A God We Know Nothing About

[PsychoticEpisode]

What would you regard as a logical, or reasonable way to introduce a being of such magnitude to you?

Can you get Him to start a new thread? This dolphin's been flogged to death.

I started the thread hoping that I could get one shred of evidence to confirm God's existence. Since none has been forwarded then I can only assume if there's a God then there isn't a single person living or dead that knows anything about Him.

The thread title was about a god no one knows anything about, not that there is no god. It should be obvious that the thread title was not directed at atheists because they wouldn't have a clue about God. Only those who know God could refute the title. No one has done this. That doesn't mean that person(s) doesn't exist.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=-

I challenged God to a fight but the spineless coward never showed.

 

[Lori_7]

-=-

I challenged God to a fight but the spineless coward never showed.

That's actually not a bad prayer if you really mean it. If you're really willing to lose, or win. From experience, god will kick your ass, but in the end, you will win.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Can you get Him to start a new thread? This dolphin's been flogged to death.

I started the thread hoping that I could get one shred of evidence to confirm God's existence. Since none has been forwarded then I can only assume if there's a God then there isn't a single person living or dead that knows anything about Him.

The thread title was about a god no one knows anything about, not that there is no god. It should be obvious that the thread title was not directed at atheists because they wouldn't have a clue about God. Only those who know God could refute the title. No one has done this. That doesn't mean that person(s) doesn't exist.

If as you say, atheists have no clue about God, why didn't you accept
Lori's explanation as a refutation of the title?

You said; "I started the thread hoping that I could get one shred of evidence to confirm God's existence".

Then you said; "The thread title was about a god no one knows anything about, not that there is no god".

How confusing.

jan.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

If as you say, atheists have no clue about God, why didn't you accept
Lori's explanation as a refutation of the title?

It's just that I wouldn't expect them to have any knowledge of God. They would not be very helpful in this regard, don't you think? So I must rely on theists to fill in the missing blanks.

Lori's personal experiences seem to have convinced her that there is a god.(I'm sure she said leave her out of this at one point). Whether they were visions, voices, miracles I don't know. I've had visions, witnessed amazing coincidences, hoped for something and got it, survived when maybe I should have died but my relating them to you isn't sufficient proof of a deity. They're just things that happen in the course of life.

Prove to me God is love and every other emotion. Prove to me He is everything. If you know then prove it. Unless you can prove it, personal knowledge of God must remain private. If you don't then with no proof that knowledge becomes a belief, since belief is an unproven, it becomes lore, ergo religion. Because it is a belief Jan, and this is important, there is absolutely no reason for any intelligent creature to pass off that lore to others as fact. I have more respect for someone like Lori who tries to keep her knowledge of God private than for those who can't wait to tell the world.

The thread is about knowledge not conjecture. I can guess what God is like anyone else but where does that get me? I'd like something definite. You know no more than I do. Lori knows more than both of us combined. Apologies to Lori, I did not wish to drag you into this.

You said; "I started the thread hoping that I could get one shred of evidence to confirm God's existence".

Then you said; "The thread title was about a god no one knows anything about, not that there is no god".

How confusing.

Aaaaaarrrrgggghhh!!!!!! I'll borrow that from LG.

Well, why wouldn't I want to confirm knowledge of God? In order to do so the title suggested that no one knows anything about Him, which to me doesn't sound too illogical a statement considering there is nothing I can hang my hat on.

Maybe the problem is I'm more flexible than you. I'm willing to become a theist if offered proof of God. Are you willing to become an atheist because there is no proof? Keep personal knowledge from becoming belief. If you have proof then bring it on.

 

[Jan Ardena]

PsychoticEpisode,

Lori's personal experiences seem to have convinced her that there is a god.(I'm sure she said leave her out of this at one point). Whether they were visions, voices, miracles I don't know. I've had visions, witnessed amazing coincidences, hoped for something and got it, survived when maybe I should have died but my relating them to you isn't sufficient proof of a deity. They're just things that happen in the course of life.

Oh! I get-ya.
You know what God is, so you are waiting till someone gets the right answer.
The thread title should read; A God y'all know nothing about, 'cept me.

Prove to me He is everything.

Err, if God is everything how would you expect me to prove that?

Unless you can prove it, personal knowledge of God must remain private.

So don't come with any answers to your questions until we can get
God on the forum.

And you believe that's a reasonable proposition?
:wtf:

If you don't then with no proof that knowledge becomes a belief, since belief is an unproven, it becomes lore, ergo religion.

yada yada, therefore God does not exist.

Because it is a belief Jan, and this is important, there is absolutely no reason for any intelligent creature to pass off that lore to others as fact.

Then you must make it absolutely clear what you will accept, within reason, as evidence of the reality of God.
e.g. fossil records, genetic, engineering, chemical, etc....
And while you're at it, please explain why you think such evidence
will convince you.

I have more respect for someone like Lori who tries to keep her knowledge of God private than for those who can't wait to tell the world.

