I've said it on quite a few occasions within this thread.
But don't worry about it, I know you can't give me a real, honest answer.
jan.
Last edited:
Proof there is a God
- Thread starter JBrentonK
- Start date
I've said it on quite a few occasions within this thread.
But don't worry about it, I know you can't give me a real, honest answer.
jan.
Why bother Deacon?
It's a simple question. I'm genuinely interested in obtaining comprehensive information about God, and I can't see where else you're going to get it. If you know of somewhere, please share. Otherwise stop with the games.
jan.
I've just told you in that last response.
That shows you're not interested in what I'm actually saying.
jan.
Yes most all Christians will agree god is defined by their holly book(s) and so would most all followers of other religions. Problem is there are huge differences. For example, Christians believe your soul goes beyond Earth after death (to heaven, hell or limbo for child who died three days after birth). Vs all the religions that believe in re-incarnation. They believe you soul stays on Earth. They obviously are preferred by Ockham as we know earth exist, but the existence of heaven, hell & limb are only unsupported postulates.
I said I will take your definition of God as the "Supreme Being that is responsible for the material world" as your better defined definition of God. (rather than your "scripture describes God" version). Your current reply, just quoted, supports more the other meaning of "responsible" (I. e. caretaker, or over seer of activities on earth) instead of "creator of the universe."
I know you like to avoid clear answers, but that does not help progress in understanding you. So I'll ask again. Is the god you speak of:
A. Responsible for the creation of the universe?
or
B. Responsible for maintenance of it all? (I.e.. god is just what many call the "natural laws.") I'm reasonable sure you do not mean God is responsible for all the evil on earth (mass murders, ethnic cleansing, wars, mass starvations, etc.).
or
C. Both A & B
The reply you gave and I quoted, supports B as in “God maintains the body” (where “body” is the earth and/or the universe) / takes care of it and the activities on it.
Does this imply that 10,000 years ago, before writing was possible (no scriptures) God had no characteristics? He first got Characteristics when the Jews wrote the Tora. etc.
BTW, their holly books do not postulate any heaven or hell.
Yes he could. Ockham was only making the point that if two different explanations for universe are possible, the one with the least unsupported postulates was more likely to be correct. That does not assure that it is.
That is why I and many scientists prefer / support the POV that the universe was created by a statistical fluctuation in the nothingness, much like electron /positron pairs are now from the nothingness of the vacuum. We could be wrong, if the postulate that God makes trillions of electron /positron pair each micro second, is true. I. e. just because some theory makes an unsupported postulate, does not make it false. Or directly relating to this thread, god could exist even though that is an unsupported postulate. No one can prove god does not exist. (Proofs on non-existence are possible only in the realm of mathematics.)
All of them? I. e. there are many such factories, and new one with few followers are producing their scriptures every month or so.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I did. By supplying the context. Twice. The part where I explicitly say I am not asserting the statement to be true:
"Either both are true or neither is true. I'm not offering an opinion on which it is; that is up to you."
This underhanded tactic of misquoting should have been beneath you, jan.
Last edited:
Just a point of correction... you can prove non-existence in the cases where you are able to apply to the entire universe under consideration a search that is capable of detecting the thing in question if it were to exist.
E.g. if I claim that a heavy black slime-mound exists but only lives in the bottom of a specific cup, I can prove the non-existence of this because I can apply a search (vision) to the entire universe under consideration (the mug), and that search would be capable of detecting the mound if it indeed existed.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
True. But, absent a qualifier (the cup), the universe-under-consideration is generally agreed to be, literally, the universe. And that's why it can't be proven.
Yes and also, normally if not always, there is a non-zero chance that the search failed to find something that does exist. So for both reason (your's and this one) a finite search with negative results dose not prove Non-existance.
For example it is widely believed that unicorns do not exist, but it is impossible to prove that. Perhaps on some planet more than 5 million light year away from Earth, They routinely pull plows on simple farms.
I keep telling the humans about the manipulation but they will just hand wave me away and dismiss this yet again, sight...
Well you should know about your masters the Archons alien reptilians but hey if you believe they don't exist then you belong together. I flipped a coin so you get this. But they are the parent of Elohim imposters I told you about in the first proof of God thread that has now halted. Yeah just business as usuall energy sucking vampires the literal devil yes Billy you are right this world is currently run by a demon thier father this is why you are all confused. It's a clandestine plan with clandestine offspring. The Tarians are just considered slaves.
http://www.ascensionhelp.com/blog/2012/01/31/never-call-them-archons/
Well you should know about your masters the Archons alien reptilians but hey if you believe they don't exist then you belong together. I flipped a coin so you get this. But they are the parent of Elohim imposters I told you about in the first proof of God thread that has now halted. Yeah just business as usuall energy sucking vampires the literal devil yes Billy you are right this world is currently run by a demon thier father this is why you are all confused. It's a clandestine plan with clandestine offspring. The Tarians are just considered slaves.
http://www.ascensionhelp.com/blog/2012/01/31/never-call-them-archons/
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Great stuff, Brian, keep it up!
For the record I am not agnostic or gnostic believer actually classifying yourself in a certain group is one of the keys factors to deception. You see how easy humanity is lead to satanism. Disinformation runs so deep. And also Gnostics also get a lot wrong the master manipulators mixes truth inside lies to further confuse. Aliens Angels and Demons are essentially the same thing.
It's confusing for a reason it's meant to be that way...this will be fixed things will make sense but only after the end.
I also do not support satanism or self worship that's the whole point of failure and what got us here in first place it's all deeply poetic.
How about the same sources as whoever wrote the scriptures?
What sources did they use?