Approaches to the discovery of God?

kx000 said:
The theory is the all mighty God sits before you now. As you see him. He is all around you inside, and out, upside, and down.

Disprove me.
Click to expand...

Whose theory? What evidence is there to support it? I've yet to see any, so why should I take this theory seriously?

Remember, you said "God CAN BE SHOWN." Well, show him! Saying "the theory is this, and you have to disprove it" isn't showing me anything. For example, if I said "The universe is made of construction paper. Disprove me," I would only be making a claim, not demonstrating how it works. Likewise, you can't just say "God is here, disprove it" and call it evidence.
 
arauca said:
How could you be so positive . Do you know any thing about Chemistry, then lets discuss. Don't bring the primordial soup and time which are the biggest BS atheist are holding as a fact.
Click to expand...

1: Why do you automatically assume that I would even bring up the Primordial Soup Theory?
2: What makes theistic claims of absolute certainty in god existence any more legitimate than my disbelief and skepticism in the Judea-Christian God? (Because there is definitely no double standard when it comes to theist and atheist)
3: Would you care to explain why Chemistry would be anyhow related to fictions that support an entity that can exist beyond our feeble minds and the natural laws that govern this universe?
4: I suppose you are going to retort that in some ill-conceived way that chemistry does have to deal with god and how “it” created the universe even though most the heavy elements where formed the cores of post big-bang stars.
5: There is no reason to fill the gaps in science(which are getter smaller everyday) with a supernatural cause or explanation.
 
scorpius said:
if you believe in god,its up to you to prove it.
Click to expand...

No, belief in a god is a personal realization. No one can grant you such. Much like it being impossible to definitively prove to someone that they can have faith in themselves. A person has to find this out on their own, in their own terms.
 
Balerion said:
Whose theory? What evidence is there to support it? I've yet to see any, so why should I take this theory seriously?

Remember, you said "God CAN BE SHOWN." Well, show him! Saying "the theory is this, and you have to disprove it" isn't showing me anything. For example, if I said "The universe is made of construction paper. Disprove me," I would only be making a claim, not demonstrating how it works. Likewise, you can't just say "God is here, disprove it" and call it evidence.
Click to expand...

Im looking for evidence. First, we need to know who were looking for.
 
kx000 said:
Im looking for evidence. First, we need to know who were looking for.
Click to expand...

You're looking for the Being who created the universe, the Being who is the First of anything, one who was always fully whole, with no parts (for they would precede), yet operates with a system of mind (which is tough with no parts). You would solve that, then go on to solve where the stuff to make the universe would come from, probably concluding that there isn't any, so then go to say that the universe must be made of the Being itself. Yet, the universe has moving parts, which you would have to overcome. So, anyway, that's a start.
 
kx000 said:
What exactly did I say, again?
Click to expand...

You said God can be shown. Actually, you said you already did show him. Look:

you said:
I have shown God. He is just there, go off that.
Click to expand...

You can't just say "He is just there," and expect anyone to take your word for it. If nobody can see what you're talking about, you're not actually showing anything.
 
Balerion said:
You said God can be shown. Actually, you said you already did show him. Look:



You can't just say "He is just there," and expect anyone to take your word for it. If nobody can see what you're talking about, you're not actually showing anything.
Click to expand...

I think he's all around us, in, and out. What do you mean when you use the word God?
 
kx000 said:
I think he's all around us, in, and out.
Click to expand...

That has nothing at all to do with what I asked. You said you could show God. I asked you to show me. Everything you've said since then has been obfuscation. Why can you not answer a simple question? You, Wynn, Jan...ask any of you a question, and you'll either get a question in return, a non-sequitur, or ignored. This is the definition of trolling.

What do you mean when you use the word God?
Click to expand...

Presume I mean exactly what you mean. You said you can show him, so let's have at it.
 
kx000 said:
The theory is the all mighty God sits before you now. As you see him. He is all around you inside, and out, upside, and down.

Disprove me.
Click to expand...
No, the burden of proof is in your ball park kx000, validate your claim, answer Balerion's question or kindly go into remission. I can validate my proposition that the heavy elements of the universe were formed from the cores of stars in the post-big bang event. http://spie.org/x40068.xml .We have been observing the phenomenon transpire for years. You however have not even brought up any verifiable evidence for your case.
 
Balerion said:
That has nothing at all to do with what I asked. You said you could show God. I asked you to show me. Everything you've said since then has been obfuscation. Why can you not answer a simple question? You, Wynn, Jan...ask any of you a question, and you'll either get a question in return, a non-sequitur, or ignored. This is the definition of trolling.



Presume I mean exactly what you mean. You said you can show him, so let's have at it.
Click to expand...

There he is, all around.

I can describe the invisible man, but you will say he is the non-existent man. He is shown. Approach him with love, pacifism, and faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top