And you don't respect me, because I'm out here busting my gut trying to convert every one to my religion.

The thread is about knowledge not conjecture. I can guess what God is like anyone else but where does that get me?

The thread is a shop window to attempt to show that God does not exist.
You will not accept God, I know, and you know it.
You will reject anything favouring God, just like you did with Lori, and
maintain that nobody has anything to offer.

I'd like something definite.

No you wouldn't because you would have to accept God, which goes
against your ideal.

Apologies to Lori, I did not wish to drag you into this.

Lori's a big girl, she can take care of herself.

Well, why wouldn't I want to confirm knowledge of God?

Dude, don't shoot or de-programme the messenger.
I was merely showing how confused you are.

Maybe the problem is I'm more flexible than you. I'm willing to become a theist if offered proof of God.

Great, but the problem lies in what would you regard as proof of God.

Are you willing to become an atheist because there is no proof? Keep personal knowledge from becoming belief. If you have proof then bring it on.

For that, I, like you, would have to have a set standard of what I would
regarded as proof.
So if I wanted to I could become atheist by saying something like; if God doesn't magic me a new mercedes benz within the next
five seconds, then God does not exist.
But I would rather put aside such stubborness, and actually read scriptures with an open-mind, where I can begin to understand what and who God is.
Then take it from there.

jan.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

And you believe that's a reasonable proposition?

Thank you for being the perfect example of a theist. Not just any theist but one who has that built in inhibiting factor, the one that prevents you or anyone else for that matter from saying anything remotely contrary to your belief. The defensive posture is admirable but has no validity attached to it.

What can I say that I haven't said before?

The underlying theme to your response was that I am maneuvering or manipulating people's minds like some clandestine CIA operation. Too bad you never recognized that when you were being indoctrinated. However in this case you are mistaken.

One more time, believe in God and leave it at that. If you have proof of Him then it is no longer a belief...tell the world.

 

[Sardaukar]

Can we all not accept a lovely deity like Shai Hulud? Who blesses the world with his water?

I'm being satirical.

 

[Jan Ardena]

P.E.

The underlying theme to your response was that I am maneuvering or manipulating people's minds like some clandestine CIA operation. Too bad you never recognized that when you were being indoctrinated. However in this case you are mistaken.

No the underlying themes were;

when you were give a response, you dismissed it with conjecture, the very
thing you said you were not interested in.

As you must therefore have a clear understanding of what ACTUALLY constitutes evidence, you repeatedly ignore requests by me, to give clarification as to what you actually mean by "evidence".

jan.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

when you were give a response, you dismissed it with conjecture, the very
thing you said you were not interested in.

I guessed your responses were illogical?

I'm not the one who believes in God. If I did then I would think of what my reasons are for my information to constitute knowledge of Him. I would then look for some proof or evidence to confirm that my knowledge was irreproachable and irrefutable. Seeing that I can't produce such evidence I would shut up in fear of giving someone false information. I have some principles you know. I would forever be holding onto this knowledge until I can state it emphatically and with assuredness because my evidence supports it.

As you must therefore have a clear understanding of what ACTUALLY constitutes evidence, you repeatedly ignore requests by me, to give clarification as to what you actually mean by "evidence".

How does one clarify evidence. If you have evidence, then provide it and the people will judge. If there is evidence of God then I suppose it could be anything science can't find an alternative reason for or something no human could have designed. IOW there is no other explanation for it. If God is in another realm then produce the realm so we can check it out. Evidence in this case does not include emotions, consciousness, thoughts, incomprehensibility, apparitions, miracles, mass hysteria, healing spas, answered prayers, bibles, clergy, lactating statuettes or Virgin Mary cameos on turnpike support columns. That's the short list of what proof of God cannot consist of.

 

[lightgigantic]

Is this the voice of experience?

more specifically observation

"I believe in a deity'' is not enough to book a room at the fun house. "I know my deity has four arms and blue skin" may get people suspicious re your mental state. But "I know because a deity with blue skin and four legs is standing beside me right now" is your ticket in.

Is this the voice of experience?

Disclosing a belief is fine with me, there is no need to go further.

A mentally capable person is generally characterized by their ability to justify their beliefs in a valid/intelligible manner ......

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Is this the voice of experience?

But "I know because a deity with blue skin and four legs is standing beside me right now" is your ticket in.

Damn, I was hoping you'd correct me.

 

[lightgigantic]

Damn, I was hoping you'd correct me.

I thought I did .....

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I thought I did .....

Never mind.

This is weird and perhaps I should start another thread but I'm too lazy. Just wondering about something. I heard about a strange religious custom on my last trip. Not sure if it had to do with Hindu Gods or high priests. Also not sure if still practiced. What's your take on tongue cutting? Ever heard of it? Is it ordained by God? WTF do you have to do to be selected for tongue removal? It's a bit off topic but for some reason it just popped into my head. Disregard if not important or if you've never heard of it.

