God: The Proof
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
LOL, Nebula, what would that "tearing our flesh apart" be? Giant purple squid monkey and fuzzypink elephants? LOL....
Adam
I'll tell you what I am about to tell Nebula in his similar topic: You need to be able to understand the concept of what God is before you can engage proofs of its existence.
I've found that most atheists chase after small game. Very few that I ever meet are ever prepared to address larger versions of God, as their prejudices prevent them from understanding it.
It's fair enough to say, for instance, that a Christian won't be able to prove out the existence of God.
However it is abundantly clear to me from debating with you for many months that you are not prepared to understand notions of God before examining their legitimacy.
God is simply an idea. It is a representation of everything in the Universe; everything that was, is and will be; it is the whole of existence personified to represent the condition of human ignorance in relation to human function. But I know that atheists don't like my ideas about God because they generally can't wrap their heads around them. This is changing, slowly.
But once you understand certain ideas about God, you'll see that proof is unnecessary, because once you get hold of even the apron-strings of such ideas about God, the silly accretions of the Christians and others simply melt away.
It depends on which gods one is prepared to examine. The Christian god cannot be proven, and is designed as such. The Sufi version of God is inherent, and goes without description; it represents a condition in the Universe as near as I can tell.
To me, the word "God" represents the whole of existence and all its potential. If there is merely a Universe, then God is all of that from beginning to end, and can only be understood by understanding the Universe. If there is a multiverse, then such is God.
Thing is, by that representation, there's not much to prove.
However, when it comes to the Christians or Muslims or others with firmer assertions about God ... it's fair enough if you want to play in the Farm Leagues, but you need to work on the fundamentals of the idea if you're ever going to be called up to the Majors.
Consider for a moment that we cannot objectively prove to one another that either of us exist. Perhaps then the absurdity of what you and Nebula are asking in your similar topics will occur to you.
It would seem to me that this topic is generally an effort to get Muscleman, TruthSeeker, and others worked up into a self-righteous frenzy. The nature of your phrasing tells me that: Show me the proof of your god/gods.
Their gods will naturally be limited by the necessities of what they hope to get from God. As is your perspective. You already have a notion of what God is or isn't in your head, Adam. I've debated with you too long to think otherwise. It's the reason why I predict that you won't understand the content or significance of this post.
thanx,
Tiassa
I'll tell you what I am about to tell Nebula in his similar topic: You need to be able to understand the concept of what God is before you can engage proofs of its existence.
I've found that most atheists chase after small game. Very few that I ever meet are ever prepared to address larger versions of God, as their prejudices prevent them from understanding it.
It's fair enough to say, for instance, that a Christian won't be able to prove out the existence of God.
However it is abundantly clear to me from debating with you for many months that you are not prepared to understand notions of God before examining their legitimacy.
God is simply an idea. It is a representation of everything in the Universe; everything that was, is and will be; it is the whole of existence personified to represent the condition of human ignorance in relation to human function. But I know that atheists don't like my ideas about God because they generally can't wrap their heads around them. This is changing, slowly.
But once you understand certain ideas about God, you'll see that proof is unnecessary, because once you get hold of even the apron-strings of such ideas about God, the silly accretions of the Christians and others simply melt away.
It depends on which gods one is prepared to examine. The Christian god cannot be proven, and is designed as such. The Sufi version of God is inherent, and goes without description; it represents a condition in the Universe as near as I can tell.
To me, the word "God" represents the whole of existence and all its potential. If there is merely a Universe, then God is all of that from beginning to end, and can only be understood by understanding the Universe. If there is a multiverse, then such is God.
Thing is, by that representation, there's not much to prove.
However, when it comes to the Christians or Muslims or others with firmer assertions about God ... it's fair enough if you want to play in the Farm Leagues, but you need to work on the fundamentals of the idea if you're ever going to be called up to the Majors.
Consider for a moment that we cannot objectively prove to one another that either of us exist. Perhaps then the absurdity of what you and Nebula are asking in your similar topics will occur to you.
It would seem to me that this topic is generally an effort to get Muscleman, TruthSeeker, and others worked up into a self-righteous frenzy. The nature of your phrasing tells me that: Show me the proof of your god/gods.
Their gods will naturally be limited by the necessities of what they hope to get from God. As is your perspective. You already have a notion of what God is or isn't in your head, Adam. I've debated with you too long to think otherwise. It's the reason why I predict that you won't understand the content or significance of this post.
thanx,
Tiassa
tiassa;
For the record, I'm not atheist; I'd say I'm agnostic. Anyway...
When I speak of god, I mean a BEING, something aware of its own existence, something omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient, timeless, changeless...basically a supreme being the way that Christians/Muslims personify one.
I don't see how this is absurd; the fact is I CANNOT PROVE your existence! But, that doesn't mean either way that you do/don't exist. For practical purposes, I will assume you exist, but that doesn't mean that you truly do. No offence, but I see why it's that hard to doubt your existence.
You have in fact illustrated my point perfectly. "We cannot objectively prove to one another that either of us exist." Exactly. Therefore, to conclude that you do, in fact, exist is incoherent...as is the conclusion that God exists.
I'm saying that to prove that you DO exist, one needs proof. So far as I'm concerned, the only thing that I know for certain exists is me, thanks to Descartes ideas (if there really is another thing called Descarte).
Anyone making an existential claim absolutely has to be the one to support it. Honestly, I don't think one can say a god doesn't exist with any more certainty than one can say a god does exist.
I'm saying that if theists want to believe in a god, they are required by logic to be the ones to present their case first.
For the record, I'm not atheist; I'd say I'm agnostic. Anyway...
When I speak of god, I mean a BEING, something aware of its own existence, something omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient, timeless, changeless...basically a supreme being the way that Christians/Muslims personify one.
I don't see how this is absurd; the fact is I CANNOT PROVE your existence! But, that doesn't mean either way that you do/don't exist. For practical purposes, I will assume you exist, but that doesn't mean that you truly do. No offence, but I see why it's that hard to doubt your existence
. You have in fact illustrated my point perfectly. "We cannot objectively prove to one another that either of us exist." Exactly. Therefore, to conclude that you do, in fact, exist is incoherent...as is the conclusion that God exists.
I'm saying that to prove that you DO exist, one needs proof. So far as I'm concerned, the only thing that I know for certain exists is me, thanks to Descartes ideas (if there really is another thing called Descarte
).Anyone making an existential claim absolutely has to be the one to support it. Honestly, I don't think one can say a god doesn't exist with any more certainty than one can say a god does exist.
I'm saying that if theists want to believe in a god, they are required by logic to be the ones to present their case first.
tiassa;
Why would it seem this way? I find that they get annoying when they go into that frezy; I would like to actually have an intelligent conversation with them, but they seem unable to set aside their personal beliefs, which keep getting in the way.
Why would it seem this way? I find that they get annoying when they go into that frezy; I would like to actually have an intelligent conversation with them, but they seem unable to set aside their personal beliefs, which keep getting in the way.
The harvest are many, but workers are few...
So many ignorant children, so little time..
So many ignorant children, so little time..
Nebula
But, just for the record, that's your own limitation of your own perception of God. There is nothing which says God must be a being as such. Sure, the Christians and Muslims might assert it, but even their mystical sects see the folly of such a presumption.
But why bother saddling people with impossible burdens? We may as well just crucify the lot of them to the same effect.
The challenge seeks a ridiculous goal. Each person's god is based in the individual. Insofar as we seek proof for those internalizations, we will fail. As such, about the only purpose I can think of for such a pointless challenge is to rile the people who are dumb enough to try to prove their individual conceptions of what God is.
It seems a little bit like baiting the Special Ed kid so that he'll react spectacularly, and to the savage amusement of others.
If we pop over to your topic for a moment, it seems that your topic post is aimed toward evangelical assertions. Mysticism, even in Christian and Muslim traditions, often rejects the notion that God exists, preferring the subtly different phrasing, God is, which is still a little too specific.
Aiming toward evangelical assertions, you will find many of your responses to be the kind of evangelical tripe you consider so annoying.
• As long as you continue to transfer evangelical ideas like Islam and Christianity onto the whole of theism, you will not understand the very problems you lament.
thanx,
Tiassa
Fair enough; I shall leave your topic, Nebula, to the Christians and Muslims.
But, just for the record, that's your own limitation of your own perception of God. There is nothing which says God must be a being as such. Sure, the Christians and Muslims might assert it, but even their mystical sects see the folly of such a presumption.
I don't doubt my existence. But I can't prove it to anyone. As I understand it, that's how a good many born-again Christians, at least, feel about God.
I can cope with that. In fact, it seems quite obvious.
You've got it. Bear it in mind in all considerations. After a while, the effort of doing so will disappear, and the concept will be inherent in your perspective. I submit that this development will be very helpful to you as a conscience and as a mind.I'm saying that to prove that you DO exist, one needs proof. So far as I'm concerned, the only thing that I know for certain exists is me, thanks to Descartes ideas (if there really is another thing called Descarte
This is correct.
This is a strange phenomenon. Atheism is a reaction to theism, and thus makes its assertion against what was previously believed. In that sense, the burden can fall on atheism.
But why bother saddling people with impossible burdens? We may as well just crucify the lot of them to the same effect.
I pointed it out: Show me the proof of your god/gods.
The challenge seeks a ridiculous goal. Each person's god is based in the individual. Insofar as we seek proof for those internalizations, we will fail. As such, about the only purpose I can think of for such a pointless challenge is to rile the people who are dumb enough to try to prove their individual conceptions of what God is.
It seems a little bit like baiting the Special Ed kid so that he'll react spectacularly, and to the savage amusement of others.
It is the expected result, as far as I can see, of Adam's topic phrasing.
If we pop over to your topic for a moment, it seems that your topic post is aimed toward evangelical assertions. Mysticism, even in Christian and Muslim traditions, often rejects the notion that God exists, preferring the subtly different phrasing, God is, which is still a little too specific.
Aiming toward evangelical assertions, you will find many of your responses to be the kind of evangelical tripe you consider so annoying.
• It is your own decision to argue with them.
• As long as you continue to transfer evangelical ideas like Islam and Christianity onto the whole of theism, you will not understand the very problems you lament.
Ironically, this is the only way to find out the actual answer.
thanx,
Tiassa
D
Davearchy
Guest
Okay, before i answer any questions, prove to me that the sky, on a clear day, is blue.
Notme2000 ....
Notme2000
Mystification is symptomatic.
thanx,
Tiassa
Notme2000
Provide another single word which encompasses all of what the idea of God has covered in its time. Anybody ever provides that word, and I'll be happy to use it instead of "God".
Mystification is symptomatic.
Generally speaking, it doesn't except for the fact that we humans exist within its confines. Everything else is symbolic and accords with individual and cultural priorities as affected by living, real factors such as economy, education, oppression, freedom, ad nauseam.
thanx,
Tiassa
Ok, to make my point clear, I will use a metaphor... Let's say your house is the universe and everything that has ever been in it, is in it and ever will be in it is the contents of the universe... Does that make the house God, or just a plain ol' house that we can't completely comprehend?
It isn't, stupid.