Proof there is a God
- Thread starter JBrentonK
- Start date
Answer the two questions, asked and ignored, about six times now.
I didn't ignore them, I didn't see their relevance. But I've answered them now, so what's next?
Jan.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
My reason is to help Jan.
Clearly there are problems with facing reality and the attacks suggest we have a victim trying to seek help.
We need to be patient and wait for the moment Jan can express and confront the fears and superstition that hides the real Jan from us.
If I was a religious man I would ask that we all pray for Jan and hope Jans persecution in the real world will end.
There is more to this than Jan can admit.
Alex
then your are blind.*
And a lier.
* the first question asks if what you call "God" creates in any way different from what most call "evolution." i. e. did God's creation take a few billion years just to get fish swimming in the sea? Perhaps the first half of that interval, just waiting for the moltent earth's surface to cool enough for water to become liquid and fill in the lower spots.
Last edited:
Be that as it may, it doesn't answer the question. What is the relevance?
Let's look at your 2 questions...
Are you actually reading what I write?
I've answered your questions.
What's your problem?
Where have I lied?
Don't you think if you were being accused you of being a liar, you would be entitled to an explanation? Well I think you owe me one.
Jan.
Last edited:
Discussing me as though I'm not here?
How lame.
Alex I don't think you can even help yourself, let alone anyone else.
Jan.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Sorry Jan I was testing you given you miss so much of what I type.
I am physically lame but you could not have known. Lucky not to be in a wheel chair.
Well I do try to help folk even if that is an admission of failure.
You have a great day it is a pleasure talking to you.
One question I would repeat which you did not answer was have you read the bible?
Alex
I am physically lame but you could not have known. Lucky not to be in a wheel chair.
Well I do try to help folk even if that is an admission of failure.
You have a great day it is a pleasure talking to you.
One question I would repeat which you did not answer was have you read the bible?
Alex
knowing if your God is just another name for evolution is relevant.
No you lie when you say you have answered my two question.
I asked if god created Earth and life on it very slowly (at least a billion years) and passing thru all the stages that evolution did, including more than the 1000 evolutionary "dead ends" we see in the fossil records. E. g. only anaerobic life for millions of years, until green plants made oxygen for animals to breath? etc.
For the seventh time, here are the two quesions still waiting for a clear answer:
(1) Do you believe that all life was created by god OR (2) that life on land evolved over millions of years from life in the sea?
(2) The second question is less important. It only asks if you accept that all life on earth was anaerobic for millions of years, until green plants added oxygen to the air.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I believe that the universe functions mathematically, not by the mind of a God.
And mathematical functions are well known, there are some 32 mathematical numbers and equations which explain just about everything we know how the Universe functions
If it made sense then why parse an expression and place it out of context. Trying to impress your keen scientific insights on everyone else?
p.s. "tour point"? Are you talking about *guided tours* or something?
Just a little example of *parsing*.
OK, now is your opportunity to explain the point.
From his well measured responses to your transparent *baiting*.
At last you have identified your problem.
Atheists don't talk about God at all, unless confronted with Theism. Obviously the OP title was not posted by an atheist. Of course JBrentonK has long since disappeared.
What gives you the impression that mathematical functions are *mindful* at all?
I won't presume to speak for Alex, but I can assure you that I don't believe in *your* proposition of proof of God, by the very fact that you just admitted to not having made any proposition which would support the existence of God. There is no *proof* of the existence of a God, except your ill-considered conclusion that *expression in reality* is proof of the mind of a God.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Jan you said "Alex believes in the eternal, another aspect of God."
Let me clear up what I believe ...
I don't know when I arrived and I won't know when I go (die) so my perception of my existence is somewhat eternal.
Now I could be mistaken with this belief but is my way of rationalizing death I suppose but it is wrong of you to relate my view to the concept of God. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
So where were we...that's right you are going to present your view and hopefully answer my question as to your reading of the bible.
Further may I ask if you did read it did you read sections or read cover to cover. Also how old when you read it cover to cover if indeed you have read the whole bible.
Alex
Let me clear up what I believe ...
I don't know when I arrived and I won't know when I go (die) so my perception of my existence is somewhat eternal.
Now I could be mistaken with this belief but is my way of rationalizing death I suppose but it is wrong of you to relate my view to the concept of God. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
So where were we...that's right you are going to present your view and hopefully answer my question as to your reading of the bible.
Further may I ask if you did read it did you read sections or read cover to cover. Also how old when you read it cover to cover if indeed you have read the whole bible.
Alex
What is the origin of mathematics?
Where do numbers come from?
Why do you insist that I did?
Because I don't know that numbers exist outside of the mind, and neither do you.
It is what you say that gives the game away.
Why would you claim there is no proof of God, yet believe mathematics alone is responsible for the origin o everything, for which you have no proof.
Because you believe in a greater , higher power, but you name it mathematics.
You think because you change the name, it changes the ideology?
Jan.
Last edited:
I've quoted the two questions in my last response, and I did answer them. Go look see.
Jan.
Last edited:
For me it's not so much a belief as simply a pragmatic position: one's perception of time begins at birth and ends at death, so from our perspective we exist for all of time. Some might see this "all of time" as equating to eternal. Thus they might say that we are eternal.
You'll note, though, that Jan struggles with the atheist position and is desperate to show that everyone does actually believe in God but then they deny God, thus putting him in a superior position for not denying God. He does this by showing/claiming that one thing you may believe in is an aspect of God, and thus you must believe in God. So if you believe in aspect X and God includes aspect A to Z, you must believe in God by believing in X.
