Proof of the existence of God

Jan Ardena said:
God as original cause/creator, is not my definition. It is THE definition.
Click to expand...
As I said, I'm fine with that. God = the universe. Ok. I get it.
 
there is not a lot of written documents of people who was so sure of the existance of the tooth fairy that they would proclaim its the truth in the face of death
 
Last edited:
Not hard. As I said before, though, I thought you wanted more from your God than to merely be the physical universe.
 
Sarkus said:
To recap:


Yet this all sprung from Jan's comment:

He still thinks that this is not an implicit claim of God's existence. :rolleyes:

And to repeat simply because it is still relevant:
Click to expand...

That's it, keep the conditioning topped up.

Lest they forget.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
The only talk of existence or nonexistence came from Seatle.
Click to expand...

Isn't 'proof of the existence of God' the subject of this thread?

If you don't want to talk about that, what do you want to talk about instead? What point are you trying to make, Jan?

Why are you so convinced that everyone else is wrong about the subject of God and you are the only one who is right? What are your ideas about God that you believe are so superior to everyone else's? Why do you believe that your own position (whatever it is) is so authoritative?

Are you an adherent of some existing religious tradition, and if so which one? (You've mentioned Krishna in the past, so are you associated with ISKCON or whatever they call it now?) Or are you more of a religious free-lancer, some kind of 'new-age' syncretist convinced that all religious traditions ultimately teach and reveal the same underlying truth (your personal view of God)?

It would help a lot (and make you far less annoying) if you put less effort into playing the troll, trying to make yourself the center of everyone else's attention (you come across as emotionally needy), and more effort into explaining what your own position is and why you hold it (even if you fear doing that will put you on the defensive and you prefer to remain on offense).
 
James R said:
Not hard. As I said before, though, I thought you wanted more from your God than to merely be the physical universe.
Click to expand...

If God = the physical universe, then why call it 'God'?

The word 'God' has all kinds of connotations and associations that 'physical universe' doesn't have. Most obviously, 'God' is typically (but not universally) imagined as being a 'person' in some sense. That seems to mean that psychologistic terminology like 'aware', 'intelligent', 'purposive', 'loving' (or alternatively) 'wrathful' are applicable to God. Moral predicates such as 'good' are too. God is imagined as being the goal and terminus of human spiritual quests, the summum bonum and beatific vision.

Pantheism attributes many qualities to the universe around us that physicalistic science doesn't, qualities that one appreciates by aesthetic or spiritual penetration of some sort.

And hasn't Jan insisted that "God as original cause/creator, is not my definition. It is THE definition"? The physical universe doesn't seem to satisfy that one, unless it's somehow self-creating, which is problematic.

(What "THE definition" means and why it should be accepted as authoritative remain obscure.)
 
Yazata,

Isn't 'proof of the existence of God' the subject of this thread?
Yes but it is naive to think that such a concept can proven simply by offering an explanation.

If you don't want to talk about that, what do you want to talk about instead? What point are you trying to make, Jan?
Click to expand...

I am talking about that.

Why are you so convinced that everyone else is wrong about the subject of God and you are the only one who is right?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're pertaining to. Perhaps you'd like to explain.

What are your ideas about God that you believe are so superior to everyone else's? Why do you believe that your own position (whatever it is) is so authoritative?
Click to expand...

Everything I argue abbout God is to be found in scripture. I find that they are adequate for explaining who and what God I is. Far better than I ever could.

Are you an adherent of some existing religious tradition, and if so which one?
Click to expand...

It is my experience that most people here are incapable of having discussion about God without some kind of mockery of God. So let them mock the of how they see God. I'm ok with that.

(You've mentioned Krishna in the past, so are you associated with ISKCON or whatever they call it now?) Or are you more of a religious free-lancer, some kind of 'new-age' syncretist convinced that all religious traditions ultimately teach and reveal the same underlying truth (your personal view of God)?
There nature of my belief has nothing to do with what's being discussed here.

It would help a lot (and make you far less annoying) if you put less effort into playing the troll, trying to make yourself the center of everyone else's attention (you come across as emotionally needy), and more effort into explaining what your own position is and why you hold it (even if you fear doing that will put you on the defensive and you prefer to remain on offense).
Click to expand...

There's nothing offensive about what I've proposed here. I will reply in kind.

For example, didn't it occur to that I might find youru underlying remarks insulting? Why couldn't you just inquire from, instead of lacing it with baseless insults?

Or if believe your attacks have a basis, why don't you point them out so we can discuss them?

Jan.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Does Jan believe in God?

Kristoffer said:
Have a look at his/her signature. I'd say it's a pretty big clue.
Click to expand...

Definitely. And like others of Jan's 'scriptural' references, that one is loosly quoted from devotional Hinduism, in this instance the Bhagavad Gita (15:15).

http://www.vedabase.com/bg/15/15

That's one reason why I asked Jan if he or she is an adherent of ISKCON. Predictably Jan didn't give a straight answer. Jan asks everyone else lots of questions but never answers anyone else's questions. S/He obviously enjoys being on offense (on the attack) against everyone else's views more than being on defense, defending his or her own beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Yazata said:
Predictably Jan didn't give a straight answer.
Click to expand...

What do you mean I didn't give you a 'straight answer?
I'm not going to discuss my personal life to you or anyone else.
I don't ask you or anyone else about your personal lives.
There is no discussion in this whole forum where one needs to discuss their personal religion, unless the thread particularly asks for it. And then it should be up to each individual to decide whether or not they want to get involved.

jan.
 
I asked you half a dozen times if you believed in God, you refused to answer that question every single time.
 
Jan Ardena said:
You are comfortable with God=universe.
I comfortable with that, and more. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
My only outstanding issue is that it seems to me that your God is supposed to be supernatural, whereas the physical universe is natural.

I don't see how your "more" adds anything of value.
 
Last edited:
Daecon said:
The point is, you never give a straight answer.
Click to expand...

I answer every question with straight answers. You just don't accept the answers. Either because you cannot see the point i'm making, or you don't accept it because it doesn't fit with your comprehension. My advice is brush on your comprehension, because the subject matter of God is as vast as it is interesting. You're not yourselves any favours by remaining ignorant of it.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
The definition I gave definition of God is THE definition. ….. All other concepts of God are simply different aspects of this Supreme being.
Click to expand...
This indeed seems to be true. And I believe there lies also the problem with these kind of discussions because judging from the historical religious violence it would seem that “THE definition” is not the same for everybody. Anyway: Going back to the “root” of this:
Seattle said:
JBrendonK, Imagine a world in which it is a fact that there is no God. Now look at our world and it looks the same as that world you just imagined. Imagine a world in which it is a fact that there is a God. That world would look nothing like our world.
Click to expand...
Assuming he is talking about his “THE definition” of God than I fully agree with this. But let me rephrase it a bit to make it better understandable (I hope): Let’s assume (avoiding the word imagine here) that a God as a supreme, all knowing, all powerful being does NOT exist. Give that assumption: Would the world and universe we live in look any different from what we now see? As I argued before in this thread: No: there is nothing in this world or universe, other than a natural or instinctive human need, that would indicate, require or prove that a “THE definition” God exists.
In other words: this proves to me that a “THE definition” God does NOT exist.
Now, does that mean that God exists or not: THAT is a whole different(!) discussion that I already had here before and I am not going to repeat.
I am only going to repeat this: everybody is free to believe what they need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top