Proof of God

[Saquist]

i wasnt insulting him... i was stating that for people that learn religion is just false hope.. example. there are SOOOOO many dif. meanings of the word.. Christian.. but one that i see that is the truth in this so called religion is the lost teachings of the Hebrew language. the reason is state this is in fact that it was the FIRST bible.. im not one to preach nor like it.. but from that bible came another with other INTERPRETATIONS from the one before.. and that is all that these bibles are doing with each other... different interpretations from other religions and bibles so that they can change the WORD to make there CHURCH better than the others... if wat im saying is making sense then we are all learning blasphemous religion and there is no heaven for any of us if there is one.

I don't know, station9.
I can you tell only that there is enough data to make an informed decision. I can tell you that hebrew maybe lost in syallable but not in meaning. I myself have not found disagreemen amond the scholars as to those details. I hate interpretive discussions. It becomes philosophical. And philosophy has no use to me as a endless debate.

 

[station9]

so you do agree with me on some degree?

 

[Myles]

Myles,

Woe unto us!
who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods?
these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness.

Adam God . . . . . Cain God . . . . . Abel God . . . . . Seth God

Photo of Holy Bible's Gods by Eve God

G-D

My god is bigger than your god, So there!

 

[Sarkus]

I can. I have. Not to you but to others. They didn't have a problem with the logic.

And they are not me. One person's failure to spot irrationality does not make a claim rational.

Why would I want to ask you anything? What could I possibliy learn from you to enhance my perspective?

And therein lies your problem.
Provide the evidence to support your claims, let us ask questions of you, and perhaps (just perhaps) you can then ask us why we might think differently to you given the same evidence.

Polite. That's irrelevant and contradictory in light of your poor behavior, Sarkus.

Please indicate evidence of my "poor behaviour".

OOOOH.....I'm shaking things up... I'm glad.

Yes - shaking things up the same way that picking the ball up in a game of football and starting to play rugby is "shaking things up".

Wow you're like a broken record that doesn't recieve external input other than.."insert coin"

Maybe if you bother to "insert coin" then the game can truly begin. Until then I guess you'll never get to play.

Knock your self out, Sarku...I'll never stand in the way of what you think. It will be what it will be. You've had your opportunity and you've chosen to be dogmatic and throw evidence tantrums. You've not listened at all nor have you read what I've posted to others on the same topic not days ago on the threads in which you were participating.

"evidence tantrums"? I am merely asking you to support your claims - but you continue to avoid.

You're pathetic.

Ad hominem / insult - take your pick - unless you can support it with evidence?

You don't want proof

No - I don't. I want you to supply evidence to support your claims so that we can understand your thought process...

other wise you would have narrowed your question as I instructed you to.

"instructed"? You have a way with words, Saquist, for sure.
I guess, then, that I have "instructed" you to provide evidence - and you have thus far been refusing.

You want grand standing...

No - I want you to provide evidence.

And I'm happy to reveal the falsehood of your true resolve which is only the prosecuting equivalence of witness badgering.

No - I want to either see the evidence you have to support your claim, or to highlight the fact that you have none that you can show/provide us, in which case you have nothing.

this is IT? The best you can do?

Provide the evidence to support your claims and then we'll see if it is the best.
You are like a man mortally wounded... "Is that all you've got?"

You turn down every truce,

Truce? Why would I want a truce when there is no fight - merely your refusal to provide evidence to support your claims. You keep refusing, I keep asking. Nothing has happened to warrant a "truce".

you ignore every truth,

Find me one bit of "truth" in what you've said that I have ignored (i.e. supply the evidence to support this claim).

every bit of logic?

Find me one bit of "logic" in what you've said that I have ignored (i.e. supply the evidence to support this claim).

You evevn turn down concession!

Find me one "concession" in what you've said that I have ignored (i.e. supply the evidence to support this claim).

You strike me with my previous errors as to say "wrong once, wrong a thousand times."

Your lack of comprehension of the English language once more does you wrong, Saquist. I have merely provided evidence to support claims. Please do likewise.

You don't want discussion, Sarkus.

Yes I do - but this can only start when you provide the evidence to support your claims.

You don't want debate, either.

Yes I do - but this can only start when you provide the evidence to support your claims.

You don't want evidence.

Of course I don't. I, and most people who ask for it, really don't want it at all. You've seen through us, Saquist. Well done, you!