It's a type of composition fallacy, much the same that if you say you like French wine then you must like everything about France.
Does the eternal exist in nature, or the laws of nature?
If not, why the need to rationalize death in that way?
Yes.
Both.
My view is being interrupted by y'all, but both you and Write4U already represent my view, you just refuse to
comprehend what God is.
Again. What is your definition of God, and does this definition include eternaliity?
It doesn't matter whether you think you believe in God or not.
Jan.
Last edited:
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I seems you dont read what I type or you mentally edit out the parts that do not fit what you want to hear.
I am not sure how many times I have stated my view but at least twice... Remember it was along the lines of made up character to which you responded.... somewhat twisting what I said by asking.. What is the character of God..
Now as you know I am an easy going chap and not one to critisize but I think you have some sort of problem that prevents you taking on board what I say.
Do you recall what I said?
I am genuinely disappointed that you display this failing and yet it worries me why you act like this.
You dont recall what I have said when you ask that question or you do recall my answer. Two choices... Yes or No..
I am going to assume you recall nothing so I will answer again.
God is a mythical character. That is my answer... I dont visualise Morgan Freeman in a white suit, I dont see any visualisation. I dont think of anything you simply dont get that someone does not have a vision of nothing. Thats the problem you can not think how another human thinks.
So if you want to discuss God at least give me your impression, in your mind what do you imagine.
Do you see a creature or a mist or are going to use my words against me and say my vision of nothing is the way of it.
Your God your description it would seem appropriate if you disagree please outline why you disagree.
Otherwise proceed.
You have read the bible at least that is more than most religious folks can claim.
I have read the bible and I formed no concept or vision of God.
I found it was something entirely different to what I expected.
I did like the story of the bald man calling on God when kids tormented him and God sent a bear out of the bush to rip the kids to pieces.
Do you recall that story?
I was surprised to find the expression.. "and he pisseth up the wall" to describe a wasteful act.
I have listened to fools high on drugs present a more cherent story than that told in relevations.
You say you have read the bible do you read it the same way that you listen to me.. By editing out the bits that do not suit your view.
If you do there is your problem.
Jan you present as inteligent and not withstanding your ellusive social style I like to think of you as decent so I can not understand why you hide from the truth that you make a composite picture of reality. That is not healthy. When you first appeared I was tempted to argue with you but fortunately my compassion for another human triumphed so I have tried to be understanding.
I am not bad at profiling and say there are little things you tell me by your actions, your choice of words, the way you get hurt, so many things tell me that my choice to be kind is the correct approach.
You remind me of a friend who did a course to get in touch with whatever. He would discuse the same way you do and was sure he knew more etc. The mob he paid all his cash to armed him to reject all and any arguements that would question his beliefs placed there by the grubs who played on poor lonely fools such as he was. It was tragic that he could not understand they were only after his money. They left him with no ability to discuss or reason but he thought he had answers... He did not.
I sincerely believe you have been brain washed that whoever did this to you gave you a set of tools to avoid being confronted with reasonable concepts of reality.
I dont even want you to respond to what I have said but in a quiet moment think about all I have said and think about my freedom my decency and my morality and ask is this chap so bad and how is it he has chosen a path free of superstition.
Yours respectfully
Alex
Last edited:
Yes I do recall what you said, but that has little to do with the question.
Let me put it another way; Why dont you believe in God?
I didn't ask for your impression. I've already given a suitable definition of God (impression free).
“The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.”
If you keep avoiding to give a description/definition, in this thread, I can only assume you are in denial.
What did you expect?
Yes. I also recalled; In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, which seems appropriate to the thread at hand.
What did you find appropriate about the story of the bald man, that lead you to bring it up?
Why?
Why do you waste time trying to psycho-analysing words on a page?
Just enjoy the flow of discussion.
You're not good at profiling. You are in denial, meaning your in defence mode on this subject.
Your current state of mind dictates that you will not allow a divine foot in the door, no matter what.
I doubt your denial has ever been tested this much, which is why you're desperately trying to defend it.
Glad you got that off your chest?
That's okay. I expect you to think that, otherwise you are left with the possibility that I may have a point which will cause you to question your belief system.
What reasonable concept of reality have you presented thus far?
What does this have to do with God?
Why did you utter his name, or know that he wore a white suit in a film, if you don't viualise him.
You've just made a silly point. Why?
jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Man invented Mathematics, a symbolic representation of Universal mathematical functions (constants)
Man invented numbers, a symbolic representation of Universal values.
Because you did.
They don't exist outside of human minds, but values are recognized by many other species. And more importantly, being Causal to physical change and the result of that change..
You are the one playing games.
Yes we do, but you refuse to look at it and see the
No, I call that Potential or the Implicate Order. See David Bohm.
Of course, that's why we have different names for different things, because names describe the definition of a thing, see:
[URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A'][URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A']
[URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A']Does any of the above prove a God, a name with a specific definition. No, it merely shows that we have explained most (but not all) naturally occurring phenomena in separate areas (disciplines) of Science.
[URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A']
[URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A']This limitation was recognized by David Bohm, who proposed that we should also look at the "Wholeness and the Implicate Order", an hierarchical natural order of mathematical functions which have the potential to be expressed as a probabilistic value for physical reality, including the evolution of self-aware organisms who can imagine an omniscient existence.
[URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A']
[URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A']But this does not prove that the Wholeness needs to be sentient for it to function as it does.[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
Last edited: