathematician William A. Dembski wrote that the “intelligent design” evident in “observable features of the natural world . . . can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes.” Molecular biochemist Michael Behe sums up the evidence this way: “You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.”
...
Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”
...
The question of God’s existence deserves better than smug, dogmatic assertions.
...
A Common Problem With Scientists

As we have seen, there are more than a few reputable, educated scientists who say that the evidence points to the existence of a Designer or Creator. A few go still further. They question the scientific integrity of their colleagues who dogmatically dismiss the existence of God.

For example, geophysicist John R. Baumgardner notes: “In the face of such stunningly unfavorable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we observe in living systems? To do so, with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion represents a serious breach of scientific integrity.”
...

Sources: Why Some Scientists Believe in God: Awake!—2004
Where Can You Find Answers?

More details:
Evidence of Design from Biology. A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe at the University of Toronto

Here is mathematical evidence for God as Kabbalistically described by the Tree of Life:
smphillips.mysite.com...
The rank-8, exceptional Lie group E8 and all its exceptional subgroups are represented isomorphically in an amazing way in the geometry of the Tree of Life and its recently discovered inner form. Why is this significant? Because E8xE8 heterotic superstring theory predicts that this type of superstring makes up all matter in the universe. Because 496, the dimension of E8xE8, is the gematria number value of Malkuth, which, as the last Sephirah of the Tree of Life is, cosmically speaking, the whole physical universe.
You will find much other rigorous, mathematical evidence for the existence of God here:
smphillips.mysite.com...

originally posted by: micpsi
Here is mathematical evidence for God as Kabbalistically described by the Tree of Life:
smphillips.mysite.com...
The rank-8, exceptional Lie group E8 and all its exceptional subgroups are represented isomorphically in an amazing way in the geometry of the Tree of Life and its recently discovered inner form. Why is this significant? Because E8xE8 heterotic superstring theory predicts that this type of superstring makes up all matter in the universe. Because 496, the dimension of E8xE8, is the gematria number value of Malkuth, which, as the last Sephirah of the Tree of Life is, cosmically speaking, the whole physical universe.
You will find much other rigorous, mathematical evidence for the existence of God here:
smphillips.mysite.com...

shouldn't there be a video explaining the math being shown here? not just a complicated diagram and a pile of numbers dumped for us to puzzle through? its general ATS etiquette to break down the more intensive content for easier digestion.

oh, i see now...the person who cracked the code of god and existence and everything in between, is selling it in books. kind of like putting a price tag on the cure to cancer and all the poor saps who dont want to buy it can die in a hole. it is really funny when people are so confident of their work that they charge you before you can really dissect it and find the proof in the pudding. I dont know, just seems shady. do you know where I can find a free-to-download PDF? that would be cool.

originally posted by: whereislogic

How could accidental, random, purposeless events result in such intricately interrelated systems? Living things are full of characteristics that show evidence of foresight and planning​—pointing to an intelligent Planner.

Many scholars have come to such a conclusion. For example, mathematician William A. Dembski wrote that the “intelligent design” evident in “observable features of the natural world . . . can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes.”
...
Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”
...

Source: Why Some Scientists Believe in God: Awake!—2004

Yeast isn't exactly a single-celled protozoa, but it is a single-celled organism and according to wikipedia "The evolution of fungi has been going on since fungi diverged from other life around 1.5 billion years ago". And according to britannica.com: "Protists were a dominant form of life on Earth 1.5 billion years ago." (wikipedia: "The terms protozoa and protozoans are now mostly used informally to designate single-celled, non-photosynthetic protists..."

So we're talking the same timeframe here according to what some people teach.

An example of what Luther D. Sutherland is talking about, as well as something to think about in relation to that; the topic of interdepency spoken about in the article I linked before when it's talking about "reproductive interdependence". I skipped that before because the triggerword "complex(ity)" is used a few times too many for my taste, allowing for people to bring up the usual red herring/straw man arguments regarding that word (or by starting a debate about that word, as if it's so ambiguous and by zooming in on only that word distracting from the points being made and the evidence that could potentially be considered by those who are a little less biased and a bit less in 'debate-mode', as long as they can resist the conditioning of behaviour that intends to keep them in the dark and not consider the actual points and evidence more reasonably).

Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?

...
Despite their amazing diversity in shape and function, your cells form an intricate, integrated network. The Internet, with its millions of computers and high-speed data cables, is clumsy in comparison. No human invention can compete with the technical brilliance evident in even the most basic of cells. How did the cells that make up the human body come into existence?

What do many scientists claim? All living cells fall into two major categories​—those with a nucleus and those without. Human, animal, and plant cells have a nucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells with a nucleus are called eukaryotic. Those without a nucleus are known as prokaryotic. Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from bacterial cells.

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9*

*: No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.

9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”

Regarding the bolded footnote, I've looked a little deeper into this, what they like to do is mix their apples and oranges. Point to some other phenomena that has been observed in organisms, and then pretend it's similar enough that it's supposedly evidence for what's described above as "In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated."

So those are 3 key specifics that are all logical requirements if one wants to point to some phenomena and pretend it's similar enough to warrant this endosymbiont storyline regarding specifically the evolutionary origin of eukaryotic organisms from prokaryotic organisms. Pointing to what eukaryotic organisms are capable of regarding digestion or nondigestion of other organisms or cells when talking about (or implying a connection to) the so-called "endosymbiont hypothesis" is an example of comparing apples with oranges. Which is something I've observed in so-called "peer reviewed" articles. The first requirement is that it has to be a prokaryotic single-celled organism that needs to demonstrate all these 3 specific capabilities*, only then we can reason on whether or not that's the way it* actually happened (it = the supposed evolution of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic cells). You can't just point to one of the 3 requirements and pretend that you're on to something either, allthough that's a very efficient way to make some money (earn your living) and cope with the well-known phrase "Publish or perish" in these circles and cliques. But it won't impress me as much as it does many others.

*: so the 3 specific capabilities that need to be observed and are therefore logical requirements for the storyline to leave the realm of mythology (La La Land) behind are:

1. for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them
2. unintelligent “nature” figured out a way ...to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells (there are more detailed requirements regarding the specific changes, just any change such as entropy and degradation, wear and tear, molecular machinery breaking down, etc. doesn't count here; the changes that are to be overcome are the differences between the systems of machinery in prokaryotic organisms compared to eukaryotic organisms, some of which regarding the system referred to as "a nucleus" have been mentioned, but there are many more differences that need to be overcome for the storyline to begin having some merit in discussions about reality and the facts of the matter, the truth)
3. unintelligent “nature” figured out a way...to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated. (this last one is a doozy, it also combines the 2nd requirement regarding the specific adaptations again, first 2 needs to be demonstrated, then 3)

Anyway, it's probably all a bit moot to point this out cause "no experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible" and none will be presented any time soon I suspect.

Keep in mind that to prove the existence of God is quite different from proving that, say, there is a table with a bowl of fruit in your living room. That's because in the case of God, you're trying to prove that *a Universal* that we shall call 'The Supreme Being', has *necessary* existence as *the center of all metaphysical ontology*. When people say simply that 'God exists' they kind of miss the point. It's not at all like saying that you have an apple in your hand, as that would be a *contingent* truth, having nothing to do with ontology or universals. In this case, God not only will exist, but there would be no possible world in which he did not exist. That's 'necessary' existence.

The easiest way to prove the existence of 'God' as *universal, necessary, center of ontology* is to point out that there must be a *universal* that has *necessary* existence and is the *center of all metaphysical ontology*. And then we simply say that what we refer to as 'God' is that *universal*.

In this sense, God surely exists.. but it seems to be completely unknowable, almost by definition. The question becomes trying to prove that this *ultimate and necessary universal* is anything like our image of a 'Supreme Being'. But since there is no way whatsoever to assign qualities to this 'ultimate universal', we can't assign the usual qualities of 'God' to it. At least not by deduction.. But we can try the inductive method.

In the Islamic thought, God is supposed to have all the perfections, but no distinctive attributes, as any such attribute would place a limitation upon an unlimited being.