In an effort to get back on topic....what about religious customs? Do customs and rituals represent or suggest something knowable about God? Can a custom be tested? Why do customs stop? How many Christian churches have altars for slaughtering calves for instance? Before bibles and people offered up animal sacrifices, what did they know about the Almighty? Is it fact?

 

[wynn]

A mentally capable person is generally characterized by their ability to justify their beliefs in a valid/intelligible manner ......

Then I must be mentally incapable, or living among mentally incapable people, or both ...

Nobody that I know thinks that my justifications for my beliefs are valid/intelligible, mostly they don't say anything or flat out tell me that I am stupid.



But bottomline, leaving the personal example aside: What is valid/intelligible is very relative, very dependant on whom we ask to judge whether something is valid/intelligible or not. By that token, mental capability is relative as well.
I find this to be a scary outlook.

 

[wynn]

I think I am beginning to understand PE's position.

It appears that what he actually wants is that God, or a representative of God, would override his (ie. PE's) free will.

So that PE would not have to lift a finger in order to get to know (about) God.
And so, among other things, would not have to employ such things as intellectually and practically discriminating between the accounts that various people make about God.


Although I don't know of anything that could be learned or known without one having to put some effort into learning or knowing it.

 

[Lori_7]

I think I am beginning to understand PE's position.

It appears that what he actually wants is that God, or a representative of God, would override his (ie. PE's) free will.

So that PE would not have to lift a finger in order to get to know (about) God.
And so, among other things, would not have to employ such things as intellectually and practically discriminating between the accounts that various people make about God.


Although I don't know of anything that could be learned or known without one having to put some effort into learning or knowing it.

I agree with what you're saying here and I actually think this is law, a good common sense one. I don't think god wants you to rely on the testimony and experience of others for proof. How could you really when it takes experience to truly know. I'm pretty sure that's why we're all alive here in this fd up world and all of our lives areso different. The point is, the goal is, communion. And in reference to free will, you have to want it. SEEK and you WILL find, KNOCK and the door WILL be opened. When you truly seek you gain a new perspective like a new pair of eyes and you find that the evidence lies within yourself.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I think I am beginning to understand PE's position.

It appears that what he actually wants is that God, or a representative of God, would override his (ie. PE's) free will.

So that PE would not have to lift a finger in order to get to know (about) God.
And so, among other things, would not have to employ such things as intellectually and practically discriminating between the accounts that various people make about God.


Although I don't know of anything that could be learned or known without one having to put some effort into learning or knowing it.

Not really. If all of a sudden one day a disembodied voice was heard worldwide that called each of us by name and told us that in about 2 hours to look up and watch home videos of God creating everything using the sky as a screen then that would be a start. Once the show was over God could come out for an encore and part each major body of water in the world. The list of stunts are endless but each of us would take a different amount of them to be convinced.

It seems that God took this approach in the early days according to text. I mean, He was right in A & E's faces if their story is true. He did a lot of shit back then. However it is coming quite obvious that even the deeply religious or their powers to be are becoming a little uneasy about the accuracy of such accounts. Coupling that with a definite lack of similar Godly tricks over the last couple thousand years or so created a need to maintain the belief without God actually having to perform. Other avenues were required.

You can't tell me that our ancestors believed in God because they had to go find Him or they wanted their free will overrode. There's just no friggin' way. They believed in God solely because of God's magic and power displays, nothing more. Remember they wrote the books, not current theologians. The ancients were homo sapiens, just like us, just as stupid or just as smart.

God found them, not the other way around. If we now have to find God(no more personal appearances) then that should mean somebody knew or knows something about God, so when did this revelation occur? God had to have told somebody. Why He wouldn't have announced it globally is really surprising seeing that was His M.O. Theologians wouldn't make that up, would they? This really makes belief in God tough because you have to believe fellow human beings first.

 

[(Q)]

indoctrination is no reason to believe anything other than that you've been indoctrinated.

In order for indoctrination to be successful, one usually does not admit they have been indoctrinated because they believe in the doctrine.

In the case of religious indoctrination, the indoctrinators aren't even aware of what they're doing when they indoctrinate their children, they assume they are teaching what they now believe to be true.

That's primarily why theists can't distinguish between teaching and indoctrination.

 

[Bishadi]

In order for indoctrination to be successful, one usually does not admit they have been indoctrinated because they believe in the doctrine.

In the case of religious indoctrination, the indoctrinators aren't even aware of what they're doing when they indoctrinate their children, they assume they are teaching what they now believe to be true.

That's primarily why theists can't distinguish between teaching and indoctrination.

cool post Q


now any can see, why the children are the target for unveiling truth; to assist them in having a chance before corrupted!

they are our future

eg... if in the schools the math to define evolution was within the sciences of how mass and energy associate; then 'we' would have already removed beliefs from society as the last 'word'..............


talk about the 'dichotomy'