You want a man hunt....That's why you can't give up that's why you press so hard that's why you're beating your head against a brick wall. You want it so badly you're willing to carry this farce of an interogation to an outlandish length.

I don't want a man hunt, but you're running away and creating one. I just want to stop you and ask you for the evidence to support your claims. You continue to refuse and then run away. You are creating the hunt, Saquist. I'm just asking a question.

Like a monkey throwing his own crap you're willing to wallow in it, willing too throw it...Why? Who knows why monkeys throw their own crap all we know is it's a case of bad temperment. And that's exactly what you have Sarkus, a bad temperment. As nicely disguised as a cartoon monkey with a British accent but he'll still throw poo at you.

Bad "temperment"? I have been nothing but civil in most of my dealings with you, Saquist, and if I ever have overstepped the mark I am sure that most people reading the evidence would see grounds for my behaviour.
However, all I ask is that you provide evidence for your claims, and all you do is keep refusing. I can not help if you see bad temperament in that.


So please - provide the evidence of your claims.
Then we can start from there and have a real discussion.

 

[Garry Denke]

Ye are Gods

Gods,

Thus since everyone's last name is God because everybody (all of you) are children of the most High: first name LORD and last name God; self-evident Proof of God has been made (and with photo of the Gods thanks to Eve God). The Gods, from LORD God to Adam God, Eve God to Cain God, Abel God to Seth God, everyone's last name is God: even LORD Jesus Christ God; first name LORD, middle name Jesus, confirmation name Christ and last name God.

Here is another photo of the Gods for analysis by the Gods

Ye are Gods

G-D

 

[Sarkus]

But more importantly.... where's Wally??

 

[Myles]

Gods,

Thus since everyone's last name is God because everybody (all of you) are children of the most High: first name LORD and last name God; self-evident Proof of God has been made (and with photo of the Gods thanks to Eve God). The Gods, from LORD God to Adam God, Eve God to Cain God, Abel God to Seth God, everyone's last name is God: even LORD Jesus Christ God; first name LORD, middle name Jesus, confirmation name Christ and last name God.

Here is another photo of the Gods for analysis by the Gods

Ye are Gods

I accuse you of being a sexist. You have not shown us a single godess. Where did all those gods come from ? I know they all had mummy gods. So lets have a true picture. Sexism will not be tolerated.You have been warned.

Myles, the one with the biggest god of all.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Can God be proven without the use of religious text? Ya, I know its impossible to come up with any real physical evidence but it seems to me that religious text is at least the basis for determining God's existence. Without text where are we? Even with text it is impossible to prove God's existence, or is it?

 

[joepistole]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9feXeL-3XA&feature=related

This is what I have been trying to tell you guys.

 

[Myles]

What I fear is that atheist believe , is that "faith" means without proof. That people with faith are unsubstaniated in there trust. Curiously every dictionary will tell you that trust and faith are synonymous. Yet what person would trust a person with out proof of integrity whether that be prior experience or propper referral.

Yet as foolish as that is many do just so. People leave their children with people they don't know well every day. Many religions endorse this aswell. They put trust or blind faith in that which they haven't checked out or researched to any degree. No questions are asked no information is sought so no wonder why science regard these as ignorant and faith as blind.

No matter how often it occurs I must correct the perception. "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of things, though not yet beheld."

As usual with scientist and religion a like is acceptance of truth. Sometimes truth rocks your world. It's unseasoned or too bright to accept. It has to be toned down fed in smaller portions but never sugar coated.

What a fine argument. You would have us believe that responsible people do not check out the person who is going to baby-sit for them. The fact that a baby-sitter can be seen, spoken to and provide references seems, to me, to make nonsense of your analogy. Are you aware that one can " prove " anything by analogy ?

You say "They put trust or faith or blind faith in that which they haven't checked out or researched to any degree" That describes your position precisely. You would have us believe what you say just because you say so. Yet , in an earlier post , you claim to have carried our research which you say proved the truith of the Bible. You mentioned chaos and order without revealing how that leads to an assurance that the Bible is true.

Can you explain now. I am not asking for evidenc, just an explanation. Is that so onerous ?

As you appear to be unable to produce evidence to support what you believe. let's put that aside pro tem. Just explain why you should be believed as opposed to anyone else who puts forward other claims. A Buddhist will tell you there is no god, A Hindu that there are many gods, a Mormon will tell you a different story, Pastor Phelps will tell you you are wrong about hell, and so on ad infinutum.

