Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

a reply to: neutronflux

Circular logic

a reply to: neutronflux

That's your idea. I don't need help with that.

I know God is real for an absolute fact. It's a fact that I know. I can share that, but not prove it using any science in a lab.

I also know that demons and the devil is real because I have seen them several times. Years ago. Hope I don't see them again. There are millions of them who's job it is to tempt humans to do wickedness in this world. Resist temptation or fall prey to the outcome in your future.

It can almost be that simple.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So we're back at the beginning. Can't prove God.

Demons and the devil would seem easier to prove. Since people see these things.

How about those invisible demons that fly around the room screaming a silent scream that prevents people from understanding what is being spoken? Those kind of suck don't they?

a reply to: pthena

If a person truly believes in god, I don’t understand why they need proof. And why they think their proof has to be excepted by other individuals.

The parallel is UFO disclosure. If you really think/believe extraterrestrials are visiting earth. And you have found evidence that proves to you ET’s do visit earth. Why do you need the government to “disclose” what is true?

Are people so doubting that they really need confirmation and validation by other individuals for what they supposedly know is true.

I just don’t get it?

a reply to: neutronflux

It's mostly people denying the existence of God asking for proof.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: neutronflux

It's mostly people denying the existence of God asking for proof.

Most people that “deny” god don’t care about proof. They already denied or are actively denying god.

So name ten people “denying” god that are actually looking / wanting proof?

Knowing God is usually by personal revelation, not proof.

a reply to: neutronflux

I just don’t get it?

It has to do with Epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge).

I must confess that I'm not well versed in that.

This one time I thought I'd just get the top book, written by the top expert on the subject. So I found out which book that was, a doctoral level book. So when the book arrived I cracked it open, and "What the...?" I didn't understand it at all.

But comparing Schopenhauer's refinement of Kant's work, I noticed a thing. What is taught on a cultural/religious basis is taken as a priori ( 'from the earlier' ) and not questioned, and then used as the basis for proof.

Some examples of Western Post-Christianized cultural a priori statements would include Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Eternity of the Creator/cause of the Universe.

It very well may be that the cause of physical existence is not omnipotent, omniscient, or eternal. But Westerners believe it because they were told it, and they don't challenge it to determine whether it makes any sense or not, just take it for granted.

Notice that I did not include Omnipresent/Co-extensive in the list of a prioris, because that is obvious, well to me anyway, kinda, since I haven't been everywhere in the Universe myself, and noone else has either... except the Omnipresent ... if there is an Omnipresent.

a reply to: neutronflux

It goes like this:

Your God does not exist. Do you have repeatable scientific proof your God exists? When you don't your God is as real as Santa Clause and the toothfairy.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: neutronflux

It goes like this:

Your God does not exist. Do you have repeatable scientific proof your God exists? When you don't your God is as real as Santa Clause and the toothfairy.

Don’t care what you think. I have faith and a personal relationship with my God. I hope you can find the peace offered by the sacrifice of God. But you would rather call people demonic.....

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So we're back at the beginning. Can't prove God.

Demons and the devil would seem easier to prove. Since people see these things.

How about those invisible demons that fly around the room screaming a silent scream that prevents people from understanding what is being spoken? Those kind of suck don't they?

It really doesn't need to be "proven". Those with the heart and mind to understand and know, will.
The only people it needs to proven to could care less anyways. They seal their own fate.

a reply to: neutronflux

It's not an insult, it's rational. It doesn't change how I see them and doesn't affect the way I deal with people.

a reply to: neutronflux

I have faith and a personal relationship with my God.

Buber's main proposition is that we may address existence in two ways:

The attitude of the "I" towards an "It", towards an object that is separate in itself, which we either use or experience.
The attitude of the "I" towards "Thou", in a relationship in which the other is not separated by discrete bounds.
One of the major themes of the book is that human life finds its meaningfulness in relationships. In Buber's view, all of our relationships bring us ultimately into relationship with God, who is the Eternal Thou.
...
wikipedia - I_and_Thou

I recommend reading the whole article.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Those with the heart and mind to understand and know, will.

I also recommend the article linked above.

The only people it needs to proven to could care less anyways. They seal their own fate.

There is no world that disconnects one from God, a world of It alone, when I–Thou guides one's actions. "One who truly meets the world goes out also to God." God is the worldwide relation to all relations.

Here's a postmodern one to toss into the ring... and the most ethereal/creationist argument I could ever make.

Can our phenomenal and chaotic experience still be of a predetermined "master" equation?

If life is lived like the two slit experiment; then our futures are unobserved waves to be collapsed and our experiences are plots in a set range of probable outcomes, that over time (and through chaos) come to an equilibrium. 

All roads travel through the second law of thermodynamics, I suppose. 

This Wiki page:
 en.m.wikipedia.org...(statistical_thermodynamics)

So to ask a question referencing The Euthyphro Dilemma:

"Do we plot the equilibrium because the gods are just; Or are the gods just because we plot the equilibrium? "

Are the Infinite landscapes coming from simple equations our subjective autdidactic interpretation and representation on a number line or are these equations of a "master programming" coded into our universe as physical laws?

And is this of intelligent creation?

Still the same impasse as before with nothing but "physical laws exist because that's what observation tells us" to go on.

a reply to: Degradation33

If you refer to the 2 slit experiment as proof of anything but ignorance you are a fool.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Well, it is proof that light is a wave when unobserved, and the cat is in a superpositional state of life with the level of irradiation unknown.

Calm down, it's used as an analogy of antecedence and experience as comparable to a range of possible outcome and the actual outcome as interpreted in our own lives.

originally posted by: Degradation33
Calm down, it's used as an analogy of antecedence and experience as comparable to a range of possible outcome and the actual outcome as interpreted in our own lives.

I have no idea what that meant.

See!
It's not so hard.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Can I use you?

I think I'll use you.

The Antecedence:

The comments on ethereal god-talk thread and the turn of events which put you in the situation to answer, but is effectively limited to a micro-environment of this thread.

The Experience:

At this point you have a range of possible choices you can make only after you pass through a logic gate of "answer=true" and "answer=false". Should you goto 1, what you say can further be plotted in another range based on observational criteria:

For your plot, I choose the range of

"Supportive" through "Critical" because all possible responses, even irreverence is in this self-devised range.

You are over towards critical in your plot of possible outcomes in your response to this thread.

originally posted by: Degradation33
Please do!

You're using words like antecedence.
I would love you to use words you can pronounce.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar


It's not really a word of the day type word. It just means "proceeding in time" but okay...

After I responded that became antecedent to your retort in the micro-environment of this thread. What you choose to do will fall in another subjective range of possible outcomes.

Set ranges one could use could be;

"Nice - hostile"
"Supportive- critical"

Or whatever, I as the observer choose.

I have plotted the one-time probability wave of likely answers in the "critical" and "hostile" range.

I mean you didn't have much free will to go from, but I am appreciative you are helping me demonstrate the aspect of "Free Will" where our phenomenal experiences are concerned.