Ok, then. Let us pose the question - is the *ultimate and necessary universal that is the center of all possible ontology* naturally capable of 'infinite perfection' and the absence of any finite attributes?

Well, yes.. and it is logical to suppose so, as the *ultimate and necessary universal* would not be expected to be 'imperfect' in any way, or 'finite' in any way, as that would not fit the idea of an *ultimate and necessary universal*.

However way you look at it.. The Source of all there is cannot be itself 'imperfect' or 'finite', as only manifestations can be 'imperfect' or 'finite' in relation to the whole.

So, it follows that 'the Source' as I'll call it possesses all the perfections, while being largely unknowable, since it cannot be adequately described by any distinctive attributes, as they do not fit the idea of 'ultimate universal'.

So.. if you find that a *ultimate and necessary universal (UNU)* must exist, you'd have to accept that 'God - the infinitely perfect and largely unknowable' does indeed exist.

My own take on that matter goes like this:

"The UNU has either necessary existence or necessary non-existence. That means that either it exists and must exist, or it does not exist and must not exist.

Things that have necessary non-existence are things like circular triangles or any other (thought of as) impossible objects.

The UNU does not seem to show any sign of necessary non-existence - it is in no way like a triangular sphere, or whatever impossible object we can compare it to. In fact, it seems rather logical that there would be a supreme universal, and there is certainly no reason to assume that it would have necessary non-existence.

Therefore - the UNN must have necessary existence, and therefore, (adding in the conclusions from from above) since it cannot be inherently imperfect, it must be inherently perfect and this inherent perfection must manifest in the infinite perfection of the being we have conjectured - therefore 'God is.' "



I myself am a Deist and am trying to write a book on this very topic. My own take is that we can prove the existence of something akin to 'God', but it might be better to simply call it 'The Source'. And the most important insight from this whole exercise seems to be that 'the biggest illusion is that we have limitations' (Robert Monroe). If this infinite Source truly does exist, then there must be no boundaries to what is possible, and we are currently *supernaturally* removed from the depths of possibility that must exist in the Absolute. It is as if we're infinitesimals in a supernatural infinity.

What would it be like for the infinitesimal (you, me..) to one day awaken as the one God of an infinite Universe?

a reply to: whereislogic
Just keep in mind they have no intention of keeping their story straight. They go with all possible speculations regarding the origin of eukaryotic cells or organisms (single-celled and multi-cellular) and prokaryotic cells or oganisms, as long as it adheres to 'nature did it'. Sometimes going one way, the other time going the other way and talking about "a process of simplification" (quoting wikipedia). Cause they also like to argue the misleading argument that 'evolution has no direction'. Because the evidence is showing so clearly that mutations acted upon by natural selection are moving in the opposite direction as required* for the evolutionary storylines (*: as logically required to have some merit in discussions or contemplations about reality, the facts of the matter, to leave the realm of pure mythology) so they pretend they don't need the very clear direction as discussed before in this way of reasoning ("less complex">more complex):

Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from bacterial cells.

Vagueness rules supreme in marketing mythology. 'Anything is possible' is another slogan some people get their ears tickled by (just what they wanted to hear). It opens the door wide open to neurotic speculation (and making an easy living with it without making any significant discoveries in the sciences, but pretending that you are making them by bringing up oranges to pretend it has anything to do with the existence or possible existence of apples for example).

A widespread current model of the evolution of the first living organisms is that these were some form of prokaryotes, which may have evolved out of protocells, while the eukaryotes evolved later in the history of life.[30] Some authors have questioned this conclusion, arguing that the current set of prokaryotic species may have evolved from more complex eukaryotic ancestors through a process of simplification.[31][32][33] Others have argued that the three domains of life arose simultaneously, from a set of varied cells that formed a single gene pool.[34]

Source: Prokaryote - Wikipedia

Reminds me of the Catholic Church....'anything goes' (just make sure you buy some prayer beads and candles to do your 'hail mary's' and put something in the collection box when going to confession to ease your conscience).