So, forget evidence. Just tell us why we should believe you !

 

[jayleew]

Uggh, I thought we were done with this topic. There is no proof that God has left for us to examine. If I have faith in God, I may as well have faith in the Easter Bunny. I mean, if you remove all ancient historical writings, God should still be able to be proven. That's the "difference" between God and the bunny, is a collection of documents. You take all of that away, and there is nothing left but an ideal and a myth.

I cannot accept that God, if he exists, can only be proven by believing the word of men (even men inspired by the Holy Ghost). Give me a god who is bigger than the text which describes its identity, ideals, and interaction with supposed ancestors. Give me a god who is alive today and wants to interact with me and lead me to the path of righteousness and wisdom. That's what God is supposed to be according to Christians.

 

[joepistole]

jayleew, that is fine. I have been agnostic and atheist. And now I am back to a belief in God. I have been full circle if you will. God is a personal quest. It is a quest not made of need, but of desire.
You are looking for a God terrestrial God. He does not exist. But that does not mean that God does not exist. This is a most difficult subject. So I don't blame people if they get lost. It is not easy to understand and that is one reason why religion covers itself in myth. To help make concepts more understandable. The problem is when people get lost in the myth.

Go forth grasshopper....just be careful not to get eaten

 

[station9]

my question is if there are no remains that god does or does not exsist then why did we find jesus's wife and supposedly son.... my thought is that really if jesus had a sun he comitted adultery ????

 

[Myles]

Can God be proven without the use of religious text? Ya, I know its impossible to come up with any real physical evidence but it seems to me that religious text is at least the basis for determining God's existence. Without text where are we? Even with text it is impossible to prove God's existence, or is it?

Which text might that be ?

 

[Myles]

jayleew, that is fine. I have been agnostic and atheist. And now I am back to a belief in God. I have been full circle if you will. God is a personal quest. It is a quest not made of need, but of desire.
You are looking for a God terrestrial God. He does not exist. But that does not mean that God does not exist. This is a most difficult subject. So I don't blame people if they get lost. It is not easy to understand and that is one reason why religion covers itself in myth. To help make concepts more understandable. The problem is when people get lost in the myth.

Go forth grasshopper....just be careful not to get eaten

Words of wisdom, I think, but what do they mean. You can apply the same argument to unicorns.

 

[Garry Denke]

All maiden names are God

I accuse you of being a sexist. You have not shown us a single godess. Where did all those gods come from? I know they all had mummy gods. So lets have a true picture. Sexism will not be tolerated. You have been warned. Myles, the one with the biggest god of all.

Sexist?

Myles God, you say that in jest, surely. The point is everybody's last name is God, if one follows Holy Bible God Geneology. Name of the Father of Adam is LORD God (first name LORD, last name God), hence His son's full name is Adam God. Likewise, name of the Father of Eve is LORD God (first name LORD, last name God), hence His daughter's full name is Eve God. How are you concluding that Eve God's last name is Godess, Myles God, or even Goddess? Surely you are jesting, for you are a very good speller. LORD Jesus Christ God (first name LORD, middle name Jesus, confirmation name Christ, last name God) geneology to LORD God:

LORD Jesus Christ God, son of Joseph God, son of Heli God, son of Matthat God, son of Levi God, son of Melchi God, son of Janna God, son of Joseph God, son of Mattathias God, son of Amos God, son of Naum God, son of Esli God, son of Nagge God, son of Maath God, son of Mattathias God, son of Semei God, son of Joseph God, son of Juda God, son of Joanna God, son of Rhesa God, son of Zorobabel God, son of Salathiel God, son of Neri God, son of Melchi God, son of Addi God, son of Cosam God, son of Elmodam God, son of Er God, son of Jose God, son of Eliezer God, son of Jorim God, son of Matthat God, son of Levi God, son of Simeon God, son of Juda God, son of Joseph God, son of Jonan God, son of Eliakim God, son of Melea God, son of Menan God, son of Mattatha God, son of Nathan God, son of David God, son of Jesse God, son of Obed God, son of Booz God, son of Salmon God, son of Naasson God, son of Aminadab God, son of Aram God, son of Esrom God, son of Phares God, son of Juda God, son of Jacob God, son of Isaac God, son of Abraham God, son of Thara God, son of Nachor God, son of Saruch God, son of Ragau God, son of Phalec God, son of Heber God, son of Sala God, son of Cainan God, son of Arphaxad God, son of Sem God, son of Noe God, son of Lamech God, son of Mathusala God, son of Enoch God, son of Jared God, son of Maleleel God, son of Cainan God, son of Enos God, son of Seth God, son of Adam God, son of LORD God.

