Proof God Exists

[Rav]

A person can will themselves to believe in God, but such belief requires a lot of energy and focus just to be maintained, and sooner or later the person will give up, unless they find a reason to believe in God that makes it seem worthwhile to believe in God.

I don't think it's possible to believe in God. Rather, I think it's only possible to believe in the general 'idea' of God. As much as some people would have us believe that all conceptions of God are essentially a glimpse of the same thing, ultimately what everyone is doing is projecting their own particular visualization onto a generic metaphysical template. In other words, apart from a small list of essential qualities (and even those can be points of contention among believers) the details are always different.

Let's consider what is required in order to establish that we are referencing a particular person. We can give a name, of course, but names are generally not unique to a particular individual. Next we might reference their location, but even in a relatively small suburb there's a good chance that we will find multiple people who go by the same name. Finally, we might describe their specific characteristics. We could detail their personality, state where it is that they work, name some of their acquaintances or chronicle some things of note that they have accomplished. At this point there's an excellent chance that we have established who it is that we are actually talking about.

The problem with theism is that it falls well short of this. Theists are, collectively, referencing different entities. For example, if I told you that my friend John was a guy whose son had died in a skydiving accident, you'd know that I definitely wasn't talking about your friend John who had never had any children, right? Similarly, when a Christian talks about a god whose son died on a cross, we know they are definitely not talking about Allah, who never had any children. And that's just a single example, among countless others. God, as a person, is no more objectively real than a fictional character in a story. So for a theist, not only is it like the ultimate long distance relationship, it's also essentially like trying to have a relationship with the generic idea of a person, onto whom you've projected your own preconceptions. This is true whether God is real or not.

Energy and focus indeed.

 

[Dewy]

Your subject line reads "Proof God Exists". But you immediately start talking about your own beliefs. That's not a promising start.

Well, I had to start somewhere.

I'm left-handed, so I don't think that we are going to get off on the right foot. (So to speak.)

Left-handedness has exactly nothing to do with it.

They do? Why?

Because God designed it to be that way, I guess.

Can't people attend to their thoughts and actions a lot more directly than that?

Yes. I believe the body signals to be supplemental in nature.

No, I don't believe you. The fanciful meanings that you say that you attribute to your body's iches and twitches don't seem the least bit credible, informative or even interesting from my (admittedly left-handed) perspective.

I don't expect anyone to believe me at first. Test the signals yourself.

And you haven't even begun yet to explain how the decidedly strange symbolism that you attach to your body's feelings has anything to do with God's existence.

This thread's subject line promises "proof" that God exists. Unfortunately, all you've provided so far is testimony of your own rather bizarre belief that your body is receiving messages from God.

You aren't going to convert anyone else here (you have no chance with me, since I'm left-handed, Satan's spawn and proud of it) unless you can find some way to convince them that your beliefs are actually true. That's the ambitious task that you need to address.

Proof comes with testing. If you're not willing to test the signals, you'll never know for yourself. My "ambitious task" is to get people to do the testing. Rather like pulling teeth sometimes....

 

[Dewy]

This delusion is the result of selective attention. If these twitches correspond to your pre-determined beliefs, then those beliefs will be reinforced. When they don't correspond to your belief, that data will be ignored. It's the same sort of thing that generates superstitious beliefs in sports figures.

That is exactly NOT how I arrived at my conclusions.

 

[Dewy]

There are drugs which can surpress your twitching.

You're using voice recognition software because you twitch too badly to type?

I don't need such drugs; I don't twitch that much. I'm using the software because it's fun, a novelty.

 

[Dewy]

This has to be a troll trying to make theists look stupid. I mean seriously... :bugeye:

I'm no troll. I'm completely serious.

 

[Dewy]

So an insect bite that causes irritation is a message from a proposed theory that a deity made everything can control everything and subtly interferes with its creation.

I wonder what the common cold is supposed to signify?

A cough signifies an incorrect thought.
A throat-clearing signifies a correct thought.

 

[Dewy]

Seriously. All you people, atheists and theists, who are taking this guy seriously have some serious social problems. This is obviously a satire on religion, the underlying point being that all proofs that god exists follow this ridiculous format.

This is no satire. I'm totally serious.