Here's another problem regarding the swallowing part of the endosymbiont storyline as told regarding prokaryotic organisms evolving into eukaryotic organisms (requirement 1), the compartive size of what is being 'swallowed' (and then not digested) and what is doing the 'swallowing' (some “simple” prokaryotic cells). Please don't bring up the digestive behaviour of eukaryotic organisms as a red herring to the point I'm making as those do who are publishing articles where they use the term "endosymbiosis" in relation or with the implication there is a relation to the so-called "endosymbiont hypothesis" and "endosymbiont theory" regarding the evolution of eukaryotic cells and/or organisms from prokaryotic cells and/or organisms (while the article describes or points to what has been observed in eukaryotic organisms, some of the examples not even being single-celled organisms, remember what I mentioned regarding the requirement for a demonstration of the capabilities of prokaryotic organisms rather than eukaryotic organisms in relation to the endosymbiont storyline called "the endosymbiont hypothesis", don't conflate what happens with eukarotic organisms regarding the subject of digestion with this form of mythological "endosymbiosis" in prokaryotic organisms, apples and oranges):

Of course, it's quite convenient to sometimes just ignore or circumnavigate the issue of size and shape regarding any evaluation of this endosymbiont storyline* as the toddler demonstrates (*: again, only talking about "the endosymbiont hypothesis", not the phenomena that is conveniently called "endosymbiosis" in eukaryotic organisms). Cells are quite specific (or particular) as to what they let in and what not to let in and the mechanisms it has to recognize and process material from outside the cell and how to process it once it comes into a cell is another interesting related subject (that is also connected to requirement 2). And for which the video above is also relevant to think about when thinking about the endosymbiont storyline and the information below:

Don't forget where ATP comes from, that's one of those interdependent machines I linked earlier called the ATP-synthase machine that makes the ATP that is required to run the systems and machinery depicted in the video above. And remember that the endosymbiont storyline argues that a whole cell made it past the cell membrane of a prokaryotic single-celled organism. Perhaps there was a toddler around to solve the problem (who knows, details about how this supposedly happened or even what exactly happened are left out of the storylines that propose 'possible' scenarios, possible in the eyes of biased beholders, like those believing in unicorns and fairies believe in the possibility of their existence). Of course, because vagueness rules supreme in mythology, the usual endosymbiont storylines will not contain any specifics about the size of what is doing the 'swallowing' and what is being 'swallowed' (using the terminology in the explanation from the article I linked). Don't want people thinking about and evaluating that part of the storyline that hasn't been filled in.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

I already posted the ontological disproof here, more than once. Posts are still there if you care to look.

I think a lot of folks here are more concerned with practical evidence and testable data than they are with exercises in rhetoric and brain gymnastics which say "if we imagine the greatest possible being" and "specificity of qualities leave limitations on a being that supposed to be limitless" etc. Word games are exactly that.

a reply to: whereislogic
Can anyone find me any example of a prokaryotic single-celled bacterium or archaeon eating, swallowing or otherwise being entered by another complete prokaryotic single-celled bacterium or archaeon (without playing around with the definition or usage of the word "bacterium" or "archaeon", making it more ambiguous; the designation "prokaryotic single-celled" already says enough as to what I'm looking for, as per the endosymbiont storyline I've been talking about regarding the supposedly possible capabilities of prokaryotic cells in that storyline, even though these kind of specifics are unlikely to be spelled out in the storyline so no need to point out that the description "swallowed other cells" is not necessarily referring to prokaryotic cells, what other options are there when in the storyline eukaryotic cells aren't around yet, some mythological "cell" that is neither a prokaryotic bacterium nor a prokaryotic archaeon? As usual the stories are too vague to properly evaluate anyway, throwing in lots of technical terms in published articles about so-called "endosymbiosis" with that implication that article has anything to do with "the endosymbiont theory" or "endosymbiont hypothesis" of prokaryotic cells when it's referring to phenomena in eukaryotic organisms, don't make them more detailed).