Myles God, everyone's (male and female) last name is God (maiden name), according to Holy Bible God Geneology. Even the Celtic and Nordic ancestors that you mentioned, and all of their descendants, their last name is God also. Abandinus God, Abellio God, Alaunus God, Alisanos God, Ambisagrus God, Anextiomarus God, Atepomarus God, Arvernus God, Arausio God, Babdah God, Barinthus God, Belatu-Cadrosetc God, etc. (Celtic) and Baldr God, Borr God, Bragi God, Buri God, Borr God, Dagr God, Delling God, Eir God, Forseti God, Freya God, Frigg God, Fulla God, Gefjun God, etc. (Nordic). Thus the Proof of God is completed.

I am just a small God, big Myles God, having finished my diet.

G-D

 

[Myles]

So what have you got against Venus and Aphrodite, for example ?

 

[Saquist]

so you do agree with me on some degree?

I certainly understand where you're coming from station9.

Please indicate evidence of my "poor behaviour".

Oh that's easy..."STFU"
Any time you tell someone to shut up it's poor diplomacy.

Yes - shaking things up the same way that picking the ball up in a game of football and starting to play rugby is "shaking things up".
Maybe if you bother to "insert coin" then the game can truly begin. Until then I guess you'll never get to play.

That's the diffence between us, Sarkus. I don't play games on this subject.
That's your realm of expertise.

No - I don't. I want you to supply evidence to support your claims so that we can understand your thought process...
"instructed"? You have a way with words, Saquist, for sure.
I guess, then, that I have "instructed" you to provide evidence - and you have thus far been refusing.
No - I want you to provide evidence.
No - I want to either see the evidence you have to support your claim, or to highlight the fact that you have none that you can show/provide us, in which case you have nothing.
Provide the evidence to support your claims and then we'll see if it is the best.

Then why avoid the compromise If you were actually intrested in any real dicusscion? Hmmm. It's the third time now. Not to mention I've already told you, No. And I'm more than willing to go 12 rounds with you. I do find it fascinating to ponder your true objectives and the apparent lack of logic you show in continueing the discussion.

SO...another round.

 

[Saquist]

What a fine argument. You would have us believe that responsible people do not check out the person who is going to baby-sit for them. The fact that a baby-sitter can be seen, spoken to and provide references seems, to me, to make nonsense of your analogy. Are you aware that one can " prove " anything by analogy ?

You say "They put trust or faith or blind faith in that which they haven't checked out or researched to any degree" That describes your position precisely. You would have us believe what you say just because you say so. Yet , in an earlier post , you claim to have carried our research which you say proved the truith of the Bible. You mentioned chaos and order without revealing how that leads to an assurance that the Bible is true.

Can you explain now. I am not asking for evidenc, just an explanation. Is that so onerous ?

As you appear to be unable to produce evidence to support what you believe. let's put that aside pro tem. Just explain why you should be believed as opposed to anyone else who puts forward other claims. A Buddhist will tell you there is no god, A Hindu that there are many gods, a Mormon will tell you a different story, Pastor Phelps will tell you you are wrong about hell, and so on ad infinutum.

So, forget evidence. Just tell us why we should believe you !

You have given me such elation, Miles! Oh my. Like this little child or pet begging for attention at the top the lungs.

Half your post I ignore and the rest I skim and everytime your BEGGING for my attention. I think you REALLY DO HAVE a mental problem. And I really shouldn't be laughing at you but it's just so...poetic.

You have to smile and go, "I guess he just doesn't know any better.":shrug:

 

[Myles]

I certainly understand where you're coming from station9.



Oh that's easy..."STFU"
Any time you tell someone to shut up it's poor diplomacy.



That's the diffence between us, Sarkus. I don't play games on this subject.
That's your realm of expertise.

Then why avoid the compromise If you were actually intrested in any real dicusscion? Hmmm. It's the third time now. Not to mention I've already told you, No. And I'm more than willing to go 12 rounds with you. I do find it fascinating to ponder your true objectives and the apparent lack of logic you show in continueing the discussion.

SO...another round.

Why not do what I suggested and just tell us how you know the Bible is true ?