 

[wynn]

I don't think it's possible to believe in God. Rather, I think it's only possible to believe in the general 'idea' of God.

In The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction, Terry Eagleton argues that in earlier times (B.C.), the question "Do you believe in God?" could only be interpreted to mean 'Do you trust God?', and not 'Do you believe God exists?' as we would usually understand it nowadays.
Back then, it appears there was no doubt as to whether God exists or who God is, but only a matter of whether one trusts God or not - just as if it were a matter of trusting yet another person all involved are familiar with.

As much as some people would have us believe that all conceptions of God are essentially a glimpse of the same thing, ultimately what everyone is doing is projecting their own particular visualization onto a generic metaphysical template. In other words, apart from a small list of essential qualities (and even those can be points of contention among believers) the details are always different.

On the other hand, some theistic theories suggest that God reveals Himself differently to different people, according to time, place and circumstance, in such a manner that the people can understand Him - and that thus, it is not the case that a particular notion of God's identity would be obligatory for all, at all times.

The problem with theism is that it falls well short of this. Theists are, collectively, referencing different entities. For example, if I told you that my friend John was a guy whose son had died in a skydiving accident, you'd know that I definitely wasn't talking about your friend John who had never had any children, right? Similarly, when a Christian talks about a god whose son died on a cross, we know they are definitely not talking about Allah, who never had any children. And that's just a single example, among countless others.

I think that one of the biggest problems in theist/non-theist communication is that many theists have so little awareness of the world they and the non-theists are actually living in.
Namely, it is a multicultural, multireligious world - while theists tend to think and behave as if it were a monoculture with one religion.

God, as a person, is no more objectively real than a fictional character in a story.

I'm afraid that this is the idea we eventually come away with, yes - and I blame the theists for it.

So for a theist, not only is it like the ultimate long distance relationship, it's also essentially like trying to have a relationship with the generic idea of a person, onto whom you've projected your own preconceptions.

I experience it like this too, hence my deep frustration with theism, and theists.

This is true whether God is real or not.

Well, we could go into the whole "If God exists and is good, then why does He permit such confusion to be spread in His name?"

 

[Rav]

In The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction, Terry Eagleton argues that in earlier times (B.C.), the question "Do you believe in God?" could only be interpreted to mean 'Do you trust God?', and not 'Do you believe God exists?' as we would usually understand it nowadays.
Back then, it appears there was no doubt as to whether God exists or who God is, but only a matter of whether one trusts God or not - just as if it were a matter of trusting yet another person all involved are familiar with.

Sure. But still, how much depth can there really be to a relationship when there is only the basic outline of a personality, and no direct interaction? It's still a situation where a deeper intimacy can only be achieved by imagining additional qualities and possible aspects of God's nature into existence, such as those that one might like to think would be present during direct fellowship with Him in the afterlife. So even in those times, God was still more of an idea than a reality. One could quite literally have a more intimate relationship with a beloved pet.

On the other hand, some theistic theories suggest that God reveals Himself differently to different people, according to time, place and circumstance, in such a manner that the people can understand Him - and that thus, it is not the case that a particular notion of God's identity would be obligatory for all, at all times.

Such people generally have no choice but to abandon the idea of the infallibility of scripture, or resort to intellectual acrobatics in their interpretations of such in order to reconcile the contrasting and often mutually exclusive teachings about exactly who and what God is, and what is required of us. To take such a step is to effectively declare oneself to be a trustworthy arbiter of truth. We have plenty of theists around here who think just that highly of themselves, but as you've seen yourself their all too human nature betrays them. To be honest, I think that the only real relationship that is present is the one they are having with themselves.

None of this, of course, is designed to be an argument for the non-existence of God. Rather, it is an argument for the non-existence of what could be reasonably considered to be a genuine, personal relationship with God, or one that is at least more real than that which one could develop with a dead relative if one endeavoured to do such a thing.

 

[kx000]

Well, I had to start somewhere.



Left-handedness has exactly nothing to do with it.



Because God designed it to be that way, I guess.



Yes. I believe the body signals to be supplemental in nature.



I don't expect anyone to believe me at first. Test the signals yourself.



Proof comes with testing. If you're not willing to test the signals, you'll never know for yourself. My "ambitious task" is to get people to do the testing. Rather like pulling teeth sometimes....

If you can feel these twitches, then God walks with you. Speak unto him, have faith in your ability to do so. I'd like to know if he has a response for you. When you speak to him ask not for what you want, but what you need.

 

[Dewy]

If you can feel these twitches, then God walks with you. Speak unto him, have faith in your ability to do so. I'd like to know if he has a response for you. When you speak to him ask not for what you want, but what you need.

God's response, surprisingly, seems to be anger. He apparently doesn't want me to be teaching the body signals at this time, so I'll shut up.

 

[kx000]

God's response, surprisingly, seems to be anger. He apparently doesn't want me to be teaching the body signals at this time, so I'll shut up.

The body signals might be because you are not displaying enough faith for who you are, if that makes sense, so he causes these twitches so you can see.

 

[spidergoat]

I got an itchy butt, what does that mean?

 

[Believe]

I got an itchy butt, what does that mean?

God says you're talking out of you're ass

 

[Believe]

Honestly, I can't believe you set yourself up for that LOL.

 

[Dewy]

I got an itchy butt, what does that mean?

This will probably blow any credibility I have left to hell, but just in case you really want to know....

Itchy anus signifies that a previously discarded, erroneous belief, attitude, or way of thinking is trying to get back in.

Itchy buttocks signifies (as far as I can tell) something important or obvious that you had forgotten.

I hate myself for saying this because I'll be ridiculed mercilessly for it. It sounds so ludicrous and silly. Yet I didn't make it up--I reach my conclusions carefully over time through observation and experience.

 

[Dewy]

The body signals might be because you are not displaying enough faith for who you are, if that makes sense, so he causes these twitches so you can see.

Bingo! Well said.

 

[kx000]

I got an itchy butt, what does that mean?

It means itch your butt, your sarcasm means you have no faith in God?

 

[wynn]

Sure. But still, how much depth can there really be to a relationship when there is only the basic outline of a personality, and no direct interaction? It's still a situation where a deeper intimacy can only be achieved by imagining additional qualities and possible aspects of God's nature into existence, such as those that one might like to think would be present during direct fellowship with Him in the afterlife. So even in those times, God was still more of an idea than a reality. One could quite literally have a more intimate relationship with a beloved pet.

Perhaps back then, as well as nowadays, some people have an idea of what an "intimate relationship" is that to some of us wouldn't seem intimate at all.

I've known some people who claim to be intimate with eachother. But when I consider what it is that they say makes for that intimacy, I wonder how come they call that "intimacy" at all.

Such people generally have no choice but to abandon the idea of the infallibility of scripture, or resort to intellectual acrobatics in their interpretations of such in order to reconcile the contrasting and often mutually exclusive teachings about exactly who and what God is, and what is required of us. To take such a step is to effectively declare oneself to be a trustworthy arbiter of truth.

Exactly!

None of this, of course, is designed to be an argument for the non-existence of God. Rather, it is an argument for the non-existence of what could be reasonably considered to be a genuine, personal relationship with God, or one that is at least more real than that which one could develop with a dead relative if one endeavoured to do such a thing.

Some people do seem to take personally things that some of us would not.

This is something that has always puzzled me about Americans when they would talk about the influence their teachers or grandparents had on them, for example.
From what they said, it seemed to me they had relativley little contact with those persons, yet felt intensely influenced by them.
The same theme runs through many American films.
This is foreign to me.



EDIT:

One thing that I've found many theists to have in common is that they quickly presume to be friends with someone. I have also found relationships with them to be rather shallow and lacking intimacy - even though the words they used to describe our relationship were words which to me, would describe an intimate relationship. I experienced them to be big on words, but small on actions and emotions.
This is another factor that indicates theists may be operating out of a very different conception of what makes for intimacy, friendship, love, than some of us do.

 

[spidergoat]

This will probably blow any credibility I have left to hell, but just in case you really want to know....

Itchy anus signifies that a previously discarded, erroneous belief, attitude, or way of thinking is trying to get back in.

Itchy buttocks signifies (as far as I can tell) something important or obvious that you had forgotten.

I hate myself for saying this because I'll be ridiculed mercilessly for it. It sounds so ludicrous and silly. Yet I didn't make it up--I reach my conclusions carefully over time through observation and experience.

I won't ridicule you for that, but thanks for the laugh.