I could find examples of a single-celled eukaryotic organism eating bacteria (all bacteria are prokaryotes), but that's not what one should be looking for if one wants to evaluate the endosymbiont storyline as it is told and taught in the so-called "endosymbiont theory" and "endosymbiont hypothesis" regarding prokaryotic organisms (bacteria and archaea), implying it's science rather than mythology. Like this one (a eukaryotic organism feeding on prokaryotic organisms):

From Deluxe contra Pachomius

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius
Sorry man there are some things you can't prove. One being a God.
That takes faith. If you have faith why are you here on Abovetopsecret.com

Well, I am here to enjoy seeing a lot of folks can't think straight, unlike me.

Let me ask you, what is your first statement in your proof if any that "there are some things you can't prove. One being a God"?

Here is my first statement in my proof that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, see quote as follows.

originally posted by: Pachomius, post #1
1. I define God as in concept first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.
2. So I search for everything with a beginning to its existence.
3. And I find everything I experience to be in existence having a beginning to its existence.
4. There, that is the evidence of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.
5. Wherefore God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Your statement that "there are some things you can't prove. One being a God,"
I see it to be grounded upon your self-complacency with knowing something like that "there are some things you can't prove. One being a God," but without ever doing some thinking about it.

So, you are one human who does not think but is full of self-complacency about knowing something to be true, like that "there are some things you can't prove. One being a God."

In that regard, I think about how you can say that "there are some things you can't prove. One being a God," and I conclude that you are talking without thinking at all: whereas ancient wise men tell us that man is a rational animal, and biologists conclude that man is of the species, homo sapiens: because man thinks.

See if you deserve that label, rational animal, homo sapiens.

You don't accept my charge against you, that you are a non-thinking human?

Okay, then prove to me that what you say, "there are some things you can't prove. One being a God," is grounded on rational and empirical thinking instead of empty hubris from your bad habit of talking with full steam but empty mind.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Pachomius

[ . . . . ]

You cannot cherry pick one VERY obvious concept (cause precedes effect) that religion got right, and ignore EVERYTHING They get wrong..

I assume you are really talking about the Christian god, but know you could never defend all the other ridiculous claims the Bible makes about reality...

Dear JoshuaCox, may I just imbue you with the idea that God and religion are not identical.

Think about that!

Man does not need religion to come to the certainty of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

How do I come to the existence of God without depending on founders and teachers of religion?

Simple: I think on where do I come from, and the fact I realize is that I can't go on and on and on with me coming from my parents and they coming from their parents, and on and on, all in my mind.

So I go outside my mind to find out how far into the past scientists can trace the origin of one life form from its anterior parental life form.

Read science on the origin of life, and we can how how science leads man to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Though scientists fear to admit the existence of God, owing to the fear of losing their livelihood or their research grants: as the current trend among fashionable thinkers is to not think about a first cause to all things that have a beginning.

If you don't feel that you have to fall in line following fashionable thinkers, it is inevitable that you will come to the first cause of everything with a beginning, and that is the concept of God, namely, in concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

a reply to: Pachomius

Your statement that "there are some things you can't prove. One being a God," I see it to be grounded upon your self-complacency with knowing something like that "there are some things you can't prove. One being a God," but without ever doing some thinking about it.

WOW.


Please tell the readers how you could possibly know if the person you are replying to hasn't thought about what they posted?

Well, I am here to enjoy seeing a lot of folks can't think straight, unlike me.

You think straight?

The above what I quoted where you assume to know what a person has thought of is thinking straight in your opinion?



WOW, the ego is strong with this young padawan.


Do you know what faith is?

God...He who is beyond comprehension does not require any proof or belief by mankind to exist...
Nor is it possible because all that exists which does indeed point to the need of a creator to exist can't point the way to his existence either because everything is beneath him...
None the less you knew him before time existed when you needed for nothing...But when u heard the lie you just had to try and so chose to be here... You are aware of this truth like the name on the tip of your tongue which eludes you...
This is a test it started with failure not Gods but ours we separated ourselves from him through free will... A desire for this lie...
If you know this to be true... Tell me is God hidden from us?
Or are we hiding from him?
We all knew God...
And now we do not...
It's almost over...
You are almost there...
You will have your proof...